Download PDF

2019

Asset

Scoring Document

Contents

Disclaimer: 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Assessments

The information in this document has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications prior to the official 2019 results launch on September 4. We will publicly announce any such modifications.

Introduction

This document outlines the scoring methodology of the 2019 Infrastructure Asset Assessment. It is shared for information purposes, to provide transparency on the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes.

How to read this document

The GRESB Infrastructure Asset Scoring Document provides a breakdown of each indicator score included in the 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment. We recommend reading this document in conjunction with the Reference Guide, which includes the reporting requirements of indicators.

Indicators in the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Scoring Document are presented in a consistent manner to reflect the 2019 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Reference Guide. Please note the following:

Example of indicator level scoring:

Example: MA6 indicator

2.2 points , MP, G

This indicator is split into three sections represented by two fractions and an "x" in the far-left column. The first section addresses 'employee groups' , the second covers 'types of consequences', the final section covers evidence. The far-left column tells us that the score of the indicator is calculated as follows; (where the section and evidence scores are all numbers between 0 and 1):

Indicator score = (Employee group section score * 5/10) + (Consequences section score * 5/10) * evidence score * 2.2 points

If the respondent achieved maximum scores for both of the first and second sections, with partially accepted evidence (resulting in a multiplier of 0.65), the score is:
((1 * 5/10) + (1 * 5/10)) * 0.65 * 2.2 points = 1.1 points

Scoring Methodology

Aspect Scoring Concepts

The GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment is structured in to seven ESG Aspects.

The 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

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 which 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 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: Under this methodology, the number of additional points achieved for each additional option selected 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 additional 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 several Asset Assessment indicators. This means 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 only applies 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 the indicator total 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 total indicator score is then calculated as:

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

Management

There are 7 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored, except MA2. The maximum number of points for the Aspect is 10.1 (i.e. 10.1% of the GRESB Score).

Materiality

2018 Indicator

1 point , MP, G

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

Not scored

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.

Objectives

2018 Indicator

2.2 points , MP, G

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Leadership & Accountability

2018 Indicator

1 point , MP, G

This indicator is scored as a One-Section indicator, as no evidence is required for this indicator.

1 point , MP, G

This indicator is scored as a One-Section indicator, as no evidence is required for this indicator.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

2.2 points , MP, G

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Training

2018 Indicator

2.7 points , IM, G

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Policy & Disclosure

There are 7 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored, except PD7. The maximum number of points is 10.2 (i.e. 10.2% of the GRESB Score).

Policies

2018 Indicator

1.7 points , MP, E

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

1.7 points , MP, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

1.7 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

ESG Disclosure

2018 Indicator

1.7 points , MP, G

Each form of ESG disclosure method is assigned with a maximum number of points, respectively achieved by:

  • The third-party alignment of the report (if applicable). The alignment standard and the corresponding evidence (which must be accepted during the validation process to receive a score).
  • The reporting level (two reporting levels - Entity or Group - are mutually exclusive).

Alignment: the alignment standard and the corresponding evidence must be accepted during the validation process to receive a score.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

1.7 points , MP, G

Scoring within this indicator seeks to reward best disclosure and review practices, with greater amount of points.

In order to achieve points for any of the checkboxes above, the number of points received in the corresponding section in PD4 must be higher than 0. Therefore, a participant cannot receive points for assurance of a disclosure type unless they received points for that same disclosure type in PD4 (i.e. checkbox must be selected and evidence fully accepted in validation).

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Service Provider: A service provider has to be picked to achieve a score.

Scheme name: Scheme name must be accepted during the validation process to receive its associated score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

1.7 points , MP, G

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 2/2
Partial points 1/2
No point 0

Not scored

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.

Risks & Opportunities

There are 4 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored. This aspect corresponds to 21.3% of the GRESB Score.

Risk Assessments

2018 Indicator

3.8 points , MP, E

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

3.8 points , MP, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

3.8 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Implementation

2018 Indicator

9.9 points , IM, G

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator. Section 1 contains 3 structurally identical sub-sections (environmental, social and governance tables). Each of the sub-sections contain a table which is scored, with at least 4 rows of data required to achieve the maximum score (per sub-section). Each row results in a different score depending on the coverage percentage reported for 'fraction of entity covered'. The scores resulting from the different coverage percentages are listed in the table below:

Coverage percentage Points
(Unknown) 0.50
(0%, 25%) 0.50
(25%, 50%) 0.66
(50%, 75%) 0.83
(75%, 100%) 1.00

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Each row or example of tangible action provided must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Monitoring & EMS

There are 4 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored. The maximum number of points is 10.1 and this corresponds to 10.1% of the GRESB Score.

ESG-related management standards

2018 Indicator

4.4 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0/2

ESG monitoring

2018 Indicator

1.9 points , IM, E

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

1.9 points , IM, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

1.9 points , IM, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

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

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.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Stakeholder Engagement

There are 6 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored, except for SE4. The maximum number of points is 10.1 (i.e. 10.1% of the GRESB Score).

Stakeholder engagement

2018 Indicator

2.5 points , MP, S

Alignment: the alignment standard and the corresponding evidence must be accepted during the validation process to receive a score.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

2.5 points , IM, S

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator. Section 1 is for reporting examples of actions and contains a table. The score of the section is calculated using Diminishing Increase in Scoring based on the number of rows of data reported with 4 rows of data being required to achieve the maximum score. Each row or action provided must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

SE1 focusses on whether a Stakeholder Engagement Programme is in place and SE2 focusses on actions taken to implement that Stakeholder Engagement Programme. As these indicators are linked, an Integrity Cross Check is applied within scoring. Therefore, a participant cannot receive points for SE2, unless they receive points for SE1.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

2.5 points , MP, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Sustainable procurement

2018 Indicator

1.3 points , MP, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 20/20
Partially accepted 13/20
Not accepted/not provided 6/20

1.3 points , IM, S

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 2/2
Partial points 1/2
No point 0

Performance Indicators

Overall, this Aspect corresponds to 35.8% of the GRESB Score. There are 11 indicators within the Performance Indicator section. Indicators PI1 and PI9-11 are not scored (for reporting purposes only). Indicators PI 2-8 are all scored indicators.

Materiality-based Scoring

Where the Performance Indicator 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.

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

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Health & Safety

2018 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, S

Scoring

Materiality: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 is always 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 in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Determined by materiality , IM, S

Scoring

Materiality: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 in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Determined by materiality , IM, S

Scoring

Materiality: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.
  • The indicator score will be based on reporting of performance only (i.e. not targets) (for the scored metrics).

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

Determined by materiality , IM, S

Scoring

Materiality: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.
  • The indicator score will be based on reporting of performance only (i.e. not targets) (for the scored metrics).

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

Energy & Emissions

2018 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality: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 in the tables (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of target (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality: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 in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality: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 in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Water & Waste

2018 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality: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 in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality: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 in the table.
  • 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.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality: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 in the tables (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Biodiversity & Habitat

2018 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Scoring

Materiality: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 in the table (for the scored metrics).
  • 40% of the indicator score will be based on reporting of targets (for the scored metrics). 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.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Customer Satisfaction

2018 Indicator

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Employee Satisfaction

2018 Indicator

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Gender & Diversity

2018 Indicator

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.

Certifications & Awards

There are 2 indicators in the Aspect and only CA1 is scored. The maximum number of points is 2.5 and this corresponds to 2.5% of the GRESB Score.

Certifications

2018 Indicator

2.5 points , IM, G

This indicator is scored as a Two Section Indicator. Section 1 is for reporting asset-level certifications and contains a table. If any certifications are reported in the table the maximum score is achieved, otherwise the score is 0.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 2/2
Partially accepted 1/2
Not accepted/not provided 0

Awards

2018 Indicator

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2019.