Reporting Entity
Entity Name: ____________
Organization Name (May be same as entity name): ____________
The information in this document has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications prior to the official 2019 results launch on September 4. We will publicly announce any such modifications.
GRESB is the environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmark for real assets. Working in collaboration with the industry, GRESB defines the global standard for sustainability performance in real assets providing standardized and validated ESG data to more than 75 institutional investors, representing over USD 18 trillion in institutional capital.
For more information, visit gresb.com. Follow @GRESB on Twitter.
The GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment (Asset Assessment) provides the basis for systematic reporting, validation, objective scoring and peer benchmarking of ESG management and performance of infrastructure assets around the world. Both single and multi-facility assets can participate and the process leads to deep data insights for investors, fund managers and asset operators.
The Asset Assessment is organized around seven Sustainability Aspects. These aspects are broken down into indicators addressing asset-level plans and policies, implementation actions and operational performance.
The GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment (Fund Assessment) provides the basis for systematic reporting, validation, objective scoring and peer benchmarking of ESG management and performance of infrastructure funds around the world.
The Fund Assessment contains 13 indicators focused on management and investment processes. These indicators address foundational ESG plans and policies, leadership and accountability, engagement strategies, communications processes and other factors.
The GRESB Resilience Module is an optional supplement to the GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Assessments. It evaluates how real estate and infrastructure companies and funds are preparing for potentially disruptive events and changing conditions, assessing long-term trends, and becoming more resilient over time. The Module is motivated by two key factors:
The Resilience Module can optionally be completed along with the Asset Assessment.
GRESB’s global benchmark uses a consistent methodology to compare performance across different regions, investment vehicles and infrastructure 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.
GRESB results provide a practical way to understand ESG performance and communicate that performance to investors and other stakeholders. GRESB provides overall scores of ESG performance - such as the GRESB Score and GRESB Ratings - as well as detailed aspect-level and individual indicator-level scores. The key to analyzing GRESB data is in peer group comparisons that take into account country, regional, sectoral and investment type variations. This richer analysis enables fund managers, companies and asset operators to understand their results in the context of their investment strategies and communicate this to their investors.
GRESB is committed to facilitating the use of its ESG metrics in investment decision-making processes and encouraging an active dialogue between investors, fund managers, companies and asset operators on ESG issues. GRESB updates its Investor Member Guidance on an annual basis to assist GRESB Investor Members in their engagement with managers.
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessments open in the Assessment Portal on April 1, 2019. The submission deadline is July 1, 2019, 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 and continues until July 31, 2019. We may need to contact you during this time to clarify any issues with your response. Results are published in September 2019.
For an overview of key dates and activities for the 2019 Assessment cycle, please see the Assessment timeline.
Participants are able to contact the GRESB Helpdesk at any time for support and guidance.
GRESB Infrastructure Assessment Training is designed to help participants, potential participants and other GRESB stakeholders (managers, consultants, data partners) improve their ESG reporting through the GRESB Infrastructure Assessments.
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 2019 GRESB Assessment Training.
GRESB works closely with its members and broader industry stakeholders to update our Assessments annually to improve reporting and data accuracy, minimize reporting burden and stay up to date with contemporary ESG developments.
The main areas of development for the 2019 Assessment include refinements to the materiality approach, standardization of performance indicators and the improved Fund-Asset table functionality. These updates align with the longer term development of the Assessment, support our efforts to improve data quality and reflect the evolution of the infrastructure industry as measured by the benchmark over the last three years. They provide the building blocks for moving from benchmarking reporting transparency to real ESG performance over the next few years.
The table below lists the key changes, as well as their implications for your reporting process.
| 1 |
Revised asset description based on facility sectors and locationsAssets will be more accurately defined based on the facilities that comprise the asset and their sectors and locations. Sector classification will be based on the EDHECInfra TICCS classification system and locations based on the UN Standard Country Codes. Assets will be strongly encouraged to report as single facilities as this provides the best basis for benchmark comparisons. |
| 2 |
Materiality approach refinedThe approach to materiality-based scoring has been refined by:
This refinement will provide a more tailored entity specific materiality-based scoring to better address the diversity of assets participating in the Asset Assessment. |
| 3 |
Performance Indicators – Standardization of Metrics, Intensities and Reporting BoundariesPerformance Indicators have been revised to focus on the most important metrics for investors and remove extraneous ones. Intensity calculations will now be displayed and information on reporting boundaries is requested. These changes provide the building blocks for moving from scoring of reporting transparency to performance in the future. |
| 4 |
New IndicatorsNew Indicators on ‘Customer Satisfaction’, ‘Employee Satisfaction’ and ‘Gender & Diversity’ as these issues were identified as material based on feedback, and to align with the Real Estate Assessment. These indicators will be unscored in 2019. |
| 5 |
The access to the Template Tool is no longer restricted to membersThe template tool enables participants to copy information across multiple assessments, reducing the amount of time spent replicating information for entities held by the same manager. |
| 6 |
Fund-Asset LinkingSignificant improvements have been made to the Fund-Asset linking process. Funds will be able to add non-participating assets to their Fund-Asset table without creating a new asset assessment. Asset participants will be able to see what funds are linked to their asset from their assessment portal. |
| 7 |
Good Practice LinksBoth the fund and asset assessment indicator guidance will now include good practice examples drawn from publicly available evidence provided for indicators. |
| 8 |
The Validation Interview process changes structure and will be mainly based on a desktop reviewWhile the scope of the Validation Interview will remain the same (the validators will do an in-depth analysis of all supporting evidences, mandatory and non-mandatory, performance indicators and outliers), the Validation Interview report, the call with the participant, and the participant’s ability to change their responses following the call will be removed from the process. Participants will continue to be automatically notified if they are selected for a Validation Interview and there may still be instances where we need to contact the participant for missing supporting evidence, additional information, clarifications or corrections to the data submitted. |
| EC2 |
Nature of BusinessDescription: Two new sections added covering ‘Revenue Basis’ (i.e. merchant, contract/concession) and ‘Scope of Service’ (i.e. asset provision, maintenance and/or operation), and title changed from ‘Nature of ownership’ to better reflect the range of inputs. Rationale for change: Engagement with the ‘Contract Structure/Model’ Industry Working Group (IWG) identified that these entity attributes were important in understanding the degree of control and influence that the entity has on ESG issues. This is in turn important in determining the material ESG issues. Adding ‘Revenue Basis’ also aligns with the EDHECInfra The Infrastructure Company Classification Standard (TICCS), which GRESB has contributed to and adopted as a standard for classification of assets. Impact of change: Minor one-off increase in reporting burden due to the need to enter this information this year but it will pre-fill after that. ‘Scope of Service’ will be used for materiality-based scoring and peer grouping. ‘Revenue Basis’ will be used for insights. |
| RC2 |
Economic sizeDescription: ‘Annual operating costs’ was changed to ‘Revenue’ and is now mandatory. Rationale for change: Revenue will be used (as denominators) to calculate intensity performance metrics which will in future provide more comparability between assets. Impact of change: Minor increase in reporting burden in exchange for more comparable performance metrics. |
| RC3 (former RC3/4) |
Facility detailsDescription: Indicator RC3 and RC4 have been merged into a newly structured indicator based on listing of facilities that make up the asset. Information on entity capacity and output has been moved to performance indicators (PI1). Sector and location classification aligns with the EDHECInfra TICCS classification system and the United Nations Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use. Rationale for change: To simplify sector and location classification and align with a standardized classification systems. Impact of change: Far better user experience, reduced reporting burden, more standardized classification and more accurate reporting. |
| RC4 (former RC5) |
Description of the assetDescription: Addition of an upload of a photo(s) that represents the asset. This will not be mandatory or scored. Rationale for change: GRESB marketing purposes. Impact of change: Minor increase in reporting burden. |
| MA1 |
Entity Materiality AssessmentDescription: Split the two requirements for materiality assessment into two separate elements relating to identification of issues and engagement with stakeholders. Rationale for change: Make the requirements clearer to participants. Impact of change: Improved clarity for participants. |
| MA2 |
GRESB Materiality AssessmentDescription: Refined the approach to materiality-based scoring by:
Rationale for change: This refined approach was developed through engagement with the Infrastructure Benchmark Committee and provides much more tailored, entity specific materiality weightings. Impact of change: Minor increase in reporting burden to answer the nine simple questions in exchange for much better tailoring to each entity. |
| MA3 |
ESG specific objectivesDescription: Removed section of indicator focusing on ‘integration of objectives’. This indicator will now purely focus on ESG objectives. Rationale for change: This aspect is already addressed in other areas of the assessment and was difficult to respond to and validate. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. |
| MA6 |
ESG factors in personnel performance targetsDescription: Removed the wording ‘pre-determined’ from ‘Does performance on these targets have pre-determined consequences’. Rationale for change: This term was confusing for participants. Impact of change: More clarity. |
| PD4 |
Disclosure of ESG actions and/or performanceDescription: Added 'Frequency of reporting' as an option for ‘Entity reporting to investors’. Rationale for change: To align with Real Estate and Fund assessments. Impact of change: Minor increase in reporting burden. |
| PD5 |
Third-party review of ESG disclosureDescription: Third-party verification and third-party assurance of sustainability disclosure receive equal points. Rationale for change: Over the past years, the non-financial information third-party review industry has witnessed the development of several new verification and assurance standards. The level of scrutiny underpinning such third-party reviews tends to be dictated by the standard used, rather than the terminology used to describe the review process. Impact of change: The scoring is adjusted to recognize external verification in the same way as external assurance. “Other” answers provided to the Scheme Name dropdown menu are subject to validation. |
| PD6 |
ESG-related controversies communication processDescription: Added ‘Investors/Shareholders’ to the list of stakeholders. Rationale for change: Review of other answers identified the need for this additional stakeholder group. Impact of change: Greater clarity. |
| RO1-3 |
E,S,G risk assessmentDescription: Added a section covering the key elements of the risk assessment process. Rationale for change: Previously the indicator just measured what ESG issues were identified in risk assessment but not whether risks were also analysed, evaluated and treated, which are important aspects of managing risk. Impact of change: Minor increase in reporting burden. |
| RO4 |
Actions to mitigate ESG risk/ improve ESG performanceDescription: Indicator has been removed. Rationale for change: This indicator overlapped with RO1-3. Impact assessments are commonly undertaken during the development and construction phase and are less relevant to ongoing management of assets. Impact assessments can still be used as evidence in RO1-3. The issue of development and construction will be reviewed by a Greenfield Development Industry Working Group. Impact of change: Significant reduction in reporting burden. |
| ME1 |
Alignment and/or accreditation to ESG-related management standardsDescription: Separate evidence is now required for each of ‘Accreditations maintained or achieved’ and ‘Management Standards aligned with’. Rationale for change: These two aspects were sometimes confused by participants and difficult to validate. Impact of change: Minor increase in reporting burden in exchange for greater clarity and reporting accuracy. |
| ME2-4 |
Monitoring E,S,G performanceDescription: Remove the open text boxes requiring an explanation for how each of the selected issues are monitored. Rationale for change: Given that evidence is provided this was a duplication in reporting. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. |
| SE1&3 |
Stakeholder engagement program & stakeholder grievance processDescription: Updated checkboxes list to include ‘Investors/Shareholders’ to stakeholders list. Rationale for change: We identified that this stakeholder group was commonly entered as an ‘Other’ response. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. |
| PI1 |
Measures of outputDescription: Rather than a generic indicator with ability to provide any output metrics, this indicator has been standardized to focus on standardized metrics that provide the building blocks for useful performance metrics including intensity metrics for the other performance indicators. Capacity and output information has been moved here from RC4 as a better place to capture and use this data. A new metric has been incorporated on ‘impact value’ to allow participants to start calculating and reporting the ESG value of their activities. Rationale for change: Investors are requesting more standardized and comparable data. Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for clearer approach and more standardized, useful and comparable data. |
| PI2 |
Health & SafetyDescription: Split the Customers & Community Health & Safety table into two separate tables, creating a total of four individual PI tables for this indicator. Rationale for change: The two stakeholder groups have been deemed significantly different from one another and worthy of separate indicators. This allows them to be given different weightings for materiality-based scoring. Impact of change: Supports better tailoring to each entity. |
| PI2-8 |
Performance IndicatorsDescription: Metrics standardized to focus on the most important metrics for investors and removing extraneous ones. Only key metrics are scored (usually based on totals). Baseline data is no longer scored but can be provided for reporting. Targets for key metrics will be scored but evidence for these must be provided. Intensity calculations will now be displayed (per unit output, GAV and revenue). Information on reporting boundaries is requested. Rationale for change: These changes provide the building blocks for moving from scoring of reporting transparency to performance in the future. The focus on key metrics will standardise reporting and clarify expectations. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden, clearer structure, greater transparency and more accurate and comparable data. |
| PI6 |
WaterDescription: PI6 on Water is now split into two indicators, being Water Use/Withdrawal (PI6.0) and Water Discharge/Pollution (PI6.1). Rationale for change: These two issues have been deemed significantly different from one another and worthy of separate indicators. This allows them to be given different weightings for materiality-based scoring. Impact of change: Supports better tailoring to each entity. |
| PI9 (New) |
Customer SatisfactionDescription: New Indicator on ‘Customer Satisfaction’ based on undertaking customer satisfaction surveys and implementing improvements based on the survey responses. It will be unscored in 2019. Rationale for change: This was identified as a material issue by the IBC and IAB. Alignment with Real Estate Assessment (but using customer satisfaction rather than tenant satisfaction). Impact of change: Increased reporting burden although it is not scored in 2019. |
| PI10 (New) |
Employee SatisfactionDescription: New Indicator on ‘Employee Satisfaction’ based on undertaking customer satisfaction surveys and implementing improvements based on the survey responses. It will be unscored in 2019. Rationale for change: This was identified as a material issue by the IBC and IAB. Alignment with Real Estate Assessment. Impact of change: Increased reporting burden although it is not scored in 2019. |
| PI11 (New) |
Gender & DiversityDescription: New Indicator on ‘Gender & Diversity’ incorporating a range of metrics at management and employee level. Rationale for change: This was identified as a material issue by the IBC and IAB. Alignment with Real Estate Assessment. Impact of change: Increased reporting burden although it is not scored in 2019. |
| PD1-3, RO1-3, ME2-4 |
ESG IssuesDescription: Added the ‘Health & Safety: Contractors’ issue. Removed the ‘Discrimination’ issue. Rationale for change: ‘Health & Safety: Contractors’ added to align Performance Indicator reporting to materiality-based scoring. Discrimination issue was deemed to already be covered by the ‘Gender & Diversity’ issue. These changes align with the Real Estate assessment. Impact of change: More clarity. Description: ‘Cybersecurity’ separated out from ‘Data protection and privacy (inc. cybersecurity)’ as its own issue. Rationale for change: Benchmarking against other frameworks and feedback from IBC and IAB supported the need to separate Cybersecurity. Impact of change: More focus on an important issue. |
| Good Practice Links |
Description: Indicator guidance will now include good practice examples. These will be drawn from publicly available evidence provided for indicators. Rationale for change: Participants have requested more guidance and examples of good practices to assist their improvement efforts. Impact of change: Greater clarity of expectations and guidance to foster improvement. |
| Asset Link to Funds |
Description: Assets will now be able to see what funds have linked their asset to the fund’s Fund-Asset table via the portal. Rationale for change: Asset participants lacked transparency in seeing which funds their asset may be linked to, creating confusion as to whether a connection had indeed been made or not. Previously, only Fund Assessment participants had the possibility to view this. Impact of change: Less confusion and possibility of errors. |
EC1
Reporting Entity
Entity Name: ____________
Organization Name (May be same as entity name): ____________
EC1
EC2
Nature of business
Ownership (Select one)
Public (listed) entity
ISIN: ____________
Ticker symbol: ____________
Exchange (multiple answers possible)
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 (non-listed) entity
Public-Private Partnership (PPP)
Non-profit entity
Government entity
Other: ____________
Structure
Corporate
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
Other: ____________
Revenue basis
Merchant
Concessionary/Contracted
Regulated
Other
-
________________________
Scope of service
In addition to simply providing the asset, does the entity provide associated services (e.g. maintenance or operation of the asset, directly or by contractors) (multiple answers possible)?
Yes
Asset maintenance
Name of Asset Maintainer (May be same as organization name): ____________
Asset operation
Name of Asset Operator (May be same as organization name): ____________
No
EC2
EC3
Reporting period
Calendar year
Fiscal year
Specify the starting month Month
EC3
EC4
Industry associations
List memberships in industry associations. Include name of association and URL for association website:
________________________
EC4
EC5
Age of asset
In what year did or will the asset commence operation?
Year: ____________
EC5
RC1
Reporting currency
Values are reported in Currency
RC1
RC2
Economic size
Gross asset value (required) (in millions): ____________
Revenue (required) (in millions): ____________
Other (optional) (in millions)
____________
Size: ____________
RC2
RC3
Facility details (sector and location)
![[AssetSectorFocusFacilities]](/images/tables/asset_sector_focus_facilities/y2019-f89cf3a1.svg)
RC3/4
RC4
Description of the asset
Provide a description of the entity (max 250 words): ____________
Can the entity upload (as supporting evidence) a photo(s) that represents the asset (for GRESB marketing purposes)?
By uploading an image, you give GRESB permission to credit the image to the Reporting Entity specified in EC1, and to use the image, both in print and digitally, for marketing and communication purposes only.
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
RC5
ManagementMA1
Has the entity undertaken an ESG materiality assessment in the last three years?
Yes
Elements covered in the materiality assessment report (multiple answers possible)
Identification of the material ESG issues from the entity's operations
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Engagement with relevant stakeholders to identify which issues are material
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)
________________________
MA1
1 point , MP, G
MA2
GRESB Materiality Assessment Select the answers applicable to your entity below
Habitat and biodiversity - What is the entity's proximity to ecological habitat?
Adjacent
Close (<100m)
Distant (>100m)
Contamination - Is the asset sited on contaminated land?
Yes
No
Resilience - Is the entity located in an area close to the sea, prone to earthquakes, droughts, floods, wildlandfires or other?
Yes
No
Water use/withdrawal - What is the scale of the entity's water use/withdrawal and water stress in the location?
High consumption in locations with high water stress
High consumption in locations with low water stress
Low consumption in locations with high water stress
Low consumption in locations with low water stress
No consumption
Water discharge/pollution - Is there a risk of pollution from discharges to waterways (including groundwater)?
Yes and waterways are in locations with high water stress
Yes but waterways are not in locations with high water stress
No
Light - Does the entity use significant external lighting at night?
Yes and the location is densely populated
Yes but the location is not densely populated
No
Noise - Does the entity emit noise externally?
Yes and the location is densely populated
Yes but the location is not densely populated
No
Nature of customer service - Do individual customers/users interact directly with the asset?
Yes and the interaction is extensive
Yes but the interaction is limited
No
Contracting practices - What proportion of the entity's activities are contracted out?
Most
Part
Little
Materiality results
![[AssetMaterialityOutcome]](/images/tables/asset_materiality_outcome/y2019-f4a77d0f.svg)
MA2
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
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____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA3
2.2 points , MP, G
MA4
Does the entity have one or more persons responsible for implementing ESG objectives?
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)
________________________
MA4
1 point , 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)
________________________
MA5
1 point , 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 consequences? (multiple answers possible)
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)
________________________
MA6
2.2 points , MP, G
MA7
Is ESG-related training provided for the entity?
Yes
Training is provided to (multiple answers possible)
Employees
Training covers (multiple answers possible)
Environmental issues
Social issues
Governance issues
Contractors/operators
Training covers (multiple answers possible)
Environmental issues
Social issues
Governance issues
Other (e.g. local community, customers)
____________
Training covers (multiple answers possible)
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)
________________________
MA7
2.7 points , IM, 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 (multiple answers possible)
Air pollutants
Biodiversity and habitat
Contamination
Energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Light pollution
Material sourcing and resource efficiency
Noise
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Resilience (adaptation) to climate change
Waste
Water discharge/pollution
Water use/withdrawal
Other issues: ____________
An environmental policy or policies apply to the following stakeholder group(s) (multiple answers possible)
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
1.7 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 (multiple answers possible)
Child labour
Community development
Customer satisfaction
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: contractors
Health and safety: supply chain
Labor standards and working conditions
Social enterprise partnering
Stakeholder relations
Other issues: ____________
A social policy or policies apply to the following stakeholder group(s) (multiple answers possible)
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
1.7 points , MP, S
PD3
Does this entity have a policy or policies on governance issues?
Yes
Material board-level issues which are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)
Audit committee structure/independence
Board composition
Compensation committee structure/independence
Executive compensation
Independence of board chair
Lobbying activities
Other issues: ____________
Material operational issues which are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)
Bribery and corruption
Cybersecurity
Data protection and privacy
Fiduciary duty
Fraud
Political contributions
Whistleblower protection
Other issues: ____________
An operational policy or policies apply to the following stakeholder group(s) (multiple answers possible)
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
1.7 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
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Stand-alone Sustainability Report(s)
Select the applicable reporting level
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
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Dedicated section on website
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Entity reporting to investors
Frequency of reporting: ____________
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Other: ____________
Select the applicable reporting level
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)
________________________
PD4
1.7 points , MP, G
PD5
Does this entity have third-party review of its ESG disclosure?
![[DummyLabel]](/images/tables/dummy_label/y2019.svg)
Yes
Select the most stringent level of review in each area (multiple answers possible, selections must match answers in PD4)
Integrated Report
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider
using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider
using Scheme name
Stand-alone Sustainability Report(s)
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
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)
________________________
PD5
1.7 points , MP, G
PD6
Does the entity have a process to communicate about ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents?
Yes
Describe the communication process (maximum 250 words): ____________
The entity would communicate misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents to (multiple answers possible)
Clients/Customers
Contractors
Community/Public
Employees
Investors/Shareholders
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)
________________________
PD6
1.7 points , MP, G
PD7
Has the entity been involved in any significant ESG-related controversies, 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 ( must align with currency selected in RC1)
________________________
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)
________________________
PD7
Not scored
Risks & OpportunitiesRO1
Did the entity perform environmental risk assessment(s) within the last three years?
Yes
Select elements of the Risk Assessment Process undertaken by the entity (multiple answers possible)
Risk assessments are regularly conducted or reviewed and updated
Risks are analysed (i.e. level of risk rating)
Risks are evaluated and treated
Select all material issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)
Air pollutants
Biodiversity and habitat
Contamination
Energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Light pollution
Material sourcing and resource efficiency
Noise
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Resilience (adaptation) to climate change
Waste
Water discharge/pollution
Water use/withdrawal
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
3.8 points , MP, E
RO2
Did the entity perform social risk assessment(s) within the last three years?
Yes
Select elements of the Risk Assessment Process undertaken by the entity (multiple answers possible)
Risk assessments are regularly conducted or reviewed and updated
Risks are analysed (i.e. level of risk rating)
Risks are evaluated and treated
Select all material issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)
Child labour
Community development
Customer satisfaction
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: contractors
Health and safety: supply chain
Labor standards and 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
3.8 points , MP, S
RO3
Did the entity perform governance risk assessment(s) within the last three years?
Yes
Select elements of the Risk Assessment Process undertaken by the entity (multiple answers possible)
Risk assessments are regularly conducted or reviewed and updated
Risks are analysed (i.e. level of risk rating)
Risks are evaluated and treated
Material board-level issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)
Audit committee structure/independence
Board composition
Compensation committee structure/independence
Executive compensation
Independence of board chair
Lobbying activities
Other issues: ____________
Material operational issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)
Bribery and corruption
Cybersecurity
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
3.8 points , MP, G
RO4
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)
________________________
RO5
9.9 points , IM, G
Monitoring & EMSME1
Is the entity's management system accredited to, or aligned with, ESG-related management standards?
Yes
Accreditations maintained or achieved (multiple answers possible)
ISO 55000
ISO 14001
ISO 9001
OHSAS 18001
Other standard: ____________
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Management standards aligned with (multiple answers possible)
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
4.4 points , MP, G
ME2
Does the entity monitor environmental performance?
Yes
Select all material issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)
Air pollutants
Biodiversity and habitat
Contamination
Energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Light pollution
Material sourcing and resource efficiency
Noise
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Resilience (adaptation) to climate change
Waste
Water discharge/pollution
Water use/withdrawal
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)
________________________
ME2
1.9 points , IM, E
ME3
Does the entity monitor social performance?
Yes
Select all material issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)
Child labour
Community development
Customer satisfaction
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: contractors
Health and safety: supply chain
Labor standards and 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)
________________________
ME3
1.9 points , IM, S
ME4
Does the entity monitor governance performance?
Yes
Material board-level issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)
Audit committee structure/independence
Board composition
Compensation committee structure/independence
Executive compensation
Independence of board chair
Lobbying activities
Other issues: ____________
Material operational issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)
Bribery and corruption
Cybersecurity
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)
________________________
ME4
1.9 points , IM, G
Stakeholder EngagementSE1
Does the entity have a stakeholder engagement program?
Yes
Select elements of the stakeholder engagement program (multiple answers possible)
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? (multiple answers possible)
Clients/Customers
Community/Public
Contractors
Employees
Investors/Shareholders
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
2.5 points , MP, S
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)
________________________
SE2
2.5 points , IM, S
SE3
Is there a formal process for stakeholders to communicate grievances that apply to this entity?
Yes
Select all characteristics applicable to the process (multiple answers possible)
Dialogue based
Legitimate & safe
Accessible
Improvement based
Predictable
Equitable & rights compatible
Transparent
Anonymous
Prohibitive against retaliation
Other: ____________
Which stakeholders does the process apply to? (multiple answers possible)
Clients/Customers
Community/Public
Contractors
Employees
Investors/Shareholders
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)
________________________
SE3
2.5 points , MP, S
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)
________________________
SE4
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)
________________________
SE5
1.3 points , MP, S
SE6
Does the entity engage with its supply chains to ensure the specific ESG requirements in SE5 are met?
Yes
Describe the process of engagement (maximum 250 words): ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE6
1.3 points , IM, S
Performance IndicatorsPI1
Can the entity report on measures of input, output and impact? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
![[PITable:1a]](/images/tables/pitable_1a/y2019-716c0143.svg)
![[PITable:1b]](/images/tables/pitable_1b/y2019-01be1b11.svg)
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI1
Not scored
PI2.0
Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their employees?
Yes
![[PITable:2a]](/images/tables/pitable_2a/y2019-ce18ff49.svg)
Targets
Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the employees health & safety performance targets (as reported in the table above)
Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets
Yes
2018 Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Long-Term Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on employees health & safety performance (for reporting purposes only)
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on employees health & safety performance (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on employees health & safety performance (max 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI2
Determined by materiality , IM, S
PI2.1
Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their contractors?
Yes
![[PITable:2b]](/images/tables/pitable_2b/y2019-7fd791f9.svg)
Targets
Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the contractors health & safety performance targets (as reported in the table above)
Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets
Yes
2018 Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Long-Term Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on contractors health & safety performance (for reporting purposes only)
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on contractors health & safety performance (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on contractors health & safety performance (max 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI2
Determined by materiality , IM, S
PI2.2
Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their customers?
Yes
![[PITable:2c]](/images/tables/pitable_2c/y2019-efd72110.svg)
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on customers health & safety performance
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on customers health & safety performance (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on customers health & safety performance (max 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI2
Determined by materiality , IM, S
PI2.3
Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their community?
Yes
![[PITable:2d]](/images/tables/pitable_2d/y2019-32c4d9d2.svg)
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on community health & safety performance
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on community health & safety performance (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on community health & safety performance (max 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
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:3a]](/images/tables/pitable_3a/y2019-96ed7178.svg)
![[PITable:3b]](/images/tables/pitable_3b/y2019-d038af8a.svg)
![[PITable:3c]](/images/tables/pitable_3c/y2019-f37b1323.svg)
![[PITable:3d]](/images/tables/pitable_3d/y2019-9f87bb2e.svg)
![[PITable:3e]](/images/tables/pitable_3e/y2019-6141fbda.svg)
Targets
Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the energy performance targets (as reported in the table above)
Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets
Yes
2018 Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Long-Term Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on energy performance
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on energy performance (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on energy performance (max 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:4a]](/images/tables/pitable_4a/y2019-ac2503c6.svg)
![[PITable:4b]](/images/tables/pitable_4b/y2019-febd268c.svg)
Targets
Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the greenhouse gas emissions performance targets (as reported in the table above)
Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets
Yes
2018 Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Long-Term Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on greenhouse gas emissions performance
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on greenhouse gas emissions (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on greenhouse gas emissions (max 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:5a]](/images/tables/pitable_5a/y2019-1e8368ad.svg)
Targets
Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the air pollutant targets (as reported in the table above)
Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets
Yes
2018 Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Long-Term Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on air pollutant emissions performance
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on air pollutant emissions (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on air pollutant emissions (max 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI5
Determined by materiality , IM, E
PI6.0
Can the entity report on water use/withdrawal performance?
Yes
![[PITable:6a]](/images/tables/pitable_6a/y2019-f651cc6b.svg)
![[PITable:6b]](/images/tables/pitable_6b/y2019-54db793d.svg)
Targets
Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the water use/withdrawal targets (as reported in the table above)
Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets
Yes
2018 Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Long-Term Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on water use/withdrawal performance
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on water use/withdrawal performance (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on water use/withdrawal performance (max 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI6
Determined by materiality , IM, E
PI6.1
Can the entity report on water discharge/pollution performance?
Yes
![[PITable:6c]](/images/tables/pitable_6c/y2019-e122c261.svg)
![[PITable:6d]](/images/tables/pitable_6d/y2019-9ad79835.svg)
Targets
Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the water discharge/pollution targets (as reported in the table above)
Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets
Yes
2018 Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Long-Term Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on water discharge/pollution performance
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on water discharge/pollution performance (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on water discharge/pollution performance (max 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/y2019-1fbfd711.svg)
![[PITable:7b]](/images/tables/pitable_7b/y2019-dc888564.svg)
![[PITable:7c]](/images/tables/pitable_7c/y2019-1f609e5c.svg)
Targets
Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the waste generation and disposal targets (as reported in the table above)
Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets
Yes
2018 Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Long-Term Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on waste generation and disposal performance
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on waste generation and disposal performance (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on waste generation and disposal performance (max 250 words)
________________________
No
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/y2019-2157db9e.svg)
![[PITable:8b]](/images/tables/pitable_8b/y2019-95c1d935.svg)
![[PITable:8c]](/images/tables/pitable_8c/y2019-bef64892.svg)
Targets
Can the entity provide evidence of formal adoption of the biodiversity and habitat targets (as reported in the table above)
Note: Evidence is mandatory to receive points for targets
Yes
2018 Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Long-Term Target
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Reporting boundaries
Provide information on the boundaries applicable to the entity’s reporting on biodiversity & habitat performance
Facilities
Describe which facilities (from the RC3) are excluded from reporting on biodiversity & habitat performance (max 250 words)
________________________
Activities, Sources and Scope
Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded from reporting on biodiversity & habitat performance (max 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI8
Determined by materiality , IM, E
PI9.0
Has the entity undertaken customer satisfaction surveys during the last three years?
Yes
The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible)
Internally
Percentage of customers covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
By an independent third party
Percentage of customers covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
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
Does the survey include quantitative metrics?
Yes
Metrics include (multiple answers possible)
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Satisfaction with communication
Satisfaction with responsiveness
Satisfaction as a customer
Satisfaction with asset management
Understanding customer needs
Value for money
Other: ____________
No
No
Not applicable
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored
PI9.1
Does the entity have a program in place to improve customer satisfaction based on the outcomes of the survey referred to in PI9.0?
Yes
Select all applicable options
Development of an asset-specific action plan
Feedback sessions with asset managers / operators
Feedback sessions with individual customers
Focus groups
Other: ____________
Describe the customer satisfaction improvement program (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored
PI10.0
Has the entity undertaken an employee satisfaction survey during the last three years?
Yes
The survey is undertaken:
Internally
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
By an independent third party
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
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
Does the survey includes quantitative metrics
Yes
Metrics includes
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Other: ____________
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored
PI10.1
Does the entity have a program in place to improve its employee satisfaction based on the outcomes of the survey referred to in PI10.0?
Yes
Select all applicable options:
Development of action plan
Feedback sessions with Senior Management Team
Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments
Focus groups
Other: ____________
Describe the employee satisfaction improvement program (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored
PI11
Does the entity report on Gender and Diversity?
Yes
Diversity of governance and management (i.e. C-suite, Board of Directors, Management Committees)
Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)
Age group distribution
Board tenure
Gender pay gap
Gender ratio
Percentage of individuals within the organization’s governance bodies in each of the following diversity categories:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
Diversity of employees
Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)
Age group distribution
Percentage of employees that are:
Under 30 years old: ____________%
Between 30 and 50 years old: ____________%
Over 50 years old: ____________%
Gender pay gap
Gender ratio
Percentage of employees in each of the following diversity categories:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored
Certifications & AwardsCA1
Did the entity maintain or achieve asset-level certifications for ESG-related 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)
________________________
CA1
A list of provisionally validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix of the Reference Guide.
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)
________________________
CA2
Not scored