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

2021

Fund

Scoring Document

Contents

Disclaimer: 2021 GRESB Infrastructure Assessments

This document was prepared in response to industry feedback and discloses the detailed scoring methodology for all indicators of the 2021 Infrastructure Fund Assessment. The Scoring Document is shared for information purposes in an effort to increase transparency around the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes. GRESB reserves the right to make edits to this document during the scoring and analysis period preceding the 2021 results launch.

Introduction

This document outlines the scoring methodology of the 2021 Infrastructure Fund Assessment. It is shared for information purposes, to provide transparency on the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes.

How to read this document

This document provides a breakdown of how each indicator is scored in the 2021 GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment. We recommend reading it in conjunction with the Reference Guide, which includes the reporting requirements and validation details for indicators.

Please note the following:

Scoring Methodology

Following data validation, scoring is completed by an automatic system.

GRESB Score

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

Management Score - Infrastructure Fund:

All participants that submit the Fund Assessment receive this score. The Component comprises 17 indicators and is scored out of 30.

Performance Score - Infrastructure Fund:

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.

GRESB Rating

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.

Scoring Weightings:

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

Indicator Scoring:

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.

Section One (Elements)

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.

Section 2 (Evidence)

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:

Indicator score = (Section 1 fractional score) X (Section 2 multiplier) X Indicator weighting

Example of indicator level scoring:

Example: LE5 indicator

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

1

Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible)

2⁄4

All other employees

3⁄4

Asset managers

3⁄4

Board of directors

3⁄4

C-suite level staff

2⁄4

Dedicated staff on ESG issues

2⁄4

ESG managers

2⁄4

External managers or service providers

2⁄4

Fund/portfolio managers

2⁄4

Investment analysts

2⁄4

Investment committee

2⁄4

Investor relations

1⁄4

Other: ____________

Non-financial consequences

1⁄2

Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible)

2⁄4

All other employees

3⁄4

Asset managers

3⁄4

Board of directors

3⁄4

C-suite level staff

2⁄4

Dedicated staff on ESG issues

2⁄4

ESG managers

2⁄4

External managers or service providers

2⁄4

Fund/portfolio managers

2⁄4

Investment analysts

2⁄4

Investment committee

2⁄4

Investor relations

1⁄4

Other: ____________

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

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

________________________

FUND6

1.65 points , G

This indicator is split into three sections represented by two fractions and an "x" in the far-left column. The first section addresses the predetermined financial consequences of performance targets and the employee group(s) to which they apply, and the second section covers the non-financial consequences.The final section allows for scoring of evidence. The far-left column tells us that the score for the indicator is calculated as follows; (where the section and evidence scores are all fractions between 0 and 1):

Indicator score = (Employee groups with financial consequences fractional score X 1) + (employee groups with non-financial consequences X 1/2) X evidence score X 1.65 points

If the respondent achieved the maximum fractional score for the second section, with partially accepted evidence (resulting in a multiplier of 0.5), the score would be:

(0 + 1/2) X 0.5 X 1.65 points = 0.41 points

If the respondent achieved maximum fractional score for the first section, with fully accepted evidence (resulting in a multiplier of 1), the score would be:

(1+0/2) X 1 X 1.65 points = 1.65 points

Leadership

This aspect consists of 5 indicators (22% of the Management Component - Infrastructure Fund)

Leadership

2020 Indicator

LE1

ESG leadership commitments

Has the entity made a public commitment to ESG standards or principles?

Yes

General ESG commitments (multiple answers possible)

4⁄5

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

1

Equator Principles

1

PRI

1

UN Global Compact

1

Other: ____________

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

1⁄2

UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative

1⁄2

Support the goals

1⁄2

Other: ____________

Formal environmental issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)

2⁄5

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

1

Business for nature

1

Climate Action in Financial Institutions Initiative

1

Climate Action 100+

1

Climate League 2030

1

EV100

1

Finance for Biodiversity

1

Global Launch of Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF)

1

IFC Operating Principles for Impact Management

1

IIGCC Paris Aligned Investment Initiative

1

Montreal Pledge

1

Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials

1

Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA)

1

RE 100

1

Science Based Targets Initiative

1

Transform to Net Zero

1

UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge

1

UN Global Compact Our Only Future

1

UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance

1

WorldGBC’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment

1

Other: ____________

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

1⁄2

Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment (CCRI)

1⁄2

Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change (including AIGCC, Ceres, IGCC, IIGCC)

1⁄2

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures

1⁄2

Other: ____________

Formal social issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)

2⁄5

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

1

List commitment(s): ____________

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

1⁄2

World Business Council for Sustainable Development's Call to Action

1⁄2

30% Club

1⁄2

Other: ____________

Formal governance issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)

2⁄5

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

1

List commitment(s): ____________

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

1⁄2

List commitment(s): ____________

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

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

________________________

LE1

1.1 points , G

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.

LE2

Responsible investment strategy

Does the entity have a sustainable investment strategy?

Yes

The strategy incorporates the following approaches (multiple answers possible)

3⁄4
1

Corporate engagement and shareholder action

1

Impact/community investing

1⁄2

Integration of ESG factors

1

Positive/best-in-class screening

1

Negative/exclusionary screening

1

Norms-based screening

1

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

1⁄4
1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Not publicly available

Provide applicable evidence

0⁄4
1

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

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

________________________

LE2

1.5 points , G

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.

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)

5⁄5

Dedicated employee for whom sustainability is the core responsibility

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

3⁄5

Employee for whom sustainability is among their responsibilities

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

2⁄5

External consultant/manager

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

3⁄5

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

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.

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:

1
1

Board of directors

1

C-suite level staff

1

Fund/portfolio managers

1

Investment committee

1

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

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.

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

1

Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible)

2⁄4

All other employees

3⁄4

Asset managers

3⁄4

Board of directors

3⁄4

C-suite level staff

2⁄4

Dedicated staff on ESG issues

2⁄4

ESG managers

2⁄4

External managers or service providers

2⁄4

Fund/portfolio managers

2⁄4

Investment analysts

2⁄4

Investment committee

2⁄4

Investor relations

1⁄4

Other: ____________

Non-financial consequences

1⁄2

Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible)

2⁄4

All other employees

3⁄4

Asset managers

3⁄4

Board of directors

3⁄4

C-suite level staff

2⁄4

Dedicated staff on ESG issues

2⁄4

ESG managers

2⁄4

External managers or service providers

2⁄4

Fund/portfolio managers

2⁄4

Investment analysts

2⁄4

Investment committee

2⁄4

Investor relations

1⁄4

Other: ____________

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

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

________________________

LE5

1.5 points , G

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.

Policies

This aspect consists of 3 indicators (10% of the Management Component - Infrastructure Fund)

Policies

2020 Indicator

PO1

Policies on environmental issues

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

1

Yes

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

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

________________________

PO1

1 point , E

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.

PO2

Policies on social issues

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

1

Yes

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

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

________________________

PO2

1 point , S

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.

PO3

Policies on governance issues

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

1

Yes

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

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

________________________

PO3

1 point , G

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.

Reporting

This aspect consists of 3 indicators (15% of the Management Component - Infrastructure Fund)

Reporting

2020 Indicator

RP1

ESG Reporting

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

Yes

Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)

5⁄5
3⁄6

Integrated Report*

*Integrated Report must be aligned with the IIRC framework

Select the applicable reporting level

1⁄6
1⁄2

Group

1⁄2

Investment manager or business unit

2⁄2

Entity

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

2⁄6
1⁄3

Externally checked

1

Externally verified

using Scheme name

1

Externally assured

using Scheme name

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

4⁄5
2⁄6

Stand-alone sustainability report(s)

Select the applicable reporting level

1⁄6
1⁄2

Group

1⁄2

Investment manager or business unit

2⁄2

Entity

1⁄6

Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

2⁄6
1⁄3

Externally checked

1

Externally verified

using Scheme name

1

Externally assured

using Scheme name

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

3⁄5
2⁄6

Section in Annual Report

Select the applicable reporting level

1⁄6
1⁄2

Group

1⁄2

Investment manager or business unit

2⁄2

Entity

1⁄6

Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

2⁄6
1⁄3

Externally checked

1

Externally verified

using Scheme name

1

Externally assured

using Scheme name

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

1⁄5
2⁄3

Dedicated section on website

Select the applicable reporting level

1⁄3
1⁄2

Group

1⁄2

Investment manager or business unit

2⁄2

Entity

×

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

2⁄5
4⁄6

Entity reporting to investors

Frequency of reporting: ____________

1⁄6

Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

1⁄6
1⁄3

Externally checked

1

Externally verified

using Scheme name

1

Externally assured

using Scheme name

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

2⁄5
2⁄6

Other: ____________

Select the applicable reporting level

1⁄6
1⁄2

Group

1⁄2

Investment manager or business unit

2⁄2

Entity

1⁄6

Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

2⁄6
1⁄3

Externally checked

1

Externally verified

using Scheme name

1

Externally assured

using Scheme name

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

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

________________________

RP1

Scheme name

  • AA1000AS
  • Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
  • Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
  • Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
  • ASAE3000
  • Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT101)
  • Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
  • California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
  • Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
  • Carbon Trust Standard
  • Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
  • Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
  • Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
  • Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
  • DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
  • Earthcheck Certified
  • Enviro-Mark Solutions’ CEMARS (Certified Emissions Measurement And Reduction Scheme) standard
  • ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
  • IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
  • IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
  • ISAE 3000
  • ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
  • ISO14064-3
  • JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
  • Korean GHG and energy target management system
  • NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
  • RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
  • RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
  • Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
  • SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
  • Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
  • Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
  • State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
  • Swiss Climate CO2 label
  • Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
  • Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
  • Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
  • Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
  • MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
  • ISO 50002 standard
  • ISO 19011 standard

Guideline name

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

3 points , G

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.

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):

1
1⁄8

Clients/customers

1⁄8

Community/public

1⁄8

Contractors

1⁄8

Employees

1⁄8

Investors/shareholders

1⁄8

Regulators/government

1⁄8

Special interest groups

1⁄8

Suppliers

1⁄8

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 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.

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

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.

Risk Management

This aspect consists of 7 indicators (39% of the Management Component - Infrastructure Fund)

Risk Management

2020 Indicator

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)

1
1⁄4

ESG risks and opportunities are identified (relating to the material issues) are identified

1⁄4

ESG risks are analysed

1⁄4

ESG risks are evaluated and treated

1⁄4

ESG risks and opportunities are considered and can impact the investment decision

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

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

________________________

RM1.1

5.9 points , G

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.

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:

1

Integrate ESG risks and/or opportunities into business plans

1⁄3

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

1⁄3

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

1⁄3
1⁄2

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:

1⁄2
1⁄3

Community/public

1⁄3

Investors

1⁄3

Regulators/government

1⁄3

Special interest groups

No

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

________________________

RM1.2

5.9 points , G

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:

  • The number of checkboxes (elements of process) selected.
  • The open text box response and compliance described in the “validation” section above.
  • The number of stakeholder groups selected.

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.

Climate-related Risk Management

2020 Indicator

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

This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

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)

Upload 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

This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

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)

Upload 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

This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

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)

Upload 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

This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

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)

Upload 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

This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Stakeholder Engagement

This aspect consists of 4 indicators (13% of the Management Component - Infrastructure Fund)

Stakeholder Engagement

2020 Indicator

SE1

Employee engagement program

Does the entity have an employee engagement program?

Yes

Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)

1
1⁄2

Development of action plan

1⁄2

Feedback sessions with Senior Management Team

1⁄2

Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments

1⁄2

Focus groups

1⁄2

Implementation

1⁄2

Planning and preparation for engagement

1⁄2

Program review and evaluation

1⁄2

Training

1⁄2

Other: ____________

No

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

________________________

SE1

1 point , S

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.

SE2

Employee training

Does the entity provide training and development for employees?

Yes

1⁄2

Percentage of employees who received professional training in the reporting year

________________________

1⁄2

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 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.

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)

2⁄3

Internally

2⁄3

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

By an independent third party

3⁄3

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

The survey includes quantitative metrics

Yes

1⁄3

Metrics include

3⁄3

Net Promoter Score

2⁄3

Overall satisfaction score

2⁄3

Other: ____________

No

No

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

________________________

SE3

1 point , S

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.

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

1⁄2

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

1⁄2

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 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'.