Reporting entity
Entity Name: ____________
Fund Manager Organization Name (May be same as entity name): ____________
The 2021 GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment Reference Guide (“Reference Guide”) accompanies the 2021 GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment and is published both as a standalone document and in the GRESB Portal alongside each Assessment indicator. The Reference Guide reflects the opinions of GRESB and not of our members. The information in the Reference Guide has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. We take reasonable care to check the accuracy and completeness of the Reference Guide prior to its publication. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications to the Reference Guide. We will publicly announce any such modifications.
The Reference Guide is not provided as the basis for any professional advice or for transactional use. GRESB and its advisors, consultants and sub‑contractors shall not be responsible or liable for any advice given to third parties, any investment decisions or trading or any other actions taken by you or by third parties based on information contained in the Reference Guide.
Except where stated otherwise, GRESB is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights in all the information contained in the Reference Guide. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications prior to the official start of the 2021 reporting year on April 1 and the official release of the 2021 Infrastructure Fund Assessment. We will publicly announce any such modifications.
Mission-driven and investor-led, GRESB is the environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmark for real assets. We work in collaboration with the industry to provide standardized and validated ESG data to the capital markets. The 2019 real estate benchmark covers more than 1,000 property companies, real estate investment trusts (REITs), funds, and developers. Our coverage for infrastructure includes 500 infrastructure funds and assets. Combined, GRESB represents USD 4.5 trillion in real asset value. More than 100 institutional investors, with over USD 22 trillion AUM, use GRESB data to monitor their investments, engage with their managers, and make decisions that lead to a more sustainable real asset industry.
For more information, visit gresb.com. Follow @GRESB on Twitter.
GRESB Real Estate Assessment
The GRESB Real Estate Assessment is the global standard for ESG benchmarking and reporting for listed property companies, private property funds, developers and investors that invest directly in real estate. The Assessment evaluates performance against three ESG Components - Management, Performance, and Development. The methodology is consistent across different regions, investment vehicles and property types and aligns with international reporting frameworks, such as GRI and PRI.
The GRESB Real Estate Assessment provides investors with actionable information and tools to monitor and manage the ESG risks and opportunities of their investments, and to prepare for increasingly rigorous ESG obligations. Assessment participants receive comparative business intelligence on where they stand against their peers, a roadmap with the actions they can take to improve their ESG performance and a communication platform to engage with investors.
(Real Estate) Supplement: NAREIT Leader in the Light
GRESB works in close collaboration with the National Association of Real Estate Investments Trusts (Nareit), a GRESB Industry Partner. NAREIT encourages its corporate members to complete the annual GRESB Real Estate Assessments, which, for the past seven years, has been the basis for their annual Leader in the Light Award competition. The Leader in the Light Awards are presented to REITs in eight property sectors: Diversified, Global (for non-U.S. companies), Health Care, Industrial, Lodging/Resorts, Office, Residential and Retail. If there are both large and small cap entries that meet the awards criteria in a given property sector, awards are presented to both the leading large and small cap companies. To participate in the Leader in the Light Award program, Nareit members must complete both the GRESB Real Estate Assessment and the Leader in the Light Supplement. Once all sections of the GRESB Real Estate Assessment are completed, including the Leader in the Light Supplement, participants are able to submit their entire submission which will automatically be included in the Leader in the Light Award competition.
GRESB Infrastructure Assessments
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessments are an ESG engagement and benchmarking tool for institutional investors, fund managers, infrastructure companies and asset operators working in the infrastructure space.
There are two complimentary GRESB Infrastructure Assessments: a Fund Assessment and an Asset Assessment. Both address critical aspects of ESG performance through a globally applicable and standardized reporting and benchmarking framework. The Fund Assessment is intended for infrastructure funds and portfolios of assets, while the Asset Assessment is meant to be completed by the individual underlying assets (portfolio companies). Both Assessments cover the full breadth of infrastructure sectors, including:
GRESB (Real Estate and Infrastructure) Public Disclosure
GRESB Public Disclosure
GRESB Public Disclosure data is initially collected by the GRESB team for selected companies, including both 2019 GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Asset Assessment participants and non‑participants. All data collected must come from publicly available sources, private documents are not accepted.
All constituents have the opportunity to review and update the data collected prior to it becoming accessible to GRESB Listed Investor Members. GRESB Public Disclosure consists of four Aspects: Governance of ESG, Implementation, Operational Performance and Stakeholder Engagement. Together, these Aspects contribute towards a Public Disclosure Level, expressed through an A to E sliding scale.
In 2020, the Infrastructure Assessments were split into separate Management and Performance Components. This structure allows entities to complete either or both components. Entities starting off on their sustainability journey are thus able to first develop their data collection processes before reporting performance data.
For 2021, the Infrastructure Assessments have been kept stable with relatively few changes. The Resilience Module, which was optional in previous years, has been integrated into the Assessments and is now mandatory, thus facilitating TCFD reporting for all participants. A Development Component will be added to the 2021 Asset Assessment, to enable better reporting and benchmarking for assets (projects) in development (in design or construction). This component will be released in February 2021. We will continue to shift the emphasis and scoring from management and transparency to performance. We are also looking to provide new data and analytical tools in the portal including addressing coming EU regulations and SDG reporting.
For more information about the 2021 Assessments development process, click here.
For more information about the 2020 Assessments development process, click here.
The Assessment participation fee applies to all GRESB Assessments. Other products and services (e.g. Response Checks, Review Period Customized Benchmark Reports,, etc.) are not bundled with the Assessment participation fee. This allows participants to select only those products and services they require.
Other products and services (e.g. Response Checks, Review Period, Customized Benchmark Reports, etc.) are not bundled with the Assessment participation fee. This allows participants to select only those products and services they require.
Additional information about the 2021 participation fees is available here.
The Assessment Portal opens on April 1, 2021. The submission deadline is July 1, 2021 (23:59:59 PST), providing participants with a three‑month window to complete the Assessment. This is a fixed deadline, and GRESB will not accept submissions received after this date. GRESB validates and analyzes all participants’ Assessment submissions.
The GRESB validation process starts on June 15, 2021 and continues until July 31, 2021. Participants may be contacted during this time to clarify any issues with their response.
In 2020 GRESB introduced a new Review Period in the Assessment Cycle to further strengthen the reliability of the Assessments and benchmark results. The Review Period will start on September 1, when preliminary individual GRESB results will be made available to all participants and run for the month. During the Review Period, participants will be able to submit a review request to GRESB using a dedicated form.
The final results will be launched to both participants and Investor Members on October 1. Public Results events and other results outputs will be scheduled for October and November in order to accommodate the September Review Period.
For more information on the Review Period see Appendix 5
For more information about the 2021 Assessment timeline, click here
A Response Check is a high‑level check of a participant’s GRESB submission. The Response Check is carried out by GRESB’s third party Validation provider, SRI and features a careful review of Assessment responses followed by a 1-hour discussion call. It can be particularly useful for first time participants.
The Response Check does not exclude the participant from any element of the validation process, nor does it guarantee a better GRESB score. It is intended to ensure that no important details have been overlooked in the submission and provides the opportunity to ask for additional guidance and clarification on the GRESB Assessment indicators. The Response Check helps reduce errors that may adversely impact Assessment results and identifies inconsistent responses and incorrect answer formats.
The Response Check is available for request from April 1 to June 1, 2021 (11:59:59 p.m., PSTPacific time) subject to available resources availability. We strongly encourages participants to place their request as early as possible. The Response Check can be requested before the Assessment has been completed, but the scope of the review will be limited the information filled in at the time of the request.
The Assessment Portal includes indicator-specific guidance, available under the “Guidance” buttons that explains:
In addition to the guidance in the Portal, each Assessment is accompanied by a Reference Guide (this guide). The Reference Guide provides introductory information on the Assessments and a report-format version of the indicator-by-indicator guidance that is available under the Guidance tab in the Portal.
Moreover, there are several tools and functionalities in the Portal to support submissions. For example, the Portal has real‑time error detection systems and warnings. More detail can be found in Participant Tools.
GRESB works with a select group of Partners who can help participants with their GRESB Infrastructure Assessment submission. To learn more about the services offered by GRESB Partners, take a look at our Partner Directory.
Participants are able to contact the GRESB Helpdesk at any time for support and guidance.
The GRESB Assessment Training is designed to help GRESB participants, potential participants and other GRESB stakeholders (managers, consultants, data partners) that undertake and improve their ESG reporting through the GRESB Assessments. GRESB provides a free online training platform
for all participants. The training courses are modular and self-paced, walking participants through the various aspects of the Assessments,and providing detailed examples and tips for a successful submission.Data is submitted to GRESB through a secure online platform and can only be seen by GRESB Staff and authorized personnel from GRESB’s third party validation provider, SRI. GRESB benchmark scores are not made public. For listed entities, the entity name is disclosed on the GRESB website. For non-listed entities, the fund manager’s name is disclosed.
Access to Assessment results
Data collected through the GRESB Infrastructure Assessments is only disclosed to the participants themselves and any GRESB Investor and Fund Manager Members that have been granted access by the participant. GRESB Investor Members and/or Fund Manager Members must request access to participant data in the GRESB Portal.
Participants must individually approve data access requests from GRESB Investor and Fund Manager Members. A request is received via email and, upon approval by the participant, the requesting GRESB Member may view the participant’s Benchmark Report. Participants may reject data access requests. Rejecting a request blocks the requesting member’s access to the participant’s results.
Participants should always check the identity of the organization requesting access to GRESB Infrastructure Assessment results.
No other third parties will see the data.
Access to uploaded evidence
Documentation provided as evidence can be made available to GRESB Investor and Fund Manager Members on a document by document basis. Each uploaded document has a checkbox (with the default set to ‘not available’) which, when selected by the participant, makes this evidence available to all investors with access to that entity. It is not possible for participants to choose a subset of investors to share the documents with.
Access to peer group results
GRESB provides an opt-in option that will disclose the entity’s name (public) or fund manager’s name (private) as well as the scores for the different Components to participants in the peer group that also opted to disclose their name and Component scores. As a default, GRESB does not disclose a participant’s data to other participants. For listed entities, the entity name is disclosed in the Benchmark Report, as well as the entity names of listed peer group constituents. For non-listed entities, only the fund manager’s name is disclosed, as well as the fund manager’s name of private peer group constituents.
As a default, GRESB does not disclose a participant’s data to other participants. For listed entities, the entity name is disclosed in the Benchmark Report, as well as the entity names of listed peer group constituents. For non-listed entities, only the fund manager’s name is disclosed, as well as the fund manager’s name of private peer group constituents.
GDPR compliance
GRESB is fully compliant with GDPR. The GRESB Privacy Statement can be found here. GRESB also has specific internal policies related to GDPR, such as a Data Breach Policy and Data Protection Policy, that cannot be shared externally for security reasons. Note that asset level data does not fall under the incidence of GDPR because it does not contain any personal information.
If participants are unable to report certain metrics such as 'Racial Diversity' and 'Background' due to GDPR restrictions then they may leave a comment in the open text box provided.
Cybersecurity
GRESB’s data security measures and systems have been reviewed by an external expert and no issues were flagged. The GRESB website and the GRESB Portal are fully HTTPS/TLS encrypted. GRESB has strict and extensive policies on data security that cannot be shared externally for security reasons. GRESB’s public policies can be accessed here.
Grace Period
First year participants can submit the Assessment without providing GRESB Investor Members with the ability to request access to their results. This is referred to as a “Grace Period”.
First year participants wishing to report under the Grace Period can select the option on an entity-by-entity basis from the settings section in the Assessment Portal. Participants who select the “Grace Period” option can decide to unselect the option following receipt of their results. The Grace Period is not available in the second year of participation, regardless of whether it was used in the first year or not.
The “Grace Period” allows participants a year to familiarize themselves with the GRESB reporting and assessment process. The names of participating entities are still visible during the Grace Period, but GRESB Investor Members will not be able to request to see their results.
All Assessment responses must be submitted in English.
Documents uploaded as supporting evidence do not need to be entirely translated. However, for evidence provided in languages other than English, a thorough summary confirming that the requirements have been met is required for validation purposes. Participants may make use of the open text box to provide the document(s) summary. In addition, each selected issue must be identified in the uploaded evidence by providing page number and exact location such as paragraph, clause, sentence, bullet number, etc.
GRESB provides a Japanese translation of the 2020 GRESB Assessments. For other languages, the GRESB assessment portal can be translated by using “Google translate” via the Google Chrome web browser. This applies to the assessment portal, guidance notes and online version of the Reference Guide.
How to use Google Translate
Turn translation on
You can control whether Chrome will offer to translate web pages.
This works for the entire GRESB portal.
Refer to Google Chrome Help for more details.
Disclaimer: Note that not all text may be translated accurately or be translated at all. GRESB is not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translations. GRESB will not be held responsible for any damage or issues that may result from using Google Translate.
This section provides specific guidance for the 2021 GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment (referred to as ‘the Fund Assessment’).
This Guide should provide all the basic information needed to complete the 2021 Fund Assessment. Contact the GRESB helpdesk for any additional support and guidance.
Infrastructure funds, portfolios and companies can participate in the Fund Assessment. Common examples of infrastructure funds include:
Fund managers complete the Fund Assessment to describe their investment management and engagement processes and performance. Additionally, we encourage funds to participate with their underlying assets participating in the Asset Assessment.
The Fund Assessment consists of Entity and Reporting Characteristics, and Management and Performance Components.
All funds must complete the Management Component – Infrastructure Fund. The Management Component focuses on management and processes and is pitched at the organizational/fund level. The Management Component is suitable for any type of fund. Funds completing the Management Component will obtain a Management Score – Infrastructure Fund.
The 2021 Management Component - Infrastructure Fund consists of 22 indicators across 5 Aspects:
Performance component Funds do not complete a Performance Component themselves. Instead, the underlying assets of the fund complete it. If more than 25% of the fund’s underlying assets complete the Infrastructure Asset Assessment, the scores of these assets are averaged and the fund will obtain a Performance Score - Infrastructure Fund.
GRESB Score Importantly, the premier measurement of ESG performance for investors is the full GRESB Score - Infrastructure Fund (i.e. Management plus Performance Components).
The following tools help participants with the submission process:
Every indicator has a short title (e.g. “ESG Specific Objectives”) and a code (e.g. LE3). These are followed by an initial indicator question that can be answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
When selecting ‘Yes’, participants are required to provide further information by selecting one or more answer options and/or completing an open text box or table. Participants should select all answer options that accurately describe the entity. Indicators that require evidence are clearly marked in the GRESB Portal and Reference Guide.
When selecting 'No’, participants may not select any additional sub‑options; the indicator will receive no points.
Each indicator displays the corresponding 2020 indicator, or ‘NEW’ if the indicator has been added in 2021. This is also reflected in the guidance notes for every indicator.
Allocation to E, S, G
Each indicator is allocated to one of the three sustainability dimensions (E‑ environmental; S‑ social; G‑ governance):
In the results outputs, scores will be allocated to each ESG dimension.
The Fund Assessment is a layered tool constructed around five core components – Radio buttons, Checkboxes, ’Other’ answers, Open Text Boxes and Evidence. These components are explained below and are often combined within one indicator.
Selected indicators in the Assessment require supporting evidence. Evidence is information that can be used to validate the overall answer to the indicator and support the additionally selected criteria.
GRESB does not have a standard for evidence. Instead, a validator with reasonable domain expertise should be able to review the evidence and find support for the overall indicator response and selected answer options. More information on evidence is provided with each indicator.
Evidence should clearly reference the answer options selected by the participant. The evidence should not require extensive interpretation or inference and participants are strongly encouraged to provide the simplest evidence that supports their claim. Evidence can be provided through a document upload or a hyperlink.
Document Upload
Participants may submit any document that supports selected checkboxes, tables and/or content of an open text box. Uploads are used by the validation team to substantiate claims.
Good Practice Links: In 2021, indicator guidance now includes good practice examples. These are shared via links under the Evidence section in the Reference Guide and are drawn from publicly available evidence provided for the indicators. The intention is to provide participants with more guidance and examples of good practices to assist their improvement efforts, however, does not guarantee similar evidence will be accepted in validation. Participants should make their own decisions about the suitability of the examples to their own circumstances.
Answers must refer to the reporting year identified in EC4 in the Fund Assessment, unless the indicator specifies an alternate reporting year.
A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting year; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting year. For example, if a policy was put in place one month prior to the end of the reporting year, this is acceptable, it need not have been in place for the entire reporting year. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or vice versa, as long as the chosen reporting year is used consistently throughout the Assessment.
Your response should relate specifically to the reporting entity for which you are submitting an Fund Assessment response. However, where certain indicators refer to different reporting levels (e.g. Group, Investment manager or Business unit), this should be addressed within the supporting evidence.
In the GRESB Terms and Conditions, the terms ‘Participating Portfolio’ and ‘Participating Asset’ refer to a ‘(Reporting) Entity’ as used in the in the GRESB Assessments, Guidance materials (e.g., Reference Guides and Scoring documents), GRESB Products (e.g., Benchmark Reports and PAT), the GRESB Portal, and in GRESB Training materials.
As part of the validation process, GRESB may seek confirmation that a question has been answered at the correct reporting level.
Data validation is an important part of GRESB’s annual benchmarking process. The purpose of data validation is to encourage best practices in data collection and reporting. It provides the basis for GRESB’s continued efforts to provide investment grade data to its investor members.
GRESB validation is a check on the existence, accuracy, and logic of data submitted through the GRESB Assessments. The validation process is structured into two categories: automatic validation and manual validation.
Automatic validation is integrated into the portal as participants fill out their Assessments, and consists of errors and warnings displayed in the portal to ensure that Assessment submissions are complete and accurate.
Manual validation takes place after submission, and consists of document and text review to check that the answers provided in Assessment are supported by sufficient evidence. The validation rules and process are set and overseen by GRESB but the validation is performed by a third party, SRI.
For more information about the 2021 Validation Process, see Appendix 4
Participants with questions on individual validation decisions can contact the GRESB Helpdesk.
2020, GRESB introduced a new Review Period (see Appendix 5 5 for more information) in the Assessment Cycle to further strengthen the reliability of our Assessments and benchmark results. The Review Period will start on September 1, when preliminary individual GRESB results will be made available to all participants and run for the month. During the Review Period, participants will be able to submit a review request to GRESB using a dedicated form. The final results will be launched to both participants and Investor Members on October 1. Public Results events and other results outputs will be rescheduled to October and November in order to accommodate the September Review Period.
Participants who want to communicate specific points on the results presented in the Benchmark Report can use the “Respondent score comments” field – this will be seen by investors.
For a complete interpretation of the validation decisions in the Assessment, participants can request a Results Review. For more information about the Results Review, click here.
Following data validation, scoring is completed by an automatic system.
The sum of the scores for all indicators adds up to a maximum of 100 points, therefore the overall GRESB Score - Infrastructure Fund is an absolute measure of ESG management and performance expressed as a percentage.
GRESB Score = Management Score + Performance Score
All participants that submit the Fund Assessment receive this score. The Component comprises 17 indicators and is scored out of 30.
In order to receive a Performance Score - Infrastructure Fund, then at least 25% weight of underlying assets (based on equity invested), need to participate in the GRESB Asset Assessment. Once this threshold is met (and the assets have confirmed links and submitted assessments), then the entity receives a Performance Score - Infrastructure Fund. This score is a weighted average of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset of all assets listed in the Summary of Entity Assets indicator (RC6), and is scored out of 70. If less than 25% of assets participate in the GRESB Asset Assessment, the fund will only receive a Management Score - Infrastructure Fund. Non-reporting assets, or assets without a 'Confirmed’ connection status, will receive a GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset of zero for the purposes of calculating the Performance Score - Infrastructure Fund. The weights reported in the table should be equity based; so that the weight of an asset reported in the table, represents the equity invested in the asset divided by the total equity invested in all assets in the fund. Funds are entitled to exclude specific assets from contributing to the Performance Score - Infrastructure Fund if there is a valid reason (e.g. greenfield asset, operational - less than six months, recently purchased - purchased and owned for less than six months, or recently sold - sold prior to July 1st, 2021.
The GRESB Rating is an overall relative measure of ESG management and performance of the asset. The calculation of the GRESB Rating is based on the GRESB Score and its quintile position relative to the GRESB universe, with annual calibration of the model. If the participant is placed in the top quintile, it will have a GRESB 5‑star rating; if it ranks in the bottom quintile, it will have a GRESB 1‑star rating, etc.
The Management component is made up of 5 Aspects and 22 indicators with the exclusion of Entity & Reporting Characteristics. The below weights apply for 2021
There are five scoring models used within indicators:
The overall outcome of these models is to generate a fractional score (i.e. between zero and one) which is then multiplied by the indicator weighting (maximum score) to generate the score for the indicator.
Every scored indicator begins with this section which can receive a fractional score (i.e. between zero and one), determined by selections made in checkboxes and radio buttons, and answers provided in open text boxes. Based upon these inputs, fractional scores are calculated using either an aggregated points or a diminishing increase in scoring methodology.
Aggregated scoring: For indicators where one or more answers can be selected, fractional scores are awarded cumulatively for each individual selected answer and then aggregated to calculate a final fractional score for the section. In some cases, each checkbox answer may be equally weighted and in others, each checkbox answer may be assigned a higher or lower fractional score each, to reflect best practice responses. For many indicators, the final fractional 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: The idea behind this concept is that the fractional score achieved for each additional data point provided decreases as the number of provided data points increases. This means that the fractional score achieved for the first data point will be higher than the fractional score achieved for the second, which again will be higher than for the third, and so on.
If an indicator is a One Section indicator, the score calculated in this section will also be its final score.
Some indicators include an evidence section to verify information provided in section 1 (Elements). In these cases, the fractional score for the evidence section acts as a multiplier to the Section 1 fractional score. Mandatory evidence receives a multiplier of zero (0) for no evidence or not-accepted evidence, 0.5 for providing partially accepted evidence and 1 for providing fully accepted evidence. To clarify, the indicator will receive no points unless the hyperlink and/or uploaded document is considered valid (i.e. partially and/or fully accepted).
The final indicator score is then calculated as:
For benchmarking purposes, each participant is assigned to a peer group, based on the entity’s sector focus and geographic focus, as reported in RC3. To ensure participant anonymity, GRESB will only create a peer group if there is a minimum of six participants allocated to the peer group (the participant and five other peers).
Peer group assignments do not affect an entity's score, but determine how GRESB puts participant’s results into context.
The goal of the peer group creation process is to compare participants who share as many characteristics as possible, while:
Each participant can be part of multiple peer groups, but can only have one active peer group. The active peer group is the one which is used for benchmarking and is displayed in the participant’s Benchmark Report. This means that participant A can be in the active peer group of participant B, without participant B being in the active peer group of participant A.
The peer group composition is determined by a simple set of rules and provides consistent treatment for all participants. If the peer group is too small, we eliminate filters until we have a valid peer group. There are two ways in which the filter can be widened:
The system attempts to find the optimum peer group, based on the criteria presented above. This process repeats in a loop following the logic described in Appendix 7 - Peer Group Allocation Logic
GRESB provides an opt‐in option to discloses the entity’s name in Benchmark Reports. However, this is only disclosed to participants who also opted to disclose their name and dimension scores.
Participants who would like to be compared against a different peer group than the one assigned by GRESB can request a Customized Benchmark Report (click here for details). The GRESB Customized Benchmark Report provides advanced analytics through alternative indicator‐level performance comparisons and rankings based on a self‐selected peer group. It builds on the detailed insights you can draw from the standard Benchmark Report and adds additional flexibility to understand your relative performance in the market.
The GRESB Sector Leader program recognizes the best performers annually from across the GRESB Assessments. Achieving sector leader status is clear recognition of best practice ESG performance by Infrastructure companies and funds. A minimum number of entities is necessary to award a Sector Leader. This minimum number is reviewed each year.
Information provided in the Entity and Reporting Characteristics consists of two parts:
Entity characteristics: Identifies the reporting entity's characteristics that remain constant across different reporting periods (year-on-year).
Reporting characteristics: Describe the entity, define the reporting scope for the current reporting year and determines the structure of the Assessment submission.
EC1
Reporting entity
Entity Name: ____________
Fund Manager Organization Name (May be same as entity name): ____________
EC1
Identify the reporting (participating) entity. The entity name will be used to identify the entity on the GRESB portal and will be displayed in the entity’s Benchmark Report.
Complete all applicable fields.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Entity name: Name of the fund or portfolio for which the Assessment is submitted. In the case of listed funds, the entity name is the legal name of the fund, also used for identification on international stock exchanges. In the case of non-listed entities, the entity name identifies the investable fund or portfolio for which the Assessment is submitted.
Fund Manager Organization name (May be same as entity name): Legal name of the organization responsible for the overall management, governance and oversight of the entity.
EC2
Nature of ownership
Public entity (listed on a Stock Exchange)
Specify ISIN: ____________
Private (non-listed) entity
Entity style classification
Debt
Core
Value added
Opportunistic
Open or closed end:
Open end
Closed end
Type of investment vehicle
Direct investment
Joint venture (JV)
Separate account
Special Purpose Vehicle
Other
-
________________________
Government entity
EC2
Describe the ownership status and characteristics of the participating entity.
Select the nature of the participating entity. Select at least one of the applicable sub-options and provide details if applicable. Entities reporting to GRESB are expected to represent investable vehicles, and these entities are expected to represent all infrastructure assets held by the vehicle (i.e., the whole portfolio).
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Note: GRESB Infrastructure Investor Members that invest in listed infrastructure securities have access to the results of all listed entities that participate in the GRESB Infrastructure Assessments. Publicly traded closed-end funds should be considered as non-listed entities given their level of disclosure requirements.
Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid.
Closed end fund: Fund with a fixed amount of capital and a finite life. Limited liquidity, with the redemption of units provided for at the end of the life of the fund.
Core, Value Add, Opportunistic: These are classifications of investment risk and return sometimes used by infrastructure investors. GRESB does not seek to define these but merely requires participants to select if they apply one of these classifications.
Debt: A fund or similar entity that has been set up for the purposes of issuing or investing in loans.
Direct investment:The purchase of a controlling interest or a minority interest of such size and influence that active control is a feasible objective.
Government entity: An infrastructure portfolio owned and managed by a government agency. Government portfolios are formed of publicly owned, and/or publicly managed assets.
ISIN: International Securities Identification Number. ISINs are assigned to securities to facilitate unambiguous clearing and settlement procedures. They are composed of a 12-digit alphanumeric code and act to unify different ticker symbols, which can vary by exchange and currency for the same security. In the United States, ISINs are extended versions of 9-character CUSIP codes.
Joint Venture: A vehicle where at least two parties share a common investment objective. Control over significant risk management decisions is not transferred to an external manager, but is exercised by members in the venture.
Private entity: A company or fund that is not a listed or traded on any stock exchange. Also known as non-listed entities or private portfolios.
Public entity: A company that is publicly listed and traded on a recognized stock exchange, such as Nasdaq or NYSE. Also known as "listed entities”.
Open end fund: An investment vehicle with a variable and unlimited amount of capital. Investors may purchase or redeem units or shares from the vehicle as outlined in contractual agreements.
Separate account: A portfolio of assets managed by a professional investment firm with a single investor client.
Special Purpose Vehicle: A subsidiary created by a parent company to isolate financial risk.
INREV Guidelines, Definitions, 2017
EC3
Entity commencement date
Year of commencement (listed) or Year of establishment (non-listed)
________________________
EC3
Describe the activity commencement or establishment date of the entity.
Provide the year of commencement/establishment.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Year of commencement: The year in which the reporting entity began investing in the market. If a listed entity is delisted (i.e., taken private) but remains under the same management, the date of original commencement can be used for “date of first closing” for the new non-listed entity. If the entity is taken private by a new management company, the first day of closing should be the date of privatization. This information is not used for scoring and used for context only; portfolio vintage may affect the ability to implement ESG policies and strategies.
Year of establishment: A date specified by the manager on which the vehicle is launched, the initial capital subscription is completed, and the commitment period commences.
EC4
Reporting year
Calendar year
Fiscal year
Specify the starting month Month
EC4
Set the entity’s annual reporting year.
Complete all applicable fields.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
The table below details the period for which information throughout the Assessment would be expected, for a selected starting month:
| Starting month | Reporting Year |
|---|---|
| January | Select "Calendar Year" |
| February | Feb 2020 - Jan 2021 |
| March | Mar 2020 - Feb 2021 |
| April | Apr 2020 - Mar 2021 |
| May | May 2020 - Apr 2021 |
| June | Jun 2020 - May 2021 |
| July | Jul 2019 - Jun 2020 |
| August | Aug 2019 - Jul 2020 |
| September | Sept 2019 - Aug 2020 |
| October | Oct 2019 - Sept 2020 |
| November | Nov 2019 - Oct 2020 |
| December | Dec 2019 - Nov 2020 |
Calendar year: January 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020.
Fiscal year: The period used to calculate annual financial statements. Depending on the jurisdiction the fiscal year can start on April 1, July 1, October 1, etc.
Reporting period: Answers must refer to the reporting period identified in EC3 in the Infrastructure Assessment. A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting period; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting period. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or viceversa, as long as the chosen reporting period is used consistently throughout the Assessment.
RC1
Reporting currency
Values are reported in Currency
RC1
Set the currency for which the entity is denominated.
State the currency used by the entity for Assessment indicators that require a monetary value as a response.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
RC2
Economic size
Aggregate Gross Asset Value (GAV) (in millions): ____________
Aggregated Net Asset Value (NAV) (or invested capital) (in millions):
________________________
RC2
Establish the economic size of the entity.
Complete the measure(s) of the economic size of the entity in terms of aggregate Gross Asset Value (GAV) and aggregate Net Asset Value (NAV), both in millions (e.g. $75,000,000 must be reported as 75). Both values should be provided as at the end of the reporting year.
As with all information provided to GRESB, this information will be kept confidential to just you and any investors for which you give access permission.
Do not include a currency (symbol) with the value provided, as this has been reported in indicator RC1 above, but make sure the value reported is consistent with the currency selected in RC1.
Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the primary measure of economic size and the applicable value.
Aggregate Gross Asset Value (GAV): The total value of assets owned by the entity.
Aggregate Net Asset Value (NAV) or Invested Capital: The total equity invested in assets by the entity. Aggregate NAV = Aggregate GAV - Aggregate Debt.
INREV Guidelines, Definitions, 2017
RC3
Sector & geography
What is the sector focus of the entity?
Diversified
Data Infrastructure
Energy and Water Resources
Environmental Services
Network Utilities
Power Generation X-Renewables
Renewable Power
Social Infrastructure
Transport
Other: ____________
What is the regional focus of the entity?
Globally diversified
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
RC3
Establish the sector and geographic focus of the entity. This is used to determine peers for benchmarking and reporting purposes.
Select the sector and geographic focus of the entity. If this is sector specific, then select the relevant sector.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the sector focus.
Data Infrastructure: Companies involved in the provision of telecommunication and data infrastructure.
Diversified focus: If the entity is invested in more than one of the listed sectors.
Energy and Water Resources: Companies involved in the treatment and delivery of natural resources.
Environmental Services: Companies involved in the treatment of water, wastewater, and solid waste for sanitation and reuse purposes.
Globally diversified: If the entity is significantly invested in more than one of the listed geographic regions.
Network Utilities: Companies operating an infrastructure network with natural monopoly characteristics (barriers to entry, increasing returns to scale).
Power Generation x-Renewables: Stand-alone power generation using a range of technologies except wind, solar, and other renewable sources.
Renewable Power: Stand-alone power generation and transmission companies using wind, solar, hydro and other renewable energy sources. Also energy storage companies.
Sector: A group of specific industrial activities and types of physical assets and technologies.
Social Infrastructure: Companies involved in the delivery of support and accommodation services for public or other services.
Transport: Companies involved in the provision of transportation infrastructure services.
EDHECInfra, The Infrastructure Company Classification Standards (TICCS™), 2020
United Nations Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49)
RC4
Nature of entity's business
What is the entity's core business?
Management of standing investment/operating assets
Development of new construction and major renovation projects
RC4
The entity’s primary business activities during the reporting year is useful for distinguishing infrastructure funds. The information can be used to develop further insights and potentially for peer grouping.
Select the option applicable to the reporting entity.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Major Renovations: Alterations that affect more than 50 percent of the total asset or cause relocation of more than 50 percent of regular building occupants. Major renovation projects refer to assets that were under construction at any time during the reporting year.
New Construction: Includes all activities to obtain or change building or land use permissions and financing. Includes construction work for the project with the intention of enhancing the asset's value. Development of new facilities and additions to existing facilities can be treated as new constructions. New construction projects refer to facilities that were under construction at any time during the reporting year.
Standing Investments: Assets where construction work has been completed and which are owned for the purpose of providing a service in exchange of an income. Also known as an operating asset.
RC5
Description of the fund
Provide a description of the entity (max 250 words): ____________
RC5
Provide a description of the entity.
The description may include:
It is not necessary to re-state information that has already been provided in prior indicators, such as the entity's sector focus, geographic focus or nature of business.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
RC6
Portfolio of entity assets
Did the entity own any asset investments?
Yes
![[AssetTable]](/images/tables/asset_table/y2019-0fad35a0.svg)
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RC6
The Portfolio Assets Table shows the entity’s portfolio of underlying investments in infrastructure assets. The table includes details on each asset; including Primary Sector and weight within the portfolio. It also allows for participating assets to be 'linked' to the entity so that the score of the underlying assets now referred to as the ‘Performance Component Score - Infrastructure Fund’ can be calculated. This score combined with the score of the fund in its Management Component generates the fund’s overall score, now referred to as ‘GRESB Score - Infrastructure Fund.’
Pre-fill: The Table will be prefilled with assets that were connected in 2020. It is very important to review the table carefully, with particular attention to the weightings assigned. Participants have the option to delete, edit or add assets to the table, if necessary.
The Table can be accessed in two locations, either within the Assessment Portal (via the 'Assets' tab) or within the Assessment Response (in the 'Summary of Entity Assets' section).
It is mandatory for participants to list and complete details for ALL infrastructure assets (operational and greenfield) held by the Fund, as at the end of the reporting year (identified in EC4), irrespective of whether they are participating in the 2021 GRESB Asset Assessment or not.
The Table includes the following columns:
Asset sector: Select the primary sector of the asset from the dropdown box. The sector classification has been aligned with the new EDHECInfra TICCS standard Industrial Classifications and is provided in the Terminology. If the sector of the asset sits outside the listed options, then select 'Other' and specify the sector. This information will not be used for benchmarking purposes.
Asset weight: Enter the weight of the asset within the portfolio. Weights must sum up to 100%. Weights should be equity based i.e. the weight of an asset is the equity invested in the asset divided by the total equity invested in all assets in the fund (i.e. the invested capital).
Reason for excluding from scoring (optional): Participants have the option to exclude specific assets from contributing to the Performance Component Score - Infrastructure Fund if there is a valid reason. Valid exclusion reasons are i.) greenfield assets, ii.) assets that have been operational for less than six months and, iii.) assets that have been purchased and owned for less than six months, iv.) asset was divested (a binding sales agreement made) by the fund prior to the assessment submission date (1st July 2021). Validly excluded assets will not be included in the calculation of the Performance Component Score - Infrastructure Fund and subsequently, the overall GRESB Score - Infrastructure Fund. Such assets are still encouraged to participate in the GRESB Asset Assessment.
Contact name: Provide the name of the contact person for the asset entity.
Email: Provide the email address for the contact person for the asset entity.
The 'Connect' button should be selected if the reporting entity wants to create a connection to an existing GRESB Asset Assessment or invite someone to respond for the Asset. Once selected, there are four options (with supporting guidance) to follow in order to Connect. Only select 'Connect' if the asset intends to participate in the 2021 GRESB Asset Assessment, otherwise leave the status at 'Not Connected'.
What happens once a connection request has been sent:
No points are awarded for completing the table.
In order to receive a GRESB Fund Score in the Fund Assessment, then at least 25% weight of underlying assets (based on AUM), need to participate in the 2021 GRESB Asset Assessment. Once this threshold is met (and the assets have confirmed links and submitted assessments), then the entity receives a Weighted Average Asset (WAA) Score. The WAA Score is a weighted average of the asset scores of all assets listed by the fund in the Summary of Entity Assets table in indicator A1 (the ‘table’). Non-reporting assets, or assets without a ‘Confirmed’ connection status, will receive an asset score of 0 for the purposes of calculating the WAA Score. The weights reported in the table should be equity based; so that the weight of an asset reported in the table, represents the equity invested in the asset divided by the total equity invested in all assets in the fund. The overall GRESB Fund Score is then calculated based on a 30% weighting from the Fund Score and 70% weighting from the WAA Score.
Energy and Water Resources: Companies involved in the treatment and delivery of natural resources.
Environmental Services: Companies involved in the treatment of water, wastewater, and solid waste for sanitation and reuse purposes.
Data Infrastructure: Companies involved in the provision of telecommunication and data infrastructure.
Greenfield asset: Greenfield investment refers to an investment in a new asset that has some level of development or construction requirement and risk.
Network Utilities: Companies operating an infrastructure network with natural monopoly characteristics (barriers to entry, increasing returns to scale).
Power Generation x-Renewables: Stand-alone power generation using a range of technologies except wind, solar, and other renewable sources.
Renewable Power: Stand-alone power generation and transmission companies using wind, solar, hydro and other renewable energy sources. Also energy storage companies.
Sector: A group of specific industrial activities and types of physical assets and technologies.
Social Infrastructure: Companies involved in the delivery of support and accommodation services for public or other services.
Transport: Companies involved in the provision of transportation infrastructure services.
EDHECInfra, The Infrastructure Company Classification Standards (TICCS™️), 2020
LeadershipThis aspect evaluates how the Entity integrates ESG into its overall business strategy, its ESG commitments and objectives, and how responsibilities for making decisions relating to ESG have been assigned within the entity.
LE1
ESG leadership commitments
Has the entity made a public commitment to ESG standards or principles?
Yes
General ESG commitments (multiple answers possible)
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
Equator Principles
PRI
UN Global Compact
Other: ____________
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative
Support the goals
Other: ____________
Formal environmental issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
Business for nature
Climate Action in Financial Institutions Initiative
Climate Action 100+
Climate League 2030
EV100
Finance for Biodiversity
Global Launch of Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF)
IFC Operating Principles for Impact Management
IIGCC Paris Aligned Investment Initiative
Montreal Pledge
Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials
Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA)
RE 100
Science Based Targets Initiative
Transform to Net Zero
UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge
UN Global Compact Our Only Future
UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance
WorldGBC’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment
Other: ____________
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment (CCRI)
Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change (including AIGCC, Ceres, IGCC, IIGCC)
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
Other: ____________
Formal social issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
List commitment(s): ____________
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
World Business Council for Sustainable Development's Call to Action
30% Club
Other: ____________
Formal governance issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
List commitment(s): ____________
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
List commitment(s): ____________
Provide applicable evidence
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)
________________________
LE1
1.1 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity's commitment to ESG leadership standards or principles. By making a commitment to ESG leadership standards or principles, an entity publicly demonstrates its commitment to ESG, uses organizational standards and/or frameworks that are universally accepted and may have obligations to comply with the standards and/or frameworks.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.
Commitments: All commitments should be publicly available, and the entity should be either a member or signatory if it selects an option. The commitments are divided between those that require action to be taken by the entity and those that don’t.
It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
List commitment: Open text box, enter name of relevant commitment(s).
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Changes 2021: New commitments have been added to the checklist options. For more information on these commitments, see the ‘Terminology’ section within the guidance for this indicator.
The Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change (GIC): Participants may select this checkbox only if they are a member of any part of the four regional groups (i.e. AIGCC, Ceres, IGCC and IIGCC).
Hyperlink: Providing a hyperlink is mandatory for this indicator when ‘publicly available’ is selected. Ensure that the hyperlink is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. The URL should demonstrate the existence of the publicly available objective(s) selected.
Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include:
Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If you have multiple ‘other’ answers accepted, only one will be counted towards the score.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.
Section 1: Fractional points are awarded to each commitment and then aggregated to calculate the final fractional score. It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.
Section 2:‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:
| Validation status | Score |
|---|---|
| Accepted | 2/2 |
| Partially accepted | 1/2 |
| Not accepted/not provided | 0 |
The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.
Commitments obliging the entity to take action receive more points.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Business for Nature:
Climate Action in Financial Institutions Initiative:
Climate League 2030:
Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment (CCRI):
Equator Principles: The Equator Principles is a risk management framework, adopted by financial institutions, for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risks.
EV100:
Finance for Biodiversity:
Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change: A joint initiative of four regional groups that represent investors on climate change and the transition to a low carbon economy: AIGCC (Asia), Ceres (North America), IGCC (Australia/NA) and IIGC (Europe).
Operating Principles for Impact Management:
IIGCC Paris Aligned Investment Initiative:
Montreal Carbon Pledge:
RE100:
Science Based Targets Initiative:
Support the Goals:
Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials:
Powering PastCoal Alliance (PPCA):
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures:
Transform to Net Zero:
UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative:
UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge
UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance:
UN Global Compact:
UN Global Compact Our Only Future:
United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI):
World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Call to Action:
WorldGBC’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment:
30% Club:
UNPRI, PRI Reporting Framework, 2018
Equator Principles, 2013
UN Global Compact Principles, 2000
UNEP Finance Initiative Statement, 1992
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2015
International Labour Organization, International Labour Organization Standards, 2014
Climate Action in Financial Institutions Initiative, Principles for Mainstreaming Climate Action, 2015
LE2
Responsible investment strategy
Does the entity have a sustainable investment strategy?
Yes
The strategy incorporates the following approaches (multiple answers possible)
Corporate engagement and shareholder action
Impact/community investing
Integration of ESG factors
Positive/best-in-class screening
Negative/exclusionary screening
Norms-based screening
Sustainability themed investing
Describe the strategy and how it is being implemented (for reporting purposes only)(maximum 250 words)
________________________
The strategy is:
Publicly available
Provide applicable hyperlink or a separate publicly available evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Not publicly available
Provide applicable evidence
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)
________________________
LE2
1.5 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess and categorize the sustainable investment strategies adopted by the entity. The Global Sustainable Investment Review (GSIA) have standardized seven sustainable investment strategies which have emerged as a global standard of classification. Alignment with standardized responsible investment strategies provides more valuable benchmarking information for investors.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Open Text Box (for reporting purposes only): Explain the strategy and how it is implemented within the entity. The description may include the following criteria:
Hyperlink: Providing a hyperlink is mandatory for this indicator when ‘publicly available’ is selected. Ensure that the hyperlink is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. The URL should demonstrate the existence of the publicly available objective(s) selected.
Evidence requirements:
Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.
Section 1: Fractional points are awarded to each strategy type and then aggregated to calculate the final fractional score. It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator. The objectives are not assigned equal weights, with non-publicly available objectives scoring lower.
Section 2:‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:
| Validation status | Score |
|---|---|
| Accepted | 2/2 |
| Partially accepted | 1/2 |
| Not accepted/not provided | 0 |
The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Corporate engagement and shareholder action: The use of shareholder power to influence corporate behavior, including through direct corporate engagement (i.e., communicating with senior management and/or boards of companies), filing or co-filing shareholder proposals, and proxy voting that is guided by comprehensive ESG guidelines.
ESG integration: The systematic and explicit inclusion by investment managers of environmental, social and governance factors into financial analysis.
Formally adopted: To set and communicate a strategy/target/program, at least internally, and having implemented or prepared actions to achieve this.
Impact/community investing: Targeted investments, typically made in private markets, aimed at solving social or environmental problems, and including community investing, where capital is specifically directed to traditionally underserved individuals or communities, as well as financing that is provided to businesses with a clear social or environmental purpose.
Negative/exclusionary screening: The exclusion from a fund or portfolio of certain sectors, companies or practices based on specific ESG criteria.
Norms-based screening: Screening of investments against minimum standards of business practice based on international norms.
Positive/best-in-class screening: Investment in sectors, companies or projects selected for positive ESG performance relative to industry peers.
Sustainability themed investing: Investment in themes or assets specifically related to sustainability (for example clean energy, green technology or sustainable agriculture).
Impact/community investing: Targeted investments, typically made in private markets, aimed at solving social or environmental problems, and including community investing, where capital is specifically directed to traditionally underserved individuals or communities, as well as financing that is provided to businesses with a clear social or environmental purpose.
Sustainable investing: An investment approach that considers environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in portfolio selection and management.
Global Sustainable Investment Sustainability Alliance (GSIA), Global Sustainable Investment Review, 2018
LE3
Individual responsible for ESG and/or climate-related objectives
Does the entity have one or more persons responsible for implementing ESG and/or climate-related objectives?
Yes
ESG
Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)
Dedicated employee for whom sustainability is the core responsibility
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
Employee for whom sustainability is among their responsibilities
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
External consultant/manager
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
Climate-related risks and opportunities
Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)
Dedicated employee with core responsibility
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
Employee where this is among their responsibilities
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
External consultant/manager
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
LE3
1.1 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to identify how the entity has allocated responsibilities for the management of ESG issues and climate-related risk and opportunities. Having personnel dedicated to ESG issues and climate-related risks and opportunities increases the likelihood that the Entity’s objectives and performance on these topics will be properly managed.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Details of employee: Participants must provide the name and job title of the relevant employee. This information will be used for reporting purposes only. If a responsibility is shared within a team, provide the details of the most senior person within that team or the person who carries the most responsibility. The individual responsible for the implementation of ESG issues may be the same individual as listed in LE4.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
2021 changes: Climate-related risks and opportunities have been added to this indicator as part of the integration of the Resilience Module.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.
Points are awarded based on the selected elements, with some options receiving more points. Selecting all checkboxes is not required in order to score maximum points.
The "climate-related risks and opportunities" elements of this indicator are not scored and are for reporting purposes only.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Dedicated employee(s) for whom sustainability is the core responsibility: The employee(s)’ main responsibility is defining, implementing and monitoring the sustainability objectives at organization and/or entity level.
Employee(s) for whom sustainability is among their responsibilities: The implementation and monitoring of sustainability is part of the employee’s role, but is not necessarily their main responsibility.
Responsible for: A person or group of people who work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.
Global reporting Initiative, GRI 102-20: General Disclosures, 2016
Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, Governance A&B, 2017
LE4
ESG and/or climate-related senior decision maker
Does the entity have a senior decision-maker accountable for ESG issues and/or climate-related issues?
Yes
ESG
Provide the details for most senior decision-maker on ESG issues
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
The individual's most senior role is as part of:
Board of directors
C-suite level staff
Fund/portfolio managers
Investment committee
Other: ____________
Climate-related risks and opportunities
Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker:
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
The individual's most senior role is as part of:
Board of directors
C-suite level staff
Fund/portfolio managers
Investment committee
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
LE4
1.5 points , G
The presence of senior management dedicated to ESG issues and climate-related risks and opportunities increases the likelihood that objectives on these topics will be met. A structured process to keep the most senior decision-maker informed on the entity’s ESG performance increases accountability and encourages continuous improvement.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Senior decision-maker: The entity’s most senior decision-maker on ESG issues and/or climate-related risks and opportunities is expected to be actively involved in the process of defining the objectives relating to the topic(s) and should approve associated strategic decisions regarding ESG issues and/or climate-related risks and opportunities. This person can be the same as the individual identified in LE3. It is also possible to list the same person for ESG issues and climate-related risks and opportunities. The employee details provided will be used for reporting purposes only.
Role of the senior decision-maker: Select one option from the list of bodies that the senior decision-maker is part of. If multiple options apply, select the body that bears the highest level of responsibility. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Details of employee: Participants must provide the name and job title of the relevant employee. This information will be used for reporting purposes only. This information will remain confidential.
Reporting level: Answers should be applicable at the entity and/or manager level. In the case where the senior decision-maker that is accountable for ESG issues is part of a third-party organization, then provide the organization name.
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
2021 changes: Climate-related risks and opportunities have been added to this indicator as part of the integration of the Resilience Module.
The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.
Points are evenly divided between the selected elements. Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If you have multiple ‘other’ answers accepted, only one will be counted towards the score.
The "climate-related risks and opportunities" elements of this indicator are not scored and are for reporting purposes only.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of real estate investments at asset level.
Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.
C-suite level staff: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity/organization. Senior management are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.
Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of real estate investments, and the deployment of investor capital, by creating and implementing asset level strategies, across the entire portfolio.
Investment committee: A group of selected people who establish a formal process to manage the plan’s investment strategy.
Person accountable: A person with sign off (approval) authority over the deliverable task, project or strategy. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.
Senior decision-maker accountable for ESG: A senior individual with sign off (approval) authority for approving strategic ESG objectives and steps undertaken to achieve these objectives. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.
CDP, CDP Scoring Methodology, CC1.1, 2017
Global reporting Initiative, GRI 102-20: General Disclosures, 2016
LE5
Personnel ESG performance targets
Does the entity include ESG factors in the annual performance targets of personnel?
Yes
Does performance against these targets have predetermined consequences?
Yes
Financial consequences
Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible)
All other employees
Asset managers
Board of directors
C-suite level staff
Dedicated staff on ESG issues
ESG managers
External managers or service providers
Fund/portfolio managers
Investment analysts
Investment committee
Investor relations
Other: ____________
Non-financial consequences
Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible)
All other employees
Asset managers
Board of directors
C-suite level staff
Dedicated staff on ESG issues
ESG managers
External managers or service providers
Fund/portfolio managers
Investment analysts
Investment committee
Investor relations
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
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)
________________________
LE5
1.5 points , G
This indicator intends to identify whether and to what extent, ESG issues are addressed in personnel performance targets. Including ESG factors in annual performance targets for all personnel can increase the entity’s capacity to achieve improved ESG performance.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Financial and non-financial consequences: Select from the available sub-options. Financial consequences are any consequences that relate to monetary impacts, non-financial consequences relate to non-monetary effects. For good practice examples, see the ‘References’ section below.
It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.
Document upload: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.
Section 1:Fractional points are awarded based on the type of consequence and the selected employee group(s) and then aggregated to calculate the final fractional score. It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator. The employee groups are not assigned equal weights. If an ‘other’ answer has been provided, this will be eligible for a fractional score (depending on validation status).
Section 2:‘‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:
| Validation status | Score |
|---|---|
| Accepted | 2/2 |
| Partially accepted | 1/2 |
| Not accepted/not provided | 0 |
The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.
Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If you have multiple ‘other’ answers accepted, only one will be counted towards the score.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Annual performance targets: Targets set in annual performance reviews, which are assessments of employee performance.
Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of real estate investments at asset level.
Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.
C-suite level staff: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. Senior management are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.
Dedicated employee(s) for whom ESG is the core responsibility: Dedicated employee(s) for whom ESG is the core responsibility: The employee(s)’ main responsibility is defining, implementing and monitoring the ESG objectives at organization and/or entity level.
ESG manager: Dedicated employee(s) for whom ESG is the core responsibility: The employee(s)’ main responsibility is defining, implementing and monitoring the ESG objectives at organization and/or entity level.
Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of infrastructure investments, and the deployment of investor capital, by creating and implementing asset level strategies, across the entire portfolio.
Investment analysts: A person or group with expertise in evaluating financial and investment information, typically for the purpose of making buy, sell and hold recommendations for securities.
Investment committee: A group of selected people who establish a formal process to manage the plan’s
Investor relations: A person or a group that provides investors with an accurate account of company affairs so investors can make better informed decisions.
Financial consequences: Predetermined monetary benefits incorporated into the employee compensation structures. The financial consequences are contingent upon the achievement of the annual performance targets.
Non-financial consequences: Non-financial benefits (or detriments), such as verbal or written recognition, non-financial rewards or opportunities. The non-financial consequences are contingent upon the achievement of the annual performance targets.
Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 102-35: Remuneration policies, 2016
PoliciesThis aspect evaluates the steps undertaken to stay abreast of material ESG related risks.
PO1
Policies on environmental issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on environmental issues?
Yes
Provide applicable evidence
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)
________________________
PO1
1 point , E
The intent of this indicator is to assess the existence and scope of policies that address environmental issues. Policies on environmental issues assist organizations with incorporating environmental criteria into their business practices.
Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options.
Supporting evidence is mandatory but is for reporting purposes only.
An entity should report that it has an environmental policy when:
Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as an environmental policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's environmental policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
This indicator consists of a question and an evidence upload. When selecting “Yes” evidence is mandatory, however it is not validated and is for reporting purposes only.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport, contamination, GHG emissions, energy, water, waste, natural hazards, supply chain environmental standards, and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.
Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.
Indicator partially aligned with
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 02, INF 13
PO2
Policies on social issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on social issues?
Yes
Provide applicable evidence
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)
________________________
PO2
1 point , S
The intent of this indicator is to assess the existence and scope of policies that address social issues. Policies on social issues assist organizations with incorporating social criteria into their business practices.
Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options.
Supporting evidence is mandatory but is for reporting purposes only.
An entity should report that it has an environmental policy when:
Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as a social policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's social policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
This indicator consists of a question and an evidence upload. When selecting “Yes” evidence is mandatory, however it is not validated and is for reporting purposes only.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Social issues: Concerns the impacts the entity has on the social systems within which it operates. This includes, but is not limited to community social and economic impacts, safety, health & well-being.
Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.
Indicator partially aligned with
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 02, INF 13
PO3
Policies on governance issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on governance issues?
Yes
Provide applicable evidence
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)
________________________
PO3
1 point , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess the existence and scope of policies that address governance issues. Policies on governance issues assist organizations with incorporating governance criteria into their business practices.
Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options.
Supporting evidence is mandatory but is for reporting purposes only.
An entity should report that it has an environmental policy when:
Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as a governance policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's governance policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Good practice example: Please refer to this link.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
This indicator consists of a question and an evidence upload. When selecting “Yes” evidence is mandatory, however it is not validated and is for reporting purposes only.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Governance issues: Governance structure and composition of the entity. This includes how the highest governance body is established and structured in support of the entity’s purpose, and how this purpose relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions.
Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.
Indicator partially aligned with
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 02, INF 13
ReportingThe intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity’s ESG policies and approach to disclosure.
RP1
ESG Reporting
Does the entity disclose its ESG actions and/or performance?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Integrated Report*
*Integrated Report must be aligned with the IIRC framework
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Stand-alone sustainability report(s)
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Section in Annual Report
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Dedicated section on website
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Entity reporting to investors
Frequency of reporting: ____________
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Other: ____________
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
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)
________________________
RP1
3 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess the level of ESG disclosure undertaken by the entity. It also evaluates the entity’s use of third-party review to ensure the reliability, integrity, and accuracy of ESG disclosure. Reporting of ESG information and performance demonstrates an entity’s transparency in explaining how ESG policies and management practices are implemented by the entity, and how these practices impact the business and may form an important part of the entity’s communication to external stakeholders In addition, third-party ESG disclosure review increases investors’ confidence in the information disclosed.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
p>Reporting type The entity should select the appropriate reporting type.Select the applicable reporting level: If the entity reports at multiple levels, you should select the most detailed reporting level:
Alignment with third-party standard: If applicable, select alignment from the dropdown lists to confirm that your method of reporting is aligned with an external standard or guideline, for example, GRI reporting. The list is based on leading international best practice guides for sustainability reporting. If reporting is aligned with more than one standard, select the standard with which there is most alignment.
Third-party review: State whether the methods of reporting are checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the disclosure was subject to).
If selecting ‘externally verified’ or ‘externally assured’, select alignment from the dropdown lists to confirm that your method of reporting is aligned with a third-party standard. The list is based on leading international best practice guides for sustainability reporting. If reporting is aligned to more than one standard, select the standard with which there is most alignment.
The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: Add a disclosure method that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option selected. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found. A piece of supporting evidence document or URL cannot be uploaded for more than one disclosure method selected, i.e., identical documents will not be accepted for more than one disclosure type.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
General evidence requirements:
Evidence requirements IR report: The document upload or URL provided must contain clear evidence of alignment with the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework (December 2013). Integrated reports can reference 2020, 2019, or 2018 performance and/or actions.
Evidence requirements Annual Report: Annual Reports should cover the reporting year as described in EC4. Annual Reports from the prior reporting year detailing actions and/or performance are acceptable if it is explicitly stated that the Annual Report for the current reporting year has not yet been published. If an entity reports on a semi-annual basis, both semi-annual reports must be uploaded to cover the 12 months of reporting identified in EC4.
Evidence requirements Standalone sustainability report: Sustainability reports referencing the current or previous reporting year as described in EC4 are accepted.
Evidence requirements Dedicated section on corporate website: The webpage(s) must explicitly address ESG and include actions and/or performance undertaken by the entity during the reporting year as given in EC4. A hyperlink to the Annual Report or Sustainability report is not valid. In addition, a list of general goals and/or commitments on the website is not sufficient.
Evidence requirements Entity reporting to investors: A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach to sustainability that does not contain any analysis of performance is insufficient. Entity reporting to investors should include year-on-year comparison of sustainability performances supported by explanatory comments. Performance achievements should be linked to measures formerly implemented by the entity. Updates to investors provided after the reporting year may be valid, as long as the actions described apply to the reporting year (as indicated in EC4). Quarterly updates, newsletters, or press releases disclosing ESG actions and/or performance are considered valid. Entity reporting to investors must reference actions/performance of the entity itself, not solely its investment manager or group.
Evidence requirements ‘Other’:An additional disclosure method such as third-party forms of disclosure like 2020 CDP Questionnaires or 2020 UN PRI Transparency Reports is considered valid. Ensure applicability to the reporting year as provided in EC4 based on the actions and/or performance disclosed.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.
Section 1: For section 1 of the indicator, fractional points are awarded based on reporting level, alignment, and third party review. Disclosure methods are not equally scored. It is not necessary to select all reporting methods to receive maximum points. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.
If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be awarded fractional points.
Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:
| Validation status | Score |
|---|---|
| Accepted | 2/2 |
| Partially accepted | 1/2 |
| Not accepted/not provided | 0 |
The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Alignment: To agree and match with a recognized sustainability reporting standard (either voluntary or mandatory).
Annual report: A yearly record of an entity’s financial performance that is distributed to investors under applicable financial reporting regulations.
Assured/Verified: The process of checking data, as well as its collection methods and management systems, through a systematic, independent and documented process against predefined criteria or standards. Assurance/Verification services should be in line with a standard and can only be provided by accredited professionals.
Checked: A third-party review that does not comply with the definition of Assurance/Verification.
Dedicated section on corporate website: A section of the entity’s website that explicitly addresses ESG performance.
Disclosure: The act of making information or data readily accessible and available to all interested individuals and institutions. Disclosure must be external and cannot be an internal and/or ad hoc communication.
Entity reporting to investors: A report prepared by the participant for the purpose of informing investors on the ESG performance of the entity. A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach to ESG that does not contain any analysis of performance (as defined below) is insufficient.
ESG actions: Specific activities performed to improve management of environmental, social and governance issues within the entity.
ESG performance: Reporting of material indicators that reflect implementation of environmental, social, or governance (ESG) management
Integrated report: A report that is aligned with the requirements of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework.
Standalone sustainability report: A separately-issued report dedicated to the entity’s sustainability performance.
IIRC - Integrated Reporting Framework
UNPRI - PRI Reporting Framework
Alignment with External Frameworks
GRI Standards 2016 - 102: General Disclosures
RP2.1
ESG incident monitoring
Does the entity have a process to monitor and communicate ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics?
Yes
The process includes external communication of misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents to (multiple answers possible):
Clients/customers
Community/public
Contractors
Employees
Investors/shareholders
Regulators/government
Special interest groups
Suppliers
Other stakeholders: ____________
Describe the communication process (for reporting purposes only) (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
* The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2021 Sector Leaders
RP2.1
1.5 points , G
This indicator intends to identify whether the entity has a defined process in place to monitor and communicate any ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics to its stakeholders. The entity’s external communication process is one aspect of management controls necessary to provide investors with transparency about regulatory risks and liabilities. Recurring ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents can increase the risk profile of the entity as they can translate into reputational, compliance, and financial risks.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Prefill: This indicator is the same as the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants may use this open text box to provide additional detail on the process the entity follows to communicate ESG-related misconducts to its stakeholders.
The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.
Fractional points are awarded based on the selection of the elements. This indicator applies a diminishing increase in score approach, which means that the fractional score achieved for the first data point will be higher than the fractional score achieved for the second, which again will be higher than for the third, and so on. Also see the GRESB 2021 Fund Assessment Scoring Document.
Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score.
Diminishing Increase in Score approach: This indicator is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected. In the scoring document this is represented by the blue line.
NB: The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2021 Sector Leaders.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Accident: An unplanned, undesired event that results in damage or injury.
Codes of conduct/ethics: An agreement on rules of behaviour for the employees of the entity.
Controversy: A prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.
ESG fines and/or penalties: Sanctions resulting from an illegal act or non-compliant behavior, which directly harms the environment and/or stakeholders of the entity.
Incident: An unplanned, undesired event with actual or potential adverse impacts.
Misconduct: Unacceptable or improper behaviour, especially by an employee or organization.
Penalty: A punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.
Special interest groups: Organization with a shared interest or characteristic (e.g. trade unions, non-governmental organizations).
DSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.1 Codes of Conduct
SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.4 Systems/Procedures
GRI Standards 2016 - 102-17: Mechanisms for advice and concerns about ethics
GRI Standards 2016 - 205-2: Communication and training about anti-corruption policies and procedures
RP2.2
ESG incident ocurrences
Has the entity been involved in any ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics in the reporting period?
(For reporting purposes only)
Yes
Specify the total number of cases that occurred: ____________
Specify the total value of fines and/or penalties incurred (must align with currency selected in RC1)
________________________
Specify the total number of currently pending investigations: ____________
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)
________________________
* The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2021 Sector Leaders
RP2.2
Not scored , G
The intent of this indicator is to ensure the communication of any ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics to the reporting entity’s investor. Recurring misconducts and penalties can increase the risk profile of the portfolio as they impose financial, management and regulatory burdens on the entity.
Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options.
ESG incident occurrences: Any cases that are related to ESG incidents that occurred during the reporting year can be reported here. This may include both incidents for which the entity received a fine or other formal reprimand by a regulator, as well as incidents that were not formally penalized.
Open Text Box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants may use this open text box to communicate on the process the reporting entity intends to follow in order to communicate any ESG-related misconducts to its stakeholders.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.
*The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2021 Sector Leaders.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
ESG fines and/or penalties: Sanctions resulting from an illegal act or non-compliant behavior, which directly harms the environment and/or stakeholders of the entity.
Risk ManagementThe intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity’s understanding and mitigation of material ESG risks and opportunities.
RM1.1
ESG due diligence for new acquisitions
Does the entity have a process to formally address ESG risks and/or opportunities in its pre-investment processes?
Yes
Select elements of the pre-investment process (multiple answers possible)
ESG risks and opportunities are identified (relating to the material issues) are identified
ESG risks are analysed
ESG risks are evaluated and treated
ESG risks and opportunities are considered and can impact the investment decision
Provide applicable evidence
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)
________________________
RM1.1
5.9 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether the entity has a process to address ESG risks and, indentification of opportunities in its pre-investment process. The integration of ESG policies may assist in reducing risk and identifying opportunities for improved ESG performance.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.
Evidence Requirements: Evidence should clearly demonstrate the selected elements of the risk assessment process. The risk assessment criteria for each selected element are explained further below:
The entity may redact any portion of evidence not necessary to illustrate the overall answer or selected sub- option(s).
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.
Section 1:Fractional points are awarded based on the elements of the pre-investment process selected and then aggregated to calculate the final fractional score.
Section 2:‘‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:
| Validation status | Score |
|---|---|
| Accepted | 2/2 |
| Partially accepted | 1/2 |
| Not accepted/not provided | 0 |
The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.
Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If you have multiple ‘other’ answers accepted, only one will be counted towards the score.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Material: An issue is material if it may reasonably be considered important for reflecting an entity's relevant environmental, social or governance impacts; or substantively influencing the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.
ESG Risk: Environmental, social, governance risks (i.e regulatory, license to operate) stemming from the business or operational activities of an entity.
UNPRI Limited Partners’ Responsible Investment Due Diligence Questionnaire, 2015
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 05, INF 07
(Partially aligned with)
UNPRI, PRI Reporting Framework - Main definitions, 2018
RM1.2
ESG risks and opportunities in investment monitoring processes/asset management
Does the entity formally address ESG risks and/or opportunities in its investment monitoring processes/asset management?
Yes
Elements of the investment process including ESG factors:
Integrate ESG risks and/or opportunities into business plans
Describe how and which ESG risks and/or opportunities are treated or mitigated, and which tools are used: (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Regular review of ESG risks and/or opportunities
Describe how and which ESG risks and/or opportunities are regularly reviewed, and which tools are used: (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Externally report or communicate ESG risks and/or opportunities
Describe how and which ESG risks and/or opportunities are reported or communicated externally, and which tools are used: (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Who are the risks and/or opportunities communicated to:
Community/public
Investors
Regulators/government
Special interest groups
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RM1.2
5.9 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess how the entity addresses ESG risks and opportunities in its investment monitoring processes/asset management and communication for its standing/current investments.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options and complete the open text boxes.
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Changes 2020: Evidence requirement removed.
Open Text Box requirements: The text must include all of the applicable elements below:
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is scored as a two section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements and open text boxes. Evidence is not required.
Section 1 The first section of this indicator is split into three subsections. Fractional points are awarded based on:
Section 2: Completing the open text boxes is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of these affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:
| Validation status | Score |
|---|---|
| Accepted | 2/2 |
| Partially accepted | 1/2 |
| Not accepted/not provided | 0 |
Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the stakeholder group elements of this indicator are scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Community/Public: Persons or groups of persons living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by an entity’s operations.
Investment monitoring process: A process that monitors the performance of entity's standing/current investments on a regular basis.
Investors/shareholders: The entity’s current investors and/or equity stake owners in the entity.
Regulators/Government: The state and/or local authoritative and administrative governing body.
Special interest groups: Organization with a shared interest or characteristic (e.g. trade unions, non- governmental organizations).
Indicator partially aligned with
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 11, INF 14
RM2
Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks
Does the entity’s strategy incorporate resilience to climate-related risks?
Yes
Describe the resilience of the organization’s strategy.
________________________
Does the process of evaluating the resilience of the entity’s strategy involve the use of scenario analysis?
Yes
Select the scenarios that are used (multiple answers possible)
Transition scenarios
IEA SDS
IEA B2DS
IEA NZE2050
IPR FPS
NGFS Current Policies
NGFS Nationally determined contributions
NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with CDR
NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with limited CDR
NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with CDR
NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with limited CDR
NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with CDR
NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with limited CDR
SBTi
TPI
Other
____________
Physical scenarios
RCP2.6
RCP4.5
RCP6.0
RCP8.5
Other
____________
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored , G
The clear articulation of a strategy helps fund managers navigate risks and opportunities as they arise. Integrating an understanding of resilience to climate-related risks and opportunities into business strategy fosters alignment between the management of climate-related issues and the overall strategy of the entity. It is also important to communicate how the strategy would be able to handle scenarios in which the global economy transitions to become “lower-carbon”.
Additionally, an entity’s disclosure of how its strategies might change to address potential climate-related risks and opportunities is a key step to better understanding the potential implications of climate change on the entity.
Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.
Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants should use this open text box to communicate on:
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.
See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Climate-related opportunities: The opportunities produced by efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, such as through resource efficiency and cost savings, the adoption and utilization of low-emission energy sources, the development of new products and services, and building resilience along the supply chain. Climate-related opportunities will vary depending on the region, market, and industry in which an organization operates
Climate-related risks: The risks associated with the potential negative impacts of climate change on an organization. These are generally categorized as either transition risks or physical risks. See Transition risks and Physical climate-related risks below.
Overall business strategy: The entity’s long-term strategy for meeting its objectives.
Physical climate-related risks: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). Physical risks emanating from climate change can be event-driven (acute) such as increased severity of extreme weather events (e.g., cyclones, droughts, floods, and fires). They can also relate to longer-term shifts (chronic) in climatic patterns such as precipitation and temperature that affect entities. Participants who possess long-lived or fixed assets, operate in climate-sensitive regions, rely on water availability, or have value chains exposed to the aforementioned hazards, are likely to be exposed to physical climate-related risk.
Physical risk scenarios: Scenarios used in the exploration and assessment of physical climate risks. These scenarios can include projections of a host of climatic variables, including the frequency and severity of particular extreme weather events. Generally, these scenarios are linked to one of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The RCPs, adopted by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], have been used for analysis by ensembles of climate models and have become associated with particular climate targets. RCP2.6, which represents an atmospheric concentration profile ending at a radiative forcing of 2.6 watts per square meter at the year 2100, is associated with an atmospheric limit of 450 parts per million CO2‑equivalent, and is taken as satisfying a 2°C goal.
Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.
Transition risk scenarios: Scenarios that describe the evolution of the global economy to a lower-carbon state. These scenarios often describe the interactions between various sectors of the economy and link such interactions to wider narratives around the relative aggression of the transition to lower carbon economics. Commonly used transition risk scenarios include those produced by the IEA [International Energy Agency] including its Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS), Beyond 2 Degrees Scenario (B2DS), and Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario (NZE2050), the NGFS [Network for Greening the Financial System], and the Inevitable Policy Response’s Forecast Policy Scenario (FPS). Real Estate Participants might also use the CRREM decarbonization pathways. Infrastructure Participants might also use pathways from TPI [Transition Pathway Initiative] or those in line with the SBTi [Science Based Targets initiative].
2°C or lower scenario: A 2°C scenario is one in which the world is able to hold the increase in global average temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Such a scenario often entails a moderate to aggressive shift in the economy to a lower-carbon state and includes the associated severity of transition risks. A “lower” scenario in this context is one in which the global economy changes in such a way that the temperature rise is held to lower than a 2°C global average temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. A 1.5°C scenario is an example of a lower scenario.
Scenario analysis: Scenario analysis refers to the systematic use of scenarios in order to better understand the relevant impacts on an organization, and facilitate the creation of robust strategies under probable and potential future developments. It can help the participant to inform their financial planning process and provide insights into their strategies’ resilience to different climate-related scenarios.
Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor.
International Energy Agency. Achieving Net Zero Emissions by 2050.
International Energy Agency. Energy Technology Perspectives 2017.
International Energy Agency. Sustainable Development Scenario.
Network for Greening the Financial System. NGFS Climate Scenarios for central banks and supervisors.
Science Based Targets initiative.
Transition Pathway Initiative.
Van Vuuren, D.P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., et al. (2011) “The Representative Concentration Pathways: An Overview.” Climatic Change 109: 5. doi.org/10.1007/s10584‑011‑0148‑z
RM3.1
Transition risk identification
Does the entity have a systematic process for identifying transition risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the risk identification process (multiple answers possible)
Policy and legal
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Increasing price of GHG emissions
Enhancing emissions-reporting obligations
Mandates on and regulation of existing products and services
Exposure to litigation
Other
____________
No
Technology
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Substitution of existing products and services with lower emissions options
Unsuccessful investment in new technologies
Costs to transition to lower emissions technology
Other
____________
No
Market
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Changing customer behavior
Uncertainty in market signals
Increased cost of raw materials
Other
____________
No
Reputation
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Shifts in consumer preferences
Stigmatization of sector
Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback
Other
____________
No
Provide applicable evidence (optional)
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing transition risks.
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for identifying transition risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity.
A comprehensive system for managing transition risks begins with a systematic process for identifying risks that could have a material financial impact on the organization or entity. Such a process ensures that subsequent risk assessments and analyses are focused on the most relevant risks to which an entity is exposed.
Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.
Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator. Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence must sufficiently support any of the four sub-options selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:
Evidence completeness: Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk identification process for each issue.
Other: State the other transition risk issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘establishment of a carbon tax’ when ‘increasing price of GHG emissions’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.
Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.
See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.
Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .
Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).
Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.
Policy and legal risk: Policy risk derives from policy action that either tries to constrain actions which contribute to climate change, or to promote adaptation to climate change. Legal risk arises from an increase in climate-related litigation, for instance due to failure of an organisation to properly communicate and account for its interactions with the climate.
Increasing price of GHG emissions: Examples include, but are not limited to: the implementation of a carbon tax, or cap and trade systems (e.g. EU ETS)
Enhancing emissions-reporting obligations:
Examples include, but are not limited to: TCFD reporting, the Regulation on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR), EU Taxonomy, Streamlined Energy & Carbon Reporting (SECR)Mandates on and regulation of existing products and services: For infrastructure, this will depend on the assets in question. Examples include, but are not limited to: Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS).
Exposure to litigation Examples include, but are not limited to: tort, negligence, and nuisance claims of contribution to climate change and thereby leading to specific damages; state-brought claims against energy companies; claims of breach of entity board members' duty to act in the best interests of the entity; claims by shareholders of failure to properly disclose in annual reports the risk of climate change resulting from possible investments
Technology risk: New technologies may displace old systems and disrupt existing parts of the economic system. Therefore, technological improvements and innovations can affect competitiveness, production and distribution costs, and potentially the demand for certain products and services, thus resulting in considerable uncertainty.
Substitution of existing products and services with lower emissions options: The “existing products and services” as used here refers to the main function of the entity. The risk of substitution for lower emissions options refers to a shift in the use of technologies that results in the reduction of the demand of such a function. For infrastructure, this will depend on the assets in question. This does not refer to the substitution of lower emissions technologies in the provision of the same core function (see Costs to transition to lower emissions technologies. Examples include, but are not limited to: substitution of cars and the associated use of road infrastructure for lower-emission public transportation options; the electrification of buildings and building appliances and the resulting reduction in demand for natural gas and its distribution services; substitution of rail for low-emission long-distance trucking fleets
Unsuccessful investment in new technologies Examples include, but are not limited to: investment into new technology unsuccessful due to difficulty of adoption or more efficient substitutes; unanticipated costs of operation, installation, or permitting; incompatibility with existing local electric grid operations; underperformance of new technologies compared to expected performance; insufficient infrastructure and/or adoption of technology (e.g., electric car charging stations) to achieve network effects, etc.
Costs to transition to lower emissions technology Examples include, but are not limited to: change in electric grid energy generation mix; costs of replacing vehicle fleet with lower-emission vehicle fleet
Market risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.
Changing customer behavior: Examples include, but are not limited to: shift in preferences around mode of travel; preference for clean or renewable energy sources
Uncertainty in market signals: Examples include, but are not limited to: timing, shape, and magnitude of economy-wide decarbonisation; energy price volatility; insufficient “pricing-in” of climate-related premiums; misguided assessment of industry and competition trends
Increased cost of raw materials: Examples include, but are not limited to:increased price of electricity, fuel, concrete, steel
Reputation risk: The risk around changing customer or community perceptions of an entity’s contribution or detraction from the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Shifts in consumer preferences: This option describes the shift of consumer preferences specifically around the provider of the good or service as a result of that provider’s treatment of climate-related issues. It does not describe an overall or provider-agnostic shift, which would be categorized as Changing customer behavior as described above
Stigmatization of sector: Loss in financial loans or increase in cost of capital due to hesitation about the sector’s general handling of climate-related issues
Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback: Such increased stakeholder concern or negative feedback might not be immediately financially material to an entity, but it signals that it could become so -- in the form of loss in financial loans or increase in cost of capital -- if action is not taken with regard to an entity’s identification, assessment, and management of climate-related issues. Examples include, but are not limited to: stricter requirements to incorporate climate risk in investment decisions
RM3.2
Transition risk impact assessment
Does the entity have a systematic process to assess the material financial impact of transition risks on the business and/or financial plannings of the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the impact assessment process (multiple answers possible)
Policy and legal
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased operating costs
Write-offs, asset impairment and early retirement of existing assets due to policy changes
Increased costs and/or reduced demand for products and services resulting from fines and judgments
Other
____________
No
Technology
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Write-offs and early retirement of existing assets
Reduced demand for products and services
Research and development (R&D) expenditures in new and alternative technologies
Capital investments in technology development
Costs to adopt/deploy new practices and processes
Other
____________
No
Market
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Reduced demand for goods and services due to shift in consumer preferences
Increased production costs due to changing input prices and output requirements
Abrupt and unexpected shifts in energy costs
Change in revenue mix and sources, resulting in decreased revenues
Re-pricing of assets
Other
____________
No
Reputation
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Reduced revenue from decreased demand for goods/services
Reduced revenue from decreased production capacity
Reduced revenue from negative impacts on workforce management and planning
Reduction in capital availability
Other
____________
No
Provide applicable evidence (optional)
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing transition risks are integrated into its overall risk management.
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of transition risks on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.
Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific risks manifest themselves on business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.
Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.
Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator. Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence must sufficiently support any of the four sub-options selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:
Evidence completeness: Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk impact assessment for each issue.
Other: State the other transition risk issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘increased cost of complying with disclosure requirements’ when ‘increased operating costs’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.
Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.
See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).
Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.
Policy and legal risk: Policy risk derives from policy action that either tries to constrain actions which contribute to climate change, or to promote adaptation to climate change. Legal risk arises from an increase in climate-related litigation, for instance due to failure of an organisation to properly communicate and account for its interactions with the climate.
Technology risk: New technologies may displace old systems and disrupt existing parts of the economic system. Therefore, technological improvements and innovations can affect competitiveness, production and distribution costs, and potentially the demand for certain products and services, thus resulting in considerable uncertainty.
Market risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.
Reputation risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.
RM3.3
Physical Risk Identification
Does the entity have a systematic process for identifying physical risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the risk identification process (multiple answers possible)
Acute hazards
Has the process identified any acute hazards to which the entity is exposed?
Yes
Indicate to what factor(s) the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Extratropical storm
Flash flood
Hail
River flood
Storm surge
Tropical cyclone
Other
____________
No
Chronic stressors
Has the process identified any chronic stressors to which the entity is exposed?
Yes
Indicate to what factor(s) the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Drought stress
Fire weather stress
Heat stress
Precipitation stress
Rising mean temperatures
Rising sea levels
Other
____________
No
Provide applicable evidence (optional)
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe the entity’s processes of prioritizing physical risks.
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for identifying physical risks that could be financially material.
A comprehensive system for managing physical risks begins with a systematic process for identifying risks that could be financially material to an entity. Such a process ensures that subsequent risk assessments and analyses are focused on the most relevant risks to which an entity is exposed.
While many traditional physical risk assessments utilize re-analysis methods, it is becoming increasingly important to make use of forward-looking climate-driven models.
Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.
Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator. Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence must sufficiently support either of the two sub-options selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:
Evidence completeness: Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk identification process for each issue.
Other: State the other physical risk issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘coastal flooding’ when ‘storm surge’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.
Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.
See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).
Acute hazards: Acute hazards are physical events, such as extreme weather events, that could damage a real asset. They include cyclones, hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. Non-climate-related acute hazards include tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic activity.
Chronic stressors: Chronic stressors are longer-term physical shifts, such as sea level rise or changes in precipitation patterns, that can affect the operations and costs associated therein of an entity and its assets. While such stressors may not have as noticeable impacts as acute hazards within any given year, such longer-term shifts in climate patterns (e.g., sustained higher temperatures) can impact the cost of operations, availability of resources, accessibility of assets, availability of upstream or downstream suppliers, etc.
RM3.4
Physical risk impact assessment
Does the entity have a systematic process for the assessment of material financial impact from physical climate risks on the business and/or financial plannings of the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the impact assessment process (multiple answers possible)
Direct impacts
Has the process concluded that there are material impacts to the entity?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased capital costs
Other
____________
No
Indirect impacts
Has the process concluded that there are material impacts to the entity?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased insurance premiums and potential for reduced availability of insurance on assets in “high-risk” locations
Increased operating costs
Reduced revenue and higher costs from negative impacts on workforce
Reduced revenue from decreased production capacity
Reduced revenues from lower sales/output
Write-offs and early retirement of existing assets
Other
____________
No
Provide applicable evidence (optional)
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing physical risks are integrated into its overall risk management.
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of physical risks on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.
Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific risks manifest themselves on business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.
Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.
Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator. Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence must sufficiently support either of the two sub-options selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:
Evidence completeness: Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk impact assessment for each issue.
Other: State the other physical risk issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘increased maintenance’ when ‘increased capital costs’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.
Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.
See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).
Direct impacts: Direct damages to assets.
Indirect impacts: Impacts from supply chain disruption, or impacts on the entity’s financial performance based on changes in availability, sourcing and quality of water; food security; and extreme temperature affecting premises, operations, supply chain, transport needs and employee safety.
Stakeholder EngagementImproving the sustainability performance of infrastructure assets requires dedicated resources, a commitment from senior management and tools for measurement/management of resource consumption. It also requires the cooperation of other stakeholders, including employees and suppliers.
This aspect identifies actions taken to engage with those stakeholders, as well as the nature of the engagement.
SE1
Employee engagement program
Does the entity have an employee engagement program?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Development of action plan
Feedback sessions with Senior Management Team
Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments
Focus groups
Implementation
Planning and preparation for engagement
Program review and evaluation
Training
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE1
1 point , S
The intent of this indicator is to assess the existence, scope and reach of the entity’s employee engagement program. Effective employee engagement programs are often critical in preventing or addressing controversy that may create regulatory risks, legal liabilities, or undermine the entity’s social license to operate and maximizing opportunities for creating shared value.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Elements of employee program: Select the elements that apply to the program. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Prefill: This indicator is the same as the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: State measures/activities that were part of the engagement program. It is possible to report multiple other answers. Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be awarded fractional points.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.
Fractional points are awarded based on the selection of the elements. Points are evenly divided between the selected elements. Not all checkboxes need to be selected to score maximum points.
Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Action Plan: A detailed plan outlining actions needed to enhance tenant satisfaction. An action plan has three major elements (1) Specific tasks: what will be done and by whom; (2) Time horizon: when will it be done; (3) Resource allocation: what specific funds are available for specific activities, and (4) Measurable outcomes.
Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.
Senior Management Team: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. Senior management are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.
Focus groups: Working groups established to, in this context, focus on improving employee engagement.
SE2
Employee training
Does the entity provide training and development for employees?
Yes
Percentage of employees who received professional training in the reporting year
________________________
Percentage of employees who received ESG-related training in the reporting year
________________________
ESG-related training focuses on the following elements (multiple answers possible)
Environmental issues
Social issues
Governance issues
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE2
1 point , S
This indicator examines the types and content of training received by employees responsible for this entity. A more skilled and aware workforce enhances the entity's human capital and may help to improve employee satisfaction. Employee training and development contribute to improved business performance.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Percentage of employees covered: The percentage of employees covered based on headcount for employees responsible for the entity . If the number of employees responsible for the entity changed during the reporting year, calculate the percentage based on the average number.
Both percentages should be calculated based on the following formulas:
Training topics: Select the applicable training topics included in the training series during the reporting year.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.
Points are awarded based on (1) the type of training i.e 'professional' vs 'ESG-related' and (2) percentage of employees who received training. The training topics are not scored and are used for reporting purposes only.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.
Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport, contamination, GHG emissions, energy, water, waste, natural hazards, supply chain environmental standards, and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.
ESG-specific training: Training related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.
Governance issues: Governance structure and composition of the entity. This includes how the highest governance body is established and structured in support of the entity’s purpose, and how this purpose relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions.
Professional training: Training related to day-to-day operations, health and safety, specialization career development courses, or related/similar topics. Training can be delivered in person, online or in other formats.
Social issues: Concerns the impacts the entity has on the social systems within which it operates. This includes, but is not limited to community social and economic impacts, safety, health & well-being.
EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.3, Employee Training and development
RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.3.2, Coverage
SE3
Employee satisfaction monitoring
Has the entity undertaken an employee satisfaction survey during the last three years?
Yes
The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible)
Internally
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
By an independent third party
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
The survey includes quantitative metrics
Yes
Metrics include
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Other: ____________
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE3
1 point , S
This indicator examines whether and to what extent the entity engages with employees regarding their satisfaction. Employee satisfaction surveys help entities understand critical issues within the business, engage with their staff and increase employee satisfaction, which may contribute to improving retention rates and overall productivity.
Using widely applied employee satisfaction surveys should be translated into easily interpretable metrics that can help analyze and compare outcomes, despite the many variations between departments and teams.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Prefill: This indicator is the same as the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Percentage of employees covered: The percentage of employees covered based on headcount for employees responsible for the entity. If the number of employees responsible for the entity changed during the reporting year, calculate the percentage based on the average number.
Percentage of employees covered = Number of employees receiving the satisfaction survey / Total number of employees x 100%
Survey response rate: Report the proportion of employees that received and completed the survey, compared to the total number of employees that have received the survey expressed as a percentage (see example).
Survey response rate = Number of individual survey responses / Number of employees receiving the satisfaction survey x 100%
Survey date (recency): Survey should have taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting year identified in EC3.
The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: State the other quantitative metric. It is possible to report multiple other answers. Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be awarded fractional points.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.
Points are awarded based on (1) selected answer options, (2) percentage of employees covered and (3) the survey's quantitative metrics. The survey response rate is not scored.
It is not necessary to select all answer options in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.
Employee satisfaction survey: Survey measuring overall and work-specific employee satisfaction at the individual and organizational levels. The survey should directly address employee concerns and include the opportunity to provide recommendations for improvement.
Net promoter score: The Net Promoter Score ® (NPS) is a customer loyalty metric developed by Bain & Company, Fred Reichheld, and Satmetrix. It divides customers, tenants or employees into three segments: passives, detractors and promoters, using the following question “On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely would you be to recommend this company (or this product) to friends and colleagues?” The Net Promoter Score ® (NPS) ratings of 9 or 10 indicate promoters; 7 and 8, passives; and 0 through 6, detractors. The NPS is the percentage of promoters minus the percentage detractors.
Overall satisfaction score: An overarching metric in a satisfaction survey, with no prescribed scale, that measures how happy an employee or tenant is with the organization, lease, and/or services provided. The industry best practice is a 1-5 scale - very poor, poor, average, good, and excellent, respectively.
Quantitative metric: Any measure or parameter in employee satisfaction that can be represented numerically.
Survey response rate: The proportion of complete survey responses received as a percentage of the total number of employees that invited to participate.
GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: 102-43, Approach to stakeholder engagement
Bain & Company, Introducing: The Net Promoter System®
SE4
Inclusion & diversity
Does the entity report on inclusion and diversity?
Yes
Diversity of the entity’s governance bodies
Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)
Age group distribution
Board tenure
Gender pay gap
Gender ratio
Percentage of employees that identify as:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
Diversity of the organization's 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 that identify as:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE4
1 point , S
This indicator identifies the metrics used by the entity to monitor diversity at governance and workforce level. Diversity of boards of directors has become a clear priority for investors and is considered to positively impact investment decisions and increases organizational competitiveness.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.
Points are awarded for reporting on the gender ratio metrics for both 'governance bodies' and/or 'employees'.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Age group distribution: Percentage of a population, at each age.
Board tenure: Refers to the period or term of an entity’s board of directors.
Gender ratio: Proportion of one gender to another in a given population.
Gender pay gap: Percentage difference of average hourly earnings between men and women.
Governance body: Committee or board responsible for the strategic guidance of the entity, the effective monitoring of management, and the accountability of management to the broader organization and its stakeholders. Examples of governance bodies may include Board of Directors and Non-Executive Directors.
Socioeconomic background: Combined measure of sociological and economic background of a person.
EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.1, Diversity-Employee gender diversity
GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): 102-22
RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2018: 3.1.3, Diversity Policy
The 2021 Assessment development process indicated that the topics covered are material to stakeholders across the board. After the structural changes implemented in 2020, the focus has been on consolidating the existing Assessments and ensuring that the Resilience Module was integrated into the Assessment appropriately.
The changes in the Fund Management Component have been limited to small amendments to indicators to provide respondents with more appropriate reporting options, and the integration of the Resilience Module in existing indicators and through the addition of five new indicators in the Risk Management aspect. This will enable all participants to align to TCFD reporting requirements.
The Fund Assessment will comprise of:
All work on the 2021 Assessments was undertaken with the support and input of the Infrastructure Advisory Board (IAB), the Infrastructure Benchmark Committee (IBC) and the Industry Working Group on New Developments (IWG ND).
For more information, please see our webpage.
Integration of Resilience ModuleThe Resilience Module, which was previously optional, has been integrated into the Management Component. Five new indicators have been added to the aspect Risk Management and changes have been made to two indicators in the Leadership aspect. |
Minor changes to indicatorsMinor changes have been made to a few indicators to add some new options or to restructure them for better validation. |
| LE1 |
ESG leadership commitments - New commitments addedDescription: New commitments have been added under “General ESG commitments: Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action” and “Formal environmental issue-specific commitments: Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action”. Rationale for change: This allows entities that have made a commitment to these initiatives to report them to investors. Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden to provide meaningful information to investors. |
| LE3 |
Individual responsible for ESG objectives - Resilience integratedDescription: The indicator has been restructured. It is now split between ESG and climate-related issues so that entities can provide different contact details for each topic. Rationale for change: This indicator change is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures. Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| LE4 |
ESG senior decision maker - Resilience integratedDescription: The indicator has been restructured. It is now split between ESG and climate-related issues so that entities can provide different contact details for each topic. Rationale for change: This indicator change is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures. Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| RM1.2 |
ESG risks and opportunities in investment monitoring processes/asset management - Evidence requirement removedDescription: The evidence requirement for this indicator has been removed. Rationale for change: This change simplifies validation of the indicator by requiring the participant to focus on just the open text boxes and their criteria rather than both. Impact of change: Reduction in reporting burden. |
| RM2 |
Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks - New indicatorDescription: Added new indicator on resilience of strategy to climate-related risks Rationale for change: This indicator is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures. Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| RM3.1 |
Transition risk identification - New indicatorDescription: Added new indicator on identification of climate-related transition risks Rationale for change: This indicator is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations. Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| RM3.2 |
Transition risk impact assessment - New indicatorDescription: Added new indicator on assessment of climate-related transition risks. Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations. Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| RM3.3 |
Physical risk identification - New indicatorDescription: Added new indicator on identification of climate-related physical risks. Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations. Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| RM3.4 |
Physical risk impact assessment - New indicatorDescription: Added new indicator on assessment of climate-related physical risks. Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations. Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
2021 GRESB Data Validation Process
Data validation is an important part of GRESB’s annual benchmarking process. The purpose of data validation is to encourage best practices in data collection and reporting. It provides the basis for GRESB’s continued efforts to provide investment grade data to its investor members.
GRESB validation is a check on the existence, accuracy, and logic of data submitted through the GRESB Assessments. The validation process includes both automatic and manual validation.
Automatic Validation
Automatic validation is integrated into the portal as participants fill out their Assessments, and consists of errors and warnings displayed in the portal to ensure that Assessment submissions are complete and accurate.
The automatic validation process reviews all quantitative data points requested in the Portal and includes:
The automatic validation process generates:
Participants cannot submit their Assessments unless all errors are resolved.
Manual Validation
Manual validation takes place after submission, and consists of document and text review to check that the answers provided in Assessment are supported by sufficient evidence. The manual validation process reviews the content of all Assessment submissions for accuracy and consistency. SRI Quality System Registrar (SRI) provides third-party validation services for GRESB. SRI is an accredited, independent certification body, and its subject matter experts will conduct the independent assessments of self-reported ESG data in the GRESB manual validation process. SRI, a Certified B Corporation and a JUST™ Labeled organization, is headquartered in Seven Fields, PA, with offices in Pittsburgh, PA (HQ); Portland, OR; Ann Arbor, MI; Dublin, Ireland; and Tokyo, Japan. Founded in 1991, SRI is accredited by ANAB, RvA, IATF, AA1000, USGBC (GBCI), WELL (IWBI), and Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute (C2CPII), and ResponsibleSteel™ (in process) to assess and assist in conformance to quality, environmental, health and safety, information security.
During manual validation, the following data are checked for their content:
Indicator-specific validation requirements can be found after each indicator’s description, under the header “Validation”.
Evidence validation
Evidence uploads and provided hyperlinks are validated based on the content of the documents relative to both the requirements stated in the guidance for the indicator and the specific answer choices selected by the participant.
Evidence uploads and Other answers that were accepted in previous GRESB Assessment submissions may not be accepted in subsequent submissions. Enhanced validation checks, a change in indicator content and requirements, and/or a change in the level of validation may result in different validation outcomes. In order to be accepted, the provided evidence should meet the requirements as stipulated in this Reference Guide.
The 2021 list of indicators selected for manual validation and that request evidence upload is:
| Fund Manually Validated Items | ||
|---|---|---|
| Indicator Code | Indicator Title | Component |
| LE1 | ESG leadership commitments | Management |
| LE2 | Responsible investment strategy | Management |
| LE5 | Personnel ESG performance targets | Management |
| RP1 | ESG reporting | Management |
| RM1.1 | ESG due diligence for new acquisitions | Management |
| RM1.2 | ESG risks and opportunities in investment monitoring process/asset management | Management |
Ensuring accuracy and consistency in validation decisions
GRESB works with GBCI to ensure that validation decisions accurately reflect the requirements set out in the reference guides, and that decisions are consistent across indicators and submissions. The GBCI validation team uses the same requirements described in the reference guides as their main source of validation guidance when reviewing submission answers. The validation process also includes a review of selected decisions by a second validator.
Additionally, GRESB checks a sample of all validation decisions to ensure that the requirements are being interpreted correctly by the GBCI validators.
To ensure consistency across answers, the GBCI validators review all answers for a given indicator at a time, and are typically assigned to validate related sets of indicators. It is important to note that validators are not assigned to validate a participant’s entire Assessment, but rather a consistent set of indicators across all submitted Assessments. This means that individual validators become “experts” on their set of indicators and can ensure that their decisions are consistent across all submissions. Moreover, GRESB runs additional consistency checks using a model that verifies the similarity between provided answers per indicator, and flags any answers that have inconsistent validation decisions.
This means that all information relevant for validating for one indicator variable must be uploaded next to that indicator. There is no cross checking of information across other indicators.
Validation Statuses
Each indicator component has specific set of validation decisions that could be assigned dependent on the indicator requirements. The list of these validation decisions are described below:
| Component | Validation status | Explanation | Scoring impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 'Other' | Accepted | Provided other answer falls outside the provided options and fulfills indicator requirements. | Full points will be awarded for this answer. |
| Duplicate | Provided answer fulfills indicator requirements but duplicates already selected answer. | No points will be awarded for this answer. | |
| Not accepted | Provided answer does not fulfill indicator requirements. | No points will be awarded for this answer. | |
| Evidence and open text boxes | Accepted | Provided evidence fully supports answer and fulfills indicator requirements. | Points based on answer that are covered by evidence are fully awarded. |
| Partially accepted | Provided evidence only supports some of the selected answer choices and/or only partially fulfills indicator requirements. | Points based on answer covered by evidence are multiplied by 0.5. | |
| Not accepted | Provided evidence does not support answer and/or does not meet the indicator requirements. | No points are awarded for the section of the answer covered by evidence. |
With the increased importance given to GRESB Scores and rankings by investors, lenders using GRESB Scores in Sustainability Linked Loans (SLLs), indices based on our results/data, and managers having financial incentives based on their GRESB results, providing accurate, credible and investment-grade data has become even more crucial. In 2020, GRESB introduced a Review Period in the Assessment timeline to further strengthen the reliability of the Assessments and benchmark results.
| Timeline | Item |
| 1 April - 1 July |
|
| 1 July - 1 August |
|
| 1 August – 1 September |
|
| 1 September |
|
| 1 - 15 September |
|
| 15 September - 22 September (1 week) |
|
| 22 September - 29 September (1 week) |
|
| 1 October |
|
| Trial # | Min size | Sector / Diversified | Region / Global | Legal Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| 2 | 6 | ✔ | ✔ |
/www.wsp.com
Josh Nothwang, Practice Leader, Sustainability, Energy and Climate Change
josh.nothwang@wsp.com
Boulder, USA
WSP is one of the world’s leading engineering professional services consulting firms. They provideservices to transform the built environment and restore the natural environment. Their expertise rangesfrom environmental remediation to urban planning, from engineering iconic buildings to designingsustainable transport networks, and from developing the energy sources of the future to creatinginnovations that reduce environmental impact. WSP has approximately 34,000 employees, includingengineers, technicians, scientists, architects, planners, surveyors, program and construction managementprofessionals, and various sustainability experts, in more than 500 offices across 40 countries worldwide.
https://www.http://ghdinfra.com//
Mike Atkinson, Executive Advisor - ESG
mike.atkinson@ghd.com
Sydney, NSW, Australia
GHD is one of the world's leading professional services companies operating in the global markets of water, energy and resources, environment, property and buildings, and transportation. We provide engineering, architecture, environmental, and construction services to private and public sector clients.
Established in 1928 and privately owned by our people, GHD operates across five continents - Asia, Australia, Europe, North and South America - and the Pacific region. We employ more than 10,000 people in 200+ offices to deliver projects with high standards of safety, quality, and ethics across the entire asset value chain. Driven by a client-service-led culture, we connect the knowledge, skill, and experience of our people with innovative practices, technical capabilities, and robust systems to create lasting community benefits.
Committed to sustainable development, we have a clearly stated vision: Water, energy & urbanization made sustainable for generations to come.
GHD supports real estate and infrastructure owners, managers, and investors through a broad range of advisory, technical, engineering, and management solutions to address ESG issues, mitigate risks, and improve overall ESG performance.
Real-estate players are facing increasing pressure from investors and stakeholders for transparency on how they deal with environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks, as well as for green building certifications.
Pwc's team of RE and Sustainability experts will support you in defining your ESG strategy, formalizing it into a policy and deploying this policy across every aspect of your business. When reporting, they will seek third-party assurance for you. They will support real-estate players with ESG reporting and participation in industry initiatives such as the GRESB Assessment. Pwc team also comprises accredited professionals for the most commonly recognized green building certification schemes.
https://evoraglobal.com/
Serwaa Boateng, Business Development Manager
sboateng@evoraglobal.com
London, United Kingdom
EVORA Global is an independent, pan-European sustainability consultancy and software provider with specialist expertise in the real estate investment sector. Since 2011, EVORA has been delivering an exceptional level of ESG services to many of Europe’s largest investment funds, with business fluency in multiple European languages and offices across Europe. Clients include Deutsche Asset Management, Schroder Real Estate, Grosvenor Estates and Hines.
