Reporting entity
Entity Name: ____________
Organization Name (May be same as entity name): ____________
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
1. Divide the assessment into 5 aspectsWith 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:
|
2. Materiality approach refinedA 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. |
3. Add indicator titlesEach 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 ComponentIndicator RO4 on implementation of mitigation and improvement measures has been moved from the Management Component to the Performance Component. |
5. Removed indicators and metricsThe indicator EC4 (Industry associations) has been removed as this information was not used. |
6. Added indicatorsA 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 alignmentSeveral 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. |
EC2 |
Nature of ownership - Ticker and exchange information removedDescription: 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 yearDescription: 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 removedDescription: 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 changeDescription: ‘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 facilitiesDescription: 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 MapsDescription: 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 ActivitiesDescription: 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 indicatorDescription: 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 logoDescription: 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 addedDescription: Materiality approach refined.
The materiality of the following ESG issues have been changed: 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 increaseDescription: 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 indicatorDescription: 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 LinkedInDescription: 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 optionsDescription: 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 incentivesDescription: 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 optionsDescription: 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 shiftDescription: 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 removedDescription: 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 PD5Description: 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 ProviderDescription: 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 indicatorDescription: 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 investigationsDescription: 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 ComponentDescription: 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 optionsDescription: 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 elementsDescription: 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 indicatorDescription: 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 changeDescription: 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 changedDescription: 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 assessmentDescription: 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. |
1. Divide the Performance Component into aspectsWith 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:
|
2. Materiality approach refinedWith 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 ComponentIndicator 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 metricsIndicators 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 metricsSome 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 alignmentSeveral 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 dataReporting 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 boxesTo 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 DataFunctionality 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 removedThe 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 reviewAssurance 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 basisThe 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. |
HS1-BI1 |
Performance Indicators - Reporting boundariesDescription: 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 reviewDescription: 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 dataDescription: 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 redesignedDescription: 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) |
ImplementationDescription: 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 impactDescription: 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: EmployeesDescription: 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/strongDescription: 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: CustomersDescription: 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: CommunityDescription: 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) |
EnergyDescription: 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/purchasedDescription: 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 generationDescription: 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 exportedDescription: 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 consumedDescription: 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 emissionDescription: 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/withdrawalsDescription: Added metric: “Produced Water”. Rationale for change: To align with external frameworks. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. Description: Renamed metrics:
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/dischargesDescription: Renamed metrics:
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) |
WasteDescription: 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/exportDescription: 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 habitatDescription: 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) |
EmployeesDescription: 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 diversityDescription: 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. |
EC1
Reporting entity
Entity Name: ____________
Organization Name (May be same as entity name): ____________
EC1
EC2
Nature of ownership
Ownership (Select one)
Public (listed) entity
Specify ISIN: ____________
Private (non-listed) entity
Public-Private Partnership (PPP) entity
Non-profit entity
Government entity
Other: ____________
*Note that some elements of this indicator from 2019 have been moved to RC5.
EC2
EC3
Entity commencement date
What is the year of operation commencement?
Year: ____________
EC5
EC4
Reporting year
Calendar year
Fiscal year
Specify the starting month Month
EC3
RC1
Reporting currency
Values are reported in Currency
RC1
RC2
Economic size
Gross asset value (required) (in millions): ____________
Revenue (required) (in millions): ____________
Number of full time equivalent (FTE) workers (employees): ____________
Number of full time equivalent (FTE) workers (contractors): ____________
RC2
RC3
Sector & geography
RC3/4
RC4
Ancillary activities
Does the entity engage in any ancillary activities, outside the main activity associated with its sector?
Yes
Indicate which of the following activities are undertaken by the entity (multiple options possible)
Maintenance of natural areas (e.g. parks, fields, riparian zones)
Operation of natural areas (e.g. parks, fields, riparian zones)
Maintenance of mobile equipment and plant (e.g. vehicles, mobile machinery, aircraft, rolling stock)
Operation of mobile equipment and plant (e.g. vehicles, mobile machinery, aircraft, rolling stock)
Storage of mobile equipment (e.g. parking, hangars, docks)
Maintenance of civil infrastructure (e.g. tunnels, waterways, roads, tracks, runways)
Operation of civil infrastructure (e.g. tunnels, waterways, roads, tracks, runways)
Maintenance of utility infrastructure (e.g. cables, sewage, drains, pipes)
Operation of utility infrastructure (e.g. cables, sewage, drains, pipes)
Operation of water utility plant (e.g. water collection, storage, treatment)
Operation of waste utility plant (e.g. storage, processing, sorting)
Maintenance of real estate (e.g. terminals, halls)
Maintenance of energy infrastructure (e.g. plant, transmission lines, pipelines)
Fuel and resource extraction (e.g. oil, natural gas, coal mining)
Fuel storage
Fuel processing (e.g. refining, hydrogen production)
Energy distribution and transmission (e.g. natural gas pipelines, district heating)
Electricity generation (e.g. renewable energy generation, power plants)
Electricity storage (e.g. batteries)
Electricity distribution and transmission
Office activities
Network management (e.g. signalling, traffic control, smart grids, toll booths)
Information management (e.g. data processing, servers, smart meters)
Transport of passengers (e.g. transit, baggage handling)
Transport of goods (e.g. cargo handling, distribution)
Storage of goods (e.g. warehousing)
Provision of food and recreational services (e.g. waiting areas, restaurants, hotels, retail)
Provision of care and educational services (e.g. hospitals, clinics, schools)
Provision of security services (e.g. customs, correctional facilities)
Provision of cleaning services (e.g. window washing, rubbish collection)
Construction and development (e.g. major renovations, expansions and refurbishments)
Other: ____________
Indicate which of the ancillary activities are included within the reporting boundary (multiple options possible)
Maintenance of natural areas (e.g. parks, fields, riparian zones)
Operation of natural areas (e.g. parks, fields, riparian zones)
Maintenance of mobile equipment and plant (e.g. vehicles, mobile machinery, aircraft, rolling stock)
Operation of mobile equipment and plant (e.g. vehicles, mobile machinery, aircraft, rolling stock)
Storage of mobile equipment (e.g. parking, hangars, docks)
Maintenance of civil infrastructure (e.g. tunnels, waterways, roads, tracks, runways)
Operation of civil infrastructure (e.g. tunnels, waterways, roads, tracks, runways)
Maintenance of utility infrastructure (e.g. cables, sewage, drains, pipes)
Operation of utility infrastructure (e.g. cables, sewage, drains, pipes)
Operation of water utility plant (e.g. water collection, storage, treatment)
Operation of waste utility plant (e.g. storage, processing, sorting)
Maintenance of real estate (e.g. terminals, halls)
Maintenance of energy infrastructure (e.g. plant, transmission lines, pipelines)
Fuel and resource extraction (e.g. oil, natural gas, coal mining)
Fuel storage
Fuel processing (e.g. refining, hydrogen production)
Energy distribution and transmission (e.g. natural gas pipelines, district heating)
Electricity generation (e.g. renewable energy generation, power plants)
Electricity storage (e.g. batteries)
Electricity distribution and transmission
Office activities
Network management (e.g. signalling, traffic control, smart grids, toll booths)
Information management (e.g. data processing, servers, smart meters)
Transport of passengers (e.g. transit, baggage handling)
Transport of goods (e.g. cargo handling, distribution)
Storage of goods (e.g. warehousing)
Provision of food and recreational services (e.g. waiting areas, restaurants, hotels, retail)
Provision of care and educational services (e.g. hospitals, clinics, schools)
Provision of security services (e.g. customs, correctional facilities)
Provision of cleaning services (e.g. window washing, rubbish collection)
Construction and development (e.g. major renovations, expansions and refurbishments)
Other: ____________
No
RC5
Nature of entity's business
Structure
Corporate
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
Other: ____________
Business Risk (Revenue basis)
Merchant
Concessionary/Contracted
Regulated
Other: ____________
Scope of service
In addition to simply providing the asset, does the entity provide associated services (multiple answers possible)?
Yes
Asset maintenance
Name of Asset Maintainer (May be same as organization name): ____________
Asset operation
Name of Asset Operator (May be same as organization name): ____________
No
EC2
RC6
Description of the asset
Provide a description of the entity (max 250 words): ____________
Can the entity upload (as supporting evidence) a photo(s) that represents the asset (for GRESB marketing purposes)?
By uploading an image, you give GRESB permission to credit the image to the Reporting Entity specified in EC1, and to use the image, both in print and digitally, for marketing and communication purposes only.
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Can the entity upload (as supporting evidence) a logo(s) that represents the asset (for GRESB marketing purposes)?
By uploading a logo image, you give GRESB permission to credit the logo to the Reporting Entity specified in EC1, and to use the logo, both in print and digitally, for marketing and communication purposes only.
Yes
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
RC4
RC7
GRESB materiality assessment
Select the answers applicable to your entity below
Habitat and biodiversity - What is the entity's proximity to ecological habitat?
Containing, overlapping, adjacent
Close (<100m)
Distant (>100m)
Contaminated land - Does the entity have contamination on site?
Yes
No
Resilience and adaptation to climate change - Is the entity located in an area close to the sea, prone to earthquakes, droughts, floods, wildlandfires or other?
Yes
Is the entity located in a coastal area?
Yes
No
No
Water inflows/withdrawals - What is the scale of the entity's water use/withdrawal and water stress in the location?
High consumption (>1 Megalitre/US$) in locations with high water stress
High consumption (>1 Megalitre/US$) in locations with low water stress
Low consumption (<1 Megalitre/US$) in locations with high water stress
Low consumption (<1 Megalitre/US$) in locations with low water stress
No consumption
Water outflows/discharges - Is there a risk of pollution from discharges to waterways (including groundwater)?
Yes and waterways are in locations with high water stress
Yes but waterways are not in locations with high water stress
No
Light pollution - Does the entity use significant external lighting at night?
Yes and the location is densely populated
Yes but the location is not densely populated
No
Noise pollution - Does the entity emit noise externally?
Yes and the location is densely populated
Yes but the location is not densely populated
No
Number of customers - What is the number of customers?
>100
10-100
<10
Number of users - What is the number of users that physically interact with the asset?
>1000
100-1000
10-100
<10
Materiality results
MA2
Not scored
LE1
Entity materiality assessment
Has the entity undertaken an ESG materiality assessment in the last three years?
Yes
Elements covered in the materiality assessment report (multiple answers possible)
Identification of the material ESG issues from the entity's operations
Engagement with relevant stakeholders to identify which issues are material
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA1
1.8 points , G
LE2
ESG leadership commitments
Has the entity made a public commitment to ESG leadership standards or principles?
Yes
General ESG commitments (multiple answers possible)
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
UN Global Compact
Other: ____________
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
List commitment(s): ____________
Formal environmental issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
EV100
Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA)
RE 100
Science Based Targets Initiative
UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge
UN Global Compact Our Only Future
WorldGBC’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment
Other: ____________
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
Task force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
Other: ____________
Formal social issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
List commitment(s): ____________
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
The Responsible Labor Initiative (RLI)
World Business Council for Sustainable Development's Call to Action
30% Club
Other: ____________
Formal governance issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
List commitment(s): ____________
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
List commitment(s): ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
Not scored , G
LE3
ESG objectives
Does the entity have specific ESG objectives?
Yes
The objectives relate to (multiple answers possible)
General sustainability
Environment
Social
Governance
The objectives are
Publicly available
Please provide applicable hyperlink or a separate publicly available document
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Not publicly available
Provide applicable evidence
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA3
3.55 points , G
LE4
Individual responsible for ESG
Does the entity have one or more persons responsible for implementing ESG objectives?
Yes
Dedicated employee for whom sustainability is the core responsibility
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
Employee for whom sustainability is among their responsibilities
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
External consultant/manager
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA4
1.8 points , G
LE5
ESG senior decision maker
Does the entity have a senior decision-maker accountable for ESG issues?
Yes
Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on ESG issues
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
The individual's most senior role is as part of:
Board of directors
C-suite level staff
Fund/portfolio managers
Investment committee
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA5
1.8 points , G
LE6
Personnel ESG performance targets
Does the entity include ESG factors in the annual performance targets of personnel?
Yes
Does performance against these targets have predetermined consequences? (multiple answers possible)
Yes
Financial consequences
Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible):
All other employees
Asset managers
Board of directors
C-suite level staff
Dedicated staff on ESG issues
ESG managers
External managers or service providers
Fund/portfolio managers
Investment analysts
Investment committee
Investor relations
Other: ____________
Non-financial consequences
Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible):
All other employees
Asset managers
Board of directors
C-suite level staff
Dedicated staff on ESG issues
ESG managers
External managers or service providers
Fund/portfolio managers
Investment analysts
Investment committee
Investor relations
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
MA6
3.55 points , G
PO1
Policies on environmental issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on environmental issues?
Yes
Select all material issues which are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)
Air pollution
Biodiversity and habitat
Climate/climate change adaptation
Contaminated land
Energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Hazardous substances
Light pollution
Material sourcing and resource efficiency
Noise pollution
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Waste
Water outflows/discharges
Water inflows/withdrawals
Other issues: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD1
1.8 points , E
PO2
Policies on social issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on social issues?
Yes
Select all material issues which are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)
Child labor
Community development
Customer satisfaction
Employee engagement
Forced or compulsory labor
Freedom of association
Health and safety: community
Health and safety: contractors
Health and safety: employees
Health and safety: supply chain
Health and safety: users
Inclusion and diversity
Labor standards and working conditions
Local employment
Social enterprise partnering
Stakeholder relations
Other issues: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD2
1.8 points , S
PO3
Policies on governance issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on governance issues?
Yes
Select all material issues which are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)
Audit committee structure/independence
Board composition
Board ESG oversight
Bribery and corruption
Compensation committee structure/independence
Conflicts of interest
Cybersecurity
Data protection and privacy
Delegating authority
Executive compensation
Fraud
Independence of board chair
Lobbying activities
Political contributions
Shareholder rights
Whistleblower protection
Other issues: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD3
1.8 points , G
RP1
ESG reporting
Does the entity disclose its ESG actions and/or performance?
Yes
Please select all applicable options (Multiple answers possible)
Integrated Report*
*Integrated Report must be aligned with the IIRC framework
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Group
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Stand-alone sustainability report(s)
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Group
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Section of Annual Report
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Group
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Dedicated section on website
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Group
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Entity reporting to investors
Frequency of reporting: ____________
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Group
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Other: ____________
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Group
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PD4 and PD5
3.55 points , G
RP2.1
ESG incident monitoring
Does the entity have a process to monitor and communicate about ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics?
Yes
The entity would communicate misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents to (multiple answers possible)
Clients/customers
Contractors
Community/public
Employees
Investors/shareholders
Regulators/government
Special interest groups
Suppliers
Other stakeholders: ____________
Describe the communication process (for reporting purposes only) (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
* The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2020 Sector Leaders
PD6
1.8 points , G
RP2.2
ESG incident ocurrences
Has the entity been involved in any significant ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents during the reporting period? (The response to this indicator will be reviewed as part of sector leader requirements)
(For reporting purposes only)
Yes
Specify the total number of cases which occurred: ____________
Specify the total value of fines and/or penalties incurred during the reporting period (must align with currency selected in RC1)
________________________
Specify the total number of currently pending investigations: ____________
Provide additional context for the response, focusing on the three most serious incidents
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
* The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2020 Sector Leaders
PD7
Not scored , G
RM1
Management systems
Is the entity's management system accredited to, or aligned with, ESG-related management standards?
Yes
Accreditations maintained or achieved (multiple answers possible)
ISO 55000
ISO 14001
ISO 9001
OHSAS 18001
Other standard: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Management standards aligned with (multiple answers possible)
ISO 55000
ISO 14001
ISO 9001
OHSAS 18001
ISO 26000
ISO 20400
ISO 50001
Other standard: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
The management system is not aligned with an ESG related standard nor external certification
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
ME1
3.55 points , G
RM2.1
Environmental risk assessment
Has the entity performed an environmental risk assessment(s) within the last three years?
Yes
Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity (multiple answers possible)
Risk assessments are regularly conducted or reviewed and updated
Risks are analysed
Risks are evaluated and treated
Select all material issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)
Air pollution
Biodiversity and habitat
Climate/climate change adaptation
Contaminated land
Energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Hazardous substances
Light pollution
Material sourcing and resource efficiency
Noise pollution
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Waste
Water outflows/discharges
Water inflows/withdrawals
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RO1
3.55 points , E
RM2.2
Social risk assessment
Has the entity performed a social risk assessment(s) within the last three years?
Yes
Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity (multiple answers possible)
Risk assessments are regularly conducted or reviewed and updated
Risks are analysed
Risks are evaluated and treated
Select all material issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)
Child labor
Community development
Customer satisfaction
Employee engagement
Forced or compulsory labor
Freedom of association
Health and safety: community
Health and safety: contractors
Health and safety: employees
Health and safety: supply chain
Health and safety: users
Inclusion and diversity
Labor standards and working conditions
Local employment
Social enterprise partnering
Stakeholder relations
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RO2
3.55 points , S
RM2.3
Governance risk assessment
Has the entity performed a governance risk assessment(s) within the last three years?
Yes
Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity (multiple answers possible)
Risk assessments are regularly conducted or reviewed and updated
Risks are analysed
Risks are evaluated and treated
Select all material issues for which risk is assessed (multiple answers possible)
Audit committee structure/independence
Board composition
Board ESG oversight
Bribery and corruption
Compensation committee structure/independence
Conflicts of interest
Cybersecurity
Data protection and privacy
Delegating authority
Executive compensation
Fraud
Independence of board chair
Lobbying activities
Political contributions
Shareholder rights
Whistleblower protection
Other issues: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RO3
3.55 points , G
RM3.1
Monitoring of environmental performance
Does the entity monitor environmental performance?
Yes
Select all material issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)
Air pollution
Biodiversity and habitat
Climate/climate change adaptation
Contaminated land
Energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Hazardous substances
Light pollution
Material sourcing and resource efficiency
Noise pollution
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Waste
Water outflows/discharges
Water inflows/withdrawals
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
ME2
1.8 points , E
RM3.2
Monitoring of social performance
Does the entity monitor social performance?
Yes
Select all material issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)
Child labor
Community development
Customer satisfaction
Employee engagement
Forced or compulsory labor
Freedom of association
Health and safety: community
Health and safety: contractors
Health and safety: employees
Health and safety: supply chain
Health and safety: users
Inclusion and diversity
Labor standards and working conditions
Local employment
Social enterprise partnering
Stakeholder relations
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
ME3
1.8 points , S
RM3.3
Monitoring of governance performance
Does the entity monitor governance performance?
Yes
Select all material issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)
Audit committee structure/independence
Board composition
Board ESG oversight
Bribery and corruption
Compensation committee structure/independence
Conflicts of interest
Cybersecurity
Data protection and privacy
Delegating authority
Executive compensation
Fraud
Independence of board chair
Lobbying activities
Political contributions
Shareholder rights
Whistleblower protection
Other issues: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
ME4
1.8 points , G
SE1
Stakeholder engagement program
Does the entity have a stakeholder engagement program?
Yes
Select elements of the stakeholder engagement program (multiple answers possible)
Planning and preparation for engagement
Development of action plan
Implementation of engagement plan
Program review and evaluation
Feedback sessions with senior management team
Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments
Focus groups
Training
Other: ____________
Is the stakeholder engagement program aligned with third-party standards and/or guidance?
Yes
Guideline name
No
Which stakeholders does the stakeholder engagement program apply to? (multiple answers possible)
Clients/customers
Community/public
Contractors
Investors/shareholders
Regulators/government
Special interest groups
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE1
3.55 points , S
SE2
Supply chain engagement program
Does the entity include ESG specific requirements in procurement processes?
Yes
Select elements of the supply chain engagement program (multiple answers possible)
Developing or applying ESG policies
Planning and preparation for engagement
Development of action plan
Implementation of engagement plan
Training
Program review and evaluation
Feedback sessions with stakeholders
Select all issues covered by procurement processes (multiple answers possible)
Business ethics
Child labor
Environmental process standards
Environmental product standards
Human rights
Human health-based product standards
Occupational health and safety
Labor standards and working conditions
Other: ____________
Select the external parties to whom the requirements apply (multiple answers possible)
Contractors
Operators
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE5
1.8 points , S
SE3.1
Stakeholder grievance process
Is there a formal process for stakeholders to communicate grievances that apply to this entity?
Yes
Select all the characteristics applicable to the process (multiple answers possible)
Dialogue based
Legitimate and safe
Accessible and easy to understand
Improvement based
Predictable
Equitable and rights compatible
Transparent
Anonymous
Prohibitive against retaliation
Other: ____________
Which stakeholders does the process apply to? (multiple answers possible)
Clients/customers
Community/public
Contractors
Employees
Investors/shareholders
Regulators/government
Special interest groups
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE3
1.8 points , S
SE3.2
Stakeholder grievance monitoring
Has the entity received stakeholder grievances during the reporting period? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
Describe the grievances received during the reporting period
Number of grievances communicated: ____________
Summary of grievances: ____________
Summary of resolutions for grievances: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE4
Not scored , S
IM1
Implementation of environmental actions
Can the entity list the key actions implemented to mitigate environmental risks or improve environmental performance?
Yes
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RO4
Not scored , E
IM2
Implementation of social actions
Can the entity list the key actions implemented to mitigate social risks or improve social performance?
Yes
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RO4
Not scored , S
IM3
Implementation of governance actions
Can the entity list the key actions implemented to mitigate governance risks or improve governance performance?
Yes
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RO4
Not scored , G
OI1
Output & impact
Can the entity report on measures of output and impact? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI1
Not scored , G
EN1
Energy
Can the entity report on energy?
Yes
Has the entity imported or purchased energy?
Yes
No
Has the entity generated energy from fuels?
Yes
No
Has the entity generated energy from non-combustible sources?
Yes
No
Has the entity exported or sold energy?
Yes
No
Complete the table below for any energy consumption targets that apply
Complete the table below for any energy intensity targets that apply
External review
Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI3
Determined by materiality , E
GH1
Greenhouse gas emissions
Can the entity report on greenhouse gas emissions?
Yes
Can the entity report on scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions?
Yes
No
Scope 2 emissions reporting
Indicate which of the following approaches was used to calculate the scope 2 emissions reported above:
Location-based
Market-based
Mix of location-based and market-based
External review
Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Science-based targets
Are any of the targets reported in the table above approved by the Science-Based Targets Initiative?
Yes
Select the metric(s) for which the target has been approved by the SBTI.
Scope 1 (total)
Scope 2
Scope 3
Total scope 1 + 2
Total scope 1, 2 + 3
Gross GHG emissions intensity (/GAV)
Gross GHG emissions intensity (/revenue)
Gross GHG emissions intensity (/output)
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI4
Determined by materiality , E
AP1
Air pollution
Can the entity report on air pollution?
Yes
External review
Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI5
Determined by materiality , E
WT1
Water inflows/withdrawals
Can the entity report on water inflows/withdrawals?
Yes
External review
Has the entity’s water withdrawal data been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI6.0
Determined by materiality , E
WT2
Water outflows/discharges
Can the entity report on water outflows/discharges?
Yes
External review
Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI6.1
Determined by materiality , E
WS1
Waste
Can the entity report on waste generated and disposed?
Yes
External review
Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI7
Determined by materiality , E
BI1
Biodiversity & habitat
Can the entity report on biodiversity and habitat?
Yes
External review
Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI8
Determined by materiality , E
HS1
Health & safety: employees
Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their employees?
Yes
External review
Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI2.0
Determined by materiality , S
HS2
Health & safety: contractors
Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their contractors?
Yes
External review
Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI2.1
Determined by materiality , S
HS3
Health & safety: users
Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their users?
Yes
External review
Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI2.2
Determined by materiality , S
HS4
Health & safety: community
Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of their community?
Yes
External review
Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using Scheme name
Externally assured
Using Scheme name
Please provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI2.3
Determined by materiality , S
EM1
Employee engagement
Does the entity engage with its employees through training or satisfaction monitoring?
Yes
Does the entity provide training and development for employees?
Yes
Average amount spent per FTE on training and development: ____________
Percentage of employees who received professional training in the reporting year
________________________
Percentage of employees who received ESG-related training in the reporting year
________________________
The ESG-related training focuses on the following elements (multiple answers possible)
Environmental issues
Social issues
Governance issues
No
Has the entity undertaken employee satisfaction surveys within the last three years?
Yes
The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible):
Internally
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
By an independent third party
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
Does the survey include quantitative metrics?
Yes
Metrics include:
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Other: ____________
No
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Determined by materiality , S
EM2
Inclusion & diversity
Does the entity report on inclusion and diversity?
Yes
Diversity of the entity's governance bodies
Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)
Age group distribution
Board tenure
Gender pay gap
Gender ratio
Percentage of individuals that identify as:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
Diversity of the entity's employees
Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)
Age group distribution
Percentage of employees that are:
Under 30 years old: ____________%
Between 30 and 50 years old: ____________%
Over 50 years old: ____________%
Gender pay gap
Gender ratio
Percentage of employees that identify as:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI11
Determined by materiality , S
CU1
Customer satisfaction monitoring
Has the entity undertaken customer satisfaction surveys within the last three years?
Yes
The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible):
Internally
Percentage of customers covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
By an independent third party
Percentage of customers covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
Does the survey include quantitative metrics?
Yes
Metrics include (multiple answers possible)
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Satisfaction with communication
Satisfaction with responsiveness
Satisfaction with asset management
Understanding customer needs
Value for money
Other: ____________
No
Exceptions
Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
No
Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PI9.0
Determined by materiality , S
CA1
Infrastructure certifications
Did the entity maintain or achieve asset-level certifications for ESG-related performance?
Yes
List certifications achieved
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
CA1
A list of provisionally validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix of the Reference Guide.
2.4 points , G
CA2
Awards
Did the entity receive awards for ESG-related actions, performance, or achievements? (for reporting purposes only)
Yes
Information about third-party awards
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
CA2
Not scored , G