Intent

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

Requirements

Complete all applicable fields.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2021 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2021 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

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

Intent

Describe the ownership status and structure of the participating entity.

Requirements

Ownership:Select the nature of ownership of the participating entity. The nature of ownership aligns with the EDHECinfra™ TICCS™ classification for “Business Risk”.

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2021 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2021 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

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

Terminology

Government entity: An entity owned and managed by the government.

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

Private entity: An entity that is not publicly listed or traded on a recognized stock exchange.

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

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

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.

Legal Entity Identifier (LEI): The Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) is a unique global identifier for legal entities participating in financial transactions. Also known as an LEI code or LEI number, its purpose is to help identify entities on a global accessible database.

References

EDHECInfra - The Infrastructure Company Classification Standard (TICCS™), 2020

World Bank Group, Public-Private Partnership in Infrastructure Resource Centre

Intent

Establish the age of the entity.

Requirements

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

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

If the entity is still under construction (sometimes known as a greenfield asset), the expected year that operations will commence should be given.

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2021 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2021 Assessment answers. Review the response carefully.

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to set the entity’s annual reporting year. This information is used in combination with the responses to the indicators Sector & Geography (RC3) and Ancillary Activities (RC4) to understand the entity’s reporting boundary.

Requirements

Calendar year:Select the reporting year approach that applies to the entity.

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 2021 - Jan 2022
March	Mar 2021 - Feb 2022
April	Apr 2021 - Mar 2022
May	May 2021 - Apr 2022
June	Jun 2021 - May 2022
July	Jul 2020 - Jun 2021
August	Aug 2020 - Jul 2021
September	Sept 2020 - Aug 2021
October	Oct 2020 - Sept 2021
November	Nov 2020 - Oct 2021
December	Dec 2020 - Nov 2021

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

Calendar year: January 1 – December 31.

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

Reporting year: Answers must refer to the reporting year identified in EC4 (Reporting year) 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 year. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or viceversa, as long as the chosen reporting year is used consistently throughout the Assessment.

Intent

Indicate which currency is used by the Entity to report monetary values in the Assessment.

Requirements

Currency: Select the currency used by the entity in their reporting throughout the Assessment.

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2021 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2021 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

Establish the economic size and number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workers of the entity. GAV and revenue are information used (as denominators) to calculate intensity performance metrics in the Performance Component. The number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workers and contractors influence materiality (see guidance in RC7 and the GRESB Materiality Tool for more details).

The number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workers and contractors influence materiality (see guidance in RC7 and the

GRESB Materiality Matrix for more details).

Requirements

GAV and revenue: Provide the entity’s GAV and revenue, both in millions (e.g. $75,000,000 must be reported as 75). GAV should be provided as at the end of the reporting year, and should include development and construction projects (if any). Revenue should be for the reporting year as stated in EC4.

It is mandatory to provide both the GAV and revenue. Estimates are acceptable (for example, annual operating costs may be used instead of revenue). Like all information provided to GRESB, this information will be kept confidential and is only shared with investors to whom you have granted permission. The information provided will be used to calculate intensities for certain indicators in the Performance Component.

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

Workers: Provide the number of full time equivalent (FTE) workers of the asset, split into employees and contractors. Entities should determine whether workers classify as employees or contractors; as approaches may differ by locality or jurisdiction, GRESB purposefully leaves the exact distinction up to the asset. In general, though:

• Employees are the workers working for and employed directly by the asset
• Contractors are people working for another business (or are self-employed) and are contracted by the asset

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

Contractor: Someone working for a business contracted by the asset to perform a service or other works at or for the asset.

Employee: Someone who works directly for the asset and receives compensation in the form of an hourly wage or annual salary for their work. This can be both onsite or offsite (such as in an administration office). Employers typically have to pay specific benefits such as contributions to pensions or taxes for employees. Employees may be either full time or part time and may operate on a short term contract.

FTE: Full Time Equivalent, a unit to measure the number of employed persons to make them comparable regardless of the number of working hours. FTE can be calculated by comparing the number of hours worked by an employee against the average number of hours of a full time worker. For example, if the number of hours worked by an employee in a week is 20, and the standard full time work week consists of 40 hours, the employee is counted as 0.5 FTE.

Gross Asset Value (GAV): The gross infrastructure value owned by the entity being the enterprise value associated with the infrastructure asset. Use of the 'tangible fixed assets' or 'property, plant and equipment' value may be a suitable estimate if enterprise value is not known.

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

Worker: Someone who is eihter an employee or a contractor, that is, workers include both employees and contractors, and the number of workers is the sum of employees plus contractors.

Intent

Describe the sectors and locations of the facility or facilities that comprise the asset. This information is used for materiality-based scoring and to determine peers for benchmarking and reporting purposes. It is also used in combination with the Ancillary Activities (RC4) and Reporting Year (EC4) descriptions to describe the entity’s reporting boundary.

Requirements

List all significant facilities that comprise the asset and complete details for each as follows:

• Weight GAV: Assign a weight to each facility based on the actual or estimated proportion to the total asset GAV. The total weights of facilities must sum to 100%.
• Country: Select from the list of countries (aligned to the UN Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use).
• Address: Enter the address of the facility including the number, street, town/city, and region/state. Suggestions will appear in a drop down menu, select the address that applies. Latitude and longitude coordinates will be automatically pre-filled if the address is valid. If the typed address is not found, provide an approximate location (e.g: street name) or enter the latitude and longitude coordinates in the next field.
• Latitude and Longitude Coordinates: Enter the latitude and longitude of the facility in the relevant fields. The address coordinates will automatically pre-fill based on the address reported. Coordinates should be provided in decimal degrees.
• Sector: Select the appropriate sector by selecting an option from the drop down list or entering by typing a keyword. Only list the facility’s core sector (its main infrastructure service). If there is more than one core sector for the facility,consider splitting it up into multiple facilities with one core sector per facility. The full list of sectors aligns to the EDHECInfra TICCS™ standard Industrial Classifications and the EU taxonomy and is provided in Appendix 3.
• Other:For sectors that do not appear in the drop-down list, “Other” can be selected.
• Lifecycle stage:select whether the facility is in operation or development
• Reporting boundaries:Select whether the facility is included in the entity’s reporting boundaries.

It is up to the participant to determine the best structure for reporting of facilities since they have the best understanding of their facilities. Multiple small facilities may be grouped into a facility network or similar, particularly if the core sector is the same for the grouped facilities. For example, a network of wastewater pipelines and pumping stations might be grouped into a single sewerage pipe network. Another grouped facility might be a group of rooftop solar installations within a certain region or country.

Please note that the selected structure may affect your peer grouping based on the outcome of the primary sector and location.

Primary Sector: The asset’s primary sector is determined by the facility table, based on the reported sector(s) of the Asset’s facilities. Assets are assigned a primary sector at the subclass, class or superclass level, according to the following logic:

• Subclass: If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single subclass, the Asset’s primary sector will be that subclass;
• Class: If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single class, the Asset’s primary sector will be that class;
• Superclass If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single superclass, the Asset’s primary sector will be that superclass.
• Diversified If less than 75% of facilities fall into a single superclass, the Asset’s sector will be ‘Diversified’.

Primary Location: Similarly, the primary location is determined based on the location(s) of its facilities. Assets are assigned a primary location at the country, subregion, region or global level, according to the following logic:

Similarly, the primary location is determined based on the mix of facility locations, using a three-tier system as follows:

• Country: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single country, the Asset’s primary location is that country;;
• Subregion: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single subregion, the Asset’s primary location is that subregion;
• Region: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single region, the Asset’s primary location is that region;
• Global: If less than 59% of the Asset’s facilities are located in a single region, the Asset’s primary location will be listed as ‘Globally diversified’

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

This information will be used to identify peers from the same or similar sectors and locations. Additionally, the Asset’s primary sector and primary location determine materiality outcomes for certain ESG issues and scoring (see RC7 for more details).

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

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

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

In development: The facility is under development and is not yet ‘in operation’. Typically ‘in development’ means the facility is in the planning, design or construction stages.

In operation: The facility is providing its core service (output) and has commenced earning revenue.

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

References

EDHECInfra - The Infrastructure Company Classification Standards (TICCS™), 2020

UN - Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49)

Intent

Describe the ancillary activities engaged in by the entity. This information is used in combination with the Sector & Geography (RC3) and Reporting Year (EC4) descriptions to describe the entity’s reporting boundary.

Requirements

Significant activities: Select all significant activities engaged in by the entity, outside of its main activity. Insignificant activities typically make up less than 1% of the entity’s budget, resourcing or revenue, so excluding them from ESG reporting still provides a complete picture to stakeholders.

Activities in reporting boundaries: Select all of the ancillary activities that are included within the boundary of ESG reporting of the entity. This must be a sub-set (or all) of the activities listed in the previous section (in other words only select from the activities that were selected in the previous list).

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

• Select all significant activities engaged in by the entity, outside of its main activity. Insignificant activities typically make up less than 1% of the entity’s budget, resourcing or revenue, so excluding them from ESG reporting still provides a complete picture to stakeholders.
• Select all of the ancillary activities that are included within the boundary of ESG reporting of the entity. This must be a sub-set (or all) of the activities listed in the previous section (in other words only select from the activities that were selected in the previous list).

Terminology

Ancillary activity: The activities engaged in by the entity that allow it to provide its core service but are not its main activity.

Main activity: The activity engaged in by the entity that are associated with its sector and the core service that the entity provides.

References

frastructure as an asset class, Second edition, by Barbara Weber, Mirjam Staub-Bisang and Hans Wilhelm Alfen, 2016.

Intent

Describe the structure and business risk of the participating entity. The scope of service of the entity influences materiality (see guidance in RC7 and the

GRESB Materiality Toolfor more details).

Requirements

Structure: Select whether the entity’s structure is that of a Corporate, a Special Purpose Vehicle or some other structure (if so, then please describe).

Business Risk (Revenue basis): Select the most significant business risks (or revenue basis) borne by the entity being Merchant, Concessionary/Contracted, Regulated, or Other. More than one selection (i.e. a combination) is allowed. This aligns with the EDHECinfra™TICCS™ classification for Business Risk. Multiple answers are possible. For ‘Other’ answer, describe the business risk borne.

Scope of Service: Select whether the entity provides associated services in addition to providing the asset itself. The associated services may be Asset Maintenance and/or Asset Operation. This section then determines whether the Scope of Service provided by the entity is:

• Asset provision
• Asset provision and maintenance
• Asset provision and operation
• Asset provision, maintenance and operation.

This information is used for materiality-based scoring and to determine the entity’s peer group for benchmarking and reporting purposes.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

Corporate: A corporate structure is that of a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations have limited liability, which means that shareholders may take part in the profits through dividends and stock appreciation but are not personally liable for the company's debts.

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

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

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

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

References

EDHECInfra - The Infrastructure Company Classification Standards (TICCS™), 2020

IPWEA, International Infrastructure Management Manual, 2015

Intent

Provide a description and image of the entity that may be used for marketing and/or communication purposes.

Requirements

Description The description may include:

• Purpose of the entity's operations;
• The service(s) provided by the asset
• Ownership and governance
• Market position of the entity
• Link to website

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

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

Infrastructure is a diverse asset class, where the relevance (materiality) of ESG issues can vary between assets due to a range of factors. The intent of this indicator is to determine the materiality of a range of ESG issues covered by the GRESB Assessment. Once this indicator is completed, the entity will see an overview of the ESG issues covered within the GRESB Assessment and their materiality outcome.

Requirements

It is mandatory to complete the GRESB Materiality Assessment as it affects the materiality-based scoring applied in this Assessment.

Materiality questions: Complete the list of questions. The response to these, along with responses to other indicators in the Entity Characteristics and Reporting Characteristics will determine the entity-specific materiality weighting for all ESG issues covered within the GRESB Asset Assessment, which will be displayed at the bottom of this indicator in the portal.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity based on fifteen materiality factors:

• Number of employees (from RC2);
• Number of contractors (from RC2);
• Primary sector (from RC3);
• Primary location (from RC3;
• Scope of Service (from EC2);
• Biodiversity and Habitat (this indicator, RC7);
• Contaminated land (this indicator, RC7);
• Resilience (this indicator, RC7);
• Water inflows / withdrawals (this indicator, RC7);
• Water outflows / discharges (this indicator, RC7);
• Light pollution (this indicator, RC7);
• Noise pollution (this indicator, RC7);
• Number of customers (this indicator, RC7);
• Number of users (this indicator, RC7);

Scoring weightings are assigned to ESG issues at one of four possible materiality levels, which directly translate to a scoring weighting in the Assessment:

• No relevance (weighting: 0)
• Low relevance (weighting: 0)
• Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
• High relevance (weighting: 2)

These entity-specific weightings are used in several indicators for scoring. Scoring details are provided within the guidance of each relevant indicator.

For more details refer to the section on ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide or download the Materiality Tool.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

Factor	Question	Answers	Guidance
Primary Sector (RC3)	See Materiality and Scoring Tool	See GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool:	See the guidance for RC3 (Sector & Geography) on how the primary sector is determined.
Primary Location (RC3)	Is the entity's Primary Location in developed countries, developing countries or mixed?	Developed	Developed countries are Japan, Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and Europe. See RC3 for more details.
		Developing	Developing countries are any that are not developed.
		Mixed	Mixed means that the entity is located in locations that are a mix of developed and developing countries.
Biodiversity and habitat	What is the entity's proximity to ecological habitat?	Containing,overlapping,adjacent	Ecological habitat means terrestrial or aquatic areas distinguished by geographic, abiotic and biotic features, whether entirely natural or semi-naturale.g. as per the classifications in Annex I of the EU Habitat Directive. The distance should be measured as the closest point of any part of the asset to any part of an ecological habitat. Adjacent means directly bordering or where habitat is within the asset facility boundary.
		Close (<100m)
		Asset provision and operation
Contaminated Land	Does the entity have contamination on site?	Yes	Contaminated land contains substances that are causing or could cause (a) significant harm to people, property or protected species; or (b) significant pollution of surface waters (for example lakes and rivers) or groundwater. Land contamination can result from a variety of intended, accidental, or naturally occurring activities and events such as manufacturing, mineral extraction, abandonment of mines, national defense activities, waste disposal, accidental spills, illegal dumping, leaking underground storage tanks, hurricanes, floods, pesticide use, and fertilizer application.
		No
Physical risk (climate driven and otherwise)	Is the entity located in an area exposed to climate-related phenomena or natural catastrophes?	Yes, the entity is exposed	The location (any part of the current asset area) has been and/or could be affected by physical risks.
		Yes, but only the surrounding area is exposed	The surrounding area (10km radius) has been and/or could be affected by physical risks.
		No	No part of the asset or surrounding areas has been or could be affected by physical risks.
Water inflows/withdrawals	What is the scale of the entity's water use/withdrawal and scarcity of water in the location?	High (Greater than 1000 Megaliters) water withdrawals in location with high water stress	High withdrawals means greater than 1000 MegalitersHigh water stress means High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct. Medium/Low consumption means less than 1000 Megaliters Low water stress means not High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct.
		High (Greater than 1000 Megaliters ) water withdrawals in locations with low water stress
		Low (Lower than 1000 Megaliters ) water withdrawals in locations with high water stress
		Low (Lower than 1000 Megaliters) water withdrawals in locations with low water stress
		No consumption
Water outflows/discharges	Is there a risk of pollution from discharges to waterways (including groundwater)?	Yes and waterways are in locations with high water stress	Risk of pollution means there are measurable pollutants in the discharge that if their levels were elevated could cause negative impact. High water stress means High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct.
		Yes but waterways are not in locations with high water stress
		No
Light pollution	Does the entity use significant external lighting at night?	Yes and the location is densely populated	Densely populated means greater than 2000 people per square kilometer.
		Yes but the location is not densely populated
		No
Noise pollution	Does the entity emit noise externally?	Yes and the location is densely populated	Densely populated means greater than 2000 people per square kilometer.
		Yes but the location is not densely populated
		No
Number of customers	What is the number of customers?	>100	Customers are people or organisations that purchase the service(s) provided by the asset. This can include business (B2B) and retail customers.
		10-100
		<10
Number of users	What is the number of users that physically interact with the asset?	>1000	Users are people that interact physically with the asset when they use its services.Interaction means using one or more of their physical senses e.g. a mass transit passenger service. There is typically a safety risk associated with the users physical interaction.
		100-1000
		10-100
		<10
Number of employees (RC)	What is the number of FTE employees?	>100	Employees are the workers working for and employed directly by the asset. (FTE) Full Time Equivalent of the entity's employees. FTE is calculated by adding all hours paid to employees (full-time, part-time, or any other) and dividing them by the number of hours that a full-time employee should work in that given period.
		20-100
		<20
		0
Number of contractors (RC)	What is the number of FTE contractors?	>100	(Contractors are people working for another business (or are self-employed) and are contracted by the asset. FTE) Full Time Equivalent of the entity's contractors FTE is calculated by adding all hours paid to contractors(full-time, part-time, or any other) and dividing them by the number of hours that a full-time contractor should work in that given period.
		10-100
		<20
		0
Number of workers (RC) calculated	What is the number of FTE workers (employees and contractors)?	100 20-100 <20	(FTE) Full Time Equivalent of the entity's employees and contractors FTE is calculated by adding all hours paid to workers (full-time, part-time, or any other) and dividing them by the number of hours that a full-time workers should work in that given period.
Number of employees and scope of service (RC5)	What is the entity's number of employees and scope of service?	Number of employees >100 - Asset provision	(FTE) Full Time Equivalent of the entity's employees combined with its scope of service (see RC5).
		Number of employees >100 - Asset provision and maintenance
		Number of employees >100 - Asset provision and operation
		Number of employees >100 - Asset provision, maintenance and operation
		Number of employees 20-100 -Asset provision
		Number of employees 20-100 - Asset provision and maintenance
		Number of employees 20-100 - Asset provision and operation
		Number of employees 20-100 - Asset provision, maintenance and operation
		Number of employees <20 - Asset provision
		Number of employees <20 - Asset provision and operation
		Number of employees <20 - Asset provision, maintenance and operation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary sector: The main infrastructure sector of the entity as provided in RC3 ("Sector & geography").

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

References

Columbia University/NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center’s (SEDAC) Gridded Population of the World (GPW), v4

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2013)

Eurostat Glossary - Coastal area 2018

UK Environmental Protection Act

United Nations Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49)

World Resources Institute - Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas

Alignment with External Frameworks

DSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.2 Materiality

GRI Standards 2016 - 101-1.3: The Materiality Principle

DJSI CSA 2019 - 3.2 Materiality

GRI Standards 2016 - 101-1.3: The Materiality Principle

Intent

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

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Materiality assessment: Note that this is in regards with the entity’s own ESG materiality assessment, separate from the GRESB materiality assessment in RC7.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2021 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2021 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Scoring

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, with maximum points awarded if all checkboxes have been selected.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

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

References

Good practice example: Please refer to pages from 13 to 17 of the "sustainability plan" found on this page.

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) 2021 - 3.2 Materiality

GRI Standards 2021 - 3: Materiality Topics 2021

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity's commitment(s) 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.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select 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.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Scoring

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

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

30% Club:

A campaign group of Chairs and CEOs taking action to increase gender diversity on boards and senior management teams.

Business for Nature:

Business for Nature is a global coalition that brings together business and conservation organizations and forward-thinking companies. The goal is to demonstrate credible business leadership on nature and amplify a powerful leading business voice calling for governments to adopt policies now to reverse nature loss this decade.

Climate League 2030:

Climate League 2030 is a ten-year, private sector-focused initiative to support and act towards a goal of reducing Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by at least a further 230 million tonnes from what is projected for 2030.

EV100:

A global initiative bringing together forward looking companies committed to accelerating the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) and making electric transport the new normal by 2030.

RE100:

RE100 is a global initiative uniting businesses committed to 100% renewable electricity, working to massively increase demand for and delivery of renewable energy. RE100 is convened by The Climate Group in partnership with CDP.

Powering PastCoal Alliance (PPCA):

A coalition of countries, states and business working towards the global phase-out of unabated coal power.

Science Based Targets Initiative:

The initiative is a collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) which has a goal of enabling companies setting science based targets to reduce GHG emissions.

Support the Goals:

An initiative to rate and recognise the businesses that support the UN Global Goals.

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures:

The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures will develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies in providing information to investors, lenders, insurers, and other stakeholders.

Transform to Net Zero:

Aims to deliver guidance and business plans to enable a transformation to net zero emissions, as well as research, advocacy, and best practices to make it easier for the private sector to not only set ambitious goals–but also deliver meaningful emissions reductions and economic success.

The Responsible Labor Initiative (RLI):

A multi-industry, multi-stakeholder collaboration stemming out of the forced labor commitments and programs of the Responsible Business Alliance (RBA), formerly the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC).

UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge

A pledge representing a group of signatory companies and governments taking the lead on reducing emissions and accelerating the global journey to a climate-neutral future.

UN Global Compact:

The UN Global Compact is a voluntary initiative based on CEO commitments to implement universal sustainability principles and to take steps to support UN goals.

UN Global Compact Our Only Future:

A global movement of leading companies aligning their businesses with the most ambitious aim of the Paris Agreement, to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Call to Action:

A global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world and helping member companies become more successful and sustainable by focusing on the maximum positive impact for shareholders, the environment and societies.

WorldGBC’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment:

The Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment (the Commitment) challenges companies, cities, states and regions to reach Net Zero operating emissions in their portfolios by 2030, and to advocate for all buildings to be Net Zero in operation by 2050.

The initiative is a collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and one of the We Mean Business Coalition commitments. The SBTi defines and promotes best practice in science-based target setting, offers resources and guidance to reduce barriers to adoption, and independently assesses and approves companies’ targets.

The Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment is developed to recognise and promote advanced climate leadership action from businesses, organizations, cities and subnational governments in decarbonising the built environment, to inspire others to take similar action and remove barriers to implementation.

Signatories commit to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040—10 years ahead of the Paris Agreement.

A cross-sector initiative to accelerate the transition to a net zero global economy.

The Climate Neutral Now Initiative is one of several initiatives launched by the UNFCCC secretariat to increase climate action by engaging non-Party stakeholders (sub-national governments, companies, organizations, individuals).

The UN-convened Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA) is a member-led initiative of institutional investors committed to transitioning their investment portfolios to net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 – consistent with a maximum temperature rise of 1.5°C.

The Net Zero Asset Managers initiative is an international group of asset managers committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, in line with global efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius; and to supporting investing aligned with net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.

The Paris Aligned Investment Initiative is a collaborative investor-led global forum enabling investors to align their portfolios and activities to the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Intent

Clear Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) objectives help participants identify material issues and integrate them into overall day-to-day management practices. This fosters alignment between management of sustainability issues and the overall strategy of the entity and demonstrates commitment to monitoring and improving ESG performance.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Objectives Indicate whether the objectives are publicly available or not. Publicly available means, in this context, that any person would be able to access the information, for example through a website or open-source report.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence provided will be subject to manual validation.

Evidence:

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 evidence must sufficiently support all the items selected for this question and cover the following elements:

• Specific, actionable ESG objective(s) that relate to each of the selected criteria and have been formally adopted and/or implemented by the entity.
• Public availability of the objectives (if applicable).

Acceptable evidence may include illustrative portions of business plans, sustainability plan/strategy, annual report, policies, documented ESG-related targets/goals, company presentations, etc. Note that overarching sustainability documents must have separate sections/clauses relevant for each of the selected topics.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 objective 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 Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Formally adopted: To set and communicate a strategy/target/program, at least internally, and having implemented or prepared actions to achieve this.

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

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

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

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

References

Good practice example: Please refer to this link

DISO14001: Environmental Management

UNPRI, PRI Reporting Framework, 2018

Intent

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.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select all options that apply to the entity.

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.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Scoring

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 Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

ESG objectives: Strategic priorities and key topics for the management and/or improvement of ESG issues.

Investment partners (co-investor/JV partners): A General Partner that co-owns and operates (part of) the entity’s assets and is responsible for implementing ESG objectives at asset level.

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

References

Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures June 2017: Governance A&B

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI 2 - General Disclosures 2021: 2-12 and 2-14. Executive-level responsibility for economic, environmental, and social topics

Intent

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.

Requirements

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

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.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: List a specific senior decision-maker’s position title who is accountable for ESG issues and/or climate-related issues. Vague answers will not be sufficient for validation. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Executive Board” when “Board of Directors”” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of 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. C-suite level staff are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as senior management, executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

ESG strategy: Strategy that (1) sets out the participant’s procedures and (2) sets the direction and guidance for the entity’s implementation of ESG measures.

Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of investments and the deployment of investor capital by creating and implementing asset level strategies across the entire portfolio or fund.

Investment Committee: A group of individuals who oversee the entity’s investment strategy, evaluates investment proposals and maintains the investment policies, subject to the Board’s approval.

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 issues: 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.

References

Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures October 2021: Governance A&B

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Climate Change 2021 - C1 Governance

GRI Standards 2021 - GRI 2: General Disclosures 2021: 2-12 and 2-14

Intent

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.

Requirements

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 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: AAdd 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. “Sustainability Manager”” when “‘ESG Managers” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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:

• Existence of employee performance targets on ESG related issues specific for each of the selected personnel groups.
• Clearly demonstrated financial and/or non-financial consequences for the selected personnel group(s).
• Performance targets must apply to all members of the selected personnel group(s). If the target relates to a single employee, that employee should be listed as an “Other”.
• Note that sensitive information may be redacted from the documents as long as the requirements outlined above are clearly met. If the consequences are not clearly defined and connected to the ESG targets within the provided evidence, then sufficient explanation must be provided within either the evidence open text box or a cover page.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Official documents (e.g. employee policies, contracts, performance goals, enterprise agreements, code of conduct), web pages, and newsletters describing consequences associated with specific ESG-related targets,
• Official documents from the entity describing financial consequences. Consequences can be either positive or negative. Examples of financial consequences include (but are not limited to) bonuses or pay raises/cuts.
• Official documents from the entity describing non-financial consequences. Consequences can be either positive or negative. Examples of non-financial consequences include (but are not limited to) written or verbal recognition, awards, and career development opportunities, and/or performance review / management / counseling.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Annual performance targets: Targets set in annual performance reviews based on assessments of employee performance.

Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of 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. C-suite level staff are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as senior management, executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

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

ESG manager: A person or a group who manages the ESG strategy and implementation of the entity.

External manager or service provider: Organizations, businesses or individuals that offer services to others in exchange for payment. These include, but are not limited to, consultants, agents and brokers.

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

Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of investments and the deployment of investor capital by creating and implementing asset level strategies across the entire portfolio or fund.

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 individuals who oversee the entity’s investment strategy, evaluates investment proposals and maintains the investment policies, subject to the Board’s approval.

Investor relations: A person or a group that provides investors with an accurate account of company affairs so investors can make better informed decisions.

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

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Climate Change 2021 - C1.3 Employee Incentives

CSA 2021 - 4.4.2 Climate-Related Management Incentive

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-35: Remuneration policies

Good practice example: Please refer to the remuneration reporting using this link

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material environmental issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s policy / policies. The policy or policies must exist and be valid during the reporting year provided in EC4. 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. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: List applicable environmental issues that apply to the entity but are 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 accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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.

The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected environmental issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments. Acceptable evidence may include an environmental policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's environmental policy(ies). References such as bullet points or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue. The evidence should support each of the selected issues with a relevant document such as energy consumption policy or a waste management policy. Note that overarching environmental policy documents covering multiple issues must have separate sections/clauses relevant to each of the selected issues.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 for those elements in the checklist that are:

1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. 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 a 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 scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

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.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

• No relevance (weighting: 0)
• Low relevance (weighting: 0)
• Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
• High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Air pollution: Air pollutants are particles and gases released into the atmosphere that may adversely affect living organisms. Additionally, some pollutants contribute to climate change or exacerbate the effects of climate change locally.

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

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

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

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

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

Hazardous substances: Any substance or chemical which is a "health hazard" or "physical hazard," including: chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable-reactive or water-reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have any of the previously mentioned characteristics. (Full definitions can be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200.) Ref US OSHA's definition includes any substance or chemical which is a "health hazard" or "physical hazard," including: chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable-reactive or water-reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have any of the previously mentioned characteristics. (Full definitions can be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200.)

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

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

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

Physical Risk: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of physical hazards, natural disasters, catastrophes, as well as physical climate-related hazards, which may be event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). The physical risk associated with a particular real asset may be described in terms of elements including hazard exposure, sensitivity, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity.

Decreasing the sensitivity of an asset to particular physical risks, increasing its adaptive capacity, and planning are all ways of increasing the resilience of the built environment against physical risks, climate-driven or otherwise. In practice, these objectives may be promoted by various actions including the establishment of appropriate management policies; the utilisation of informational technologies for disaster response; the education of employees, the community, and suppliers; and implementing physical measures at the asset level.

Policy: Defines an organizational commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the organization.

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

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

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) or to third-parties for treatment or use.

References

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2021 - General Disclosures 2021: 2-23: Policy commitments

GRI Standards 2016 - 300 series: Environmental Standards

Good practice examples: Please refer to the policies on Water Managemenet and Biodiversity can be found on this page. Alternatively, examples of policies on Climate change mitigiation and resilience, or Air pollution can be found on this page.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material social issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s policy / policies. The policy or policies must exist and be valid during the reporting year provided in EC4. 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. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: List applicable social issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Health & Safety: Customers” when “‘Health & Safety: Users” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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.

The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected social issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments. Acceptable evidence may include a social policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's social policy(ies). References such as bullet points or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue. The evidence should support each of the selected issues with a relevant document such as an employee health & wellbeing policy, human rights policy, code of conduct, or community investment statement. Note that overarching social policy documents covering multiple issues must have separate sections/clauses relevant to each of the selected issues.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 for those elements in the checklist that are:

1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. 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 a 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 scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

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.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

• No relevance (weighting: 0)
• Low relevance (weighting: 0)
• Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
• High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Community development: A process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local employment: Providing jobs and skills to local people as employees, and to local contractors.

Policy: Defines an organizational commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the organization.

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

Stakeholder relations: The practice of forging mutually beneficial connections with third-party groups and individuals that have a stake in common interest.

References

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2021 - General Disclosures 2021: 2-23: Policy commitments

GRI Standards 2016 - 400 series: Social Standards

Good practice examples: Multiple policies on issues such as Local engagement, Stakeholder engagement or Health & Safety can be found on this page.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material governance issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s policy / policies. The policy or policies must exist and be valid during the reporting year provided in EC4. 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. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: List applicable governance issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Solicitation ” when “‘Bribery ” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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.

The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected governance issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments. Acceptable evidence may include a governance policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's governance policy(ies). References such as bullet points or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue. The evidence should support each of the selected issues with a relevant document such as a cybersecurity policy, board charter, code of conduct or shareholder rights policy/agreement. Note that overarching governance policy documents covering multiple issues must have separate sections/clauses relevant to each of the selected issues.

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 policy(ies). References, such as bullets or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 for those elements in the checklist that are:

1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. 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 a 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 scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

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.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

• No relevance (weighting: 0)
• Low relevance (weighting: 0)
• Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
• High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

Board ESG oversight: The highest committee or position that formally reviews and approves the organization’s sustainability report and ensures that all material topics are covered.

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

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving or soliciting an item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal fiduciary duty.

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

Conflicts of interest: Situations where an individual is confronted with choosing between the requirements of his or her function and his or her own private interests.

Corruption: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain. Policies should be consistent with the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

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

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

Delegating authority: The process for delegating authority for economic, environmental, and social topics from the highest governance.

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

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

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

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

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

Policy: Defines an organizational commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the organization.

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

Shareholder rights: Assessing the potential risk of breaking or working against the entity’s contractual shareholder rights. Shareholder rights are defined in the company’s charter and bylaws.

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

References

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2021 - General Disclosures 2021: 2-23: Policy commitments

GRI Standards 2016 - 200 series: Economic Standards

Good practice example: Multiple policies on issues such as Good business conduct, or Tax can be found on this page.

Intent

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.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Prefill: This indicator is the same as the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Reporting type: The entity should select the appropriate reporting type.

• Integrated reports are any report aligned to the framework of the IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council). Integrated reports can reference 2021, 2020, or 2019 performance and/or actions.
• Annual Reports must reference actions and/or performance from the reporting year. An Annual Report that doesn’t overlap with the reporting year as stated in EC4 is only valid if a more recent report hasn’t yet been published.
• Standalone sustainability reports must be published separately from the Annual Report. If the entity intends to refer to a section in the Annual Report they should select ‘Annual Report’.
• A dedicated section on the entity’s website should explicitly address ESG and include actions and/or performance.
• Entity reporting to investors can for instance be a newsletter or press release, although it should cover ESG actions and performance. Additionally, the entity should indicate the frequency of reporting, for example, quarterly.
• 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.

Select the applicable reporting level: If the entity reports at multiple levels, you should select the most detailed reporting level:

• Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which you are submitting an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.
• Group: Related to a group of companies of which the participating entity forms a part. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) covers the entity subject to the GRESB submission, but doesn’t include a breakdown at the entity level. An example is an Annual Report that does not include specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity itself, but rather for the larger group of companies as an aggregate.

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).

• Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the reporting in a structured and consistent process.
• Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the reporting against an existing methodology or guideline. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
• Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the reporting against an existing methodology or guideline. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

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.

Validation

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 accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring.

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.

General evidence requirements:

1. All evidence must explicitly address ESG and include actions and/or performance undertaken by the entity; a list of general goals and/or commitments is not sufficient.In order for evidence to be accepted, it should cover at least two of the three pillars of ESG (i.e., environmental, social and/or governance). If it meets all other requirements but only one pillar is referenced, the evidence will be ‘partially accepted.
   1. An exception to this requirement is given for ‘Dedicated Section on Corporate Website.’ If the website covers actions and/or performance for at least one of the three pillars, it will be fully accepted.
2. Answers must clearly reference the applicable reporting level. If entity-level is chosen, then the ESG actions and/or performance must not only be relevant to the entity via connection to the investment manager/group, but must directly reference the entity by name.
3. The evidence provided must support the alignment chosen (if applicable). If listing an alignment that is not predefined, the alignment must be specific and entered in full, (i.e. avoid using acronyms). The evidence should clearly mention the alignment chosen.
4. The evidence provided must support the selected level of third party review (if applicable). The assurance and/or verification of ESG disclosure is separate from the assurance and/or verification of performance data reported in the Performance Component. Supplementary evidence such as a letter can be provided if the disclosure itself does not include confirmation of review. The evidence relating to the check, verification, and/or assurance must be in reference to the uploaded disclosure method provided (i.e., Annual Report). If submitting an assurance and/or verification letter externally to the report it must be made clear that the letter does apply to the respective evidence.
5. Failure to clearly communicate and support evidence of accurate level reporting, alignment, and/or third party verification/assurance can lead to partial acceptance.
6. Disclosure of GRESB results alone (i.e. without any additional analysis or ESG performance disclosure) is not sufficient for any disclosure type.

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) within the report itself. Integrated reports can reference 2021, 2020, or 2019 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. Similarly, if an entity reports quarterly, all 4 quarterly reports must be uploaded to cover the 12 months of reporting identified in EC4. Similarly, if an entity reports quarterly, all 4 quarterly 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 include actions and/or performance undertaken by the entity during the reporting year as given in EC4, explicitly addressing at least one pillar of ESG (but can address all 3 ESG pillars). A hyperlink to the Annual Report or Sustainability Report or any other documents 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 ESG or sustainability that does not contain any analysis of performance is insufficient. 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, Board reports, investor presentations, newsletters, or press releases disclosing ESG actions and/or performance are considered valid. Similar to entity-level reporting for other disclosure types, evidence provided for Entity reporting to investors must specifically reference actions and/or 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 2021 CDP Questionnaires or 2021 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.

Scoring

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 Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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.

References

IIRC - Integrated Reporting Framework

UNPRI - PRI Reporting Framework

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2021 - 2: General Disclosures 2021

Good practice examples: Please refer to the links below:

Integrated Report

Section of Annual Report. (See pages from 42 to 53

Dedicated section on the website

Entity reporting to investors

Other

Intent

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.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Prefill: This indicator is the same as the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 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.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: List applicable parties that would be notified of misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches, but that is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “local residents” when “‘Community/Public” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 Asset 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 2022 Sector Leaders.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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: Public allegation and/or litigation that could negatively impact the entity’s reputation.

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 behavior, especially by an employee or organization.

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

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

References

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - DJSI CSA 2021 - 3.4.1 Codes of Conduct

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - DJSI CSA 2021 - 3.4.4 Systems/Procedures

GRI Standards 2021 - General Disclosures 2021: 2-26: Mechanisms for seeking advice and raising concerns.

GRI Standards 2016 - 205-2: Communication and training about anti-corruption policies and procedures

Intent

This indicator intends 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.

Requirements

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 how the entity has resolved or intends to resolve the above issue(s).

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Scoring

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

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

NB: The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2022 Sector Leaders.

Terminology

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.

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.6 Corruption and Bribery Cases

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.7 Reporting on Breaches

GRI Standards 2016 - 205-3: Confirmed incidents of corruption and actions taken

Intent

This indicator assesses the entity’s use of management systems to manage environmental impacts, risks and opportunities. The presence and application of an ESG-related management standard or comparable framework is an indicator of an entity’s commitment to effectively action ESG issues.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Accreditations:: The entity should indicate whether it has certified its risk management system(s) to an external standard. 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.

Alignment of management system: If the entity has aligned a management system against an external standard without formal accreditation, it can indicate so here. 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 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a management system 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 accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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.

Specific evidence requirments:

Accredited to a standard: If the entity’s management system is accredited by an independent third party to a selected standard, the evidence must include signed proof of the certification, which must state the name of the standard, as well as contact information of the independent third party, and the date of the most recent accreditation (certification). Accreditation must be valid at some time within the reporting period. Examples of appropriate evidence include a certificate or formal letter issued by the third party accreditation body stating the selected management system standard(s) and indicated by date as current during at least part of the reporting period stated in EC4.

Aligned with a standard: If the management system is aligned with a standard, the evidence must include the name of the standard and define the degree of alignment with the standard. Elements of the management system that align with the standard can be summarized, called out, highlighted, or shown in a diagram. Examples of appropriate evidence include a policy, strategy, plan, annual report, corporate presentation or management system manual that clearly demonstrates the entity has implemented into the entity’s operations a management system in alignment with the selected standard.

Not accredited or aligned: If the entity’s management system is not accredited to or aligned with a selected standard, the evidence must include a high level summary, outline or diagram of the implemented management system and/or evidence of implementation into the entity’s operations.

Other answers: Provide the name of the 'Other' recognized standard that has been certified to or aligned with. Standards that are not recognized will be subject to manual validation.

To qualify as valid, the evidence provided for an 'Other' answer must include:

1. A high level outline or diagram of the implemented Management System with which the entity has attempted to align.
2. A clear framework for managing an entity’s ESG impact.
3. The applicability of the Management System at the entity level.
4. The stages, elements and/or processes currently covered by the Management System.
5. Evidence of implementation of the Management System into the entity’s operations.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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: This section consists of three sub-sections: i.) accreditation to a management standard(s), ii.) alignment to a management standard(s) and iii.) management system with no accreditation. Fractional points are awarded based on selected accreditation or alignment to a management standard. See the GRESB 2022 Asset Assessment Scoring Document for more information. No fractional points are awarded for having a management system with no alignment to an ESG-related management standard. 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.

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.

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 Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Accreditation (Certified): Third-party recognition of meeting the requirements of a recognized standard.

Environmental Management System (EMS): A framework for managing an entity’s environmental impact based on its sustainability and related objectives. It covers environmental impacts, impact reduction targets and plans to achieve targeted reductions. An EMS can cover a wide range of environmental topics, including, but not limited to: energy, GHG emissions, water, waste, transportation, climate change, resilience, risks, and materials. An EMS may be certified to an external standard, such as ISO140001.

An EMS provides a practical framework for the assessment of environmental impacts, establishment of impact reduction targets, and the development of plans to achieve targeted reductions. An EMS enables an entity to take a structured approach to planning and implementing environmental protection measures.An effective EMS is analogous to a financial management system that monitors expenditure and income to support analysis of financial performance. An EMS can cover a wide range of environmental topics, including, but not limited to: energy, GHG emissions, water, waste, transportation, climate change, resilience, risks, and materials. It can also refer to a wide variety of internal procedures, targets, persons responsible for implementing these procedures and working towards achieving the entity’s objectives. In summary, an EMS is used to formalize the strategic approach of the entity towards ESG. It outlines the structure used to monitor and manage environmental topics.

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

ISO 14001:2015 Environmental Management System sets out the criteria for an environmental management system.

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

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

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

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

ISO 45001:2018 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems provides guidance to organisations to enable the provision of a safe and healthy workplace by preventing work-related injury and ill health, and by proactively improving their occupational health and safety performance.

References

ISO - International Organization for Standardization

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Elements of risk assessment process: Select one of the available options. These have been aligned with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Material environmental issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s risk assessment process(es). 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. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: List environmental issues that apply to the entity but are 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 accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referencing evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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

The provided evidence must include the following elements:

• Confirms that an environmental risk assessment was conducted.
• Includes all selected elements of the risk assessment process, for all selected environmental issues, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
• Include all selected issues within the assessment, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
• Relates to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting year identified in EC4.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• A corporate risk register, environmental aspects and impacts register, environmental impact assessment, or a section of an environmental management plan/report that describes the entity’s environmental risk assessment process and outcomes.
• The entity’s risk framework or other document(s) describing the entity’s corporate or environmental risk assessment procedure, process or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• Environmental inspections and audits, monitoring reports for selected issues (e.g. contaminated land, noise) and reports/presentations of environmental metrics are not accepted evidence unless they are shown to support selected elements of a risk assessment process

See below for an example of a risk register structure:

	Risk identification	Risk analysis			Risk evaluation and treatment
Environmental issues	Risk description	Risk rating			Mitigation measures
		Likelihood	Consequence	Rating

The GRESB / B Capital Due Diligence tool (ESG DD Tool) contains such a register in the sheet named "ESG Risk & Opps Assessment"

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

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 for those elements in the checklist that are:

1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. 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 a 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 scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

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.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

• No relevance (weighting: 0)
• Low relevance (weighting: 0)
• Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
• High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Air pollution: Air pollutants are particles and gases released into the atmosphere that may adversely affect living organisms. Additionally, some pollutants contribute to climate change or exacerbate the effects of climate change locally.

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

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

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

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

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

Hazardous substances: Also known as dangerous goods. Any substances that can pose a health or physical hazard to humans or the environment, such as carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, combustibles or explosives.

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

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

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

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

Physical Risk: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of physical hazards, natural disasters, catastrophes, as well as physical climate-related hazards, which may be event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). The physical risk associated with a particular real asset may be described in terms of elements including hazard exposure, sensitivity, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity.

Decreasing the sensitivity of an asset to particular physical risks, increasing its adaptive capacity, and planning are all ways of increasing the resilience of the built environment against physical risks, climate-driven or otherwise. In practice, these objectives may be promoted by various actions including the establishment of appropriate management policies; the utilisation of informational technologies for disaster response; the education of employees, the community, and suppliers; and implementing physical measures at the asset level.

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

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) or to third-parties for treatment or use.

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

References

ISO 31000 Risk Management standard

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Climate Change 2021 - C2.1 Management Procedures

DJSI CSA 2021- 3.3.2 Emerging Risks.

DJSI CSA 2021 - 3.3.3 Risk Culture

GGRI Standards 2021 - General Disclosures 2021 - 2-13: Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts

Good practice examples: Please refer to the following link.

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Elements of risk assessment process: Select one of the available options. These have been aligned with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Material social issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s risk assessment process(es). 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. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: List social issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Health & Safety: Customers” when “‘Health & Safety: Users” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referencing evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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

The provided evidence must include the following elements:

• Confirm that an social risk assessment was conducted.
• Includes all selected elements of the risk assessment process, for all selected social issues, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
• Includes all selected social issues within the assessment, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible
• Relates to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting year identified in EC4.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• A corporate risk register, work health and safety risk register, social impact assessment, or a section of a work health and safety, diversity or stakeholder plan/report that describes the entity’s risk assessment process and outcomes.
• The entity’s risk framework or other document(s) describing the entity’s corporate, work health and safety and/or other relevant risk assessment procedure, process or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• Work health and safety inspections and audits, employee/stakeholder surveys, labor contracts, codes of conduct and reports/presentations of work health and safety metrics, diversity and inclusion, and/or community engagement are not accepted evidence unless they are shown to support selected elements of a risk assessment process.

See below for an example of a risk register structure:

	Risk identification	Risk analysis			Risk evaluation and treatment
Social issues	Risk description	Risk rating			Mitigation measures
		Likelihood	Consequence	Rating

The GRESB / B Capital Due Diligence tool (ESG DD Tool) contains such a register in the sheet named "ESG Risk & Opps Assessment"

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

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 for those elements in the checklist that are:

1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. 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 a 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 scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

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.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

• No relevance (weighting: 0)
• Low relevance (weighting: 0)
• Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
• High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Community development: A process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local employment: Providing jobs and skills to local people as employees, and to local contractors.

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

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

Stakeholder relations: The practice of forging mutually beneficial connections with third-party groups and individuals that have a stake in common interest.

References

ISO 31000 Risk Management standard

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - DJSI CSA 2021 - 3.3.2 Emerging Risks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - DJSI CSA 2021 - 3.3.3 Risk Culture

GRI Disclosures Standards 2021 - 2-13: Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Elements of risk assessment process: Select one of the available options. These have been aligned with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Material governance issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s risk assessment process(es). 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. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

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

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: List governance issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Solicitation” when “‘Bribery” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referencing evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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

The provided evidence must include the following elements:

• Confirms that an governance risk assessment was conducted.
• Includes all selected elements of the risk assessment process, for all selected governance issues, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible
• Includes all selected issues within the assessment, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
• Relates to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting year identified in EC4.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• A corporate risk register, governance-specific risk register or a section of a governance, Board, ethics, cybersecurity plan/report that describes the entity’s risk assessment process and outcomes.
• The entity’s risk framework or other document(s) describing the entity’s corporate, ethics, cybersecurity and/or other relevant risk assessment procedure, process or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• Board charters, reports and surveys, governance audits, codes of conduct and reports/presentations of ethics and cybersecurity metrics are not accepted evidence unless they are shown to support selected elements of a risk assessment process.

See below for an example of a risk register structure:

	Risk identification	Risk analysis			Risk evaluation and treatment
Governance issues	Risk description	Risk rating			Mitigation measures
		Likelihood	Consequence	Rating

The GRESB / B Capital Due Diligence tool (ESG DD Tool) contains such a register in the sheet named "ESG Risk & Opps Assessment"

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

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 for those elements in the checklist that are:

1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. 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 a 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 scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

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.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

• No relevance (weighting: 0)
• Low relevance (weighting: 0)
• Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
• High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

Board ESG oversight: The highest committee or position that formally reviews and approves the organization’s sustainability report and ensures that all material topics are covered.

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

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving or soliciting an item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal fiduciary duty.

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

Conflicts of interest: Situations where an individual is confronted with choosing between the requirements of his or her function and his or her own private interests.

Corruption: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

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

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

Delegating authority: The process for delegating authority for economic, environmental, and social topics from the highest governance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shareholder rights: Assessing the potential risk of breaking or working against the entity’s contractual shareholder rights. Shareholder rights are defined in the company’s charter and bylaws.

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

References

ISO 31000 Risk Management standard

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - DJSI CSA 2021 - 3.3.2 Emerging Risks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - DJSI CSA 2021 - 3.3.3 Risk Culture

RI Disclosures Standards 2021 - 2-13: Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts

Intent

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.

Requirements

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:

1. Description of how resilient the entity’s strategy is to climate-related risks and opportunities. The text should define “resilience” in the context of the entity. If applicable, explain how the entity’s strategy is operationalized into policies and management actions; where the entity’s strategy may be affected by climate-related risks and opportunities; and how its strategy might change to address such potential risks and opportunities;
2. The consideration of the transition to a lower-carbon economy consistent with a 2°C or lower scenario and, where relevant to the organization, scenarios consistent with increased physical climate-related risks;
3. Associated time horizon(s) considered.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 .

Terminology

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.

References

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.

Inevitable Policy Response.

Network for Greening the Financial System. NGFS Climate Scenarios for central banks and supervisors.

Science Based Targets initiative.

TCFD. (2017) “Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.”

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

Intent

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.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator. 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.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk identification process for transition risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment;
2. Specifically address each transition risk issues selected (e.g., policy and legal, technology, market, reputation).

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

• A document describing the entity’s transition risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• An extract of a procedure undertaken such as register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk management plan addressing transition risks.

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:

1. A description of the entity’s process for prioritizing transition risks;
2. A description of how materiality determinations are made for such risks; and
3. Where applicable, reference the risks identified in the checkboxes of this indicator.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 .

Terminology

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

References

TCFD. (2017) “Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.”

Intent

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.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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 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:

1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk impact assessment process for transition risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
2. Specifically address each transition risk issues selected (e.g., policy and legal, technology, market, reputation).

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

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

Evidence completeness: Evidence is optional for this indicator and not subject to validation. However, if evidence is provided it 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., ‘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:

1. A brief description of the entity’s overall risk management system; and
2. An explanation of how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing transition risks are integrated into this system.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 .

Terminology

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.

References

TCFD. Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2017)

Intent

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.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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 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:

1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk identification process for physical risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
2. Specifically addresses either acute hazards and/or chronic stresses.

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

• A document describing the entity’s physical risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• An extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk framework or risk management plan addressing physical risks.

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:

1. A description of the entity’s process for prioritizing physical risks;
2. A description of how materiality determinations are made for such risks; and,
3. Where applicable, reference the risks identified in the checkboxes of this indicator.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 .

Terminology

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.

References

TCFD. Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2017)

Intent

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.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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 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:

1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk impact assessment process for physical risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
2. Specifically addresses each selected material financial impact resulting from physical risk.

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

• A document describing the entity’s physical risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• An extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk framework or risk management plan addressing physical risks.

Evidence completeness: Evidence is optional for this indicator and not subject to validation. However, if evidence is provided it needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk identification process for each issue.

Other: State the other material financial impact resulting from physical risk. 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:

1. A brief description of the entity’s overall risk management system, and
2. An explanation of how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing physical risks are integrated into this system.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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 .

Terminology

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.

References

TCFD. Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2017)

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material environmental issues: Select all environmental issues that are covered by the entity’s ESG monitoring process(es). 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. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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 accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. 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 a 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 scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

• No relevance (weighting: 0)
• Low relevance (weighting: 0)
• Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
• High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Air pollution: Air pollutants are particles and gases released into the atmosphere that may adversely affect living organisms. Additionally, some pollutants contribute to climate change or exacerbate the effects of climate change locally.

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

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

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

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

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

Hazardous substances: Any substance or chemical which is a "health hazard" or "physical hazard," including: chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable-reactive or water-reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have any of the previously mentioned characteristics. (Full definitions can be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200.) Ref US OSHA's definition includes any substance or chemical which is a "health hazard" or "physical hazard," including: chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable-reactive or water-reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have any of the previously mentioned characteristics. (Full definitions can be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200.)

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

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

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

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

Physical Risk: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of physical hazards, natural disasters, catastrophes, as well as physical climate-related hazards, which may be event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). The physical risk associated with a particular real asset may be described in terms of elements including hazard exposure, sensitivity, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity.

Decreasing the sensitivity of an asset to particular physical risks, increasing its adaptive capacity, and planning are all ways of increasing the resilience of the built environment against physical risks, climate-driven or otherwise. In practice, these objectives may be promoted by various actions including the establishment of appropriate management policies; the utilisation of informational technologies for disaster response; the education of employees, the community, and suppliers; and implementing physical measures at the asset level.

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

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) or to third-parties for treatment or use.

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

References

GRI General Disclosures 2021 - 2-13: Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts

GRI Standards 2016 - 300 series: Environmental Standards

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material social issues: Select all social issues that are covered by the entity’s ESG monitoring process(es). 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. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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 accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. 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 a 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 scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

• No relevance (weighting: 0)
• Low relevance (weighting: 0)
• Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
• High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Community development: A process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local employment: Providing jobs and skills to local people as employees, and to local contractors.

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

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

Stakeholder relations: The practice of forging mutually beneficial connections with third-party groups and individuals that have a stake in common interest.

References

GRI General Disclosures 2021 - 2-13: Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts

GRI Standards 2016 - 400 series: Social Standards

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material governance issues: Select all governance issues that are covered by the entity’s ESG monitoring process(es). 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. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2021 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2021 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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 accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring.

See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. 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 a 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 scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

• No relevance (weighting: 0)
• Low relevance (weighting: 0)
• Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
• High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

Board ESG oversight: The highest committee or position that formally reviews and approves the organization’s sustainability report and ensures that all material topics are covered.

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

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving or soliciting an item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal fiduciary duty.

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

Conflicts of interest: Situations where an individual is confronted with choosing between the requirements of his or her function and his or her own private interests.

Corruption: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

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

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

Delegating authority: The process for delegating authority for economic, environmental, and social topics from the highest governance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shareholder rights: Assessing the potential risk of breaking or working against the entity’s contractual shareholder rights. Shareholder rights are defined in the company’s charter and bylaws.

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

References

RI General Disclosures 2021 - 2-13: Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts

GRI Standards 2016 - 200 series: Economic Standards