Press CTRL+P (Windows) or ⌘+P (Mac) to print/export to a PDF file

2019

Asset

Scoring Document

Contents

Disclaimer: 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Assessments

The information in this document has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications prior to the official 2019 results launch on September 4. We will publicly announce any such modifications.

Introduction

This document outlines the scoring methodology of the 2019 Infrastructure Asset Assessment. It is shared for information purposes, to provide transparency on the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes.

How to read this document

The GRESB Infrastructure Asset Scoring Document provides a breakdown of each indicator score included in the 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment. We recommend reading this document in conjunction with the Reference Guide, which includes the reporting requirements of indicators.

Indicators in the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Scoring Document are presented in a consistent manner to reflect the 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Reference Guide. Please note the following:

Example of indicator level scoring:

Example: MA6 indicator

MA6

Does the entity include ESG factors in the annual performance targets of personnel?

1⁄10

Yes

Select the employees to whom these targets apply (multiple answers possible):

9⁄20
3⁄3

All employees

2⁄3

Board of Directors

2⁄3

Senior management team

1⁄3

Other: ____________

Does performance on these targets have consequences? (multiple answers possible)

Yes

9⁄20
1⁄2

Financial consequences

1⁄2

Non-financial consequences

No

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

MA6

2.2 points , MP, G

This indicator is split into three sections represented by two fractions and an "x" in the far-left column. The first section addresses 'employee groups' , the second covers 'types of consequences', the final section covers evidence. The far-left column tells us that the score of the indicator is calculated as follows; (where the section and evidence scores are all numbers between 0 and 1):

Indicator score = (Employee group section score * 5/10) + (Consequences section score * 5/10) * evidence score * 2.2 points

If the respondent achieved maximum scores for both of the first and second sections, with partially accepted evidence (resulting in a multiplier of 0.65), the score is:
((1 * 5/10) + (1 * 5/10)) * 0.65 * 2.2 points = 1.1 points

Scoring Methodology

Aspect Scoring Concepts

The GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment is structured in to seven ESG Aspects.

The below Aspect weights apply for 2019.

Aspect Weight (% Overall Score)
Management 10.1%
Policy & Disclosure 10.2%
Risks & Opportunities 21.3%
Monitoring & EMS 10.1%
Stakeholder Engagement 10.1%
Performance Indicators 35.8%
Certifications & Awards 2.5%

Indicator Scoring

There are three models used for indicator scoring:

Note that selection of the 'Yes/No' responses in relation to the indicator question, will no longer be scored in 2019

Section One (Elements)

Every scored indicator begins with this section which can receive a score between 0 and 1, determined by selections made in checkboxes and radio buttons, and answers provided in open text boxes. Based upon these inputs, scores are calculated using an aggregated points, Materiality-based or a diminishing increase in scoring methodology.

Aggregated points: For indicators where one or more answers can be selected, points are awarded cumulatively for each individual selected answer and then aggregated to calculate a final score for the indicator. In some cases, each checkbox answer may be equally weighted and in others, each checkbox answer may be assigned a higher or lower amount of points each, to reflect best practice responses. For many indicators, the final score is capped at a maximum, which means that it is not necessary to select all checkbox answers in order to receive full points.

Diminishing increase in scoring: Under this methodology, the number of additional points achieved for each additional option selected decreases as the number of provided data points increases. This means that the number of points achieved for the first data point will be higher than the number of additional points achieved for the second, which again will be higher than for the third, and so on.

Materiality-based Scoring

In 2018, GRESB introduced Materiality-based scoring for several Asset Assessment indicators. This means that all assets are assessed and scored based on the ESG issues that are most material to their circumstances. Participants are not expected to select all additional criteria to achieve the highest score.

If applicable, materiality guidance is addressed within the indicator level guidance notes. This only applies to specific Aspects, being i) Policy & Disclosure, ii) Risks & Opportunities, iii) Monitoring & EMS and iv) Performance Indicators.

If an indicator is a One Section indicator, the score calculated in this section will also be the indicator total score.

Section 2 (Evidence)

Some indicators include an evidence section to verify information provided in section 1 (Elements). In these cases, the score for the evidence section acts as a multiplier to the Section 1 score. Evidence can be optional or mandatory, and is scored as follows:

The total indicator score is then calculated as:

Indicator score = (Section 1 score) X (Section 2 score)

Management

There are 7 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored, except MA2. The maximum number of points for the Aspect is 10.1 (i.e. 10.1% of the GRESB Score).

Materiality

2018 Indicator

MA1

Has the entity undertaken an ESG materiality assessment in the last three years?

Yes

Elements covered in the materiality assessment report (multiple answers possible)

Identification of the material ESG issues from the entity's operations

1⁄2

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Engagement with relevant stakeholders to identify which issues are material

1⁄2

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

MA1

1 point , MP, G

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

MA2

GRESB Materiality Assessment Select the answers applicable to your entity below

Habitat and biodiversity - What is the entity's proximity to ecological habitat?

Adjacent

Close (<100m)

Distant (>100m)

Contamination - Is the asset sited on contaminated land?

Yes

No

Resilience - Is the entity located in an area close to the sea, prone to earthquakes, droughts, floods, wildlandfires or other?

Yes

No

Water use/withdrawal - What is the scale of the entity's water use/withdrawal and water stress in the location?

High consumption in locations with high water stress

High consumption in locations with low water stress

Low consumption in locations with high water stress

Low consumption in locations with low water stress

No consumption

Water discharge/pollution - Is there a risk of pollution from discharges to waterways (including groundwater)?

Yes and waterways are in locations with high water stress

Yes but waterways are not in locations with high water stress

No

Light - Does the entity use significant external lighting at night?

Yes and the location is densely populated

Yes but the location is not densely populated

No

Noise - Does the entity emit noise externally?

Yes and the location is densely populated

Yes but the location is not densely populated

No

Nature of customer service - Do individual customers/users interact directly with the asset?

Yes and the interaction is extensive

Yes but the interaction is limited

No

Contracting practices - What proportion of the entity's activities are contracted out?

Most

Part

Little

Materiality results

[AssetMaterialityOutcome]

MA2

Not scored

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.

Objectives

2018 Indicator

MA3

Does the entity have specific ESG objectives?

1⁄10

Yes

The objectives relate to (multiple answers possible)

9⁄10
1⁄6

General sustainability

1⁄3

Environment

1⁄3

Social

1⁄3

Governance

The objectives are

×

Publicly available

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Not publicly available

3⁄4

Upload

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

MA3

2.2 points , MP, G

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Leadership & Accountability

2018 Indicator

MA4

Does the entity have one or more persons responsible for implementing ESG objectives?

1⁄10

Yes

45⁄50

Dedicated employee for whom sustainability is the core responsibility

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

E-mail (optional): ____________

LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________

27⁄50

Employee for whom sustainability is among their responsibilities

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

E-mail (optional): ____________

LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________

18⁄50

External consultant/manager

Name of the organization Service provider

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

E-mail (optional): ____________

LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

MA4

1 point , MP, G

This indicator is scored as a One-Section indicator, as no evidence is required for this indicator.

MA5

Does the entity have a senior decision-maker accountable for ESG issues?

1⁄10

Yes

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on ESG issues

Name / organization name: ____________

Job title: ____________

E-mail (optional): ____________

LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________

The individual's most senior role is as part of:

9⁄10
2⁄2

Board of Directors

2⁄2

Senior Management Team

1⁄2

Other: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

MA5

1 point , MP, G

This indicator is scored as a One-Section indicator, as no evidence is required for this indicator.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

MA6

Does the entity include ESG factors in the annual performance targets of personnel?

1⁄10

Yes

Select the employees to whom these targets apply (multiple answers possible):

9⁄20
3⁄3

All employees

2⁄3

Board of Directors

2⁄3

Senior management team

1⁄3

Other: ____________

Does performance on these targets have consequences? (multiple answers possible)

Yes

9⁄20
1⁄2

Financial consequences

1⁄2

Non-financial consequences

No

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

MA6

2.2 points , MP, G

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Training

2018 Indicator

MA7

Is ESG-related training provided for the entity?

1⁄10

Yes

Training is provided to (multiple answers possible)

9⁄10

Employees

1⁄2

Training covers (multiple answers possible)

1⁄3

Environmental issues

1⁄3

Social issues

1⁄3

Governance issues

Contractors/operators

1⁄2

Training covers (multiple answers possible)

1⁄3

Environmental issues

1⁄3

Social issues

1⁄3

Governance issues

Other (e.g. local community, customers)

1⁄2
×

____________

Training covers (multiple answers possible)

1⁄3

Environmental issues

1⁄3

Social issues

1⁄3

Governance issues

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

MA7

2.7 points , IM, G

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Policy & Disclosure

There are 7 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored, except PD7. The maximum number of points is 10.2 (i.e. 10.2% of the GRESB Score).

Policies

2018 Indicator

PD1

Does this entity have a policy or policies on environmental issues?

1⁄10

Yes

Select all material issues which are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)

63⁄100
M

Air pollutants

M

Biodiversity and habitat

M

Contamination

M

Energy

M

Greenhouse gas emissions

M

Light pollution

M

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

M

Noise

M

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster

M

Resilience (adaptation) to climate change

M

Waste

M

Water discharge/pollution

M

Water use/withdrawal

M

Other issues: ____________

An environmental policy or policies apply to the following stakeholder group(s) (multiple answers possible)

27⁄100
1⁄3

Contractors

1⁄3

Suppliers

1⁄3

Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors)

1⁄3

Other: ____________

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PD1

1.7 points , MP, E

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

PD2

Does this entity have a policy or policies on social issues?

1⁄10

Yes

Select all material issues which are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)

63⁄100
M

Child labour

M

Community development

M

Customer satisfaction

M

Employee engagement

M

Forced or compulsory labor

M

Freedom of association

M

Gender and diversity

M

Health and safety: employees

M

Health and safety: customers

M

Health and safety: community

M

Health and safety: contractors

M

Health and safety: supply chain

M

Labor standards and working conditions

M

Social enterprise partnering

M

Stakeholder relations

M

Other issues: ____________

A social policy or policies apply to the following stakeholder group(s) (multiple answers possible)

27⁄100
1⁄3

Contractors

1⁄3

Suppliers

1⁄3

Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)

1⁄3

Other: ____________

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PD2

1.7 points , MP, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

PD3

Does this entity have a policy or policies on governance issues?

1⁄10

Yes

Material board-level issues which are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)

63⁄200
M

Audit committee structure/independence

M

Board composition

M

Compensation committee structure/independence

M

Executive compensation

M

Independence of board chair

M

Lobbying activities

M

Other issues: ____________

Material operational issues which are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)

63⁄200
M

Bribery and corruption

M

Cybersecurity

M

Data protection and privacy

M

Fiduciary duty

M

Fraud

M

Political contributions

M

Whistleblower protection

M

Other issues: ____________

An operational policy or policies apply to the following stakeholder group(s) (multiple answers possible)

54⁄200
1⁄3

Contractors

1⁄3

Suppliers

1⁄3

Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)

1⁄3

Other: ____________

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PD3

1.7 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

ESG Disclosure

2018 Indicator

PD4

Does the entity disclose its ESG actions and/or performance?

1⁄10

Yes

Communication strategy:

45⁄50
3⁄4

Integrated Report

*Integrated Report must be aligned with the IIRC framework

Select the applicable reporting level

×
2⁄2

Entity

1⁄2

Group

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

1⁄4

Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name

36⁄50
3⁄4

Stand-alone Sustainability Report(s)

Select the applicable reporting level

×
2⁄2

Entity

1⁄2

Group

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

1⁄4

Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name

27⁄50
3⁄4

Section of Annual Report

Select the applicable reporting level

×
2⁄2

Entity

1⁄2

Group

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

1⁄4

Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name

18⁄50
1

Dedicated section on website

Select the applicable reporting level

×
2⁄2

Entity

1⁄2

Group

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

27⁄50
3⁄4

Entity reporting to investors

Frequency of reporting: ____________

Select the applicable reporting level

×
2⁄2

Entity

1⁄2

Group

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

1⁄4

Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name

9⁄50
3⁄4

Other: ____________

Select the applicable reporting level

×
2⁄2

Entity

1⁄2

Group

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

1⁄4

Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PD4

Guideline name

  • GRI Standards, 2016
  • GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, G4
  • IIRC International Integrated Reporting Framework, 2013
  • PRI Reporting Framework, 2018
  • TCFD Recommendations, 2017
  • Other: ____________

1.7 points , MP, G

Each form of ESG disclosure method is assigned with a maximum number of points, respectively achieved by:

  • The third-party alignment of the report (if applicable). The alignment standard and the corresponding evidence (which must be accepted during the validation process to receive a score).
  • The reporting level (two reporting levels - Entity or Group - are mutually exclusive).

Alignment: the alignment standard and the corresponding evidence must be accepted during the validation process to receive a score.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

PD5

Does this entity have third-party review of its ESG disclosure?

[DummyLabel]
1⁄10

Yes

Select the most stringent level of review in each area (multiple answers possible, selections must match answers in PD4)

Integrated Report

45⁄50
1⁄4

Externally checked by Service provider

1
1⁄4

Externally verified by Service provider

3⁄4

using Scheme name

1
1⁄4

Externally assured by Service provider

3⁄4

using Scheme name

Stand-alone Sustainability Report(s)

45⁄50
1⁄4

Externally checked by Service provider

1
1⁄4

Externally verified by Service provider

3⁄4

using Scheme name

1
1⁄4

Externally assured by Service provider

3⁄4

using Scheme name

Section of Annual Report

45⁄50
1⁄4

Externally checked by Service provider

1
1⁄4

Externally verified by Service provider

3⁄4

using Scheme name

1
1⁄4

Externally assured by Service provider

3⁄4

using Scheme name

Entity reporting to investors

27⁄50
1⁄4

Externally checked by Service provider

1
1⁄4

Externally verified by Service provider

3⁄4

using Scheme name

1
1⁄4

Externally assured by Service provider

3⁄4

using Scheme name

Other: ____________

27⁄50
1⁄4

Externally checked by Service provider

1
1⁄4

Externally verified by Service provider

3⁄4

using Scheme name

1
1⁄4

Externally assured by Service provider

3⁄4

using Scheme name

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PD5

Scheme name

  • AA1000AS
  • Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
  • Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
  • Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
  • ASAE3000
  • Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT101)
  • Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
  • California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as Californian Air Resources Board regulations)
  • Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
  • Carbon Trust Standard
  • Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
  • Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
  • Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
  • Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
  • DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
  • Earthcheck Certified
  • Enviro-Mark Solutions’ CEMARS (Certified Emissions Measurement And Reduction Scheme) standard
  • ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
  • IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichtenim Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
  • IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
  • ISAE 3000
  • ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
  • ISO14064-3
  • JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
  • Korean GHG and energy target management system
  • NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
  • Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
  • RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
  • RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
  • Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
  • SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
  • Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
  • Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
  • State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
  • Swiss Climate CO2 label
  • Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
  • The Climate Registry's General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
  • Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
  • Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
  • Other: ____________

1.7 points , MP, G

Scoring within this indicator seeks to reward best disclosure and review practices, with greater amount of points.

In order to achieve points for any of the checkboxes above, the number of points received in the corresponding section in PD4 must be higher than 0. Therefore, a participant cannot receive points for assurance of a disclosure type unless they received points for that same disclosure type in PD4 (i.e. checkbox must be selected and evidence fully accepted in validation).

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Service Provider: A service provider has to be picked to achieve a score.

Scheme name: Scheme name must be accepted during the validation process to receive its associated score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

PD6

Does the entity have a process to communicate about ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents?

1⁄10

Yes

9⁄20

Describe the communication process (maximum 250 words): ____________

The entity would communicate misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents to (multiple answers possible)

9⁄20
1⁄8

Clients/Customers

1⁄8

Contractors

1⁄8

Community/Public

1⁄8

Employees

1⁄8

Investors/Shareholders

1⁄8

Regulators/Government

1⁄8

Special interest groups (NGOs, Trade Unions, etc.)

1⁄8

Suppliers

1⁄8

Other stakeholders: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PD6

1.7 points , MP, G

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 2/2
Partial points 1/2
No point 0

PD7

Has the entity been involved in any significant ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents during the reporting period? (The response to this indicator will be reviewed as part of sector leader requirements)

Yes

Specify the total number of cases which occurred: ____________

Specify the total value of fines and/or penalties incurred during the reporting period ( must align with currency selected in RC1)

________________________

Provide additional context for the response, focusing on the three most serious incidents

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PD7

Not scored

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.

Risks & Opportunities

There are 4 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored. This aspect corresponds to 21.3% of the GRESB Score.

Risk Assessments

2018 Indicator

RO1

Did the entity perform environmental risk assessment(s) within the last three years?

1⁄10

Yes

Select elements of the Risk Assessment Process undertaken by the entity (multiple answers possible)

18⁄50
1⁄3

Risk assessments are regularly conducted or reviewed and updated

1⁄3

Risks are analysed (i.e. level of risk rating)

1⁄3

Risks are evaluated and treated

Select all material issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)

27⁄50
M

Air pollutants

M

Biodiversity and habitat

M

Contamination

M

Energy

M

Greenhouse gas emissions

M

Light pollution

M

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

M

Noise

M

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster

M

Resilience (adaptation) to climate change

M

Waste

M

Water discharge/pollution

M

Water use/withdrawal

M

Other: ____________

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RO1

3.8 points , MP, E

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

RO2

Did the entity perform social risk assessment(s) within the last three years?

1⁄10

Yes

Select elements of the Risk Assessment Process undertaken by the entity (multiple answers possible)

18⁄50
1⁄3

Risk assessments are regularly conducted or reviewed and updated

1⁄3

Risks are analysed (i.e. level of risk rating)

1⁄3

Risks are evaluated and treated

Select all material issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)

27⁄50
M

Child labour

M

Community development

M

Customer satisfaction

M

Employee engagement

M

Forced or compulsory labor

M

Freedom of association

M

Gender and diversity

M

Health and safety: employees

M

Health and safety: customers

M

Health and safety: community

M

Health and safety: contractors

M

Health and safety: supply chain

M

Labor standards and working conditions

M

Social enterprise partnering

M

Stakeholder relations

M

Other: ____________

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RO2

3.8 points , MP, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

RO3

Did the entity perform governance risk assessment(s) within the last three years?

1⁄10

Yes

Select elements of the Risk Assessment Process undertaken by the entity (multiple answers possible)

36⁄100
1⁄3

Risk assessments are regularly conducted or reviewed and updated

1⁄3

Risks are analysed (i.e. level of risk rating)

1⁄3

Risks are evaluated and treated

Material board-level issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)

27⁄100
M

Audit committee structure/independence

M

Board composition

M

Compensation committee structure/independence

M

Executive compensation

M

Independence of board chair

M

Lobbying activities

M

Other issues: ____________

Material operational issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)

27⁄100
M

Bribery and corruption

M

Cybersecurity

M

Data protection and privacy

M

Fraud

M

Fiduciary duty

M

Political contributions

M

Whistleblower protection

M

Other issues: ____________

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RO3

3.8 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Implementation

2018 Indicator

RO4

Can the entity provide specific examples of actions taken to mitigate ESG related risks or improve ESG performance?

3⁄30

Yes

Describe specific examples of actions taken to improve ESG performance during the last 3 years. The goal is to provide illustrative examples of tangible actions that demonstrate the entity’s progress.

9⁄30
[ESGTable:1a]
9⁄30
[ESGTable:1b]
9⁄30
[ESGTable:1c]

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RO5

Categories of environmental issues (select applicable issue for each activity)

  • Air pollutants
  • Biodiversity and habitat protection
  • Contamination
  • Energy
  • Greenhouse gas emissions
  • Light pollution
  • Materials sourcing & resource efficiency
  • Noise
  • Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
  • Resilience (adaptation) to climate change
  • Waste
  • Water discharge/pollution
  • Water use/withdrawal
  • Other: ____________

Categories of social issues (select applicable issue for each activity)

  • Child labor
  • Community development
  • Customer satisfaction
  • Employee engagement
  • Forced or compulsory labor
  • Freedom of association
  • Gender and diversity
  • Health and safety: employees
  • Health and safety: customers
  • Health and safety: community
  • Health and safety: contractors
  • Labor standards and working conditions
  • Social enterprise partnering
  • Stakeholder relations
  • Other: ____________

Categories of governance issues (select applicable issue for each activity)

  • Audit committee structure/independence
  • Board composition
  • Bribery and corruption
  • Compensation committee structure/independence
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data protection and privacy (incl. cybersecurity)
  • Executive compensation
  • Fiduciary duty
  • Fraud
  • Independence of Board chair
  • Lobbying activities
  • Political contributions
  • Whistleblower protection
  • Other: ____________

Classify the fraction of the entity covered by the action

  • > 0%, < 25%
  • ≥ 50%, < 75%
  • ≥ 25%, < 50%
  • ≥ 75%, ≤ 100%
  • Unknown

9.9 points , IM, G

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator. Section 1 contains 3 structurally identical sub-sections (environmental, social and governance tables). Each of the sub-sections contain a table which is scored, with at least 4 rows of data required to achieve the maximum score (per sub-section). Each row results in a different score depending on the coverage percentage reported for 'fraction of entity covered'. The scores resulting from the different coverage percentages are listed in the table below:

Coverage percentage Points
(Unknown) 0.50
(0%, 25%) 0.50
(25%, 50%) 0.66
(50%, 75%) 0.83
(75%, 100%) 1.00

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Each row or example of tangible action provided must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Monitoring & EMS

There are 4 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored. The maximum number of points is 10.1 and this corresponds to 10.1% of the GRESB Score.

ESG-related management standards

2018 Indicator

ME1

Is the entity's management system accredited to, or aligned with, ESG-related management standards?

1⁄10

Yes

Accreditations maintained or achieved (multiple answers possible)

27⁄50
1⁄4

ISO 55000

1⁄4

ISO 14001

1⁄4

ISO 9001

1⁄4

OHSAS 18001

1⁄4

Other standard: ____________

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Management standards aligned with (multiple answers possible)

18⁄50
1⁄3

ISO 26000

1⁄3

ISO 20400

1⁄3

ISO 50001

1⁄3

Other standard: ____________

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

ME1

4.4 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

ESG monitoring

2018 Indicator

ME2

Does the entity monitor environmental performance?

1⁄10

Yes

Select all material issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)

9⁄10
M

Air pollutants

M

Biodiversity and habitat

M

Contamination

M

Energy

M

Greenhouse gas emissions

M

Light pollution

M

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

M

Noise

M

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster

M

Resilience (adaptation) to climate change

M

Waste

M

Water discharge/pollution

M

Water use/withdrawal

M

Other: ____________

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

ME2

1.9 points , IM, E

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

ME3

Does the entity monitor social performance?

1⁄10

Yes

Select all material issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)

9⁄10
M

Child labour

M

Community development

M

Customer satisfaction

M

Employee engagement

M

Forced or compulsory labor

M

Freedom of association

M

Gender and diversity

M

Health and safety: employees

M

Health and safety: customers

M

Health and safety: community

M

Health and safety: contractors

M

Health and safety: supply chain

M

Labor standards and working conditions

M

Social enterprise partnering

M

Stakeholder relations

M

Other: ____________

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

ME3

1.9 points , IM, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

ME4

Does the entity monitor governance performance?

1⁄10

Yes

Material board-level issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)

9⁄20
M

Audit committee structure/independence

M

Board composition

M

Compensation committee structure/independence

M

Executive compensation

M

Independence of board chair

M

Lobbying activities

M

Other issues: ____________

Material operational issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)

9⁄20
M

Bribery and corruption

M

Cybersecurity

M

Data protection and privacy

M

Fraud

M

Fiduciary duty

M

Political contributions

M

Whistleblower protection

M

Other issues: ____________

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

ME4

1.9 points , IM, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Stakeholder Engagement

There are 6 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored, except for SE4. The maximum number of points is 10.1 (i.e. 10.1% of the GRESB Score).

Stakeholder engagement

2018 Indicator

SE1

Does the entity have a stakeholder engagement program?

1⁄10

Yes

Select elements of the stakeholder engagement program (multiple answers possible)

27⁄50
1⁄4

Planning and preparation for engagement

1⁄4

Implementation of engagement plan

1⁄4

Program review and evaluation

1⁄4

Training

1⁄4

Other: ____________

Is the stakeholder engagement program aligned with third-party standards and/or guidance?

Yes

9⁄50

Guideline name

No

Which stakeholders does the stakeholder engagement program apply to? (multiple answers possible)

9⁄50
1⁄8

Clients/Customers

1⁄8

Community/Public

1⁄8

Contractors

1⁄8

Employees

1⁄8

Investors/Shareholders

1⁄8

Regulators / Government

1⁄8

Special interest groups (NGO's, Trade Unions, etc)

1⁄8

Suppliers

1⁄8

Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)

1⁄8

Other: ____________

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

SE1

Guideline name

  • GRI Standards, 2016
  • GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, G4
  • IIRC International Integrated Reporting Framework, 2013
  • PRI Reporting Framework, 2018
  • TCFD Recommendations, 2017
  • Other: ____________

2.5 points , MP, S

Alignment: the alignment standard and the corresponding evidence must be accepted during the validation process to receive a score.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

SE2

Can specific examples of actions taken to implement the stakeholder engagement program be provided?

1⁄10

Yes

Describe the key actions undertaken to implement the stakeholder engagement program over the last 3 years

9⁄10
[SETable]

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

SE2

2.5 points , IM, S

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator. Section 1 is for reporting examples of actions and contains a table. The score of the section is calculated using Diminishing Increase in Scoring based on the number of rows of data reported with 4 rows of data being required to achieve the maximum score. Each row or action provided must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

SE1 focusses on whether a Stakeholder Engagement Programme is in place and SE2 focusses on actions taken to implement that Stakeholder Engagement Programme. As these indicators are linked, an Integrity Cross Check is applied within scoring. Therefore, a participant cannot receive points for SE2, unless they receive points for SE1.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

SE3

Is there a formal process for stakeholders to communicate grievances that apply to this entity?

1⁄10

Yes

Select all characteristics applicable to the process (multiple answers possible)

9⁄20
1⁄9

Dialogue based

1⁄9

Legitimate & safe

1⁄9

Accessible

1⁄9

Improvement based

1⁄9

Predictable

1⁄9

Equitable & rights compatible

1⁄9

Transparent

1⁄9

Anonymous

1⁄9

Prohibitive against retaliation

1⁄9

Other: ____________

Which stakeholders does the process apply to? (multiple answers possible)

9⁄20
1⁄8

Clients/Customers

1⁄8

Community/Public

1⁄8

Contractors

1⁄8

Employees

1⁄8

Investors/Shareholders

1⁄8

Regulators / Government

1⁄8

Special interest groups (NGO's, Trade Unions, etc)

1⁄8

Suppliers

1⁄8

Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)

1⁄8

Other: ____________

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

SE3

2.5 points , MP, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

SE4

Has the entity received stakeholder grievances during the reporting period? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

Describe the grievances received during the reporting period

Number of grievances communicated: ____________

Summary of grievances: ____________

Summary of resolutions for grievances: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

SE4

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Sustainable procurement

2018 Indicator

SE5

Does the entity include ESG specific requirements in procurement processes to drive sustainable procurement?

1⁄10

Yes

Select all issues covered by procurement processes (multiple answers possible)

9⁄20
1⁄7

Business ethics

1⁄7

Environmental process standards

1⁄7

Environmental product standards

1⁄7

Human rights

1⁄7

Human health-based product standards

1⁄7

Occupational health and safety

1⁄7

ESG-specific requirements for sub-contractors

1⁄7

Other: ____________

Select the external parties to whom the requirements apply (multiple answers possible)

9⁄20
1⁄4

Contractors

1⁄4

Operators

1⁄4

Suppliers

1⁄4

Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors)

1⁄4

Other: ____________

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

×

Yes

1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄10

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

SE5

1.3 points , MP, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

SE6

Does the entity engage with its supply chains to ensure the specific ESG requirements in SE5 are met?

1⁄10

Yes

9⁄10

Describe the process of engagement (maximum 250 words): ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

SE6

1.3 points , IM, S

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 2/2
Partial points 1/2
No point 0

Performance Indicators

Overall, this Aspect corresponds to 35.8% of the GRESB Score. There are 11 indicators within the Performance Indicator section. Indicators PI1 and PI9-11 are not scored (for reporting purposes only). Indicators PI 2-8 are all scored indicators.

Materiality-based Scoring

Where the Performance Indicator issue is of ‘High relevance’, then the indicator will be weighted with a higher than standard weighting and where the issues is of ‘Low relevance’, then the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting. When a materiality weighting of ‘No relevance’ is determined, the participant is not expected to report on this indicator as it will not be scored.

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

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

Output

2018 Indicator

PI1

Can the entity report on measures of input, output and impact? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

[PITable:1a]
[PITable:1b]

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI1

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Health & Safety

2018 Indicator

PI2.0

Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their employees?

1⁄10

Yes

27⁄50
[PITable:2a]

Targets

Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the employees health & safety performance targets (as reported in the table above)

Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets

Yes

2018 Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Long-Term Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on employees health & safety performance (for reporting purposes only)

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on employees health & safety performance (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on employees health & safety performance (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI2

Determined by materiality , IM, S

Scoring

Materiality: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 is always 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 in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

PI2.1

Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their contractors?

1⁄10

Yes

27⁄50
[PITable:2b]

Targets

Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the contractors health & safety performance targets (as reported in the table above)

Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets

Yes

2018 Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Long-Term Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on contractors health & safety performance (for reporting purposes only)

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on contractors health & safety performance (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on contractors health & safety performance (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Not applicable

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI2

Determined by materiality , IM, S

Scoring

Materiality: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 in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

PI2.2

Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their customers?

1⁄10

Yes

9⁄10
[PITable:2c]

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on customers health & safety performance

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on customers health & safety performance (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on customers health & safety performance (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Not applicable

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI2

Determined by materiality , IM, S

Scoring

Materiality: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) (for the scored metrics).

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

PI2.3

Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their community?

1⁄10

Yes

9⁄10
[PITable:2d]

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on community health & safety performance

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on community health & safety performance (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on community health & safety performance (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Not applicable

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI2

Determined by materiality , IM, S

Scoring

Materiality:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Health and safety: community' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (Low relevance or of 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) (for the scored metrics).

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

Energy & Emissions

2018 Indicator

PI3

Can the entity report on energy performance?

1⁄10

Yes

[PITable:3a]
[PITable:3b]
27⁄50
[PITable:3c]
27⁄50
[PITable:3d]
[PITable:3e]

Targets

Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the energy performance targets (as reported in the table above)

Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets

Yes

2018 Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Long-Term Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on energy performance

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on energy performance (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on energy performance (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI3

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Energy' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance or Medium relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Medium relevance', the indicator will receive a medium weighting.

Energy is considered to be relevant 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:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance in the tables (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of target (for the scored metrics). 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.
  • For particants whose primary sector is Energy Generation, only the Total energy exported metric is scored as indicated by the double asterisk (**) after the metric.
  • For all other sectors, Total energy consumed is scored, as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 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.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

PI4

Can the entity report on greenhouse gas emissions?

1⁄10

Yes

27⁄50
[PITable:4a]
[PITable:4b]

Targets

Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the greenhouse gas emissions performance targets (as reported in the table above)

Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets

Yes

2018 Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Long-Term Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on greenhouse gas emissions performance

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on greenhouse gas emissions (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on greenhouse gas emissions (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI4

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Greenhouse gas emissions' 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 receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

Greenhouse gas emissions' is considered to be relevant 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 sectors except Renewable Energy Generation, only the Net GHG emissions metric is scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • For Renewable Energy Generation sectors only, Emissions avoided only is scored instead of Net GHG emissions, as indicated by the double asterisk (**) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

PI5

Can the entity report on generated air pollutant emissions?

1⁄10

Yes

27⁄50
[PITable:5a]

Targets

Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the air pollutant targets (as reported in the table above)

Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets

Yes

2018 Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Long-Term Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on air pollutant emissions performance

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on air pollutant emissions (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on air pollutant emissions (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Not applicable

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI5

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Air pollutants' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance, Low relevance or No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

For certain sectors, 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 sectors, only Non-compliance is scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Water & Waste

2018 Indicator

PI6.0

Can the entity report on water use/withdrawal performance?

1⁄10

Yes

27⁄50
[PITable:6a]
[PITable:6b]

Targets

Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the water use/withdrawal targets (as reported in the table above)

Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets

Yes

2018 Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Long-Term Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on water use/withdrawal performance

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on water use/withdrawal performance (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on water use/withdrawal performance (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Not applicable

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI6

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Water use/withdrawal' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance, Low relevance or No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

For some Participants, this 'water use/withdrawal' issue has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance', therefore this indicator is considerd 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 Total withdrawals metrics is scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

PI6.1

Can the entity report on water discharge/pollution performance?

1⁄10

Yes

27⁄50
[PITable:6c]
[PITable:6d]

Targets

Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the water discharge/pollution targets (as reported in the table above)

Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets

Yes

2018 Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Long-Term Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on water discharge/pollution performance

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on water discharge/pollution performance (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on water discharge/pollution performance (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Not applicable

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI6

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Water discharge/pollution' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance, Low relevance or No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

For some Participants, this 'water discharge/pollution' issue has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance', and 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 Total sensitive discharge and Recycled metrics are scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance in the table.
  • 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.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

PI7

Can the entity report on waste generation and disposal?

1⁄10

Yes

[PITable:7a]
27⁄50
[PITable:7b]
[PITable:7c]

Targets

Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the waste generation and disposal targets (as reported in the table above)

Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets

Yes

2018 Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Long-Term Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on waste generation and disposal performance

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on waste generation and disposal performance (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on waste generation and disposal performance (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI7

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Waste' 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 receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

Waste is considered to be relevant to all entities, and therefore this indicator is relevant 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 Diverted from landfill metric is scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance in the tables (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Biodiversity & Habitat

2018 Indicator

PI8

Can the entity report on biodiversity and habitat?

1⁄10

Yes

[PITable:8a]
27⁄50
[PITable:8b]
[PITable:8c]

Targets

Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the biodiversity and habitat targets (as reported in the table above)

Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets

Yes

2018 Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Long-Term Target

9⁄50

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Reporting boundaries

Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on biodiversity & habitat performance

Facilities

Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on biodiversity & habitat performance (max 250 words)

________________________

Activities, Sources and Scope

Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on biodiversity & habitat performance (max 250 words)

________________________

No

Not applicable

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PI8

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Biodiversity and habitat issue'. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance or Not relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

For some Participants, this indicator has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance', and 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 Net habitat improved metric is scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Customer Satisfaction

2018 Indicator

PI9.0

Has the entity undertaken customer satisfaction surveys during the last three years?

Yes

The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible)

Internally

Percentage of customers covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

By an independent third party

Percentage of customers covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

Yes

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Does the survey include quantitative metrics?

Yes

Metrics include (multiple answers possible)

Net Promoter Score

Overall satisfaction score

Satisfaction with communication

Satisfaction with responsiveness

Satisfaction as a customer

Satisfaction with asset management

Understanding customer needs

Value for money

Other: ____________

No

No

Not applicable

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

New

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

PI9.1

Does the entity have a program in place to improve customer satisfaction based on the outcomes of the survey referred to in PI9.0?

Yes

Select all applicable options

Development of an asset-specific action plan

Feedback sessions with asset managers / operators

Feedback sessions with individual customers

Focus groups

Other: ____________

Describe the customer satisfaction improvement program (maximum 250 words)

________________________

No

Not applicable

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

New

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Employee Satisfaction

2018 Indicator

PI10.0

Has the entity undertaken an employee satisfaction survey during the last three years?

Yes

The survey is undertaken:

Internally

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

By an independent third party

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

Yes

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Does the survey includes quantitative metrics

Yes

Metrics includes

Net Promoter Score

Overall satisfaction score

Other: ____________

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

New

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

PI10.1

Does the entity have a program in place to improve its employee satisfaction based on the outcomes of the survey referred to in PI10.0?

Yes

Select all applicable options:

Development of action plan

Feedback sessions with Senior Management Team

Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments

Focus groups

Other: ____________

Describe the employee satisfaction improvement program (maximum 250 words)

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

New

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Gender & Diversity

2018 Indicator

PI11

Does the entity report on Gender and Diversity?

Yes

Diversity of governance and management (i.e. C-suite, Board of Directors, Management Committees)

Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)

Age group distribution

Board tenure

Gender pay gap

Gender ratio

Percentage of individuals within the organization’s governance bodies in each of the following diversity categories:

Women: ____________%

Men: ____________%

International background

Racial diversity

Socioeconomic background

Diversity of employees

Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)

Age group distribution

Percentage of employees that are:

Under 30 years old: ____________%

Between 30 and 50 years old: ____________%

Over 50 years old: ____________%

Gender pay gap

Gender ratio

Percentage of employees in each of the following diversity categories:

Women: ____________%

Men: ____________%

International background

Racial diversity

Socioeconomic background

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

New

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Certifications & Awards

There are 2 indicators in the Aspect and only CA1 is scored. The maximum number of points is 2.5 and this corresponds to 2.5% of the GRESB Score.

Certifications

2018 Indicator

CA1

Did the entity maintain or achieve asset-level certifications for ESG-related performance?

1⁄10

Yes

List certifications achieved

9⁄10
[CaCertificationTable]
×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

CA1

Scheme Name/Sub-scheme Name

A list of provisionally validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix of the Reference Guide.

Phase

  • Planning and design
  • Construction
  • Operations

2.5 points , IM, G

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator. Section 1 is for reporting asset-level certifications and contains a table. If any certifications are reported in the table the maximum score is achieved, otherwise the score is 0.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Awards

2018 Indicator

CA2

Did the entity receive awards for ESG-related actions, performance, or achievements? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

Information about third-party awards

[AwardTable]

Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?

Yes

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

CA2

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.