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






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 Follow @GRESB on Twitter.

About the 2018 GRESB Infrastructure Assessment

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.

The role of the GRESB benchmark

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 and Membership

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.

Grace Period

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.

Who can see my data?

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.

Timeline and Process

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:

Response Check

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.

Guidance & Support

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.

GRESB Assessment Training Program

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.

2018 Infrastructure Fund Assessment changes

GRESB works closely with its 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 Fund Assessment introduces an updated structure and developments to the indicators.




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 validation.

Rationale 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 investors to see.

Impact of change: Greater clarity, improved validation.


Indicator numbering has changed due to removing or adding indicators in 2018.

Rationale for change: Administrative.

Impact of change: None.

Indicator changes

Former EC2

Indicator EC2 'Business location' is removed

Rationale 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’

Rationale 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 months

Rationale for change: In previous years this was an open text box.

Impact of change: Standardized reporting and lower reporting burden for the participant.


Moved to FUND1

Rationale for change: The intention was to score EC5 in 2018.

Impact of change: Will impact scoring.


Indicator EC6 'ESG Strategy' removed

Rationale for change: The intention was to score EC6 in 2018, however, GRESB internal review indicated that there was significant overlap between EC5, EC6 and (former) FUND 1 indicators so this was rationalised by removing EC6.

Impact of change: Lower reporting burden.


'Gross Asset Value' listed as a requirement for reporting entity’s economic size. Ability to choose 'Currency' removed, instead currency is derived from RC1

Rationale for change: GRESB internal review indicated that a more standardized approach for reporting is needed.

Impact of change: Greater clarity and better benchmarking.


'Other' removed from the options list

Rationale for change: GRESB internal review concluded that participants use this option to provide information on specific countries rather than selecting an overall geographical region.

Impact of change: Greater clarity and better benchmarking.

FUND1 (former EC5)

Indicator moved to be scored. Additional elements added regarding actions to implement sustainable investment objectives

Rationale for change: Trial in 2017 showed that this indicator can be addressed and will help to differentiate participants.

Impact of change: Better differentiation and clearer guidance.

FUND2 (former FUND1)

'General sustainability' option added to the options list. Evidence split between public and not public

Rationale for change: Improving alignment between GRESB assessments.

Impact of change: Easier understanding across GRESB assessments.

FUND3 (former FUND2)

This indicator is split into two parts: (1) General ESG Commitments, and (2) Issue-specific ESG commitments. New commitments have been added to the lists

Rationale for change: In 2017, UNEP FI option was a frequently provided 'Other' option. General and issue-specific commitments are different and need to be considered separately.

Impact of change: Better differentiation and clearer guidance.

FUND4 (former FUND3)

Changed to “ or more persons…” instead of simply “an individual…”. 'Other' option is removed. Changed 'E-mail' to optional

Rationale for change: Indicator aligned with Real Estate and Debt Assessments, recognising 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.

FUND5 (former FUND4)

Changed 'E-mail' to optional

Rationale for change: Email information is collected elsewhere as part of registration.

Impact of change: Lower reporting burden.

FUND6 (former FUND5)

Minor wording changes in this indicator. Description for each open text box addresses all 3 elements GRESB is looking for in participant answers i.e. (a) how ESG risks and opportunities are addressed, (b) which ESG risks and/or opportunities are addressed, and (c) which tools are used

Rationale for change: GRESB internal review concluded that more guidance in the indicator text is necessary.

Impact of change: Greater guidance and clarity.

FUND7 (former FUND6)

Indicator title wording slightly adjusted. Indicator structure is updated by aligning indicator structure to FUND 6 (checkboxes and open text boxes). Description for each open text box addresses all 3 elements GRESB is looking for in participant answers

Rationale for change: Restructuring of this indicator is done to focus on investment monitoring processes. GRESB internal review concluded that more guidance in the indicator text is necessary.

Impact of change: Greater guidance and clarity for the participant.

FUND8 (former FUND7)

Indicator title wording slightly adjusted. Additional checkbox options added that align with the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment (monitoring and implementation aspects)

Rationale for change: Improving alignment between GRESB assessments.

Impact of change: Greater guidance and clarity.

FUND9 (former FUND8)

Adjusted wording from 'Organization' to 'Group' and from 'Fund' to 'Entity'

Rationale for change: GRESB internal review noted that a number of terms (e.g. 'organization', 'fund', 'entity') were used interchangeably and were confusing.

Impact of change: Consistency throughout the Fund Assessment and greater clarity for the participant.

FUND10 (former FUND9)

'Internally verified by' option removed

Rationale 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.

FUND11 (former FUND10)

Indicator title wording slightly adjusted. 'Regulators/Government' and 'Special interest groups (NGOs, Trade Unions, etc.)' added to list of external stakeholders

Rationale for change: Monitoring of issues is more relevant to fund performance than reporting (which is typically the asset manager's responsibility). The new stakeholder groups are part of the wider stakeholder list and are relevant to funds.

Impact of change: Greater clarity.

Entity & Reporting Characteristics

Entity Characteristics

2017 Indicator

Reporting Characteristics

2017 Indicator

Fund Management & Investment Process

Policies & Objectives

2017 Indicator

10 points

10 points

10 points

Leadership & Accountability

2017 Indicator

5 points

5 points

Risks & Opportunities

2017 Indicator

10 points

10 points

10 points

ESG Disclosure

2017 Indicator

10 points

10 points

10 points

Summary of Entity Assets

Summary of Entity Assets

233 points