Reporting entity
Entity Name: ____________
Fund Manager 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.
Guided by the GRESB Medium Term Plan (Assessment Roadmap), we are proposing to make some important changes to the GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment (Fund Assessment) in 2020.
The table below lists the key changes, as well as their implications for your reporting process.
1 Divide the assessment into 5 aspects:The assessment formerly had no aspects, just a set of indicators. To align with the Infrastructure Asset (Management component) and Real Estate Assessments, it makes sense to structure the assessment into logical aspects as follows:
|
2. New IndicatorsFour new indicators on reporting of incidents, employee engagement, training and development, and employee satisfaction have been added. These indicators provide further alignment with the Real Estate and Asset Assessments and provide useful information to investors. They will not be scored in 2020 but may be in future years. This increases the total number of indicators from 13 to 17. |
3. Removed indicator on ESG monitoring of assetsThe indicator on monitoring of ESG performance of assets has been removed as this is covered by the underlying asset assessment. |
4. Several changes to indicators to increase alignmentSeveral changes have been made to indicators to increase alignment to the Real Estate and Infrastructure Asset Assessments, as well as external frameworks like CDP and DJSI. These changes reduce reporting burden for participants and/or provide more useful information for investors. |
5. Revise the names of the key fund level scoresThe names of the key fund level scores have been changed to provide much greater clarity. The average score for just the Fund Assessment will be called the Management Component Score - Infrastructure Fund, the aggregated score for the underlying assets will be called the Performance Component Score - Infrastructure Fund, and the combined score will be called the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Fund. |
| EC2 |
Nature of ownership - ‘Other identifier’ option removedDescription:‘Other identifier’ checkbox removed. Rationale for change: Funds can only be Public, Private or Government owned so there is no need for an ‘Other’ option. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. Nature of ownership - New Classifications within ‘Private entity’Description: Made the following classification changes for ‘Private entity’:
Rationale for change: To cater for Debt funds and to align with Real Estate Assessment. Potential use for peer grouping, rankings and insights. Impact of change: Slightly increased reporting burden in exchange for enhanced insights. Nature of ownership - Added classification for ‘Type of Investment Vehicle’Description: Added ‘Type of Investment Vehicle’. Rationale for change: Changes brought in to add further granularity and to align with Real Estate Assessment. Potential use for peer grouping, rankings and insights. Impact of change: Slightly increased reporting burden in exchange for enhanced insights. Nature of ownership - New classificationDescription: Added ‘Government Entity’ as a ‘Nature of Ownership’ type. Rationale for change: To match Real Estate Assessment and to provide for government participation. Potential use for peer grouping, rankings and insights. Impact of change: Slightly increased reporting burden in exchange for enhanced insights. |
| EC3 |
Year of commencement - New IndicatorDescription: New indicator on commencement date of the entity. Rationale for change: Useful to understand the vintage of the fund as this can have a bearing on maturity of ESG approach. Impact of change: Slightly increased reporting burden in exchange for enhanced insight. |
| EC4 |
Reporting Period - Fund’s reporting yearDescription: Add year of reporting (on top of month) in case it isn't in calendar year. Rationale for change: To clarify the precise reporting year since this was not always clear in the past, when the reporting year was not the calendar year. Impact of change: Greater clarity for reporting. |
| RC2 |
Economic Size - Committed capital replaced with Aggregate NAVDescription: Economic Size clarified to require reporting of Aggregated GAV. Committed Capital is replaced by Aggregate Net Asset Value (NAV). Rationale for change: GAV was already required but is clarified. This is the aggregate total asset value (equity and debt) of all of the assets held by the funds. Committed capital was not a useful measure of size for investors. Aggregate NAV reflects just the equity invested in assets held by the fund (i.e. invested capital) and is a much more useful measure of fund size. Feedback has clarified that these are the two best measures of economic size of a fund. Impact of change: More useful data for investors. |
| RC3 |
Sector and Geography - MergedDescription: Merged former RC4 with RC3. Rationale for change: Simplify and alignment with Real Estate and Asset Assessments. Impact of change: Simplify reporting. |
| RC4 (New) |
Nature of entity’s business - New indicatorDescription: Added indicator on ‘Nature of Business’. Rationale for change: To distinguish funds that focus on investments in development of new construction and major renovation projects (greenfield) versus management of standing investments/operating assets (brownfield) or both. This is useful information for insights and potentially peer grouping. Impact of change: Slightly increased reporting burden in exchange for enhanced insights. |
| RC5 (New) |
Description of the fund - New indicatorDescription: Description and logo of the fund or fund manager. Rationale for change: To align with Asset 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 funds. |
| LE1 (Former Fund 3) |
ESG leadership commitments - PRI report requirement removedDescription: Sub-section on whether entity is reporting to PRI removed (signatory retained). Rationale for change: PRI signatories must report after a year so the sub-section was redundant. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. ESG leadership commitments - New commitmentsDescription: Added several new commitments. Rationale for change: To recognize new important ESG commitments and align with Real Estate Assessment. Impact of change: Recognition of new commitments. ESG leadership commitments - New indicator structureDescription: Split up commitments to distinguish those that oblige organizations to take actions and those that do not and also those that have a broad ESG scope and those that are issue specific. Rationale for change: The level of commitment is different in these various cases and this warrants appropriate recognition and scoring. Impact of change: Level of commitment better recognised in scoring. |
| LE2 (Former Fund 1) |
Responsible investment strategy - Strategy publicly availableDescription: Added whether or not the strategy is publicly available. Rationale for change: To recognise that this is good practice and to align with the Real Estate Assessment. Impact of change: Slightly increased reporting burden in exchange for increased recognition of good practice. |
| LE3 (Former Fund 4) |
Individual responsible for ESG - Remove email and LinkedInDescription: Removed optional entry of email address and LinkedIn profile. Rationale for change: These were optional and not used for any purpose. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. Individual responsible for ESG - Additional reporting option addedDescription: Added option for Investment partners (co-investors/ JV partners). Rationale for change: To align with the Real Estate Assessment and allow for this option. Impact of change: Slight increase in reporting burden in exchange for useful information for investors. |
| LE4 (Former Fund 5) |
ESG senior-decision maker - New decision-maker optionsDescription: Added sub-options for ‘the individual’s most senior role’. Rationale for change: To align with the Real Estate Assessment. Impact of change: Increased standardization and granularity. ESG senior-decision maker - Remove email and LinkedInDescription: Remove optional entry of email address and LinkedIn profile. Rationale for change: These were optional and not used for any purpose. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. |
| LE5 (Former Fund 6) |
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. 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. |
| PO1, PO2, PO3 (Former Fund 2) |
Policies - Indicator split into separate E, S and G indicatorsDescription: Split into three separate E, S and G indicators. Rationale for change: To provide better aggregation of E, S and G scores and to align with Real Estate and Asset Assessments. Impact of change: Slightly increased reporting burden in exchange for more useful E, S and G scores. |
| RP1.1 (Former FUND 11&12) |
ESG Reporting - Merged indicatorsDescription: The two indicators (formerly FUND11 and FUND12) have been merged together, forming a combined indicator on ESG disclosure and third-party review. The name of the service provider will no longer be required. Rationale for change: Combining these two indicators simplifies the reporting and validation process. Impact of change: Simplified reporting. ESG Reporting - Removed Service ProviderDescription: Removed requirement to report 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. |
| RP2.1 (Former Fund 13) |
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: Reduced reporting burden. ESG incident monitoring - New stakeholder groupsDescription: Added some stakeholder groups as sub-options. Rationale for change: To align with the Infrastructure Asset Assessment. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. |
| RP2.2 (New) |
ESG Incident occurrences - Separated from former FUND13Description: New indicator separate from RP2.1 on reporting of incidents. Rationale for change: Alignment with Asset and Real Estate Assessments. Impact of change: Clearer and more aligned reporting approach. |
| RM1.1 |
ESG Due Diligence for new acquisitions - Checkbox removedDescription: Checkbox 'Material issues are identified' removed. Rationale for change: Checkbox overlapped with the second option in the indicator. Impact of change: Cleaner reporting approach and reduced reporting burdon. |
| Former Fund10 Removed |
Former FUND10 - removedDescription: Removed indicator on monitoring of the ESG management and performance of underlying assets. Rationale for change: This is covered by the Asset Assessments for the underlying assets. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. |
| SE1 (New) |
Employee engagement program - New IndicatorDescription: New indicator added on Employee Engagement Programs. Rationale for change: To recognise the importance of employee engagement at the fund level and to align with the Infrastructure Asset and Real Estate Assessments. Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for useful information for investors. |
| SE2 (New) |
Training and development - New indicatorDescription: New indicator added on Training and Development for employees. Rationale for change: To recognise the importance of employee training at the fund level and to align with the Infrastructure Asset and Real Estate Assessments. Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden. |
| SE3 (New) |
Employee satisfaction monitoring - New indicatorDescription: New indicator added on Employee Satisfaction Monitoring. Rationale for change: To recognise the importance of employee satisfaction at the fund level and to align with the Infrastructure Asset and Real Estate Assessments. Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for useful information for investors. |
| SE4 (Former Fund 7) |
Diversity of organization & employees - Split into governance bodies and employeesDescription: Split the indicator into two parts, one looking at gender and diversity of governance bodies and the other looking at employees. Rationale for change: To recognise the importance of both levels when it comes to gender and diversity and to align with the Real Estate Assessment. Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden in exchange for useful information for investors. |
EC1
Reporting entity
Entity Name: ____________
Fund Manager Organization Name (May be same as entity name): ____________
EC1
EC2
Nature of ownership
Public entity
Specify ISIN: ____________
Private (non-listed) entity
Entity style classification
Debt
Core
Value added
Opportunistic
Open or closed end:
Open end
Closed end
Type of investment vehicle
Direct investment
Joint venture (JV)
Separate account
Special Purpose Vehicle
Other
-
________________________
Government entity
EC2
EC3
Entity commencement date
Year of commencement (listed) or Year of establishment (non-listed)
________________________
New
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
Aggregate Gross Asset Value (GAV) (in millions): ____________
Aggregated Net Asset Value (NAV) (or invested capital) (in millions):
________________________
RC2
RC3
Sector & geography
What is the sector focus of the entity?
Diversified
Data Infrastructure
Energy and Water Resources
Environmental Services
Network Utilities
Power Generation X-Renewables
Renewable Power
Social Infrastructure
Transport
Other: ____________
What is the regional focus of the entity?
Globally diversified
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
RC3/4
RC4
Nature of entity's business
What is the entity's core business?
Management of standing investment/operating assets
Development of new construction and major renovation projects
New
RC5
Description of the fund
Provide a description of the entity (max 250 words): ____________
Can the entity upload (as supporting evidence) a logo(s) that represents the fund (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
New
RC6
Summary of entity assets
Did the entity own any asset investments?
Yes
![[AssetTable]](/images/tables/asset_table/y2019-0fad35a0.svg)
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
LeadershipLE1
ESG leadership commitments
Has the entity made a public commitment to ESG 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).
Equator Principles
PRI
UN Global Compact
Other: ____________
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative
Other: ____________
Formal environmental issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
Climate Action in Financial Institutions Initiative
Climate Action 100+
EV100
IFC Operating Principles for Impact Management
IIGCC Paris Aligned Investment Initiative
Montreal Pledge
Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials
Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA)
RE 100
Science Based Targets Initiative
UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge
UN Global Compact Our Only Future
UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance
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).
Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment (CCRI)
Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change (including AIGCC, Ceres, IGCC, IIGCC)
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).
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): ____________
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)
________________________
FUND3
1.3 points , G
LE2
Responsible investment strategy
Does the entity have a sustainable investment strategy?
Yes
The strategy incorporates the following approaches (multiple answers possible)
Corporate engagement and shareholder action
Impact/community investing
Integration of ESG factors
Positive/best-in-class screening
Negative/exclusionary screening
Norms-based screening
Sustainability themed investing
Describe the strategy and how it is being implemented (for reporting purposes only)(maximum 250 words)
________________________
The strategy is:
Publicly available
Provide applicable hyperlink or a separate publicly available evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Not publicly available
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)
________________________
FUND1
1.65 points , G
LE3
Individual responsible for ESG
Does the entity have one or more persons responsible for implementing the 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)
________________________
FUND4
1.3 points , G
LE4
ESG senior decision maker
Does the entity have a senior decision-maker accountable for ESG issues?
Yes
Provide the details for 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)
________________________
FUND5
1.65 points , G
LE5
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?
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)
________________________
FUND6
1.65 points , G
PoliciesPO1
Policies on environmental issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on environmental issues?
Yes
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)
________________________
FUND2
1 point , E
PO2
Policies on social issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on social issues?
Yes
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)
________________________
FUND2
1 point , S
PO3
Policies on governance issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on governance issues?
Yes
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)
________________________
FUND2
1 point , G
ReportingRP1
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
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
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
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
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 in Annual Report
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
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
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Entity reporting to investors
Frequency of reporting: ____________
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
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
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)
________________________
FUND11
3.3 points , G
RP2.1
ESG incident monitoring
Does the entity have a process to monitor and communicate ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics?
Yes
The process includes external communication of misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents to (multiple answers possible):
Clients/customers
Community/public
Contractors
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
FUND13
1.65 points , G
RP2.2
ESG incident ocurrences
Has the entity been involved in any ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics in the reporting period?
(For reporting purposes only)
Yes
Specify the total number of cases that 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
New
Not scored , G
Risk ManagementRM1.1
ESG due diligence for new acquisitions
Does the entity have a process to formally address ESG risks and/or opportunities in its pre-investment processes?
Yes
Select elements of the pre-investment process (multiple answers possible)
ESG risks and opportunities are identified (relating to the material issues) are identified
ESG risks are analysed
ESG risks are evaluated and treated
ESG risks and opportunities are considered and can impact the investment decision
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)
________________________
FUND8
6.6 points , G
RM1.2
ESG risks and opportunities in investment monitoring processes/asset management
Does the entity formally address ESG risks and/or opportunities in its investment monitoring processes/asset management?
Yes
Elements of the investment process including ESG factors:
Integrate ESG risks and/or opportunities into business plans
Describe how and which ESG risks and/or opportunities are treated or mitigated, and which tools are used: (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Regular review of ESG risks and/or opportunities
Describe how and which ESG risks and/or opportunities are regularly reviewed, and which tools are used: (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Externally report or communicate ESG risks and/or opportunities
Describe how and which ESG risks and/or opportunities are reported or communicated externally, and which tools are used: (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Who are the risks and/or opportunities communicated to:
Community/public
Investors
Regulators/government
Special interest groups
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)
________________________
FUND9
6.6 points , G
Stakeholder EngagementSE1
Employee engagement program
Does the entity have an employee engagement program?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Development of action plan
Feedback sessions with Senior Management Team
Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments
Focus groups
Implementation
Planning and preparation for engagement
Program review and evaluation
Training
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored , S
SE2
Employee training
Does the entity provide training and development for employees?
Yes
Percentage of employees who received professional training in the reporting year
________________________
Percentage of employees who received ESG-related training in the reporting year
________________________
ESG-related training focuses on the following elements (multiple answers possible)
Environmental issues
Social issues
Governance issues
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored , S
SE3
Employee satisfaction monitoring
Has the entity undertaken an employee satisfaction survey during 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: ____________%
The survey includes quantitative metrics
Yes
Metrics include
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Other: ____________
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
New
Not scored , S
SE4
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 employees that identify as:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
Diversity of the organization'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
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
FUND7
1.3 points , S