Document preface:

This document aims to outline the scoring methodology of the 2018 Infrastructure Fund Assessment. It is shared for information purposes in an effort to increase transparency around the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes.

How to read this document?

The GRESB Infrastructure Fund Scoring Document provides a visual breakdown of each indicator score included in the 2018 GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment. Since it does not include the reporting requirements of indicators, we recommend to read this document in conjunction with the 2018 GRESB Infrastructure Fund Reference Guide, available on our website at www.gresb.com/resources.

Each indicator presented in the GRESB Infrastructure Fund Scoring Document is presented in a consistent manner to reflect the 2018 GRESB Infrastructure Fund Reference Guide. Numbers documented in red on the left side of each scored indicator have been added to provide the scoring breakdown of that indicator. In particular, the below icons have been applied to interpret the scoring document:

• Numbers documented in red on the most left side of each scored indicator represent the fraction of the total number of points available, and apply to all options contained within their respective bracket (when applicable).
• Numbers provided within brackets represent the fraction of the total number of points for that section.
• Symbols "x" outside (or inside) brackets require a validation decision as part of the GRESB validation process (i.e. supporting evidence). The validation decision symbols act as multipliers of the overall indicator score (or fraction of overall indicator score) of which the possible values are documented in the below narrative.
• Blue line/bracket represents a Diminishing Increase in Scoring approach being applied. This scoring methodology is described further in the below section.

Examples of indicator level scoring:

Example 1: Fund 1 indicator:

The total score of Fund 1 amounts to 10 points (p). These 10p are split between:

• Selecting Yes to having a sustainable investment objective: 1/5 * 10p = 2p
• Section describing the sustainable investment objective: 2/5 (maximum) * 10p = 4p.
• Section highlighting implementation actions to achieve sustainable investment objective: 2/5 (maximum) * 10p = 4p. As represented by the blue line, a Diminishing Increase in Score approach has been applied, per additional checkbox selected (each worth 1/7 of the total points for that subsection).
• Validation decision applied to the evidence: Multiplier impact applied to the above score.

Example 2: Fund 5 indicator:

Total score of Fund 5 amounts to 5 points (p). These 5p are split between:

• Selecting Yes to having a senior decision-maker: 1/5 * 5p = 1p
• Selecting individual's most senior role: 4/5 (maximum) * 5p = 4p

As mentioned in the 2018 Reference Guide, the validation status of the evidence provided should meet the following criteria:

1. The objective(s) should be specific, and the evidence supports each of the selected objectives.
2. Objectives should relate to the entity level. If this is not clear in the provided evidence, ensure to explain how the organizational level objectives relate to the entity in the text field provided fior the location of the relevant information.
3. Evidence should clearly indicate the public availability if the objectives (if applicable)

If you have any questions on how to interpet the information included in this document, please contact us via info@gresb.com.

Scoring Methodology

Fund Scoring Concepts

The GRESB Fund Score is calculated based on a combination of the Fund Score and the Weighted Average Asset(WAA Score. This is calculated based on the following formula:

Additional information on fund scoring:

• At least 25% of assets must report in the GRESB Asset Assessment to calculate a WAA and to receive an overall GRESB Score.
• If 25% of assets or less participate in the GRESB Asset Assessment, the fund will only receive a Fund Score.
• Funds should list the assets in their portfolio, as at the end of the specified reporting period. If an asset has been owned for less than 6 months, then it is voluntary to exclude that asset.
• Reporting on greenfield assets is voluntary. By ticking the “greenfield box” they will be excluded from the WAA Score.
• Greenfield assets that are operational for at least 6 months are treated as operational assets.

Fund Score: All participants receive a Fund Score. The Fund Assessment contains 11 different ESG indicators which generate the Fund Score. All 11 indicators in the Fund Assessment are weighted as follows:

Weighted Average Asset (WAA) Score: All participants reporting in the Fund Assessment list the assets they invest in and provide an asset weight (out of overall portfolio) for each of these investments. If at least 25% weight is assigned to assets which reported to GRESB in the 2018 Asset Assessment, then the entity receives a WAA Score. The WAA Score is a weighted average of the asset scores of all assets listed by the fund in the table. Non-reporting assets, or assets with pending connection links (i.e. not confirmed), will be counted as having an asset score of zero (0). The asset weight (%) used in this calculation is the same as the weighting reported by the fund in indicator A1 (table).

General Scoring Concepts

Points per indicator are decided by GRESB's governance committees in advance of the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment opening.

Section 2 scoring

The Fund Assessment adopts two main scoring concepts for Section 2.

Aggregated points: For indicators where you can select one or more sub-options, GRESB may award points cumulatively for each individual sub-option and then aggregates to calculate a final score for the indicator. This means that sub-options may be assigned a high or lower amount of points. For many indicators, this final score is capped at a maximum, which means that it is not necessary to select all answer sub-options in order to receive full points. This approach aims to reward best sustainability practices (i.e. more diligent disclosure practices).

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: Another scoring concept used frequently in the scoring of indicators is diminishing increase in scoring. The idea behind this concept is that the number of points achieved for each additional data point provided decreases as the number of provided data points increases. This means that the number of points achieved for the first data point will be higher than the number of points achieved for the second, which again will be higher than for the third, and so on. This approach is commonly adopted when there is a large list of actions and it is not necessarily considered better practice or feasible for all actions to be undertaken.

For each indicator, the Scoring Document will state if the Diminishing increase in scoring approach is applied. The text beneath the relevant indicator will state this and it is also represented by the display of the blue line around the checkboxes where this scoring approach applies.

Three Section Indicator

Most of the indicators in the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment are variations of what is considered the “Three Section Indicator”. A Three Section Indicator is made up of three sections, each scored separately, before being used for calculating the score for the indicator as a whole.

Section 1, 'Yes/No' answer: Always receives a score of either 1 or 0. This ensures that at least some points are awarded for answering yes.

Section 2, 'additional criteria' answer: Can receive a score between 0 and 1 and is determined by additional responses provided.

Section 3, 'evidence': This section consists of validated evidence which is intended to verify information provided in section 1 and 2 of the indicator. In the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment, evidence can be optional or mandatory, which is scored as follows:

• Optional evidence receives a score (0.3, 0.65 or 1), which will be the multiplier of the scores achieved in section 1 and 2. This means that 0.3 points are given for providing no evidence or not-accepted evidence. 0.65 points are given for providing partially accepted evidence. 1 point is given for providing fully accepted evidence.
• In 2018, mandatory evidence is introduced for selected indicators. Mandatory evidence receives a score (0, 0.5 or 1), which will be the multiplier of the scores achieved in section 1 and 2. This means that 0 points are given for providing no evidence or not-accepted evidence. 0.5 points are given for providing partially accepted evidence. 1 point is given for providing fully accepted evidence. The indicator will receive no points unless the hyperlink and/or uploaded document is considered valid (i.e. partially and/or fully accepted).

The final indicator score is then calculated as:

This means that 20% of the score can be achieved in section 1, 80% in Section 2, with a multiplier effect in Section 3.