Legal name of entity
Legal name: ____________
Operator name (if applicable): ____________
GRESB is an industry-driven organization transforming the way capital markets assess the environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of real asset investments.
GRESB data and analytical tools are used by over 70 institutional and retail investors, including pension funds and insurance companies, collectively representing over USD 17 trillion in institutional capital, to engage with investment managers to enhance and protect shareholder value.
For more information, visit gresb.com. Follow @GRESB on Twitter.
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment is an ESG engagement and benchmarking tool for institutional investors, fund managers and asset operators working in the infrastructure space.
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment consists of two complementary components, a Fund Assessment and an Asset Assessment. Both components address critical aspects of ESG performance through a standardized, globally applicable, reporting and benchmarking framework. The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment focuses on operating investments, infrastructure assets, companies and funds, and covers the full breadth of infrastructure sectors, including:
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment provides investors with actionable information and tools to monitor and manage the ESG risks and opportunities of their investments, and to prepare for increasingly rigorous ESG obligations. Assessment participants receive comparative business intelligence on where they stand against their peers, a roadmap with the actions they can take to improve their ESG performance and a communication platform to engage with investors.
GRESB’s global benchmark uses a consistent methodology to compare performance across different regions, investment structures and sectors. This consistency, combined with our broad market coverage, means our members and participants can apply a single, globally recognized ESG framework to all their infrastructure investments. In 2018 GRESB introduces materiality assessment in to the process to further cater for sectoral variations beyond just the use of peer groups.
While GRESB provides an overall GRESB Score for each participant, it recognizes that this is only a single element within a range of results reported in the benchmark. The key to analyzing GRESB data is in peer group comparisons that take into account regional, sectoral and variations based on investment structure.
GRESB is committed to facilitating the inclusion of its ESG metrics in investment decision-making processes and encouraging an active dialogue between investors, fund managers and asset operators on ESG issues. GRESB updates its Investor Engagement Guide on an annual basis to assist GRESB Investor Members in their engagement with managers and operators.
Participation in both the Infrastructure Fund Assessment and the Infrastructure Asset Assessment is free of charge. All participants receive a Scorecard with a summary of ESG performance. Participants do not need to be GRESB Members, but GRESB Members have access to advanced analytical tools, including a detailed Benchmark Report and Portfolio Analysis Tool, as well as increased opportunity for recognition and networking.
GRESB offers participants reporting for the first time, the option to not disclose their first year Assessment results to their investors. This 'Grace Period' allows participants a year to familiarize themselves with the GRESB reporting and assessment process without externally disclosing their results to GRESB Investor Members.
While Grace Period participant names are disclosed to GRESB Investor Members, Investor Members are not able to request access to Grace Period participant results.
Grace Period participants can use the Scorecard and Benchmark Report to identify opportunities to improve their performance for next year’s Assessment. First time participants wishing to opt for the Grace Period can select the option from the settings section in the Assessment Portal.
Data is submitted to GRESB through a secure online platform and can only be seen by current GRESB Staff or authorized personnel from GRESB’s parent company, i.e. GBCI, Inc. ('GBCI'). GRESB benchmark scores are not made public. Data collected through the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment is only disclosed to the participants themselves and GRESB Investor Members that are investors in the infrastructure fund or asset.
No other third parties will see the data. GRESB Investor Members must request access to a participant’s benchmark scores, allowing the participant the control to either accept or deny this request.
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment opens in the Assessment Portal on April 1, 2018. The submission deadline is July 1, 2018, providing participants with a three-month window to complete the Assessment. This is a fixed deadline, and GRESB will not accept submissions received after this date.
The GRESB validation process starts on June 15, 2018 and continues until July 31, 2018. We may need to contact you during this time to clarify any issues with your response.
Results are published in September and are distributed as follows:
A Response Check is a high-level check of the Assessment response by GBCI, prior to final submission. It helps to reduce errors that may adversely impact the Assessment results and ensures the submission is as complete as possible.
The Response Check is available for request from April 1 to June 8, 2018 subject to available resources. We strongly encourage participants to place their request as early as possible.
Fund Manager and Asset Operator Members are able to request a complimentary Response Check for one entity as one of their membership benefits.
The Assessment Portal is accompanied by indicator-specific guidance, available under the 'Guidance' tab that explains:
In addition to the guidance in the Portal, each Assessment is accompanied by a Reference Guide. The Reference Guide provides general introductory information to the Assessments and provides a report-format version of the indicator-by-indicator guidance that is available under the Guidance tab in the Portal. The Reference Guide will be available on March 1, 2018. GRESB intends to provide translations of the 2018 Infrastructure Assessment in Japanese, French and Spanish.
The GRESB Assessment Portal has the following tools and functionality to help ensure an efficient and accurate submission:
GRESB works with a select group of Partners who can help participants with their Assessment submission. To learn more about the services offered by GRESB Partners, take a look at our Partner Directory.
Participants are able to contact the GRESB Helpdesk at any time for support and guidance.
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment Training is designed for GRESB participants who are looking to gain competency in the GRESB Infrastructure reporting processes. The training is designed for infrastructure fund managers, asset operators, investors, consultants and sustainability professionals looking to improve ESG management and reporting through the GRESB Assessments. It is also appropriate for governance, human resources and management personnel seeking an understanding of the GRESB Infrastructure framework.
The training is delivered via face-to-face group sessions in select locations across all regions with GRESB participation, including Europe, North America and Asia Pacific. See dates and locations for GRESB Assessment Training.
Starting in October 2018, GRESB will run Data Insights Training sessions focussing on the interpretation of the Assessment results and the reporting and benchmarking tools available to Investor Members, Fund Manager and Company Members.
GRESB works closely with it’s members and broader industry stakeholders to ensure the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment addresses material issues in the ESG performance of infrastructure investments. Following internal review of the 2017 GRESB Infrastructure Assessment and extensive industry engagement through the GRESB Infrastructure Advisory Board and Industry Working Groups, the 2018 Asset Assessment introduces an updated structure and developments to the indicators.
| 1 |
For all indicators, a note has been added to indicate that the optional open text box is for additional information only and will not be considered in validationRationale for change: Based on 2017 participant feedback some participants believed that the open text box information could be used to clarify information and evidence for validation, however this is not the case, it is solely there as a communication tool for the investors to see. Impact of change: Greater clarity, improved validation. |
| 2 |
Indicator numbering has changed due to removing or adding indicators in 2018Rationale for change: Administrative. Impact of change: None. |
| 3 |
More standardized metrics are introduced in 2018 (e.g. Reporting and Entity Characteristics, Performance Indicators)Rationale for change: The intent is to standardize the reported data. Impact of change: Simpler entry and greater clarity for the participant, more insightful benchmarking. |
| Former EC2 |
Indicator EC2 'Business location' is removedRationale for change: This information has already been provided by the participant when registering their entity for the first time. Impact of change: Standardized reporting and lower reporting burden for the participant. |
| EC2 (former EC3) |
Terminology for ‘Nature of ownership’ is updated to ‘Public entity’ and ‘Private entity’. 'Public-Private Partnership (PPP)' option added to the option listRationale for change: Improved wording. Ensure participants select 'Private entity' if stocks are not traded on a public stock exchange. Impact of change: Wording. |
| EC3 (former EC4) |
Replace 'Date' open text box by a drop-down list of monthsRationale for change: In previous years this was an open text box. Impact of change: Standardized reporting and lower reporting burden for the participant. |
| EC5 (new) |
New indicator on 'Commencement of operation'Rationale for change: Provides contextual information about the asset which is useful to investors and for generating insights. For example, assets that only recently commenced operation may have different stakeholder expectations to those that have been operating for many years. Impact of change: Minor additional reporting. |
| RC2 |
'Gross asset value' listed as a requirement for reporting entity’s economic size. 'Annual operating costs' and 'Other' options added. Ability to choose 'Currency' removed, instead currency is derived from RC1Rationale for change: Review of previous years’ responses indicated that a more standardized approach could be applied. Impact of change: Greater clarity and better benchmarking including generation of intensity metrics and size comparisons. |
| RC3 |
Open text box for 'Method used' replaced with 3 options (1) 'Gross asset value', (2) 'Annual operating costs', and (3) 'Other'Rationale for change: Review of previous years’ responses indicated that a more standardized approach could be applied. Impact of change: Greater clarity and better benchmarking including generation of intensity metrics and size comparisons. |
| RC4 |
3 options (1) 'Gross asset value', (2) 'Annual operating costs', and (3) 'Other' added under 'Weights based on relative economic activity'. 'Even weights' option removedRationale for change: Review of previous years’ responses indicated that a more standardized approach could be applied. Impact of change: Greater clarity and better benchmarking including generation of intensity metrics and size comparisons. |
| MA1 (new) |
New indicator on materiality assessment introduced. The intent of this indicator is to test whether the reporting entity has undertaken a materiality assessmentRationale for change: Assessing the materiality of ESG issues has been identified by stakeholders as an important tool in managing ESG performance across the diverse sectors that make up infrastructure. It also supports the new MA2 indicator. Impact of change: Additional reporting, greater differentiation, useful information for investors. |
| MA2 (new) |
New indicator 'GRESB Materiality Assessment' is introduced. This indicator is for reporting purposes only. The intent of this indicator is to (a) show the participant their relevant sector materiality weightings for ESG issues, and (b) collect data about the entity/asset specific materiality weightingsRationale for change: The sector weightings selected in RC4 are used to drive the scoring in many other indicators. The entity/asset specific materiality weightings will not be used for scoring in 2018 but can be used for scoring trials and insights and will be considered for scoring in 2019. Impact of change: Additional reporting, Asset Assessment scoring tailored to the different infrastructure sectors, greater differentiation, useful information for investors. |
| MA3 (former MA1) |
'General sustainability' option added to the options list. Additional parts on 'Integration of ESG objectives' and 'Communication process' introduced. Evidence split between public and not publicRationale for change: Improving alignment between GRESB assessments. Impact of change: Easier understanding across GRESB assessments. |
| MA4 (former MA2) |
Changed to “...one or more persons…” instead of simply “an individual…”. 'Other' option is removed. Changed 'E-mail' to optionalRationale for change: Indicator aligned with Real Estate and Debt Assessments, recognizing that ESG may be managed by one person or a team. In previous years, the majority of the provided 'Other' answers were a duplicate of the listed options. Email information is collected elsewhere as part of registration. Impact of change: Easier understanding across GRESB assessments, more flexible to responses, lower reporting burden. |
| MA5 (former MA3) |
Changed 'E-mail' to optionalRationale for change: Email information is collected elsewhere as part of registration. Impact of change: Lower reporting burden. |
| MA6 (former MA4) |
Minor wording changes in this indicator. 'Board of Directors' option added to the option list. 'Operating staff' renamed as 'All employees'Rationale for change: Improving alignment between GRESB assessments and other business lines. Impact of change: Easier understanding across GRESB assessment. |
| MA7 (former MA5) |
Minor wording changes in this indicatorRationale for change: GRESB internal review concluded that more clarity is needed between provided and/or required training for different stakeholder groups. Impact of change: Greater clarity. |
| PD1 |
New issues 'Light pollution', 'Materials sourcing & resource efficiency', 'Noise', and 'Water pollution' added to the list. Scoring depends on materiality of issues. Stakeholder list updated by replacing 'Supply chain' with two separate options (1) 'Suppliers' and (2) 'Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers & contractors)'Rationale for change: GRESB internal review and mapping of external frameworks such as PRI and GRI concluded that additional sector-specific issues should be covered. Supply chain split and clarified to align with ISO20400 standard on sustainable procurement. Impact of change: Greater coverage of relevant issues, clearer and better differentiation, scoring tailored to infrastructure sector. |
| PD2 |
New issues 'Community development' and 'Social enterprise partnering' added to the list. Scoring depends on materiality of issues. Stakeholder list updated by replacing 'Supply chain' with two separate options (1) 'Suppliers' and (2) 'Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers & contractors)'Rationale for change: GRESB internal review and mapping of external frameworks such as PRI and GRI concluded that additional sector-specific issues should be covered. Supply chain split and clarified to align with ISO20400 standard on sustainable procurement. Impact of change: Greater coverage of relevant issues, clearer and better differentiation, scoring tailored to infrastructure sector. |
| PD3 |
Governance issues split into two groups (1) Board-level policy, and (2) Operational policy. Clarified that 'Operational policy' is applicable to other stakeholders. Scoring depends on materiality of issues. Stakeholder list updated by replacing 'Supply chain' with two separate options (1) 'Suppliers' and (2) 'Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers & contractors)'Rationale for change: 2017 participant feedback indicated that only operational governance issues are applicable to other stakeholder groups such as suppliers and contractors. Supply chain split and clarified to align with ISO20400 standard on sustainable procurement. Impact of change: Clearer and better differentiation, scoring tailored to infrastructure sector. |
| PD4 (former PD6) |
Minor wording changes in this indicator. 'Aligned with third-party standard' option added under each reporting methodRationale for change: Improving alignment between GRESB assessments. Clarified reporting to align with industry accepted approaches to ESG reporting. Impact of change: Easier understanding across GRESB assessments, greater differentiation. |
| PD5 (former PD4) |
'Internally verified by' option removed. Minor wording changes to match PD4Rationale for change: ‘Internally verified’ is not as robust as external approaches and is hard to validate. Improving alignment between GRESB assessments. Clarified reporting to align with industry accepted approaches to ESG reporting. Impact of change: Improved validation, easier understanding across GRESB assessments, greater differentiation. |
| PD6 (former PD7) |
Indicator title wording slightly adjusted. 'Clients/Customers', 'Contractors', 'Employees', 'Regulators/Government', 'Special interest groups (NGOs, Trade Unions, etc.)' and 'Suppliers' options addedRationale for change: GRESB internal review concluded that a standardized stakeholder list needs to be implemented throughout the Fund and Asset Assessments. Impact of change: Greater clarity. |
| PD7 (new) |
New indicator addresses involvement in any ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents in the reporting year. This indicator is for reporting and sector leader award purposes only. The intent of this indicator is to facilitate communication and transparency on significant incidents. Whilst not used for scoring, the response to this indicator may prohibit achievement of sector leadershipRationale for change: Facilitates communication on significant incidents. Use in determining sector leadership ensures the robustness of the GRESB Assessment. Impact of change: Additional reporting, greater differentiation, useful information for investors. |
| RO1 |
New issues 'Light pollution', 'Materials sourcing & resource efficiency', 'Noise', and 'Water pollution' added to the list. Scoring depends on materiality of issuesRationale for change: GRESB internal review and mapping of external frameworks such as PRI and GRI concluded that additional sector-specific issues should be covered. Impact of change: Greater coverage of relevant issues, clearer and better differentiation, scoring tailored to infrastructure sector. |
| RO2 |
New issues 'Community development' and 'Social enterprise partnering' added to the list. Scoring depends on materiality of issuesRationale for change: GRESB internal review and mapping of external frameworks such as PRI and GRI concluded that additional sector-specific issues should be covered. Impact of change: Greater coverage of relevant issues, clearer and better differentiation, scoring tailored to infrastructure sector. |
| RO3 |
Governance issues split into two groups (1) Board-level policy, and (2) Operational policy. Scoring depends on materiality of issuesRationale for change: Layout change is introduced to be consistent with PD3. Impact of change: Greater clarity, scoring tailored to infrastructure sector. |
| RO4 (former PD5) |
Indicator moved from 'Policy & Disclosure' to 'Risks & Opportunities' aspectRationale for change: Improving alignment between GRESB assessments. Impact of change: Easier understanding across GRESB assessments. |
| RO5 (former IM1) |
Indicator moved from 'Implementation' to 'Risks & Opportunities' aspect.Rationale for change: GRESB internal review concluded that this indicator addresses ESG opportunities and should be moved to this aspect instead. Impact of change: Greater clarity. |
| ME1 (merged former ME1 and CA1) |
ME1 and CA1 (2017) are merged into a new indicator in 2018Rationale for change: GRESB internal review noted that ME1 and CA1 indicators were overlapping as participants provided the same information for both indicators. Impact of change: Lower reporting burden. |
| ME2-4 (former ME2) |
Indicator ME2 (2017) is split into three separate indicators focusing on monitoring environmental (ME2), social (ME3), and governance (ME4) issues. An open text box is replaced by a list of issues. Scoring depends on materiality of issues.Rationale for change: Structure aligns with MA, PD and RO. Impact of change: Lower reporting burden, scoring tailored to infrastructure sector, clearer guidance. |
| SE1 |
Indicator title wording slightly adjusted. 'Training' option added to the list. Added new sub-section highlighting stakeholder list the engagement program applies toRationale for change: GRESB internal review noted that an additional option on training should be addressed. Impact of change: Clearer and better differentiation. |
| SE2 (former SE3) |
Changes in indicator numberingRationale for change: GRESB internal review concluded that this indicator should follow after SE1 as it refers to the implementation of stakeholder engagement activities. Impact of change: Greater clarity. |
| SE3 (former SE2) |
Indicator split into two indicators in 2018: (SE3) 'Process for stakeholders to communicate grievances', and (SE4) 'Stakeholder grievances in the last reporting year'. Indicator is aligned with ISO20400. As a result, minor wording changes are introduced and additional options added to the 'characteristics of the grievance communication process'Rationale for change: Improving alignment between GRESB assessments. Align with ISO20400 standard on sustainable procurement. Impact of change: Greater clarity. |
| SE4 (former SE2) |
Indicator split into two indicators in 2018: (SE3) 'Process for stakeholders to communicate grievances', and (SE4) 'Stakeholder grievances in the last reporting year'Rationale for change: Improving alignment between GRESB assessments. Impact of change: Greater clarity. |
| SE5 (new) |
New indicator reflecting sustainable procurement practices. Indicator is aligned with ISO20400. The intent of this indicator is to identify if the reporting entity has ESG-specific requirements in its procurement processes in order to drive sustainable procurementRationale for change: Align with ISO20400 standard on sustainable procurement. Impact of change: Additional reporting, greater differentiation, useful information for investors. |
| SE6 (new) |
New indicator on supply chain engagementRationale for change: The intent of this indicator is to identify if the reporting entity effectively engages with its suppliers in order to drive sustainable procurement. Align with ISO20400 standard on sustainable procurement. Impact of change: Additional reporting, greater differentiation, useful information for investors. |
| Performance Indicators |
Standardized metrics are introduced for each performance indicatorRationale for change: The intent is to standardize the reported data. Metrics chosen are based on previous years’ responses and alignment with industry standards. Impact of change: Clarity for the participant, better benchmarking. |
| Performance Indicators |
Standardized units are introduced for each performance indicatorRationale for change: The intent is to standardize the reported data. Impact of change: Clarity for the participant, better benchmarking. |
| Performance Indicators |
Entity is required to report its performance for current year onlyRationale for change: The intent is to standardize the reported data. Impact of change: Lower reporting burden, clarity for the participant, better benchmarking. |
| Performance Indicators |
Targets are set for current year and one long-term performance target of entity’s choiceRationale for change: The intent is to standardize the reported data. Impact of change: Lower reporting burden, clarity for the participant, better benchmarking. |
| Performance Indicators |
Scoring of all Performance Indicators (except PI1) now links to the sector materiality.PI1 is not scored but is used for generating intensity metrics which may be used for insights. If the sector materiality assessment has determined that an issue is 'not relevant' then the related performance indicator is not scored. If an issue is 'relevant' then the related performance indicator is scored with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is 'highly relevant' then the related performance indicator is scored with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. PI1 is not scored but is used for generating intensity metrics which may be used for insights. |
CA1 |
Indicator CA1 'Entity-level accreditations' is removedRationale for change: GRESB internal review noted that ME1 and CA1 indicators were overlapping as participants provided the same information for both indicators. Impact of change: Lower reporting burden. |
| CA1 (former CA2) |
Changes in indicator numberingRationale for change: Administrative. Impact of change: None. |
| CA2 (former CA3) |
Changes in indicator numberingRationale for change: Administrative. Impact of change: None. |
| CA4 |
Indicator CA4 'Case studies' is removedRationale for change: The intent is to integrate this information into the GRESB portal. Impact of change: This information will not be linked to the GRESB results; however, will be used as individual GRESB insights. |
EC1
Legal name of entity
Legal name: ____________
Operator name (if applicable): ____________
EC1
EC2
Nature of ownership
Ownership
Public entity
ISIN: ____________
Ticker symbol: ____________
Exchange (select all that apply)
ASX - Australian Securities Exchange
BM&F Bovespa
BME Spanish Exchanges
BSE - Bombay Stock Exchange
Deutsche Börse
Euronext
JPX - Japan Exchange Group
JSE Limited
KRX - Korea Exchange
LSE - London Stock Exchange Group
Nasdaq - NASDAQ Stock Market
NSE - National Stock Exchange of India
NYSE - New York Stock Exchange
OMX Nordic Exchange
SEHK - Hong Kong Stock Exchange
SIX Swiss Exchange
SSE - Shanghai Stock Exchange
SZSE - Shenzhen Stock Exchange
TMX Group
TWSE - Taiwan Stock Exchange
Other: ____________
Other identifier: ____________
Private entity
Public-Private Partnership (PPP)
Non-profit organization
Government organization
Other: ____________
Structure
Corporate
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
Other: ____________
EC3
EC3
Reporting period
Calendar year
Fiscal year. Specify the starting month
Month Month
EC4
EC4
Industry associations
List memberships in industry associations. Include name of association and URL for association website:
________________________
EC5
EC5
Commencement of operation
In what year did the asset commence operation?
Year: ____________
NEW
RC1
Reporting currency
Values are reported in Currency
RC1
RC2
Economic size (in millions) Note: The currency used here is that indicated in RC1
Gross asset value (required): ____________
Annual operating costs (optional)
____________
Other (optional)
____________
Size: ____________
RC2
RC3
Country/countries of operation Select the country where the entity has operations, indicate the estimated fraction of operations and select method used to establish the percentage of operations in each country
![[CountryGAVTable:Operations]](/images/tables/country_gavtable_operations/y2018-5c1e49b2.svg)
Gross asset value
Annual operating costs
Other: ____________
RC3
RC4
Sector focus Classify the method used to assign weights to business activities (sectors), select all applicable sectors and assign a relative weight. Weights must sum to 100%. Only list the entity's core business activities or sectors (non-core activities such as energy efficiency projects should not be considered for this indicator). This information will be used to identify peers from the same or similar sectors. Information provided in RC4 should be used to determine the entity's primary sector and subsequently, the relevant materiality weightings.
Weights based on relative economic activity
Gross asset value
Annual operating costs
Other: ____________
Other method: ____________
Provide additional context for the answer provided (for reporting purposes only)
________________________
Energy Generation
Fossil fuel generation
![[FossilFuelGenerationAnswer]](/images/tables/fossil_fuel_generation_answer/y2018-570b9998.svg)
Renewable generation, utility scale
![[RenewableGenerationUtilityAnswer]](/images/tables/renewable_generation_utility_answer/y2018-2e5bd53c.svg)
Renewable generation, distributed
![[RenewableGenerationDistributedAnswer]](/images/tables/renewable_generation_distributed_answer/y2018-2ba59d52.svg)
Combined Heat and Power
![[CombinedHeatAndPowerAnswer]](/images/tables/combined_heat_and_power_answer/y2018-a52333d9.svg)
Other generation
![[OtherGenerationAnswer]](/images/tables/other_generation_answer/y2018-b22ff68c.svg)
Energy Efficiency
![[EnergyEfficiencyAnswer]](/images/tables/energy_efficiency_answer/y2018-94ca5549.svg)
Energy transmission, distribution and storage
Electric Power
Transmission
![[ElectricPowerTransmissionAnswer]](/images/tables/electric_power_transmission_answer/y2018-4f412c93.svg)
Distribution
![[ElectricPowerDistributionAnswer]](/images/tables/electric_power_distribution_answer/y2018-894570f3.svg)
Storage
![[ElectricPowerStorageAnswer]](/images/tables/electric_power_storage_answer/y2018-b380a0ef.svg)
Natural Gas
Transmission and distribution
![[NaturalGasTransmissionAndDistributionAnswer]](/images/tables/natural_gas_transmission_and_distribution_answer/y2018-c11cf62e.svg)
Storage
![[NaturalGasStorageAnswer]](/images/tables/natural_gas_storage_answer/y2018-05031ae0.svg)
Petroleum Liquids / Other liquids
Transmission
![[PetroleumLiquidsAnswer]](/images/tables/petroleum_liquids_answer/y2018-6c23fc3f.svg)
Gathering
Storage
Other
Other
Storage
![[OtherStorageAnswer]](/images/tables/other_storage_answer/y2018-c4a4b920.svg)
Distribution
![[OtherDistributionAnswer]](/images/tables/other_distribution_answer/y2018-b3164b57.svg)
Other
![[OtherOtherAnswer]](/images/tables/other_other_answer/y2018-8eda6bde.svg)
Telecommunications
![[TelecommunicationsAnswer]](/images/tables/telecommunications_answer/y2018-3f97ffc3.svg)
Water Resource Management
![[WaterResourceManagementAnswer]](/images/tables/water_resource_management_answer/y2018-4f3832f7.svg)
Waste Treatment and Disposal
![[WasteTreatmentAndDisposalAnswer]](/images/tables/waste_treatment_and_disposal_answer/y2018-e1dee0cf.svg)
Transportation
Airport
![[AirportAnswer]](/images/tables/airport_answer/y2018-68f49ab4.svg)
Railroad
![[RailroadAnswer]](/images/tables/railroad_answer/y2018-aebe48b0.svg)
Rolling stock
![[RollingStockAnswer]](/images/tables/rolling_stock_answer/y2018-776adf42.svg)
Transportation system
![[TransportationSystemAnswer]](/images/tables/transportation_system_answer/y2018-3e65674d.svg)
Ports
![[PortsAnswer]](/images/tables/ports_answer/y2018-dd8cdaa8.svg)
Toll road operations
![[TollRoadOperationsAnswer]](/images/tables/toll_road_operations_answer/y2018-6f97a0d8.svg)
Social
Schools
![[SchoolsAnswer]](/images/tables/schools_answer/y2018-7e469ca2.svg)
Convention
![[ConventionAnswer]](/images/tables/convention_answer/y2018-8fcb0fef.svg)
Government buildings
![[GovernmentBuildingsAnswer]](/images/tables/government_buildings_answer/y2018-598b7f65.svg)
Aged care
![[AgedCareAnswer]](/images/tables/aged_care_answer/y2018-ef8a41bf.svg)
Correctional facilities
![[CorrectionalFacilitiesAnswer]](/images/tables/correctional_facilities_answer/y2018-039354f7.svg)
Other
![[OtherInfrastructureInvestmentAnswer]](/images/tables/other_infrastructure_investment_answer/y2018-4e6d4776.svg)
RC4
RC5
Description of asset
Provide a description of the entity (max 250 words): ____________
ManagementMA1
Has the entity undertaken an ESG materiality assessment in the last three years?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
1.3 points , MP, G
MA2
GRESB Materiality Assessment Sector specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity based on the primary sector selected (i.e. they are sector determined). For each ESG issue, materiality weightings are set at one of three levels: Not relevant, Relevant, and Highly relevant. These pre-defined weightings are used in several subsequent indicators for scoring (this is noted within each relevant indicator). Review the sector specific materiality weightings below. For each of the ESG issues, if the materiality of that issue for your entity differs from the sector specific materiality, then enter your entity specific materiality and provide a justification. Where the entity has completed a materiality assessment previously as referred to in MA1, this should provide the basis for the entity specific materiality. For the 2018 assessment, only the pre-defined sector specific materiality is used for further scoring, the entity specific materiality is not used further but will help to further redefine the materiality process in 2019 and beyond.
Select the entity's primary sector (based on response to RC4): Classify asset sector
![[MaterialityTable]](/images/tables/materiality_table/y2018-b1e8faf9.svg)
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
Not scored
MA3
Does the entity have specific ESG objectives?
Yes
The objectives relate to (multiple answers possible)
General sustainability
Environment
Social
Governance
The objectives are (select one)
Fully integrated into the overall business strategy
Partially integrated into the overall business strategy
Not integrated into the overall business strategy
The objectives are
Publicly available
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Not publicly available
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Communicate the objectives and explain how the objectives are integrated into the overall business strategy (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA1
2.8 points , MP, G
MA4
Does the entity have one or more persons responsible for implementing ESG objectives? (multiple answers possible)
Yes
Dedicated employee for whom sustainability is the core responsibility
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
E-mail (optional): ____________
LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________
Employee for whom sustainability is among their responsibilities
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
E-mail (optional): ____________
LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________
External consultant/manager
Name of the organization Service provider
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
E-mail (optional): ____________
LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA2
1.3 points , MP, G
MA5
Does the entity have a senior decision-maker accountable for ESG issues?
Yes
Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on ESG issues
Name / organization name: ____________
Job title: ____________
E-mail (optional): ____________
LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________
The individual's most senior role is as part of:
Board of Directors
Senior Management Team
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA3
1.3 points , MP, G
MA6
Does the entity include ESG factors in the annual performance targets of personnel?
Yes
Select the employees to whom these targets apply (multiple answers possible):
All employees
Board of Directors
Senior management team
Other: ____________
Does performance on these targets have pre-determined consequences?
Yes
Financial consequences
Non-financial consequences
No
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA4
2.8 points , MP, G
MA7
Is ESG-related training provided for the entity?
Yes
Training provided to:
Employees
Training covers:
Environmental issues
Social issues
Governance issues
Contractors/operators
Training covers:
Environmental issues
Social issues
Governance issues
Other (e.g. customers)
____________
Training covers:
Environmental issues
Social issues
Governance issues
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA5
2.8 points , MP, G
Policy & DisclosurePD1
Does this entity have a policy or policies on environmental issues?
Yes
Select all material issues which are covered by a policy or policies
Air pollutants
Biodiversity and habitat protection
Contamination
Energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Light pollution
Materials sourcing & resource efficiency
Noise
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Resilience (adaptation) to climate change
Waste
Water pollution
Water use
Other issues: ____________
Policy or policies also apply to the following stakeholder group(s)
Contractors
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Other: ____________
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD1
2 points , MP, E
PD2
Does this entity have a policy or policies on social issues?
Yes
Select all material issues which are covered by a policy or policies
Child labor
Community development
Customer satisfaction
Discrimination
Employee engagement
Forced or compulsory labor
Freedom of association
Gender and diversity
Health and safety: employees
Health and safety: customers
Health and safety: community
Health and safety: supply chain
Labor standards and working conditions
Social enterprise partnering
Stakeholder relations
Other issues: ____________
Policy or policies also apply to the following stakeholder group(s)
Contractors
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Other: ____________
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD2
2 points , MP, S
PD3
Does this entity have a policy or policies on governance issues?
Yes
Select all material board-level issues which are covered by a policy or policies
Audit committee structure/independence
Board composition
Compensation committee structure/independence
Executive compensation
Independence of Board chair
Lobbying activities
One share/one vote
Other issues: ____________
Select all material operational issues which are covered by a policy or policies
Bribery and corruption
Data protection and privacy (incl. cybersecurity)
Fiduciary duty
Fraud
Political contributions
Whistleblower protection
Other issues: ____________
Operational policy or policies also apply to the following stakeholder group(s)
Contractors
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Other: ____________
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD3
2 points , MP, G
PD4
Does the entity disclose its ESG actions and/or performance?
Yes
Communication strategy:
Integrated Report
*Integrated Report must be aligned with the IIRC framework
Entity
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Sustainability Report
Entity
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Section of Annual Report
Entity
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Public website
Entity
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Entity reporting to investors
Entity
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Other
____________
Entity
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD6
2 points , MP, G
PD5
Does this entity have third-party review of its ESG disclosure?
Yes
Select the most stringent level of review in each area:
Integrated Report
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider using Scheme name
Sustainability Report
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider using Scheme name
Section of Annual Report
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider using Scheme name
Entity reporting to investors
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider using Scheme name
Other: ____________
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider using Scheme name
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD4
2 points , MP, G
PD6
Does the entity have a process to communicate about ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents?
Yes
Describe the communication process (maximum 250 words): ____________
The entity would communicate misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents to
Clients/Customers
Contractors
Community/Public
Employees
Investors
Regulators/Government
Special interest groups (NGOs, Trade Unions, etc.)
Suppliers
Other stakeholders: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD7
2 points , MP, G
PD7
Has the entity been involved in any significant ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents during the reporting period? (The response to this indicator will be reviewed as part of sector leader requirements)
Yes
Specify the total number of cases which occurred: ____________
Specify the total value of fines and/or penalties incurred during the reporting period
________________________
Provide additional context for the response, focusing on the three most serious incidents
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
Not scored
Risks & OpportunitiesRO1
Did the entity perform environmental risk assessment(s) within the last three years?
Yes
Select all material issues for which risk is assessed
Air pollutants
Biodiversity and habitat protection
Contamination
Energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Light pollution
Materials sourcing & resource efficiency
Noise
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Resilience (adaptation) to climate change
Waste
Water pollution
Water use
Other: ____________
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RO1
3.7 points , MP, E
RO2
Did the entity perform social risk assessment(s) within the last three years?
Yes
Select all material issues for which risk is assessed
Child labor
Community development
Customer satisfaction
Discrimination
Employee engagement
Forced or compulsory labor
Freedom of association
Gender and diversity
Health and safety: employees
Health and safety: customers
Health and safety: community
Health and safety: supply chain
Labor standards/working conditions
Social enterprise partnering
Stakeholder relations
Other: ____________
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RO2
3.7 points , MP, S
RO3
Did the entity perform governance risk assessment(s) within the last three years?
Yes
Select all material board-level issues for which risk is assessed
Audit committee structure/independence
Board composition
Compensation committee structure/independence
Executive compensation
Independence of Board chair
Lobbying activities
Other issues: ____________
Select all material operational issues for which risk is assessed
Bribery and corruption
Data protection and privacy
Fraud
Fiduciary duty
Political contributions
Whistleblower protection
Other issues: ____________
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RO3
3.7 points , MP, G
RO4
Has a formal impact assessment been performed for this entity?
Yes
Types of formal assessments performed
Environmental impact statement/report/assessment
Last performed: ____________
Health Impact Assessment
Last performed: ____________
Social Impact Assessment
Last performed: ____________
Community needs assessment
Last performed: ____________
Human rights assessment
Last performed: ____________
Other assessment: ____________
Last performed: ____________
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD5
2 points , MP, G
RO5
Can the entity provide specific examples of actions taken to mitigate ESG related risks or improve ESG performance?
Yes
Describe specific examples of actions taken to improve ESG performance during the last 3 years. The goal is to provide illustrative examples of tangible actions that demonstrate the entity’s progress.
![[ESGTable:1a]](/images/tables/esgtable_1a/y2018.svg)
![[ESGTable:1b]](/images/tables/esgtable_1b/y2018.svg)
![[ESGTable:1c]](/images/tables/esgtable_1c/y2018.svg)
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
IM1
9.1 points , IM, G
Monitoring & EMSME1
Did the entity maintain or achieve alignment with, or accreditation to, an ESG-related management standard?
Yes
List the accreditations maintained or achieved (select all that apply):
ISO 55000
ISO 14001
ISO 9001
OHSAS 18001
Other standard: ____________
List the management standards aligned with (select all that apply):
ISO 26000
ISO 20400
ISO 50001
Other standard: ____________
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
ME1 & CA1
5.1 points , MP, G
ME2
Does the entity monitor environmental performance?
Yes
Select all material issues for which performance is monitored
Air pollutants
Biodiversity and habitat protection
Contamination
Energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Light pollution
Materials Sourcing & Resource efficiency
Noise
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Resilience (adaptation) to climate change
Waste
Water pollution
Water use
Other: ____________
For each of the selected issues explain which indicators are monitored (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
ME2
1.7 points , IM, E
ME3
Does the entity monitor social performance?
Yes
Select all material issues for which performance is monitored
Child labor
Community development
Customer satisfaction
Discrimination
Employee engagement
Forced or compulsory labor
Freedom of association
Gender and diversity
Health and safety: employees
Health and safety: customers
Health and safety: community
Health and safety: supply chain
Labor standards/working conditions
Social enterprise partnering
Stakeholder relations
Other: ____________
For each of the selected issues explain which indicators are monitored (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
ME2
1.7 points , IM, S
ME4
Does the entity monitor governance performance?
Yes
Select all material board-level issues for which performance is monitored
Audit committee structure/independence
Board composition
Compensation committee structure/independence
Executive compensation
Independence of Board chair
Lobbying activities
Other issues: ____________
Select all material operational issues for which performance is monitored
Bribery and corruption
Data protection and privacy
Fraud
Fiduciary duty
Political contributions
Whistleblower protection
Other issues: ____________
For each of the selected issues explain which indicators are monitored (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
ME2
1.7 points , IM, G
Stakeholder EngagementSE1
Does the entity have a stakeholder engagement program?
Yes
Select elements of the stakeholder engagement program
Planning and preparation for engagement
Implementation of engagement plan
Program review and evaluation
Training
Other: ____________
Is the stakeholder engagement program aligned with third-party standards and/or guidance?
Yes
Guideline name
No
Which stakeholders does the stakeholder engagement program apply to?
Clients/Customers
Community/Public
Contractors
Employees
Investors
Regulators / Government
Special interest groups (NGO's, Trade Unions, etc)
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Other: ____________
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE1
2.6 points , MP, G
SE2
Can specific examples of actions taken to implement the stakeholder engagement program be provided?
Yes
Describe the key actions undertaken to implement the stakeholder engagement program over the last 3 years
![[SETable]](/images/tables/setable/y2018-126d1a65.svg)
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE3
2.6 points , IM, G
SE3
Is there a formal process for stakeholders to communicate grievances that applies to this entity?
Yes
Select all characteristics applicable to the process:
Dialogue based
Legitimate & safe
Accessible
Improvement based
Predictable
Equitable & rights compatible
Transparent
Anonymous
Prohibitive against retaliation
Other: ____________
Which stakeholders does the process apply to? (select all that apply)
Clients/Customers
Community/Public
Contractors
Employees
Investors
Regulators / Government
Special interest groups (NGO's, Trade Unions, etc)
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Other: ____________
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE2
2.6 points , MP, G
SE4
Has the entity received stakeholder grievances during the reporting period? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
Describe the grievances received during the reporting period
Number of grievances communicated: ____________
Summary of grievances: ____________
Summary of resolutions for grievances: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE2
Not scored
SE5
Does the entity include ESG specific requirements in procurement processes to drive sustainable procurement?
Yes
Select all issues covered by procurement processes (multiple answers possible):
Business ethics
Environmental process standards
Environmental product standards
Human rights
Human health-based product standards
Occupational health and safety
ESG-specific requirements for sub-contractors
Other: ____________
Select the external parties to whom the requirements apply (multiple answers possible):
Contractors
Operators
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Other: ____________
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
1.3 points , MP, G
SE6
Does the entity engage with its supply chains to ensure the specific ESG requirements in SE5 are met?
Yes
Describe the process (maximum 250 words): ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
1.3 points , IM, G
Performance IndicatorsPI1
Can the entity report on measures of output? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
This table is intended to capture the most important measures of overall output for the entity. This is a measure of the productive activity or activities provided by the infrastructure usually linked to its primary purpose. Revenue is provided as a common economic metric of output but other metrics are physical (e.g. MWh of energy generated). As well as Revenue, the participant must enter data for the primary sector output metric selected in RC4. Where the primary sector is 'diversified', multiple output metrics may be needed. Additional output measures are optional. For each output metric, participants must provide data for the reporting year. Baselines and Long-term targets are optional.
![[PITable]](/images/tables/pitable/y2018-5559b8d2.svg)
Provide the standards, methodologies and/or assumptions used. Optionally, provide information on interpretation of performance data and targets (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI1
Not scored
PI2
Can the entity report on health and safety performance?
Yes
![[PITable:2a]](/images/tables/pitable_2a/y2018-c97a62c5.svg)
![[PITable:2b]](/images/tables/pitable_2b/y2018-343e6533.svg)
![[PITable:2c]](/images/tables/pitable_2c/y2018-7fd801ac.svg)
Provide the standards, methodologies and/or assumptions used. Optionally, provide information on interpretation of performance data and targets (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI2
Determined by materiality , IM, S
PI3
Can the entity report on energy performance?
Yes
![[PITable:3]](/images/tables/pitable_3/y2018-29f85fb0.svg)
Provide the standards, methodologies and/or assumptions used. Optionally, provide information on interpretation of performance data and targets (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI3
Determined by materiality , IM, E
PI4
Can the entity report on greenhouse gas emissions?
Yes
![[PITable:4]](/images/tables/pitable_4/y2018-cfbb4942.svg)
Provide the standards, methodologies and/or assumptions used. Optionally, provide information on interpretation of performance data and targets (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI4
Determined by materiality , IM, E
PI5
Can the entity report on generated air pollutant emissions?
Yes
![[PITable:5]](/images/tables/pitable_5/y2018-d04e4300.svg)
Provide the standards, methodologies and/or assumptions used. Optionally, provide information on interpretation of performance data and targets (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI5
Determined by materiality , IM, E
PI6
Can the entity report on water performance?
Yes
![[PITable:6a]](/images/tables/pitable_6a/y2018-0d1a9409.svg)
![[PITable:6c]](/images/tables/pitable_6c/y2018-d911e438.svg)
![[PITable:6b]](/images/tables/pitable_6b/y2018-fddeef6d.svg)
Provide the standards, methodologies and/or assumptions used. Optionally, provide information on interpretation of performance data and targets (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI6
Determined by materiality , IM, E
PI7
Can the entity report on waste generation and disposal?
Yes
![[PITable:7a]](/images/tables/pitable_7a/y2018-1c54f7a8.svg)
![[PITable:7b]](/images/tables/pitable_7b/y2018-1c130655.svg)
Provide the standards, methodologies and/or assumptions used. Optionally, provide information on interpretation of performance data and targets (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI7
Determined by materiality , IM, E
PI8
Can the entity report on biodiversity and habitat?
Yes
![[PITable:8a]](/images/tables/pitable_8a/y2018-136d2cac.svg)
![[PITable:8b]](/images/tables/pitable_8b/y2018-db8eedda.svg)
Provide the standards, methodologies and/or assumptions used. Optionally, provide information on interpretation of performance data and targets (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI8
Determined by materiality , IM, E
Certifications & AwardsCA1
Did the entity maintain or achieve asset-level certifications for ESG-related management and/or performance?
Yes
List certifications achieved
![[CaCertificationTable]](/images/tables/ca_certification_table/y2018-89cbfd0c.svg)
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
CA2
A list of provisionally validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix of the Reference Guide. If you wish to add a new scheme, please contact info@gresb.com, and you will be asked to complete the validation questions for the scheme (see Reference Guide Appendix).
2.5 points , IM, G
CA2
Did the entity receive awards for ESG-related actions, performance, or achievements? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
Information about third-party awards
![[AwardTable]](/images/tables/award_table/y2018-34676bb0.svg)
Can the entity provide evidence as an UPLOAD or URL?
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
CA3
Not scored