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

2020

Asset

Assessment

Contents

Disclaimer: 2020 GRESB Infrastructure Fund & Asset Assessment Pre-Release

The information in this document has been provided in good faith and on an “as is” basis. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications prior to the official start of the 2020 reporting period on April 1 and the official release of the 2020 Infrastructure Fund and Asset Assessments. We will publicly announce any such modifications.

Introduction

About GRESB

Mission-driven and investor-led, GRESB is the environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmark for real assets. We work in collaboration with the industry to provide standardized and validated ESG data to the capital markets. The 2019 Real Estate benchmark covers more than 1,000 property companies, real estate investment trusts (REITs), funds, and developers. Our coverage for Infrastructure includes 500 infrastructure funds and assets. Combined, GRESB represents USD 4.5 trillion in real asset value. More than 100 institutional investors, with over USD 22 trillion AUM, use GRESB data to monitor their investments, engage with their managers, and make decisions that lead to a more sustainable real asset industry.

For more information, visit gresb.com. Follow @GRESB on Twitter.

2020 Assessments Structure

An important outcome of the 2020 Assessment development process has been a reconfirmation that the Assessments address material ESG topics for the real estate and infrastructure industry. As a result, the 2020 development process was focused on making structural changes to the Assessments and refinements to indicators rather than making extensive content changes with an impact on scoring.

The structural changes mainly arise from splitting the assessments into separate Management and Performance Components. The Fund Assessment will only include a Management Component, whereas the Asset Assessment has both. This new split allows entities to complete either or both components, and enables entities starting off on their sustainability journey to develop their data collection processes first before reporting performance data. The Infrastructure Fund Assessment has now been divided into five Aspects, to align closely with the Infrastructure Asset Assessment Management Component and the Real Estate Assessment.

On the content side, several indicators have been removed and others have been simplified or modified to better suit reporting for various sectors. This is most notable in the Performance Component.

Overall, the 2020 Assessments provide more consistency between real estate and infrastructure and an improved alignment with other reporting standards and frameworks. The Assessments also lay the groundwork for us to provide new data and analytical tools in the portal and support a further evolution in data quality.

The starting point for the Assessment development process was the 2019 Assessments. The 2019 indicators have been allocated to the new Management and Performance Components on the basis that:

For more information about the 2020 Assessments development process, click here.

Grace Period

GRESB offers participants reporting for the first time the option to not disclose their Assessment results to their investors. This first year "Grace Period" allows companies and funds 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.

First-time participants wishing to opt for the Grace Period can select the option from the settings section in the Assessment Portal.

Who can see my data?

Data collected through the GRESB Infrastructure Fund and AssetReal Estate Assessments is only disclosed to the participants themselves and:

All data provided to GRESB is strictly confidential and will only be disclosed to participants’ investors, with their explicit consent.

Timeline & Process

The GRESB Infrastructure Fund and Asset Assessments open in the GRESB Portal on April 1, 2020. The submission deadline is July 1, 2020, 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. GRESB validates and analyzes all participants’ Assessment submissions.

In 2020 we will introduce a new Review Period in the Assessment cycle to further strengthen the reliability of our Assessments and benchmark results. The Review Period will start on September 1, when preliminary individual GRESB results will be made available to all participants and run for one month. During the Review Period, participants will be able to submit a review request to GRESB using a dedicated form. The final results will be launched to both participants and Investor Members on October 1. Public Results events and other results outputs will be rescheduled to October and November in order to accommodate the September Review Period.

For more information about the 2020 Assessment timeline, click here.

Response Check service

A Response Check is a high-level check of a participant’s GRESB Infrastructure Fund or Asset Assessment by the GRESB team, taking place prior to submission. It minimizes the risk of errors that could adversely impact Assessment results. The Response Check fee is 1750 EUR (exclusive of VAT).

Guidance & Support

The 2020 Infrastructure Fund and Asset Assessments will be accompanied by indicator-specific Guidance that explains:

The written Reference Guide will be available during the first week of March 2020. Starting April 1, 2020, guidance is also available in the GRESB Portal through pop-up fields next to each indicator. The GRESB here will open on the same date.

2020 Infrastructure GRESB Asset Assessment Changes

Management Component

High-level comments

1. Divide the assessment into 5 aspects

With the restructure of the assessment, and the division into Management and Performance Components in particular, it is appropriate to modify the aspects within the Management Component. The new aspects align with the Real Estate Assessment and external sustainability frameworks where practical. The new aspects have been mapped to the 2019 indicators and aspects, enabling comparisons over time. The new aspects are as follows:

  • Leadership
  • Policies
  • Reporting
  • Risk Management
  • Stakeholder Engagement

2. Materiality approach refined

A thorough review of the materiality approach has been undertaken based on analysis of 2019 results and stakeholder feedback. As a result, new ESG issues, new materiality factors and new sectors have been added and weightings have been refined for certain ESG issues.

The materiality threshold has been lifted from ‘No relevance’ to ‘Low relevance’ so that issues deemed of ‘No relevance’ or ‘Low relevance’ will no longer be scored (previously ‘Low relevance issues were scored). This reduces the number of indicators that need to be addressed by participants and thus lowers the reporting burden.

2020 GRESB Infrastructure Materiality Matrix

3. Add indicator titles

Each indicator has been assigned a title, which will facilitate referencing in different documents and data download tools.

4. Moved Implementation indicator from Management Component to Performance Component

Indicator RO4 on implementation of mitigation and improvement measures has been moved from the Management Component to the Performance Component.

5. Removed indicators and metrics

The indicator EC4 (Industry associations) has been removed as this information was not used.

6. Added indicators

A new indicator on ESG Leadership commitment has been added to recognise commitments to ESG standards or principles.

An indicator on ancillary activities (RC4) has been added. This allows entities to indicate which activities they engage in, in addition to their core sector activity, and whether these activities have been included in their reporting. Exceptions to these reporting boundaries should be reported in new text boxes within the Performance Component indicators.

7. Several changes to indicators to increase alignment

Several changes have been made to indicators to increase alignment with external frameworks like CDP, DJSI and SASB and the GRESB Real Estate Assessment. These changes reduce reporting burden for participants overall and aim to provide respondents with better opportunities to report data that they may already be collecting.

Indicator Level Changes

EC2

Nature of ownership - Ticker and exchange information removed

Description: Ticker and exchange information removed.

Rationale for change: This was redundant information that was covered by the entityʼs ISIN in any case.

Impact of change: Reduce reporting burden.

EC4

Reporting Period - Asset’s reporting year

Description: Add year of reporting (on top of month) where it is not calendar year.

Rationale for change: To clarify the precise reporting year.

Impact of change: Greater clarity for reporting.

Former EC4

Industry associations - Indicator removed

Description: Indicator on industry associations removed.

Rationale for change: This information was not used by GRESB.

Impact of change: Reduce reporting burden.

RC2

Economic size - Indicator structure change

Description: ‘Other’ option removed and Number of full time equivalent employees and contractors added.

Rationale for change: Economic size has been standardised to the mandatory metrics of Gross Asset Value (GAV) and Revenue so there is no need for ‘Other’ answer. Number of FTE employees and contractors has been added as new size metrics relevant to materiality, peer grouping and insights.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for enhanced materiality and insights.

RC3

Sector and geography - Describe the lifecycle stage for facilities

Description: added to describe the lifecycle stage of each facility i.e. whether in Operation or in Development.

Rationale for change: This information is useful, particularly as we move to improve the usefulness of the assessment for development projects.

Impact of change: Minor increase in reporting.

Address/GPS coordinates - Embed Google Maps

Description: Embedded google maps software in the address bar for facility locations.

Rationale for change: Enable more accurate geocoding of facilities.

Impact of change: Better data quality.

RC4

Ancillary Activities

Description: Added new indicator on ancillary activities.

Rationale for change: To better understand the entity's reporting boundaries and allow for the reporting of exceptions against these boundaries throughout the Performance Component.

Impact of change: Slightly increased reporting burden.

RC5 (Former EC2)

Nature of entity’s business - New indicator

Description: Section of former EC2 indicator moved to form RC4.

Rationale for change: More logical to separate out this section of the indicator from what remains in EC2. The information relates to business and revenue characteristics as compared to ownership.

Impact of change: Clearer reporting logic for participants.

RC6

Asset entity's logo

Description: Logo of the asset entity.

Rationale for change: To align with Fund and Real Estate Assessments and allow for logos to be added to Scorecards, Benchmark Reports and the GRESB website.

Impact of change: Slightly increased reporting burden in exchange for increased recognition of participating.

RC7 (Former MA2)

Materiality - New factors added

Description: Materiality approach refined.

  • New factors: New factors have been added on Number of customers, Number of users, Number of employees, Number of contractors, Number of workers, Number of employees and Scope of service.
  • New ESG issues: New ESG issues have been added on Hazardous substances,Local employment, Conflicts of interest, Delegating authority, Shareholder rights and Board ESG oversight.
  • Renamed ESG issues: the following ESG issues have been renamed - Health and safety: users (formerly - Health and safety: customers), Climate/climate change adaptation (formerly - Resilience (adaptation) to climate change), Inclusion and diversity (formerly - Gender and diversity).
  • Removed ESG issue: Fiduciary duty has been removed as it has been deemed non-material as an ESG issue.
  • New sectors: New sectors have been added on Fibre networks, Smart meters, Electric vehicle charging and Landlord port.
  • Materiality changes:
  • The materiality of the following ESG issues have been changed:

    • Health and safety: community has been increased for most sectors.
    • Data protection has been increased for sectors considered to handle sensitive information.
    • Cybersecurity increased for sectors with activities prone to cyber attacks.
    • Conflicts of interest, Delegating authority, Shareholder rights, Board ESG oversight are set to Medium relevance for all entities.
    • Audit committee structure/ independence Audit committee structure/ independence.
    • Compensation committee structure/ independence, Independence of board chair” are now driven by the factors Numbers of employees and Scope of service.
    • The factors Resilience to catastrophe/disaster and Climate/Climate change adaptation have been amended to provide an additional answer option.

Rationale for change: To provide a clearer and more accurate materiality assessment based on sector and entity specific characteristics.

Impact of change: Clearer and more tailored assessment. 2020 GRESB Infrastructure Materiality Matrix

Materiality - Materiality threshold increase

Description: The materiality threshold has been lifted from ‘No relevance’ to ‘Low relevance’ so that issues deemed of ‘No relevance’ or ‘Low relevance’ will no longer be scored. Previously ‘Low relevance’ issues were scored but ‘No relevance’ issues were not.

Rationale for change: Participants and investors have requested more focus on just the material ESG issues.

Impact of change: Significantly lower reporting burden. 2020 GRESB Infrastructure Materiality Matrix

LE2

ESG leadership commitments - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on commitments to ESG standards or principles.

Rationale for change: To align with the Fund Assessment and Real Estate Assessment and to capture information on this important trend.

Impact of change: Increased reporting burden in exchange for useful information for investors.

LE4 (Former MA5)

ESG senior decision maker - Remove email and LinkedIn

Description: Removed options to fill in E-mail and LinkedIn profiles.

Rationale for change: These were optional and not used for any purpose.

Impact of change: Reduce reporting burden.

ESG senior-decision maker - New decision-maker options

Description: Added sub-options for ‘the individual’s most senior role’.

Rationale for change: Reduce overlap between the previous options, to align with the Real Estate Assessment.

Impact of change: Increased standardization and granularity.

LE6 (Former MA6)

Personnel ESG performance targets - Separate financial and non-financial incentives

Description: The incentives are split into financial and non-financial sections, with the applicable employees list applying to each.

Rationale for change: Adds more granularity and aligns with the Real Estate Assessment.

Impact of change: Slightly increased reporting burden in exchange for useful data for investors.

Personnel ESG performance targets - New employee options

Description: Modified sub-options for ‘employees to whom these targets apply’.

Rationale for change: To align with Real Estate Assessment and DJSI.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.

Former MA7

ESG related training - Component shift

Description: Moved to Performance Component.

Rationale for change: Aligns with Real Estate and fits with other Performance Indicators on employee satisfaction etc.

Impact of change: Clearer structure.

Former PO1-3

Policies - Applicable stakeholder group options removed

Description: Removed section of indicator on which stakeholder groups the policies apply to.

Rationale for change: Alignment with Real Estate Assessment. Additionally the topic is covered in Stakeholder Engagement section of the assessment and hence considered an overlap.

Impact of change: Reduce reporting burden.

RP1 (Former PD4 and PD5)

ESG Reporting - Merging of PD4 and PD5

Description: The two indicators have been merged together, forming a combined indicator on ESG disclosure and third-party reporting review.

Rationale for change: Combining these two indicators together will simplifiesy the reporting and validation process.

Impact of change: Simplified reporting.

ESG Reporting - Remove reporting of name of Service Provider

Description: Remove reporting of the name of the Service Provider used for external check / verification / assurance.

Rationale for change: GRESB does not use this information.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.

Description: Publishing year of the reports(s) can now be in the year after the reporting year if they refer to actions undertaken during the reporting year. For example, disclosures published in 2020 referencing 2019 actions and/or performance are now valid.

Rationale for change: Many participants were previously confused by the requirement and led to misreporting.

Impact of change: Clearer requirements in line with understanding of the reporting participants.

RP2.1 (Former PD6)

ESG incident monitoring - Change in scope of indicator

Description: Added ‘breaches against the code of conduct/ethics’ to question.

Rationale for change: Alignment with DJSI.

Impact of change: Reduce reporting burden.

RP2.2 (Former PD7)

ESG Incident occurrences - Added pending investigations

Description: Added ‘Specify the total number of currently pending investigations’.

Rationale for change: Alignment with Real Estate and useful information.

Impact of change: Slight increase in reporting burden in exchange for useful investor information.

Former RO4

Implementation Actions moved to Performance Component

Description: Indicator RO4 moved to Performance Component.

Rationale for change: Aligns with Real Estate and is more focused on Performance than Management.

Impact of change: Clearer structure.

SE1

Stakeholder engagement program - Removal of stakeholder options

Description: Removal of sub-options ‘Employees’, ‘Suppliers’ and ‘Supply Chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)’.

Rationale for change: The indicator SE5 already covers supply chain stakeholders. Employee engagement is covered by Employee satisfaction and Training and development indicators in the Performance Component.

Impact of change: Greater clarity and reduced reporting burden.

Stakeholder engagement program - Added stakeholder program elements

Description: Added some elements.

Rationale for change: Alignment with Real Estate and better reflects good practice.

Impact of change: Slight increase in reporting burden.

SE2

Actions to implement stakeholder engagement program - Removed indicator

Description: Removed indicator.

Rationale for change: This information can be reported in the Implementation indicators in the Performance Component.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.

SE2 (Former SE5 and SE6)

Supply chain engagement program - Elements change

Description: Added a section on ‘elements of the supply chain engagement program’ which replaces the former SE6 indicator.

Rationale for change: Alignment with the Real Estate Assessment and clearer structure.

Impact of change: Clearer reporting.

Supply chain engagement program - Issues in process changed

Description: Removal of ‘ESG specific requirements for sub contractors’ and addition of ‘Child labour’ and ‘Labour standards and working conditions’ from issues covered by the procurement process.

Rationale for change: Alignment with the Real Estate Assessment.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.

Various

New structure for governance issues across assessment

Description: Description: Governance issues no longer split at indicator level into board-level and operational issues.

Rationale for change: Alignment with Real Estate.

Impact of change: Clearer structure.

Performance Component

High-level comments

1. Divide the Performance Component into aspects

With the restructuring of the assessment, and the division into Management and Performance Components in particular, it is appropriate to divide the Performance Component into aspects (previously it was comprised of just two aspects – Performance and Certifications). The new aspects align with the Real Estate Assessment and external sustainability frameworks where practical. The new aspects have been mapped to the 2019 indicators and aspects, enabling comparisons over time.

The aspects are:

  • Implementation
  • Output & Impact
  • Health & Safety
  • Energy
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  • Air Pollution
  • Water
  • Waste
  • Biodiversity & Habitat
  • Employees
  • Customers
  • Certifications & Awards

2. Materiality approach refined

With the materiality threshold being lifted from ‘No relevance’ to ‘Low relevance’, Low relevance indicators will no longer be scored (see RC7). These indicators will still be available for reporting only. 2020 GRESB Infrastructure Materiality Matrix

3. Moved Implementation indicator from Management Component to Performance Component

Indicator RO4 on implementation of mitigation and improvement measures has been moved from the Management Component to the Performance Component and split into three indicators for E, S and G. These indicators are now for reporting only and no longer scored.

4. Removed indicators and metrics

Indicators PI9.1 (Customer satisfaction program) and PI10.1 (Employee satisfaction program) have been removed as these measures can be covered by the Implementation indicators.

Many indicators will request fewer metrics, by removing some little used metrics and ‘Other’ input boxes.

Reporting of boundaries has moved to a ‘by exception’ basis reducing reporting burden and providing greater clarity and comparability.

5. Added metrics

Some new metrics have been added to provide additional valuable data on leading indicators, and to simplify entry and calculations for users.

6. Several changes to indicators to increase alignment

Several changes have been made to indicators to increase alignment with external frameworks like CDP, DJSI and SASB and the GRESB Real Estate Assessment. These changes reduce reporting burden for participants overall and aim to provide respondents with better opportunities to report data that they may already be collecting.

7. Removal of baseline data

Reporting of baseline data is no longer requested, thereby reducing reporting burden. Instead, previous year data will be pre-filled where available.

8. Improved clarity of scored, mandatory and optional input boxes

To reduce reporting burden, tables in the Performance Component have been redesigned to provide a clearer distinction between scored, mandatory and optional inputs. The mandatory cells have been marked with a thick, dark green border. The scored cells have been shaded in green. The cells shaded in light green are scored only for entities in a certain sector. All cells with a light grey border are optional.

9. Outliers in Performance Data

Functionality to detect outliers in the quantitative data has been added. Where an outlier is detected, a warning will show in the portal. Although the system will not prevent participants from submitting outlier data, the notification will allow them to provide clarification on their data in the text areas below each question.

10. Evidence upload removed

The option to provide evidence where this is not scored or mandatory has been removed. This reduces participants' reporting burdens and simplifies validation processes.

11. External third-party review

Assurance and independent third-party review of data can be useful in the quest to improve data quality. A question on external review of data has been added to each of the quantitative (table based) indicators. These questions will not be used for scoring in 2020.

12. Reporting boundaries reported on exception basis

The question on reporting boundaries that is part of each quantitative indicator has been amended and aligned with the new RC4 question on ancillary activities. Entities must indicate that all activities and facilities as reported in RC3 and RC4 are reported for the full reporting period as indicated in EC4. This gives a better understanding what is included in reporting boundaries and allows for better benchmarking of data.

Indicator Level Changes

HS1-BI1

Performance Indicators - Reporting boundaries

Description: Reporting of boundaries has moved to a 'by exception basis', where exceptions can be noted against the facilities, activities and timeframes reported in RC3, RC4 and EC4.

Rationale for change: Last year, participants struggled to report their reporting boundaries. The new approach is clearer and easier to use. Additionally, the question has been aligned to the new indicator RC4 on ancillary activities.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden and improved clarity and comparability.


Performance Indicators - Assurance and third-party review

Description: Added a question on external third-party review of data to each of the quantitative (table based) indicators. These questions will not be used for scoring in 2020.

Rationale for change: Assurance and independent third-party review of data can be useful in the quest to improve data quality. This approach aligns with the GRESB Real Estate Assessment.

Impact of change: Increased reporting burden in exchange for improved data quality.


Performance Indicators - Removal of baseline data

Description: Removal of reporting of baseline data. Instead, previous year data will be pre-filled where available.

Rationale for change: This data was not used by GRESB and was not deemed to be useful to investors.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.


Performance Indicators - Data tables redesigned

Description: Data tables have been redesigned to provide a clearer distinction between scored, mandatory and optional inputs

Rationale for change: Last year some participants did not fully understand which inputs which were scored, mandatory and optional leading to some misreporting. This new approach should be clearer and easier for participants.

Impact of change: Greater clarity and accuracy of data.

IM1 IM2 IM3 (former RO4)

Implementation

Description: Indicator RO4 (2019) was moved to the Performance Component and restructured. It has also been split into environmental, social and governance indicators. These indicators are now for reporting only and no longer scored.

Rationale for change: Actions are more a reflection of performance than management, so the indicator fits well in the Performance Component. Validation of this indicator was previously difficult and it was hard to score. More structured inputs provide more useful data for investor.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden and more useful data.

OI1 (former PI1.0)

Output and impact

Description: The metric Output has been made mandatory.

Rationale for change: To facilitate sector-specific intensity metrics to be used in scoring performance beyond 2020.

Impact of change: Slight increase in reporting burden in exchange for more standardized, useful and comparable data.


Description: Removal of metrics on GAV, revenue and input.

Rationale for change: GAV and revenue are already provided in RC2. Input was little used in 2019 and is now considered unnecessary.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.

HS1 (former PI2.0)

Health and safety: Employees

Description: Added new metric on ‘Near miss incidents’ – not scored.

Rationale for change: Recording and investigating near misses is regarded as good practice to prevent similar – or more serious – incidents from happening in the future. Several participants reported this as the ‘Other’ metric in the past.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for better indication of good practices.


Description: Added new metric on 'Hours worked' and automatic calculation of LTIFR and TRIFR

Rationale for change: There has been variability in the ability of, and methods used by, participants in calculating injury and incident rates. By adding ‘hours workedʼ as a metric, the rates can be calculated in a standardized fashion.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden and improved accuracy and comparability.


Description: Change metric ‘Reportable injuries’ to ‘Total recordable injuries’

Rationale for change: Reporting of both Reportable injuries and Recordable injury rates was inconsistent and confusing. Simply reporting Total recordable injuries allows the TRIFR to be calculated in a standardized fashion.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden and improved accuracy and comparability.


Description: Removed metric on ‘Other [enter value]’

Rationale for change: Many participants reported the metric already listed or metric that are highly specific, therefore making this metric of limited value in benchmarking.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.

HS2 (former PI2.1)

Health and safety: Contractors/strong

Description: Added new metric on ‘Near miss incidents’ – not scored.

Rationale for change: Recording and investigating near misses is regarded as good practice to prevent similar – or more serious – incidents from happening in the future. Several participants reported this as the ‘Other’ metric in the past.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for better indication of good practices.


Description: Added new metric on 'Hours worked' and automatic calculation of LTIFR and TRIFR

Rationale for change: There has been variability in the ability of, and methods used by, participants in calculating injury and incident rates. By adding ‘hours workedʼ as a metric, the rates can be calculated in a standardized fashion.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden and improved accuracy and comparability.


Description: Change metric ‘Reportable injuries’ to ‘Total recordable injuries’

Rationale for change: Reporting of both Reportable injuries and Recordable injury rates was inconsistent and confusing. Simply reporting Total recordable injuries allows the TRIFR to be calculated in a standardized fashion.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden and improved accuracy and comparability.


Description: Removed metric on ‘Other [enter value]’

Rationale for change: Many participants reported the metrics already listed or metrics that are highly specific, therefore making this metric of limited value in benchmarking.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.

HS3 (former PI2.2)

Health and safety: Customers

Description: Change metric ‘Reportable injuries’ to ‘Total recordable injuries’.

Rationale for change: Reporting of both Reportable injuries and Recordable injury rates was inconsistent and confusing. This has been changed to align with health and safety reporting for employees and contractors.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden and improved accuracy and comparability.


Description: Removed metric on ‘Other [enter value]’.

Rationale for change: Many participants reported the metrics already listed or metrics that are highly specific, therefore making this metric of limited value in benchmarking.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.

HS4 (former PI2.3)

Health and safety: Community

Description: Change metric ‘Reportable injuries’ to ‘Total recordable injuries’.

Rationale for change: Rationale for change: Reporting of both Reportable injuries and Recordable injury rates was inconsistent and confusing. This has been changed to align with health and safety reporting for employees and contractors.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden and improved accuracy and comparability.


Description: Removed metric on ‘Other [enter value]’.

Rationale for change: Many participants reported the metrics already listed or metrics that are highly specific, therefore making this metric of limited value in benchmarking.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.

EN1 (former P3)

Energy

Description: Modified indicator structure providing a clearer step by step reporting process.

Rationale for change: Some participants have found reporting on energy confusing and this has led to some misreporting in the past.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden and improved accuracy and comparability.


Energy imported/purchased

Description: Splitting of electricity and steam, heating and cooling into renewable and non-renewable sources.

Rationale for change: Allows % renewable to be calculated.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for data useful to investors.


Description: Added new metrics on ‘Biofuels’ and ‘Waste (non-biomass)’.

Rationale for change: These metrics were not allowed for previously so would have been reported as ‘Other fuels’. Reporting accuracy and alignment with external frameworks is improved by adding these metrics.

Impact of change: Improved reporting accuracy.


Description: Amendment of metric “Other fuels” to “Other [enter metric]”.

Rationale for change: Allows participants to indicate what metric they are reporting. As there are many fuels that can be reported, this open box allows respondents to present a complete picture of their real consumption.

Impact of change: Improved reporting accuracy.


Energy generation

Description: Added new tables and metrics on energy generated by fuel source and from non-combustible sources.

Rationale for change: These tables enable an energy balance to be created allowing % renewables to be calculated and energy consumption and export to be more accurately calculated.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for data useful to investors and improved reporting accuracy.


Energy exported

Description: Added new metrics to provide a breakdown of energy exported into various energy types.

Rationale for change: This aligns to the energy imported and energy generated tables allowing % renewables to be calculated and energy consumption and export to be more accurately calculated.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for data useful to investors and improved reporting accuracy.


Energy consumed

Description: Added new metrics to provide a breakdown of energy exported into renewable and non-renewable.

Rationale for change: Previously only total energy consumption was calculated. This breakdown will provide useful to information for investors. As the totals are calculated automatically, there is no increase in reporting burdon.

Impact of change: Better data useful to investors.

GH1 (formerP4)

Greenhouse gas emission

Description: Breakdown of scope 1 emissions sources in alignment with GHG Protocol and CDP.

Rationale for change: Adding this breakdown allows participants to better account for their scope 1 emissions and it aligns with external frameworks.

Impact of change: Slight increase in reporting burden in exchange for data useful to investors.


Description: Added a table providing a breakdown of Scope 3 emissions in alignment with the GHG Protocol and CDP.

Rationale for change: Reporting of relevant scope 3 emissions is becoming more important globally. While reporting of scope 3 emissions will remain unscored in 2020, adding this breakdown allows participants to better account for their scope 3 emissions and provides the building blocks for standardized reporting of scope 3 emissions in the future.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for data useful to investors.


Description: Added a calculated metric on “Net GHG emissions (Scope 1, 2 + 3).

Rationale for change: Reporting of relevant scope 3 emissions is becoming more important globally. While reporting of scope 3 emissions will remain unscored in 2020, adding the calculation provides the building blocks for standardized reporting including scope 3 emissions in the future.

Impact of change: Useful data for investors.


Description: Added a question on scope 2 calculation methodology – Location or Market based.

Rationale for change: This aligns with several external frameworks and the GRESB Real Estate Assessment and allows for greater comparability of data in the future.

Impact of change: Slight increase in reporting burden in exchange for greater comparability.


Description: Added a question on science-based targets approved by SBTi.

Rationale for change: Science-based targets provide high credibility in terms of contributing to international agreements and goals. This question allows participants who have taken this step to be recognized.

Impact of change: Slight increase in reporting burden in exchange for credibility and recognition.

WT1 (former PI6.0)

Water inflows/withdrawals

Description: Added metric: “Produced Water”.

Rationale for change: To align with external frameworks.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.


Description: Renamed metrics:

  • ‘Potable water supply’ to ‘Third-party potable water’
  • ‘Surface water/river’ to ‘Surface water’.
  • ‘Seawater’ to ‘Seawater / brackish water’
  • ‘Recycled water (from external suppliers)’ to ‘Third-party non-potable water’

Rationale for change: These terms align better with external frameworks.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.


Description: New calculated metric: “% potable water”.

Rationale for change: This data is useful to investors.

Impact of change: More useful data for investors.

WT2 (former PI6.1)

Water outflows/discharges

Description: Renamed metrics:

  • ‘Municipal Treatment Plant’ to ‘Third-party treatment
  • ‘Surface water/river’ to ‘Surface water’.
  • ‘Seawater’ to ‘Sea-water / brackish water’
  • ‘Recycled water scheme’ to ‘Third-party re-use’

Rationale for change: These terms align better with external frameworks.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.


Description: Added metric on ‘Non-compliances’ similar to the existing metric in the Air Pollution indicator. This metric will be unscored in 2020.

Rationale for change: The addition of this metric provides greater insight into the quality of water discharges, whereas the other metrics in this indicator focus on quantity and destination.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for more useful data for investors.

WS1 (former PI7)

Waste

Description: Removal of metric: “Other [enter metric]”.

Rationale for change: The metrics “hazardous” and “non-hazardous” capture all generated waste.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.


Disposal/export

Description: Added metric on ‘Third party processing’.

Rationale for change: This allows reporting of wastes that are sent for third party processing before reaching their final disposal destination as these were previously not reported.

Impact of change: Improved accuracy.


Description: Renamed calculated metric from ‘Total diverted from landfill’ to ‘Total diverted from landfill and incineration’.

Rationale for change: This better reflects the details of the calculation (the calculation itself does not change).

Impact of change: Greater clarity.

BI1 (former PI8)

Biodiversity and habitat

Description: Removed metric on ‘Other [enter metric]’.

Rationale for change: This metric was rarely used.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden.


Description: Rename metric from ‘Net habitat improved’ to ‘Net habitat gain’.

Rationale for change: This aligns with external frameworks and better allows for cases where the gain is negative (i.e. a loss being a negative gain).

Impact of change: Greater clarity.


Description: Modified the ‘Net habitat gain’ calculation to remove ‘Habitat maintained’ which is now reported separately further down the table. The calculation becomes ‘Net habitat gain’ = ‘Habitat enhanced or restored’+ ‘Habitat protected (onsite)’ + ‘Habitat protected (offsite)’ – ‘Habitat removed’.

Rationale for change: Maintaining habitat does not positively or negatively impact the Net habitat gain and so should not have been included in the calculation.

Impact of change: Improved data accuracy.

M1/EM2 (MA7/PI10.0)

Employees

Description: Moved from MA7 to Performance Component.

Rationale for change: The indicator has changed to include more quantitative data and therefore better fits within the Performance Component. This also aligns with the GRESB Real Estate Assessment.

Impact of change: Greater clarity.


Description: Added metrics on ‘Average amount spent per FTE’, ‘% of employees who received training’, ‘% of employees who received ESG training’.

Rationale for change: These new metrics align with the GRESB Real Estate Assessment and provide useful quantitative data. The scope of the indicator is broadened to also include general training on top of ESG training.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for more useful data for investors.

EM3 (former PI11)

Inclusion and diversity

Description: Renamed indicator from ‘Gender and Diversity’ to ‘Inclusion and Diversity’.

Rationale for change: This better reflects the scope of the indicator and aligns better with industry terminology.

Impact of change: Greater clarity.


Description: Gender ratio is now a scored metric.

Rationale for change: Many participants reported on this metric in 2019 showing that it is good practice to report. Investors confirmed that this data is very useful.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for more useful data for investors.

Entity & Reporting Characteristics

Entity Characteristics

2019 Indicator

Reporting Characteristics

2019 Indicator

Not scored

Management: Leadership

Leadership

2019 Indicator

1 point , MP, G

Not scored

Objectives

2019 Indicator

2.2 points , MP, G

1 point , MP, G

1 point , MP, G

2.2 points , MP, G

Management: Policies

Policies

2019 Indicator

1.7 points , MP, E

1.7 points , MP, S

1.7 points , MP, G

Management: Reporting

Reporting

2019 Indicator

1.7 points , MP, G

1.7 points , MP, G

Not scored

Management: Risk Management

Risk Management

2019 Indicator

4.4 points , MP, G

Risk Assessments

2019 Indicator

3.8 points , MP, E

3.8 points , MP, S

3.8 points , MP, G

ESG Monitoring

2019 Indicator

1.9 points , IM, E

1.9 points , IM, S

1.9 points , IM, G

Management: Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder Engagement

2019 Indicator

2.5 points , MP, S

1.3 points , MP, S

2.5 points , MP, S

Not scored

Performance: Implementation

Implementation

2019 Indicator

9.9 points , IM, G

9.9 points , IM, G

9.9 points , IM, G

Performance: Output & Impact

Output & Impact

2019 Indicator

Not scored

Performance: Energy

Energy

2019 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Performance: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2019 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Performance: Air Pollution

Air Pollution

2019 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Performance: Water

Water

2019 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Performance: Waste

Waste

2019 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Performance: Biodiversity & Habitat

Biodiversity & Habitat

2019 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

Performance: Health & Safety

Health & Safety

2019 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, S

Determined by materiality , IM, S

Determined by materiality , IM, S

3.25 points , IM, S

Performance: Employees

Employees

2019 Indicator

Not scored

Performance: Customers

Customers

2019 Indicator

Not scored

Performance: Certifications & Awards

Certifications and Awards

2019 Indicator

2.5 points , IM, G

Not scored