Intent

Identify the participating entity. The entity name will be used to identify the entity on the GRESB portal and will be displayed in the entity’s Benchmark Report.

Terminology

Entity name: Name of the asset for which the Assessment is submitted. For example ‘Big City Airport’.

Organization name: Name of the organization that manages the asset. For example ‘Big City Airport Management Limited’ or ‘Big Global Asset Manager LLC’.

Requirements

Complete all applicable fields.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

Describe the ownership status and structure of the participating entity.

Terminology

Asset Maintenance: All actions necessary for retaining an asset as near as practicable to its original condition, but excluding rehabilitation or renewal. Maintenance does not increase the service potential of the asset or keep it in its original condition, it slows down deterioration and delays when rehabilitation or replacement is necessary.

Asset Operation: The active process of utilising an asset which will consume resources such as manpower, energy, chemicals and materials.

Asset Provision: The act of owning and making an asset physically available for operational and maintenance activities by the organization’s private parties or any other third-party (e.g contractors). Asset provision can also include design & construction, work typically done on Greenfield Assets. Hence for classification purposes Greenfield Asset developers should see themselves as Asset providers.

Concessionary/Contracted: A contracted infrastructure organization that enters into a long-term contract to pre-sell all or most of their output at a pre-agreed price. All or the majority of market risk (price and/or demand) is transferred to a third party. The contract is for a significant period of the investment’s life, typically one or several decades.

ISIN: International Securities Identification Number. ISINs are assigned to securities to facilitate unambiguous clearing and settlement procedures. They are composed of a 12-digit alphanumeric code and act to unify different ticker symbols, which can vary by exchange and currency for the same security. In the United States, ISINs are extended versions of 9-character CUSIP codes.

Merchant: An organization that collects fees and tariffs from end users as a function of the effective demand for the provided service. The organization is mostly or fully exposed to market risks (price and demand risk).

Non-profit organization: An organization that uses its earnings and/or donations to pursue the organization's objectives. Usually these organizations are listed as charities or other public service organizations.

Public-Private Partnerships (PPP): A long-term contract between a private party and a government entity, for providing a public asset or service, in which the private party bears significant risk and management responsibility, and remuneration is linked to performance.

Public entity: A company that is publicly listed and traded on a recognized stock exchange such as Nasdaq or NYSE.

Regulated: An organization whose business is regulated by government agencies via limits on tariffs, rate of returns, or revenues. Also referred to as discretionary regulation.

Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV): A subsidiary entity with an asset/liability structure and legal status that makes its obligations secure.

Requirements

Select the nature of the participating entity. If applicable, select the relevant sub-options and provide details.

The Revenue Basis aligns with the EDHECInfra TICCS classification for Business Risk.

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

2019 changes: Addition of revenue basis and scope of service sub-sections.

Other: Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections, state a i) other ownership type or ii) other structure type iii) revenue basis.

References

Intent

Set the entity’s annual reporting period.

Terminology

Calendar year: January 1 – December 31.

Fiscal year: The period used to calculate annual financial statements. Depending on the jurisdiction the fiscal year can start on April 1, July 1, October 1, etc.

Reporting period: Answers must refer to the reporting period identified in EC3 in the Infrastructure Assessment. A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting period; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting period. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or viceversa, as long as the chosen reporting period is used consistently throughout the Assessment.

Requirements

Complete all applicable fields.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

Establish whether there is a relationship with industry associations and/or GRESB Partners.

Requirements

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

Establish the age of the entity.

Requirements

State the year when the entity first commenced or is expected to commence operation.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

If the reporting entity represents a single facility, then the year entered should reflect when that facility commenced operation. If the reporting entity represents a portfolio of facilities being assessed as one asset (i.e. multi-facility asset) then it should be when the first facility in the portfolio commenced operation.

If the entity is a Greenfield Asset or still under construction, then enter the expected year when operations will commence.

If the entity is both in construction and operational, then enter the year when the first part of the project commenced operations.

Intent

Set the currency for which the entity is denominated.

Requirements

State the currency used by the entity for Assessment indicators that require a monetary value as a response.

2019 changes: New Zealand Dollar (NZD) and Philippine Peso (PHP) have now been added to the list of currencies.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Participants should state a currency.

Intent

Establish the economic size of the entity.

Terminology

Gross asset value (GAV): The gross infrastructure value owned by the entity being the 'tangible fixed assets' or 'property, plant and equipment' associated with the infrastructure asset.

Revenue: The annual income generated by the entity in exchange for providing the asset service.

Requirements

Complete the measures of the economic size of the entity GAV and Revenue, both in millions (e.g. $75,000,000 must be reported as 75). GAV should be provided as at the end of the reporting period, and should include development and construction projects (if any). Revenue should be for the reporting year. It is mandatory to provide both the GAV and revenue. Estimates are acceptable (for example annual operating costs may be used instead of revenue). Like all information provided to GRESB, this information will be kept confidential to just you and any investors for which you give permission. This information is used (as denominators) to calculate intensity performance metrics which will in future provide more comparability between assets.

Do not include a currency, as this has been reported in indicator RC1 above, but make sure the currency applied is consistent with indicator RC1.

No pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment but has not been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the primary measure of economic size and the applicable value.

Intent

Describe the sectors and locations of the facility or facilities that comprise the asset. This information is used for materiality-based scoring and to determine peers for benchmarking and reporting purposes.

Terminology

Address: The address should include the number, street, town/city, and region/state.

Facility: A site, structure or installation for engaging in an activity that provides infrastructure services.

Gross asset value (GAV): The gross infrastructure value owned by the entity being the 'tangible fixed assets' or 'property, plant and equipment' associated with the infrastructure asset.

GPS coordinates: Location based on the latitude and longitude in decimal degrees DD. eg: Latitude (“52.336424”) - Longitude (“4.884971”). Coordinates can be generated using https://gps-coordinates.org/ .

Sector: A group of specific industrial activities and types of physical assets and technologies.

Requirements

For each facility provide the facility name, weight, country, address (or GPS coordinates), sector and provide a description of the facility (max 200 words) relevant to the entity. List all significant facilities that comprise the asset. It is up to the participant to determine the best structure for reporting of facilities since they have the best understanding of their facilities. Multiple small facilities may be grouped into a facility network or similar, particularly if the core sector is the same for the grouped facilities. For example, a network of water pipelines and pumping stations might be grouped into a single sewerage pipeline network. Another grouped facility might be a group of rooftop solar installations within a certain region or country.

For each facility select the appropriate sector by clicking on the drop-down list or by typing in a keyword. Only list the facility’s core sector (its main infrastructure service). If there is more than one core sector for the facility then consider splitting it up into multiple facilities with one core sector per facility. The full list of sectors aligns to the EDHECInfra TICCS™️ standard Industrial Classifications and is provided in Appendix 3. Assign a relative weight for each facility based on the actual or estimated proportion it comprises of the total asset GAV. The total weights of facilities must sum to 100%.

For each facility select the appropriate country by clicking on the drop-down list or by typing in a keyword. The full list of countries aligns to the UN Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use. If a facility is spread across more than one country (e.g. large linear or network infrastructure) then consider splitting it up into multiple facilities with one country per facility.

The asset’s primary sector and primary location will be determined from, and shown below, the facility table.

• The primary sector is determined based on the mix of facility sectors, using a three-tier system as follows:
• Sub-class: If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single sub-class then the primary sector will be that sub-class, otherwise move to the class level;
• Class: If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single class then the primary sector will be that class, otherwise move to the super-class level;
• Super-class: If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single super-class then the primary sector will be that super-class, otherwise the primary sector is ‘Diversified’.
• Similarly, the primary location is determined based on the mix of facility locations, using a three-tier system as follows:
• Country: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single country, then the primary location is that country, otherwise move to the sub-region level;
• Sub-region: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single sub-region, then the primary location is that sub-region, otherwise move to the region level;
• Region: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single region, then the primary location is that region, otherwise the location is ‘globally diversified’

This information will be used to identify peers from the same or similar sectors and locations, and also are factors in the materiality assessment for the asset (see MA2 for more details).

Note: The country, subregion, region are defined using the UN country classification guidelines available here. The only Super‐region used is Asia Pacific, grouped from Asia (code 142 in the UN classification) and Oceania (code 142 in the UN classification).

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

For participants wishing to align with last year’s sector, an alignment table of “Old” to “New” sector classifications is available in Appendix 3, they can alternatively check their 2018 scorecard.

2019 changes: RC4 has been been merged into this indicator using a new simplified structure built around the listing of facilities. The sector (business activity) classification has been aligned with the new TICCS standard providing 161 different sector choices. The location classification has been aligned with the UN Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use. Address has been added as a new input which will allow better geographical insights to be explored.

Other: For sectors that do not appear in the drop-down list, “Other” can be selected.

References

Intent

Provide a description and image of the entity.

Requirements

The description may include:

For each applicable row, you must complete:

• Purpose of the entity's operations;
• Operation as a single or multi-facility asset;
• Greenfield or brownfield asset.

It is not necessary to re-state information that has already been provided, such as the entity's sector focus or location of operations.

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether the entity has undertaken a materiality assessment. A materiality assessment is a common exercise adopted in stakeholder engagement and is often used to inform sustainability reporting and communication strategies.

As well as guiding the issues for ESG reporting, a materiality assessment should also be used as a strategic business tool. A materiality process delivers greatest benefits when used as an opportunity to apply an ESG lens to business risk, opportunity, trend-spotting and enterprise risk management processes.

Terminology

Material: An issue is material if it may reasonably be considered important for reflecting an entity's relevant environmental, social or governance impacts; or substantively influencing the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.

Materiality assessment: The process for determining which ESG issues are material to an entity.

Relevant impacts: Are those that are a subject of established concern for expert communities, or that have been identified using established tools, such as impact assessment methodologies or life cycle assessments. Impacts that are considered important enough to require active management or engagement by the entity are likely to be considered relevant.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, it is mandatory to upload evidence.

Partial pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been partially pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Evidence (mandatory)

Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Materiality Assessments are often presented within Sustainability and/or Integrated Reports. Evidence should support that a formal Materiality Assessment was undertaken and includes the following elements in the assessment process:

• Identification of the material ESG issues for the entity. Issues should span across at least two of Environmental, Social and Governance dimensions.
• Engagement with relevant stakeholders. The process should use stakeholder and internal inputs to identify which issues are material. Stakeholders may be engaged directly or represented by suitable internal personnel. In the latter case, the personnel must be in an appropriate position to represent the views of the relevant stakeholder groups (e.g. a Community Relations Manager could represent the views of the community and an Investor Relations Manager could represent the views of shareholders).

Evidence provided must refer to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Good practice example: Please refer to pages from 4 to 9 at this link.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory and will be scored based on whether a Materiality Assessment has been undertaken and the elements addressed.

Your answer will not be scored unless the evidence is considered valid.

References

Intent

Infrastructure is a diverse asset class, where the relevance (materiality) of ESG issues can vary across sectors due to a range of factors. The intent of this indicator is to determine the materiality of a range of ESG issues covered by the GRESB Assessment.

Terminology

Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to, biodiversity, transport and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures. Full reference to listed environmental issues can be found in the Appendix 2.

Governance issues: Governance structure and composition of the organization. This includes how the highest governance body is established and structured in support of the organization’s purpose, and how this purpose relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions. Full reference to listed governance issues can be found in the Appendix 2.

High relevance: An issue is of high relevance if it is of high importance for (a) reflecting an entity's environmental, social or governance impacts; or (b) substantively influencing the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.

Low relevance: An issue is of low relevance if it is of low importance for (a) reflecting an entity's environmental, social or governance impacts; or (b) substantively influencing the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.

Material: An issue is material if it may reasonably be considered important for reflecting an entity's relevant environmental, social or governance impacts; or substantively influencing the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.

Materiality assessment: The process for determining which ESG issues are material to an entity.

Medium relevance: An issue is of medium relevance if it is of medium importance for (a) reflecting an entity's environmental, social or governance impacts; or (b) substantively influencing the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.

No relevance: An issue is of no relevance if it is of no importance for (a) reflecting an entity's environmental, social or governance impacts; or (b) substantively influencing the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.

Primary sector: The main infrastructure sector of the entity as determined in RC3.

Social issues: Concerns the impacts the organization has on the social systems within which it operates. Full reference to listed social issues can be found in the Appendix 2.

Requirements

It is mandatory to complete the GRESB Materiality Assessment.

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity based on twelve materiality factors comprising the Primary Sector and Primary Location (from RC3), the Scope of Service (from EC2) and the answers to the nine questions in this indicator. Answer each of the nine questions. Where the answer is somewhat uncertain, it is recommended to err on the conservative side and select the response with the higher relevance, see Appendix 4.

Based on the twelve factors, materiality weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. These entity specific weightings are used in several subsequent indicators for scoring (this is noted within each relevant indicator).

The outcome of completing this indicator is an entity specific materiality weighting for each of the ESG issues. These weightings are displayed at the bottom of the indicator in the portal. See Appendix 4 for details of how the twelve materiality factors determine the materiality weightings for each of the ESG issues. An Excel version of the GRESB Materiality Assessment is also available here.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored in 2019, however the responses provided to this indicator determine the materiality-based scoring which is applied throughout the Assessment.

References

Intent

Clear ESG objectives help to translate purpose into action — they can facilitate the integration of ESG management with other business management processes. Objectives should be the longer-term goals derived naturally from policies. Having clear ESG objectives also demonstrates commitment to monitoring and improving ESG performance.

Terminology

Environmental objectives: Overall environmental goals, arising from policies, that an entity sets itself to achieve. The objectives should be quantifiable and correlated with the entity’s ambition.

General sustainability objectives: Strategic or cross-cutting objectives to improve overall ESG performance that are not specific to environmental, social or governance issues. For example, relative position on sustainability indices or rankings.

Governance objectives: Overall governance goals, arising from policies, that an entity sets itself to achieve. The objectives should be quantifiable and correlated with the entity’s ambitions.

Overall business strategy: The entity's long-term strategy for meeting its objectives.

Social objectives: Overall social goals, arising from policies, that an entity sets itself to achieve. The objectives should be quantifiable and correlated with the entity’s ambitions.

Requirements

2019 changes: Section on level of integration of the objectives, including Open Text Box has been removed.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload.

Evidence requirements:

• The objective(s) should be specific and the evidence must demonstrate the existence of ESG objectives relating to each of the selected criteria.
• General sustainability objectives are not as specific as environmental, social or governance objectives. Having just these objectives is not considered as strong as having each of environmental, social and governance objectives specifically and therefore does not score as highly.
• Evidence should clearly indicate the public availability of the objectives (if applicable).

Acceptable evidence may include illustrative portions of business plans, annual report, strategic developments, target documents, company presentations, etc.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. For the first subsection, points are awarded to each checkbox and then aggregated to calculate the final indicator score. The checkboxes are not all equally weighted.

For the second subsection, points are awarded based on the level of public availability of the evidence.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to identify the type of human resources allocated to ESG management and their scope of responsibilities. Having personnel dedicated to ESG issues increases the likelihood that the entity’s ESG objectives will be properly managed and targets will be met.

Terminology

Dedicated employee(s) for whom sustainability is the core responsibility: The employee(s)’ main responsibility is defining, implementing and monitoring the sustainability objectives at organization and/or entity level.

Employee(s) for whom sustainability is among their responsibilities: The implementation and monitoring of sustainability is part of the employee’s role, but is not necessarily their main responsibility.

Responsible for: A person or group of people who work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select applicable checkbox(es) and complete the open text box.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Note: It is mandatory to provide the name and job title of the individual(s) but optional to provide their e-mail address and LinkedIn profile(s). This information will remain confidential and will only be used for data validation purposes.

Name of the organization: Provide the name of the organization. Where there are multiple external consultants/managers involved select the external consultant/ manager which is most important as measured by contracting value. You may be asked for additional information about the organization. It is possible to report on multiple organizations; however, you will only be able to provide contact details for one organization within the indicator.

The individual responsible for the implementation of ESG issues may be the same individual as listed in indicator MA5.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is scored similarly to a Two Section Indicator. However, there is no option for providing evidence and thus, no evidence multiplier.

The score of Section 1 takes into account the level of responsibility of the selected person(s). It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum points for this indicator.

LinkedIn profile and email address are optional fields and do not impact scoring.

References

Intent

This indicator aims to assess whether ESG decision making is undertaken at senior management levels. The involvement of senior management in ESG decision making increases the likelihood that ESG objectives will be met.

Terminology

Accountable for: A person with sign off and/or approval authority over the deliverable task, project or strategy.

Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.

Most senior decision-maker on sustainability: The most senior individual who holds authority for approving strategic sustainability objectives and steps undertaken to achieve these objectives.

Senior Management Team: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. Senior management are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, complete the text and select the applicable radio button.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Senior decision-maker: The entity’s most senior decision-maker on ESG issues is expected to be actively involved in the process of defining the ESG objectives and should approve associated strategic decisions regarding ESG. This individual can be the same as the individual identified in MA4. If the individual is part of multiple groups, then the most senior group should be selected.

Note: It is mandatory to provide the name and job title of the individual(s) but optional to provide their e-mail address and LinkedIn profile(s). This information will remain confidential and will only be used for data validation purposes.

It is possible to provide the e-mail address where the individual can be reached, rather than direct e-mail address of the individual (e.g. email address of the executive assistant of this individual).

Reporting level: Answers should be applicable at the entity, operator and/or manager level. In the case where the senior decision-maker that is accountable for ESG issues is part of a third-party organization, then provide the organization name.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the department or group that the senior decision-maker is a part of. Refer to the definition of Senior Management Team, to ensure no duplicates are provided. Include just one other answer.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

Points are awarded based on the level of seniority of the responsible senior decision-maker. There is no option for providing evidence and thus, no evidence multiplier.

References

Intent

This indicator intends to identify whether and to what extent, ESG issues are addressed in employee performance targets. Including ESG factors in annual performance targets for all employees can increase the entity’s capacity to achieve improved ESG performance.

Terminology

Annual performance targets: Targets set in annual performance reviews, which are assessments of employee performance.

Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.

Financial consequences: Monetary benefits (or detriments) incorporated into the employee compensation structures. The financial consequences are contingent upon the achievement of the annual performance targets.

Non-financial consequences: Non-financial benefits (or detriments), such as verbal or written recognition, non-financial rewards or opportunities. The non-financial consequences are contingent upon the achievement of the annual performance targets.

Senior Management Team: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. Senior management are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, also select the applicable checkbox(es) and radio button response.

2019 changes: Removal of 'pre-determined’ from consequences so that now, the requirement is simply that there are consequences, they do not need to be pre-determined.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

The answer could refer to employees of the company or employees of a contractor/supplier.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid.

State the employee group. The examples of other employees include, but are not limited to, a specific group of employees such as sustainability team, ESG team and/or communication team.

Examples of ESG factors in performance targets include, but are not limited to, specific targets such as (i) health and safety measures or environmental incidents, (ii) employee, customer or community engagement targets and/or (iii) achievement of ESG related ratings or scores (e.g. a GRESB Asset Score).

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Official documents from the entity describing rewards, penalties, or support associated with specific ESG-related targets.
• An example of financial consequence includes employee KPI or bonus schemes. An example of non-financial consequence may include 'employee of the month' awards and/or recognition schemes.

Good practice example: Please refer to page 27 at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. The score of the first subsection is determined based on the employee group selected. For subsection two, points are awarded based on whether or not targets have consequence, and then aggregated to calculate the indicators final score.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the coverage and scope of the entity’s training on ESG issues. ESG training reflects the entity’s commitment to building its capacity to manage complex ESG issues.

Terminology

Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport, contamination, GHG emissions, energy, water, waste, natural hazards, supply chain environmental standards, and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.

Governance issues: Governance structure and composition of the entity. This includes how the highest governance body is established and structured in support of the entity’s purpose, and how this purpose relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions.

Social issues: Concerns the impacts the entity has on the social systems within which it operates. This includes, but is not limited to community social and economic impacts, safety, health & well-being.

Training: Refers to: (1) All types of vocational training and instruction; (2) Paid educational leave provided by the organization for its employees; (3) Training or education pursued externally and paid for in whole or in part by the organization; (4) Training on specific topics such as health and safety; (5) Training does not include on-site coaching by supervisors.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Reporting level: Answers should be applicable at the entity, operator and/or manager level. If the entity does not provide direct ESG training for their employees, but requires that contractors/operators/stakeholders receive ESG-related training, then this section can be completed accordingly. When providing evidence, the participant should specify the contracted entity undertaking the activity and the relationship to that entity, to verify how these actions are applicable to the reporting entity. In some cases, participants may provide examples of redacted contractual agreements to verify this.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the group that training is provided and/or required for. This should be an external group. Stating any employee group is not valid and is considered a duplicate of 'employees'.

Examples of ESG-related trainings include but are not limited to, training on environmental awareness, health and safety, handling of hazardous materials, data confidentiality or code of conduct.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Acceptable evidence may include promotional materials describing training programs, curriculum, extracts of study guides, screenshots of a training portal, summaries of attendance, or combinations of materials.
• The evidence should support all checkboxes selected, including the types of ESG training and relevant employee groups that receive training. If 'environmental issues' is selected, then at least one environmental issue (e.g. waste) must be addressed within the training evidence to be considered acceptable. This evidence requirement also applies to social issues and governance issues, if selected.

Good practice example: Please refer to pages 96 and 97 at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator contains multiple subsections. Each subsection receives a score based on the number of ESG issues covered within the training, for each stakeholder group. Subsection scores are then aggregated to calculate the final indicator score.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to identify the existence and scope of policies that address environmental issues. Policies on environmental issues assist organizations with incorporating ESG criteria into their business practices and managing environmental risks.

Terminology

Air pollutants: Pollutants of major public health concern include ozone-depleting substances (ODS), NOx, SOx, particulate matter (PM), lead, mercury and/or other standard categories of air emissions identified in relevant regulations.

Biodiversity and habitat: Issues related to wildlife, endangered species, ecosystem services, habitat management, and invasive species. Biodiversity refers to the variety of all plant and animal species. Habitat refers to the natural environment in which these plant and animal species live and function.

Climate change adaptation: Preparation for long-term change in climatic conditions or climate related events. Example of climate change adaptation measures can include, but are not limited to: building flood defenses, xeriscaping and using tree species resistant to storms and fires, adapting building codes to extreme weather events.

Contaminated land: Land that contains substances in or under it that are actually or potentially hazardous to human health or the environment.

Energy: Energy refers to energy consumption and generation from non-renewable and renewable sources (e.g. electricity, heating, cooling, steam).

Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport, contamination, GHG emissions, energy, water, waste, natural hazards, supply chain environmental standards, and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.

Greenhouse gas emissions: GHGs refers to the seven gases listed in the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard: carbon dioxide (CO₂); methane (CH₄); nitrous oxide (N₂O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆).

Light pollution: Excessive or obtrusive artificial light also known as photo pollution or luminous pollution. Examples of light pollution and reflection include: spilled light from construction zones and parking lots which may impact breeding grounds or resting areas; highly reflective towers which may affect bird flight.

Materials sourcing and resource efficiency: Responsible sourcing of materials considers the environmental, social and economic impacts of the procurement and production of products and materials. Resource efficiency means using those products and materials in an efficient and sustainable manner while minimizing impacts on the environment and society.

Noise pollution: Refers to noise pollution, also known as environmental noise, which is the propagation of noise with harmful impact on the activity of human or animal life.

Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster: Preparedness of the built environment towards existing and future threats of natural disasters (e.g., the ability to absorb disturbances such as increased precipitation or flooding while maintaining its structure). This can be achieved by management policies, informational technologies, educating tenant, community, suppliers and physical measures at the asset level.

Stakeholder groups:

1. Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite providing a service to the entity. A contractor can employ their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors. Contractors along with employees, typically form the onsite entity workforce.
2. Suppliers: Organizations that have a direct commercial relationship with the entity (tier 1 supply chain) relating to the provision of goods. Suppliers typically conduct their works offsite to generate and deliver the goods to site.
3. Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors): Organizations that have an indirect commercial relationship with the entity related to the provision of goods i.e. they provide goods to Suppliers or their suppliers or so on.

Waste: Entity's consideration of waste disposal methods and whether waste minimization strategies emphasize prioritizing options for reuse, recycling, and then recovery over other disposal options to minimize environmental impact.

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) where there may be a risk of contamination by harmful compounds.

Water inflows/withdrawals: Water drawn into the boundaries of the entity from all sources (including surface water, ground water, rainwater, and municipal water supply) as well as water reuse, efficiency, and recycling, including the entity's consideration of whether water sources are significantly affected by withdrawal of water.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

1. An 'Other' material issue that is environmental in nature (see above definition);
2. An 'Other' stakeholder group for which policies are applicable to.

Note: The policy or policies must be existing and valid policies during the Reporting Period identified in EC 3.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• The evidence must be sufficient to identify all of the selected issues included within the entity's policies. Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as an Environmental Policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's environmental policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
• Where a stakeholder group is selected, the evidence must be an environmental policy or policies that apply to the selected stakeholder group. This policy may be the same as the one applying to the entity or one more specific to the relevant stakeholder, but must cover at least one environmental issue.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory for this indicator. Therefore, no points will be awarded unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid, based on the evidence criteria stated above.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. The first subsection is scored based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based scoring approach. For the second subsection, points are equally awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Examples

As shown above, GRESB has defined 13 potential environmental issues.

The table below provides an example of the materiality-based scoring concept from the GRESB Materiality Assessment (MA2). The issue section of this indicator is worth X points. If an entity’s policies address ‘Energy’, ‘GHG’, ‘Light pollution’ and ‘Water use’ then overall the entity would achieve 5/9 x (X) = 0.55 X out of the X possible points as shown in the following table:

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to describe the existence and scope of policies that address social issues. Policies on social issues assist organizations with incorporating ESG criteria into their business practices and managing social risks.

Terminology

Child labour: Work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to their physical or mental development including by interfering with their education. Specifically, it means types of work that are not permitted for children below the relevant minimum age.

Community development: Plan that details actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse social and/or economic impacts, and/or to identify opportunities or actions to enhance positive impacts of a project on the community.

Customer satisfaction: Customer satisfaction is one measure of an entity's sensitivity to its customers’ needs and preferences and, from an organizational perspective, is essential for long-term success. In the context of sustainability, customer satisfaction provides insight into how the entity approaches its relationship with one stakeholder group (customers).

Employee engagement: An employee's involvement with, commitment to and satisfaction with the entity.

Forced or compulsory labor: All work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered themselves voluntarily.

Freedom of association: Right of employers and workers to form, to join and to run their own organizations without prior authorization or interference by the state or any other entity.

Gender and diversity: Composition of governance bodies and breakdown of employees per employee category according to gender, age group, minority group membership, and other indicators of diversity including discrimination.

Health and Safety: The principles of occupational health and safety management systems include developing a policy, analyzing and controlling health and safety risks, providing training, and recording and investigating health and safety incidents.

Labor standards and working conditions: Labor standards and working conditions are at the core of paid work and employment relationships. Working conditions cover a broad range of topics and issues, from working time (hours of work, rest periods, and work schedules) to remuneration, as well as the physical conditions and mental demands that exist in the workplace.

Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.

Social enterprise partnering: Entity's partnerships with organizations that have social objectives which serve as the primary purpose of the organization.

Stakeholder groups:

1. Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite providing a service to the entity. A contractor can employ their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors. Contractors along with employees, typically form the onsite entity workforce.
2. Suppliers: Organizations that have a direct commercial relationship with the entity (tier 1 supply chain) relating to the provision of goods. Suppliers typically conduct their works offsite to generate and deliver the goods to site.
3. Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors): Organizations that have an indirect commercial relationship with the entity related to the provision of goods i.e. they provide goods to Suppliers or their suppliers or so on.

Stakeholder relations: Engagement with individuals/entities that have an interest in the entity.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

2019 changes: The issue “Discrimination” was removed and “Health and safety: contractors” was added as a social issue.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

1. An 'Other' material issue that is of a social nature (see above definition);
2. An 'Other' stakeholder group for which policies are applicable to.

Note: The policy or policies must be existing and valid policies during the Reporting Period identified in EC 3

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• The evidence must be sufficient to identify all of the selected issues included within the entity's policies. Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as an ESG Policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's social policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
• Where a stakeholder group is selected, the evidence must be a social policy or policies that apply to the selected stakeholder group. This policy may be the same as the one applying to the entity or one more specific to the relevant stakeholder, but must cover at least one social issue.

Note: If certain social issues are embedded in law and/or regulation in the countries of operation, the entity may select the relevant checkbox and evidence can be provided as a reference to the specific law or regulation on the provided Document Upload template (see Appendix 10).

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory for this indicator. Therefore, no points will be awarded unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid, based on the evidence criteria stated above.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. The first subsection is scored based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based approach. For the second subsection, points are equally awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to describe the existence and scope of policies that address governance issues. Policies on governance issues assist organizations with incorporating ESG criteria into their business practices and managing governance risks.

Terminology

Audit committee structure/independence: A corporate board of directors establishes an audit committee to assist in discharging its fiduciary responsibility. An effective audit committee is an important feature of a strong corporate governance culture, and should have a clear description of duties and responsibilities.

Board composition: Composition of the board and its committees by (i)Executive or non-executive, (ii) Independence, (iii) Tenure on the governance body, (iv) Number of each individual’s other significant positions and commitments, and the nature of the commitments, (v) Gender, (vi) Membership of under-represented social groups, (vii) Competences relating to economic, environmental and social impacts, (viii) Stakeholder representation.

Board-level issues Governance issues that should be recognized on board-level by the entity.

Compensation committee structure/independence: Compensation decisions are central to the governance of many entities. Compensation committees or analogous organizations are established to govern employee compensation and ensure employee remuneration decisions are made in a fair, consistent, and independent manner. An independent compensation committee may be one indicator of effective governance.

Cybersecurity: The protection of internet-connected systems, including hardware, software and data, from any unauthorised use or access. Malicious attacks, in particular, can pose a significant threat to infrastructure assets.

Data protection and privacy: Customer privacy includes matters such as the protection of data; the use of information or data for their original intended purpose only, unless specifically agreed otherwise; the obligation to observe confidentiality; and the protection of information or data from misuse or theft.

Executive compensation The financial and non-financial compensation of executives, in a manner that motivates executives to perform their roles in alignment with the entities objectives and risk tolerance.

Fiduciary duty Duties owed by a fiduciary to a beneficiary. Examples of fiduciary duties include a duty of confidentiality, a duty of no conflict, and a duty not to profit from his position. A fiduciary is a person to whom power or property is entrusted for the benefit of another.

Fraud: Wrongful deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Independence of Board chair: a non-executive member of the board who does not have any management responsibilities within the organization and is not under any other undue influence, internal or external, political or ownership, that would impede the board member’s exercise of objective judgment.

Lobbying activities: Any activity carried out to influence a government or institution’s policies and decisions in favor of a specific cause or outcome.

Operational issues: Governance issues that should be recognized on operational-level by the entity.

Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.

Political contributions: Disclosure of and guidelines for political contributions, such as the amounts and recipients of all monetary and non-monetary contributions made by an organization, which include political contributions made through third parties.

Stakeholder groups:

1. Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite providing a service to the entity. A contractor can employ their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors. Contractors along with employees, typically form the onsite entity workforce.
2. Suppliers: Organizations that have a direct commercial relationship with the entity (tier 1 supply chain) relating to the provision of goods. Suppliers typically conduct their works offsite to generate and deliver the goods to site.
3. Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors): Organizations that have an indirect commercial relationship with the entity related to the provision of goods i.e. they provide goods to Suppliers or their suppliers or so on.

Whistle-blower mechanism: A process that offers protection for individuals that want to reveal illegal, unethical or dangerous practices. An efficient whistle-blower mechanism prescribes clear procedures and channels to facilitate the reporting of wrongdoing and corruption, defines the protected disclosures, outlines the remedies and sanctions for retaliation.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

2019 changes: Issue “One share/one vote” was deleted. Cybersecurity was added as a governance issue.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: This indicator contains three options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

1. An 'Other' board-level, governance issue (see above definition);
2. An 'Other' operational, governance issue (see above definition);
3. An 'Other' stakeholder group for which policies are applicable to.

Note:The policy or policies must be existing and valid during the Reporting Period identified in EC 3.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• The evidence must be sufficient to identify all of the selected issues included within the entity's policies. Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as an ESG Policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's governance policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
• Only policies that address operational governance issues can apply to the relevant stakeholder groups (i.e. not board-level issues). Where a stakeholder group is selected, the evidence must identify at least one of the selected operational issues applying to the selected stakeholder group within a policy. This recognizes that only a certain number of the selected operational governance issues may be applicable to certain stakeholder groups.

Note: If certain governance issues are embedded in law and/or regulation in the countries of operation, the entity may select the sub-option and evidence can be provided as a reference to the specific law or regulation on the provided Document Upload template (see Appendix 10).

Good practice example: Please refer to the documents at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory for this indicator. Therefore, no points will be awarded unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid, based on the evidence criteria stated above.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into three subsections. The first and second subsections are scored based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based approach. For the third subsection, points are equally awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s ESG communication and disclosure strategy. The entity's disclosure practices are a good barometer for its relative level of transparency surrounding ESG issues. Disclosure must be external and cannot be an internal and/or ad hoc communication within the entity.

Terminology

Alignment: To agree and match with a recognized sustainability standard (either voluntary or mandatory).

Annual report: A yearly record of an entity’s financial performance that is distributed to investors under applicable financial reporting regulations.

Dedicated section on website: A section of the organization's website that explicitly addresses ESG performance.

Disclosure: The act of making information or data readily accessible and available to interested individuals and institutions. Disclosure must be external and cannot be an internal and/or ad hoc communication within the participant organization.

ESG actions: Specific activities performed to improve management of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues within the organization.

ESG performance: Reporting of material indicators that reflect implementation of environmental, social, or governance (ESG) management.

Frequency Reporting: How often the entity reports to its investors.

Integrated Report: A report that is aligned with the requirements of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework (December 2013).

Investor Report: A report prepared by the participant for the purpose of informing investors on the ESG performance of the entity. A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach that lacks performance analysis is insufficient.

Stand-alone Sustainability Report(s): A report dedicated to the organization’s ESG performance.

Reporting Levels:

1. Entity: related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which you are submitting an Assessment response.
2. Group: related to the group of companies of which the participating entity forms a part.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, also select the applicable checkbox(es) and radio button response.

Partial pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been partially pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: The "frequency of reporting" is added to ‘Entity reporting to investors’ option.

Note: For each applicable checkbox the participants must:

1. Select the applicable reporting type. If the entity reports at multiple levels, you should select the most detailed reporting level.
2. If applicable, select alignment from the dropdown lists to confirm that your method of reporting is aligned with an external standard or guideline. If reporting is aligned with more than one standard, select the standard with which there is most alignment.
3. Provide document upload or URL.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the disclosure type.

Reporting period: The report must have been published during the reporting period. However, stand-alone sustainability report and integrated report can also refer to the year prior to the reporting period identified in EC3.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence requirements include:

• A piece of supporting evidence cannot be uploaded for more than one disclosure method selected.
• Each disclosure type selected (e.g. Sustainability Report), should clearly reference ESG actions and/ or performance of the entity (as per the above terminology).
• The report should not be issue specific (i.e. focus on just environmental issues) but should cover a broad range of ESG issues (i.e. at least two of the three environmental, social and governance issues).
• Reports published after the reporting period, but referring to performance during the reporting period, will not be accepted as evidence since this indicator is intended to measure the disclosure that occurred during the reporting period.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Clear examples of the entity's disclosure type, such as a link to a relevant website or Sustainability Report.

Good practice example: Please refer to the links below:

• Integrated Report.

• Stand-alone Sustainability Report.

• Section of Annual Report. (Please refer to pages from 42 to 53)

• Dedicated section on website.

• Entity reporting to investors.

• Other.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory for this indicator. Therefore, no points will be awarded unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid, based on the evidence criteria stated above.

Points are awarded to each sub-option based on (1) reporting type, (2) reporting level and (3) alignment.

Scoring within this indicator seeks to reward best disclosure practices in terms of reporting type and level. Therefore, a scale of points are awarded for different reporting types in the following order; Integrated Report, Sustainability Report and then Annual Report. Secondly, higher points are awarded for reporting at the most granular level, being Entity vs. Group level reporting.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the level of third-party review for the entity's ESG-related communications and data. Third-party review of ESG data increases confidence in the veracity of information underpinning performance disclosure.

Terminology

Annual report: A yearly record of an entity’s financial performance that is distributed to investors under applicable financial reporting regulations.

Assured/Verified: The process of checking data, as well as its collection methods and management systems, through a systematic, independent and documented process against predefined criteria or standards. Assurance/Verification services should be in line with a standard and can only be provided by accredited professionals.

Checked: A third-party review that does not comply with the definition of Assurance/Verification.

Dedicated section on website: A section of the organization's website that explicitly addresses ESG performance.

Disclosure: The act of making information or data readily accessible and available to all interested individuals and institutions. Disclosure must be external and cannot be an internal and/or ad hoc communication within the participating entity.

Integrated Report: A report that is aligned with the requirements of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework (December 2013).

Investor Report: A report prepared by the participant for the purpose of informing investors on the ESG performance of the entity. A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach that lacks performance analysis is insufficient.

Stand-alone Sustainability Report(s): A report dedicated to the organization’s ESG performance.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, also select the applicable checkbox(es) and radio button response.

Partial pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been partially pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Evidence is now mandatory (not optional).

Note: For each applicable checkbox the participant must:

1. State whether the reporting methods are externally checked, verified or assured (select only one option corresponding to the greatest detail level);
2. Select the applicable assurance/verification scheme from the dropdown list (see ‘accepted assurance schemes’ in Appendix 9); Any ‘Other’ standard selected from the Scheme name dropdown menu will be subject to validation;
3. State the name of the checking/verifying/assuring organization.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the disclosure type. Acceptable answers must relate to ESG disclosure.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• A memo, letter, correspondence or similar document indicating the nature of the engagement (i.e. a cover sheet within a report).
• Section within a report highlighting the name of the organization that performed the review and nature of engagement.
• The Schemes ISAE 3000 and ASAE 3000 were amongst those most used by the industry in the 2018 Asset Assessment.

Good practice example: Please refer to pages 54 and 55 at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory for this indicator. Therefore, no points will be awarded unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid, based on the evidence criteria stated above.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Within Section 1, each checkbox is scored separately and considers whether each reporting type is externally checked, verified or assured by an organization. The total score is then calculated with different points awarded for different reporting types.

Scoring within this indicator seeks to reward best disclosure and review practices. Therefore, a scale of points are awarded for different reporting types in the following order; Integrated Report, Sustainability Report, Annual Report and then Investor Reporting. Higher points are then awarded for different review levels in the following order; Externally assured/verified and then Externally checked.

Scoring for this indicator is linked to the number of points received for the corresponding reporting method selected in PD4. If the chosen communication method in PD5 was not selected or did not receive points in PD4, then the participant will not receive points for this indicator.

References

GRESB’s accepted assurance and verification standards as well as criteria for accepted standards are aligned with the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s strategy to communicate about ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents. The entity’s communication process is one aspect of management controls necessary to provide investors with transparency about regulatory risks and liabilities. Recurring ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents can increase the risk profile of the entity as they can translate into reputational, compliance, and financial risks.

Terminology

Accident: An unplanned, undesired event that results in damage or injury.

Controversy: A prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.

Incident: An unplanned, undesired event with actual or potential adverse impacts.

Misconduct: Unacceptable or improper behaviour, especially by an employee or organization.

Penalty: A punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.

Special interest groups: Organization with a shared interest or characteristic (e.g. trade unions, non-governmental organizations).

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select applicable checkbox(es) and complete relevant open text box(es).

Open Text Box: Describe the process in place for communicating ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents. The focus is on the process and not disclosure of specific incidents, however, an example can also be provided to illustrate the process followed. The text must include all of the applicable elements below:

• Type of communication. Examples can include, but are not limited to: regular reporting, documentation of reporting requirements, phone calls, emails, agenda items in meetings.
• Frequency and timing of communication. Examples can include regularity of reporting and expected time boundaries for communication (e.g. within 2 days of reported incident).

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State an external stakeholder group.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. The first subsection, containing the open text box, is scored based on compliance with the open text box requirements described above. The second subsection, containing the checkboxes, is scored using a diminishing increase in scoring approach, per additional checkbox selected, and if applicable, the validity of the ‘Other’ answer provided.

It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum points for this indicator.

References

(Partially aligned with)

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to ensure the communication of any significant ESG fines and/or penalties to the reporting entity’s investors and to also take this into account in awarding sector leaders. Recurring misconducts and penalties can increase the risk profile of the portfolio as they impose financial, management and regulatory burdens on the entity.

Terminology

Accident: An unplanned, undesired event that results in damage or injury.

Controversy: A prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.

Incident: An unplanned, undesired event with actual or potential adverse impacts.

Misconduct: Unacceptable or improper behaviour, especially by an employee or organization.

Penalty: A punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, complete all applicable text boxes.

No pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment but has not been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers.

Within the context box, participants may choose to describe how the entity has resolved or intends to resolve the above issue(s). The content of this open text box will be included in the participant’s Assessment results.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored in 2019 and is for reporting purposes only.

Note: Responses to this indicator will be reviewed for sector leader award purposes.

References

(Confirmed incidents of corruption and actions taken Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index, 2013)

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s process for assessing material environmental risks, and its understanding and mitigation of these risks. Systematic responses to environmental risks include effective risk assessment, thoughtful mitigation planning, and implementation of action plans.

Terminology

Air pollutants: Pollutants of major public health concern include ozone-depleting substances (ODS), NOx, SOx, particulate matter (PM), lead, mercury and/or other standard categories of air emissions identified in relevant regulations.

Biodiversity and habitat: Issues related to wildlife, endangered species, ecosystem services, habitat management, and invasive species. Biodiversity refers to the variety of all plant and animal species. Habitat refers to the natural environment in which these plant and animal species live and function.

Climate change adaptation: Preparation for long-term change in climatic conditions or climate related events. Example of climate change adaptation measures can include, but are not limited to: building flood defenses, xeriscaping and using tree species resistant to storms and fires, adapting building codes to extreme weather events.

Contaminated land: Land that contains substances in or under it that are actually or potentially hazardous to human health or the environment.

Energy: Energy refers to energy consumption and generation from non-renewable and renewable sources (e.g. electricity, heating, cooling, steam).

Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport, contamination, GHG emissions, energy, water, waste, natural hazards, supply chain environmental standards, and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.

Greenhouse gas emissions: GHGs refers to the seven gases listed in the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard: carbon dioxide (CO₂); methane (CH₄); nitrous oxide (N₂O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆).

Light pollution: Excessive or obtrusive artificial light also known as photo pollution or luminous pollution. Examples of light pollution and reflection include: spilled light from construction zones and parking lots which may impact breeding grounds or resting areas; highly reflective towers which may affect bird flight.

Material sourcing and resource efficiency: Responsible sourcing of materials considers the environmental, social and economic impacts of the procurement and production of products and materials. Resource efficiency means using those products and materials in an efficient and sustainable manner while minimizing impacts on the environment and society.

Noise pollution: Refers to noise pollution, also known as environmental noise, which is the propagation of noise with harmful impact on the activity of human or animal life.

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster: Preparedness of the built environment towards existing and future threats of natural disasters (e.g., the ability to absorb disturbances such as increased precipitation or flooding while maintaining its structure). This can be achieved by management policies, informational technologies, educating tenant, community, suppliers and physical measures at the asset level.

Risk assessment: Careful examination of the factors that could potentially adversely impact the value or longevity of an infrastructure asset. The results of the assessment assist in identifying measures that have to be implemented in order to prevent and mitigate the risks.

Waste: Entity's consideration of waste disposal methods and whether waste minimization strategies emphasize prioritizing options for reuse, recycling, and then recovery over other disposal options to minimize environmental impact.

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) where there may be a risk of contamination by harmful compounds.

Water inflows/withdrawals: Water drawn into the boundaries of the entity from all sources (including surface water, ground water, rainwater, and municipal water supply) as well as water reuse, efficiency, and recycling, including the entity's consideration of whether water sources are significantly affected by withdrawal of water.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

2019 changes: Additional checkboxes on the Risk Assessment Process.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. The answer should refer to an issue that is environmental in nature (see above definition).

Contractor and/or operator engagement: In some cases, an indicator addresses an activity that applies to the reporting entity, yet is undertaken by an assigned contractor, operator and/or contracted entity. This is often the case, for example, for PPP type arrangements. In these cases, when providing evidence, the participant should specify the entity undertaking the activity and the relationship to that entity, to verify how these actions are applicable to the reporting entity. In some cases, participants provide examples of redacted contractual agreements/clauses to verify this.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Evidence should include a document describing the entity’s environmental risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of an environmental management plan addressing environmental risks.

• Such evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence of the claimed risk assessment for each issue.

Evidence provided must refer to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. For the first subsection about elements of the risk assessment process, points are awarded (equally) for each checkbox and aggregated to calculate the final subsection score. For the second subsection, a subsection score is calculated based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based scoring approach.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s understanding and mitigation of material social risks. Systematic responses to social issues include effective risk assessment, thoughtful mitigation planning, and implementation of action plans.

Terminology

Child labour: Work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to their physical or mental development including by interfering with their education. Specifically, it means types of work that are not permitted for children below the relevant minimum age.

Community development: Plan that details actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse social and/or economic impacts, and/or to identify opportunities or actions to enhance positive impacts of a project on the community.

Customer satisfaction: Customer satisfaction is one measure of an entity's sensitivity to its customers’ needs and preferences and, from an organizational perspective, is essential for long-term success. In the context of sustainability, customer satisfaction provides insight into how the entity approaches its relationship with one stakeholder group (customers).

Employee engagement: An employee's involvement with, commitment to and satisfaction with the entity.

Forced or compulsory labor: All work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered themselves voluntarily.

Freedom of association: Right of employers and workers to form, to join and to run their own organizations without prior authorization or interference by the state or any other entity.

Gender and diversity: Composition of governance bodies and breakdown of employees per employee category according to gender, age group, minority group membership, and other indicators of diversity including discrimination.

Health and Safety: The principles of occupational health and safety management systems include developing a policy, analyzing and controlling health and safety risks, providing training, and recording and investigating health and safety incidents.

Labor standards and working conditions: Labor standards and working conditions are at the core of paid work and employment relationships. Working conditions cover a broad range of topics and issues, from working time (hours of work, rest periods, and work schedules) to remuneration, as well as the physical conditions and mental demands that exist in the workplace.

Social enterprise partnering: Entity's partnerships with organizations that have social objectives which serve as the primary purpose of the organization.

Stakeholder relations: Engagement with individuals/entities that have an interest in the entity.

Risk assessment: Careful examination of the factors that could potentially adversely impact the value or longevity of an infrastructure asset. The results of the assessment assist in identifying measures that have to be implemented in order to prevent and mitigate the risks.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

2019 changes: Additional checkboxes on Risk Assessment Process and ‘Health and safety: contractors’.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. The answer should refer to an issue that is social in nature (see above definition), and must not be a duplicate of the listed issues.

Contractor and/or operator engagement: In some cases, an indicator addresses an activity that applies to the reporting entity, yet is undertaken by an assigned contractor, operator and/or contracted entity. This is often the case, for example, for PPP type arrangements. In these cases, when providing evidence, the participant should specify the entity undertaking the activity and the relationship to that entity, to verify how these actions are applicable to the reporting entity. In some cases, participants provide examples of redacted contractual agreements/clauses to verify this.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Evidence should include a document detailing the Risk Assessment Process for a specific social risk or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of an management plan addressing environmental risks.

• Such evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence of the claimed risk assessment for each issue.

Note: If certain social issues are embedded in law and/or regulation in the countries of operation, the entity may select the issue and evidence can be provided as a reference to the specific law or regulation and how it has been complied with, on the provided Evidence template.

Evidence provided must refer to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. For the first subsection about elements of the risk assessment process, points are awarded (equally) for each checkbox and aggregated to calculate the final subsection score. For the second subsection, a subsection score is calculated based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based scoring approach.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s understanding and mitigation of material governance risks. Systematic responses to governance issues include effective risk assessment, thoughtful mitigation planning, and implementation of action plans.

Terminology

Audit committee structure/independence: A corporate board of directors establishes an audit committee to assist in discharging its fiduciary responsibility. An effective audit committee is an important feature of a strong corporate governance culture, and should have a clear description of duties and responsibilities.

Board composition: Composition of the board and its committees by (i)Executive or non-executive, (ii) Independence, (iii) Tenure on the governance body, (iv) Number of each individual’s other significant positions and commitments, and the nature of the commitments, (v) Gender, (vi) Membership of under-represented social groups, (vii) Competences relating to economic, environmental and social impacts, (viii) Stakeholder representation.

Board-level issues Governance issues that should be recognized on board-level by the entity.

Compensation committee structure/independence: Compensation decisions are central to the governance of many entities. Compensation committees or analogous organizations are established to govern employee compensation and ensure employee remuneration decisions are made in a fair, consistent, and independent manner. An independent compensation committee may be one indicator of effective governance.

Cybersecurity: The protection of internet-connected systems, including hardware, software and data, from any unauthorised use or access. Malicious attacks, in particular, can pose a significant threat to infrastructure assets.

Data protection and privacy: Customer privacy includes matters such as the protection of data; the use of information or data for their original intended purpose only, unless specifically agreed otherwise; the obligation to observe confidentiality; and the protection of information or data from misuse or theft.

Executive compensation The financial and non-financial compensation of executives, in a manner that motivates executives to perform their roles in alignment with the entities objectives and risk tolerance.

Fiduciary duty Duties owed by a fiduciary to a beneficiary. Examples of fiduciary duties include a duty of confidentiality, a duty of no conflict, and a duty not to profit from his position. A fiduciary is a person to whom power or property is entrusted for the benefit of another.

Fraud: Wrongful deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Independence of Board chair: a non-executive member of the board who does not have any management responsibilities within the organization and is not under any other undue influence, internal or external, political or ownership, that would impede the board member’s exercise of objective judgment.

Lobbying activities: Any activity carried out to influence a government or institution’s policies and decisions in favor of a specific cause or outcome.

Operational issues: Governance issues that should be recognized on operational-level by the entity.

Political contributions: Disclosure of and guidelines for political contributions, such as the amounts and recipients of all monetary and non-monetary contributions made by an organization, which include political contributions made through third parties.

Risk assessment: Careful examination of the factors that could potentially adversely impact the value or longevity of an infrastructure asset. The results of the assessment assist in identifying measures that have to be implemented in order to prevent and mitigate the risks.

Whistle-blower mechanism: A process that offers protection for individuals that want to reveal illegal, unethical or dangerous practices. An efficient whistle-blower mechanism prescribes clear procedures and channels to facilitate the reporting of wrongdoing and corruption, defines the protected disclosures, outlines the remedies and sanctions for retaliation.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

2019 changes: Addition of checkboxes on Risk Assessment Process and ‘Cybersecurity’.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

1. An 'Other' board-level, governance issue (see above definition);
2. An 'Other' operational, governance issue (see above definition);

Contractor and/or operator engagement: In some cases, an indicator addresses an activity that applies to the reporting entity, yet is undertaken by an assigned contractor, operator and/or contracted entity. This is often the case, for example, for PPP type arrangements. In these cases, when providing evidence, the participant should specify the entity undertaking the activity and the relationship to that entity, to verify how these actions are applicable to the reporting entity. In some cases, participants provide examples of redacted contractual agreements/clauses to verify this.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Evidence should include a document detailing the Risk Assessment Process for a specific governance risk or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of an management plan addressing environmental risks.

• Such evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence of the claimed risk assessment for each issue.

Note: If certain governance issues are embedded in law and/or regulation in the countries of operation, the entity may select the issue and evidence can be provided as a reference to the specific law or regulation and how it has been complied with, on the provided Evidence template.

Evidence provided must refer to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into three subsections. For the first subsection about elements of the risk assessment process, points are awarded (equally) for each checkbox and aggregated to calculate the final subsection score. For the second and third subsections, the score is calculated based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based approach.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Intent

The purpose of this indicator is to provide specific, representative examples of implementation actions taken by the entity to mitigate ESG related risk or improve ESG performance. The intent is not to completely enumerate all the ESG actions taken by the entity, rather the goal is to provide investors with concrete examples of recent activity.

Terminology

Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport, contamination, GHG emissions, energy, water, waste, natural hazards, supply chain environmental standards, and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.

Full reference to listed environmental issues can be found in the Appendix 2.

Governance issues: Governance structure and composition of the entity. This includes how the highest governance body is established and structured in support of the entity’s purpose, and how this purpose relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions.

Full reference to listed governance issues can be found in the Appendix 2.

Social issues: Concerns the impacts the entity has on the social systems within which it operates. This includes, but is not limited to community social and economic impacts, safety, health & well-being.

Full reference to listed social issues can be found in the Appendix 2.

Requirements

For each of the actions added to the table, it is mandatory to:

1. In column 1, select the ESG issue addressed or use the ‘other’ option to list a custom ESG issue;
2. In column 2, summarize the action taken with a few keywords; (e.g. carbon footprint assessment)
3. In column 3, describe the action in more detail, including how this mitigated ESG risk and/or improved ESG performance, with a maximum of 50 words;
4. In column 4, provide the fraction of the entity’s activities covered by weight. If this is unknown, provide the closest estimate;
5. In column 5, provide additional context (if required).

Note: The text must include specific, tangible examples of the entity's actions taken to (i) improve ESG performance and/or (ii) mitigate ESG risk. For example, it is not considered acceptable to simply have a standing policy or plan in place (unless the action included the development or implementation of a new plan or policy), or refer to an action undertaken as part of the entity's usual course of business.

The action must have taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Examples of stakeholder engagement should not be provided in this indicator, but should be addressed in SE 2, otherwise this will be considered a duplicate in Validation.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Evidence must be provided to support each of the described actions.
• Acceptable evidence may be as simple as communications such as a case study presentation, press release or a section in an internal or external reporting.
• Acceptable evidence may include staff evaluations, consultant reports, checklists, scenario analysis, an extract of a risk register or other tangible proof of the entity’s implementation activity.
• Examples of more complex evidence include technical studies or detailed reports.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 contains 3 structurally identical subsections (environmental, social and governance). Each of the subsections contain a table and is scored using a diminishing increase in scoring approach, with at least 4 rows of data required to achieve the maximum score (per subsection). Each row results in a different score depending on the percentage reported for 'fraction of entity covered'.

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the achievement and maintenance of entity-level ESG related management system accreditations. The presence and application of an ESG-related management standard or comparable framework is an indicator of an entity’s commitment to effectively action ESG issues.

Terminology

ISO 9001: ISO 9001:2015 sets out the criteria for a quality management system.

ISO 14001: ISO 14001:2015 sets out the criteria for an environmental management system and can be certified to.

ISO 20400: ISO 20400:2017 provides guidance to organizations, independent of their activity or size, on integrating sustainability within procurement. It is intended for stakeholders involved in, or impacted by, procurement decisions and processes.

ISO 55000: ISO 55000:2014 provides an overview of asset management, its principles and terminology, and the expected benefits from adopting asset management.

ISO 26000: ISO 26000 provides guidance on how businesses and organizations can operate in a socially responsible way. This means acting in an ethical and transparent way that contributes to the health and welfare of society.

ISO 50001: ISO 50001:2011 provides a framework of requirements for organizations to: (i) Develop a policy for more efficient use of energy, (ii) Fix targets and objectives to meet the policy, (iii) Use data to better understand and make decisions about energy use, (iv) Measure the results, (v) Review how well the policy works, and (vi) Continually improve energy management.

OHSAS 18001: OHSAS 1800:2007 Occupational Health and Safety Management Certification is an international standard which provides a framework to identify, control and decrease the risks associated with health and safety within the workplace.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

2019 changes: Introduction of a separate evidence box for both sub-sections of this indicator.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

1. An 'Other' accreditation maintained or achieved by the entity;
2. An 'Other' management standard that the entity is aligned with. Note that this may not include any of the standards for which accreditation may be achieved as these are covered above. Only standards for which accreditation is not possible (i.e. only alignment is possible) are covered here.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence requirements: Alignment with standards where accreditation is possible will not be accepted. For example, if a participant selects that the entity has aligned to ISO 9001 as an Other answer in the second sub-section, but has not maintained or achieved the same accreditation in the first sub-section, the validation process will not award points.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Acceptable evidence will provide specific information about the accreditations and certifications achieved or maintained by the entity. This evidence may include a copy of an official certificate or other confirmation of the certification or credential.
• Formal documentation or correspondence (e.g.letter) from an certification body or consultant.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Your answer will not be scored unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections, with both based on a diminishing increase in scoring approach. The score is determined based on the total of the two subsections, and if applicable, the validity of the ‘Other’ answer provided.

References

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standards:

• ISO55000: Asset Management

• ISO14001: Environmental Management

• ISO9001: Quality Management

• ISO26000: Social Responsibility

• ISO20400: Sustainable Procurement

• ISO50001: Energy Management

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s use of a systematic process to collect data to monitor and assess environmental performance.

Terminology

Air pollutants: Pollutants of major public health concern include ozone-depleting substances (ODS), NOx, SOx, particulate matter (PM), lead, mercury and/or other standard categories of air emissions identified in relevant regulations.

Biodiversity and habitat: Issues related to wildlife, endangered species, ecosystem services, habitat management, and invasive species. Biodiversity refers to the variety of all plant and animal species. Habitat refers to the natural environment in which these plant and animal species live and function.

Climate change adaptation: Preparation for long-term change in climatic conditions or climate related events. Example of climate change adaptation measures can include, but are not limited to: building flood defenses, xeriscaping and using tree species resistant to storms and fires, adapting building codes to extreme weather events.

Contaminated land: Land that contains substances in or under it that are actually or potentially hazardous to human health or the environment.

Energy: Energy refers to energy consumption and generation from non-renewable and renewable sources (e.g. electricity, heating, cooling, steam).

Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport, contamination, GHG emissions, energy, water, waste, natural hazards, supply chain environmental standards, and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.

Greenhouse gas emissions: GHGs refers to the seven gases listed in the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard: carbon dioxide (CO₂); methane (CH₄); nitrous oxide (N₂O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆).

Light pollution: Excessive or obtrusive artificial light also known as photo pollution or luminous pollution. Examples of light pollution and reflection include: spilled light from construction zones and parking lots which may impact breeding grounds or resting areas; highly reflective towers which may affect bird flight.

Material sourcing and resource efficiency: Responsible sourcing of materials considers the environmental, social and economic impacts of the procurement and production of products and materials. Resource efficiency means using those products and materials in an efficient and sustainable manner while minimizing impacts on the environment and society.

Monitor: To observe the progress of entity's ESG performance over a period of time.

Noise pollution: Refers to noise pollution, also known as environmental noise, which is the propagation of noise with harmful impact on the activity of human or animal life.

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster: Preparedness of the built environment towards existing and future threats of natural disasters (e.g., the ability to absorb disturbances such as increased precipitation or flooding while maintaining its structure). This can be achieved by management policies, informational technologies, educating tenant, community, suppliers and physical measures at the asset level.

Waste: Entity's consideration of waste disposal methods and whether waste minimization strategies emphasize prioritizing options for reuse, recycling, and then recovery over other disposal options to minimize environmental impact.

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) where there may be a risk of contamination by harmful compounds.

Water inflows/withdrawals: Water drawn into the boundaries of the entity from all sources (including surface water, ground water, rainwater, and municipal water supply) as well as water reuse, efficiency, and recycling, including the entity's consideration of whether water sources are significantly affected by withdrawal of water.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

2019 changes: The Open Text Box has been removed from this indicator.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. The answer should refer to an issue that is environmental in nature (see above definition) and must not be a duplicate of the listed issues.

Contractor and/or operator engagement: In some cases, an indicator addresses an activity that applies to the reporting entity, yet is undertaken by an assigned contractor, operator and/or contracted entity. This is often the case, for example, for PPP type arrangements. In these cases, when providing evidence, the participant should specify the entity undertaking the activity and the relationship to that entity, to verify how these actions are applicable to the reporting entity. In some cases, participants provide examples of redacted contractual agreements/clauses to verify this.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Official private or public documents, reports, presentations and board minutes highlighting the existence of data collection, monitoring and/or concluded results from monitoring activities undertaken.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

For Section 1, points are awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section. A diminishing increase in scoring approach applies.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s use of a systematic process to collect data to monitor and assess social performance.

Terminology

Child labour: Work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to their physical or mental development including by interfering with their education. Specifically, it means types of work that are not permitted for children below the relevant minimum age.

Community development: Plan that details actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse social and/or economic impacts, and/or to identify opportunities or actions to enhance positive impacts of a project on the community.

Customer satisfaction: Customer satisfaction is one measure of an entity's sensitivity to its customers’ needs and preferences and, from an organizational perspective, is essential for long-term success. In the context of sustainability, customer satisfaction provides insight into how the entity approaches its relationship with one stakeholder group (customers).

Employee engagement: An employee's involvement with, commitment to and satisfaction with the entity.

Forced or compulsory labor: All work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered themselves voluntarily.

Freedom of association: Right of employers and workers to form, to join and to run their own organizations without prior authorization or interference by the state or any other entity.

Gender and diversity: Composition of governance bodies and breakdown of employees per employee category according to gender, age group, minority group membership, and other indicators of diversity including discrimination.

Health and Safety: The principles of occupational health and safety management systems include developing a policy, analyzing and controlling health and safety risks, providing training, and recording and investigating health and safety incidents.

Labor standards and working conditions: Labor standards and working conditions are at the core of paid work and employment relationships. Working conditions cover a broad range of topics and issues, from working time (hours of work, rest periods, and work schedules) to remuneration, as well as the physical conditions and mental demands that exist in the workplace.

Monitor: To observe the progress of entity's ESG performance over a period of time.

Social enterprise partnering: Entity's partnerships with organizations that have social objectives which serve as the primary purpose of the organization.

Stakeholder relations: Engagement with individuals/entities that have an interest in the entity.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

2019 changes: Added ‘Health and safety: contractors’ and removed ‘discrimination’ from the issue checkbox list. The Open Text Box has been removed for this indicator.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. The answer should refer to an issue that is social in nature (see above definition), and must not be a duplicate of the listed issues.

Contractor and/or operator engagement: In some cases, an indicator addresses an activity that applies to the reporting entity, yet is undertaken by an assigned contractor, operator and/or contracted entity. This is often the case, for example, for PPP type arrangements. In these cases, when providing evidence, the participant should specify the entity undertaking the activity and the relationship to that entity, to verify how these actions are applicable to the reporting entity. In some cases, participants provide examples of redacted contractual agreements/clauses to verify this.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Official private or public documents, reports, presentations and board minutes highlighting the existence of data collection, monitoring and/or concluded results from monitoring activities undertaken.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

For Section 1, points are awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section. A diminishing increase in scoring approach applies.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s use of a systematic process to collect data to monitor and assess governance performance.

Terminology

Audit committee structure/independence: A corporate board of directors establishes an audit committee to assist in discharging its fiduciary responsibility. An effective audit committee is an important feature of a strong corporate governance culture, and should have a clear description of duties and responsibilities.

Board composition: Composition of the board and its committees by (i)Executive or non-executive, (ii) Independence, (iii) Tenure on the governance body, (iv) Number of each individual’s other significant positions and commitments, and the nature of the commitments, (v) Gender, (vi) Membership of under-represented social groups, (vii) Competences relating to economic, environmental and social impacts, (viii) Stakeholder representation.

Board-level issues Governance issues that should be recognized on board-level by the entity.

Compensation committee structure/independence: Compensation decisions are central to the governance of many entities. Compensation committees or analogous organizations are established to govern employee compensation and ensure employee remuneration decisions are made in a fair, consistent, and independent manner. An independent compensation committee may be one indicator of effective governance.

Cybersecurity: The protection of internet-connected systems, including hardware, software and data, from any unauthorised use or access. Malicious attacks, in particular, can pose a significant threat to infrastructure assets.

Data protection and privacy: Customer privacy includes matters such as the protection of data; the use of information or data for their original intended purpose only, unless specifically agreed otherwise; the obligation to observe confidentiality; and the protection of information or data from misuse or theft.

Executive compensation The financial and non-financial compensation of executives, in a manner that motivates executives to perform their roles in alignment with the entities objectives and risk tolerance.

Fiduciary duty Duties owed by a fiduciary to a beneficiary. Examples of fiduciary duties include a duty of confidentiality, a duty of no conflict, and a duty not to profit from his position. A fiduciary is a person to whom power or property is entrusted for the benefit of another.

Fraud: Wrongful deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Independence of Board chair: a non-executive member of the board who does not have any management responsibilities within the organization and is not under any other undue influence, internal or external, political or ownership, that would impede the board member’s exercise of objective judgment.

Lobbying activities: Any activity carried out to influence a government or institution’s policies and decisions in favor of a specific cause or outcome.

Monitor: To observe the progress of entity's ESG performance over a period of time.

Operational issues: Governance issues that should be recognized on operational-level by the entity.

Political contributions: Disclosure of and guidelines for political contributions, such as the amounts and recipients of all monetary and non-monetary contributions made by an organization, which include political contributions made through third parties.

Whistle-blower mechanism: A process that offers protection for individuals that want to reveal illegal, unethical or dangerous practices. An efficient whistle-blower mechanism prescribes clear procedures and channels to facilitate the reporting of wrongdoing and corruption, defines the protected disclosures, outlines the remedies and sanctions for retaliation.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

2019 changes: Added ‘Cybersecurity’ to the issue checkbox list. The Open Text Box has been removed for this indicator.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

1. An 'Other' board-level governance issue for which performance is monitored;
2. An 'Other' operational governance issue for which performance is monitored;

Contractor and/or operator engagement: In some cases, an indicator addresses an activity that applies to the reporting entity, yet is undertaken by an assigned contractor, operator and/or contracted entity. This is often the case, for example, for PPP type arrangements. In these cases, when providing evidence, the participant should specify the entity undertaking the activity and the relationship to that entity, to verify how these actions are applicable to the reporting entity. In some cases, participants provide examples of redacted contractual agreements/clauses to verify this.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Official private or public documents, reports, presentations and board minutes highlighting the existence of data collection, monitoring and/or concluded results from monitoring activities undertaken.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

For Section 1, points are awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section. A diminishing increase in scoring approach applies.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the existence, scope and reach of the entity’s stakeholder engagement program. Effective stakeholder engagement programs are often critical in preventing or addressing controversy that may create regulatory risks, legal liabilities, or undermine the entity’s social license to operate and maximizing opportunities for creating shared value.

Terminology

Stakeholder groups: Terminology for the various stakeholder groups is defined in Appendix 2.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, also select all applicable checkbox(es) and indicate whether and which third-party standard the stakeholder engagement program aligns with. Finally, select which stakeholders the stakeholder engagement program applies to.

Guideline name: Additional guidelines such as 'IAP2 Core Values: Ethics and Spectrum' can be listed under 'Other'.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

1. An 'Other' element of the stakeholder engagement program;
2. An 'Other' external stakeholder group. Internal stakeholders can be classified under 'employees' (otherwise, considered a duplicate).

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Acceptable evidence will illustrate the existence of a stakeholder engagement program and clearly describe the critical elements.
• Evidence should support at least one element of the stakeholder engagement program applying to each stakeholder group selected.
• Examples include formal stakeholder engagement programs or plans, annual reports, documents highlighting contractual engagement requirements, board and stakeholder agenda/minutes and presentations.
• Additional evidence may be needed to describe alignment with third-party standards.

Good practice example: Please refer to the documents at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into three subsections, with the first and third based on a diminishing increase in scoring approach. The score is determined based on the total of the three subsections, and if applicable, the validity of the ‘Other’ answer provided. The score of the second subsection is determined based on alignment with third-party standards.

It is not necessary to select all checkboxes within the stakeholder group in order to obtain the maximum points for this indicator.

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s actions to implement its stakeholder engagement program. The robust and effective implementation of a stakeholder engagement program is an important risk management strategy and a component of sustaining a durable license to operate for many infrastructure activities. If the program is not effectively implemented, stakeholder trust may diminish leading to a loss of social licence.

Terminology

Stakeholder groups: Terminology for the various stakeholder groups is defined in Appendix 2.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, then complete the table by providing key examples of actions taken to implement the stakeholder engagement program over the last 3 years.

The intent is not to provide a full inventory of actions, rather the focus is on the communication of the key actions undertaken by the entity.

For each action added to the table, complete the columns as follows:

• Type of activity: Summarize the action taken with a few keywords;
• Description of the activity: Describe the action in more detail;
• Stakeholder group(s) involved: State all the stakeholder group(s) addressed by this action. Examples of applicable stakeholder groups includes: Employees, Contractors, Clients/Customers, Community/Public, Suppliers, Investors, Regulators/Government, Respresentative and Special Interest groups (e.g. NGO's, Trade Unions, etc), Industry and professional associations, etc.
• Nature of activity: Classify the nature of engagement activity. Examples include: Education, Services, Research, Philanthropy, Public comment, Open days/houses, Focus groups, Surveys, Public meetings, Workshops, Deliberate polling, Advisory committees, Participatory decision making, Citizen juries, Ballots, etc.
• Benefits of the activity: Describe the intended benefit of the action.

Note: Only one action should be provided for each type of activity that impacts multiple stakeholder groups, otherwise it will be considered a 'duplicate' in Validation.

The action must have taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting Yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Internal/external communication, extracts of engagement surveys, promotional material for community consultation, training/educational material.
• For each action, the provided evidence must demonstrate (i) the type of engagement activity and (ii) at least one stakeholder group addressed. Evidence does not need to support 'benefits of activity' described.

Good practice example: Please refer to the documents at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

The score of Section 1 is determined using a diminishing increase in scoring approach, with 4 rows required to achieve the maximum score.

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s process for addressing stakeholder concerns and grievances. Grievance mechanisms play an important role to provide an access to remedy and reflects an entity’s commitment to ESG management.

Terminology

Accessible: Known to relevant stakeholder groups and provides adequate assistance for those who may face particular barriers to access (e.g. 24/7, language translations)

Dialogue based: Looks for mutually agreed solutions through engagement between parties.

Equitable: Ensure that parties have reasonable access to sources of information, advice and expertise necessary to engage in a grievance process on fair, informed and respectful terms (e.g. independent review).

Grievance mechanism: Formal, legal or non-legal (or ‘judicial/non-judicial’) complaint or feedback process that can be used by individuals, communities and/or civil society organizations that are being negatively affected by certain business activities and operations.The process enables the complaining party to flag an issue, seek redress and remedy.

Improvement based: Drawing on lessons learnt to improve processes and prevent future harms.

Legitimate: Enable trust from stakeholder groups.

Predictable: Provide a clear procedure with an indicative time frame for each stage, and clarity on the types of process and outcome available.

Rights compatible: Ensure that outcomes accord with international norms of behavior.

Transparent: Stakeholders are informed about the process and complainants are kept informed about the progress of grievances.

Safe: Protect stakeholders from potential threats and retaliations through a secure, anonymous, independent and two-way communication system.

Stakeholder groups: Terminology for the various stakeholder groups is defined in Appendix 2.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections, state:

1. An 'Other' characteristic applicable to the grievance mechanism process;
2. An 'Other' external stakeholder group. Internal stakeholders can be classified under 'employees' (otherwise, considered a duplicate).

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence should only apply to the process, elements covered and relevant stakeholder groups. Evidence should support at least one element of the grievance process applying to each stakeholder group selected.

Evidence may include an official document describing the grievance process or a link to a resource available to relevant stakeholder groups to report grievances.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections, with both based on a diminishing increase in scoring approach. The score is determined based on the total of the two subsections, and if applicable, the validity of the ‘Other’ answer provided.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to communicate the nature of grievances received by the entity and how they have been resolved. Although this is not scored in the assessment, this is of significant interest to investors.

Terminology

Grievance mechanism: Formal, legal or non-legal (or ‘judicial/non-judicial’) complaint or feedback process that can be used by individuals, communities and/or civil society organizations that are being negatively affected by certain business activities and operations.The process enables the complaining party to flag an issue, seek redress and remedy.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select applicable checkbox(es) and complete relevant open text box(es).

No pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment but has not been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers.

Open Text Box: The text must include all of the applicable elements below:

• State the number of grievance. Zero (0) may be entered but only if there is a formal grievance mechanism in place as per SE3 and no grievances have been received during the reporting period;
• Provide a summary of those grievances (if applicable);
• Provide a summary of resolutions available for those grievances (if applicable).

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored.

References

Intent

This Indicator is intended to assess the scope and reach of the entity's approach to sustainable procurement. The procurement process is an effective way to integrate the entity’s ESG-specific requirements into their supply chain. This indicator applies to existing and new contracts.

Terminology

Business Ethics: Basic moral and legal principles used to address issues such as corporate governance, insider trading, bribery, discrimination, corporate social responsibility and fiduciary responsibilities.

Environmental process standards: Minimum standards required during the procurement process in relation to environmental processes, such as requirements for disposal of waste generated by contractors.

Environmental product standards: Minimum standards required during the procurement process in relation to environmental products, such as requiring a certain percentage of products to be locally sourced, contain recycled content or have an environmental label.

Human health-based product standards: Minimum standards for the health-related attributes of products, such as lists of prohibited chemicals.

Human rights: Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever their nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.

Occupational safety (for employees): Occupational safety focuses on the primary prevention of hazards within the workplace. This includes the reduction of risk factors at the workplace leading to cancers, accidents, musculoskeletal diseases, respiratory diseases, hearing loss, circulatory diseases, stress related disorders and communicable diseases and others.

Stakeholder groups: Terminology for the various stakeholder groups is defined in Appendix 2.

ESG-specific requirements for sub-contractors: Refers to any ESG requirements that the entity has included in its contracts with its sub-contractors, including specification and use of sustainable materials, systems, processes and operating practices.

Sustainable procurement: A process to encourage, facilitate or require the reduction of consumption of goods through the operation of the asset, and the identification and addressing of ESG risks in the supply chain. Clauses can relate to reduction of paper consumption, supply of biodegradable materials, use of recycled paper, building materials, etc.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select all applicable checkbox(es).

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections, state:

1. An 'Other' characteristic applicable to ESG procurement requirements. Named topics must have the impact of driving sustainable procurement;
2. An 'Other' external stakeholder group where ESG procurement requirements is enforced.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Acceptable evidence may include internal communication or redacted documentation/contract enforcing ESG procurement requirements.
• Evidence should support at least one element of the ESG procurement requirements applying to each stakeholder group selected.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections, both equally weighted. For the first subsection, points are equally awarded to each checkbox, with a diminishing increase in scoring approach applied. For the second subsection, points are equally awarded to each checkbox and aggregated to the final score.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether the entity effectively engages with its supply chains in order to ensure that the ESG requirements specified in SE5 are satisfied. A fair and inclusive process based on engaging suppliers should be developed to demonstrate the entity’s willingness to commit to ESG outside its own boundaries.

Terminology

Sustainable procurement: A process to encourage, facilitate or require the reduction of consumption of goods through the operation of the asset, and the identification and addressing of ESG risks in the supply chain. Clauses can relate to reduction of paper consumption, supply of biodegradable materials, use of recycled paper, building materials, etc.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, describe the process.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Open text box: Describe the engagement process with stakeholders in the supply chain. In order to be as effective as possible the process described should cover or respect the following criteria:

1. Materiality: Include an estimation of the proportion of the reporting entity’s revenue spent through its supply chains and the breakdown of spend with suppliers for the key procurement categories.
2. Clear purpose of the engagement: The text must explain how the entity ensures clarity of purpose in its engagement with suppliers.
3. Supplier’s interest: The text should describe how the entity identifies supplier’s interests.
4. Importance of interest: Describe how the importance of suppliers’ interests is be respected throughout the engagement process.
5. Necessary information: Describe how the entity ensures that its suppliers benefit from the necessary information to support good ESG decision making.
6. Balanced communication: Provide explanation around the entity’s ability to keep a two-way dialogue throughout its engagement with suppliers.

Scoring

This is a One Section indicator - consisting of only Section 1 (Elements).

Section 1 of this indicator contains one open text box response, which is scored based on compliance with the open text box requirements, described above.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s reporting on broad metrics covering inputs, outputs and impacts. The output metrics assess both economic and physical output from the infrastructure service. These output metrics are then used as denominators, in combination with the other Performance Indicators (such as GHG emissions) as numerators, for calculation of intensity metrics. Intensity metrics will not be used as a basis for scoring in 2019 but may be used in future years. The impact measures will allow participants to start calculating and reporting the ESG value of their activities.

Terminology:

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Capacity: The entity's physical capacity or maximum output over a period of time.

Input: The entity's physical primary input used to generate its physical primary output for the reporting period. Note that not all sectors have an applicable input metric.

Output: The entity's physical primary output for the reporting period.

Gross asset value (GAV): The gross infrastructure value owned by the entity being the 'tangible fixed assets' or 'property, plant and equipment' associated with the infrastructure asset.

Revenue: The annual income generated by the entity in exchange for providing the asset service.

Impact value: The estimated net value (benefits minus costs) of the social and/or environmental impacts of the entity over the reporting period in monetary units.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (e.g. Output). The participant should first complete RC2 and RC4 to ensure relevant metrics (Revenue, GAV) are automatically completed within the table.

Input/Output Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

• Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available.
• Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Output (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
• Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets.
• Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets.
• Calculated cells:Certain performance cells are automatically calculated based on inputs to other indicators within the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment. This includes:
• Gross Asset Value: This will be automatically completed based on the response in RC2 and converted from reporting in millions to actual figures.
• Revenue: This will be automatically completed based on the response in RC2 and converted from reporting in millions to actual figures.
• Sector specific responses: The metric/units for Capacity, Input and Output will be automatically allocated based on the Participant's Primary Sector (as determined by RC4). For example, for Renewable Power: Solar Power Generation the relevant Capacity Unit would be Installed capacity (MW) and the relevant Output Unit would be Energy generated (MWh). In some cases, a sector will not have any relevant metric/units assigned, so 'Not applicable' will be displayed and the field does not need to be completed.

Capacity, Input and Output metrics are specific to the Primary Sector of the entity as determined in RC3. Refer to Appendix 6 for details of these metrics for each sector. The Impact Value should be estimated using Social Return on Investment (SROI) or other similar methodology. Methodology details may be provided in the additional context box.

An Excel version of the GRESB Sector Metrics List is also available here.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s employees. The health and safety of employees is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Employees: Individuals who are in employment relationships with the entity, according to national law or its application.

Lost Time Injury: An injury, arising in the course of work, that results in a fatality, permanent disability or time lost from work.

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR): The number of lost time injuries occurring in a workplace per million hours worked. To calculate LTIFR use the following formula:

Recordable injury: An injury arising that requires medical treatment beyond first aid, as well as one that causes death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, or loss of consciousness.

Reportable injury: A non-fatal or fatal injury arising that is required to be reported to the relevant OH&S regulator or equivalent.

Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR): The number of incidents per 100 full-time workers. To calculate TRIR use the following formula:

Fatality: The death occurring in the current reporting period, arising from an injury or disease sustained or contracted.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics . It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second section.

Employees Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

• Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
• Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Fatalities and Reportable Injuries (cells with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
• Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
• Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

• Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
• Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

• Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
• Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
• Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
  • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long-term Reportable Injuries target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might then interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
• Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Health and safety: employees' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance or Low relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will be weighted with a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

Employee health and safety is considered to be relevnat for all entities, and therefore this indicator is applicable to all participants.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

• For all participants, only the Reportable injuries, Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate and Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate metrics are scored, as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
• 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
• 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
• Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

UN Sustainable Development Goals relevant for this indicator;

• SDG 3-Good Health and Well-being

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s contractors. The health and safety of contractors is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite or offsite on behalf of an entity. A contractor can contract their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors. Suppliers are not considered contractors for the purpose of this indicator.

Lost Time Injury: An injury, arising in the course of work, that results in a fatality, permanent disability or time lost from work.

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR): The number of lost time injuries occurring in a workplace per million man-hours worked. To calculate LTIFR use the following formula:

Recordable injury: An injury arising that requires medical treatment beyond first aid, as well as one that causes death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, or loss of consciousness.

Reportable injury: A non-fatal or fatal injury arising that is required to be reported to the relevant OH&S regulator or equivalent.

Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR): The number of incidents per 100 full-time workers. To calculate TRIR use the following formula:

Fatality: The death occurring in the current reporting period, arising from an injury or disease sustained or contracted.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes, No or Not Applicable. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be of ‘No Relevance’, it will not be considered in scoring and you should respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not applicable’ be selected. It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second subsection.

Contractors Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

• Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
• Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Fatalaties and Reportable Injuries (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
• Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
• Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

• Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
• Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

• Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
• Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets, and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
• Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
  • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long-term Reportable Injuries target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might then interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
• Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Health and safety: contractors' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance or No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will be weighted with a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting. Where the issue is of 'No relevance', it will not be considered in scoring.

For some Participants, this indicator has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance' therefore it is considered to be Not applicable.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

• For all participants, only the Reportable injuries, Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate and Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate metrics are scored, as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
• 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
• 40% of the indicator score wil be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
• Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

UN Sustainable Development Goals relevant for this indicator;

• SDG 3-Good Health and Well-being

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s customers. The health and safety of customers is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Customer: A customer is understood to include end-customers (consumer) as well as business-to-business customers.

Reportable injury: A non-fatal or fatal injury arising that is required to be reported to the relevant OH&S regulator or equivalent.

Fatality: The death occurring in the current reporting period, arising from an injury or disease sustained or contracted.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes, No or Not Applicable. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be of ‘No Relevance’, it will not be considered in scoring and you should respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not applicable’ be selected. It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second subsection.

Customers Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

• Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
• Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Fatalaties and Reportable Injuries (cells highlighted in blue in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
• Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
• Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

• Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
• Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Health and safety: customers' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (Low relevance or No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting and where the issue is of 'No relevance', it will not be considered in scoring.

For some Participants, this indicator has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance', therefore it is considered to be Not Applicable.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

• For all participants, only the Reportable injuries metric is scored, as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
• The indicator score will be based on reporting of performance only (i.e. not targets).

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

UN Sustainable Development Goals relevant for this indicator;

• SDG 3-Good Health and Well-being

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s community. The health and safety of the community is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Community: Persons or groups of people living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by the operations.

Reportable injury: A non-fatal or fatal injury arising that is required to be reported to the relevant OH&S regulator or equivalent.

Fatality: The death occurring in the current reporting period, arising from an injury or disease sustained or contracted.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes, No or Not Applicable. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be of ‘No Relevance’, it will not be considered in scoring and you should respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not applicable’ be selected. It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second subsection.

Community Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

• Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
• Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Fatalaties and Reportable Injuries (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
• Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
• Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

• Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
• Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence