Download PDF

2019

Asset

Reference Guide

Contents

Disclaimer: 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide

The 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide (“Reference Guide”) accompanies the 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment and is published both as a standalone document and in the GRESB Portal alongside each Assessment indicator. The Reference Guide reflects the opinions of GRESB and not of our members. The information in the Reference Guide has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. We take reasonable care to check the accuracy and completeness of the Reference Guide prior to its publication. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications to the Reference Guide. We will publicly announce any such modifications.

The Reference Guide is not provided as the basis for any professional advice or for transactional use. GRESB and its advisors, consultants and sub-contractors shall not be responsible or liable for any advice given to third parties, any investment decisions or trading or any other actions taken by you or by third parties based on information contained in the Reference Guide.

Except where stated otherwise, GRESB is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights in all the information contained in the Reference Guide.

About GRESB

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.

Overview of GRESB Assessments

GRESB Real Estate Assessment

The GRESB Real Estate Assessment is the global standard for ESG benchmarking and reporting for listed property companies, private property funds, developers and investors that invest directly in real estate. The Assessment evaluates performance against 7 Sustainability Aspects, including information on performance indicators, such as energy, GHG emissions, water and waste. The methodology is consistent across different regions, investment vehicles and property types and aligns with international reporting frameworks, such as GRI and PRI.

The GRESB Real Estate 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 Real Estate Developer Assessment

In addition to the GRESB Real Estate Assessment for property companies and fund managers that focus on the management of standing investments, GRESB provides a stand‐alone GRESB Real Estate Developer Assessment to evaluate the ESG performance of organizations that focus on development activities. The Developer Assessment focuses on policies, strategies, and measurable actions related to new construction and major renovation projects. It contains a subset of indicators from the GRESB Real Estate Assessment, plus the 14 indicators in the New Construction & Major Renovations (NC&MR) Aspect.

The GRESB Developer Assessment is designed for:

GRESB Public Disclosure

GRESB Public Disclosure evaluates the level of ESG disclosure by listed infrastructure and infrastructure investment companies. The evaluation is based on a set of indicators aligned with the GRESB Infrastructure and Asset Assessment, allowing for a comparison of ESG disclosure performance between GRESB participants and non-participants. It also provides investors with a resource hub to access ESG disclosure documents across their full investment portfolio.

GRESB Public Disclosure data is initially collected by the GRESB team for selected companies, including both 2018 GRESB Infrastructure Assessment participants and non-participants. All constituents have the opportunity to review and update this data before it becomes accessible to GRESB Investor Members. GRESB Public Disclosure consists of four Aspects: Governance of Sustainability, Implementation, Operational Performance and Stakeholder Engagement. Together, these Aspects contribute towards a Public Disclosure Level, expressed through an A to E sliding scale.

(Real Estate and Infrastructure) Module: Resilience

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:

(Real Estate) Supplement: NAREIT Leader in the Light

GRESB works in close collaboration with the National Association of Real Estate Investments Trusts (Nareit), a GRESB Industry Partner. Nareit encourages its corporate members to complete the annual GRESB Real Estate Assessments, which, for the past six years, has been the basis for their annual Leader in the Light Award competition. The Leader in the Light Awards are presented to REITs in eight property sectors: Diversified, Global (for non‐U.S. companies), Health Care, Industrial, Lodging/Resorts, Office, Residential and Retail. If there are both large and small cap entries that meet the awards criteria in a given property sector, awards are presented to both the leading large and small cap companies. To participate in the Leader in the Light Award program, Nareit members must complete both the GRESB Real Estate Assessment and the Leader in the Light Supplement. Once all sections of the GRESB Real Estate Assessment are completed, including the Leader in the Light Supplement, participants are able to submit their entire submission which will automatically be included in the Leader in the Light Award competition.

GRESB Infrastructure Assessments

The GRESB Infrastructure Assessments are an ESG engagement and benchmarking tool for institutional investors, fund managers, infrastructure companies and asset operators working in the infrastructure space.

The GRESB Infrastructure Assessments consist 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 Assessments focus on operating investments, infrastructure assets, companies and funds, and cover 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. GRESB Infrastructure 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 between different assets and funds. 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’s Asset Assessment saw the introduction of materiality-based scoring to cater for sector specific variations. In 2019, this process was further refined to provide entity specific materiality incorporating additional factors such as location and scope of service.

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 through peer group comparisons that take into account locations, sectors and variations in scope of service.

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.

Timeline and Process

The Assessment Portal opens 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, 2019 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. For an overview of key dates and activities for the 2019 Assessment cycle, please see the Assessment timeline.

Response Check

A Response Check is a high-level check of the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment response by GRESB’s parent company, i.e. GBCI, Inc. ('GBCI'), prior to final submission. It helps to reduce errors that may adversely impact the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment results and ensures the submission is as complete as possible.

The Response Check is available for request from April 1 to June 1, 2019 (Midnight, Pacific time) 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 (this guide). The Reference Guide provides general introductory information to the Fund and Asset Assessments and the indicator-by-indicator guidance that is available under the Guidance tab in the Portal. The Reference Guide is available on March 1, 2019.

The 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 GRESB Infrastructure 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, infrastructure companies, asset operators, investors, consultants and sustainability professionals looking to improve ESG management and reporting through the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment. It is also appropriate for governance, human resources and management personnel seeking an understanding of the GRESB Infrastructure framework.

Training is delivered via face-to-face group sessions, in select locations. See dates and locations of 2019 GRESB Assessment Trainings.

GRESB also runs Data Insights Training sessions focusing on the interpretation of the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment results and the reporting and benchmarking tools available to Investor Members, Fund Manager and Company Members. This will take place after the release of results in Q3.

GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Introduction

About the 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide

This Guide accompanies the 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment (referred to as ‘the Asset Assessment’). This Guide provides:

This Guide should provide all the basic information needed to complete the 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment. If you need additional help, please contact the GRESB helpdesk.

The focus of GRESB Infrastructure is on operational assets. Assets may participate on a standalone or aggregated basis, see below section on Asset Assessment participation for further details.

Asset Assessment Participation

Infrastructure assets are typically defined by investors at the investable entity level. These assets (investable entities) may comprise of single or multiple facilities. Either type of asset may participate in the Asset Assessment, however reporting as single facilities provides the best basis for benchmark comparisons and is therefore strongly encouraged. Possibilities for participation are explained in the following sections. Note that these are only illustrative and other scenarios are possible. Participants with questions about specific circumstances are encouraged to contact GRESB helpdesk for guidance.

Single-facility assets

Single-facility assets undertake their activities at one facility or in one facility network. These entities may be large and complex, or small and narrowly focused. The full description of the facility and business activities should be expressed in the Entity & Reporting Characteristics section of the Asset Assessment.

Examples of single-facility assets include:

Multi-facility assets

In some cases, the asset’s activities may be spread across a number of facilities - GRESB considers this to be a multi-facility asset. A multi-facility asset has the option to report (a) separately for each facility using multiple Asset Assessments, or (b) as a group using a single Asset Assessment. Completing multiple assessments allows comparisons between assets and is strongly encouraged, whilst a single assessment may take less time if the relevant data is more readily available at the aggregated asset level.

Examples of multi-facility assets include:

Multi-facility assets that participate as one entity should have centralized management and aggregated performance data. See the RC3 indicator for more details.

Grace Period

GRESB offers participants reporting for the first time, the option to not disclose their first year GRESB Infrastructure 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 future GRESB Infrastructure Assessments. First time participants wishing to opt for the Grace Period can select the option from the settings section in the Assessment Portal.

It is possible to ‘lift’ or ‘remove’ the Grace Period status immediately after results are released by formal request to GRESB.

Participant Tools

The following tools help participants with the submission process:

Output and Data Access

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 via the following access request process:

Results are published in September and are distributed as follows:

Does GRESB fully comply with GDPR?

Yes. You can check the GRESB Privacy Statement here. We also have specific internal policies, such as our Data Breach Policy and Data Protection Policy, related to GDPR that we cannot share externally for security reasons. Please note that asset level data does not fall under the incidence of GDPR because it does not contain any personal data.

Cybersecurity. What steps have GRESB taken to prevent unauthorized access to asset-level data?

We hired an expert to review all of our data security measures and systems. No issues were flagged. Our website, as well as the GRESB Portal are fully HTTPS/TLS encrypted. We have strict and extensive policies on data security that we cannot share externally for security reasons. Our public policies can be accessed here.

GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment and Reference Guide Structure

Asset Assessment Aspects

The 2019 Asset Assessment includes 47 indicators split across 7 ESG aspects:

Indicator Structure

Every indicator in the 2019 Asset Assessment can be answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and in some cases with 'Not Applicable'.

After selecting ‘Yes’, participants have the option to further classify the response by selecting one or more sub- options and/or complete an open text box or table.

Participants should select all sub-options that accurately describe the entity and for which it can provide evidence to validate the response. Indicators that require evidence are clearly marked in the Reference Guide and GRESB Portal.

After selecting 'No’, participants may not select any additional sub-options; the indicator will receive no points.

Selecting 'Not Applicable' as a response is only possible on selected Performance Indicators. Participants may only select ‘Not Applicable’ if the relevant materiality issue for that indicator is deemed to be of ‘No relevance’ (refer ‘Materiality-based scoring’ section below).

GRESB has marked each indicator to reflect what the corresponding 2018 indicator was, or if it is a new indicator, by indicating ‘NEW’. This is also reflected in the guidance notes for every indicator.

Indicator Components

The Asset Assessment is a layered tool constructed around five core components – Radio buttons, Checkboxes, ’Other’ answers, Open Text Boxes and Evidence. These components are explained below and are often combined within one indicator.

Radio buttons: Some indicators have additional mutually exclusive radio buttons. In all cases participants must select the one that is the most applicable.

Checkboxes: The majority of Asset Assessment indicators contain a set of checkboxes that participants can select after answering ‘Yes’. Participants may select multiple sub-options that apply to their entity.

'Other’ answers: Some indicators offer the opportunity to provide an alternative answer option (‘Other’). Such other answers must stand outside of the options listed in the question. While it is possible to report multiple other answers within one text box, additional points will not be provided for any more than one acceptable other answer. All answers are validated as part of the data validation process.

Open text box: GRESB distinguishes between open text boxes:

Evidence: Some indicators require provision of evidence that supports the response. More detailed explanation of the applicable evidence items are in the next section of the Reference Guide.

Allocation to MP and IM

To provide additional understanding of performance, indicators are allocated to one of two dimensions: Management & Policy (MP) and Implementation & Measurement (IM). The Reference Guide specifies each indicators designation as either MP or IM. Using these two scoring dimensions allows performance to be visualized using the GRESB Quadrant Model.

Management & Policy is defined as “the means by which a company or fund deals with or controls its portfolio and its stakeholders and/or a course or principle of action adopted by the company or fund.” Management & Policy comprises 39.7 percent of the overall GRESB Score.

Implementation & Measurement is defined as “the process of executing a decision or plan or of putting a decision or plan into effect and/or the action of measuring something related to the portfolio.” Implementation & Measurement comprises 60.3 percent of the overall GRESB Score.

Allocation to E, S, G

GRESB has also allocated each indicator to one of the three sustainability dimensions (E- environmental; S- social; G- governance):

Evidence

GRESB allows participants to provide evidence for the majority of indicators, using hyperlinks and/ or document uploads. The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment includes mandatory evidence on selected indicators. Evidence is used to validate the overall answer and any additional selected criteria. GRESB does not have a standard for evidence, but rather expects that a validator with reasonable domain expertise can locate support for the participant’s answer within the evidence provided. More information on evidence is provided with each indicator.

The evidence should not require extensive interpretation or inference, and participants are strongly encouraged to provide the simplest and briefest evidence that supports their claim. It is the responsibility of the reporting entity to provide clear and concise information that can be understood by the validator. The validator will reject claimed answers or individual criteria not supported by evidence.

Two types of evidence may be provided:

Permitted number of uploads/links: Multiple documents and/or hyperlinks can be provided as evidence, per indicator. In these cases, make it clear which evidence relates to which claim.

Previously accepted evidence: Uploaded or linked evidence that was accepted in previous GRESB Infrastructure Assessment submissions might not be accepted in following submissions. Enhanced validation checks and/or a change in the level of validation (see “GRESB Validation Process”) may result in different validation outcomes. In order to be accepted, the provided evidence should meet the requirements as stipulated in this Reference Guide. Participants are advised to review each of their answers.

Good Practice Links: In 2019, indicator guidance now includes good practice examples. These are shared via links under the Evidence section in the Reference Guide and are drawn from publicly available evidence provided for the indicators. The intention is to provide participants with more guidance and examples of good practices to assist their improvement efforts, however, does not guarantee similar evidence will be accepted in validation. Participants should make their own decisions about the suitability of the examples to their own circumstances.

Language

Your Asset Assessment response must be submitted in English.

Documents uploaded as supporting evidence do not need to be entirely translated. However, a thorough summary of the content, sufficient to convey that each requirement has been met, should be provided in English.

GRESB will provide a Japanese translation of the 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Assessment. For other languages, the GRESB assessment portal can be translated by using “Google translate” via the Google Chrome web browser. This applies to the assessment portal, guidance notes and online version of the reference guide. You can refer to Google Chrome Help to see the steps of using google translate and turning translation on.

If you are not able to use the Chrome browser, you may need to find another translation solution.

Disclaimer: Please note that not all text may be translated accurately or be translated at all. GRESB is not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translations. GRESB will not be held responsible for any damage or issues that may result from using Google Translate.

Reporting Period

Answers must refer to the reporting period identified in EC3 in the Asset Assessment, unless the indicator specifies an alternate reporting period. A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting period; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting period.

Reporting entity

Your response should relate specifically to the reporting entity (i.e. the Asset) for which you are submitting an Asset Assessment response. Responses may relate to any organization involved with the asset and the service it provides, for example the asset owner, asset maintainer or asset operator. Evidence must show that the relevant organization's practices apply to the reporting entity. Certain indicators refer to different reporting levels (e.g. Group, Operator, Contractor) that should be addressed within the indicator response and supporting evidence.

Data Validation Process

Validation approach

Data validation is an important part of the GRESB benchmarking process. The purpose of data validation is to encourage participant best practices in data collection and reporting. It is an important element of GRESB’s continued efforts to provide investment grade data to its stakeholders. Following receipt of participants' GRESB Infrastructure Assessment submissions, GRESB validates the inputted data prior to full scoring and benchmarking. This process continues from June 15 until July 31, 2019.

What data does GRESB Validate?

GRESB validation is a check on (a) the factual accuracy and (b) the logic (e.g. clear, sound reasoning) of GRESB Infrastructure Assessment submissions including:

GRESB validators check:

  1. The existence and content of answers to open text boxes;
  2. The additional information provided including third-party organization names; assurance, audit, certification and verification standards; and the content provided when answering ‘Other’ to a GRESB Infrastructure Assessment indicator;
  3. Content quality of uploaded documents.

Document uploads are validated based on the validity of the document relative to the requirements stated in the guidance for the indicator, including the actual reference to selected answer options (see “Evidence”).

Uploaded evidence that was accepted in previous GRESB Infrastructure Assessment submissions might not be accepted in following submissions. Enhanced validation checks and/or a change in the level of validation may result in different validation outcomes. In order to be accepted, the provided evidence should meet the requirements as stipulated in this Reference Guide.

Validation Process

All data submitted is subject to the GRESB data validation process. The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment administers a three tier validation process that comprises:

All Participant Check

Validation Plus

The indicator selection is performed by GRESB and is subject to change on an annual basis. This will allow GRESB to apply a consistent level of scrutiny on all participating entities.

The GRESB/GBCI validation team reviews the uploaded documents, they are not disclosed to any third parties, unless the option to make the evidence available to investors was selected. You may redact the documents, provided that enough information to validate your GRESB Infrastructure Assessment responses is available. All supporting evidence for indicators selected for Validation Plus must be submitted alongside the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment. Documents, clarifications and information provided after submission, or outside of the portal, will not be taken into consideration.

Validation Interview

Participants selected will be notified by email after the Assessment submission. There may be instances where we need to contact the participant for missing supporting evidence, additional information, clarifications or corrections to the data submitted. In 2019, GRESB anticipates that approximately five percent of participants will be selected for a Validation Interview.

Validation Decision

Each indicator component has specific set of validation decisions that could be assigned dependent on the indicator requirements. List of these validation decisions are noted and explained below:

Component Validation status Explanation Scoring impact
'Other' answer Accepted Provided other answer falls outside the provided options and fulfills indicator requirements. Designated number of points will be awarded for this response.
Duplicate Provided answer fulfills indicator requirements but duplicates already selected answer. No points will be awarded for this response.
Not Accepted Provided answer does not fulfill indicator requirements. No points will be awarded for this response.
Open Text Box (OTB) Full points Provided response covers all OTB specific requirements stated in the Reference Guide. Designated number of points will be awarded for this response.
Partial points Only part of the OTB requirements stated in the Reference Guide wasn't fulfilled. Only part of designated points will be awarded for this response.
No points None of the OTB requirements stated in the Reference Guide were fulfilled. No points will be awarded for this response.
Evidence Accepted Uploaded document(s)/hyperlink(s) fully support provided response and fulfills indicator requirements. Score of 1 is assigned, which acts as a multiplier for Section 1 (Elements).
Partially accepted Less than majority of provided responses where supported by the evidence or provided document/hyperlink did not fully fulfill the requirements. Score of 0.5 is assigned for mandatory evidence and 0.65 for optional evidence. This acts as a multiplier for Section 1 (Elements).
Not accepted None of the provided responses where supported by the evidence or provided document/hyperlink did not fulfill the requirements. Score of 0 is assigned for mandatory evidence and 0.3 for optional evidence. This acts as a multiplier for Section 1 (Elements) .

Validation queries

Participants with questions on individual validation decisions can contact the GRESB Helpdesk. For a more detailed understanding of the validation decisions in the Assessment, participants can request a Results Review. For more information about the Results Review, please click here.

Each validation inquiry sent via the GRESB Helpdesk is evaluated internally. In rare cases an error may be found which can be the result of:

Participants who want to communicate specific points on the results presented in the Benchmark Report can use the “Respondent score comments” field – this will be seen by investors

Scoring Methodology

Scoring Model

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

The sum of the scores for all indicators adds up to a maximum of 100 points, therefore the overall GRESB Score is an absolute measure of ESG management and performance expressed as a percentage.

GRESB Rating

The GRESB Rating is an overall relative measure of ESG management and performance of the asset.

The calculation of the GRESB Rating is based on the GRESB Score and its quintile position relative to the GRESB universe, with annual calibration of the model. If the participant is placed in the top quintile, it will have a GRESB 5-star rating; if it ranks in the bottom quintile, it will have a GRESB 1-star rating, etc.

Aspect Scoring Concepts

The GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment is structured in to seven ESG Aspects. The weighted combination of scores for each Aspect generates the overall GRESB Score.

Asset scores are based on the premise that each Aspect provides distinct and useful information. TThe below Aspect weights apply for 2019.

Aspect Weight (% Overall Score)
Management 10.1%
Policy & Disclosure 10.2%
Risks & Opportunities 21.3%
Monitoring & EMS 10.1%
Stakeholder Engagement 10.1%
Performance Indicators 35.8%
Certifications & Awards 2.5%

Indicator Scoring

The following is an scoring overview of indicators in the 2019 Infrastructure Asset Assessment. Some general remarks and notes on the structure of indicators:

There are three models used for indicator scoring:

Note that selection of the 'Yes/No'responses in relation to the indicator question, will no longer be scored in 2019

Section One (Elements)

Every scored indicator begins with this section and can receive a score between 0 and 1, determined by selections made in checkboxes and radio buttons, and answers provided in open text boxes. Based upon these inputs, scores are calculated using either an aggregated points, Materiality-based or a diminishing increase in scoring methodology.

Aggregated points: For indicators where one or more answers can be selected, points are awarded cumulatively for each individual selected answer and then aggregated to calculate a final score for the indicator. In some cases, each checkbox answer may be equally weighted and in others, each checkbox answer may be assigned a higher or lower amount of points each, to reflect best practice responses. For many indicators, the final score is capped at a maximum, which means that it is not necessary to select all checkbox answers in order to receive full points.

Diminishing increase in scoring: The idea behind this concept is that the number of points achieved for each additional data point provided decreases as the number of provided data points increases. This means that the number of points achieved for the first data point will be higher than the number of points achieved for the second, which again will be higher than for the third, and so on.

Materiality-based Scoring

In 2018, GRESB introduced Materiality-based scoring for a selection of the Asset Assessment indicators. This ensures that all assets are assessed and scored based on the ESG issues that are most material to their circumstances. Participants are not expected to select all additional criteria to achieve the highest score.

If applicable, materiality guidance is addressed within the indicator level guidance notes. This is only applied to specific Aspects, being i) Policy & Disclosure, ii) Risks & Opportunities, iii) Monitoring & EMS and iv) Performance Indicators.

If an indicator is a One Section indicator, the score calculated in this section will also be its final score.

Section 2 (Evidence)

Some indicators include an evidence section to verify information provided in section 1 (Elements). In these cases, the score for the evidence section acts as a multiplier to the Section 1 score. Evidence can be optional or mandatory, and is scored as follows:

The final indicator score is then calculated as:

Indicator score = (Section 1 score) X (Section 2 score)

Peer group allocation and benchmarking

For benchmarking purposes, each participant is assigned to a peer group, based on the entity’s primary sector, primary location and scope of service, as reported in RC3 and EC2. The goal of the peer group creation process is to compare participants who share as many characteristics as possible. To ensure participant anonymity, GRESB will only create a peer group if there is a minimum of six participants allocated to the peer group (the participant and five other peers).

Peer group assignments do not affect an entity's score, but determine how GRESB puts participant’s results into context. The peer group composition is determined by a simple set of rules and provides consistent treatment for all participants. See the RC3 indicator and Appendix 5 for more details.

Each participant can be part of multiple peer groups, but can only have one active peer group. The active peer group is the one which is used for benchmarking and is displayed in the participant’s Benchmark Report. This means that participant A can be in the active peer group of participant B, without participant B being in the active peer group of participant A.

The peer group composition is determined by a simple set of rules and provides consistent treatment for all participants. If the peer group is too small, we eliminate filters until we have a valid peer group. There are two ways in which the filter can be widened:

Peer group disclosure

GRESB provides an opt‐in option to discloses the entity’s name, as well as the scores for the two dimensions (Management & Policy and Implementation & Measurement) in Benchmark Reports. However, this is only disclosed to participants who also opted to disclose their name and dimension scores.

Customized Benchmark Reports

Participants who would like to be compared against a different peer group than the one assigned by GRESB can request a Customized Benchmark Report (click here for details). The GRESB Customized Benchmark Report provides advanced analytics through alternative indicator‐level performance comparisons and rankings based on a self‐selected peer group. It builds on the detailed insights you can draw from the standard Benchmark Report and adds additional flexibility to understand your relative performance in the market.

Sector Leaders

The GRESB Sector Leader program recognizes the best performers annually from across the GRESB Assessments. Achieving sector leader status is clear recognition of best practice ESG performance by Infrastructure companies and funds. A minimum number of entities is necessary to award a Sector Leader. This minimum number is reviewed each year. If any significant ESG fines and/or penalties are reported (see PD7), the entity may not be entitled to sector leader status.

Entity & Reporting Characteristics

Intent and Overview

Information provided in the Entity and Reporting Characteristics section determines the framework for the submission of the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment. This includes the primary sector, primary location and Scope of Service for materiality-based scoring and peer grouping.

The section consists of two parts:

Entity Characteristics

2018 Indicator

Intent

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

Terminology

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

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

Requirements

Complete all applicable fields.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

Describe the ownership status and structure of the participating entity.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

ISIN: International Securities Identification Number. ISINs are assigned to securities to facilitate unambiguous clearing and settlement procedures. They are composed of a 12-digit alphanumeric code and act to unify different ticker symbols, which can vary by exchange and currency for the same security. In the United States, ISINs are extended versions of 9-character CUSIP codes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requirements

Select the nature of the participating entity. If applicable, select the relevant sub-options and provide details.

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

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

2019 changes: Addition of revenue basis and scope of service sub-sections.

Other: Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections, state a i) other ownership type or ii) other structure type iii) revenue basis.

References

EDHECInfra, Global Infrastructure Company Classification Standards (GICCS®️), 2018

IPWEA, International Infrastructure Management Manual, 2015

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

Intent

Set the entity’s annual reporting period.

Terminology

Calendar year: January 1 – December 31.

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

Reporting period: Answers must refer to the reporting period identified in EC3 in the Infrastructure Assessment. A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting period; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting period. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or viceversa, as long as the chosen reporting period is used consistently throughout the Assessment.

Requirements

Complete all applicable fields.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

Establish whether there is a relationship with industry associations and/or GRESB Partners.

Requirements

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

Establish the age of the entity.

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

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

If the entity is a Greenfield Asset or still under construction, then enter the expected year when operations will commence.

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

Reporting Characteristics

2018 Indicator

Intent

Set the currency for which the entity is denominated.

Requirements

State the currency used by the entity for Assessment indicators that require a monetary value as a response.

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: New Zealand Dollar (NZD) and Philippine Peso (PHP) have now been added to the list of currencies.

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

Intent

Establish the economic size of the entity.

Terminology

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

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

Requirements

Complete the measures of the economic size of the entity GAV and Revenue, both in millions (e.g. $75,000,000 must be reported as 75). GAV should be provided as at the end of the reporting period, and should include development and construction projects (if any). Revenue should be for the reporting year. It is mandatory to provide both the GAV and revenue. Estimates are acceptable (for example annual operating costs may be used instead of revenue). Like all information provided to GRESB, this information will be kept confidential to just you and any investors for which you give permission. This information is used (as denominators) to calculate intensity performance metrics which will in future provide more comparability between assets.

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

No pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment but has not been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the primary measure of economic size and the applicable value.

Intent

Describe the sectors and locations of the facility or facilities that comprise the asset. This information is used for materiality-based scoring and to determine peers for benchmarking and reporting purposes.

Terminology

Address: The address should include the number, street, town/city, and region/state.

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

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

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

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

Requirements

For each facility provide the facility name, weight, country, address (or GPS coordinates), sector and provide a description of the facility (max 200 words) relevant to the entity. List all significant facilities that comprise the asset. It is up to the participant to determine the best structure for reporting of facilities since they have the best understanding of their facilities. Multiple small facilities may be grouped into a facility network or similar, particularly if the core sector is the same for the grouped facilities. For example, a network of water pipelines and pumping stations might be grouped into a single sewerage pipeline network. Another grouped facility might be a group of rooftop solar installations within a certain region or country.

For each facility select the appropriate sector by clicking on the drop-down list or by typing in a keyword. Only list the facility’s core sector (its main infrastructure service). If there is more than one core sector for the facility then consider splitting it up into multiple facilities with one core sector per facility. The full list of sectors aligns to the EDHECInfra GICCS®️ standard Industrial Classifications and is provided in Appendix 3. Assign a relative weight for each facility based on the actual or estimated proportion it comprises of the total asset GAV. The total weights of facilities must sum to 100%.

For each facility select the appropriate country by clicking on the drop-down list or by typing in a keyword. The full list of countries aligns to the UN Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use. If a facility is spread across more than one country (e.g. large linear or network infrastructure) then consider splitting it up into multiple facilities with one country per facility.

The asset’s primary sector and primary location will be determined from, and shown below, the facility table.

  • The primary sector is determined based on the mix of facility sectors, using a three-tier system as follows:
    • Sub-class: If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single sub-class then the primary sector will be that sub-class, otherwise move to the class level;
    • Class: If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single class then the primary sector will be that class, otherwise move to the super-class level;
    • Super-class: If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single super-class then the primary sector will be that super-class, otherwise the primary sector is ‘Diversified’.
  • Similarly, the primary location is determined based on the mix of facility locations, using a three-tier system as follows:
    • Country: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single country, then the primary location is that country, otherwise move to the sub-region level;
    • Sub-region: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single sub-region, then the primary location is that sub-region, otherwise move to the region level;
    • Region: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single region, then the primary location is that region, otherwise the location is ‘globally diversified’

This information will be used to identify peers from the same or similar sectors and locations, and also are factors in the materiality assessment for the asset (see MA2 for more details).

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

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

For participants wishing to align with last year’s sector, an alignment table of “Old” to “New” sector classifications is available in Appendix 3, they can alternatively check their 2018 scorecard.

2019 changes: RC4 has been been merged into this indicator using a new simplified structure built around the listing of facilities. The sector (business activity) classification has been aligned with the new GICCS standard providing 161 different sector choices. The location classification has been aligned with the UN Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use. Address has been added as a new input which will allow better geographical insights to be explored.

Other: For sectors that do not appear in the drop-down list, “Other” can be selected.

References

EDHECInfra, Global Infrastructure Company Classification Standard (GICCS®️) 2018

United Nations Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49) - https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/

Intent

Provide a description and image of the entity.

Requirements

The description may include:

For each applicable row, you must complete:

  • Purpose of the entity's operations;
  • Operation as a single or multi-facility asset;
  • Greenfield or brownfield asset.

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

Management

Intent and Overview

The intent of this Aspect is to assess how the entity addresses ESG management through (1) assessing whether material issues have been identified and what they are; (2) identifying responsibilities for management of ESG issues and how they are incentivized; and (3) assessing the approach to ESG training.

Materiality

2018 Indicator

1 point , MP, G

Intent

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, it is mandatory to upload evidence.

Partial pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been partially pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Evidence (mandatory)

Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Materiality Assessments are often presented within Sustainability and/or Integrated Reports. Evidence should support that a formal Materiality Assessment was undertaken and includes the following elements in the assessment process:

  • Identification of the material ESG issues for the entity. Issues should span across at least two of Environmental, Social and Governance dimensions.
  • Engagement with relevant stakeholders. The process should use stakeholder and internal inputs to identify which issues are material. Stakeholders may be engaged directly or represented by suitable internal personnel. In the latter case, the personnel must be in an appropriate position to represent the views of the relevant stakeholder groups (e.g. a Community Relations Manager could represent the views of the community and an Investor Relations Manager could represent the views of shareholders).

Evidence provided must refer to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Good practice example: Please refer to pages from 4 to 9 at this link.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory and will be scored based on whether a Materiality Assessment has been undertaken and the elements addressed.

Your answer will not be scored unless the evidence is considered valid.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 101-1.3: The Materiality Principle, 2016

Not scored

Intent

Infrastructure is a diverse asset class, where the relevance (materiality) of ESG issues can vary across sectors due to a range of factors. The intent of this indicator is to determine the materiality of a range of ESG issues covered by the GRESB Assessment.

Terminology

Factor Question Answers Guidance
Primary Sector (RC3) What is the entity's Primary Sector? See Sector Matrix See RC3
Primary Location (RC3) Is the entity's Primary Location in developed countries, developing countries or mixed? Developed Developed countries are Japan, Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and Europe. See RC3 for more details.
Developing Developing countries are any that are not developed.
Mixed Mixed means that the entity is located in locations that are a mix of developed and developing countries.
Scope of service What is the entity's Scope of Service? Asset provision See EC2
Asset provision and maintenance
Asset provision and operation
Asset provision, maintenance and operation
Habitat & Biodiversity What is the entity's proximity to ecological habitat? Adjacent Ecological habitat means terrestrial or aquatic areas distinguished by geographic, abiotic and biotic features, whether entirely natural or semi-natural e.g. as per the classifications in Annex I of the EU Habitat Directive. The distance should be measured as the closest point of any part of the asset to any part of an ecological habitat. Adjacent means directly bordering or where habitat is within the asset facility boundary.
Close (< 100m)
Distant (> 100m)
Contamination Is the asset sited on contaminated land? Yes Contaminated land contains substances that are causing or could cause (a) significant harm to people, property or protected species; or (b) significant pollution of surface waters (for example lakes and rivers) or groundwater. Land contamination can result from a variety of intended, accidental, or naturally occurring activities and events such as manufacturing, mineral extraction, abandonment of mines, national defense activities, waste disposal, accidental spills, illegal dumping, leaking underground storage tanks, hurricanes, floods, pesticide use, and fertilizer application.
No
Resilience Is the entity located in an area close to the sea, prone to earthquakes, droughts, floods, cyclones, wildlandfires or other natural disasters? 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 location with high water stress High consumption means greater than 1 Megalitre per US$ in Gross Asset Value.
High consumption in locations with low water stress Low consumption means less than 1 Megalitre per US$ in Gross Asset Value.
Low consumption in locations with high water stress High water stress means High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct.
Low consumption in locations with low water stress Low water stress means not High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct.
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 Risk of pollution means there are measurable pollutants in the discharge that if their levels were elevated could cause negative impact.
Yes but waterways are not in locations with high water stress High water stress means High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct
No
Light Does the entity use significant external lighting at night? Yes and the location is densely populated Densely populated means greater than 2000 people per square kilometer.
Yes but the location is not densely populated
No
Noise Does the entity emit noise externally? Yes and the location is densely populated Densely populated means greater than 2000 people per square kilometer.
Yes but the location is not densely populated
No
Nature of customers Do individual customers/users interact directly with the asset? Yes and the interaction is extensive Extensive interaction means that several people who are customers or users directly interact with the asset using one or more of their physical senses e.g. a mass transit passenger service.
Yes but the interaction is limited Limited interaction means some interaction but not extensive or none.
No No interaction means that no people who are customers or users directly interact with the asset using one or more of their physical senses e.g. B2B customers, a wind farm supplying electricity to a utility company.
Contracting practices What proportion of the entity's activities are contracted out? Most Most means more than 75% of the entity workforce (in FTE).
Part Part means between 25 and 75% of the workforce (in FTE).
Little Little means less than 25% of the workforce (in FTE).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary sector: The main infrastructure sector of the entity as determined in RC3.

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

Requirements

It is mandatory to complete the GRESB Materiality Assessment.

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity based on twelve materiality factors comprising the Primary Sector and Primary Location (from RC3), the Scope of Service (from EC2) and the answers to the nine questions in this indicator. Answer each of the nine questions. Where the answer is somewhat uncertain, it is recommended to err on the conservative side and select the response with the higher relevance, see Appendix 4.

Based on the twelve factors, materiality weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. These entity specific weightings are used in several subsequent indicators for scoring (this is noted within each relevant indicator).

The outcome of completing this indicator is an entity specific materiality weighting for each of the ESG issues. These weightings are displayed at the bottom of the indicator in the portal. See Appendix 4 for details of how the twelve materiality factors determine the materiality weightings for each of the ESG issues. An Excel version of the GRESB Materiality Assessment is also available here.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored in 2019, however the responses provided to this indicator determine the materiality-based scoring which is applied throughout the Assessment.

References

Columbia University/NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center’s (SEDAC)

EU Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 101-1.3: The Materiality Principle, 2016

Gridded Population of the World (GPW), v4

UK Environmental Protection Act

United Nations Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49) - https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/

World Resources Institute - Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas

Objectives

2018 Indicator

2.2 points , MP, G

Intent

Clear ESG objectives help to translate purpose into action — they can facilitate the integration of ESG management with other business management processes. Objectives should be the longer-term goals derived naturally from policies. Having clear ESG objectives also demonstrates commitment to monitoring and improving ESG performance.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

Requirements

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Section on level of integration of the objectives, including Open Text Box has been removed.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload.

Evidence requirements:

  • The objective(s) should be specific and the evidence must demonstrate the existence of ESG objectives relating to each of the selected criteria.
  • General sustainability objectives are not as specific as environmental, social or governance objectives. Having just these objectives is not considered as strong as having each of environmental, social and governance objectives specifically and therefore does not score as highly.
  • Evidence should clearly indicate the public availability of the objectives (if applicable).

Acceptable evidence may include illustrative portions of business plans, annual report, strategic developments, target documents, company presentations, etc.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. For the first subsection, points are awarded to each checkbox and then aggregated to calculate the final indicator score. The checkboxes are not all equally weighted.

For the second subsection, points are awarded based on the level of public availability of the evidence.

References

UNPRI, PRI Reporting Framework, 2018

ISO14001

Leadership & Accountability

2018 Indicator

1 point , MP, G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to identify the type of human resources allocated to ESG management and their scope of responsibilities. Having personnel dedicated to ESG issues increases the likelihood that the entity’s ESG objectives will be properly managed and targets will be met.

Terminology

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

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

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select applicable checkbox(es) and complete the open text box.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Note: It is mandatory to provide the name and job title of the individual(s) but optional to provide their e-mail address and LinkedIn profile(s). This information will remain confidential and will only be used for data validation purposes.

Name of the organization: Provide the name of the organization. Where there are multiple external consultants/managers involved select the external consultant/ manager which is most important as measured by contracting value. You may be asked for additional information about the organization. It is possible to report on multiple organizations; however, you will only be able to provide contact details for one organization within the indicator.

The individual responsible for the implementation of ESG issues may be the same individual as listed in indicator MA5.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is scored similarly to a Two Section Indicator. However, there is no option for providing evidence and thus, no evidence multiplier.

The score of Section 1 takes into account the level of responsibility of the selected person(s). It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum points for this indicator.

LinkedIn profile and email address are optional fields and do not impact scoring.

References

Global reporting Initiative, GRI 102-20: General Disclosures, 2016

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

1 point , MP, G

Intent

This indicator aims to assess whether ESG decision making is undertaken at senior management levels. The involvement of senior management in ESG decision making increases the likelihood that ESG objectives will be met.

Terminology

Accountable for: A person with sign off and/or approval authority over the deliverable task, project or strategy.

Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.

Most senior decision-maker on sustainability: The most senior individual who holds authority for approving strategic sustainability objectives and steps undertaken to achieve these objectives.

Senior Management Team: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. Senior management are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, complete the text and select the applicable radio button.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Senior decision-maker: The entity’s most senior decision-maker on ESG issues is expected to be actively involved in the process of defining the ESG objectives and should approve associated strategic decisions regarding ESG. This individual can be the same as the individual identified in MA4. If the individual is part of multiple groups, then the most senior group should be selected.

Note: It is mandatory to provide the name and job title of the individual(s) but optional to provide their e-mail address and LinkedIn profile(s). This information will remain confidential and will only be used for data validation purposes.

It is possible to provide the e-mail address where the individual can be reached, rather than direct e-mail address of the individual (e.g. email address of the executive assistant of this individual).

Reporting level: Answers should be applicable at the entity, operator and/or manager level. In the case where the senior decision-maker that is accountable for ESG issues is part of a third-party organization, then provide the organization name.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the department or group that the senior decision-maker is a part of. Refer to the definition of Senior Management Team, to ensure no duplicates are provided. Include just one other answer.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

Points are awarded based on the level of seniority of the responsible senior decision-maker. There is no option for providing evidence and thus, no evidence multiplier.

References

CDP, CDP Scoring Methodology, CC1.1, 2016

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 102-20: General Disclosures, 2016

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.1.5, Responsibilities & Committees

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

2.2 points , MP, G

Intent

This indicator intends to identify whether and to what extent, ESG issues are addressed in employee performance targets. Including ESG factors in annual performance targets for all employees can increase the entity’s capacity to achieve improved ESG performance.

Terminology

Annual performance targets: Targets set in annual performance reviews, which are assessments of employee performance.

Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.

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

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

Senior Management Team: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. Senior management are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, also select the applicable checkbox(es) and radio button response.

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Removal of 'pre-determined’ from consequences so that now, the requirement is simply that there are consequences, they do not need to be pre-determined.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

The answer could refer to employees of the company or employees of a contractor/supplier.

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

State the employee group. The examples of other employees include, but are not limited to, a specific group of employees such as sustainability team, ESG team and/or communication team.

Examples of ESG factors in performance targets include, but are not limited to, specific targets such as (i) health and safety measures or environmental incidents, (ii) employee, customer or community engagement targets and/or (iii) achievement of ESG related ratings or scores (e.g. a GRESB Asset Score).

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Official documents from the entity describing rewards, penalties, or support associated with specific ESG-related targets.
  • An example of financial consequence includes employee KPI or bonus schemes. An example of non-financial consequence may include 'employee of the month' awards and/or recognition schemes.

Good practice example: Please refer to page 27 at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. The score of the first subsection is determined based on the employee group selected. For subsection two, points are awarded based on whether or not targets have consequence, and then aggregated to calculate the indicators final score.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 102-35: Remuneration policies, 2016

Training

2018 Indicator

2.7 points , IM, G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the coverage and scope of the entity’s training on ESG issues. ESG training reflects the entity’s commitment to building its capacity to manage complex ESG issues.

Terminology

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

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

Social issues: Concerns the impacts the organization has on the social systems within which it operates.

Training: Refers to: (1) All types of vocational training and instruction; (2) Paid educational leave provided by the organization for its employees; (3) Training or education pursued externally and paid for in whole or in part by the organization; (4) Training on specific topics such as health and safety; (5) Training does not include on-site coaching by supervisors.

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Reporting level: Answers should be applicable at the entity, operator and/or manager level. If the entity does not provide direct ESG training for their employees, but requires that contractors/operators/stakeholders receive ESG-related training, then this section can be completed accordingly. When providing evidence, the participant should specify the contracted entity undertaking the activity and the relationship to that entity, to verify how these actions are applicable to the reporting entity. In some cases, participants may provide examples of redacted contractual agreements to verify this.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the group that training is provided and/or required for. This should be an external group. Stating any employee group is not valid and is considered a duplicate of 'employees'.

Examples of ESG-related trainings include but are not limited to, training on environmental awareness, health and safety, handling of hazardous materials, data confidentiality or code of conduct.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Acceptable evidence may include promotional materials describing training programs, curriculum, extracts of study guides, screenshots of a training portal, summaries of attendance, or combinations of materials.
  • The evidence should support all checkboxes selected, including the types of ESG training and relevant employee groups that receive training. If 'environmental issues' is selected, then at least one environmental issue (e.g. waste) must be addressed within the training evidence to be considered acceptable. This evidence requirement also applies to social issues and governance issues, if selected.

Good practice example: Please refer to pages 96 and 97 at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator contains multiple subsections. Each subsection receives a score based on the number of ESG issues covered within the training, for each stakeholder group. Subsection scores are then aggregated to calculate the final indicator score.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 404: Training and Education, 2016

Policy & Disclosure

Intent and Overview

The intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity’s ESG policies and approach to disclosure.

Policies

2018 Indicator

1.7 points , MP, E

Intent

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

Terminology

Air pollutants: Pollutants of major public health concern include ozone-depleting substances (ODS), NOx, SOx, particulate matter (PM), lead, mercury and/or other standard categories of air emissions identified in relevant regulations.

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

Climate change adaptation: Preparation for long-term change in climatic conditions or climate related events. Example of climate change adaptation measures can include, but are not limited to: building flood defenses, xeriscaping and using tree species resistant to storms and fires, adapting building codes to extreme weather events.

Contamination: Contamination of land can happen by substances or effluents such as gases, chemicals, oils, fuels, waste.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster: Disaster resilience is the ability of individuals, communities, organizations and states to adapt to and recover from hazards, shocks or stresses without compromising long-term prospects for development.

Stakeholder groups:

  1. Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite providing a service to the entity. A contractor can employ their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors. Contractors along with employees, typically form the onsite entity workforce.
  2. Suppliers: Organizations that have a direct commercial relationship with the entity (tier 1 supply chain) relating to the provision of goods. Suppliers typically conduct their works offsite to generate and deliver the goods to site.
  3. Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors): Organizations that have an indirect commercial relationship with the entity related to the provision of goods i.e. they provide goods to Suppliers or their suppliers or so on.

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

Water discharge/pollution: Discharge of water to wwater bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) where there may be a risk of contamination by harmful compounds.

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

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

  1. An 'Other' material issue that is environmental in nature (see above definition);
  2. An 'Other' stakeholder group for which policies are applicable to.

Note: The policy or policies must be existing and valid policies during the Reporting Period identified in EC 3.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • The evidence must be sufficient to identify all of the selected issues included within the entity's policies. Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as an Environmental Policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's environmental policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
  • Where a stakeholder group is selected, the evidence must be an environmental policy or policies that apply to the selected stakeholder group. This policy may be the same as the one applying to the entity or one more specific to the relevant stakeholder, but must cover at least one environmental issue.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory for this indicator. Therefore, no points will be awarded unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid, based on the evidence criteria stated above.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. The first subsection is scored based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based scoring approach. For the second subsection, points are equally awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 300 Environmental Standards, 2016

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

Examples

As shown above, GRESB has defined 13 potential environmental issues.

The table below provides an example of the materiality-based scoring concept from the GRESB Materiality Assessment (MA2). The issue section of this indicator is worth X points. If an entity’s policies address ‘Energy’, ‘GHG’, ‘Light pollution’ and ‘Water use’ then overall the entity would achieve 5/9 x (X) = 0.55 X out of the X possible points as shown in the following table:

Issue GRESB Entity materiality Issues covered by entity's policies Effective Count (X) Contribution to score
Air pollutants No relevance No 0
Biodiversity & Habitat Low Relevance Yes 0.5 0.05
Contamination Medium Relevance No 0
Energy High relevance Yes 2 0.22
GHG Medium Relevance Yes 1 0.11
Light pollution No relevance Yes 0
Materials Sourcing & Resource efficiency Medium Relevance No 0
Noise No relevance No 0
Resilience (adaptation) to climate change Medium Relevance No 0
Resilience to catastrophe/ disaster Medium Relevance No 0
Waste No Relevance No 0
Water use/consumption Medium Relevance Yes 1 0.11
Water pollution/discharge Low Relevance Yes 0.5 0.05
Total 9 - 5 0.55

1.7 points , MP, S

Intent

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

Terminology

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

Community development: Plan that details actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse social and/or economic impacts, and/or to identify opportunities or actions to enhance positive impacts of a project on the community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stakeholder groups:

  1. Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite providing a service to the entity. A contractor can employ their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors. Contractors along with employees, typically form the onsite entity workforce.
  2. Suppliers: Organizations that have a direct commercial relationship with the entity (tier 1 supply chain) relating to the provision of goods. Suppliers typically conduct their works offsite to generate and deliver the goods to site.
  3. Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors): Organizations that have an indirect commercial relationship with the entity related to the provision of goods i.e. they provide goods to Suppliers or their suppliers or so on.

Stakeholder relations: Engagement with individuals/entities that have an interest in the entity.

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: The issue “Discrimination” was removed and “Health and safety: contractors” was added as a social issue.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

  1. An 'Other' material issue that is of a social nature (see above definition);
  2. An 'Other' stakeholder group for which policies are applicable to.

Note: The policy or policies must be existing and valid policies during the Reporting Period identified in EC 3

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • The evidence must be sufficient to identify all of the selected issues included within the entity's policies. Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as an ESG Policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's social policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
  • Where a stakeholder group is selected, the evidence must be a social policy or policies that apply to the selected stakeholder group. This policy may be the same as the one applying to the entity or one more specific to the relevant stakeholder, but must cover at least one social issue.

Note: If certain social issues are embedded in law and/or regulation in the countries of operation, the entity may select the relevant checkbox and evidence can be provided as a reference to the specific law or regulation on the provided Document Upload template (see Appendix 10).

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory for this indicator. Therefore, no points will be awarded unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid, based on the evidence criteria stated above.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. The first subsection is scored based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based approach. For the second subsection, points are equally awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 400 Social Standards, 2016

International Labour Organization, Discrimination and Equality

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

1.7 points , MP, G

Intent

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiduciary duty Duties owed by a fiduciary to a beneficiary. Examples of fiduciary duties include a duty of confidentiality, a duty of no conflict, and a duty not to profit from his position. A fiduciary is a person to whom power or property is entrusted for the benefit of another.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stakeholder groups:

  1. Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite providing a service to the entity. A contractor can employ their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors. Contractors along with employees, typically form the onsite entity workforce.
  2. Suppliers: Organizations that have a direct commercial relationship with the entity (tier 1 supply chain) relating to the provision of goods. Suppliers typically conduct their works offsite to generate and deliver the goods to site.
  3. Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors): Organizations that have an indirect commercial relationship with the entity related to the provision of goods i.e. they provide goods to Suppliers or their suppliers or so on.

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

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Issue “One share/one vote” was deleted. Cybersecurity was added as a governance issue.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: This indicator contains three options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

  1. An 'Other' board-level, governance issue (see above definition);
  2. An 'Other' operational, governance issue (see above definition);
  3. An 'Other' stakeholder group for which policies are applicable to.

Note:The policy or policies must be existing and valid during the Reporting Period identified in EC 3.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • The evidence must be sufficient to identify all of the selected issues included within the entity's policies. Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as an ESG Policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's governance policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
  • Only policies that address operational governance issues can apply to the relevant stakeholder groups (i.e. not board-level issues). Where a stakeholder group is selected, the evidence must identify at least one of the selected operational issues applying to the selected stakeholder group within a policy. This recognizes that only a certain number of the selected operational governance issues may be applicable to certain stakeholder groups.

Note: If certain governance issues are embedded in law and/or regulation in the countries of operation, the entity may select the sub-option and evidence can be provided as a reference to the specific law or regulation on the provided Document Upload template (see Appendix 10).

Good practice example: Please refer to the documents at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory for this indicator. Therefore, no points will be awarded unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid, based on the evidence criteria stated above.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into three subsections. The first and second subsections are scored based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based approach. For the third subsection, points are equally awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Asian Association for Investors in Non-Listed Real Estate Vehicles (ANREV), 2019

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 200 Governance Standards, 2016

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

ESG Disclosure

2018 Indicator

1.7 points , MP, G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s ESG communication and disclosure strategy. The entity's disclosure practices are a good barometer for its relative level of transparency surrounding ESG issues. Disclosure must be external and cannot be an internal and/or ad hoc communication within the entity.

Terminology

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

Annual report: A yearly record of an organization’s financial performance that is distributed to investors under applicable financial reporting regulations.

Dedicated section on website: A section of the organization's website that explicitly addresses ESG performance.

Disclosure: The act of making information or data readily accessible and available to interested individuals and institutions. Disclosure must be external and cannot be an internal and/or ad hoc communication within the participant organization.

ESG actions: Specific activities performed to improve management of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues within the organization.

ESG performance: Reporting of material indicators that reflect implementation of environmental, social, or governance (ESG) management.

Frequency Reporting: How often the entity reports to its investors.

Integrated Report: A report that is aligned with the requirements of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework (December 2013).

Investor Report: A report prepared by the participant for the purpose of informing investors on the ESG performance of the entity. A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach that lacks performance analysis is insufficient.

Stand-alone Sustainability Report(s): A report dedicated to the organization’s ESG performance.

Reporting Levels:

  1. Entity: related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which you are submitting an Assessment response.
  2. Group: related to the group of companies of which the participating entity forms a part.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, also select the applicable checkbox(es) and radio button response.

Partial pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been partially pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: The "frequency of reporting" is added to ‘Entity reporting to investors’ option.

Note: For each applicable checkbox the participants must:

  1. Select the applicable reporting type. If the entity reports at multiple levels, you should select the most detailed reporting level.
  2. If applicable, select alignment from the dropdown lists to confirm that your method of reporting is aligned with an external standard or guideline. If reporting is aligned with more than one standard, select the standard with which there is most alignment.
  3. Provide document upload or URL.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the disclosure type.

Reporting period: The report must have been published during the reporting period. However, stand-alone sustainability report and integrated report can also refer to the year prior to the reporting period identified in EC3.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence requirements include:

  • A piece of supporting evidence cannot be uploaded for more than one disclosure method selected.
  • Each disclosure type selected (e.g. Sustainability Report), should clearly reference ESG actions and/ or performance of the entity (as per the above terminology).
  • The report should not be issue specific (i.e. focus on just environmental issues) but should cover a broad range of ESG issues (i.e. at least two of the three environmental, social and governance issues).
  • Reports published after the reporting period, but referring to performance during the reporting period, will not be accepted as evidence since this indicator is intended to measure the disclosure that occurred during the reporting period.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Clear examples of the entity's disclosure type, such as a link to a relevant website or Sustainability Report.

Good practice example: Please refer to the links below:

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory for this indicator. Therefore, no points will be awarded unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid, based on the evidence criteria stated above.

Points are awarded to each sub-option based on (1) reporting type, (2) reporting level and (3) alignment.

Scoring within this indicator seeks to reward best disclosure practices in terms of reporting type and level. Therefore, a scale of points are awarded for different reporting types in the following order; Integrated Report, Sustainability Report and then Annual Report. Secondly, higher points are awarded for reporting at the most granular level, being Entity vs. Group level reporting.

References

IIRC Integrated Reporting Framework, 2013

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 102: General Disclosures, 2016

UNPRI, PRI Reporting Framework, 2018

1.7 points , MP, G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the level of third-party review for the entity's ESG-related communications and data. Third-party review of ESG data increases confidence in the veracity of information underpinning performance disclosure.

Terminology

Annual report: A yearly record of an organization’s financial performance that is distributed to investors under applicable financial reporting regulations.

Dedicated section on website: A section of the organization's website that explicitly addresses ESG performance.

Disclosure: The act of making information or data readily accessible and available to all interested individuals and institutions. Disclosure must be external and cannot be an internal and/or ad hoc communication within the participant organization.

Externally checked: A third-party review that does not comply with the definition of either externally assured or verified.

Integrated Report: A report that is aligned with the requirements of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework (December 2013).

Investor Report: A report prepared by the participant for the purpose of informing investors on the ESG performance of the entity. A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach that lacks performance analysis is insufficient.

Stand-alone Sustainability Report(s): A report dedicated to the organization’s ESG performance.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, also select the applicable checkbox(es) and radio button response.

Partial pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been partially pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Evidence is now mandatory (not optional).

Note: For each applicable checkbox the participant must:

  1. State whether the reporting methods are externally checked, verified or assured (select only one option corresponding to the greatest detail level);
  2. Select the applicable assurance/verification scheme from the dropdown list (see ‘accepted assurance schemes’ in Appendix 9); Any ‘Other’ standard selected from the Scheme name dropdown menu will be subject to validation;
  3. State the name of the checking/verifying/assuring organization.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the disclosure type. Acceptable answers must relate to ESG disclosure.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • A memo, letter, correspondence or similar document indicating the nature of the engagement (i.e. a cover sheet within a report).
  • Section within a report highlighting the name of the organization that performed the review and nature of engagement.
  • The Schemes ISAE 3000 and ASAE 3000 were amongst those most used by the industry in the 2018 Asset Assessment.

Good practice example: Please refer to pages 54 and 55 at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory for this indicator. Therefore, no points will be awarded unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid, based on the evidence criteria stated above.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Within Section 1, each checkbox is scored separately and considers whether each reporting type is externally checked, verified or assured by an organization. The total score is then calculated with different points awarded for different reporting types.

Scoring within this indicator seeks to reward best disclosure and review practices. Therefore, a scale of points are awarded for different reporting types in the following order; Integrated Report, Sustainability Report, Annual Report and then Investor Reporting. Higher points are then awarded for different review levels in the following order; Externally assured/verified and then Externally checked.

Scoring for this indicator is linked to the number of points received for the corresponding reporting method selected in PD4. If the chosen communication method in PD5 was not selected or did not receive points in PD4, then the participant will not receive points for this indicator.

References

GRESB’s accepted assurance and verification standards as well as criteria for accepted standards are aligned with the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 102-56: General Disclosures, 2016

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 4.1.2, Assurance

1.7 points , MP, G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s strategy to communicate about ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents. The entity’s communication process is one aspect of management controls necessary to provide investors with transparency about regulatory risks and liabilities. Recurring ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents can increase the risk profile of the entity as they can translate into reputational, compliance, and financial risks.

Terminology

Accident: An unplanned, undesired event that results in damage or injury.

Controversy: A prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.

Incident: An unplanned, undesired event with actual or potential adverse impacts.

Misconduct: Unacceptable or improper behaviour, especially by an employee or organization.

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

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select applicable checkbox(es) and complete relevant open text box(es).

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Open Text Box: Describe the process in place for communicating ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents. The focus is on the process and not disclosure of specific incidents, however, an example can also be provided to illustrate the process followed. The text must include all of the applicable elements below:

  • Type of communication. Examples can include, but are not limited to: regular reporting, documentation of reporting requirements, phone calls, emails, agenda items in meetings.
  • Frequency and timing of communication. Examples can include regularity of reporting and expected time boundaries for communication (e.g. within 2 days of reported incident).

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State an external stakeholder group.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. The first subsection, containing the open text box, is scored based on compliance with the open text box requirements described above. The second subsection, containing the checkboxes, is scored using a diminishing increase in scoring approach, per additional checkbox selected, and if applicable, the validity of the ‘Other’ answer provided.

It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum points for this indicator.

References

Indicator partially aligned with PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 19

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 102-17: General Disclosures, 2016

Not scored

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to ensure the communication of any significant ESG fines and/or penalties to the reporting entity’s investors and to also take this into account in awarding sector leaders. Recurring misconducts and penalties can increase the risk profile of the portfolio as they impose financial, management and regulatory burdens on the entity.

Terminology

Accident: An unplanned, undesired event that results in damage or injury.

Controversy: A prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.

Incident: An unplanned, undesired event with actual or potential adverse impacts.

Misconduct: Unacceptable or improper behaviour, especially by an employee or organization.

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, complete all applicable text boxes.

No pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment but has not been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers.

Within the context box, participants may choose to describe how the entity has resolved or intends to resolve the above issue(s). The content of this open text box will be included in the participant’s Assessment results.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored in 2019 and is for reporting purposes only.

Note: Responses to this indicator will be reviewed for sector leader award purposes.

References

CDP Reporting Guidelines, Compliance, 2017

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 205: Anti-Corruption (Confirmed incidents of corruption and actions taken Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index, 2013), 2016

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 307: Environmental Compliance, 2016

Risks & Opportunities

Intent and Overview

The intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity’s understanding and mitigation of material ESG risks and opportunities.

Risk Assessments

2018 Indicator

3.8 points , MP, E

Intent

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

Terminology

Air pollutants: Pollutants of major public health concern include ozone-depleting substances (ODS), NOx, SOx, particulate matter (PM), lead, mercury and/or other standard categories of air emissions identified in relevant regulations.

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

Climate change adaptation: Preparation for long-term change in climatic conditions or climate related events. Example of climate change adaptation measures can include, but are not limited to: building flood defenses, xeriscaping and using tree species resistant to storms and fires, adapting building codes to extreme weather events.

Contamination: Contamination of land can happen by substances or effluents such as gases, chemicals, oils, fuels, waste.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster: Disaster resilience is the ability of individuals, communities, organizations and states to adapt to and recover from hazards, shocks or stresses without compromising long-term prospects for development.

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

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

Water discharge/pollution: Discharge of water to wwater bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) where there may be a risk of contamination by harmful compounds.

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

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Additional checkboxes on the Risk Assessment Process.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. The answer should refer to an issue that is environmental in nature (see above definition).

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

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Evidence should include a document describing the entity’s environmental risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
  • Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of an environmental management plan addressing environmental risks.
  • Such evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence of the claimed risk assessment for each issue.

Evidence provided must refer to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. For the first subsection about elements of the risk assessment process, points are awarded (equally) for each checkbox and aggregated to calculate the final subsection score. For the second subsection, a subsection score is calculated based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based scoring approach.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 300 Environmental Standards, 2016

3.8 points , MP, S

Intent

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

Terminology

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

Community development: Plan that details actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse social and/or economic impacts, and/or to identify opportunities or actions to enhance positive impacts of a project on the community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stakeholder relations: Engagement with individuals/entities that have an interest in the entity.

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

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Additional checkboxes on Risk Assessment Process and ‘Health and safety: contractors’.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. The answer should refer to an issue that is social in nature (see above definition), and must not be a duplicate of the listed issues.

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

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Evidence should include a document detailing the Risk Assessment Process for a specific social risk or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
  • Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of an management plan addressing environmental risks.
  • Such evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence of the claimed risk assessment for each issue.

Note: If certain social issues are embedded in law and/or regulation in the countries of operation, the entity may select the issue and evidence can be provided as a reference to the specific law or regulation and how it has been complied with, on the provided Evidence template.

Evidence provided must refer to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections. For the first subsection about elements of the risk assessment process, points are awarded (equally) for each checkbox and aggregated to calculate the final subsection score. For the second subsection, a subsection score is calculated based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based scoring approach.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 400 Social Standards, 2016

International Labour Organization, Discrimination and Equality, 2017

3.8 points , MP, G

Intent

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiduciary duty Duties owed by a fiduciary to a beneficiary. Examples of fiduciary duties include a duty of confidentiality, a duty of no conflict, and a duty not to profit from his position. A fiduciary is a person to whom power or property is entrusted for the benefit of another.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Addition of checkboxes on Risk Assessment Process and ‘Cybersecurity’.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

  1. An 'Other' board-level, governance issue (see above definition);
  2. An 'Other' operational, governance issue (see above definition);

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

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Evidence should include a document detailing the Risk Assessment Process for a specific governance risk or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
  • Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of an management plan addressing environmental risks.
  • Such evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence of the claimed risk assessment for each issue.

Note: If certain governance issues are embedded in law and/or regulation in the countries of operation, the entity may select the issue and evidence can be provided as a reference to the specific law or regulation and how it has been complied with, on the provided Evidence template.

Evidence provided must refer to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into three subsections. For the first subsection about elements of the risk assessment process, points are awarded (equally) for each checkbox and aggregated to calculate the final subsection score. For the second and third subsections, the score is calculated based on a diminishing increase in scoring and materiality-based approach.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Asian Association for Investors in Non-Listed Real Estate Vehicles (ANREV), 2019

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 200 Governance Standards, 2016

Implementation

2018 Indicator

9.9 points , IM, G

Intent

The purpose of this indicator is to provide specific, representative examples of implementation actions taken by the entity to mitigate ESG related risk or improve ESG performance. The intent is not to completely enumerate all the ESG actions taken by the entity, rather the goal is to provide investors with concrete examples of recent activity.

Terminology

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

Full reference to listed environmental issues can be found in the Appendix 2.

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

Full reference to listed governance issues can be found in the Appendix 2.

Social issues: Concerns the impacts the organization has on the social systems within which it operates.

Full reference to listed social issues can be found in the Appendix 2.

Requirements

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

For each of the actions added to the table, it is mandatory to:

  1. In column 1, select the ESG issue addressed or use the ‘other’ option to list a custom ESG issue;
  2. In column 2, summarize the action taken with a few keywords; (e.g. carbon footprint assessment)
  3. In column 3, describe the action in more detail, including how this mitigated ESG risk and/or improved ESG performance, with a maximum of 50 words;
  4. In column 4, provide the fraction of the entity’s activities covered by weight. If this is unknown, provide the closest estimate;
  5. In column 5, provide additional context (if required).

Note: The text must include specific, tangible examples of the entity's actions taken to (i) improve ESG performance and/or (ii) mitigate ESG risk. For example, it is not considered acceptable to simply have a standing policy or plan in place (unless the action included the development or implementation of a new plan or policy), or refer to an action undertaken as part of the entity's usual course of business.

The action must have taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Examples of stakeholder engagement should not be provided in this indicator, but should be addressed in SE 2, otherwise this will be considered a duplicate in Validation.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Evidence must be provided to support each of the described actions.
  • Acceptable evidence may be as simple as communications such as a case study presentation, press release or a section in an internal or external reporting.
  • Acceptable evidence may include staff evaluations, consultant reports, checklists, scenario analysis, an extract of a risk register or other tangible proof of the entity’s implementation activity.
  • Examples of more complex evidence include technical studies or detailed reports.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 contains 3 structurally identical subsections (environmental, social and governance). Each of the subsections contain a table and is scored using a diminishing increase in scoring approach, with at least 4 rows of data required to achieve the maximum score (per subsection). Each row results in a different score depending on the percentage reported for 'fraction of entity covered'.

Monitoring & EMS

Intent and Overview

The intent of this Aspect is to assess the extent of the entity’s ESG monitoring practices.

ESG-related management standards

2018 Indicator

4.4 points , MP, G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the achievement and maintenance of entity-level ESG related management system accreditations. The presence and application of an ESG-related management standard or comparable framework is an indicator of an entity’s commitment to effectively action ESG issues.

Terminology

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

ISO 14001: ISO 14001:2015 sets out the criteria for an environmental management system and can be certified to.

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

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

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

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

OHSAS 18001: OHSAS 1800:2007 Occupational Health and Safety Management Certification is an international standard which provides a framework to identify, control and decrease the risks associated with health and safety within the workplace.

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Introduction of a separate evidence box for both sub-sections of this indicator.

Checkbox(es): Multiple answers are possible. Select all applicable answers.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

  1. An 'Other' accreditation maintained or achieved by the entity;
  2. An 'Other' management standard that the entity is aligned with. Note that this may not include any of the standards for which accreditation may be achieved as these are covered above. Only standards for which accreditation is not possible (i.e. only alignment is possible) are covered here.

Evidence

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence requirements: Alignment with standards where accreditation is possible will not be accepted. For example, if a participant selects that the entity has aligned to ISO 9001 as an Other answer in the second sub-section, but has not maintained or achieved the same accreditation in the first sub-section, the validation process will not award points.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Acceptable evidence will provide specific information about the accreditations and certifications achieved or maintained by the entity. This evidence may include a copy of an official certificate or other confirmation of the certification or credential.
  • Formal documentation or correspondence (e.g.letter) from an certification body or consultant.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Your answer will not be scored unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections, with both based on a diminishing increase in scoring approach. The score is determined based on the total of the two subsections, and if applicable, the validity of the ‘Other’ answer provided.

References

International Organization for Standardization, 2018

ESG monitoring

2018 Indicator

1.9 points , IM, E

Intent

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

Terminology

Air pollutants: Pollutants of major public health concern include ozone-depleting substances (ODS), NOx, SOx, particulate matter (PM), lead, mercury and/or other standard categories of air emissions identified in relevant regulations.

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

Climate change adaptation: Preparation for long-term change in climatic conditions or climate related events. Example of climate change adaptation measures can include, but are not limited to: building flood defenses, xeriscaping and using tree species resistant to storms and fires, adapting building codes to extreme weather events.

Contamination: Contamination of land can happen by substances or effluents such as gases, chemicals, oils, fuels, waste.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster: Disaster resilience is the ability of individuals, communities, organizations and states to adapt to and recover from hazards, shocks or stresses without compromising long-term prospects for development.

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

Water discharge/pollution: Discharge of water to wwater bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) where there may be a risk of contamination by harmful compounds.

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

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: The Open Text Box has been removed from this indicator.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. The answer should refer to an issue that is environmental in nature (see above definition) and must not be a duplicate of the listed issues.

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

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Official private or public documents, reports, presentations and board minutes highlighting the existence of data collection, monitoring and/or concluded results from monitoring activities undertaken.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

For Section 1, points are awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section. A diminishing increase in scoring approach applies.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

1.9 points , IM, S

Intent

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

Terminology

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

Community development: Plan that details actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse social and/or economic impacts, and/or to identify opportunities or actions to enhance positive impacts of a project on the community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stakeholder relations: Engagement with individuals/entities that have an interest in the entity.

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Added ‘Health and safety: contractors’ and removed ‘discrimination’ from the issue checkbox list. The Open Text Box has been removed for this indicator.

Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. The answer should refer to an issue that is social in nature (see above definition), and must not be a duplicate of the listed issues.

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

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Official private or public documents, reports, presentations and board minutes highlighting the existence of data collection, monitoring and/or concluded results from monitoring activities undertaken.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

For Section 1, points are awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section. A diminishing increase in scoring approach applies.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

1.9 points , IM, G

Intent

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiduciary duty Duties owed by a fiduciary to a beneficiary. Examples of fiduciary duties include a duty of confidentiality, a duty of no conflict, and a duty not to profit from his position. A fiduciary is a person to whom power or property is entrusted for the benefit of another.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2019 changes: Added ‘Cybersecurity’ to the issue checkbox list. The Open Text Box has been removed for this indicator.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

  1. An 'Other' board-level governance issue for which performance is monitored;
  2. An 'Other' operational governance issue for which performance is monitored;

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

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Official private or public documents, reports, presentations and board minutes highlighting the existence of data collection, monitoring and/or concluded results from monitoring activities undertaken.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

For Section 1, points are awarded to each selected checkbox and are then aggregated to calculate the total score for the section. A diminishing increase in scoring approach applies.

Materiality-based scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity, as shown in MA2.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in MA2. The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues: No Relevance, Low Relevance, Medium Relevance, and High Relevance. Where an issue is of 'No relevance' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is of 'Low relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with lower than ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting. It is therefore not always necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator.

References

Asian Association for Investors in Non-Listed Real Estate Vehicles (ANREV), 2019

Stakeholder Engagement

Intent and Overview

This Aspect focuses on engagement activities across a wide range of stakeholders. Improving the ESG performance of an infrastructure asset results in impacts for stakeholders and is best achieved with stakeholder cooperation and support. This Aspect assesses the entity’s stakeholder engagement program, including actions taken to engage with stakeholders and to characterize the nature of the engagement.

Stakeholder engagement

2018 Indicator

2.5 points , MP, S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the existence, scope and reach of the entity’s stakeholder engagement program. Effective stakeholder engagement programs are often critical in preventing or addressing controversy that may create regulatory risks, legal liabilities, or undermine the entity’s social license to operate and maximizing opportunities for creating shared value.

Terminology

Stakeholder groups: Terminology for the various stakeholder groups is defined in Appendix 2.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, also select all applicable checkbox(es) and indicate whether and which third-party standard the stakeholder engagement program aligns with. Finally, select which stakeholders the stakeholder engagement program applies to.

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Guideline name: Additional guidelines such as 'IAP2 Core Values: Ethics and Spectrum' can be listed under 'Other'.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections state:

  1. An 'Other' element of the stakeholder engagement program;
  2. An 'Other' external stakeholder group. Internal stakeholders can be classified under 'employees' (otherwise, considered a duplicate).

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Acceptable evidence will illustrate the existence of a stakeholder engagement program and clearly describe the critical elements.
  • Evidence should support at least one element of the stakeholder engagement program applying to each stakeholder group selected.
  • Examples include formal stakeholder engagement programs or plans, annual reports, documents highlighting contractual engagement requirements, board and stakeholder agenda/minutes and presentations.
  • Additional evidence may be needed to describe alignment with third-party standards.

Good practice example: Please refer to the documents at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into three subsections, with the first and third based on a diminishing increase in scoring approach. The score is determined based on the total of the three subsections, and if applicable, the validity of the ‘Other’ answer provided. The score of the second subsection is determined based on alignment with third-party standards.

It is not necessary to select all checkboxes within the stakeholder group in order to obtain the maximum points for this indicator.

2.5 points , IM, S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s actions to implement its stakeholder engagement program. The robust and effective implementation of a stakeholder engagement program is an important risk management strategy and a component of sustaining a durable license to operate for many infrastructure activities. If the program is not effectively implemented, stakeholder trust may diminish leading to a loss of social licence.

Terminology

Stakeholder groups: Terminology for the various stakeholder groups is defined in Appendix 2.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, then complete the table by providing key examples of actions taken to implement the stakeholder engagement program over the last 3 years.

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

The intent is not to provide a full inventory of actions, rather the focus is on the communication of the key actions undertaken by the entity.

For each action added to the table, complete the columns as follows:

  • Type of activity: Summarize the action taken with a few keywords;
  • Description of the activity: Describe the action in more detail;
  • Stakeholder group(s) involved: State all the stakeholder group(s) addressed by this action. Examples of applicable stakeholder groups includes: Employees, Contractors, Clients/Customers, Community/Public, Suppliers, Investors, Regulators/Government, Respresentative and Special Interest groups (e.g. NGO's, Trade Unions, etc), Industry and professional associations, etc.
  • Nature of activity: Classify the nature of engagement activity. Examples include: Education, Services, Research, Philanthropy, Public comment, Open days/houses, Focus groups, Surveys, Public meetings, Workshops, Deliberate polling, Advisory committees, Participatory decision making, Citizen juries, Ballots, etc.
  • Benefits of the activity: Describe the intended benefit of the action.

Note: Only one action should be provided for each type of activity that impacts multiple stakeholder groups, otherwise it will be considered a 'duplicate' in Validation.

The action must have taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC3.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting Yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Internal/external communication, extracts of engagement surveys, promotional material for community consultation, training/educational material.
  • For each action, the provided evidence must demonstrate (i) the type of engagement activity and (ii) at least one stakeholder group addressed. Evidence does not need to support 'benefits of activity' described.

Good practice example: Please refer to the documents at this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

The score of Section 1 is determined using a diminishing increase in scoring approach, with 4 rows required to achieve the maximum score.

2.5 points , MP, S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s process for addressing stakeholder concerns and grievances. Grievance mechanisms play an important role to provide an access to remedy and reflects an entity’s commitment to ESG management.

Terminology

Accessible: Known to relevant stakeholder groups and provides adequate assistance for those who may face particular barriers to access (e.g. 24/7, language translations)

Dialogue based: Looks for mutually agreed solutions through engagement between parties.

Equitable: Ensure that parties have reasonable access to sources of information, advice and expertise necessary to engage in a grievance process on fair, informed and respectful terms (e.g. independent review).

Grievance mechanism: Formal, legal or non-legal (or ‘judicial/non-judicial’) complaint or feedback process that can be used by individuals, communities and/or civil society organizations that are being negatively affected by certain business activities and operations.The process enables the complaining party to flag an issue, seek redress and remedy.

Improvement based: Drawing on lessons learnt to improve processes and prevent future harms.

Legitimate: Enable trust from stakeholder groups.

Predictable: Provide a clear procedure with an indicative time frame for each stage, and clarity on the types of process and outcome available.

Rights compatible: Ensure that outcomes accord with international norms of behavior.

Transparent: Stakeholders are informed about the process and complainants are kept informed about the progress of grievances.

Safe: Protect stakeholders from potential threats and retaliations through a secure, anonymous, independent and two-way communication system.

Stakeholder groups: Terminology for the various stakeholder groups is defined in Appendix 2.

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections, state:

  1. An 'Other' characteristic applicable to the grievance mechanism process;
  2. An 'Other' external stakeholder group. Internal stakeholders can be classified under 'employees' (otherwise, considered a duplicate).

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence should only apply to the process, elements covered and relevant stakeholder groups. Evidence should support at least one element of the grievance process applying to each stakeholder group selected.

Evidence may include an official document describing the grievance process or a link to a resource available to relevant stakeholder groups to report grievances.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections, with both based on a diminishing increase in scoring approach. The score is determined based on the total of the two subsections, and if applicable, the validity of the ‘Other’ answer provided.

References

International Standardization Organization, 20400: Sustainable Procurement, 2017

UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011

Human Rights and Grievance Mechanism, 2012

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 103-2: Management Approach, 2016

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

Not scored

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to communicate the nature of grievances received by the entity and how they have been resolved. Although this is not scored in the assessment, this is of significant interest to investors.

Terminology

Grievance mechanism: Formal, legal or non-legal (or ‘judicial/non-judicial’) complaint or feedback process that can be used by individuals, communities and/or civil society organizations that are being negatively affected by certain business activities and operations.The process enables the complaining party to flag an issue, seek redress and remedy.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, select applicable checkbox(es) and complete relevant open text box(es).

No pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment but has not been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers.

Open Text Box: The text must include all of the applicable elements below:

  • State the number of grievance. Zero (0) may be entered but only if there is a formal grievance mechanism in place as per SE3 and no grievances have been received during the reporting period;
  • Provide a summary of those grievances (if applicable);
  • Provide a summary of resolutions available for those grievances (if applicable).

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored.

References

Human Rights and Grievance Mechanism, 2012

Sustainable procurement

2018 Indicator

1.3 points , MP, S

Intent

This Indicator is intended to assess the scope and reach of the entity's approach to sustainable procurement. The procurement process is an effective way to integrate the entity’s ESG-specific requirements into their supply chain. This indicator applies to existing and new contracts.

Terminology

Business Ethics: Basic moral and legal principles used to address issues such as corporate governance, insider trading, bribery, discrimination, corporate social responsibility and fiduciary responsibilities.

Environmental process standards: Minimum standards required during the procurement process in relation to environmental processes, such as requirements for disposal of waste generated by contractors.

Environmental product standards: Minimum standards required during the procurement process in relation to environmental products, such as requiring a certain percentage of products to be locally sourced, contain recycled content or have an environmental label.

Human health-based product standards: Minimum standards for the health-related attributes of products, such as lists of prohibited chemicals.

Human rights: Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever their nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.

Occupational safety (for employees):Occupational safety focuses on the primary prevention of hazards within workplace. This includes the reduction of risk factors at the workplace leading to cancers, accidents, musculoskeletal diseases, respiratory diseases, hearing loss, circulatory diseases, stress related disorders and communicable diseases and others.

Stakeholder groups: Terminology for the various stakeholder groups is defined in Appendix 2.

ESG-specific requirements for sub-contractors: Refers to any ESG requirements that the entity has included in its contracts with its sub-contractors, including specification and use of sustainable materials, systems, processes and operating practices.

Sustainable procurement: A process to encourage, facilitate or require the reduction of consumption of goods through the operation of the asset, and the identification and addressing of ESG risks in the supply chain. Clauses can relate to reduction of paper consumption, supply of biodegradable materials, use of recycled paper, building materials, etc.

Requirements

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

Pre-fill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2018 Assessment and some sections have been pre-filled from the 2018 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Other: This indicator contains two options to provide an Other answer. Other answers must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. Within the respective sections, state:

  1. An 'Other' characteristic applicable to ESG procurement requirements. Named topics must have the impact of driving sustainable procurement;
  2. An 'Other' external stakeholder group where ESG procurement requirements is enforced.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Acceptable evidence may include internal communication or redacted documentation/contract enforcing ESG procurement requirements.
  • Evidence should support at least one element of the ESG procurement requirements applying to each stakeholder group selected.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 of this indicator is split into two subsections, both equally weighted. For the first subsection, points are equally awarded to each checkbox, with a diminishing increase in scoring approach applied. For the second subsection, points are equally awarded to each checkbox and aggregated to the final score.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 204-1: Supplier Environmental Assessment, 2016

Global Reporting Initiative,GRI 414: Supplier Social Assessment, 2016

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment, 3.5.2 Risk Exposure, 2017

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

1.3 points , IM, S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether the entity effectively engages with its supply chains in order to ensure that the ESG requirements specified in SE5 are satisfied. A fair and inclusive process based on engaging suppliers should be developed to demonstrate the entity’s willingness to commit to ESG outside its own boundaries.

Terminology

Sustainable procurement: A process to encourage, facilitate or require the reduction of consumption of goods through the operation of the asset, and the identification and addressing of ESG risks in the supply chain. Clauses can relate to reduction of paper consumption, supply of biodegradable materials, use of recycled paper, building materials, etc.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, describe the process.

Pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment and has been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Open text box: Describe the engagement process with stakeholders in the supply chain. In order to be as effective as possible the process described should cover or respect the following criteria:

  1. Materiality: Include an estimation of the proportion of the reporting entity’s revenue spent through its supply chains and the breakdown of spend with suppliers for the key procurement categories.
  2. Clear purpose of the engagement: The text must explain how the entity ensures clarity of purpose in its engagement with suppliers.
  3. Supplier’s interest: The text should describe how the entity identifies supplier’s interests.
  4. Importance of interest: Describe how the importance of suppliers’ interests is be respected throughout the engagement process.
  5. Necessary information: Describe how the entity ensures that its suppliers benefit from the necessary information to support good ESG decision making.
  6. Balanced communication: Provide explanation around the entity’s ability to keep a two-way dialogue throughout its engagement with suppliers.

Scoring

This is a One Section indicator - consisting of only Section 1 (Elements).

Section 1 of this indicator contains two open text box responses, each with equal contribution towards the overall score. The score is based on compliance with the open text box requirements described above.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 204-1: Supplier Environmental Assessment, 2016

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 414: Supplier Social Assessment, 2016

International Organization for Standardization, ISO 20400: Sustainable Procurement, 2017

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

Performance Indicators

Intent and Overview

The intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity's ESG performance in relation to data capture and reporting for its material infrastructure performance metrics. The Performance Indicators Aspect of the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment collects performance data on energy, health & safety, waste, water, GHG and air pollutant emissions, biodiversity & habitat, gender & diversity, customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction.

Indicator Structure and Requirements

Each Performance Indicator is aligned with a specific ESG issue. Before completing the Performance Indicator Aspect, participants should complete the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 to determine their materiality weightings for ESG issues. These weightings will impact how each Performance Indicator should be addressed and scored.

For each of the Performance Indicators, first consider whether: (a) the issue is material to your entity (as shown in MA2) and (b) you monitor entity performance in terms of that issue (as per ME2 and ME3). If both requirements are met, then select 'Yes' and enter all relevant and available performance data. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be ‘Not Relevant’, then it will not be considered in scoring and you may respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not Applicable’ be selected. If you do not monitor performance (i.e. you do not have performance data) then you should respond 'No'.

Indicators PI1-PI8:

These indicators are all structured in a similar format including some of the following:

1. Reporting Tables (Mandatory) - All these indicators have reporting tables where key metrics and units are embedded within table rows. The metrics are in line with industry standards and will ensure standardization and accuracy in reporting. Participants should complete the table in accordance with the metrics and units shown. Conversions may be necessary in some cases and there are numerous internet resources available for this.

Complete the table as per the following instructions:

2. Intensity Tables - Some indicators have intensity tables. In these tables, intensity metrics are calculated for the 2018 reporting period (only), based on the participant’s inputs to the reporting tables. Intensity metrics for the baselines and target columns are not calculated, however, can be input for comparison to performance. Intensity metrics provide a basis for comparing and benchmarking ESG performance. Intensity calculations will be based on key performance metrics reported within the indicator (numerator) over various size metrics reported in other indicators (PI1, RC2), including GAV, Revenue and Output (denominator). In some cases, the intensity calculations will appear as ‘Not applicable’, either due to the participant not yet reporting the input data or it not being applicable to the sector. This will be explained further within the guidance of each indicator. Intensity metrics are not mandatory and are not scored in 2019. GRESB intends to transition to scoring of actual performance (not just transparency) in the future.

3. Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (Optional) - In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. All these indicators have two open text boxes provided for this, addressing two elements. Firstly, what facilities (if any) from the Facility table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting. Secondly, what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary-related aspects e.g. scopes of GHG emissions. These will be defined in more detail for each indicator. This information will be used to help clarify and refine reporting boundaries in the future to improve comparability of benchmarking data.

4. Evidence requirements (Optional) - Some indicators require evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 & Long-term) in order to receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table. Evidence will be subject to validation. Evidence requirements include:

Indicators PI9-PI11:

These indicators are new to the 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment and will focus on Customer Satisfaction, Employee Satisfaction and Gender & Diversity. The indicators will not be scored in 2019.

Materiality-based Scoring

The materiality weightings are set at one of four levels: No relevance, Low relevance, Medium relevance, and High relevance. The participant is expected to report on all issues that have some level of relevance (e.g. High, Medium or Low). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, then the indicator will be weighted with a higher than standard weighting and where the issues is of ‘Low relevance’, then the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting. When a materiality weighting of ‘No relevance’ is determined, the participant is not expected to report on this indicator as it will not be scored.

The overall weighting for the Performance Indicator Aspect is 35.8%. This weighting is spread across the material indicators in proportion to their materiality weightings. Therefore, the weight of each indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. Indicators PI1 and PI9-PI11 are not scored in 2019.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

Output

2018 Indicator

Not scored

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s reporting on broad metrics covering inputs, outputs and impacts. The output metrics assess both economic and physical output from the infrastructure service. These output metrics are then used as denominators, in combination with the other Performance Indicators (such as GHG emissions) as numerators, for calculation of intensity metrics. Intensity metrics will not be used as a basis for scoring in 2019 but may be used in future years. The impact measures will allow participants to start calculating and reporting the ESG value of their activities.

Terminology:

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Capacity: The entity's physical capacity or maximum output over a period of time.

Input: The entity's physical primary input used to generate its physical primary output for the reporting period. Note that not all sectors have an applicable input metric.

Output: The entity's physical primary output for the reporting period.

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

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

Impact value: The estimated net value (benefits minus costs) of the social and/or environmental impacts of the entity over the reporting period in monetary units.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (e.g. Output). The participant should first complete RC2 and RC4 to ensure relevant metrics (Revenue, GAV) are automatically completed within the table.

Input/Output Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Output (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets.
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets.
  • Calculated cells:Certain performance cells are automatically calculated based on inputs to other indicators within the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment. This includes:
    • Gross Asset Value: This will be automatically completed based on the response in RC2 and converted from reporting in millions to actual figures.
    • Revenue: This will be automatically completed based on the response in RC2 and converted from reporting in millions to actual figures.
  • Sector specific responses: The metric/units for Capacity, Input and Output will be automatically allocated based on the Participant's Primary Sector (as determined by RC4). For example, for Renewable Power: Solar Power Generation the relevant Capacity Unit would be Installed capacity (MW) and the relevant Output Unit would be Energy generated (MWh). In some cases, a sector will not have any relevant metric/units assigned, so 'Not applicable' will be displayed and the field does not need to be completed.

Capacity, Input and Output metrics are specific to the Primary Sector of the entity as determined in RC3. Refer to Appendix 6 for details of these metrics for each sector. The Impact Value should be estimated using Social Return on Investment (SROI) or other similar methodology. Methodology details may be provided in the additional context box.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored.

References

A Guide to Social Return on Investment, The SROI Network, January 2012'

http://www.socialvalueuk.org/resource/a-guide-to-social-return-on-investment-2012/

Health & Safety

2018 Indicator

3.25 points , IM, S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s employees. The health and safety of employees is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Employees: Individuals who are in employment relationships with the entity, according to national law or its application.

Lost Time Injury: An injury, arising in the course of work, that results in a fatality, permanent disability or time lost from work.

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR): The number of lost time injuries occurring in a workplace per million hours worked. To calculate LTIFR use the following formula:

(( Number of lost time injuries in reporting period) / ( Total hours worked in reporting period )) X 1,000,000

Recordable injury: An injury arising that requires medical treatment beyond first aid, as well as one that causes death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, or loss of consciousness.

Reportable injury: A non-fatal or fatal injury arising that is required to be reported to the relevant OH&S regulator or equivalent.

Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR): The total number of Recorded Injuries in the reporting period divided by the number of hours worked in the period per million hours worked. To calculate TRIFR use the following formula:

(Recordable injuries X 200,000) / Total number of hours worked

Fatality: The death occurring in the current reporting period, arising from an injury or disease sustained or contracted.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics . It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second section.

Employees Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Fatalities and Reportable Injuries (cells with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

  • Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
  • Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
    • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long-term Reportable Injuries target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might them interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
  • Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Health and safety: employees' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance or Low relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will be weighted with a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

Employee health and safety is considered to be relevnat for all entities, and therefore this indicator is applicable to all participants.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • For all participants, only the Reportable injuries, Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate and Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate metrics are scored, as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety, 2018

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being)

3.25 points , IM, S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s contractors. The health and safety of contractors is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite or offsite on behalf of an entity. A contractor can contract their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors. Suppliers are not considered contractors for the purpose of this indicator.

Lost Time Injury: An injury, arising in the course of work, that results in a fatality, permanent disability or time lost from work.

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR): The number of lost time injuries occurring in a workplace per million man-hours worked. To calculate LTIFR use the following formula:

(( Number of lost time injuries in reporting period) / ( Total hours worked in reporting period )) X 1,000,000

Recordable injury: An injury arising that requires medical treatment beyond first aid, as well as one that causes death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, or loss of consciousness.

Reportable injury: A non-fatal or fatal injury arising that is required to be reported to the relevant OH&S regulator or equivalent.

Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR): The total number of Recorded Injuries in the reporting period divided by the number of hours worked in the period per million hours worked. To calculate TRIFR use the following formula:

(Recordable injuries X 200,000) / Total number of hours worked

Fatality: The death occurring in the current reporting period, arising from an injury or disease sustained or contracted.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes, No or Not Applicable. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be of ‘No Relevance’, it will not be considered in scoring and you should respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not applicable’ be selected. It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second subsection.

Contractors Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Fatalaties and Reportable Injuries (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

  • Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets, and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
  • Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
    • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long-term Reportable Injuries target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might them interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
  • Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Health and safety: contractors' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance or No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will be weighted with a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting. Where the issue is of 'No relevance', it will not be considered in scoring.

For some Participants, this indicator has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance' therefore it is considered to be Not applicable.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • For all participants, only the Reportable injuries, Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate and Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate metrics are scored, as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score wil be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety, 2018

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being)

3.25 points , IM, S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s customers. The health and safety of customers is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Customer: A customer is understood to include end-customers (consumer) as well as business-to-business customers.

Reportable injury: A non-fatal or fatal injury arising that is required to be reported to the relevant OH&S regulator or equivalent.

Fatality: The death occurring in the current reporting period, arising from an injury or disease sustained or contracted.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes, No or Not Applicable. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be of ‘No Relevance’, it will not be considered in scoring and you should respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not applicable’ be selected. It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second subsection.

Customers Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Fatalaties and Reportable Injuries (cells highlighted in blue in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Health and safety: customers' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (Low relevance or No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting and where the issue is of 'No relevance', it will not be considered in scoring.

For some Participants, this indicator has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance', therefore it is considered to be Not Applicable.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • For all participants, only the Reportable injuries metric is scored, as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety, 2018

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being)

3.25 points , IM, S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s community. The health and safety of the community is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Community: Persons or groups of people living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by the operations.

Reportable injury: A non-fatal or fatal injury arising that is required to be reported to the relevant OH&S regulator or equivalent.

Fatality: The death occurring in the current reporting period, arising from an injury or disease sustained or contracted.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes, No or Not Applicable. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be of ‘No Relevance’, it will not be considered in scoring and you should respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not applicable’ be selected. It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second subsection.

Community Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Fatalaties and Reportable Injuries (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Health and safety: community' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (Low relevance or of No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting and where the issue is of 'No relevance', it will not be considered in scoring.

For some Participants, this indicator has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance', therefore it is considered to be Not applicable.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • For all participants, only the Reportable injuries metric is scored, as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety, 2018

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being, SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities)

Energy & Emissions

2018 Indicator

3.25 points , IM, E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of and target setting for energy performance. The use of energy is both a direct cost and a critical source of local, regional, and global environmental impacts.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Energy consumed: Total energy consumed on site in undertaking the entity's business activities and including losses. This should be calculated as Energy generated plus Energy imported, minus Energy exported.

Energy exported: Exports of energy products (including electricity, heating, cooling, and steam) leaving the entity.

Renewable energy generated: Energy (self) generated on-site from renewable sources (e.g. sun, wind, water, geothermal and tides). Where energy is generated on-site using an imported fuel-based energy source (e.g. a diesel generator) this must not be counted as Energy generated because this would be double counting with Energy imported.

Energy imported: Imports of energy products (including electricity, heating, cooling and steam) entering the entity.

Renewable energy: Energy sources that are capable of being replenished in a short time through ecological cycles. Renewable energy sources include geothermal, wind, solar, hydro, tidal and biomass.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics . It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second section.

Note:

  • The Energy exported and Energy consumed table makes a distinction between 'Renewable' and 'Total' metrics. For these tables, the 'Total' metrics include both renewable and non-renewable energy sources. 'Renewable' data should exclude non-renewable energy sources.
  • When completing the Energy imported table, the participant should enter what portion of the Total energy is from renewable sources.

Energy imported, Renewable energy generated, Energy exported and Energy consumed Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for all Energy imported types (e.g. coal, diesel, electricity), Renewable energy generated and Total energy exported metrics (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Calculated cells:Certain performance cells are automatically calculated based on inputs to other performance cells within the table or inputs to another indicator. The calculations are:
    • Total energy imported = Coal + Diesel + Motor gasoline + Natural gas + Other fuels + Electricity + Steam, heat and cooling
    • Total energy consumed = Total energy imported + Renewable energy generated - Total energy exported

Intensity Tables (optional): Intensity metrics provide a basis for comparing and benchmarking ESG performance. Intensity performance metrics are calculated automatically as follows:

  • Energy export intensity (/GAV) = Total energy exported/GAV. The GAV is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Energy export intensity (/Revenue) = Total energy exported/Revenue. The Revenue is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Energy export intensity (/Output) = Total energy exported/Output. The Output is reported in PI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector (reported in RC3).
  • Energy consumption intensity (/GAV) =Total energy consumed/GAV. The GAV is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Energy consumption intensity (/Revenue) = Total energy consumed/Revenue. The Revenue is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Energy consumption intensity (/Output) = Total energy consumed/Output. The Output is reported in PI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector (reported in RC3).

In some cases, the calculated cells may show as ‘Not applicable’. This is either due to the participant i) not yet reporting the input data (within the indicator); ii) not yet reporting on the relevant denominator (GAV/Revenue/Output); or iii) There being no output metric applicable to the entity’s primary sector.

Baselines and target intensities can be input for comparison to performance. Intensity metrics are not mandatory and are not scored in 2019.

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

  • Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets, and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
  • Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
    • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long Term Total energy consumption target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might them interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.
    • If the Participant does not have target evidence for the scored metric reported in the table, then it is possible for the participant to provide the target evidence for other metrics that are used to calculate this scored metric. Ensure the calculations are explained and use the calculations in the Reference Guide. For example, the entity may have a Total energy imported and Total energy exported target supported by evidence, and zero Renewable energy generated. They could then calculate a Total energy consumed target (the scored metric) from these figures.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
  • Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Energy' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance or Medium relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Medium relevance', the indicator will receive a medium weighting.

Energy is considered to be relevant for all entities, and therefore this indicator is applicable to all participants.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-Term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • For particants whose primary sector is Energy Generation, only the Total energy exported metric is scored as indicated by the double asterisk (**) after the metric.
  • For all other sectors, Total energy consumed is scored, as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

Eurostat, Energy Glossary, 2014

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI Standard 302: Energy, 2016

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities)

3.25 points , IM, E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance. GHG emissions are the primary driver of anthropogenic climate change and a critical source of local, regional, and global environmental impacts. Evaluating GHG emissions (or Scope 1 and 2 accounting) has become the norm, and organizations are increasingly looking at emissions throughout their value chains (Scope 3 and Product inventories).

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Emissions avoided (renewable energy exported): Relates to the emissions avoided through generation of renewable energy on site and exported off-site (sold) to customers of the entity who purchase the renewable energy generated.

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

GHG offsets: A GHG (or carbon) offset represents a quantity of GHG emissions reductions, measured in units (usually metric tons) of carbon dioxide–equivalent (CO2e), that occur as a result of a discrete project. The emissions reductions from that project can be sold to enable the purchaser/owner to claim those GHG reductions as their own. These reductions can then be used to reduce, or offset, any GHG emissions for which the purchaser is responsible.

Net GHG emissions: 'Net GHG emissions' are calculated using this formula: Scope 1 + Scope 2 - On-site offsets - Offsets purchased.

On-site offsets: GHG offsets created from projects undertaken on site that sequester carbon such as tree planting. It does not include renewable energy generation or other GHG emission reduction projects.

Offsets purchased: GHG offsets created externally by third parties that are purchased to reduce the GHG footprint of the entity. These could be a range of types including renewable energy, tree planting, energy efficiency etc. This does not include renewable energy imported and consumed since this directly reduces the GHG emissions of the entity.

Scope 1 (Direct GHG emissions): GHG emissions from GHG sources (GHG physical unit or process that releases a GHG into the atmosphere) owned or controlled by the entity.

Scope 2 (Indirect GHG emissions): Energy indirect GHG. GHG emission from the generation of imported electricity, heat or steam consumed by the entity.

Scope 3: Other indirect GHG emission, other than energy indirect GHG emissions, which is a consequence of an entity's activities, but arises from GHG sources that are owned or controlled by other organizations.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics . It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second section.

Emissions Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Scope 1, Scope 2, On-site offsets and Offsets purchased (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Calculated cells:Certain performance cells are automatically calculated based on inputs to other performance cells within the table or inputs to another indicator. The calculations are:
    • Total (Scope 1 + 2) = Scope 1 + Scope 2
    • Total (Scope 1 + 2 + 3) = Scope 1 + Scope 2 + Scope 3
    • Net GHG emissions = Total (Scope 1 + Scope 2) - on-site offsets - offsets purchased

Intensity Tables (optional): Intensity metrics provide a basis for comparing and benchmarking ESG performance. Intensity performance metrics are calculated automatically as follows:

  • Carbon intensity (/GAV) = Net GHG emissions/GAV. The GAV is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Carbon intensity (/Revenue) = Net GHG emissions/Revenue. The Revenue is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Carbon intensity (/Output) = Net GHG emissions/Output. The Output is reported in PI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector (reported in RC3).

In some cases, the calculated cells may show as ‘Not applicable’. This is either due to the participant i) not yet reporting the input data (within the indicator); ii) not yet reporting on the relevant denominator (GAV/Revenue/Output); or iii) There being no output metric applicable to the entity’s primary sector.

Baselines and target intensities can be input for comparison to performance. Intensity metrics are not mandatory and are not scored in 2019.

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

  • Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets, and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
  • Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
    • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long-term Net GHG Emissions target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might them interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.
    • If the Participant does not have target evidence for the scored metric reported in the table, then it is possible for the participant to provide the target evidence for other metrics that are used to calculate this scored metric. Ensure the calculations are explained and use the calculations in the Reference Guide. For example, the entity may have a Scope 1 target and Scope 2 target supported by evidence, and zero offsets. They could then calculate a Net GHG Emissions target (the scored metric) from these figures.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
  • Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Greenhouse gas emissions' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance or Low relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will be receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

Greenhouse gas emissions' is considered to be relevant for all entities, and therefore this indicator is applicable to all participants.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • For all sectors except Renewable Energy Generation, only the Net GHG emissions metric is scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • For Renewable Energy Generation sectors only, Emissions avoided only is scored instead of Net GHG emissions, as indicated by the double asterisk (**) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 305: Emissions, 2016

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 13: Climate Action)

World Resource Institute, WBCD, Greenhouse Gas Protocol, 2001

3.25 points , IM, E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of air pollution emissions, other than GHGs. The emission of air pollutants emissions can have significant impacts on human health and the environment. The emissions of air pollutants may also constitute a significant risk factor for regulation and social license to operate.

Terminology

Air pollutants: Emissions into air, which are the discharge of substances from a source into the atmosphere. Air pollutants of major public health concern include (but are not limited to) particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone depleting substances (ODS), nitrogen dioxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SOx).

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Non-compliances: Failure to comply with covenants, environmental permits, laws and/or regulation due to the performance of air pollutant emissions.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes, No or Not Applicable. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be of ‘No Relevance’, it will not be considered in scoring and you should respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not applicable’ be selected. It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second subsection.

Air Pollution Table (mandatory): Complete the table as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Non-compliances (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).

There is no Intensity Table for this indicator.

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

  • Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets, and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
  • Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
    • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long-term Non-compliance target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might then interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
  • Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Air pollutants' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance, Low relevance or No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

For certain sectors, this indicator has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance' therefore it is considered to be Not applicable.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • For all sectors, only Non-compliance is scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 305: Emissions, 2016

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being, SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, SDG 13: Climate Action)

Water & Waste

2018 Indicator

3.25 points , IM, E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of water resource impacts. The use/withdrawal of water can have significant impacts on human health and the environment. Relatively high levels of water use can potentially create liabilities or regulatory risk.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Groundwater: Water in soil beneath the soil surface, usually under conditions where the pressure in the water is greater than the atmospheric pressure, and the soil voids are substantially filled with the water. Non-renewable groundwater is generally located at deeper depths and cannot be replenished easily or is replenished over very long periods of time (they are sometimes referred to as “fossil” groundwater sources). Renewable groundwater sources can be replenished relatively quickly and are usually located at shallow depths.

Potable water: Potable water is considered as drinking water.

Rainwater: Water that has fallen as or been obtained from rain.

Recycled water: An act of processing used water/wastewater through another cycle before discharge to final treatment and/or discharge to the environment. This can include water that was treated prior to reuse and water that was not treated prior to reuse. It can also include collected rainwater and wastewater generated by household processes such as washing dishes, laundry, and bathing (grey water).

Seawater: Seawater is water in which the concentration of salts is relatively high ( above 35,000 mg/l).

Surface water: Surface water is naturally occurring water on the Earth's surface in ice sheets, ice caps, glaciers, icebergs, bogs, ponds, lakes, rivers and streams.

Total HWS withdrawals: High water stress means High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct.

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

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes, No or Not Applicable. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be of ‘No Relevance’, it will not be considered in scoring and you should respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not applicable’ be selected. It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second subsection.

Withdrawals Tables (mandatory): Complete the tables as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Potable water supply, Surface water/river, Seawater, Groundwater, Rainwater, Recycled water metrics (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Calculated cells: Certain performance cells are automatically calculated based on inputs to other performance cells within the table or inputs to another indicator. The calculation is:
    • Total withdrawals = Potable water supply + Surface water/river + Seawater + Groundwater + Rainwater + Recycled water + Other

Intensity Tables (optional): Intensity metrics provide a basis for comparing and benchmarking ESG performance. Intensity performance metrics are calculated automatically as follows:

  • Water consumption intensity (/GAV) = Total withdrawals/GAV. The GAV is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Water consumption intensity (/Revenue) = Total withdrawals/Revenue. The Revenue is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Water consumption intensity (/Output) = Total withdrawals/Output. The Output is reported in PI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector (reported in RC3).

In some cases, the calculated cells may show as ‘Not applicable’. This is either due to the participant i) not yet reporting the input data (within the indicator); ii) not yet reporting on the relevant denominator (GAV/Revenue/Output); or iii) There being no output metric applicable to the entity’s primary sector.

Baselines and target intensities can be input for comparison to performance. Intensity metrics are not mandatory and are not scored in 2019.

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

  • Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets, and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
  • Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
    • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long-term Total withdrawals target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might them interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.
    • If the Participant does not have target evidence for the scored metric reported in the table, then it is possible for the participant to provide the target evidence for other metrics that are used to calculate this scored metric. Ensure the calculations are explained and use the calculations in the Reference Guide. For example, the entity may have a Rainwater, Seawater and Potable water supply taget supported by evidence. They could then calculate a Total withdrawals (the scored metric) target from these figures.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
  • Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Water use/withdrawal' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance, Low relevance or No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

For some Participants, this 'water use/withdrawal' issue has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance', therefore this indicator is considerd to be Not applicable.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • For all participants, only the Total withdrawals metrics is scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

CDP, Water Questionnaire 2017, 2017

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 303: Water, 2016

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG 14: Life Below Water)

3.25 points , IM, E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of water resource impacts. The discharge of water can have significant impacts on human health and the environment. Relatively high levels of discharge can potentially create liabilities or regulatory risk.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Groundwater: Water in soil beneath the soil surface, usually under conditions where the pressure in the water is greater than the atmospheric pressure, and the soil voids are substantially filled with the water. Non-renewable groundwater is generally located at deeper depths and cannot be replenished easily or is replenished over very long periods of time (they are sometimes referred to as “fossil” groundwater sources). Renewable groundwater sources can be replenished relatively quickly and are usually located at shallow depths.

Municipal Treatment Plant: A facility for the treatment of municipal or industrial wastewater. The treatment can be primary, secondary or tertiary.

Potable water: Potable water is considered as drinking water.

Rainwater: Water that has fallen as or been obtained from rain.

Recycled water: An act of processing used water/wastewater through another cycle before discharge to final treatment and/or discharge to the environment. This can include water that was treated prior to reuse and water that was not treated prior to reuse. It can also include collected rainwater and wastewater generated by household processes such as washing dishes, laundry, and bathing (grey water).

Seawater: Seawater is water in which the concentration of salts is relatively high ( above 35,000 mg/l).

Surface water: Surface water is naturally occurring water on the Earth's surface in ice sheets, ice caps, glaciers, icebergs, bogs, ponds, lakes, rivers and streams.

Water discharge/pollution: Discharge of water to wwater bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) where there may be a risk of contamination by harmful compounds.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes, No or Not Applicable. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be of ‘No Relevance’, it will not be considered in scoring and you should respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not applicable’ be selected. It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second subsection.

Discharge Tables (mandatory): Complete the tables as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Municipal Treatment Plant, Surface water/river, Seawater, Groundwater, Recycled water scheme (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Calculated cells:Certain performance cells are automatically calculated based on inputs to other performance cells within the table or inputs to another indicator. The calculation is:
    • Total discharged = Municipal Treatment Plant + Surface water/river + Seawater + Groundwater + Recycled water scheme + Other
    • Total sensitive discharge = Surface water/river + Seawater + Groundwater
    • Recycled = Recycled water scheme / Total discharged

Intensity Tables (optional): Intensity metrics provide a basis for comparing and benchmarking ESG performance. Intensity performance metrics are calculated automatically as follows:

  • Water discharge intensity (/GAV) = Total sensitive discharge/GAV. The GAV is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Water discharge intensity (/Revenue) = Total sensitive discharge/Revenue. The Revenue is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Water discharge intensity (/Output) = Total sensitive discharge/Output. The Output is reported in PI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector (reported in RC3).

In some cases, the calculated cells may show as ‘Not applicable’. This is either due to the participant i) not yet reporting the input data (within the indicator); ii) not yet reporting on the relevant denominator (GAV/Revenue/Output); or iii) There being no output metric applicable to the entity’s primary sector.

Baselines and target intensities can be input for comparison to performance. Intensity metrics are not mandatory and are not scored in 2019.

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

  • Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets, and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
  • Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
    • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long-term Total sensitive discharge target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might them interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.
    • If the Participant does not have target evidence for the scored metric reported in the table, then it is possible for the participant to provide the target evidence for other metrics that are used to calculate this scored metric. Ensure the calculations are explained and use the calculations in the Reference Guide. For example, the entity may have a Seawater, Municipal Treatment Plant and Groundater target supported by evidence. They could then calculate a Total sensitive discharge (the scored metric) target from these figures.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
  • Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Water discharge/pollution' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance, Low relevance or No relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

For some Participants, this 'water discharge/pollution' issue has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance', and therefore it is considered to be Not applicable.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • For all participants, only the Total sensitive discharge and Recycled metrics are scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

CDP, Water Questionnaire, 2017

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 303: Water, 2016

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG 14: Life Below Water)

3.25 points , IM, E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of solid waste generation and disposal. Waste management represents a significant cost, environmental impact, and a potential opportunity. Waste hauling and disposal typically represents an operational cost for infrastructure operations. Waste streams have both direct and indirect impacts, such as surface water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. In some cases, waste streams may be monetized (e.g. waste-to-energy, recycling).

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Composting: A process to decompose organic matter. The process recycles various organic materials otherwise regarded as waste products.

Diverted from landfill: The percentage of total waste that is diverted from landfills.

Hazardous waste: A solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical/chemical/infectious characteristics may either cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality/serious irreversible illness. Hazardous waste might also pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

Incineration: The destruction of waste material by burning it.

Landfill: The disposal of waste into, or onto, land.

Non-hazardous waste: Any solid waste which is not hazardous waste. This includes construction and demolition waste, municipal solid waste (trash or garbage), commercial and industrial waste (a wide variety of non-hazardous materials resulting from the production of goods and products).

Re-use: Any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived.

Recycling: Any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations.

Waste to energy: The process of generating energy from the primary treatment of waste.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes or No. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics . It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second section.

Generation/Import and Disposal/Export Tables (mandatory): Complete the tables as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. For the Generation/Import Table, it is mandatory to enter data for Hazardous and Non-hazardous metrics (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). For the Disposal/Export Table, it is mandatory to enter Re-use, Recycling, Composting, Waste to energy, Incineration and Landfill metrics (cells highlighted in blue in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Calculated cells: Certain performance cells are automatically calculated based on inputs to other performance cells within the table or inputs to another indicator. Please note that Total (Generation/Import) must be equal to Total (Disposal/Export). The calculation is:
    • Total (Generation/Import) = Hazardous + Non-hazardous + Other
    • Total (Disposal/Export) = Re-use + Recycling + Composting + Waste to energy + Incineration + Landfill + Other
    • Diverted from landfill (%) = (Re-use + Recycling + Composting)/Total (Disposal/Export)

Intensity Tables (optional): Intensity metrics provide a basis for comparing and benchmarking ESG performance. Intensity performance metrics are calculated automatically as follows:

  • Waste intensity (/GAV) = Total (Disposal/Export)/GAV. The GAV is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Waste intensity(/Revenue) = Total (Disposal/Export)/Revenue. The Revenue is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Waste intensity(/Output) = Total (Disposal/Export)/Output. The Output is reported in PI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector (reported in RC3).

In some cases, the calculated cells may show as ‘Not applicable’. This is either due to the participant i) not yet reporting the input data (within the indicator); ii) not yet reporting on the relevant denominator (GAV/Revenue/Output); or iii) There being no output metric applicable to the entity’s primary sector.

Baselines and target intensities can be input for comparison to performance. Intensity metrics are not mandatory and are not scored in 2019.

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

  • Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets, and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
  • Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
    • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long-term Diverted from landfill target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might them interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.
    • Targets reported in the table may be calculated by the participant from targets for other metrics that match the evidence, as long as the calculations are explained and use the calculations in the Reference Guide. For example, the entity may have a Composting, Recycling and Landfill target supported by evidence. They could then calculate a Diverted from landfill target from these figures.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
  • Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Waste' issue. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance or Low relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

Waste is considered to be relevant to all entities, and therefore this indicator is relevant to all participants.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • For all participants, only the Diverted from landfill metric is scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

US Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous & Non-Hazardous Waste, 2017

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 306: Effluents and Waste, 2016

Official Journal of the European Union, Waste Directive, 2008

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production)

Biodiversity & Habitat

2018 Indicator

3.25 points , IM, E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of impact on biodiversity and habitat. Impacts on biodiversity and habitat management may create significant risks with respect to regulation or social license to operate.

Terminology

Baseline year: A fixed schedule or reference point in time against which performance in the future is measured.

Habitat: The natural home or environment of an animal, plant, or other organism.

Habitat maintained: Habitat retained in its current condition through management practices, but excluding protection, enhancement or restoration e.g. weeding and pest control.

Habitat removed: Destruction or displacement of natural habitat that leads to loss of biodiversity.

Habitat enhanced or restored: Disturbed habitat that is identified and improved for the benefit of native animal and plant species that occur there.

Habitat protected: Habitat that is secured from impacts to prevent fragmentation, species extinction or reduction in range.

Threatened & Endangered (T&E) species: Animal and plant species that are either on the IUCN Red list, or have been designated as threatened, endangered, or protected, by local or national governments.

Wildlife fatality: The death of wildlife occurring in the current reporting period.

Requirements

No pre-fill: This indicator has been changed from 2018, therefore has not been pre-filled with the 2018 Assessment answer.

Select Yes, No or Not Applicable. If selecting Yes, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics. If the materiality of the indicator is determined in MA2 to be of ‘No Relevance’, it will not be considered in scoring and you should respond 'Not applicable'. In no other cases should ‘Not applicable’ be selected. It is optional to upload target evidence and report on the reporting boundaries in the second subsection.

Wildlife and Habitat Management Tables (mandatory): Complete the tables as per the following instructions:

  • Baselines: Enter the baseline year at the top of the column and then enter baseline data for each metric where available. Baseline data is not mandatory and is not scored in 2019.
  • Performance (2018): Enter data for the performance in the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. It is mandatory to enter data for Habitat removed, Habitat maintained, Habitat enhanced or restored, Habitat protected (on-site), habitat protected (off-site) (cells highlighted with a green border in the Reference Guide). Zero answers are acceptable if they are accurate. If you cannot provide all of the mandatory data then you must select ‘No’ for the overall indicator.
  • Targets (2018): Enter the targets that were applicable for the 2018 reporting period for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether targets were set and not whether the targets were achieved. The only 2018 target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets (Long-term): Enter the relevant end year for which the Long-term targets are set at the top of the column and enter the Long-term targets for each metric where available. These must be formally adopted targets. The only Long-term Target that is scored relates to the scored metric (see Scoring section below).
  • Calculated cells:Certain performance cells are automatically calculated based on inputs to other performance cells within the table or inputs to another indicator. The calculation is:
    • Net habitat improved = Habitat maintained + Habitat enhanced or restored + Habitation protected (on-site) + Habitation protected (off-site) - Habitat removed.

Intensity Tables (optional): Intensity metrics provide a basis for comparing and benchmarking ESG performance. Intensity performance metrics are calculated automatically as follows:

  • Habitat improvement intensity (/GAV) = Net Habitat improved/GAV. The GAV is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Habitat improvement intensity (/Revenue) = Net Habitat improved/Revenue. The Revenue is reported in RC2 and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Habitat improvement intensity (/Output) = Net Habitat improved/Output. The Output is reported in PI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector (reported in RC3).

In some cases, the calculated cells may show as ‘Not applicable’. This is either due to the participant i) not yet reporting the input data (within the indicator); ii) not yet reporting on the relevant denominator (GAV/Revenue/Output); or iii) There being no output metric applicable to the entity’s primary sector.

Baselines and target intensities can be input for comparison to performance. Intensity metrics are not mandatory and are not scored in 2019.

Reporting boundaries Open Text Boxes (optional): In 2019 we are seeking information regarding the boundaries of the entity’s performance reporting. Two open text boxes are provided, which address the following elements:

  • Facilities: Describe what facilities (if any) from the Facility Table (RC3) are excluded from the performance data reporting.
  • Activities, sources and scope: Describe what activities, sources and scope are included and/or excluded in the reporting. Activities refers to business activities, e.g. employee travel. Sources refers to sources of impacts e.g. fuels consumed. Scope refers to other boundary related aspects, e.g. scopes of GHG emissions.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of formally adopted targets (2018 and/or Long-term). However, participants will only receive points for the target data entered in the Reporting Table if evidence is uploaded and accepted in validation.

Evidence requirements:

  • Evidence is only required (and validated) for targets relating to the scored metrics (see Scoring section below).
  • Targets should be formally adopted, and applicable to the entity during the reporting period. They may be internal targets, and do not need to be communicated to external stakeholders.
  • Targets reported in the table should match the targets shown in the evidence. Allowable exceptions are:
    • The 2018 target may be interpolated from other targets supported by evidence (including the Long-term target), but the evidence should explain how this was done (e.g. using a cover sheet). For example, the entity may have a Long-term Net habitat improved target for 2025 supported by evidence. They might them interpolate a target for 2018 based on (say) a linear reduction each year to reach the 2025 target.
    • Targets reported in the table may be calculated by the participant from targets for other metrics that match the evidence, as long as the calculations are explained and use the calculations in the Reference Guide. For example, the entity may have a Habitat maintained and Habitat removed target supported by evidence. They could then calculate a Net habitat improved target from these figures.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Extracts from Sustainability Reports or corporate websites stating the targets.
  • Business Plans and internal documents stating specific targets.

Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. For evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc).

Scoring

Materiality-based scoring:The materiality weighting for this PI is determined by the materiality level of the 'Biodiversity and habitat issue'. Completion of the GRESB Materiality Assessment in MA2 determines which materiality weighting applies (High relevance, Medium relevance or Not relevance). Where the issue is of ‘High relevance’, the indicator will receive a higher than standard weighting and where the issue is of ‘Low relevance’, the indicator will receive a lower than standard weighting.

For some Participants, this indicator has a materiality weighting of 'No relevance', and therefore it is considered to be Not applicable.

Metric Scoring: Scoring is based on transparency of reporting of performance and targets. Points are awarded based on the following:

  • For all participants, only the Net habitat improved metric is scored as indicated by the asterisk (*) after the metric.
  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of performance.
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets. This is split equally between 2018 targets and Long-term targets. For 2019, scoring is based on whether a target was set and not whether the target was achieved.
  • Target points will only be awarded if evidence is uploaded and accepted during validation.

Reporting of baselines and boundaries is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

References

Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 304: Biodiversity, 2016

International Union for Conservation of Nature, Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, 2008

UN Sustainable Development Goals are relevant for this indicator (SDG 15: Life on Land, SDG 14: Life Below Water)

Customer Satisfaction

2018 Indicator

Not scored

Intent

This indicator assesses whether and to what extent the organization engages with customers regarding their satisfaction. Using consistently applied metrics can help analyze and compare the outcomes, despite the many variations between firms.

Terminology

Customer satisfaction survey: A written survey conducted by the entity, or by a third party on its behalf, which gives the customer the opportunity to provide feedback on the services provided.

Net Promoter Score: The Net Promoter Score ® (NPS) is a customer loyalty metric developed by Bain & Company, Fred Reichheld, and Satmetrix.

Overall satisfaction score: An overarching metric in a satisfaction survey, with no prescribed scale, that measures how happy an employee or customer is with the entity and/or services provided.

Quantitative metric: Any measure or parameter that can be represented numerically.

Survey Response Rate: The proportion of submitted surveys as a percentage of the total number of people or organizations that received a request to complete a survey.

Requirements

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

Percentage of customers covered: Calculated based on the number of customers (e.g. organizations) that received the customer satisfaction survey during the reporting period. If the number of customers changed during the reporting period, use the number at the end of the reporting period. The denominator is the total number of customers.

Name of the organization: Provide the full name of the third party organization that administered the survey. You may be asked for additional information about the organization(s). It is possible to report on multiple organizations.

Reporting period: Answers must refer to the reporting period identified in EC3.

Reporting level: Answers should be applicable at entity level.

Scoring

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

References

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): 102‐43, Approach to stakeholder engagement

Bain & Company, Introducing: The Net Promoter System®

Not scored

Intent

This indicator examines how the organization responds to issues identified in customer satisfaction surveys. Customer satisfaction surveys are conducted to identify key issues and concerns, which can then be addressed through improvement measures and/or programs adopted by the entity. Defining measures based on the outcome of the survey and implementing those measures demonstrates commitment to the customer engagement process and to the development and maintenance of customer satisfaction.

Terminology

Action Plan: A detailed plan outlining actions needed to enhance customer satisfaction. An action plan has three major elements (1) Specific tasks: what will be done and by whom; (2) Time horizon: when will it be done; (3) Resource allocation: what specific funds are available for specific activities.

Asset/property manager: A person responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of real estate investments at asset level.

Requirements

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

Other: State the issue included in the program to improve customer satisfaction. It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Other: The elements covered by the program should be identified and described in detail.

Reporting period: Answers must refer to the reporting period identified in EC3.

Reporting level: Answers should be applicable at entity level.

Scoring

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

Employee Satisfaction

2018 Indicator

Not scored

Intent

This indicator assesses action taken to understand employee satisfaction. Employee satisfaction surveys help organizations understand critical issues within the business, engage with their staff and increase employee satisfaction, which may contribute to improving retention rates and overall productivity.

Using widely applied employee satisfaction surveys should be translated into easily interpretable metrics can help analyze and compare the outcomes, despite the many variations between firms.

Terminology

Employee(s): Either the entity’s employees or the organization’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

Employee Satisfaction Survey: Survey measuring overall and work‐specific employee satisfaction at the individual and organizational levels. The survey should directly address employee concerns and include the opportunity to provide recommendations for improvement.

Net Promoter Score: The Net Promoter Score ® (NPS) is a customer loyalty metric developed by Bain & Company, Fred Reichheld, and Satmetrix.

Overall satisfaction score: An overarching metric in a satisfaction survey, with no prescribed scale, that measures how happy an employee or customer is with the entity and/or services provided.

Quantitative metric: Any measure or parameter that can be represented numerically.

Survey Response Rate: The proportion of submitted surveys as a percentage of the total number of people or organizations that received a request to complete a survey.

Requirements

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

Percentage of employees covered: The percentage of employees covered based on headcount. If the number of employees changed during the reporting period, calculate the percentage based on the average number.

Survey response rate: Report the proportion of employees that received and completed the survey, compared to the total number of employees that have received the survey expressed as a percentage (see example).

Name of the organization: Provide the full name of the third party organization that administered the survey. You may be asked for additional information about the organization(s). It is possible to report on multiple organizations.

Evidence: Document upload or document name and date. The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. In the absence of an upload, providing the document name AND date of publication is mandatory, and you may be asked to disclose the document to GRESB as part of the validation process.

Reporting period: Answers must refer to the reporting period identified in EC3.

Reporting level: Answers should be applicable at entity level.

Scoring

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

References

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: 102‐43, Approach to stakeholder engagement

Bain & Company, Introducing: The Net Promoter System®

Not scored

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to evaluate a firm’s response to the outcomes of an employee satisfaction survey. Proactive responses demonstrate commitment to the employee engagement process and to developing, maintaining and enhancing employee satisfaction.

Terminology

Action Plan: A detailed plan outlining actions needed to enhance customer satisfaction. An action plan has three major elements (1) Specific tasks: what will be done and by whom; (2) Time horizon: when will it be done; (3) Resource allocation: what specific funds are available for specific activities.

Employee(s): Either the entity’s employees or the organization’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

Focus Groups: Working groups established to, in this context, focus on improving employee satisfaction.

Senior management team: A team of individuals who have the day‐to‐day responsibility of managing the entity/organization. Senior management is sometimes referred to, within corporations, as executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

Separate teams/departments: Representatives from different departments and disciplines within the organization.

Requirements

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

Other: State measures/activities that were part of the program. It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Reporting period: Answers must refer to the reporting period identified in EC3.

Reporting level: Answers should be applicable at entity level.

Scoring

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

Gender & Diversity

2018 Indicator

Not scored

Intent

This indicator identifies the metrics used by the organization to monitor diversity at governance and workforce level. Diversity on boards has become a clear priority for investors and is considered to positively impact investment decisions and increases organizational competitiveness.

Terminology

Age group distribution: Percentage of a population, at each age.

Board tenure: Refers to the period or term of an organization board of directors.

Gender ratio: Proportion of one gender to another in a given population.

Gender pay gap:Percentage difference of average hourly earnings between men and women.

Governance body:Committee or board responsible for the strategic guidance of the organization, the effective monitoring of management, and the accountability of management to the broader organization and its stakeholders. Examples of governance bodies may include Board of Directors and Non-Executive Directors.

Socioeconomic background: Combined measure of sociological and economic background of a person.

Requirements

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

Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants should use this open text box to communicate on the following:

  • Supporting narrative to add context to the information provided;
  • Challenges the organization faces in addressing diversity gaps;
  • Policies and targets to strengthen diversity in the long-term;
  • Any other relevant information monitoring processes and calculation method

Scoring

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

References

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.1, Diversity-Employee gender diversity

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): 102-22

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.1.3, Diversity Policy

Certifications & Awards

Intent and Overview

The intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity's achievement and/or maintenance of ESG related certifications. Certifications provide recognition for a certain level of ESG performance.

Certifications

2018 Indicator

2.5 points , IM, G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether there has been any certified recognition for ESG-related practices or performance. Certification of an entity's ESG management and/or performance provides robust assurance that is of interest to investors.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If you select Yes, then complete the table.

No pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment but has not been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers.

For each of the certifications added to the table, it is mandatory to:

  1. In column 1, provide the name of the project. An entity may complete multiple projects over the asset lifecycle and receive third-party recognition, in different phases and for projects that focus on different components of an asset. For example, a railway asset may undertake a project to upgrade a station or add a new line. This project may achieve certifications in the design, construction and operations phases. If an asset-wide certification was achieved, and not at project-level, then state the entity's name in this column.
  2. In column 2, provide the date the certification was awarded;
  3. In column 3, select the scheme/sub-scheme name. If the name is not present in the list, you may add the scheme by filling out the Certification form (see Appendix 10);
  4. In column 4, select the phase of the project for which the certification applies.

Scheme Name/Sub-scheme Name: A list of provisionally validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix 7 of the Reference Guide. If you wish to add a new scheme, please contact our helpdesk and you will be asked to complete the validation questions for the scheme (see Reference Guide Appendix 8).

Evidence

It is mandatory to provide evidence. Provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

Hyperlink: For all URL’s, ensure the relevant page can be accessed within two web page navigation steps (e.g. two clicks). To qualify as valid supporting evidence, the linked information must demonstrate the existence of each criteria selected. Broken links are interpreted as absence of evidence.

Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • Participants are encouraged to provide the simplest documentation supporting their claim. This may include a copy or legible image of an official certificate or documentation received from the certifying body.
  • For projects, this may be a screenshot or link to a project directory showing a project name, date, and location matching their statement.

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Scoring

Supporting evidence is mandatory. Your answer will not be scored unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid.

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator (i.e. Section 1: 'Elements' response and, Section 2: 'Evidence' response).

Section 1 is scored based on the certifications provided in the table, with one certification sufficient to receive maximum points.

Awards

2018 Indicator

Not scored

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess third-party awards received by the entity for ESG management or performance. Awards provide a potentially useful indicator of entity performance. This indicator is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

Requirements

Select Yes or No. If you select Yes, then complete the table.

No pre-fill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2018 Assessment but has not been pre-filled with 2018 Assessment answers.

For each of the awards added to the table, it is mandatory to:

  1. In column 1, provide the name of the award;
  2. In column 2, provide the name of the organization issuing the award;
  3. In column 3, provide the date of award;
  4. In column 4, provide the basis for the award including what part or aspect of the asset business achieved the award.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence. If selecting yes, provide a hyperlink OR document upload. Provided evidence must demonstrate each of the selected criteria.

The entity should provide sufficient information to allow investors to access case studies, research, or other supplemental materials.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored.

Appendix 1

2019 GRESB Asset Assessment Changes

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.

High-level comments

1

Revised asset description based on facility sectors and locations

Assets 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 GICCS 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 refined

The approach to materiality-based scoring has been refined by:

  • Adding eleven new factors beyond sector that will be used to determine the materiality of ESG issues.
  • Adding nine questions which are used to gather inputs on these factors (the others come from other indicators).
  • Moving from three levels of materiality weightings to four.
  • Moving from 22 to 172 sector classifications.

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 Boundaries

Performance 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 Indicators

New 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 members

The 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 Linking

Significant 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 Links

Both 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 review

While 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.

Indicator changes

EC2

Nature of Business

Description: 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 Global Infrastructure Company Classification Scheme (GICCS), 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 size

Description: ‘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 details

Description: 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 GICCS 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 asset

Description: 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 Assessment

Description: 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 Assessment

Description: Refined the approach to materiality-based scoring by:

  • Adding eleven new factors beyond sector that will be used to determine the materiality of ESG issues for the entity.
  • Adding nine questions which are used to gather inputs on these factors (the others come from other indicators).
  • Moving from three levels of materiality weightings to four.
  • Moving from 22 to 172 sector classifications.

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 objectives

Description: 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 targets

Description: 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 performance

Description: 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 disclosure

Description: 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 process

Description: 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 assessment

Description: 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 performance

Description: 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 standards

Description: 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 performance

Description: 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 process

Description: 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 output

Description: 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 & Safety

Description: 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 Indicators

Description: 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

Water

Description: 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 Satisfaction

Description: 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 Satisfaction

Description: 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 & Diversity

Description: 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 Issues

Description: 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.

Appendix 2

Terminology

The below list identifies terminology that is frequently referenced throughout the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment. Indicator specific terminology is referenced within the guidance notes, for each indicator.

Environmental issues:

Air pollutants: Pollutants of major public health concern include ozone-depleting substances (ODS), NOx, SOx, particulate matter (PM) and/or other standard categories of air emissions identified in relevant regulations.

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

Climate change adaptation: Preparation for long-term change in climatic conditions or climate related events. Example of climate change adaptation measures can include, but are not limited to: building flood defenses, xeriscaping and using tree species resistant to storms and fires, adapting building codes to extreme weather events.

Contamination: Contamination of land can happen by substances or effluents such as gases, chemicals, oils, fuels, waste.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster: Disaster resilience is the ability of individuals, communities, organizations and states to adapt to and recover from hazards, shocks or stresses without compromising long-term prospects for development.

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

Water discharge/pollution: Discharge of water to wwater bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) where there may be a risk of contamination by harmful compounds.

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

Social issues:

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

Community development: Plan that details actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse social and/or economic impacts, and/or to identify opportunities or actions to enhance positive impacts of a project on the community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stakeholder relations: Engagement with individuals/entities that have an interest in the entity.

Governance issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiduciary duty Duties owed by a fiduciary to a beneficiary. Examples of fiduciary duties include a duty of confidentiality, a duty of no conflict, and a duty not to profit from his position. A fiduciary is a person to whom power or property is entrusted for the benefit of another.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stakeholder group list:

Clients/Customers: A customer is understood to include end-customers (consumer) as well as business-to-business customers.

Community/Public: Persons or groups of persons living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by an entity’s operations.

Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite or offsite on behalf of an entity. A contractor can contract their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors.

Employee(s): Either the entity’s employees or the organization’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

Investors/shareholders: The entity’s current investors and/or equity stake owners in the entity.

Regulators/Government: The state and/or local authoritative and administrative governing body.

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

Suppliers: Direct commercial relationship with the entity (tier 1 supply chain).

Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors): Indirect commercial relationship with the entity.

Appendix 3

Sector Definitions

Group Classification Name Group Classification Description Sector Classification Name Sector Classification Description
Data Infrastructure Companies involved in the provision of telecommunication and data infrastructure Data Transmission Data transmission companies are involved in the construction, operation, and maintenance of data transmission assets including telecommunications towers, land- or sea-based long-distance communication cables, and communication satellites.
Data Storage Data storage companies are involved in the development, operation, and maintenance of physical data storage infrastructure. This does not include companies that offer data storage in addition to other products.
Energy and Water Resources Companies involved in the treatment and delivery of energy and water resources Pipeline Companies Pipeline companies develop and operate high-pressure transmission pipelines.
Energy Resource Processing Companies Energy natural resource processing companies transform crude oil, natural gas, and other commodities into various derivative or transformed products.
Energy Resource Storage Companies Natural resource storage companies provide storage service to private and public clients by exploiting large natural caverns or buildings and maintaining over- or underground tanks.
Environmental Services Companies involved in the treatment of water, wastewater, and solid waste for sanitation and reuse purposes Solid Waste Treatment Waste treatment services includes the collection and disposal of solid refuse from residential, commercial, or industrial sources.
Water Treatment Stand-alone water treatment companies produce water for various uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial end users.
Wastewater Treatment Stand-alone wastewater treatment companies treat wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial sources to a certain discharge or reuse standard.
Environmental Management Environmental management companies invest in projects that conserve natural resources, protect habitats, and control hazards.
Network Utilities Companies operating an infrastructure network with natural monopoly characteristics (barriers to entry, increasing returns to scale) Electricity Distribution Companies Electricity distribution companies distribute medium-voltage electricity to final consumers.
Electricity Transmission Companies Electricity transmission companies transmit relatively high-voltage electricity from the point of generation source to a distribution network.
District Cooling/Heating Companies Heating or cooling companies provide services in urban areas using combined heat and power to recycle or reuse waste heat.
Water and Sewerage Companies Water and sewerage companies provide potable water treatment and distribution services as well as the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater and sewerage.
Gas Distribution Companies Gas distribution companies operate low-pressure pipeline networks delivering natural gas to end residential, commercial, and industrial consumers.
Power Generation X- Renewables Stand-alone power generation using a range of technologies except wind, solar, and other renewable sources Independent Power Producers Independent power producers (IPP) provide electricity to power distribution and transmission companies or directly to industrial or commercial clients.
Independent Water and Power Producers Independent water and power producers (IWPP) are power producers with a colocated water desalination or filtration facility. Industrial, potable or ultra-pure water is typically a by-product of the power generation process.
Renewable Power Stand-alone power generation companies using wind, solar, hydro, and other renewable energy sources Wind Power Generation Wind power companies produce electricity using wind power to operate various types of electromagnetic turbines.
Solar Power Generation Solar power companies produce electricity, capturing solar radiation using a range of solar-cell technologies.
Hydroelectric Power Generation Hydroelectric power generating companies use water to produce electricity. This can either be from a dam or from a river.
Other Renewable Power Generation Other renewable power generation companies use various physical phenomena or alternative renewable fuels (other than the wind, sun, or hydro) to generate electricity.
Other Renewable Technologies Other renewables technology companies using a variety of different methods to provide, store and transmit renewable energy.
Social Infrastructure Companies involved in the delivery of support and accommodation services for public or other services. Defence Services Defence infrastructure companies provide noncombatant support services to public-sector military organizations, including strategic transport, training facilities, and telecommunications.
Education Services Infrastructure companies provide education services through the development and maintenance of school and university buildings and related facilities for the use of public or private institutions.
Government Services Infrastructure companies providing support and accommodation services to government departments and other public-sector organizations and agencies.
Health and Social Care Services Healthcare infrastructure companies provide support service and facilities to public- or private-sector medical treatment units.
Convention, Entertainment, and Recreational Facilities Convention, entertainment, and recreational facilities infrastructure companies deliver and maintain various large-scale leisure facilities typically requiring a bespoke structural engineering component.
Transport Companies involved in the provision of transportation infrastructure services Airport Companies Airport companies build, maintain and operate airport terminals, runways and associated support and logistical services. Large airports also lease property for commercial and retail purposes.
Car Park Companies Car park service companies provide individual and commercial end users with vehicle parking facilities. They are relatively small-scale structures built over- and underground mostly within large urban areas.
Port Companies Port infrastructure companies build, maintain, and operate port jetties, passenger terminals, and freight transit and storage facilities.
Rail Companies Rail companies provide long-distance, intercity passenger and freight services.
Road Companies Road companies build, maintain, and operate roads and motorways including bridges and tunnels.
Urban Commuter Companies Urban commuter companies build, maintain, and operate urban rail routes from light (tramway) to mass-transit rail tracks, including over- and underground rail lines.

The above definitions were sourced from EDHECinfra see p10.

Appendix 4

GRESB Materiality Assessment

Download the 2019 GRESB Materiality Tool

Sector Specific Materiality

Appendix 5

Peer Group Allocation Methodology

Sector Location
Trial # Min size Subclass Class Superclass / Diversified Country Subregion Region Super-region / Global Scope of Service
1 6
2 6
3 6
4 6
5 6
6 6
7 6
8 6
9 6
10 6
11 6
12 6
13 6
14 6
15 6
16 6
17 6
18 6
19 6
20 6
21 6
22 6
23 6
24 6
25 6
26 6
27 6
28 6
29 6
30 6
31 6
32 6
33 6
34 6
35 6
36 6
37 6
38 6
39 6
40 6

Appendix 6

Measures of Output

Materiality

Metric Unit
Area Hectares
Average prisoner attendance Number
Average staff attendance Number
Average student attendance Number
Bed days available Bed days
Container volume moved TEU
Data Stored Terabits (Tb)
Data Transmitted Terabits (Tb)
Energy discharged MWh
Energy distributed MWh
Energy exported MWh
Energy generated MWh
Energy savings MWh
Energy transmitted MWh
Floor area m2
Freight kilometres travelled Tonne km
Freight volume moved Tonnes
Light output Lumen hours
Mass transferred Tonnes
Number of customers Number
Number of residents Number
Number of visitors Number
Passenger kilometres travelled Passenger km
Throughput m3
Throughput MWh
Traffic Units Number
Train days available Train days
Train kilometres travelled Train km
Trainee days available Trainee days
Vehicle hours parked Vehicle hours
Vehicle kilometres travelled Vehicle km
Vessels moved Number
Waste treated Tonnes/td>
Waste water treated Megalitres (ML)
Water contained Megalitres (ML)
Water distributed Megalitres (ML)
Water supplied Megalitres (ML)
Water transferred Megalitres (ML)
Water treated Megalitres (ML)

Appendix 7

Infrastructure Certification Schemes

Select the certification scheme for CA1 :

This list indicates certifications that have been submitted to GRESB as part of participation and accepted for full or partial recognition. Additional schemes may also receive recognition if they meet GRESB’s criteria.

Appendix 8

Certification Validation Template

A

Certification scheme

  1. Certification scheme name _________________
  2. Certification sub-scheme name _________________
  3. Certification body name _________________
  4. Country where certification was granted _________________
B

Is the certification an in-house or external scheme?

  1. In-house certification scheme
  2. External scheme
C

Verification of compliance with scheme requirements is based on:

  • Third-party document review
  • Third-party on-site assessment
  • Both document and on-site assessment performed by a third party
  • No third-party document review or on-site assessment required

Note: If you use an in-house scheme, GRESB will ask for additional information on the scheme. If no third-party document review or on-site assessment required, GRESB will ask for an upload to provide specific information on the assessment method.

D

Public information

  1. Public website of the scheme _________________
  2. Public list of certified projects online _________________
E

Is the scheme required by a national or regional government agency?

  • Yes. Specify name of agency _________________
  • No

Note: Mandatory certification by a central government or regional/local government department or from an organization with delegated authority from such a department.

F

Is the scheme used by a national or regional government agency?

  • Yes. Specify name of agency _________________
  • No
G

Does the certification require:

  1. Performance-based design goals for energy efficiency and/or GHG emissions reduction
  2. Operational performance data for energy efficiency and/or GHG emissions reduction
  3. Both design and operational goals and data collection
  4. None
H

Select the topics included in the scheme assessment: (multiple answers possible)

  • Location (e.g., brownfield redevelopment, density, walkability)
  • Transportation (e.g., access to public transport)
  • Site design (including stormwater management, heat island reduction, etc.)
  • Energy efficiency
  • Greenhouse gas emissions
  • Indoor water conservation
  • Outdoor water conservation
  • Waste management (including waste diversion, recycling)
  • Indoor environmental quality
  • Operations/management
  • Materials selection
  • Biodiversity and habitat conservation
  • Public health and wellness
  • Social equity
  • Resilience
  • Other, please specify _________________

Note: Refers to the scheme in general, not to the topics included in each individual asset assessment of the portfolio.

I

Select the sectors (asset types) included in the scheme assessment: (multiple answers possible)

  • Fossil fuel generation
  • Renewable generation, utility scale
  • Renewable generation, distributed
  • Combined Heat and Power
  • Energy Efficiency
  • Energy transmission, distribution and storage
  • Telecommunications
  • Transportation: Airport
  • Transportation: Railroad
  • Transportation: Rolling Stock
  • Transportation: Transportation system
  • Transportation: Ports
  • Transportation: Toll road operations
  • Waste Treatment and Disposal
  • Water Resource Management
  • Other, please specify _________________
J

Assessment details

  1. Certificate duration _________________
  2. Certification levels _________________
  3. Assessor credential _________________
  4. Assessment method and criteria _________________
  5. Recertification requirements _________________
  6. Provide any additional information about the scheme (maximum 250 words) _________________

If you wish to add a new scheme in addition to the list that has been provided, please contact info@gresb.com, and you will be asked to complete the above-stated validation questions for the scheme.

Appendix 9

Assurance and Verification Schemes

Appendix 10

Document Upload Cover Page

Click to download

Appendix 11

GRESB Infrastructure Partners

WSP

/www.wsp.com

Josh Nothwang, Practice Leader, Sustainability, Energy and Climate Change

josh.nothwang@wsp.com

Boulder, USA

WSP is one of the world’s leading engineering professional services consulting firms. We provide services to transform the built environment and restore the natural environment. Our expertise ranges from environmental remediation to urban planning, from engineering iconic buildings to designing sustainable transport networks, and from developing the energy sources of the future to creating innovations that reduce environmental impact. We have approximately 34,000 employees, including engineers, technicians, scientists, architects, planners, surveyors, program and construction management professionals, and various sustainability experts, in more than 500 offices across 40 countries worldwide.

Premire Partners

Partners

Industry Partners