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

2021

Asset

Reference Guide

Contents

Disclaimer: 2021 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide

The 2021 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide (“Reference Guide”) accompanies the 2021 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment and is published both as a standalone document and in the GRESB Portal alongside each Assessment indicator. The Reference Guide reflects the opinions of GRESB and not of our members. The information in the Reference Guide has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. We take reasonable care to check the accuracy and completeness of the Reference Guide prior to its publication. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications to the Reference Guide. We will publicly announce any such modifications.

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

Except where stated otherwise, GRESB is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights in all the information contained in the Reference Guide. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications prior to the official start of the 2021 reporting year on April 1 and the official release of the 2021 Infrastructure Asset Assessment. We will publicly announce any such modifications.

The GRESB Assessments

About GRESB

Mission-driven and investor-led, GRESB is the environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmark for real assets. We work in collaboration with the industry to provide standardized and validated ESG data to the capital markets. The 2020 real estate benchmark covers more than 1,200 property companies, real estate investment trusts (REITs), funds, and developers. Our coverage for infrastructure includes 500 infrastructure funds and assets. Combined, GRESB represents USD 4.8 trillion in real asset value. More than 120 institutional investors, with over USD 28 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.

Overview of GRESB Assessments

GRESB Real Estate Assessment

The GRESB Real Estate Assessment is the global standard for ESG benchmarking and reporting for listed property companies, private property funds, developers and investors that invest directly in real estate. The Assessment evaluates performance against three ESG Components - Management, Performance, and Development. The methodology is consistent across different regions, investment vehicles and property types and aligns with international reporting frameworks, such as GRI and PRI.

The GRESB Real Estate Assessment provides investors with actionable information and tools to monitor and manage the ESG risks and opportunities of their investments, and to prepare for increasingly rigorous ESG obligations. Assessment participants receive comparative business intelligence on where they stand against their peers, a roadmap with the actions they can take to improve their ESG performance and a communication platform to engage with investors.

(Real Estate) Supplement: NAREIT Leader in the Light

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

GRESB Infrastructure Assessments

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

There are two complimentary GRESB Infrastructure Assessments: a Fund Assessment and an Asset Assessment. Both address critical aspects of ESG performance through a globally applicable and standardized reporting and benchmarking framework. The Fund Assessment is intended for infrastructure funds and portfolios of assets, while the Asset Assessment is meant to be completed by the individual underlying assets (portfolio companies). Both Assessments cover the full breadth of infrastructure sectors, including:

The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment provides investors with actionable information and tools to monitor and manage the ESG risks and opportunities of their investments, and to prepare for increasingly rigorous ESG obligations. In turn, GRESB Infrastructure Assessment participants receive comparative business intelligence on where they stand against their peers, a roadmap with actions they can take to improve their ESG performance and a communication platform to engage with investors.

GRESB (Real Estate and Infrastructure) Public Disclosure

GRESB Public Disclosure evaluates the level of ESG disclosure of listed companies and investment vehicles for an entire investable universe. The evaluation is based on a set of indicators aligned with the GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Assessments. It provides investors with a resource hub to access ESG disclosure documents across their full listed investment portfolio and make comparisons against an investable universe with full coverage.

GRESB Public Disclosure data is initially collected by the GRESB team for selected companies, including both 2019 GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Asset Assessment participants and non‑participants. All data collected must come from publicly available sources, private documents are not accepted.

All constituents have the opportunity to review and update the data collected prior to it becoming accessible to GRESB Listed Investor Members. GRESB Public Disclosure consists of four Aspects: Governance of ESG, Implementation, Operational Performance and Stakeholder Engagement. Together, these Aspects contribute towards a Public Disclosure Level, expressed through an A to E sliding scale.

2020 Assessments Structure

For 2021, the Infrastructure Assessments have been kept stable with relatively few changes. The Resilience Module, which was optional in previous years, has been integrated into the Assessments and is now mandatory, thus facilitating TCFD reporting for all participants. We will continue to shift the emphasis and scoring from management and transparency to performance. We are also looking to provide new data and analytical tools in the portal including addressing coming EU regulations and SDG reporting.

The Infrastructure Asset Assessment is split into separate Management and Performance Components. This structure allows entities to complete either or both components. Entities starting off on their sustainability journey are thus able to first develop their data collection processes before reporting performance data.

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

Participation Fees

The Assessment participation fee applies to all GRESB Assessments. Participants may choose to complete just one Assessment component (Management or Performance), but the standard participation fee applies regardless.

Other products and services (e.g. Response Checks, Review Period, etc.) are not bundled with the Assessment participation fee. This allows participants to select only those products and services they require.

Additional information about the 2021 participation fees is available here.

Timeline & Process

The Assessment Portal opens on April 1, 2021. The submission deadline is July 1, 2021 (23:59:59 PST), 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.

The GRESB validation process starts on June 15, 2021 and continues until July 31, 2021. Participants may be contacted during this time to clarify any issues with their response.

In 2020 GRESB introduced a new Review Period in the Assessment Cycle to further strengthen the reliability of the 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 the 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 scheduled for October and November in order to accommodate the September Review Period.

For more information on the Review Period see Appendix 5

For more information about the 2021 Assessment timeline, click here

Response Check

A Response Check is a high‑level check of a participant’s GRESB submission. The Response Check is carried out by GRESB’s third party Validation provider SRI and features a careful review of Assessment responses followed by a 1-hour discussion call. It can be particularly useful for first time participants.

The Response Check does not exclude the participant from any element of the validation process, nor does it guarantee a better GRESB score. It is intended to ensure that no important details have been overlooked in the submission and provides the opportunity to ask for additional guidance and clarification on the GRESB Assessment indicators. The Response Check helps reduce errors that may adversely impact Assessment results and identifies inconsistent responses and incorrect answer formats.

The Response Check is available for request from April 1 to June 1, 2021 (11:59:59 p.m., PST Pacific time) subject to available resources availability. We strongly encourage participants to place their request as early as possible. The Response Check can be requested before the Assessment has been completed, but the scope of the review will be limited to the information filled in at the time of the request.

Guidance & Support

The Assessment Portal includes indicator-specific guidance, available under the “Guidance” buttons that explains:

In addition to the guidance in the Portal, each Assessment is accompanied by a Reference Guide (this guide). The Reference Guide provides introductory information on the Assessments and a report-format version of the indicator-by-indicator guidance that is available under the Guidance tab in the Portal.

Moreover, there are several tools and functionalities in the Portal to support submissions. For example, the Portal has real‑time error detection systems and warnings. More detail can be found in Participant Tools.

GRESB works with a select group of Partners who can help participants with their GRESB Infrastructure Assessment submission. To learn more about the services offered by GRESB Partners, take a look at our Partner Directory.

Participants are able to contact the GRESB Helpdesk at any time for support and guidance.

GRESB Assessment Training Program

The GRESB Assessment Training is designed to help GRESB participants, potential participants and other GRESB stakeholders (managers, consultants, data partners) that undertake and improve their ESG reporting through the GRESB Assessments. GRESB provides a free online training platform

for all participants. The training courses are modular and self-paced, walking participants through the various aspects of the Assessments,and providing detailed examples and tips for a successful submission.

Outputs

The preliminary results are published in September and final results on October 1 after the Review Period. Participants will receive the following outputs (subject to payment of participation fees as noted earlier):

Additional products and services, such as Response Checks (more information can be found here), can be purchased via the Assessment portal following the results release.

Access to Assessment results

Data is submitted to GRESB through a secure online platform and can only be seen by GRESB Staff and authorized personnel from GRESB’s third party validation provider SRI. . GRESB benchmark scores are not made public. For listed entities, the entity name is disclosed on the GRESB website. For non-listed entities, the fund manager’s name is disclosed.

Access to results

Data collected through the GRESB Infrastructure Assessments is only disclosed to the participants themselves and any GRESB Investor and Fund Manager Members that have been granted access by the participant. GRESB Investor Members and/or Fund Manager Members must request access to participant data in the GRESB Portal.

Participants must individually approve data access requests from GRESB Investor and Fund Manager Members. A request is received via email and, upon approval by the participant, the requesting GRESB Member may view the participant’s Benchmark Report. Participants may reject data access requests. Rejecting a request blocks the requesting member’s access to the participant’s results.

Participants should always check the identity of the organization requesting access to GRESB Infrastructure Assessment results.

No other third parties will see the data.

Access to uploaded evidence

Documentation provided as evidence can be made available to GRESB Investor and Fund Manager Members on a document by document basis. Each uploaded document has a checkbox (with the default set to ‘not available’) which, when selected by the participant, makes this evidence available to all investors with access to that entity. It is not possible for participants to choose a subset of investors to share the documents with.

Access to peer group results

GRESB provides an opt-in option that will disclose the entity’s name (public) or fund manager’s name (private) as well as the scores for the different Components to participants in the peer group that also opted to disclose their name and Component scores

As a default, GRESB does not disclose a participant’s data to other participants. For listed entities, the entity name is disclosed in the Benchmark Report, as well as the entity names of listed peer group constituents. For non-listed entities, only the fund manager’s name is disclosed, as well as the fund manager’s name of private peer group constituents.

GDPR compliance

GRESB is fully compliant with GDPR. The GRESB Privacy Statement can be found here. GRESB also has specific internal policies related to GDPR, such as a Data Breach Policy and Data Protection Policy, that cannot be shared externally for security reasons. Note that asset level data does not fall under the incidence of GDPR because it does not contain any personal information.

If participants are unable to report certain metrics such as 'Racial Diversity' and 'Background' due to GDPR restrictions then they may leave a comment in the open text box provided.

Cybersecurity

GRESB’s data security measures and systems have been reviewed by an external expert and no issues were flagged. The GRESB website and the GRESB Portal are fully HTTPS/TLS encrypted. GRESB has strict and extensive policies on data security that cannot be shared externally for security reasons. GRESB’s public policies can be accessed here.

Grace Period

First year participants can submit the Assessment without providing GRESB Investor Members with the ability to request access to their results. This is referred to as a “Grace Period”.

First year participants wishing to report under the Grace Period can select the option on an entity-by-entity basis from the settings section in the Assessment Portal. Participants who select the “Grace Period” option can decide to unselect the option following receipt of their results. The Grace Period is not available in the second year of participation, regardless of whether it was used in the first year or not.

The “Grace Period” allows participants a year to familiarize themselves with the GRESB reporting and assessment process. The names of participating entities are still visible during the Grace Period, but GRESB Investor Members will not be able to request to see their results.

Language

All Assessment responses must be submitted in English.

Documents uploaded as supporting evidence do not need to be entirely translated. However, for evidence provided in languages other than English, a thorough summary confirming that the requirements have been met is required for validation purposes. Participants may make use of the open text box to provide the document(s) summary. In addition, each selected issue must be identified in the uploaded evidence by providing page number and exact location such as paragraph, clause, sentence, bullet number, etc.

How to use Google Translate

  1. On your computer, open Chrome.
  2. Go to the web page you wish to translate in another language.
  3. At the top, click the Translate icon.”
  4. Chrome will translate the web page this one time.

Turn translation on

You can control whether Chrome will offer to translate web pages.

  1. On your computer, open Chrome.
  2. At the top-right, click ⠇ >Settings.
  3. At the bottom, click Advanced.
  4. Under 'Languages', click Language.
  5. Tick or untick 'Offer to translate pages that aren't in a language you read'.
  6. If the page is not yet being translated to your language, click on the Translate icon again, select “options”, and make sure your “Translation language” is not set to something else. If it is, change it to the desired language for translation.

This works for the entire GRESB portal.

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

Guide to the 2021 Infrastructure Asset Assessment

This section provides specific guidance for the 2021 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment (referred to as the “Assessment”).

This guide should provide all the basic information needed to complete the 2021 Assessment. Contact the GRESB Helpdesk for any additional support and guidance.

Asset Assessment Participation

Precisely what constitutes an infrastructure asset is typically defined by investors at the investable entity level. These assets (investable entities) may comprise of single or multiple facilities. Either type of asset may participate in the Asset Assessment; however, reporting as a single facility provides the best basis for benchmark comparisons and is therefore recommended. Different approaches to participation are explained in the following sections. Note that these are only illustrative and that other scenarios are possible.

Single-facility assets

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

Examples of single‑facility assets include:

Multi-facility assets

In some cases, the asset’s activities may be spread across a number of facilities ‑ GRESB considers this to be a multi‑facility asset. A multi‑facility asset has the option to report:

  1. separately for each facility using multiple Asset Assessments, or;
  2. as a group using a single Asset Assessment.

Completing multiple assessments allows comparisons between assets and is strongly encouraged, whilst a single assessment may take less time if the relevant data is more readily available at the aggregated asset level.

Examples of multi‑facility assets include:

If a participant elects to report on multiple facilities in a single asset assessment, then it is strongly recommended that this aggregation be kept at a single sector and country combination, otherwise peer group comparisons are likely to be far less specific and useful. For example, a multi-facility asset that consists of on-shore wind farms in the UK can be compared to other UK wind farms, whereas an asset with wind and solar farms in various European countries will likely fall into a peer group of renewable energy in Europe which is far less useful for comparisons. Multi‑facility assets that participate as one entity should have centralized management and aggregated performance data. See “Sector and Geography” (RC3) in the Entity and Reporting Characteristics Aspect for more details.

Assessment Components

The Assessment consists of Entity and Reporting Characteristics, and Management and Performance Components.

Importantly, the premier measurement of ESG performance for investors is the full GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset (i.e. Management plus Performance Components).

Management component

The Management Component focuses on management and processes and is pitched at the organizational level.

The Management Component is suitable for any type of infrastructure company, asset and investment strategy.

The 2021 Management Component - Infrastructure Asset consists of 28 indicators across 5 Aspects:

Assets completing the Management Component will obtain a Management Score – Infrastructure Asset.

In the Management Component, many indicators apply materiality-based scoring. Before starting the Management Component, entities should therefore first complete “GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7) in ‘Entity & Reporting Characteristics’ to determine the materiality weightings for ESG issues. These weightings will affect how each indicator should be addressed and also determine scoring.

Performance component

The Performance Component focuses on measuring performance and is pitched at the asset level. It can also be completed individually or in combination with the Management Component. The 2021 Performance Component - Infrastructure Asset consists of 20 indicators across 12 Aspects:

Assets completing the Performance Component will obtain a Performance Score – Infrastructure Asset.

In the Performance Component, many indicators apply materiality-based scoring. Before starting the Performance Component, entities should therefore first complete “GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7) in ‘Entity & Reporting Characteristics’ to determine the materiality weightings for ESG issues. These weightings will affect how each indicator should be addressed and also determine scoring.

GRESB Score

Importantly, the premier measurement of ESG performance for investors is the full GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset (i.e. Management plus Performance Components). Only entities that submit both Components will receive a GRESB Score and GRESB Rating. This also allows the asset to be allocated to an appropriate peer group and therefore receive relevant benchmark performance comparisons.

Participant Tools

Indicator Structure

Allocation to E, S, G

Each indicator is allocated to one of the three sustainability dimensions (E‑ environmental; S‑ social; G‑ governance):

E S G
Management 14% 29% 57%
Performance Dependent upon materiality Dependent upon materiality Dependent upon materiality

Every indicator has a short title (e.g. “ESG Specific Objectives”) and a code (e.g. LE3). These are followed by an initial indicator question that can be answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

When selecting ‘Yes’, participants are required to provide further information by selecting one or more answer options and/or completing an open text box or table. Participants should select all answer options that accurately describe the entity and or its activities. Indicators that require evidence are clearly marked in the GRESB Portal and Reference Guide.

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

Each indicator displays the corresponding 2020 indicator, or ‘NEW’ if the indicator has been added in 2021. This is also reflected in the guidance notes for every indicator.

Indicator Elements

Answer options for each indicator may use one or more of the following five core elements– Radio buttons, Checkboxes, performance tables, ’Other’ answers, Open Text Boxes and Evidence. These elements are explained below:

Evidence

Selected indicators in the Assessment require supporting evidence. Evidence is information that can be used to validate the overall answer to the indicator and support the additionally selected criteria.

GRESB does not have a standard for evidence. Instead, a validator with reasonable domain expertise should be able to review the evidence and find support for the overall indicator response and selected answer options. More information on evidence is provided with each indicator.

Evidence should clearly reference the answer options selected by the participant. The evidence should not require extensive interpretation or inference and participants are strongly encouraged to provide the simplest evidence that supports their claim. Evidence can be provided through a document upload or a hyperlink.

Document Upload

Participants may submit any document that supports selected checkboxes, tables and/or content of an open text box. Uploads are used by the validation team to substantiate claims.

Hyperlink

If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. Ideally, the landing page should contain all the information needed to validate the answer. In order to qualify as valid supporting evidence, the evidence provided must demonstrate the achievement of the criteria selected. The participant has the obligation to ensure that the hyperlink is functioning at the time of validation. Broken links are the responsibility of the participant and will be interpreted as the absence of evidence. Hyperlinks in uploaded documents will not be checked.

Reporting Year

Answers throughout the Assessment must be applicable to the reporting year identified in “Reporting year” (EC3) in the Entity and Reporting Characteristics, unless the indicator specifies an alternative reporting period. For the Performance Component, exceptions to this temporal boundary must be reported under the “Exceptions” box for that indicator.

A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting year; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting period. For example, if a policy was put in place one month prior to the end of the reporting year, this is acceptable, it need not have been in place for the entire reporting year. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or vice versa, as long as the chosen reporting year is used consistently throughout the Assessment.

Reporting Entity

Responses should relate specifically to the “reporting entity” (i.e. the Asset) for which the Assessment is submitted. Evidence in relation to the Entity can come from any of the organizations involved with the activities within the Entity’s boundaries.

In the GRESB Terms and Conditions, the terms ‘Participating Portfolio’ and ‘Participating Asset’ refer to a ‘(Reporting) Entity’ as used in the in the GRESB Assessments, Guidance materials (e.g., Reference Guides and Scoring documents), GRESB Products (e.g., Benchmark Reports and PAT), the GRESB Portal, and in GRESB Training materials.

The Entity may include the physical asset itself, the asset manager, the asset operator and/or the asset maintainer. Responses may relate to any organization involved with the asset and the service it provides, for example the asset owner, asset maintainer or asset operator. Evidence must show that the relevant organization's practices apply to the reporting entity.

Certain indicators refer to different reporting levels (e.g. Group, Operator, Contractor) that should be addressed within the indicator response and supporting evidence.

In the example in the figure below, the Reporting Entity (Asset) is Big City Airport. This Asset is part of Infrastructure Fund IV which is managed by Fund Manager LLC. Information pertinent to the Asset Assessment for Big City Airport may come from Big City Airport Management Ltd, Operations Contractor or Maintenance Contractor. In some cases, Fund Manager LLC may also provide relevant information for the Assessment. The airline, El Cheapo Air, is outside of the reporting entity boundary and so information relating to El Cheapo Air would not typically be relevant to the Assessment.

Reporting Boundries

Setting and describing appropriate boundaries for reporting on ESG is critical to allow for:

GRESB intends to work with the industry to increase the focus on performance measurement and scoring over the next few years. To cater for this, as well as reporting using accurate boundaries, the scope of reporting will need to become far more standardised across entities, to ensure that ‘apples versus apples’ comparisons can be made and this reflected in scoring.

To this end, the Asset Assessment includes indicators that help to accurately describe the boundaries of reporting for each entity. These indicators are:

The combination of these indicators provides an accurate picture of the reporting boundary. Everything ‘within’ the boundary should be reported on within the relevant indicators, and everything ‘outside’ the boundary should not be included. We recognise however, that this reporting boundary may not apply to all reported ESG issues. For example, water data may not be available for certain facilities even though energy data is. These exceptions to the reporting boundary must be described in the Exception boxes included in the Performance Component indicators.

This reporting boundary data will be carefully analysed and used in future years to standardise the reporting boundaries for all entities within similar sectors, thereby enabling fair and equitable data comparisons and scoring.

2021 GRESB Data Validation Process

Data validation is an important part of GRESB’s annual benchmarking process. The purpose of data validation is to encourage best practices in data collection and reporting. It provides the basis for GRESB’s continued efforts to provide investment grade data to its investor members.

GRESB validation is a check on the existence, accuracy, and logic of data submitted through the GRESB Assessments. The validation process is structured into two categories: automatic validation and manual validation.

Automatic validation is integrated in the portal. As participants fill out their Assessments, the Portal employs real-time error detection mechanisms and displays warnings to help ensure Assessment submissions are complete and accurate.

Manual validation takes place after submission, and consists of document and text review to check that the answers provided in Assessment are supported by sufficient evidence. The validation rules and process are set and overseen by GRESB but the validation is performed by our third party validation provider. SRI.

For more information about the 2021 Validation Process, see Appendix 4

Review Period

Participants with questions on individual validation decisions can contact the GRESB Helpdesk.

In 2020, GRESB introduced a new Review Period see (Appendix 5 for more information) 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 the 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.

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

Scoring Methodology

Asset Scoring

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

The GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment is split into two components namely, the Management Component and Performance Component. The overall GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset is the sum of the Management Score - Infrastructure Asset and the Performance Score - Infrastructure Asset:

GRESB Score = Management Score + Performance Score

GRESB Rating

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

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

Materiality-based Scoring

GRESB uses Materiality‑based scoring across the Asset Assessment. This process applies the well proven process of materiality assessment to scoring ensuring that all assets are assessed and scored based on the ESG issues that are most material to their circumstances.

The materiality-based scoring process is illustrated in the diagram below.

Materiality Factors

The first part of the process is contained within the GRESB Materiality Assessment indicator (RC7). In this indicator, a set of 15 simple questions relating to Materiality factors are answered using simple drop down selections. For six of the factors, answers are drawn from other indicators RC2, RC3 and RC5. These factors include for example the primary sector of the asset, its primary location, whether it is on contaminated land, and the number of customers it serves. See the GRESB Materiality Assessment indicator (RC7) for details of the materiality factors and their associated questions and answers.

ESG Issues

There are 45 ESG issues in the Asset Assessment (13 Environmental, 16 Social and 16 Governance). Each of the materiality factors is associated with one or more ESG issues, so that as the factor questions are answered, the materiality of the ESG issues is determined. Note that the materiality is fixed for seven of the 45 ESG issues (i.e. they are unaffected by the Materiality factors). There are four possible materiality levels that can be assigned to ESG issues, and these directly translate to a scoring weighting in the Assessment, as follows:

Materiality Weighting
No relevance 0
Low relevance 0
Medium relevance 1
High relevance 2

Thus issues of No or Low relevance are deemed non-material and receive no score in the Assessment - effectively they are removed from consideration. Issues of Medium relevance receive Medium score weighting and issues of High relevance receive a high score weighting. For example, the ESG issue “Air pollution” is of “No relevance” for entities in the primary sector ‘Renewable power: Solar power generation’,, therefore it does not need to be considered by entities in this sector in the Assessment. On the other hand, for entities in the primary sector ‘Power generation x-Renewables: Independent Power Producers: Gas-Fired Power Generation’, Air pollution is deemed of High relevance and therefore requires close consideration throughout the Assessment. The outcome of completing the GRESB Materiality Assessment indicator is an entity-specific materiality weighting for each of the ESG issues. These weightings are displayed at the bottom of the indicator in the portal. Once each of the ESG issues has been assigned a materiality weighting (relevance), these apply to certain indicators in both the Management and Performance Components in slightly different ways.

Management Component

For the Management Component, the indicators in the aspect ‘Policies’ and six indicators in the aspect ‘Risk management’ are subject to materiality-based scoring. These indicators cover the standard list of (45) Environmental, Social and Governance issues and are scored based on how many of the material issues are addressed. Consider for example, the indicator ‘Policies on environmental issues’ (PO1). Each of the 13 standard Environmental issues will receive a materiality weighting from the GRESB Materiality Assessment.

Performance Component

For the Performance Component, most indicators are subject to materiality-based scoring (only Implementation, Output & Impact and Certification & Awards aspects are not). Each indicator addresses a specific ESG issue, so the materiality weightings from the GRESB Materiality Assessment apply directly to the weighting of each whole indicator.

Indicators relating to ESG issues of High relevance are weighted highly, and Medium relevance moderately. Indicators relating to issues of No or Low relevance are not scored. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Performance Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. In the earlier example of an Asset with a primary sector ‘Renewable power: Solar power generation’, the indicator ‘Air pollution’ will not be scored and more weight will be given to other, material indicators (like Energy). This means that materiality-based scoring brings the focus only on material ESG issues, minimizing the reporting burden for participants.

The Materiality Tool

Whilst the GRESB Materiality Assessment and the whole materiality-based scoring process are straightforward to understand and apply, some participants may want to understand them, and how they apply to their situation, in more detail. GRESB provides an Excel based GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool:. for this purpose. This tool duplicates the materiality-based scoring process embedded in the portal but in an easier and more transparent layout. In addition, the tool provides the ability for participants to record their own view of materiality for each issue and provide associated justification for feedback to GRESB in future refinement of materiality-based scoring. Completed feedback should be sent to the GRESB via the contact form . The tool also contains a ‘Materiality Matrix’ and a ‘Sector Determined’ matrix that transparently link each Materiality factor answer to the relevance for the associated ESG issues. Finally, the tool contains a Scoring and Weighting sheet that shows how indicator weightings are modified by the materiality-based scoring.

Scoring Weightings

The Management component is made up of 5 Aspects, whilst the Performance component consists of 12. The Asset Assessment contains 43 indicators with the exclusion of Entity & Reporting Characteristics. The below weights apply for 2021.

Indicator Scoring

The following is a scoring overview of indicators in the 2021 Infrastructure Asset Assessment. Some general remarks and notes on the structure of indicators:

There are four scoring models used within indicators:

The overall outcome of these models is to generate a fractional score (i.e. between zero and one) which is then multiplied by the indicator weighting (maximum score) to generate the score for the indicator.

Section One (Elements)

Every scored indicator begins with this section which can receive a fractional score (i.e. between zero and one), determined by selections made in checkboxes and radio buttons, and answers provided in open text boxes. Based upon these inputs, fractional scores are calculated using either an aggregated fractions or a diminishing increase in scoring methodology.

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

Materiality-based scoring: These indicators are similar to Aggregated points, where points are awarded cumulatively for each individual selected answer and then aggregated to calculate a final score for the indicator. Where materiality-based scoring applies, each checkbox answer is weighted to reflect the materiality of the relevant ESG issue, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment.

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

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

Section 2 (Evidence)

Some indicators require evidence to verify information provided in section 1 (Elements). In these cases, the fractional score for the evidence section acts as a multiplier to the Section 1 fractional score. Mandatory evidence receives a multiplier of zero (0) for no evidence or not-accepted evidence, 0.5 for providing partially accepted evidence and 1 for providing fully accepted evidence. To clarify, the indicator will receive no points unless the hyperlink and/or uploaded document is considered valid (i.e. partially and/or fully accepted).

The final indicator score is then calculated as:

The total indicator score is then calculated as:

Indicator score = Indicator score = (Section 1 fractional score) X (Section 2 multiplier) X Indicator weighting

Peer group allocation and benchmarking

For benchmarking purposes, each participant is assigned to a peer group, based on the entity’s primary sector, primary location and other factors, as reported in RC3 and EC2. To ensure participant anonymity, GRESB will only create a peer group if there is a minimum of six participants allocated to the peer group (the participant and five other peers).

Peer group assignments do not affect an entity's score, but determine how GRESB puts participant’s results into context.

The goal of the peer group creation process is to compare participants who share important characteristics, while:

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

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

The system attempts to find the optimum peer group based on the criteria presented above. This process repeats in a loop following the logic described in Appendix 7: Peer Group Allocation Logic .

Peer group disclosure

GRESB provides an opt-in option to disclose the entity’s name in Benchmark Reports. However, this is only disclosed to participants who also opted to disclose their name and dimension scores.

Sector Leader

The GRESB Sector Leader program recognizes the best performers annually from across the GRESB Assessments. Achieving sector leader status is clear recognition of best practice ESG performance by Infrastructure companies and funds. A minimum number of entities is necessary to award a Sector Leader. This minimum number is reviewed each year. If any significant ESG fines and/or penalties are reported (see Reporting of ESG-related incidents (RP2.2)), the entity may not be entitled to sector leader status.

Entity & Reporting Characteristics

Intent and Overview

Information provided in the Entity and Reporting Characteristics consists of two parts:

Entity characteristics: Identifies the reporting entity's characteristics that remain constant across different reporting periods (year-on-year).

Reporting characteristics: Describe the entity, define the reporting scope for the current reporting year and determines the structure of the Assessment submission.

Note that none of the indicators in the Entity & Reporting Characteristics is scored.

Entity Characteristics

2020 Indicator

Intent

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

Requirements

Complete all applicable fields.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

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

Intent

Describe the ownership status and structure of the participating entity.

Requirements

Ownership:Select the nature of ownership of the participating entity. The nature of ownership aligns with the EDHECinfra™ TICCS™ classification for “Business Risk”.

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

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

Terminology

Government entity: An entity owned and managed by the government.

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

Private entity: An entity that is not publicly listed or traded on a recognized stock exchange.

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

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

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

References

EDHECInfra - The Infrastructure Company Classification Standard (TICCS™), 2020

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

Intent

Establish the age of the entity.

Requirements

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

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

If the entity is still under construction (sometimes known as a greenfield asset), the expected year that operations will commence should be given.

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response carefully.

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to set the entity’s annual reporting year. This information is used in combination with the responses to the indicators Sector & Geography (RC3) and Ancillary Activities (RC4) to understand the entity’s reporting boundary.

Requirements

Calendar year:Select the reporting year approach that applies to the entity.

The table below details the period for which information throughout the Assessment would be expected, for a selected starting month:

Starting monthReporting Year
JanuarySelect "Calendar Year"
FebruaryFeb 2020 - Jan 2021
MarchMar 2020 - Feb 2021
AprilApr 2020 - Mar 2021
MayMay 2020 - Apr 2021
JuneJun 2020 - May 2021
JulyJul 2019 - Jun 2020
AugustAug 2019 - Jul 2020
SeptemberSept 2019 - Aug 2020
OctoberOct 2019 - Sept 2020
NovemberNov 2019 - Oct 2020
DecemberDec 2019 - Nov 2020

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

Calendar year: January 1 – December 31.

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

Reporting year: Answers must refer to the reporting year identified in EC4 (Reporting year) in the Infrastructure Assessment. A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting period; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting year. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or viceversa, as long as the chosen reporting year is used consistently throughout the Assessment.

Reporting Characteristics

2020 Indicator

Intent

Indicate which currency is used by the Entity to report monetary values in the Assessment.

Requirements

Currency: Select the currency used by the entity in their reporting throughout the Assessment.

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

Establish the economic size and number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workers of the entity. GAV and revenue are information used (as denominators) to calculate intensity performance metrics in the Performance Component. The number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workers and contractors influence materiality (see guidance in RC7 and the GRESB Materiality Tool for more details).

The number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workers and contractors influence materiality (see guidance in RC7 and the

GRESB Materiality Matrix for more details).

Requirements

GAV and revenue: Provide the entity’s GAV and revenue, both in millions (e.g. $75,000,000 must be reported as 75). GAV should be provided as at the end of the reporting year, and should include development and construction projects (if any). Revenue should be for the reporting year as stated in EC4.

It is mandatory to provide both the GAV and revenue. Estimates are acceptable (for example, annual operating costs may be used instead of revenue). Like all information provided to GRESB, this information will be kept confidential and is only shared with investors to whom you have granted permission. The information provided will be used to calculate intensities for certain indicators in the Performance Component.

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

Workers: Provide the number of full time equivalent (FTE) workers of the asset, split into employees and contractors. Entities should determine whether workers classify as employees or contractors; as approaches may differ by locality or jurisdiction, GRESB purposefully leaves the exact distinction up to the asset. In general, though:

  • Employees are the workers working for and employed directly by the asset
  • Contractors are people working for another business (or are self-employed) and are contracted by the asset

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

Contractor: Someone working for a business contracted by the asset to perform a service or other works at or for the asset.

Employee: Someone who works directly for the asset and receives compensation in the form of an hourly wage or annual salary for their work. This can be both onsite or offsite (such as in an administration office). Employers typically have to pay specific benefits such as contributions to pensions or taxes for employees. Employees may be either full time or part time and may operate on a short term contract.

FTE: Full Time Equivalent, a unit to measure the number of employed persons to make them comparable regardless of the number of working hours. FTE can be calculated by comparing the number of hours worked by an employee against the average number of hours of a full time worker. For example, if the number of hours worked by an employee in a week is 20, and the standard full time work week consists of 40 hours, the employee is counted as 0.5 FTE.

Gross Asset Value (GAV): The gross infrastructure value owned by the entity being the enterprise value associated with the infrastructure asset. Use of the 'tangible fixed assets' or 'property, plant and equipment' value may be a suitable estimate if enterprise value is not known.

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

Worker: Workers include both employees and contractors, and the number of workers is the sum of employees plus contractors.

Intent

Describe the sectors and locations of the facility or facilities that comprise the asset. This information is used for materiality-based scoring and to determine peers for benchmarking and reporting purposes. It is also used in combination with the Ancillary Activities (RC4) and Reporting Year (EC4) descriptions to describe the entity’s reporting boundary.

Requirements

List all significant facilities that comprise the asset and complete details for each as follows:

  • Weight GAV: Assign a weight to each facility based on the actual or estimated proportion to the total asset GAV. The total weights of facilities must sum to 100%.
  • Country: Select from the list of countries (aligned to the UN Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use).
  • Address: Enter the address of the facility including the number, street, town/city, and region/state. Suggestions will appear in a drop down menu, select the address that applies. Latitude and longitude coordinates will be automatically pre-filled if the address is valid. If the typed address is not found, provide an approximate location (e.g: street name) or enter the latitude and longitude coordinates in the next field.
  • Latitude and Longitude Coordinates: Enter the latitude and longitude of the facility in the relevant fields. The address coordinates will automatically pre-fill based on the address reported. Coordinates should be provided in decimal degrees.
  • Sector: Select the appropriate sector by selecting an option from the drop down list or entering by typing a keyword. Only list the facility’s core sector (its main infrastructure service). If there is more than one core sector for the facility,consider splitting it up into multiple facilities with one core sector per facility. The full list of sectors aligns to the EDHECInfra TICCS™ standard Industrial Classifications and the EU taxonomy and is provided in Appendix 3.
  • Other:For sectors that do not appear in the drop-down list, “Other” can be selected.
  • Lifecycle stage:select whether the facility is in operation or development
  • Reporting boundaries:Select whether the facility is included in the entity’s reporting boundaries.

It is up to the participant to determine the best structure for reporting of facilities since they have the best understanding of their facilities. Multiple small facilities may be grouped into a facility network or similar, particularly if the core sector is the same for the grouped facilities. For example, a network of wastewater pipelines and pumping stations might be grouped into a single sewerage pipe network. Another grouped facility might be a group of rooftop solar installations within a certain region or country.

Please note that the selected structure may affect your peer grouping based on the outcome of the primary sector and location.

Primary Sector: The asset’s primary sector is determined by the facility table, based on the reported sector(s) of the Asset’s facilities. Assets are assigned a primary sector at the subclass, class or superclass level, according to the following logic:

  • Subclass: If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single subclass, the Asset’s primary sector will be that subclass;
  • Class: If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single class, the Asset’s primary sector will be that class;
  • Superclass If 75% or more of the facilities belong to a single superclass, the Asset’s primary sector will be that superclass.
  • Diversified If less than 75% of facilities fall into a single superclass, the Asset’s sector will be ‘Diversified’.

Primary Location: Similarly, the primary location is determined based on the location(s) of its facilities. Assets are assigned a primary location at the country, subregion, region or global level, according to the following logic:

Similarly, the primary location is determined based on the mix of facility locations, using a three-tier system as follows:

  • Country: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single country, the Asset’s primary location is that country;;
  • Subregion: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single subregion, the Asset’s primary location is that subregion;
  • Region: If 59% or more of the facilities are located in a single region, the Asset’s primary location is that region;
  • Global: If less than 59% of the Asset’s facilities are located in a single region, the Asset’s primary location will be listed as ‘Globally diversified’

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

This information will be used to identify peers from the same or similar sectors and locations. Additionally, the Asset’s primary sector and primary location determine materiality outcomes for certain ESG issues and scoring (see RC7 for more details).

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

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

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

In development: The facility is under development and is not yet ‘in operation’. Typically ‘in development’ means the facility is in the planning, design or construction stages.

In operation: The facility is providing its core service (output) and has commenced earning revenue.

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

References

EDHECInfra - The Infrastructure Company Classification Standards (TICCS™), 2020

UN - Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49)

Intent

Describe the ancillary activities engaged in by the entity. This information is used in combination with the Sector & Geography (RC3) and Reporting Year (EC4) descriptions to describe the entity’s reporting boundary.

Requirements

Significant activities: Select all significant activities engaged in by the entity, outside of its main activity. Insignificant activities typically make up less than 1% of the entity’s budget, resourcing or revenue, so excluding them from ESG reporting still provides a complete picture to stakeholders.

Activities in reporting boundaries: Select all of the ancillary activities that are included within the boundary of ESG reporting of the entity. This must be a sub-set (or all) of the activities listed in the previous section (in other words only select from the activities that were selected in the previous list).

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

  • Select all significant activities engaged in by the entity, outside of its main activity. Insignificant activities typically make up less than 1% of the entity’s budget, resourcing or revenue, so excluding them from ESG reporting still provides a complete picture to stakeholders.
  • Select all of the ancillary activities that are included within the boundary of ESG reporting of the entity. This must be a sub-set (or all) of the activities listed in the previous section (in other words only select from the activities that were selected in the previous list).

Terminology

Ancillary activity: The activities engaged in by the entity that allow it to provide its core service but are not its main activity.

Main activity: The activity engaged in by the entity that are associated with its sector and the core service that the entity provides.

References

Infrastructure as an asset class, Second edition, by Barbara Weber, Mirjam Staub-Bisang and Hans Wilhelm Alfen, 2016.

Intent

Describe the structure and business risk of the participating entity. The scope of service of the entity influences materiality (see guidance in RC7 and the

GRESB Materiality Toolfor more details).

Requirements

Structure: Select whether the entity’s structure is that of a Corporate, a Special Purpose Vehicle or some other structure (if so, then please describe).

Business Risk (Revenue basis): Select the most significant business risks (or revenue basis) borne by the entity being Merchant, Concessionary/Contracted, Regulated, or Other. More than one selection (i.e. a combination) is allowed. This aligns with the EDHECinfra™TICCS™ classification for Business Risk. Multiple answers are possible. For ‘Other’ answer, describe the business risk borne.

Scope of Service: Select whether the entity provides associated services in addition to providing the asset itself. The associated services may be Asset Maintenance and/or Asset Operation. This section then determines whether the Scope of Service provided by the entity is:

  • Asset provision
  • Asset provision and maintenance
  • Asset provision and operation
  • Asset provision, maintenance and operation.

This information is used for materiality-based scoring and to determine the entity’s peer group for benchmarking and reporting purposes.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

Corporate: A corporate structure is that of a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations have limited liability, which means that shareholders may take part in the profits through dividends and stock appreciation but are not personally liable for the company's debts.

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

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

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

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

References

EDHECInfra - The Infrastructure Company Classification Standards (TICCS™), 2020

IPWEA, International Infrastructure Management Manual, 2015

Intent

Provide a description and image of the entity that may be used for marketing and/or communication purposes.

Requirements

Description The description may include:

  • Purpose of the entity's operations;
  • The service(s) provided by the asset
  • Ownership and governance
  • Market position of the entity
  • Link to website

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

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: Removed upload of entity’s logo.

Not scored

Intent

Infrastructure is a diverse asset class, where the relevance (materiality) of ESG issues can vary between assets due to a range of factors. The intent of this indicator is to determine the materiality of a range of ESG issues covered by the GRESB Assessment. Once this indicator is completed, the entity will see an overview of the ESG issues covered within the GRESB Assessment and their materiality outcome.

Requirements

It is mandatory to complete the GRESB Materiality Assessment as it affects the materiality-based scoring applied in this Assessment.

Materiality questions: Complete the list of questions. The response to these, along with responses to other indicators in the Entity Characteristics and Reporting Characteristics will determine the entity-specific materiality weighting for all ESG issues covered within the GRESB Asset Assessment, which will be displayed at the bottom of this indicator in the portal.

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity based on fifteen materiality factors:

  • Number of employees (from RC2);
  • Number of contractors (from RC2);
  • Primary sector (from RC3);
  • Primary location (from RC3;
  • Scope of Service (from EC2);
  • Biodiversity and Habitat (this indicator, RC7);
  • Contaminated land (this indicator, RC7);
  • Resilience (this indicator, RC7);
  • Water inflows / withdrawals (this indicator, RC7);
  • Water outflows / discharges (this indicator, RC7);
  • Light pollution (this indicator, RC7);
  • Noise pollution (this indicator, RC7);
  • Number of customers (this indicator, RC7);
  • Number of users (this indicator, RC7);

Scoring weightings are assigned to ESG issues at one of four possible materiality levels, which directly translate to a scoring weighting in the Assessment:

  • No relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Low relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
  • High relevance (weighting: 2)

These entity-specific weightings are used in several indicators for scoring. Scoring details are provided within the guidance of each relevant indicator.

For more details refer to the section on ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide or download the Materiality Tool.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: “Physical risk” has been added as a new issue, therefore a question to determine the materiality of this issue has been added. This replaces a question on resilience and adaptation to climate change. The thresholds for high and low water withdrawals have been amended to simplify reporting.

Terminology

Factor Question Answers Guidance
Primary Sector (RC3) See Materiality and Scoring Tool See

GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool:

See the guidance for RC3 (Sector & Geography) on how the primary sector is determined.
Primary Location (RC3) Is the entity's Primary Location in developed countries, developing countries or mixed? Developed Developed countries are Japan, Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and Europe. See RC3 for more details.
Developing Developing countries are any that are not developed.
Mixed Mixed means that the entity is located in locations that are a mix of developed and developing countries.
Biodiversity and habitat What is the entity's proximity to ecological habitat? Containing,overlapping,adjacent Ecological habitat means terrestrial or aquatic areas distinguished by geographic, abiotic and biotic features, whether entirely natural or semi-naturale.g. as per the classifications in

Annex I of the EU Habitat Directive.

The distance should be measured as the closest point of any part of the asset to any part of an ecological habitat. Adjacent means directly bordering or where habitat is within the asset facility boundary.
Close (<100m)
Asset provision and operation
Contaminated Land Does the entity have contamination on site? Yes Contaminated land contains substances that are causing or could cause (a) significant harm to people, property or protected species; or (b) significant pollution of surface waters (for example lakes and rivers) or groundwater. Land contamination can result from a variety of intended, accidental, or naturally occurring activities and events such as manufacturing, mineral extraction, abandonment of mines, national defense activities, waste disposal, accidental spills, illegal dumping, leaking underground storage tanks, hurricanes, floods, pesticide use, and fertilizer application.
No
Physical risk (climate driven and otherwise) Is the entity located in an area exposed to climate-related phenomena or natural catastrophes? Yes, the entity is exposed The location (any part of the current asset area) has been and/or could be affected by physical risks.
Yes, but only the surrounding area is exposed The surrounding area (10km radius) has been and/or could be affected by physical risks.
No No part of the asset or surrounding areas has been or could be affected by physical risks.
Water inflows/withdrawals What is the scale of the entity's water use/withdrawal and scarcity of water in the location? High (Greater than 1000 Megaliters) water withdrawals in location with high water stress High withdrawals means greater than 1000 MegalitersHigh water stress means High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct.

Medium/Low consumption means less than 1000 Megaliters Low water stress means not High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct.
High (Greater than 1000 Megaliters ) water withdrawals in locations with low water stress
Low (Lower than 1000 Megaliters ) water withdrawals in locations with high water stress
Low (Lower than 1000 Megaliters) water withdrawals 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 Risk of pollution means there are measurable pollutants in the discharge that if their levels were elevated could cause negative impact.

High water stress means High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct.
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 Densely populated means greater than 2000 people per square kilometer.
Yes but the location is not densely populated
No
Noise pollution Does the entity emit noise externally? Yes and the location is densely populated Densely populated means greater than 2000 people per square kilometer.
Yes but the location is not densely populated
No
Number of customers What is the number of customers? >100 Customers are people or organisations that purchase the service(s) provided by the asset. This can include business (B2B) and retail customers.
10-100
<10
Number of users What is the number of users that physically interact with the asset? >1000 Users are people that interact physically with the asset when they use its services.Interaction means using one or more of their physical senses e.g. a mass transit passenger service. There is typically a safety risk associated with the users physical interaction.
100-1000
10-100
<10
Number of employees (RC) What is the number of FTE employees? >100 Employees are the workers working for and employed directly by the asset.

(FTE) Full Time Equivalent of the entity's employees. FTE is calculated by adding all hours paid to employees (full-time, part-time, or any other) and dividing them by the number of hours that a full-time employee should work in that given period.
20-100
<20
0
Number of contractors (RC) What is the number of FTE contractors? >100 (Contractors are people working for another business (or are self-employed) and are contracted by the asset.

FTE) Full Time Equivalent of the entity's contractors FTE is calculated by adding all hours paid to contractors(full-time, part-time, or any other) and dividing them by the number of hours that a full-time contractor should work in that given period.
10-100
<20
0
Number of workers (RC) calculated What is the number of FTE workers (employees and contractors)? 100
20-100
<20
(FTE) Full Time Equivalent of the entity's employees and contractors
FTE is calculated by adding all hours paid to workers (full-time, part-time, or any other) and dividing them by the number of hours that a full-time workers should work in that given period.
Number of employees and scope of service (RC5) What is the entity's number of employees and scope of service? Number of employees >100 - Asset provision (FTE) Full Time Equivalent of the entity's employees combined with its scope of service (see RC5).
Number of employees >100 - Asset provision and maintenance
Number of employees >100 - Asset provision and operation
Number of employees >100 - Asset provision, maintenance and operation
Number of employees 20-100 -Asset provision
Number of employees 20-100 - Asset provision and maintenance
Number of employees 20-100 - Asset provision and operation
Number of employees 20-100 - Asset provision, maintenance and operation
Number of employees <20 - Asset provision
Number of employees <20 - Asset provision and operation
Number of employees <20 - Asset provision, maintenance and operation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary sector: The main infrastructure sector of the entity as provided in RC3 ("Sector & geography").

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

References

Columbia University/NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center’s (SEDAC) Gridded Population of the World (GPW), v4

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2013)

Eurostat Glossary - Coastal area 2018

UK Environmental Protection Act

United Nations Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49)

World Resources Institute - Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas

Alignment with External Frameworks

DSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.2 Materiality

GRI Standards 2016 - 101-1.3: The Materiality Principle

Management: Leadership

This aspect evaluates how the Entity integrates ESG into its overall business strategy, its ESG commitments and objectives, and how responsibilities for making decisions relating to ESG have been assigned within the entity.

Leadership

2020 Indicator

1.44 points , G

Intent

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

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Materiality assessment: Note that this is in regards with the entity’s own ESG materiality assessment, separate from the GRESB materiality assessment in RC7.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2020 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2020 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required. Points are evenly divided between the selected elements, with maximum points awarded if all checkboxes have been selected.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

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

References

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

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.2 Materiality

GRI Standards 2016 - 101-1.3: The Materiality Principle

Not scored , G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity's commitment(s) to ESG leadership standards or principles. By making a commitment to ESG leadership standards or principles, an entity publicly demonstrates its commitment to ESG, uses organizational standards and/or frameworks that are universally accepted and may have obligations to comply with the standards and/or frameworks.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Commitments:All commitments should be publicly available, and the entity should be either a member or signatory if it selects an option. The commitments are divided between those that require action to be taken by the entity and those that don’t.

It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: New commitments have been added to the checklist options. For more information on these commitments, see the ‘Terminology’ section within the guidance for this indicator.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Scoring

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

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

30% Club:

A campaign group of Chairs and CEOs taking action to increase gender diversity on boards and senior management teams.

Business for Nature:

Business for Nature is a global coalition that brings together business and conservation organizations and forward-thinking companies. The goal is to demonstrate credible business leadership on nature and amplify a powerful leading business voice calling for governments to adopt policies now to reverse nature loss this decade.

Climate League 2030:

Climate League 2030 is a ten-year, private sector-focused initiative to support and act towards a goal of reducing Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by at least a further 230 million tonnes from what is projected for 2030.

EV100:

A global initiative bringing together forward looking companies committed to accelerating the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) and making electric transport the new normal by 2030.

RE100:

RE100 is a global initiative uniting businesses committed to 100% renewable electricity, working to massively increase demand for and delivery of renewable energy. RE100 is convened by The Climate Group in partnership with CDP.

Powering PastCoal Alliance (PPCA):

A coalition of countries, states and business working towards the global phase-out of unabated coal power.

Science Based Targets Initiative:

The initiative is a collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) which has a goal of enabling companies setting science based targets to reduce GHG emissions.

Support the Goals:

An initiative to rate and recognise the businesses that support the UN Global Goals.

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures:

The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures will develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies in providing information to investors, lenders, insurers, and other stakeholders.

Transform to Net Zero:

Aims to deliver guidance and business plans to enable a transformation to net zero emissions, as well as research, advocacy, and best practices to make it easier for the private sector to not only set ambitious goals–but also deliver meaningful emissions reductions and economic success.

The Responsible Labor Initiative (RLI):

A multi-industry, multi-stakeholder collaboration stemming out of the forced labor commitments and programs of the Responsible Business Alliance (RBA), formerly the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC).

UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge

A pledge representing a group of signatory companies and governments taking the lead on reducing emissions and accelerating the global journey to a climate-neutral future.

UN Global Compact:

The UN Global Compact is a voluntary initiative based on CEO commitments to implement universal sustainability principles and to take steps to support UN goals.

UN Global Compact Our Only Future:

A global movement of leading companies aligning their businesses with the most ambitious aim of the Paris Agreement, to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Call to Action:

A global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world and helping member companies become more successful and sustainable by focusing on the maximum positive impact for shareholders, the environment and societies.

WorldGBC’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment:

The Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment (the Commitment) challenges companies, cities, states and regions to reach Net Zero operating emissions in their portfolios by 2030, and to advocate for all buildings to be Net Zero in operation by 2050.

Objectives

2020 Indicator

2.84 points , G

Intent

Clear Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) objectives help participants identify material issues and integrate them into overall day-to-day management practices. This fosters alignment between management of sustainability issues and the overall strategy of the entity and demonstrates commitment to monitoring and improving ESG performance.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Objectives Indicate whether the objectives are publicly available or not. Publicly available means, in this context, that any person would be able to access the information, for example through a website or open-source report.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence provided will be subject to manual validation.

Evidence:

Hyperlink:Providing a hyperlink is mandatory for this indicator when ‘publicly available’ is selected. Ensure that the hyperlink is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. The URL should demonstrate the existence of the publicly available objective(s) selected

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

The evidence must sufficiently support all the items selected for this question and cover the following elements:

  • Specific, actionable ESG objective(s) that relate to each of the selected criteria (i.e. Evidence of implementation or formal adoption of the objectives).
  • Public availability of the objectives (if applicable).

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

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.

Section 1:Fractional points are awarded to each objective type and then aggregated to calculate the final fractional score. It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator. The objectives are not assigned equal weights, with non-publicly available objectives scoring lower.

Section 2:‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Formally adopted: To set and communicate a strategy/target/program, at least internally, and having implemented or prepared actions to achieve this.

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

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

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

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

References

DISO14001: Environmental Management

UNPRI, PRI Reporting Framework, 2018

1.44 points , G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to identify how the entity has allocated responsibilities for the management of ESG issues and climate-related risk and opportunities. Having personnel dedicated to ESG issues and climate-related risks and opportunities increases the likelihood that the Entity’s objectives and performance on these topics will be properly managed.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select all options that apply to the entity.

Details of employee: Participants must provide the name and job title of the relevant employee. This information will be used for reporting purposes only. If a responsibility is shared within a team, provide the details of the most senior person within that team or the person who carries the most responsibility.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: Climate-related risks and opportunities have been added to this indicator as part of the integration of the Resilience Module.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Points are awarded based on the selected elements, with some options receiving more points. Selecting all checkboxes is not required in order to score maximum points.

The "climate-related risks and opportunities" elements of this indicator are not scored and are for reporting purposes only.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

ESG objectives: Strategic priorities and key topics for the management and/or improvement of ESG issues.

Investment partners (co-investor/JV partners): A General Partner that co-owns and operates (part of) the entity’s assets and is responsible for implementing ESG objectives at asset level.

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

References

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

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-20: Executive-level responsibility for economic, environmental, and social topics

1.44 points , G

Intent

The presence of senior management dedicated to ESG issues and climate-related risks and opportunities increases the likelihood that objectives on these topics will be met. A structured process to keep the most senior decision-maker informed on the entity’s ESG performance increases accountability and encourages continuous improvement.

Requirements

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

Senior decision-maker: The entity’s most senior decision-maker on ESG issues and/or climate-related risks and opportunities is expected to be actively involved in the process of defining the objectives relating to the topic(s) and should approve associated strategic decisions regarding ESG issues and/or climate-related risks and opportunities. This person can be the same as the individual identified in LE3. It is also possible to list the same person for ESG issues and climate-related risks and opportunities. The employee details provided will be used for reporting purposes only.

Role of the senior decision-maker: Select one option from the list of bodies that the senior decision-maker is part of. If multiple options apply, select the body that bears the highest level of responsibility. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: Climate-related risks and opportunities have been added to this indicator as part of the integration of the Resilience Module.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Points are evenly divided between the selected elements. Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If you have multiple ‘other’ answers accepted, only one will be counted towards the score.

The "climate-related risks and opportunities" elements of this indicator are not scored and are for reporting purposes only.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of investments at asset level.

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

C-suite level staff: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. C-suite level staff are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as senior management, executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

ESG strategy: Strategy that (1) sets out the participant’s procedures and (2) sets the direction and guidance for the entity’s implementation of ESG measures.

Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of investments and the deployment of investor capital by creating and implementing asset level strategies across the entire portfolio or fund.

Investment Committee: A group of individuals who oversee the entity’s investment strategy, evaluates investment proposals and maintains the investment policies, subject to the Board’s approval.

Person accountable: A person with sign off (approval) authority over the deliverable task, project or strategy. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.

Senior decision-maker accountable for ESG issues: A senior individual with sign off (approval) authority for approving strategic ESG objectives and steps undertaken to achieve these objectives. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.

References

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

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Climate Change 2020 - C1 Governance

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-20: Executive-level responsibility for economic, environmental, and social topics

2.84 points , G

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Financial and non-financial consequences: Select from the available sub-options. Financial consequences are any consequences that relate to monetary impacts, non-financial consequences relate to non-monetary effects. For good practice examples, see the ‘References’ section below.

It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Document upload: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

  • Existence of employee performance targets on ESG related issues specific for each of the selected personnel groups.
  • Clearly demonstrated financial and/or non-financial consequences for the selected personnel group(s).
  • Performance targets must apply to all members of the selected personnel group(s). If the target relates to a single employee, that employee should be listed as an “Other”.

Examples of appropriate evidence include:

  • Official documents from the entity describing rewards, penalties, or support associated with specific ESG-related targets.
  • Examples of financial consequence include employee KPI and bonus schemes. Examples of non financial consequences include targets being covered in performance reviews, 'employee of the month' awards and recognition schemes.


See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.

Section 1:Fractional points are awarded based on the type of consequence and the selected employee group(s) and then aggregated to calculate the final fractional score. It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator. The employee groups are not assigned equal weights. If an ‘other’ answer has been provided, this will be eligible for a fractional score (depending on validation status).

Section 2:‘‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If you have multiple ‘other’ answers accepted, only one will be counted towards the score.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Annual performance targets: Targets set in annual performance reviews based on assessments of employee performance.

Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of investments at asset level.

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

C-suite level staff: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. C-suite level staff are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as senior management, executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

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

ESG manager: A person or a group who manages the ESG strategy and implementation of the entity.

External manager or service provider: Organizations, businesses or individuals that offer services to others in exchange for payment. These include, but are not limited to, consultants, agents and brokers.

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

Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of investments and the deployment of investor capital by creating and implementing asset level strategies across the entire portfolio or fund.

Investment analysts: A person or group with expertise in evaluating financial and investment information, typically for the purpose of making buy, sell and hold recommendations for securities.

Investment Committee: A group of individuals who oversee the entity’s investment strategy, evaluates investment proposals and maintains the investment policies, subject to the Board’s approval.

Investor relations: A person or a group that provides investors with an accurate account of company affairs so investors can make better informed decisions.

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

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Climate Change 2020 - C1.3 Employee Incentives

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 4.2.1 Management Incentives

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-35: Remuneration policies

Management: Policies

This aspect covers the scope of the entity’s policies on environmental, social and governance issues.

Policies

2020 Indicator

1.44 points , E

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material environmental issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s policy / policies. The policy or policies must exist and be valid during the reporting year provided in EC4. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: “Resilience to catastrophe/disaster” and “Climate/climate change” have been merged into a new issue, “Physical risk”.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

  1. Existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected environmental issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.
  2. Examples of appropriate evidence include relevant policies explicitly addressing selected issues such as a social policy, code of conduct, employee health and wellbeing policy and/or human rights policy.

Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place, such as an environmental policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's environmental policy(ies). References such as bullet points or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.

Section 1: For section 1 of the indicator, fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

  1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
  2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve a fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

  • No relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Low relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
  • High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Air pollution: Air pollutants are particles and gases released into the atmosphere that may adversely affect living organisms. Additionally, some pollutants contribute to climate change or exacerbate the effects of climate change locally.

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

Contaminated land:: Land that contains substances in or under it that are actually or potentially hazardous to human health or the environment.

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

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

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

Hazardous substances: Any substance or chemical which is a "health hazard" or "physical hazard," including: chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable-reactive or water-reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have any of the previously mentioned characteristics. (Full definitions can be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200.) Ref US OSHA's definition includes any substance or chemical which is a "health hazard" or "physical hazard," including: chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable-reactive or water-reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have any of the previously mentioned characteristics. (Full definitions can be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200.)

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

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

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

Physical Risk: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of physical hazards, natural disasters, catastrophes, as well as physical climate-related hazards, which may be event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). The physical risk associated with a particular real asset may be described in terms of elements including hazard exposure, sensitivity, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity.

Decreasing the sensitivity of an asset to particular physical risks, increasing its adaptive capacity, and planning are all ways of increasing the resilience of the built environment against physical risks, climate-driven or otherwise. In practice, these objectives may be promoted by various actions including the establishment of appropriate management policies; the utilisation of informational technologies for disaster response; the education of employees, the community, and suppliers; and implementing physical measures at the asset level.

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

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

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

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) or to third-parties for treatment or use.

References

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2016 - 103-2: The management approach and its components

GRI Standards 2016 - 300 series: Environmental Standards

1.44 points , S

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material social issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s policy / policies. The policy or policies must exist and be valid during the reporting year provided in EC4. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

  1. Existence ofDemonstrate that there is a formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected social issues in place and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.
  2. Examples of appropriate evidence include relevant policies explicitly addressing selected issues such as a social policy, code of conduct, employee health and wellbeing policy and/or human rights policy.

Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as a social policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's social policy(ies). References, such as bullets or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.

Section 1: For section 1 of the indicator, fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

  1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
  2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve a fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

  • No relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Low relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
  • High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Community development: A process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local employment: Providing jobs and skills to local people as employees, and to local contractors.

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

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

Stakeholder relations: The practice of forging mutually beneficial connections with third-party groups and individuals that have a stake in common interest.

References

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2016 - 103-2: The management approach and its components

GRI Standards 2016 - 400 series: Social Standards

1.44 points , G

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material governance issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s policy / policies. The policy or policies must exist and be valid during the reporting year provided in EC4. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

  1. Existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected governance issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.
  2. Examples of appropriate evidence include relevant policies explicitly addressing selected issues such as a governance policy, code of conduct, Board charter, shareholders agreement, privacy policy or cybersecurity policy.

Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place, such as a governance policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's governance policy(ies). References, such as bullets or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.

Section 1: For section 1 of the indicator, fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

  1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
  2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve a fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

  • No relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Low relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
  • High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

Board ESG oversight: The highest committee or position that formally reviews and approves the organization’s sustainability report and ensures that all material topics are covered.

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

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving or soliciting an item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal fiduciary duty.

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

Conflicts of interest: Situations where an individual is confronted with choosing between the requirements of his or her function and his or her own private interests.

Corruption: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain. Policies should be consistent with the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

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

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

Delegating authority: The process for delegating authority for economic, environmental, and social topics from the highest governance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shareholder rights: Assessing the potential risk of breaking or working against the entity’s contractual shareholder rights. Shareholder rights are defined in the company’s charter and bylaws.

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

References

Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK and Australia), 2012

Good practice example: Please refer to this link.

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2016 - 103-2: The management approach and its components

GRI Standards 2016 - 200 series: Economic Standards

Management: Reporting

Institutional investors and other shareholders are primary drivers for greater sustainability reporting and disclosure among investable entities. Real estate companies and managers share how ESG management practices performance impacts the business through formal disclosure mechanisms.

This aspect evaluates how the entity communicates its ESG actions and/or performance.

Reporting

2020 Indicator

2.84 points , G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the level of ESG disclosure undertaken by the entity. It also evaluates the entity’s use of third-party review to ensure the reliability, integrity, and accuracy of ESG disclosure. Reporting of ESG information and performance demonstrates an entity’s transparency in explaining how ESG policies and management practices are implemented by the entity, and how these practices impact the business and may form an important part of the entity’s communication to external stakeholders In addition, third-party ESG disclosure review increases investors’ confidence in the information disclosed.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

p>Reporting type: The entity should select the appropriate reporting type.

  • Integrated reports are any report aligned to the framework of the IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council). Integrated reports can reference 2020, 2019, or 2018 performance and/or actions.
  • Annual Reports must reference actions and/or performance from the reporting year. An Annual Report that doesn’t overlap with the reporting year as stated in EC4 is only valid if a more recent report hasn’t yet been published.
  • Standalone sustainability reports must be published separately from the Annual Report. If the entity intends to refer to a section in the Annual Report they should select ‘Annual Report’.
  • A dedicated section on the entity’s website should explicitly address ESG and include actions and/or performance.
  • Entity reporting to investors can for instance be a newsletter or press release, although it should cover ESG actions and performance. Additionally, the entity should indicate the frequency of reporting, for example, quarterly.
  • It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Select the applicable reporting level: If the entity reports at multiple levels, you should select the most detailed reporting level:

  • Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which you are submitting an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.
  • Group: Related to a group of companies of which the participating entity forms a part. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) covers the entity subject to the GRESB submission, but doesn’t include a breakdown at the entity level. An example is an Annual Report that does not include specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity itself, but rather for the larger group of companies as an aggregate.

Alignment with third-party standard: If applicable, select alignment from the dropdown lists to confirm that your method of reporting is aligned with an external standard or guideline, for example, GRI reporting. The list is based on leading international best practice guides for sustainability reporting. If reporting is aligned with more than one standard, select the standard with which there is most alignment.

Third-party review: State whether the methods of reporting are checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the disclosure was subject to).

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the reporting in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the reporting against an existing methodology or guideline. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the reporting against an existing methodology or guideline. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

If selecting ‘externally verified’ or ‘externally assured’, select alignment from the dropdown lists to confirm that your method of reporting is aligned with a third-party standard. The list is based on leading international best practice guides for sustainability reporting. If reporting is aligned to more than one standard, select the standard with which there is most alignment.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a disclosure method that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option selected. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found. A piece of supporting evidence document or URL cannot be uploaded for more than one disclosure method selected, i.e., identical documents will not be accepted for more than one disclosure type.

General evidence requirements:

  1. All evidence must explicitly address ESG and include actions and/or performance undertaken by the entity. In order for evidence to be accepted, it should cover at least two of the three pillars of ESG (i.e., environmental, social and/or governance). If it meets all other requirements but only one pillar is referenced, the evidence will be ‘partially accepted’.
  2. Answers must clearly reference the applicable reporting level. The ESG information and/or performance must be directly in reference to the entity if entity-level is chosen.
  3. The evidence provided must support the alignment chosen (if applicable). The evidence should have a clear mention of the alignment chosen.
  4. The evidence provided must support the selected level of third party review (if applicable). The assurance and/or verification of ESG disclosure is separate from the assurance and/or verification of performance data reported in the Performance Component. Supplementary evidence such as a letter can be provided if the disclosure itself does not include confirmation of review. The evidence relating to the check, verification, and/or assurance must be in reference to the uploaded disclosure method provided (i.e., Annual Report).

Evidence requirements IR report: The document upload or URL provided must contain clear evidence of alignment with the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework (December 2013). Integrated reports can reference 2020, 2019, or 2018 performance and/or actions.

Evidence requirements Annual Report: Annual Reports should cover the reporting year as described in EC4. Annual Reports from the prior reporting year detailing actions and/or performance are acceptable if it is explicitly stated that the Annual Report for the current reporting year has not yet been published. If an entity reports on a semi-annual basis, both semi-annual reports must be uploaded to cover the 12 months of reporting identified in EC4.

Evidence requirements Standalone sustainability report: Sustainability reports referencing the current or previous reporting year as described in EC4 are accepted.

Evidence requirements Dedicated section on corporate website: The webpage(s) must explicitly address ESG and include actions and/or performance undertaken by the entity during the reporting year as given in EC4. A hyperlink to the Annual Report or Sustainability report is not valid. In addition, a list of general goals and/or commitments on the website is not sufficient.

Evidence requirements Entity reporting to investors: A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach to sustainability that does not contain any analysis of performance is insufficient. Entity reporting to investors should include year-on-year comparison of sustainability performances supported by explanatory comments. Performance achievements should be linked to measures formerly implemented by the entity. Updates to investors provided after the reporting year may be valid, as long as the actions described apply to the reporting year (as indicated in EC4). Quarterly updates, newsletters, or press releases disclosing ESG actions and/or performance are considered valid. Entity reporting to investors must reference actions/performance of the entity itself, not solely its investment manager or group.

Evidence requirements ‘Other’:An additional disclosure method such as third-party forms of disclosure like 2020 CDP Questionnaires or 2020 UN PRI Transparency Reports is considered valid. Ensure applicability to the reporting year as provided in EC4 based on the actions and/or performance disclosed.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.

Section 1: For section 1 of the indicator, fractional points are awarded based on reporting level, alignment, and third party review. Disclosure methods are not equally scored. It is not necessary to select all reporting methods to receive maximum points. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be awarded fractional points.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

Assured/Verified: The process of checking data, as well as its collection methods and management systems, through a systematic, independent and documented process against predefined criteria or standards. Assurance/Verification services should be in line with a standard and can only be provided by accredited professionals.

Checked: A third-party review that does not comply with the definition of Assurance/Verification.

Dedicated section on corporate website: A section of the entity’s website that explicitly addresses ESG performance.

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

Entity reporting to investors: A report prepared by the participant for the purpose of informing investors on the ESG performance of the entity. A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach to ESG that does not contain any analysis of performance (as defined below) is insufficient.

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

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

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

Standalone sustainability report: A separately-issued report dedicated to the entity’s sustainability performance.

References

IIRC - Integrated Reporting Framework

UNPRI - PRI Reporting Framework



Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2016 - 102: General Disclosures

1.44 points , G

Intent

This indicator intends to identify whether the entity has a defined process in place to monitor and communicate any ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics to its stakeholders. The entity’s external communication process is one aspect of management controls necessary to provide investors with transparency about regulatory risks and liabilities. Recurring ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents can increase the risk profile of the entity as they can translate into reputational, compliance, and financial risks.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Prefill: This indicator is the same as the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants may use this open text box to provide additional detail on the process the entity follows to communicate ESG-related misconducts to its stakeholders.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded based on the selection of the elements. This indicator applies a diminishing increase in score approach, which means that the fractional score achieved for the first data point will be higher than the fractional score achieved for the second, which again will be higher than for the third, and so on. Also see the GRESB 2021 Asset Assessment Scoring Document.

Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: This indicator is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected. In the scoring document this is represented by the blue line.

NB: The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2021 Sector Leaders.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Codes of conduct/ethics: An agreement on rules of behaviour for the employees of the entity.

Controversy: Public allegation and/or litigation that could negatively impact the entity’s reputation.

ESG fines and/or penalties: Sanctions resulting from an illegal act or non-compliant behavior, which directly harms the environment and/or stakeholders of the entity.

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

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

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

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

References

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.1 Codes of Conduct

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.4 Systems/Procedures

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-17: Mechanisms for advice and concerns about ethics

GRI Standards 2016 - 205-2: Communication and training about anti-corruption policies and procedures

Not scored , G

Intent

This indicator intends to ensure the communication of any ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics to the reporting entity’s investor. Recurring misconducts and penalties can increase the risk profile of the portfolio as they impose financial, management and regulatory burdens on the entity.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options.

ESG incident occurrences: Any cases that are related to ESG incidents that occurred during the reporting year can be reported here. This may include both incidents for which the entity received a fine or other formal reprimand by a regulator, as well as incidents that were not formally penalized.

Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants may use this open text box to communicate on how the entity has resolved or intends to resolve the above issue(s).

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

NB: The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2021 Sector Leaders.

Terminology

ESG fines and/or penalties: Sanctions resulting from an illegal act or non-compliant behavior, which directly harms the environment and/or stakeholders of the entity.

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.6 Corruption and Bribery Cases

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.7 Reporting on Breaches

GRI Standards 2016 - 205-3: Confirmed incidents of corruption and actions taken

GRI Standards 2016 - 307: Environmental Compliance

GRI Standards 2016 - 419: Socioeconomic Compliance

Management: Risk Management

This aspect evaluates the steps undertaken to stay abreast of material ESG and climate-related risks.

Risk Management

2020 Indicator

2.84 points , G

Intent

This indicator assesses the entity’s use of management systems to manage environmental impacts, risks and opportunities. The presence and application of an ESG-related management standard or comparable framework is an indicator of an entity’s commitment to effectively action ESG issues.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Accreditations:: The entity should indicate whether it has certified its risk management system(s) to an external standard. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Alignment of management system: If the entity has aligned a management system against an external standard without formal accreditation, it can indicate so here. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Changes 2021: OHSAS 18001 replaced by ISO 45001 the new international standard for occupational health and safety.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a management system that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option selected. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

Accredited: If the entity’s management system is accredited by an independent third party to a selected standard, the evidence must include signed proof of the certification, which must state the name of the standard, as well as contact information of the independent third party, and the date of the most recent accreditation (certification). Accreditation must be valid at some time within the reporting period.

Aligned with a standard: If the Management System is aligned with a standard, the evidence must include the name the standard used for alignment and define the degree of alignment with the standard. Elements of the management system that align with the standard can be summarized, called out, highlighted, or shown in a diagram.

Not accredited or aligned: If the entity’s management system is not accredited to or aligned with a selected standard, the evidence must include a high level summary, outline or diagram of the implemented management system and/or evidence of implementation into the entity’s operations.

Other answers: Provide the name of the 'Other' recognized standard that has been certified to or aligned with. Standards that are not recognised will be subject to validation.

To qualify as valid, the evidence provided for an 'Other' answer must include:

  1. A high level outline or diagram of the implemented Management System with which the entity has attempted to align.
  2. A clear framework for managing an entity’s ESG impact.
  3. The applicability of the Management System at the entity level.
  4. The stages, elements and/or processes currently covered by the Management System.
  5. Evidence of implementation of the Management System into the entity’s operations.


See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.

Section 1: This section consists of three sub-sections: i.) accreditation to a management standard(s), ii.) alignment to a management standard(s) and iii.) management system with no accreditation. Fractional points are awarded based on selected accreditation or alignment to a management standard. See the GRESB 2021 Asset Assessment Scoring Document for more information. No fractional points are awarded for having a management system with no alignment to an ESG-related management standard. It is not necessary to select all reporting methods to receive maximum points. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be awarded fractional points.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: This indicator is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected. In the scoring document this is represented by the blue line.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Accreditation (Certified): Third-party recognition of meeting the requirements of a recognized standard.

Environmental Management System (EMS): A framework for managing an entity’s environmental impact based on its sustainability and related objectives. It covers environmental impacts, impact reduction targets and plans to achieve targeted reductions. An EMS can cover a wide range of environmental topics, including, but not limited to: energy, GHG emissions, water, waste, transportation, climate change, resilience, risks, and materials. An EMS may be certified to an external standard, such as ISO140001.

An EMS provides a practical framework for the assessment of environmental impacts, establishment of impact reduction targets, and the development of plans to achieve targeted reductions. An EMS enables an entity to take a structured approach to planning and implementing environmental protection measures.An effective EMS is analogous to a financial management system that monitors expenditure and income to support analysis of financial performance. An EMS can cover a wide range of environmental topics, including, but not limited to: energy, GHG emissions, water, waste, transportation, climate change, resilience, risks, and materials. It can also refer to a wide variety of internal procedures, targets, persons responsible for implementing these procedures and working towards achieving the entity’s objectives. In summary, an EMS is used to formalize the strategic approach of the entity towards ESG. It outlines the structure used to monitor and manage environmental topics.

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

ISO 14001:2015 Environmental Management System sets out the criteria for an environmental management system.

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

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

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

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

ISO 45001:2018 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems provides guidance to organisations to enable the provision of a safe and healthy workplace by preventing work-related injury and ill health, and by proactively improving their occupational health and safety performance.

References

ISO - International Organization for Standardization

Risk Assessments

2020 Indicator

2.84 points , E

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Elements of risk assessment process: Select one of the available options. These have been aligned with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Material environmental issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s risk assessment process(es). It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: The options that can be selected as elements of a risk assessment have been changed and are now listed as radio buttons (i.e., an entity can only select one instead of multiple). “Physical risk” has been added as an environmental issue, replacing “Climate/climate change adaptation” and “Resilience to catastrophe/disaster”.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence of the claimed risk assessment for each issue.

The provided evidence must include the following elements:

  • Confirm that an environmental risk assessment was conducted.
  • Contain all selected elements of the risk assessment process, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
  • Include all selected issues within the assessment, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
  • Relate to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting year identified in EC4.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • A document describing the entity’s environmental risk assessment procedure, process or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
  • Acceptable evidence may include a risk register or or a section of an environmental management plan or environmental impact assessment addressing environmental risks.

See below for an example of a risk register structure:

Risk identification Risk analysis Risk evaluation and treatment
Environemental issues Risk description Risk rating Mitigation measures
Likelihood Consequence Rating

The GRESB / B Capital Due Diligence tool (ESG DD Tool) contains such a register in the sheet named "ESG Risk & Opps Assessment"

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



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.

Section 1: For section 1 of the indicator, fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

  1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
  2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve a fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

  • No relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Low relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
  • High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Air pollution: Air pollutants are particles and gases released into the atmosphere that may adversely affect living organisms. Additionally, some pollutants contribute to climate change or exacerbate the effects of climate change locally.

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

Contaminated Land: Land that contains substances in or under it that are actually or potentially hazardous to human health or the environment.

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

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

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

Hazardous substances: Also known as dangerous goods. Any substances that can pose a health or physical hazard to humans or the environment, such as carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, combustibles or explosives.

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

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

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

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

Physical Risk: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of physical hazards, natural disasters, catastrophes, as well as physical climate-related hazards, which may be event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). The physical risk associated with a particular real asset may be described in terms of elements including hazard exposure, sensitivity, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity.

Decreasing the sensitivity of an asset to particular physical risks, increasing its adaptive capacity, and planning are all ways of increasing the resilience of the built environment against physical risks, climate-driven or otherwise. In practice, these objectives may be promoted by various actions including the establishment of appropriate management policies; the utilisation of informational technologies for disaster response; the education of employees, the community, and suppliers; and implementing physical measures at the asset level.

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

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) or to third-parties for treatment or use.

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

References

ISO 31000 Risk Management standard

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Climate Change 2020 - C2.1 Management Practices

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.3.3 Emerging Risks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.3.4 Risk Culture

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-29: Identifying and managing economic, environmental and social impacts

2.84 points , S

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Elements of risk assessment process: Select one of the available options. These have been aligned with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Material social issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s risk assessment process(es). It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: The options that can be selected as elements of a risk assessment have been changed and are now listed as radio buttons (i.e., an entity can only select one instead of multiple).

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence of the claimed risk assessment for each issue.

The provided evidence must include the following elements:

  • Confirm that an social risk assessment was conducted.
  • Contain all selected elements of the risk assessment process, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
  • Include all selected issues within the assessment, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
  • Relate to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting year identified in EC4.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • A document describing the entity’s social risk assessment procedure, process or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
  • Acceptable evidence may include a risk register or or a section of an social management plan or social impact assessment addressing social risks.

See below for an example of a risk register structure:

Risk identification Risk analysis Risk evaluation and treatment
Social issues Risk description Risk rating Mitigation measures
Likelihood Consequence Rating

The GRESB / B Capital Due Diligence tool (ESG DD Tool) contains such a register in the sheet named "ESG Risk & Opps Assessment"

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



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.

Section 1: For section 1 of the indicator, fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

  1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
  2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve a fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

  • No relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Low relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
  • High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Community development: A process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local employment: Providing jobs and skills to local people as employees, and to local contractors.

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

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

Stakeholder relations: The practice of forging mutually beneficial connections with third-party groups and individuals that have a stake in common interest.

References

ISO 31000 Risk Management standard

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.3.3 Emerging Risks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.3.4 Risk Culture

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-29: Identifying and managing economic, environmental and social impacts

2.84 points , G

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Elements of risk assessment process: Select one of the available options. These have been aligned with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Material governance issues: Select all issues that are covered by the entity’s risk assessment process(es). It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: The options that can be selected as elements of a risk assessment have been changed and are now listed as radio buttons (i.e., an entity can only select one instead of multiple)

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

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence of the claimed risk assessment for each issue.

The provided evidence must include the following elements:

  • Confirm that an governance risk assessment was conducted.
  • Contain all selected elements of the risk assessment process, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
  • Include all selected issues within the assessment, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
  • Relate to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting year identified in EC4.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

  • A document describing the entity’s governance risk assessment procedure, process or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
  • Acceptable evidence may include a risk register or or a section of an governance management plan or governance impact assessment addressing governance risks.

See below for an example of a risk register structure:

Risk identification Risk analysis Risk evaluation and treatment
Governance issues Risk description Risk rating Mitigation measures
Likelihood Consequence Rating

The GRESB / B Capital Due Diligence tool (ESG DD Tool) contains such a register in the sheet named "ESG Risk & Opps Assessment"

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



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator. Section 1 covers the checklist, i.e. the elements the entity has selected, and section 2 covers the evidence provided.

Section 1: For section 1 of the indicator, fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

  1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
  2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve a fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator. The validation status of the evidence (also see: ‘Validation’) affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

The aggregated score for the checkboxes selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

  • No relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Low relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
  • High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

Board ESG oversight: The highest committee or position that formally reviews and approves the organization’s sustainability report and ensures that all material topics are covered.

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

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving or soliciting an item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal fiduciary duty.

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

Conflicts of interest: Situations where an individual is confronted with choosing between the requirements of his or her function and his or her own private interests.

Corruption: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

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

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

Delegating authority: The process for delegating authority for economic, environmental, and social topics from the highest governance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shareholder rights: Assessing the potential risk of breaking or working against the entity’s contractual shareholder rights. Shareholder rights are defined in the company’s charter and bylaws.

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

References

ISO 31000 Risk Management standard

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.3.3 Emerging Risks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.3.4 Risk Culture

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-29: Identifying and managing economic, environmental and social impacts

Climate-related Risk Management

2020 Indicator

Not scored , G

Intent

The clear articulation of a strategy helps fund managers navigate risks and opportunities as they arise. Integrating an understanding of resilience to climate-related risks and opportunities into business strategy fosters alignment between the management of climate-related issues and the overall strategy of the entity. It is also important to communicate how the strategy would be able to handle scenarios in which the global economy transitions to become “lower-carbon”.

Additionally, an entity’s disclosure of how its strategies might change to address potential climate-related risks and opportunities is a key step to better understanding the potential implications of climate change on the entity.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants should use this open text box to communicate on:

  1. Description of how resilient the entity’s strategy is to climate-related risks and opportunities. The text should define “resilience” in the context of the entity. If applicable, explain how the entity’s strategy is operationalized into policies and management actions; where the entity’s strategy may be affected by climate-related risks and opportunities; and how its strategy might change to address such potential risks and opportunities;
  2. The consideration of the transition to a lower-carbon economy consistent with a 2°C or lower scenario and, where relevant to the organization, scenarios consistent with increased physical climate-related risks;
  3. Associated time horizon(s) considered.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Climate-related opportunities: The opportunities produced by efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, such as through resource efficiency and cost savings, the adoption and utilization of low-emission energy sources, the development of new products and services, and building resilience along the supply chain. Climate-related opportunities will vary depending on the region, market, and industry in which an organization operates

Climate-related risks: The risks associated with the potential negative impacts of climate change on an organization. These are generally categorized as either transition risks or physical risks. See Transition risks and Physical climate-related risks below.

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

Physical climate-related risks: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). Physical risks emanating from climate change can be event-driven (acute) such as increased severity of extreme weather events (e.g., cyclones, droughts, floods, and fires). They can also relate to longer-term shifts (chronic) in climatic patterns such as precipitation and temperature that affect entities. Participants who possess long-lived or fixed assets, operate in climate-sensitive regions, rely on water availability, or have value chains exposed to the aforementioned hazards, are likely to be exposed to physical climate-related risk.

Physical risk scenarios: Scenarios used in the exploration and assessment of physical climate risks. These scenarios can include projections of a host of climatic variables, including the frequency and severity of particular extreme weather events. Generally, these scenarios are linked to one of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The RCPs, adopted by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], have been used for analysis by ensembles of climate models and have become associated with particular climate targets. RCP2.6, which represents an atmospheric concentration profile ending at a radiative forcing of 2.6 watts per square meter at the year 2100, is associated with an atmospheric limit of 450 parts per million CO2‑equivalent, and is taken as satisfying a 2°C goal.

Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.

Transition risk scenarios: Scenarios that describe the evolution of the global economy to a lower-carbon state. These scenarios often describe the interactions between various sectors of the economy and link such interactions to wider narratives around the relative aggression of the transition to lower carbon economics. Commonly used transition risk scenarios include those produced by the IEA [International Energy Agency] including its Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS), Beyond 2 Degrees Scenario (B2DS), and Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario (NZE2050), the NGFS [Network for Greening the Financial System], and the Inevitable Policy Response’s Forecast Policy Scenario (FPS). Real Estate Participants might also use the CRREM decarbonization pathways. Infrastructure Participants might also use pathways from TPI [Transition Pathway Initiative] or those in line with the SBTi [Science Based Targets initiative].

2°C or lower scenario: A 2°C scenario is one in which the world is able to hold the increase in global average temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Such a scenario often entails a moderate to aggressive shift in the economy to a lower-carbon state and includes the associated severity of transition risks. A “lower” scenario in this context is one in which the global economy changes in such a way that the temperature rise is held to lower than a 2°C global average temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. A 1.5°C scenario is an example of a lower scenario.

Scenario analysis: Scenario analysis refers to the systematic use of scenarios in order to better understand the relevant impacts on an organization, and facilitate the creation of robust strategies under probable and potential future developments. It can help the participant to inform their financial planning process and provide insights into their strategies’ resilience to different climate-related scenarios.

References

Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor.

International Energy Agency. Achieving Net Zero Emissions by 2050.

International Energy Agency. Energy Technology Perspectives 2017.

International Energy Agency. Sustainable Development Scenario.

Inevitable Policy Response.

Network for Greening the Financial System. NGFS Climate Scenarios for central banks and supervisors.

Science Based Targets initiative.

TCFD. (2017) “Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.”

Transition Pathway Initiative.

Van Vuuren, D.P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., et al. (2011) “The Representative Concentration Pathways: An Overview.” Climatic Change 109: 5. doi.org/10.1007/s10584‑011‑0148‑z

Not scored , G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for identifying transition risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity.

A comprehensive system for managing transition risks begins with a systematic process for identifying risks that could have a material financial impact on the organization or entity. Such a process ensures that subsequent risk assessments and analyses are focused on the most relevant risks to which an entity is exposed.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator. Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence must sufficiently support any of the four sub-options selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

  1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk identification process for transition risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment;
  2. Specifically address each transition risk issues selected (e.g., policy and legal, technology, market, reputation).

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

  • A document describing the entity’s transition risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
  • An extract of a procedure undertaken such as register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk management plan addressing transition risks.

Evidence completeness: Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk identification process for each issue.

Other: State the other transition risk issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘establishment of a carbon tax’ when ‘increasing price of GHG emissions’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:

  1. A description of the entity’s process for prioritizing transition risks;
  2. A description of how materiality determinations are made for such risks; and
  3. Where applicable, reference the risks identified in the checkboxes of this indicator.


See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).

Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.

Policy and legal risk: Policy risk derives from policy action that either tries to constrain actions which contribute to climate change, or to promote adaptation to climate change. Legal risk arises from an increase in climate-related litigation, for instance due to failure of an organisation to properly communicate and account for its interactions with the climate.

Increasing price of GHG emissions: Examples include, but are not limited to: the implementation of a carbon tax, or cap and trade systems (e.g. EU ETS)

Enhancing emissions-reporting obligations:

Examples include, but are not limited to: TCFD reporting, the Regulation on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR), EU Taxonomy, Streamlined Energy & Carbon Reporting (SECR)

Mandates on and regulation of existing products and services: For infrastructure, this will depend on the assets in question. Examples include, but are not limited to: Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS).

Exposure to litigation Examples include, but are not limited to: tort, negligence, and nuisance claims of contribution to climate change and thereby leading to specific damages; state-brought claims against energy companies; claims of breach of entity board members' duty to act in the best interests of the entity; claims by shareholders of failure to properly disclose in annual reports the risk of climate change resulting from possible investments

Technology risk: New technologies may displace old systems and disrupt existing parts of the economic system. Therefore, technological improvements and innovations can affect competitiveness, production and distribution costs, and potentially the demand for certain products and services, thus resulting in considerable uncertainty.

Substitution of existing products and services with lower emissions options: The “existing products and services” as used here refers to the main function of the entity. The risk of substitution for lower emissions options refers to a shift in the use of technologies that results in the reduction of the demand of such a function. For infrastructure, this will depend on the assets in question. This does not refer to the substitution of lower emissions technologies in the provision of the same core function (see Costs to transition to lower emissions technologies. Examples include, but are not limited to: substitution of cars and the associated use of road infrastructure for lower-emission public transportation options; the electrification of buildings and building appliances and the resulting reduction in demand for natural gas and its distribution services; substitution of rail for low-emission long-distance trucking fleets

Unsuccessful investment in new technologies Examples include, but are not limited to: investment into new technology unsuccessful due to difficulty of adoption or more efficient substitutes; unanticipated costs of operation, installation, or permitting; incompatibility with existing local electric grid operations; underperformance of new technologies compared to expected performance; insufficient infrastructure and/or adoption of technology (e.g., electric car charging stations) to achieve network effects, etc.

Costs to transition to lower emissions technology Examples include, but are not limited to: change in electric grid energy generation mix; costs of replacing vehicle fleet with lower-emission vehicle fleet

Market risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.

Changing customer behavior: Examples include, but are not limited to: shift in preferences around mode of travel; preference for clean or renewable energy sources

Uncertainty in market signals: Examples include, but are not limited to: timing, shape, and magnitude of economy-wide decarbonisation; energy price volatility; insufficient “pricing-in” of climate-related premiums; misguided assessment of industry and competition trends

Increased cost of raw materials: Examples include, but are not limited to:increased price of electricity, fuel, concrete, steel

Reputation risk: The risk around changing customer or community perceptions of an entity’s contribution or detraction from the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Shifts in consumer preferences: This option describes the shift of consumer preferences specifically around the provider of the good or service as a result of that provider’s treatment of climate-related issues. It does not describe an overall or provider-agnostic shift, which would be categorized as Changing customer behavior as described above

Stigmatization of sector: Loss in financial loans or increase in cost of capital due to hesitation about the sector’s general handling of climate-related issues

Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback: Such increased stakeholder concern or negative feedback might not be immediately financially material to an entity, but it signals that it could become so -- in the form of loss in financial loans or increase in cost of capital -- if action is not taken with regard to an entity’s identification, assessment, and management of climate-related issues. Examples include, but are not limited to: stricter requirements to incorporate climate risk in investment decisions

References

TCFD. (2017) “Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.”

Not scored , G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of transition risks on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.

Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific risks manifest themselves on business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator. Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence must sufficiently support any of the four sub-options selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

  1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk impact assessment process for transition risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
  2. Specifically address each transition risk issues selected (e.g., policy and legal, technology, market, reputation).

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

  • A document describing the entity’s transition risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
  • Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk management plan addressing transition risks.

Evidence completeness: Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk impact assessment for each issue.

Other: State the other transition risk issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘increased cost of complying with disclosure requirements’ when ‘increased operating costs’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:

  1. A brief description of the entity’s overall risk management system; and
  2. An explanation of how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing transition risks are integrated into this system.


See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).

Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.

Policy and legal risk: Policy risk derives from policy action that either tries to constrain actions which contribute to climate change, or to promote adaptation to climate change. Legal risk arises from an increase in climate-related litigation, for instance due to failure of an organisation to properly communicate and account for its interactions with the climate.

Technology risk: New technologies may displace old systems and disrupt existing parts of the economic system. Therefore, technological improvements and innovations can affect competitiveness, production and distribution costs, and potentially the demand for certain products and services, thus resulting in considerable uncertainty.

Market risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.

Reputation risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.

References

TCFD. Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2017)

Not scored , G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for identifying physical risks that could be financially material.

A comprehensive system for managing physical risks begins with a systematic process for identifying risks that could be financially material to an entity. Such a process ensures that subsequent risk assessments and analyses are focused on the most relevant risks to which an entity is exposed.

While many traditional physical risk assessments utilize re-analysis methods, it is becoming increasingly important to make use of forward-looking climate-driven models.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator. Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence must sufficiently support either of the two sub-options selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

  1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk identification process for physical risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
  2. Specifically addresses either acute hazards and/or chronic stresses.

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

  • A document describing the entity’s physical risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
  • Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk management plan addressing transition risks.

Evidence completeness: Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk identification process for each issue.

Other: State the other physical risk issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘coastal flooding’ when ‘storm surge’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:

  1. A description of the entity’s process for prioritizing physical risks;
  2. A description of how materiality determinations are made for such risks; and,
  3. Where applicable, reference the risks identified in the checkboxes of this indicator.


See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).

Acute hazards: Acute hazards are physical events, such as extreme weather events, that could damage a real asset. They include cyclones, hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. Non-climate-related acute hazards include tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic activity.

Chronic stressors: Chronic stressors are longer-term physical shifts, such as sea level rise or changes in precipitation patterns, that can affect the operations and costs associated therein of an entity and its assets. While such stressors may not have as noticeable impacts as acute hazards within any given year, such longer-term shifts in climate patterns (e.g., sustained higher temperatures) can impact the cost of operations, availability of resources, accessibility of assets, availability of upstream or downstream suppliers, etc.

References

TCFD. Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2017)

Not scored , G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of physical risks on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.

Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific risks manifest themselves on business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator. Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence must sufficiently support either of the two sub-options selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

  1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk impact assessment process for physical risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
  2. Specifically addresses either acute hazards and/or chronic stresses.

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

  • A document describing the entity’s physical risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
  • Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk management plan addressing transition risks.

Evidence completeness: Evidence does not necessarily need to be provided in full. Rather, the evidence needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk impact assessment for each issue.

Other: State the other physical risk issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘increased maintenance’ when ‘increased capital costs’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:

  1. A brief description of the entity’s overall risk management system, and
  2. An explanation of how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing physical risks are integrated into this system.


See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).

Direct impacts: Direct damages to assets.

Indirect impacts: Impacts from supply chain disruption, or impacts on the entity’s financial performance based on changes in availability, sourcing and quality of water; food security; and extreme temperature affecting premises, operations, supply chain, transport needs and employee safety.

References

TCFD. Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2017)

ESG Monitoring

2020 Indicator

1.44 points , E

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material environmental issues: Select all environmental issues that are covered by the entity’s ESG monitoring process(es). It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: “Resilience to catastrophe/disaster” and “Climate/climate change” have been merged into a new issue, “Physical risk”.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

  1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
  2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve a fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

  • No relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Low relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
  • High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Air pollution: Air pollutants are particles and gases released into the atmosphere that may adversely affect living organisms. Additionally, some pollutants contribute to climate change or exacerbate the effects of climate change locally.

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

Contamination: Land that contains substances in or under it that are actually or potentially hazardous to human health or the environment.

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

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

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

Hazardous substances: Any substance or chemical which is a "health hazard" or "physical hazard," including: chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable-reactive or water-reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have any of the previously mentioned characteristics. (Full definitions can be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200.) Ref US OSHA's definition includes any substance or chemical which is a "health hazard" or "physical hazard," including: chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable-reactive or water-reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have any of the previously mentioned characteristics. (Full definitions can be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200.)

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

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

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

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

Physical Risk: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of physical hazards, natural disasters, catastrophes, as well as physical climate-related hazards, which may be event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). The physical risk associated with a particular real asset may be described in terms of elements including hazard exposure, sensitivity, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity.

Decreasing the sensitivity of an asset to particular physical risks, increasing its adaptive capacity, and planning are all ways of increasing the resilience of the built environment against physical risks, climate-driven or otherwise. In practice, these objectives may be promoted by various actions including the establishment of appropriate management policies; the utilisation of informational technologies for disaster response; the education of employees, the community, and suppliers; and implementing physical measures at the asset level.

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

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) or to third-parties for treatment or use.

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

References

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-29: Identifying and managing economic, environmental and social impacts

GRI Standards 2016 - 300 series: Environmental Standards

1.44 points , S

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material social issues: Select all social issues that are covered by the entity’s ESG monitoring process(es). It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

  1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
  2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve a fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

  • No relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Low relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
  • High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

Community development: A process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local employment: Providing jobs and skills to local people as employees, and to local contractors.

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

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

Stakeholder relations: The practice of forging mutually beneficial connections with third-party groups and individuals that have a stake in common interest.

References

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-29: Identifying and managing economic, environmental and social impacts

GRI Standards 2016 - 400 series: Social Standards

1.44 points

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Material governance issues: Select all governance issues that are covered by the entity’s ESG monitoring process(es). It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded for those elements in the checklist that are:

  1. Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
  2. Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC7) (i.e., the denominator)

It is therefore not necessary to select all checkboxes to receive maximum points; only the issues that are material will be scored. The obtained fractional points are aggregated to calculate the indicator’s final score.

If an ‘other’ answer is provided, this will first be manually validated (see paragraph ‘Validation’) and must be accepted before it will achieve a fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be scored at ‘Medium relevance’.

Materiality-based scoring:

The scoring of this indicator links to the materiality for the entity, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC7). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

  • No relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Low relevance (weighting: 0)
  • Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
  • High relevance (weighting: 2)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ it is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 1). If an issue is of 'High relevance' the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting (i.e. 2).

All issues of ‘Medium relevance’ and ‘High relevance’ need to be selected and addressed in the evidence to obtain the maximum score. For more details on how materiality is determined, download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

Board ESG oversight: The highest committee or position that formally reviews and approves the organization’s sustainability report and ensures that all material topics are covered.

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

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving or soliciting an item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal fiduciary duty.

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

Conflicts of interest: Situations where an individual is confronted with choosing between the requirements of his or her function and his or her own private interests.

Corruption: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

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

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

Delegating authority: The process for delegating authority for economic, environmental, and social topics from the highest governance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shareholder rights: Assessing the potential risk of breaking or working against the entity’s contractual shareholder rights. Shareholder rights are defined in the company’s charter and bylaws.

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

References

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-29: Identifying and managing economic, environmental and social impacts

GRI Standards 2016 - 200 series: Economic Standards

Management: Stakeholder Engagement

Improving the sustainability performance of infrastructure assets requires dedicated resources, a commitment from senior management and tools for measurement/ management of resource consumption. It also requires the cooperation of other stakeholders, including employees and suppliers.

This aspect identifies actions taken to engage with those stakeholders, as well as the nature of the engagement.

Stakeholder Engagement

2020 Indicator

2.84 points , S

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Elements of stakeholder program: Select the elements that apply to the program. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Third-party alignment: Indicate whether and which third-party standard the stakeholder engagement program aligns with. Finally, select which stakeholders the stakeholder engagement program applies to. Additional guidelines such as 'IAP2 Core Values: Ethics and Spectrum' can be listed under 'Other'.

Stakeholder groups: Select which stakeholders the stakeholder engagement program applies to. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator is the same as the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: ‘Identification of stakeholders and impacted groups’ has been added as a stakeholder program element.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be awarded fractional points.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded based on the selection of the elements. This indicator applies a diminishing increase in score approach, which means that the fractional score achieved for the first data point will be higher than the fractional score achieved for the second, which again will be higher than for the third, and so on. Also see the GRESB 2021 Asset Assessment Scoring Document.

Other: Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score.

Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: This indicator is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected. In the scoring document this is represented by the blue line.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Stakeholder engagement program: A formal strategy to communicate with stakeholders to achieve and maintain their support.

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

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-40: List of stakeholder groups

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-42: Identifying and selecting stakeholders

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-43: Approach to stakeholder engagement

1.44 points , S

Intent

This indicator describes the management practices and requirements the entity uses to manage supply chain risks. The procurement process is an effective way to integrate the entity’s sustainability-specific requirements into their supply chain. This indicator applies to existing and new contracts.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Elements of the supply chain engagement program: Indicate which elements apply to the supply chain program.

Issues covered by procurement processes: Select the issues that are included in the entity’s procurement processes. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

External parties: Indicate to which external parties the requirements apply. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers.

Prefill This indicator is the same as the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2021 changes: ‘Due diligence process’ has been added as an element of the supply chain engagement program and ‘Bribery and corruption’ and ‘Forced or compulsory labor’ have been added as issues covered by procurement processes.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be awarded fractional points.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded based on the selection of the elements. This indicator applies a diminishing increase in score approach, which means that the fractional score achieved for the first data point will be higher than the fractional score achieved for the second, which again will be higher than for the third, and so on. Also see the GRESB 2021 Asset Assessment Scoring Document.

Other: Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score.

Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: This indicator is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected. In the scoring document this is represented by the blue line.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Action plan: A detailed plan outlining actions needed to enhance tenant satisfaction. An action plan has three major elements (1) Specific tasks: what will be done and by whom; (2) Time horizon: when will it be done; (3) Resource allocation: what specific funds are available for specific activities.

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

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

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

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

ESG-specific requirements:Includes specification and use of sustainable and energy efficient materials, systems, equipment and onsite operating practices that relate to ESG issues.

Health and safety - employees: The health and safety of employees responsible for the entity.

Employee health & well-being: The health & well-being of employees responsible for the entity.

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

Human rights: Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever their nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or any other status.

Suppliers: Organizations or persons in the supply chain that provide a product or service used during the reporting year.

References

GRI Standards 2016 - 204: Procurement Practices

GRI Standards 2016 - 308: Supplier Environmental Assessment

GRI Standards 2016 - 414: Supplier Social Assessment

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.6.1 Supplier Code of Conduct

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.6.3 Risk Exposure

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.6.5 ESG Integration in Supply Chain Management Strategy

1.44 points , S

Intent

This indicator identifies the existence of a grievance mechanism at the reporting entity. An entity’s procurement decisions and activities can lead to significant negative sustainability impacts in the supply chain, including human rights violations, even when entities operate optimally. Grievance mechanisms play an important role to provide access to remedy and reflect an entity’s commitment to ESG management. An entity should establish a mechanism for stakeholders in the supply chain to bring this to the attention of the entity and seek redress.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Characteristics of the stakeholder grievance process: Select the applicable elements, which are based on the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Stakeholders: Indicate which stakeholders are included in the process to communicate grievances. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. Any accepted ‘other’ answers will be awarded fractional points.



See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a One Section Indicator. Evidence is not required. Fractional points are awarded based on the selections of:

  • Characteristic elements selected that are applicable to the grievances process.
  • Stakeholder to which the process applies to.

Other: Any ‘other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation, but only one will be counted towards the score.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, some elements of this indicator are scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

Legitimate: Enable trust from stakeholder groups.

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

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

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

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

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

References

ISO20400: Sustainable Procurement

UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Grievance Mechanism ToolKit

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2016 - 103-2: The management approach and its components

Not scored , S

Intent

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.

Reporting grievances recieved: Zero (0) may be entered only if there is a formal grievance mechanism in place as reported in SE3.1 and no grievances have been received during the reporting year. If grievances have been received, provide a summary of those grievances and of resolutions (if applicable).

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Scoring

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

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

References

ISO20400: Sustainable Procurement

UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2016 - 103-2: The management approach and its components

Performance: Implementation

The intent of this Aspect is to describe the actions implemented by the entity in relation to ESG issues.

Implementation

2020 Indicator

Not scored , E

Intent

The purpose of this indicator is to describe specific actions implemented to mitigate environmental risk and/or improve environmental performance. Although unscored, this indicator provides an opportunity for the entity to communicate to its investors the meaningful efforts that are being made.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If you select 'Yes', provide at least one example to complete the table.

Add an issue: Describe the actions implemented by completing the table as follows for each action:

  1. Select the environmental issue addressed in column 1 (“Issues addressed”) or use the ‘other’ option to list a custom environmental issue. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option;
  2. Select the relevant category in column 2 (“Category”);
  3. Describe the action taken in column 3 (“Description”) (What did the action (project or initiative) involve?);
  4. Select the relevant incentive (i.e. motivation or reason) for implementing the action in column 4 (“Incentive”);
  5. Describe the impact of the action, i.e. the outcome, in column 5 (“Impact of the action”). For example, what benefit will or has been achieved by implementing the action, or how did the action mitigate environmental risk and/or improve environmental performance;
  6. Provide an indication of the monetary impact in column 6 (“Monetary impact”). This can be an exact number, an estimate or a description, e.g. return on investment (ROI), payback period or net present value (NPV);
  7. Select the status of the action at the end of the reporting period in column 7 (“Status”). If the action has been completed and operational for more than three years (at the end of the reporting period), it should not be included.
  8. Finally, it is possible to provide additional context to the response provided in column 8 (“Context”).

The actions should be specific, tangible and outside the regular business activities. For example, a standing policy should not be included here, but a program to increase energy efficiency could be appropriate.

The action must have taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC4.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to manual validation.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

References

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.3.3 Emerging Risks

CDP Climate Change 2020 - C4.3 Emissions reduction initiatives

Not scored , S

Intent

The purpose of this indicator is to describe specific actions implemented to mitigate social risk and/or improve social performance. Although unscored, this indicator provides an opportunity for the entity to communicate to its investors the meaningful efforts that are being made.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If you select 'Yes', provide at least one example to complete the table.

Add an issue: Describe the actions implemented by completing the table as follows for each action:

  1. Select the social issue addressed in column 1 (“Issues addressed”) or use the ‘other’ option to list a custom social issue. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option;
  2. Select the relevant category in column 2 (“Category”);
  3. Describe the action taken in column 3 (“Description”) (What did the action (project or initiative) involve?);
  4. Select the relevant incentive (i.e. motivation or reason) for implementing the action in column 4 (“Incentive”);
  5. Describe the impact of the action, i.e. the outcome, in column 5 (“Impact of the action”). For example, what benefit will or has been achieved by implementing the action, or how did the action mitigate social risk and/or improve social performance;
  6. Provide an indication of the monetary impact in column 6 (“Monetary impact”). This can be an exact number, an estimate or a description, e.g. return on investment (ROI), payback period or net present value (NPV);
  7. Select the status of the action at the end of the reporting period in column 7 (“Status”). If the action has been completed and operational for more than three years (at the end of the reporting period), it should not be included.
  8. Finally, it is possible to provide additional context to the response provided in column 8 (“Context”).

The actions should be specific, tangible and outside the regular business activities. For example, a standing policy should not be included here, but an employee outreach program to improve health and safety could be appropriate.

The action must have taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC4.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to manual validation.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.3.3 Emerging risks

Not scored , G

Intent

The purpose of this indicator is to describe specific actions implemented to mitigate governance risk and/or improve governance performance. Although unscored, this indicator provides an opportunity for the entity to communicate to its investors the meaningful efforts that are being made.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If you select 'Yes', provide at least one example to complete the table.

Add an issue: Describe the actions implemented by completing the table as follows for each action:

  1. Select the governance issue addressed in column 1 (“Issues addressed”) or use the ‘other’ option to list a custom governance issue. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option;
  2. Select the relevant category in column 2 (“Category”);
  3. Describe the action taken in column 3 (“Description”) (What did the action (project or initiative) involve?);
  4. Select the relevant incentive (i.e. motivation or reason) for implementing the action in column 4 (“Incentive”);
  5. Describe the impact of the action, i.e. the outcome, in column 5 (“Impact of the action”). For example, what benefit will or has been achieved by implementing the action, or how did the action mitigate governance risk and/or improve governance performance;
  6. Provide an indication of the monetary impact in column 6 (“Monetary impact”). This can be an exact number, an estimate or a description, e.g. return on investment (ROI), payback period or net present value (NPV);
  7. Select the status of the action at the end of the reporting period in column 7 (“Status”). If the action has been completed and operational for more than three years (at the end of the reporting period), it should not be included.
  8. Finally, it is possible to provide additional context to the response provided in column 8 (“Context”).

The actions should be specific, tangible and outside the regular business activities. For example, a standing policy should not be included here, but a new initiative to support whistleblowers could be appropriate.

The action must have taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting period identified in EC4.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to manual validation.

Scoring

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

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

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

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.3.3 Emerging risks

Performance: Output & Impact

Intent and Overview

The intent of this Aspect is to provide metrics that describe the entity’s capacity, output and impact in the reporting year.

Output & Impact

2020 Indicator

Not scored

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s reporting on broad metrics covering capacity, output and impact value. These metrics assess the physical output from the entity and the service it provides. The output metric is then used as a denominator with other quantitative metrics (e.g. GHG emissions) to calculate intensity metrics. Intensity metrics will not be used as a basis for scoring in 2021, but may be used in future years. The impact value metric allows entities to report the ESG value of their activities.

Requirements

Changes: The indicator is now mandatory to all participants completing the Performance Component.

Note on diversified entities: Some entities may not have sector-specific metrics due to their facilities covering different sectors (also refer to RC3 (Sector & geography) for more information on how sector is determined). These entities will see the output metric as revenue in USD instead, so they are still able to provide a value that can be used to calculate output intensities throughout the Performance Component.

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate.

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

An overview with the GRESB sector metrics and units list is also available here

Exceptions:

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Scoring

This indicator is not scored.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology:

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

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

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

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

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

References

The SROI Network, 2012 - A Guide to Social Return on Investment

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standard 201: Economic Performance

GRI Standard 203: Indirect Economic Impacts

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 7 - Affordable and Clean Energy

7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services

7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix

7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency

SDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic Growth

8.4 Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10‑Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, with developed countries taking the lead

SDG 9 - Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

9.1 Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all

SDG 11 - Sustainable Cities and Communities

11.3 By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries

Performance: Energy

The intent of this Aspect is to provide metrics that describe the Entity’s energy performance during the reporting year.

Energy

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of and target setting for energy performance. The use of energy is both a direct cost and a critical source of local, regional, and global environmental impacts.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Changes: The table “Energy generated from fuels” has been removed. “LPG, butane or propane” has been added as a metric to the tables “Energy imported/purchased” and “Energy exported/sold”. “Biofuels (produced onsite)” has been added to the table “Energy generated onsite”.

Performance Tables

Note on biofuels (produced onsite): This metric in the table “Energy generated onsite” covers the onsite generation of biofuels such as biogas. Entities that wish to report biogas generated as part of anaerobic digestion can do so using this metric.

Note on renewable electricity: Electricity should only be reported as renewable in the table “Energy imported/purchased” when it has been specifically acquired as such, for example via a power purchase agreement (PPA) or other instrument. Purchased grid electricity should be reported under “non-renewable electricity”, even if the grid has partially decarbonised.

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Certain performance cells are automatically calculated based on inputs to other performance cells within the table or inputs to another indicator. If these cells show “NA”, it means that not all values that are needed for calculation have yet been provided. The equations for the calculated cells are:

  • Total energy imported / purchased = “Biofuels” + “Renewable hydrogen” + “Waste (non-biomass)” + “Renewable electricity” + “Renewable steam, heating and cooling” + “Coal” + “Diesel” + “LPG, butane or propane” + “Motor gasoline” + “Natural gas” + “Non-renewable hydrogen” + “Other non-renewable fuel” + “Non-renewable electricity” + “Non-renewable steam, heating and cooling”


  • % renewable energy imported / purchased= “Biofuels” + “Renewable hydrogen” + “Waste (non-biomass)” + “Renewable electricity” + “Renewable steam, heating and cooling” / “Total energy imported / purchased” * 100


  • Total energy generated onsite = “Biofuels (produced onsite)” + “Geothermal” + “Hydro-electric” + “Solar” + “Wind” + “Nuclear” + “Other energy generation source”


  • Total energy exported / sold = “Biofuels” + “Renewable hydrogen” + “Renewable electricity” + “Renewable steam, heating and cooling” + “Coal” + “Diesel” + “LPG, butane or propane” + “Motor gasoline” + “Natural gas” + “Non-renewable hydrogen” + “Other non-renewable fuel” + “Non-renewable electricity” + “Non-renewable steam, heating and cooling”


  • % renewable energy exported / sold = “Biofuels” + “Renewable hydrogen” + “Renewable electricity” + “Renewable steam, heating and cooling” / “Total energy exported / sold” * 100


  • Renewable energy consumed = Renewable energy imported / purchased + Renewable energy generated onsite - Renewable energy exported / sold

    Renewable energy imported / purchased: From table “Energy imported / purchased”: “Biofuels” + “Renewable hydrogen” + “Waste (non-biomass)” + “Renewable electricity” + “Renewable steam, heating and cooling” +

    Renewable energy generated onsite: From table “Energy generated onsite”: “Biofuels (produced onsite)” + “Geothermal” + “Hydro-electric” + “Solar” + “Wind” -

    Renewable energy exported / sold: From table “Energy exported / sold”: “Biofuels” + “Renewable hydrogen” + “Renewable electricity” + “Renewable steam, heating and cooling”


  • Non-renewable energy consumed = Non-renewable energy imported / purchased + Non-renewable energy generated onsite - Non-renewable energy exported / sold

    Non-renewable energy imported / purchased: From table “Energy imported / purchased”: “Coal” + “Diesel” + “LPG, butane or propane” + “Motor gasoline” + “Natural gas” + “Non-renewable hydrogen” + “Other non-renewable fuel” + “Non-renewable electricity” + “Non-renewable steam, heating and cooling” +

    Non-renewable energy generated onsite: From table “Energy generated onsite”: “Nuclear” + “Other energy generation source” -

    Non-renewable energy exported / sold: From table “Energy exported / sold”: “Coal” + “Diesel” + “LPG, butane or propane” + “Motor gasoline” + “Natural gas” + “Non-renewable hydrogen” + “Other non-renewable fuel” + “Non-renewable electricity” + “Non-renewable steam, heating and cooling”


  • Total energy consumed = “Renewable energy consumed” + “Non-renewable energy consumed”


  • % renewable energy consumed = “Renewable energy consumed” / “Total energy consumed” * 100


  • Energy consumption intensity (/GAV) = “Total energy consumed” / “GAV”. GAV is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.


  • Energy consumption intensity (/Revenue) = “Total energy consumed” / “Revenue”. Revenue is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.


  • Energy consumption intensity (/Output) = “Total energy consumed” / “Output”. Output is reported in OI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector as reported in RC3 (Sector & geography).


  • Energy export intensity (/GAV) = “Total energy exported / sold” / “GAV”. GAV is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.


  • Energy export intensity (/Revenue) = “Total energy exported / sold” / “Revenue”. Revenue is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.


  • Energy export intensity (/Output) = “Total energy exported / sold” / “Output”. Output is reported in OI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector as reported in RC3 (Sector & geography).

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

External Review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to energy data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure non-energy data (e.g. water) can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in EN1.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC3, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

When providing an ‘other’ answer, the entity should ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (for example, “wood pallets” should be reported under “biofuels”, and “grid electricity” under “non-renewable electricity”).

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2020. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Energy’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green or orange is used for scoring:

  • For participants whose primary sector is ‘Power Generation x-Renewables’ or ‘Renewable Power’, only the “Total” metric in the Energy exported/sold table is scored, as indicated by orange shading of the cells.
  • For all other sectors, only the “Total” metric in the Energy consumed table is scored, as indicated by green shading of the cells.

For the scored metric only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Biofuels: Any kind of energy carrier sourced from biological origin, including biodiesel, bioethanol, biogas, landfill gas, wood waste and other biomass products.

Electricity: In the context of this Assessment, electricity is a form of energy. Electricity purchased under a special agreement with a supplier (PPA, or Purchase Power Agreement) or directly sourced from or by a renewable generator can be reported under “Renewable electricity”. Purchased grid electricity should be reported in its entirety under “Non-renewable electricity” in the table “Energy imported/purchased”.

Energy consumed: Energy consumed on site in undertaking the entity's business activities and including losses. This is calculated as renewable energy consumed + non-renewable energy consumed.

Energy exported/sold: Any energy that the entity has supplied or distributed to third-parties, either the distribution of energy that has been imported by the entity, or energy that has been generated by the entity.

Energy generated onsite: Any energy generated or produced onsites. For example, solar PV-generated electricity.

Energy imported/purchased: Any energy that the entity has obtained or purchased from outside the entity's reporting boundaries.

Geothermal: Energy generated from heat within the Earth's crust.

Hydro-electric: Energy generated from turbines powered by water, such as tidal energy, dams and water mills.

Hydrogen: A fuel that has no carbon emissions when combusted. Can be generated from hydrocarbons or electrolysis of water.

LPG, butane or propane: LPG stands for Liquefied petroleum gases. Both butane and propane are typically stored and/or transported in liquid form, classifying them as LPG. Mixtures of butane and propane in liquid form also fall under LPG.

Motor gasoline: Liquid fossil fuel that is created from crude oil, also known as petrol. Includes forecourt gasoline blended with biofuels.

Natural gas: Gaseous fossil fuel comprised mostly of methane. Can be compressed as CNG or liquified as LNG.

Non-renewable energy: Energy sources that cannot be replenished in a short time through natural cycles or processes.

Nuclear: Energy generated from nuclear reactions. This includes nuclear fission, nuclear decay and nuclear fusion. Nuclear energy is not renewable.

Renewable energy: Energy sources that can be replenished in a short time through natural cycles or processes.

Steam, heating and cooling: Energy supplied in the form of steam, heating or cooling. Includes district heating, energy from combined heat and power (CHP) and other co-generation sources. The generation source of the steam, heating and cooling determines whether it can be classified as renewable.

Solar: Energy generated from the sun's heat or light. Includes solar thermal and solar photovoltaic.

Waste (non-biomass): Any waste that is not categorized as biomass (biomass waste falls under biofuels) that is used to generate energy.

Wind: Energy generated from wind in turbines. Can be off- or onshore.

References

CDP Climate Change 2019 - Technical Note: Fuel definitions

Eurostat - Energy Glossary

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Climate Change 2020 - C8 Energy

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 4.1.3 EP - Energy

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 4.1.4 EP - Energy Consumption

GRI Standards 2016 - 302: Energy

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 7 - Affordable and Clean Energy

7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix

7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency

SDG 9 - Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities

Performance: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The intent of this Aspect is to provide metrics that describe the Entity’s greenhouse gas emissions during the reporting year.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG emissions are the primary driver of anthropogenic climate change and a critical source of local, regional, and global environmental impacts. GHGs may result from the consumption or generation of energy, or from processes that produce GHGs directly, such as the production of cement. Evaluating direct and indirect GHG emissions (or Scope 1 and 2 emissions) has become the norm for organizations. Additionally, an increasing number of organizations is looking at emissions throughout their value chains (Scope 3 emissions).

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Performance Tables

Note on emissions avoided: “Emissions avoided (export of renewable energy)” applies to the export of renewable energy (see EN1) only. Only entities in the primary sector ‘Renewable Power’ should report this metric. Offsets should be reported under “On-site offsets” or “Offsets purchased”.

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Certain performance cells are automatically calculated based on inputs to other performance cells within the table or inputs to another indicator. If these cells show “NA”, it means that not all values that are needed for calculation have yet been provided. The equations for the calculated cells are:

  • Total scope 1 = “Emissions from combustion of fuels” + “Process emissions” + “Fugitive emissions”
  • Total scope 1 + 2 = “Total scope 1” + “Scope 2”
  • Total scope 1, 2 + 3 = “Total scope 1 + 2” + “Scope 3”
  • Net GHG emissions (scope 1 + 2) = “Total scope 1 + 2” - (“On-site offsets” + “Offsets purchased”)
  • Net GHG emissions (scope 1, 2 + 3) = “Total scope 1, 2 + 3” - (“On-site offsets” + “Offsets purchased”)
  • Total scope 3 = “Purchased goods and services” + “Capital goods” + “Fuel- and energy-related activities” + “Upstream transportation & distribution” + “Waste generated in operations” + “Business travel” + “Employee commuting” + “Upstream leased assets” + Downstream transportation & distribution” + “Processing of sold products” + “Use of sold products” + “End-of-life treatment of sold products” + “Downstream leased assets” + “Franchises” + “Investments”
  • Gross GHG emissions intensity (/GAV) = “Total scope 1 + 2” / “GAV”. GAV is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Gross GHG emissions intensity (/Revenue) = “Total scope 1 + 2” / “Revenue”. Revenue is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Gross GHG emissions intensity (/Output) = “Total scope 1 + 2” / “Output”. Output is reported in OI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector as reported in RC3 (Sector & geography).
  • Net GHG emissions intensity (/GAV) = “Net GHG emissions (scope 1 + 2)” / “GAV”. GAV is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Net GHG emissions intensity (/Revenue) = “Net GHG emissions (scope 1 + 2)” / “Revenue”. Revenue is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Net GHG emissions intensity (/Output) = “Net GHG emissions (scope 1 + 2)” / “Output”. Output is reported in OI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector as reported in RC3 (Sector & geography).

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

Scope 2 Emissions Reporting

Select one of the options Select the applicable answer. The emissions methodology must apply to the reported Scope 2 emissions in the table Total greenhouse gas emissions. This question is for reporting purposes only.

External Review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to GHG data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure non-energy data (e.g. water) can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in GH1.

Science-based Targets

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, select the checkbox(es) that apply. Any selected metric(s) must:

  • Have a target reported under “Reporting-year target” or “Future-year target” in the Total greenhouse gas emissions table
  • Have its target(s) approved by the Science-based Targets Initiative.

For more information on science-based targets, see the “References” section. This question is for reporting purposes only.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Greenhouse gas emissions’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green or orange is used for scoring:

  • For participants whose primary sector is ‘Renewable Power’, only the “Avoided emissions” metric in the Total greenhouse gas emissions table is scored, as indicated by orange shading of the cells.
  • For all other sectors, only the “Net GHG emissions (Scope 1 + 2)” metric in the Energy consumed table is scored, as indicated by green shading of the cells. The other cells shaded in green should be completed to obtain the reporting-year value for this metric.

For the scored metric only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of scope 2 emissions methodology, external data review, science-based targets and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Emissions avoided (renewable energy export): Relates to the emissions avoided through generation of renewable energy on site and exported off-site (sold) to customers. Emissions avoided by renewable energy export can be calculated by multiplying the amount of renewable energy exported with the emission factor for the grid, or using other tools available in the market.

Emissions from combustion of fuels: Greenhouse gas emissions that result from the combustion of fuels such as natural gas, gasoline or coal.

Fugitive emissions: Greenhouse gas emissions from intentional or unintentional releases, such as methane during transport of natural gas and HFC emissions from refrigeration equipment.

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

GHG offsets: A GHG (or carbon) offset represents a quantity of GHG emissions reductions, measured in units (usually metric tons) of carbon dioxide–equivalent (CO2e), that occur as a result of a discrete project. The emissions reductions from that project can be sold to enable the purchaser/owner to claim those GHG reductions as their own. These reductions can then be used to reduce, or offset, any GHG emissions for which the purchaser is responsible.

Location-based: A method to calculate scope 2 emissions, reflecting the average emissions intensity of grids on which energy consumption occurs (using mostly grid-average emission factor data) (definition based on the GHG protocol)

Market-based: A method to calculate scope 2 emissions, reflecting emissions from electricity that the entity has purposefully chosen (or their lack of choice). It derives emission factors from contractual instruments (definition based on the GHG protocol).

Net GHG emissions: Net GHG emissions are calculated using this formula: Scope 1 + Scope 2 - On-site offsets - Offsets purchased.

On-site offsets: GHG offsets created from projects undertaken on site that sequester carbon such as tree planting. It does not include renewable energy generation or other GHG emission reduction projects.

Offsets purchased: GHG offsets created externally by third parties that are purchased to reduce the GHG footprint of the entity. These could be a range of types including renewable energy, tree planting, energy efficiency etc. This does not include renewable energy imported and consumed since this directly reduces the GHG emissions of the entity.

Process emissions: Greenhouse gas emissions that arise during chemical and industrial processes as a by-product, such as CO2 release during cement production.

Science-based targets: A target is science-based if it has been set by the Entity in line with meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to below 2C above pre-industrial levels. A science-based target must have been approved by the Science-based Targets Initiative.

Scope 1 emissions: GHG emissions that arise from operations that are directly owned or controlled by the Entity (definition based on the GHG protocol). Examples include combustion of fuels in boilers, machinery or vehicles controlled by the Entity, emissions from industrial processes and fugitive emissions from Entity-controlled refrigeration equipment.

Scope 2 emissions: GHG emissions from the generation of purchased or acquired electricity and steam, heating and cooling consumed by the Entity (definition based on the GHG protocol).

Scope 3 emissions: All indirect GHG emissions not included in scope 1 or 2 that occur in the value chain of the entity, including both upstream and downstream emissions (definition based on the GHG protocol). Scope 3 emissions are typically divided into categories to facilitate reporting.

Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e): The unit of measurement to express the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of a greenhouse gas, relative to the GWP of 1 unit of carbon dioxide (definition based on the GHG protocol).

References

CDP Climate Change 2019 - Technical note on science-based targets

Eurostat - Environment Glossary

Science-based Targets Initiative - Tools and resources

WRI - GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance

WRI & WBCSD - Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard

WRI & WBCSD - Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions

WRI & WBCSD - The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard

US EPA - AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT)

QUICK START GUIDE FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Climate Change 2020 - C4 Targets and performance

CDP Climate Change 2020 - C5 Emissions methodology

CDP Climate Change 2020 - C6 Emissions data

CDP Climate Change 2020 - C7 Emissions breakdown

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 4.1.1 EP - Direct Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Scope 1)

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 4.1.2 EP - Indirect Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Scope 2)

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 4.2.4 Climate-related Targets

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 4.2.6 Scope 3 GHG Emissions

GRI Standards 2016 - 305: Emissions

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 9 - Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities

SDG 13: Climate Action

Performance: Air Pollution

The intent of this Aspect is to provide metrics that describe the Entity’s air pollution during the reporting year.

Air Pollution

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of air pollution emissions. Air pollution can have significant impacts on human health and the environment. Additionally, air pollutants can also put entities at risk of regulation and maintaining a social license to operate. Significant air pollutants are ground-level ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx), particulates and heavy metals such as lead and mercury.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Changes: The metric “Ozone-depleting substances (ODS)” has been added.

Performance Tables

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

External Review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to air pollution data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure other types of ESG data (e.g. water) can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in AP1.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC3, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Air pollution’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The only scored metric for Air Pollution is “Non-compliances”.

For the scored metric only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Air pollution: Air pollutants are particles and gases released into the atmosphere that may adversely affect living organisms. Additionally, some pollutants contribute to climate change or exacerbate the effects of climate change locally.

Lead (Pb): Lead emissions can result from industrial process or the use of fuel that contains lead. Exposure to lead has adverse effects on human health and ecosystems.

Mercury (Hg): Mercury can enter the environment in elemental or inorganic forms. Burning of fossil fuels can result of emissions of mercury into the air. Mercury is harmful to humans and ecosystems.

Nitrogen oxides (NOX): A group of gases that are harmful to human health and the environment by contributing to smog and acid rain. They can also lead to nutrient pollution in ecosystems and cause the formation of ozone, another pollutant. NOX are mainly released to the air via the burning of fuels.

Non-compliances: Failure to comply with covenants, environmental permits, laws and/or regulation due to the performance of air pollutant emissions or discharges to bodies of water.

Ozone (O3): Ground-level ozone can result in health problems and affect people with lung conditions. It can also harm vegetation growth.

Ozone-depleting substances: Also known as ODS, ozone-depleting substances are any substances that deplete ozone (O3) in the Earth’s atmosphere. A full list of substances can be found in the Montreal Protocol. Ozone-depleting substances that have a global warming potential should also be reported in “Greenhouse gas emissions” but expressed in the tCO2e that they are equivalent to. In “Air pollution” ozone-depleting substances should be reported in kg emitted.

Particulate matter (PM): Particulate matter are any solid particles or small droplets in the air, such as smoke or dust. They are measured based on their diameter. PM10 are any particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or smaller; PM2.5 are any particles that are 2.5 micrometers or smaller. Particulate matter can result from the burning of fuels or directly from industrial processes and/or construction. Inhalation of particulates may cause adverse health effects.

Sulfur oxides (SOX): A group of gases that are harmful to human health and the environment. They can contribute to acid rain and can increase particulate matter concentrations in the air. SOX are mainly released to the air via the burning of fuels.

References

Eurostat - Environment Glossary

Montreal Protocol

US EPA - Criteria Air Pollutants

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2016 - 307-1: Non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations

GRI Standards 2016 - 305-7: Nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and other significant air emissions

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being

3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination

SDG 11 - Sustainable Cities and Communities

11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management

SDG 12 - Responsible Consumption and Production

12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment

Performance: Water

The intent of this Aspect is to provide metrics that describe the Entity’s water withdrawals and discharges during the reporting year.

Water

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of water resource impacts. The inflow/withdrawal of water can have significant impacts on the environment and communities. Relatively high levels of water withdrawals can potentially create liabilities or regulatory risk.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Performance Tables

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

  • Total water withdrawals = “Groundwater” + “Rainwater” + “Seawater / brackish water” + “Surface water” + “Produced water” + “Third-party non-potable water” + “Third-party potable water”
  • % potable water = “Third-party potable water” / “Total water withdrawals” * 100
  • Water withdrawal intensity (/GAV) = “Total water withdrawals” / “GAV”. GAV is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Water withdrawal intensity (/Revenue) = “Total water withdrawals” / “Revenue”. Revenue is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Water withdrawal intensity (/Output) = “Total water withdrawals” / “Output”. Output is reported in OI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector as reported in RC3 (Sector & geography).

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

External review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to water withdrawal data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure other types of ESG data (e.g. energy) can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in WT1.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Water inflows/withdrawal’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The only scored metric for Water inflows/withdrawals is “Total withdrawals”.

For the scored metric only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Groundwater: Freshwater that is found beneath the Earth's surface that supplies wells and springs.

Potable water: Also known as drinking water. Potable water is any water that is safe for human consumption or food preparation.

Produced water: Water that enters the Entity's boundaries as a result of a production process, such as extraction of fossil fuels or processing of raw materials (definition based on CDP Water Security 2020).

Rainwater: Water that has fallen as, or been obtained from, rain.

Seawater/brackish water: Water obtained from seas, oceans or estuaries that has a salinity level of over 0.05%.

Surface water: Surface water is any freshwater occurring naturally on the Earth's surface, such as in lakes, rivers, ice sheets, glaciers or peatlands.

Total HWS withdrawals: All withdrawals from areas that have High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress (HWS) as classified by the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Risk Atlas tool, Aqueduct.

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

References

Eurostat - Environment Glossary

WRI - Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas

WWF - Water Risk Filter

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Water Security 2020 - W1.2 Company accounting

CDP Water Security 2020 - W5 Facility-level accounting

CDP Water Security 2020 - W8 Targets

DSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 4.1.6 EP - Water Consumption

GRI Standards 2018 - 303-3: Water discharge

GRI Standards 2018 - 303-5: Water consumption

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being

3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination

SDG 6 - Clean Water and Sanitation

6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all

6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally

6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate

Determined by materiality , E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of water outflows and discharge impacts. The discharge of water can have significant impacts on human health and the environment. Relatively high levels of discharge can potentially create liabilities or regulatory risk.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Changes: The table “Quality of water discharged to sensitive waterways” has been added.

Performance Tables

Note on Water Quality:The volumes reported in the table “Quality of water discharged to sensitive waterways” should only reflect water discharged to natural bodies of water, so groundwater, seawater / brackish water and surface water. Entities should report by the quality of the water discharged, i.e if 1000 ML of freshwater-quality water is discharged to ground and surface water, the entity should report 1000 ML under “freshwater”.

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

  • Total water discharged = “Groundwater” + “Seawater / brackish water” + “Surface water” + “Third-party re-use” + “Third-party treatment”
  • Total discharge to sensitive waterways = “Groundwater” + “Seawater / brackish water” + “Surface water”
  • % recycled = “Third-party re-use” / “Total water discharged” * 100
  • Water discharge intensity (/GAV) = “Total water discharged” / “GAV”. GAV is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Water discharge intensity (/Revenue) = “Total water discharged” / “Revenue”. Revenue is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Water discharge intensity (/Output) = “Total water discharged” / “Output”. Output is reported in OI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector as reported in RC3 (Sector & geography).

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

External review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to water discharge data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure other types of ESG data (e.g. energy) can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in WT2.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Water outflows/discharges’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The only scored metric for Water outflows/discharges is “Total sensitive discharge”.

For the scored metric only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Freshwater (<1000 mg/L TDS): Any water that contains less than 1000 mg per liter of total dissolved solids (TDS). This is a measure of water quality.

Groundwater: Freshwater that is found beneath the Earth's surface that supplies wells and springs.

Other water (>1000 mg/L TDS): Any water that contains more than 1000 mg per liter of total dissolved solids (TDS). This is a measure of water quality.

Potable water: Also known as drinking water. Potable water is any water that is safe for human consumption or food preparation.

Recycled water: Water that has been reused before discharge to final treatment or the environment. This can include water that was treated prior to reuse and water that was not treated prior to reuse. It can also include collected rainwater and wastewater generated by household processes such as washing dishes, laundry, and bathing (grey water).

Seawater/brackish water: Water obtained from seas, oceans or estuaries that has a salinity level of over 0.05%.

Surface water: Surface water is any freshwater occurring naturally on the Earth's surface, such as in lakes, rivers, ice sheets, glaciers or peatlands.

Third-party reuse: Reuse or recyling of water supplied by the Entity to a third party.

Third-party treatment: Treatment of municipal or industrial wastewater by a third party. The treatment can be primary, secondary or tertiary.

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) or to third-parties for treatment or use.

References

Eurostat - Environment Glossary

WRI - Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas

WWF - Water Risk Filter

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Water Security 2020 - W1.2 Company accounting

CDP Water Security 2020 - W5 Facility-level accounting

CDP Water Security 2020 - W8 Targets

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 4.1.6 EP - Water Consumption

GRI Standards 2018 - 303-4: Water discharge

GRI Standards 2016 - 306-3: Significant spills

GRI Standards 2016 - 307-1: Non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being

3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination

SDG 6 - Clean Water and Sanitation

6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all

6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally

6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg12

12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources

12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment

SDG 14 - Life Below Water

14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution

Performance: Waste

The intent of this Aspect is to provide metrics that describe the Entity’s generation and disposal of waste during the reporting year.

Waste

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s management of solid waste generation and disposal. Waste management represents a significant financial cost, environmental impact, but also an opportunity. Waste streams have both direct and indirect impacts, such as surface water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. In some cases, waste streams may be monetized (e.g. waste-to-energy, recycling).

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Changes: “Total waste generated” has been removed from the table “Generation/import”. “Third-party processing” has been removed as a metric in the table “Disposal/export”. The metric “Unknown” has been added to the table “Disposal/export”. The calculation of “Total diverted from landfill and incineration” has been amended.

Performance Tables

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

  • Total waste disposed = “Re-use” + “Recycling” + “Composting” + Waste-to-energy” + “Incineration” + “Landfill” + “Unknown”
  • Total diverted from landfill/incineration = (“Re-use” + “Recycling” + “Composting” + “Waste-to-energy”) / “Total waste disposed” * 100
  • Waste intensity (/GAV) = “Total waste disposed” / “GAV”. GAV is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Waste intensity (/Revenue) = “Total waste disposed” / “Revenue”. Revenue is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Waste intensity (/Output) = “Total waste disposed” / “Output”. Output is reported in OI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector as reported in RC3 (Sector & geography).

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

External review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to waste data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure other types of ESG data (e.g. water) can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in WS1.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Waste’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The only scored metric for Waste is “Total diverted from landfill/incineration”.

For the scored metric only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Composting: A process to decompose organic matter. The process recycles various organic materials otherwise regarded as waste products.

Diverted from landfill/incineration: The percentage of total waste that is diverted from landfill, incineration and unknown destinations.

Hazardous waste: A solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical/chemical/infectious characteristics may either cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality/serious irreversible illness. Hazardous waste might also pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

Incineration: The destruction of waste material by burning it, without generating energy.

Landfill: The disposal of waste into, or onto, land.

Non-hazardous waste: Any solid waste that is not hazardous waste. This includes construction and demolition waste, municipal solid waste (trash or garbage), commercial and industrial waste (a wide variety of non-hazardous materials resulting from the production of goods and products).

Re-use: Any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived.

Recycling: Any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations.

Unknown: Waste for which the final disposal route or destination is not known.

Waste to energy: The process of generating energy from the primary treatment of waste.

References

Eurostat - Environment Glossary

New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority - The Waste Hierarchy

USA Environmental Protection Agency - Hazardous & Non-Hazardous Waste

Alignment with External Frameworks

DJSI CSA 2019 - 4.2.7 EP - Waste

GRI Standards 2020 - 306-3: Waste generated

GRI Standards 2020 - 306-4: Waste diverted from disposal

GRI Standards 2020 - 306-5: Waste directed to disposal

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being

3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination

SDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic Growth

8.4 Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10‑Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, with developed countries taking the lead

SDG 11 - Sustainable Cities and Communities

11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management

SDG 12 - Responsible Consumption and Production

12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources

12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment

12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse

SDG 14 - Life Below Water

14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution

Performance: Biodiversity & Habitat

The intent of this Aspect is to provide metrics that describe the Entity’s impact on biodiversity and habitat during the reporting year.

Biodiversity & Habitat

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity’s measurement of impact on biodiversity wildlife and habitat. Impacts on biodiversity and habitat management may affect risks with respect to regulation, liabilities, or social license to operate.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Performance Tables

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

  • Net habitat gain = “Habitat enhanced or restored” + “Habitat protected (on-site)” + “Habitat protected (off-site)” - “Habitat removed”
  • Habitat gain intensity (/GAV) = “Net habitat gain” / “GAV”. GAV is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Habitat gain intensity (/Revenue) = “Net habitat gain” / “Revenue”. Revenue is reported in RC2 (Economic Size) and is converted from millions to units within the calculation.
  • Habitat gain intensity (/Output) = “Net habitat gain” / “Output”. Output is reported in OI1 and is specific to the entity’s primary sector as reported in RC3 (Sector & geography).

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

External review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to biodiversity and habitat data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure other types of ESG data (e.g. water) can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in BI1.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Biodiversity & Habitat’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The only scored metric for Biodiversity & Habitat is “Net habitat gain”.

For the scored metric only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Habitat: The natural home or environment of an animal, plant, or other organism.

Habitat enhanced or restored: Disturbed habitat that is identified and improved for the benefit of native animal and plant species that occur there.

Habitat maintained: Habitat retained in its current condition through management practices, but excluding protection, enhancement or restoration. Examples of habitat maintenance are weeding and pest control.

Habitat protected: Habitat that is secured from impacts to prevent fragmentation, species extinction or reduction in range.

Habitat removed: Destruction, removal or displacement of natural habitat.

Threatened & Endangered (T&E) species: Animal and plant species that are either on the IUCN Red list, or have been designated as threatened, endangered, or protected, by local or national governments.

Wildlife: Organisms that grow or live wild in an area without being introduced by humans.

Wildlife fatality: The death of wildlife occurring in the current reporting period due to impacts from, or in relation to, the asset .

References

Eurostat - Critical Habitat: a concise summary

Eurostat - Environment Glossary

Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool

IUCN - The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

IUCN - Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards 2016 - 304: Biodiversity

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 6 - Clean Water and Sanitation

6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes

SDG 11 - Sustainable Cities and Communities

11.4 Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage

SDG 14 - Life Below Water

14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans

14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 percent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information

SDG 15 - Life on Land

15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements

15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally

15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world

15.4 By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development

15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species

Performance: Health & Safety

The intent of this Aspect is to provide metrics that describe the Entity’s health and safety performance during the reporting year.

Health & Safety

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s employees. The health and safety of employees is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Changes: The metrics “Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR)”, “Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR)” and “Hours worked” are now mandatory.

Performance Tables

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

  • Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) = “Lost time injuries” / “Hours worked” * 1,000,000
  • Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) = “Total recordable injuries” / “Hours worked” * 1,000,000

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

External review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to health and safety data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure other types of ESG data can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in HS1.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Health and Safety: employees’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The scored metrics for Health & Safety: Employees are “Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR)” and “Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR)”.

For the scored metrics only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (50% of HS1):

  • 30% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance” for LTIFR.
  • 10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target” LTIFR. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target” for LTIFR. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (50% of HS1):

  • 30% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance” for TRIFR.
  • 10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target” for TRIFR. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target” for TRIFR. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Employee: Individual who is in an employment relationship with the entity, according to national law or its application.

Fatality: The death occurring in the current reporting period, arising from an injury or disease sustained or contracted.

Hours worked: The total number of hours worked by the workers in the entity, either employees or contractors, expressed in actual total hours. For example, a worker under a 40-hour contract working for four weeks has worked 160 hours in total.

Lost Time Injury: Any injury, arising in the course of work, that results in temporary or permanent time away from work. Includes fatalities, permanent disabilities and injuries that have led to absence from work.

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR): The number of lost time injuries occurring in a workplace per million hours worked.

Lost time injuries / Total hours worked X 1,000,000

Near miss incident: An incident that had the potential to result in injury, but wherein no injury was sustained.

Recordable injury: Any injury, arising in the course of work, that is a Lost Time Injury or that has required medical treatment beyond first aid or that have led to cancer, chronic disease, fractured bones or punctured eardrums.

Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR): The number of incidents per 100 full-time workers. To calculate TRIFR use the following formula:

Total recordable injuries / Total number of hours worked X 1,000,000

References

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

ILO - International Labour Standards on Occupational Safety and Health

USA OSHA - Using Leading Indicators

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards (2018) 403: Occupational Health & Safety

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic Growth

8.8 Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment

SDG 3-Good Health and Well-being

Determined by materiality , S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s contractors. The health and safety of contractors is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Changes: The metrics “Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR)”, “Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR)” and “Hours worked” are now mandatory.

Performance Tables

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

  • Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) = “Lost time injuries” / “Hours worked” * 1,000,000
  • Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) = “Total recordable injuries” / “Hours worked” * 1,000,000

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

External review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to health and safety data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure other types of ESG data can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in HS2.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Health and Safety: contractors’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The scored metrics for Health & Safety: Employees are “Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR)” and “Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR)”.

For the scored metrics only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (50% of HS1):

  • 30% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance” for LTIFR.
  • 10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target” LTIFR. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target” for LTIFR. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (50% of HS1):

  • 30% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance” for TRIFR.
  • 10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target” for TRIFR. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target” for TRIFR. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Contractor: Person or organization working onsite or offsite on behalf of an entity. A contractor can contract their own workers directly, or contract subcontractors or independent contractors. Suppliers are not considered contractors for the purpose of this indicator.

Fatality: Any deaths that occurred during or as a result of a disease or injury that occurred at or through work.

Lost Time Injury: Any injury, arising in the course of work, that results in temporary or permanent time away from work. Includes fatalities, permanent disabilities and injuries that have led to absence from work.

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR): The number of lost time injuries occurring in a workplace per million hours worked.

Lost time injuries / Total hours worked X 1,000,000

Recordable injury: Any injury, arising in the course of work, that is a Lost Time Injury or that has required medical treatment beyond first aid or that have led to cancer, chronic disease, fractured bones or punctured eardrums.

Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR): The number of incidents per 100 full-time workers. To calculate TRIFR use the following formula:

Total recordable injuries / Total number of hours worked X 1,000,000

References

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

ILO - International Labour Standards on Occupational Safety and Health

USA OSHA - Using Leading Indicators

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards (2018) 403: Occupational Health & Safety

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic Growth

8.8 Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment

SDG 3-Good Health and Well-being

Determined by materiality , S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s users. The health and safety of users is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Performance Tables

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

External review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to health and safety data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure other types of ESG data can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in HS3.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Health and Safety: users’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The only scored metric for Health & Safety: Users is “Total recordable injuries”.

For the scored metric only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Fatality: Any deaths that occurred during or as a result of a disease or injury that occurred at or through work.

Recordable injury: Any injury, arising in the course of work, that is a Lost Time Injury or that has required medical treatment beyond first aid or that have led to cancer, chronic disease, fractured bones or punctured eardrums.

User: Users are people that interact physically with the asset when they use its services.

References

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

ILO - International Labour Standards on Occupational Safety and Health

USA OSHA - Using Leading Indicators

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards (2018) 403: Occupational Health & Safety

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being

3.6 By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents

SDG 11 - Sustainable Cities and Communities

11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons

Determined by materiality , S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess health and safety performance associated with the entity’s community. The health and safety of the community is a common key performance indicator for infrastructure operators.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, the entity must be actively tracking and reporting on all of the mandatory reporting metrics (indicated by the dark green cell outline).

Performance Tables

Previous-year performance (2019): This column shows the reported performance for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2019). If a metric is new or has changed substantially compared to last year’s Assessment, or if there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown.

It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2020 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data. If the previous-year data is incorrect (for example, a reporting error was made) the entity can use the open text box below the indicator to inform investors.

Reporting-year performance (2020): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for each metric. The metrics highlighted with a dark green border are mandatory. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. If the entity cannot provide all of the mandatory data, it must select “No” for the overall indicator.

Reporting-year target (2020): Enter any targets that were applicable for the reporting year for each metric. Reporting-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • A target can be interpolated from a future-year target.
  • A target (or the future-year target from which it is derived) must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set and communicated the target at least internally, and has implemented, or is preparing, actions to achieve the target.

Future-year targets: Enter the relevant year for which the targets are set at the top of the column and enter the future-year targets for each metric where available. Future-year targets are optional to report; if the entity has not set a target for a metric, it should leave the cell blank.

  • The future year for which the target is set should be reported in the top of the column under the header ‘Future-year target’.
  • A target must be formally adopted. This means that the entity must have set the target at least internally and has implemented or is preparing actions to achieve the target.
  • The target must be set for any future year that is not the reporting year.

External review

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, state whether the data submitted has been checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the data was subjected). Participants should select the appropriate checkbox(es):

  • Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process.
  • Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
  • Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

GRESB does not require the selected standard to be specific to health and safety data. As such, a standard initially designed to verify/assure other types of ESG data can be selected as long as the same thoroughness and review criteria are applied to data reported in HS4.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is subject to automatic validation. The GRESB portal has built-in checks to review the values entered in the cells and a warning message might display if a potential error is detected. In case of a warning message, entities should review their data and ensure that the values entered are indeed correct. It is possible to add additional information in the text box below the indicator to provide investors with more context.

GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2021 Assessments in June 2021 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The aim of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of external review in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof of the existence of third-party review of the data;
  • Clear indication that the reviewed data reflects the reported data;
  • A description of the type of third-party review (checked, verified or assured) and the used assurance standard (if applicable);
  • Proof that the data review applies to the entity.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Health and Safety: community’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The only scored metric for Health & Safety: Community is “Total recordable injuries”.

For the scored metric only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

  • 60% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. For 2021, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
  • 20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. For 2021, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Fatality: Any deaths that occurred during or as a result of a disease or injury that occurred at or through work.

Recordable injury: Any injury, arising in the course of work, that is a Lost Time Injury or that has required medical treatment beyond first aid or that have led to cancer, chronic disease, fractured bones or punctured eardrums.

Community: Persons or groups of people living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by the operations.

References

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

ILO - International Labour Standards on Occupational Safety and Health

USA OSHA - Using Leading Indicators

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standards (2018) 403: Occupational Health & Safety

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being

3.6 By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents

SDG 11 - Sustainable Cities and Communities

11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons

Performance: Employees

The intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity's ESG performance in relation to its employees in terms of engagement and diversity and inclusion.

Employees

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , S

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess the coverage and scope of the entity's engagement with its employees through training and satisfaction surveys.

ESG training reflects the entity’s commitment to building its employees’ capacity to manage complex ESG issues. A more skilled and aware workforce enhances the entity's human capital and may help to improve employee satisfaction. Employee training and development contribute to improved business performance.

Employee satisfaction surveys help organizations understand critical issues within the business, engage with their staff and increase employee satisfaction, which may contribute to improving retention rates and overall productivity. Using widely applied employee satisfaction surveys should be translated into easily interpretable metrics that can help analyze and compare the outcomes, despite the many variations between firms.

Requirements

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

Employee training: Provide the percentages for the number of employees that received training out of the total number of employees during the reporting year. The percentage of employees covered should be based on Full Time Equivalents (FTE) or headcount. Answers should be applicable at the entity, operator and/or manager level.

  • Employees receiving professional training: Number of employees receiving training / Total number of employees x 100
  • Employees receiving ESG training: Number of employees receiving ESG-specific training / Total number of employees x 100

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

Employee satisfaction surveys: Indicate what percentage of employees was surveyed during the last three years. The percentage of employees covered should be based on Full Time Equivalents (FTE) or headcount. If the number of employees changed during the reporting year, the percentage should be calculated based on the average number.

The response rate is the percentage of employees that received and completed the survey, compared to the total number of employees that received the survey. For example, if the survey was sent to 100 employees and 40 responded, the response rate would be 40%.

The entity can indicate what quantitative metrics were used for the survey. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Employee engagement’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded for the options selected and then aggregated to calculate the final fractional score. It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator. The options are not all assigned equal weights; more points are awarded when the survey was completed by an external party and if the Net Promoter Score was used.

The second part of the indicator, employee satisfaction monitoring, has two elements that are scored - employee satisfaction survey (fractionally ⅔ of this part) and using quantitative metrics within the survey (⅓). It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score. For the employee satisfaction survey, points are awarded for providing the percentage of employees covered by the survey for those undertaken internally or independently respectively. Full fractional score is obtained if the survey is undertaken by an independent third party versus internally. In regard to quantitative metrics (in the survey) full fractional score is obtained for using Net Promoter Score, with lesser score for other metrics.

Reporting of exceptions is not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Employee Satisfaction Survey: Survey measuring overall and work-specific employee satisfaction at the individual and organizational levels. The survey should directly address employee concerns and include the opportunity to provide recommendations for improvement.

Employee (s): Either the entity’s employees or the organization’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

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

ESG-specific training: Training related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.

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

Net Promoter Score: The Net Promoter Score® (NPS) is a customer loyalty metric developed by Bain & Company, Fred Reichheld, and Satmetrix.

Overall satisfaction score: An overarching metric in a satisfaction survey, with no prescribed scale, that measures how happy an employee or customer is with the entity and/or services provided.

Quantitative metric: Any measure or parameter that can be represented numerically.

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

Survey response rate: The proportion of submitted surveys as a percentage of the total number of people or organizations that received a request to complete a survey.

Training: A formal and structured training program addressing ESG-related issues and opportunities for action.

References

Bain & Company, Introducing: The Net Promoter System®

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 5.3.1 Training & Development Inputs

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 5.4.4 Trend of Employee Engagement

GRI Standard 102-43: Approach to stakeholder engagement

GRI Standard 404-1: Average hours of training per year per employee

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic Growth

8.6 By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training

SDG 12 - Responsible Consumption and Production

12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature

SDG 13 - Climate Action

13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning

Determined by materiality , S

Intent

This indicator identifies the metrics used by the organization to monitor inclusion and diversity in governance bodies and at employee level. Diversity on boards has become a clear priority for investors and is considered to positively impact investment decisions and organizational competitiveness.

Requirements

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

Diversity measures: The percentages of all employees should be based on Full Time Equivalents (FTE) or headcount. Answers should be applicable at the entity, operator and/or manager level.

Changes: The option to report the gender pay gap quantitatively has been added for all employees.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to manual validation.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Inclusion and diversity’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required. Fractional points are awarded for reporting values for:

  • Gender ratio of governance bodies
  • Gender ratio of all employees

Fractional points are aggregated to calculate the final fractional score. The options are assigned equal weights. Entities can only obtain maximum points for this indicator if they provide values for both the gender ratio of governance bodies and the gender ratio of all employees.

Reporting of exceptions is not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Employee: Individual who is in an employment relationship with the entity, according to national law or its application.

Gender pay gap: Percentage difference of average hourly earnings between men and women.

Gender ratio: Proportion of one gender to another in a given population.

Governance body: Committee or board responsible for the strategic guidance of the organization, the effective monitoring of management, and the accountability of management to the broader organization and its stakeholders. Examples of governance bodies may include Board of Directors and Non-Executive Directors.

Socioeconomic background: Combined measure of sociological and economic background of a person.

References

ILO - Equality and Discrimination

Alignment with External Frameworks

SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.1.4 Gender Diversity

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting 2017 - 5.1, Diversity-Employee gender diversity

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting 2017: 5.2, Diversity- Pay Gender pay ratio

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-22 - Composition of the highest governance body and its committees

GRI Standards 2016 - 405-1 - Diversity of governance bodies and employees

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 5 - Gender Equality

5.1 End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere

5.5 Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life

SDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic Growth

8.5 By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value

SDG 10 - Reduced Inequalities

10.2 By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status

10.3 Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard

Performance: Customers

The intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity's ESG performance in relation to its customer satisfaction monitoring.

Customers

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , S

Intent

This indicator assesses whether and to what extent the organization engages with customers regarding their satisfaction with the services provided by the asset. Using consistently applied metrics can help analyze and compare the outcomes, despite the many variations between entities.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting “Yes”, tick select all applicable checkbox(es).

Percentage of customers covered: The percentage of customers covered is based on the number of customers (e.g. organizations) that received the customer satisfaction survey during the reporting year. If the number of customers changed during the reporting year, use the number at the end of the reporting year. The denominator is the total number of customers in the reporting year.

Survey response rate: The percentage of customers that received and completed the survey, compared to the total number of customers that received the survey. For example, if the survey was sent to 100 customers and 40 responded, the response rate would be 40%.

Survey metrics: The entity can indicate what quantitative metrics were used for the survey. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2020 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2020 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Exceptions

Select Yes or No: GRESB is seeking to standardize the scope and boundaries of reporting to allow for more accurate benchmarking and to progressively move towards scoring of performance. If the scope of the data reported for this indicator does not exactly match the reporting scope (facilities, ancillary activities and time period) as reported in “Entity and Reporting Characteristics” (EC4, RC3, RC4), then answer ‘No’ to this question and describe these exceptions in the “Exceptions” text box.

Examples are:

  • Temporal - A toll road includes data on energy consumption from its street lighting within its boundary but due to a data glitch, it lost this data for a two month period during the reporting year.
  • Physical - A power plant includes a switchyard facility within its reporting boundary but does not have data on water discharge for this facility.
  • Operational - An airport includes the operation of mobile equipment within its reporting boundary but not for aircraft since these are operated by airlines.

Validation

The ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.

Scoring

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Customer satisfaction’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

  • No relevance (unscored)
  • Low relevance (unscored)
  • Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)
  • High relevance (scored at high weighting)

Where an issue is of 'No relevance' or ‘Low relevance’ the indicator is not considered in scoring (i.e. it has a weighting of 0%). If an issue is of 'Medium relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the Performance Component score with higher than ‘standard’ weighting.

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicators in the Performance Component is automatically redistributed to ensure that the Component retains its overall weighting of 60% of the Asset Assessment. For more details download the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool.

Scoring of Metrics: This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.

Fractional points are awarded for the options selected and then aggregated to calculate the final fractional score. It is not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator. The options are not all assigned equal weights; more points are awarded when the survey was completed by an external party and if the Net Promoter Score was used.

Reporting of exceptions is not scored in 2021.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Terminology

Customer satisfaction survey: A written survey conducted by the entity, or by a third party on its behalf, that gives the customer the opportunity to provide feedback on the services provided.

Net Promoter Score: The Net Promoter Score® (NPS) is a customer loyalty metric developed by Bain & Company, Fred Reichheld, and Satmetrix.

Overall satisfaction score: An overarching metric in a satisfaction survey, with no prescribed scale, that measures how happy an employee or customer is with the entity and/or services provided.

Quantitative metric: Any measure or parameter that can be represented numerically.

Survey response rate: The proportion of submitted surveys as a percentage of the total number of people or organizations that received a request to complete a survey.

References

Bain & Company, Introducing: The Net Promoter System®

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standard 102-43: Approach to stakeholder engagement

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals

Performance: Certifications & Awards

The intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity's achievement and/or maintenance of ESG-related certifications and awards. Certifications provide recognition for a certain level of ESG performance.

Certifications and Awards

2020 Indicator

2.88 points , G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether there has been any certified recognition for ESG-related practices or performance. Certification of an entity's ESG management and/or performance provides robust assurance that is of interest to investors.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If you select “Yes”, provide at least one certification to complete the table.

List certifications received: Describe all ESG certifications achieved by the asset. For each of the certifications added to the table, it is mandatory to:

  1. In column 1, “Project name”, provide the name of the project, facility or asset that obtained the certification;
  2. In column 2, “Date of award”, provide the date the certification was awarded;
  3. In column 3, “Certification scheme / subscheme”, select the scheme/sub-scheme name from the dropdown menu. The list of validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix 9 of the Reference Guide. If you wish to add a new scheme, please contact

    GRESB Helpdesk

    . Certifications that are added by GRESB to the existing list must fulfill the following requirements (More information available in Appendix 10):
    • Infrastructure and sustainability focused, and certified at asset-level.
    • The assessment process and criteria documents/information are available and robust.
    • The technical development of the scheme is overseen by a governance body.
    • The certification is based on a technical documentation review and/or on-site assessment.
    • The certification process is conducted by an independent and qualified professional.
  4. In column 4, “Phase”, select the phase of the project to which the certification applies.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Evidence

It is mandatory to provide evidence of certification. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • Proof that the certification applies to the entity;
  • Proof of the award date of the certification.

Scoring

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of providing information in the table and adding supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence is mandatory to obtain points. Your answer will not be scored unless the hyperlink and/or the uploaded document is considered valid. The evidence piece itself is not subject to manual validation. Maximum points are awarded when a participant completes the table for at least one certification.

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

References

Good practice example: Link

Not scored , G

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess third-party awards received by the entity for ESG management or performance. Awards provide a potentially useful indicator of entity performance. This indicator is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If you select “Yes”, provide at least one example to complete the table.

List certifications received: Describe all ESG awards achieved during the reporting year by completing the table as follows for each award:

  1. In column 1, “Award name”, provide the name of the award;
  2. In column 2, “Organization issuing award”, provide the name of the organization or body that issued the award;
  3. In column 3, “Date of award”, indicate when the award was obtained;
  4. In column 4, “Basis for award”, describe why the award was obtained, for which ESG issue(s) it was given and what part or aspect of the asset achieved the award.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Evidence

It is optional to provide evidence of the award, such as in the form of a third-party letter or certificate. Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator in 2021. Evidence can be provided by a hyperlink or through a document.

  • Hyperlink: If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.
  • Document upload: Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document (e.g. for evidence relating to issue x, see section y on page z; for evidence relating to issue a, etc.).

Evidence should include:

  • The name of the award and the issuing body or organization;
  • The date of the award;
  • The basis for the award;
  • Proof that the award applies to the entity.

The entity should provide sufficient information to allow investors to access case studies, research or other supplemental materials.

Scoring

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

Click here for the Asset Assessment Scoring Document .

Appendix 1

2021 Infrastructure GRESB Asset Assessment Changes

The 2021 Assessment development process indicated that the topics covered are material to stakeholders across the board. After the structural changes implemented in 2020, the focus has been on consolidating the existing Assessments and ensuring that the Resilience Module was integrated into the Assessment appropriately.

The changes in the Management Component have been limited to small amendments to indicators to provide respondents with more appropriate reporting options, and the integration of the Resilience Module in existing indicators and through the addition of five new indicators in the Risk Management aspect. This will enable all participants to align to TCFD reporting requirements.

The changes in the Performance Component have been focused on providing a better reporting experience for participants, by simplifying some metrics and adding others to support specific sectors in their ESG reporting.

All work on the 2021 Assessments was undertaken with the support and input of the Infrastructure Advisory Board (IAB) and the Infrastructure Benchmark Committee (IBC).

For more information, please see our webpage.

Management Component

High-level comments

Integration of Resilience Module

The Resilience Module, which was previously optional, has been integrated into the Management Component. Five new indicators have been added to the aspect Risk Management and changes have been made to two indicators in the Leadership aspect.

Minor changes to indicators

Minor changes have been made to a few indicators to add some new options or to restructure them for better validation.

Indicator Level Changes

LE2

ESG leadership commitments - New commitments added

Description: New commitments have been added under “General ESG commitments: Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action” and “Formal environmental issue-specific commitments: Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action”.

Rationale for change: This allows entities that have made a commitment to these initiatives to report them to investors.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden to provide meaningful information to investors.

LE4

Individual responsible for ESG objectives - Resilience integrated

Description: The indicator has been restructured. It is now split between ESG and climate-related issues so that entities can provide different contact details for each topic.

Rationale for change: This indicator change is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

LE5

ESG senior decision maker - Resilience integrated

Description: The indicator has been restructured. It is now split between ESG and climate-related issues so that entities can provide different contact details for each topic.

Rationale for change: This indicator change is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

RM2.1

Environmental risk assessments - Restructured for simpler validation

Description: The options that can be selected as elements of a risk assessment have been changed and are now listed as radio buttons (i.e., an entity can only select one instead of multiple).

Rationale for change: This change simplifies the validation of the supporting evidence and aligns with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Impact of change: No change in reporting burden.

RM2.2

Social risk assessments - Restructured for simpler validation

Description: The options that can be selected as elements of a risk assessment have been changed and are now listed as radio buttons (i.e., an entity can only select one instead of multiple).

Rationale for change: This change simplifies the validation of the supporting evidence and aligns with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Impact of change: No change in reporting burden.

RM2.3

Governance risk assessments - Restructured for simpler validation

Description: The options that can be selected as elements of a risk assessment have been changed and are now listed as radio buttons (i.e., an entity can only select one instead of multiple).

Rationale for change: This change simplifies the validation of the supporting evidence and aligns with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Impact of change: No change in reporting burden.

RM3

Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on resilience of strategy to climate-related risks

Rationale for change: This indicator is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

RM4.1

Transition risk identification - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on identification of climate-related transition risks

Rationale for change: This indicator is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations.

Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

RM4.2

Transition risk impact assessment - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on assessment of climate-related transition risks.

Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations.

Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

RM4.3

Physical risk identification - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on identification of climate-related physical risks.

Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations.

Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

RM4.4

Physical risk impact assessment - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on assessment of climate-related physical risks.

Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations.

Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

SE1

Stakeholder engagement program - New option added

Description: A new option has been added to the checklist “elements of the stakeholder engagement program”.

Rationale for change: This allows entities to better report how their stakeholder engagement program is structured.

Impact of change: Very small increase in reporting burden.

SE2

Supply chain engagement program - New option added

Description: A new option has been added to the checklist for “elements of the supply chain engagement program”, and two new issues have been added to the checklist “issues covered by the procurement processes”.

Rationale for change: These small changes allow for a more precise reporting of how the entity’s supply chain program is structured.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.

Performance Component

High-level comments

Output - Indicator now mandatory

As part of the ongoing work to score performance, the reporting of the “Output” metric for the reporting year will become mandatory for all participants in the Performance Component. This will enable the automatic calculation of output intensities for other indicators to allow for better benchmarking and to facilitate the scoring of performance in the future.

Energy - Removed table

The table “Energy generated from fuels” was removed. This table was added in 2020 to enable entities in the Power Generation x-Renewables and Renewable Power sectors to report fuels used in the energy generation process. This was identified as a less relevant set of information and has therefore been removed.

Water - Water quality table added

A new table “Discharge water quality” has been added to the indicator WT2 “Water outflows / discharges”. This table was added to better align with GRI, and to provide relevant information to investors on a potential ESG risk. Only the quality of water discharged to natural bodies of water (i.e., sensitive waterways) will need to be reported.

Other - Minor changes to tables

All tables in the Performance Component were reviewed. In some cases, metrics were reshuffled to make it clearer to participants how metrics are calculated. In other cases, metrics were added.

Indicator Level Changes

OI1

Output & impact - Output reporting mandatory

Description: This indicator is now mandatory for all entities reporting to the Performance Component. The only mandatory metric in the indicator is “Output”.

Rationale for change: The output metric is used to calculate intensities for the environmental indicators in the Performance Component. Having all entities report on this metric allows for better benchmarking and allows GRESB to score performance in the future.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden.

EN1

Performance Indicators - Reporting boundaries

Description: The table “Energy generated from fuels” has been removed.

Rationale for change: This table was added in 2020 to enable entities in the Power Generation x-Renewables and Renewable Power sectors to report fuels used in the energy generation process. This was identified as a less relevant set of information and has therefore been removed.

Impact of change: Decrease in reporting burden.


Energy - New metric “LPG, butane or propane” added

Description: A new metric has been added to the tables “Energy imported / purchased” and “Energy exported / sold”: “LPG, butane or propane”.

Rationale for change: This metric was added as many entities reported this fuel under the “other fuel” option in 2020. Having this metric as a separate option in the table facilitates the reporting process and makes it easier for investors to analyse the reported data.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.


Energy - New metric “Biofuels (produced onsite)” added

Description: A new metric has been added to the table “Energy generated onsite”: “Biofuels (produced onsite)”.

Rationale for change: This metric was added to allow the reporting of biofuels generated from internal processes, such as methane during wastewater treatment.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.

AP1

Air pollution - New metric “Ozone-depleting substances” added

Description: A new metric, “Ozone-depleting substances”, has been added to the performance table. This will focus on the ozone-depleting potential, rather than on the global warming potential of these substances (which can be reported under Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

Rationale for change: Ozone-depleting substances are a relevant air pollution metric in several legislations.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.

WT2

Water outflows / discharges - New table on water quality added

Description: A new table on the water quality of water discharged to sensitive waterways has been added.

Rationale for change: Water discharge quality poses a material ESG risk and is therefore relevant for investors. Only water discharged to sensitive waterways (groundwater, seawater / brackish water and surface water) should be reported under water quality.

Impact of change: Increased reporting burden.


WS1

Waste - Metric “Total generated” removed

Description: The metric “Total generated” has been removed from the table “Generation/Import”.

Rationale for change: This metric is a duplicate of “Total disposed” and therefore doesn’t add value to have reported separately.

Impact of change: Small reduction in reporting burden.


Waste - Metric “Third-party processing” removed

Description: The metric “Third-party processing” has been removed from the table “Disposal/export”.

Rationale for change: This metric potentially overlapped with other metrics in the table.

Impact of change: Small reduction in reporting burden.


Waste - Metric “Unknown” added

Description: The metric “Unknown” has been added to the table “Disposal/export”.

Rationale for change: This metric allows entities to report any waste with an unknown disposal route and provides insights for investors on how entities have mapped their waste disposal. The metric will be included in the calculation of the metric “% waste diverted from landfill/incineration”.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.

HS1

Health & Safety: Employees - Metrics now mandatory

Description: The metrics “Lost time injuries”, “Total recordable injuries” and “Hours worked” are now mandatory.

Rationale for change: These metrics are used to calculate the scored metrics, “Lost time injury frequency rate” and “Total recordable injury frequency rate”. As the metrics are highly material, they have been made mandatory.

Impact of change: Increased reporting burden.

HS2

Health & Safety: Contractors - Metrics now mandatory

Description: The metrics “Lost time injuries”, “Total recordable injuries” and “Hours worked” are now mandatory.

Rationale for change: These metrics are used to calculate the scored metrics, “Lost time injury frequency rate” and “Total recordable injury frequency rate”. As the metrics are highly material, they have been made mandatory.

Impact of change: Increased reporting burden.

EM2

Inclusion & Diversity - Gender pay gap reporting

Description: The gender pay gap can now be reported quantitatively.

Rationale for change: The gender pay gap is becoming an increasingly material metric to investors.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden

CA1

Certifications - Certification Requirement Simplified

Description: The certification requirements have been reviewed and ammended

Rationale for change: The preexisting criteria was complex and difficult to use.

Impact of change: Simplified and more coherent language and criteria around certification requirmements.

Appendix 2

Terminology

The below list identifies terminology that is frequently referenced throughout the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment. Indicator specific terminology is referenced within the guidance notes, for each indicator.

Environmental issues:

Air pollution: Air pollutants are particles and gases released into the atmosphere that may adversely affect living organisms. Additionally, some pollutants contribute to climate change or exacerbate the effects of climate change locally.

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

Contaminated land: Land that contains substances in or under it that are actually or potentially hazardous to human health or the environment.

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

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

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

Hazardous substances: Also known as dangerous goods. Any substances that can pose a health or physical hazard to humans or the environment, such as carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, combustibles or explosives.

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

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

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

Physical risk: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of physical hazards, natural disasters, catastrophes, as well as physical climate-related hazards, which may be event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). The physical risk associated with a particular real asset may be described in terms of elements including hazard exposure, sensitivity, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity. Decreasing the sensitivity of an asset to particular physical risks, increasing its adaptive capacity, and planning are all ways of increasing the resilience of the built environment against physical risks, climate-driven or otherwise. In practice, these objectives may be promoted by various actions including the establishment of appropriate management policies; the utilisation of informational technologies for disaster response; the education of employees, the community, and suppliers; and implementing physical measures at the asset level.

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

Water outflows/discharges: Discharge of water to water bodies (e.g. lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers and groundwater) or to third-parties for treatment or use.

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

Social issues:

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

Community development: A process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local employment: Providing jobs and skills to local people as employees, and to local contractors.

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

Stakeholder relations: The practice of forging mutually beneficial connections with third-party groups and individuals that have a stake in common interest.

Governance issues:

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

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

Board ESG oversight: The highest committee or position that formally reviews and approves the organization’s sustainability report and ensures that all material topics are covered (definition based on GRI102-32).

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

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving or soliciting an item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal fiduciary duty.

Corruption: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

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

Conflicts of interest: Situations where an individual is confronted with choosing between the requirements of his or her function and his or her own private interests (definition based on GRI102-25).

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

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

Delegating authority: The process for delegating authority for economic, environmental, and social topics from the highest governance (definition based onGRI102-19).

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

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

Independence of Board chair: A non-executive member of the board is considered independent if they are not under any other undue influence, internal or external, political or ownership, that would impede their exercise of objective judgment.

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

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

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

Shareholder rights: Assessing the potential risk of breaking or working against the entity’s contractual shareholder rights. Shareholder rights are defined in the company’s charter and bylaws.

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

Stakeholder group list:

Clients/Customers: A customer is understood to include end-customers (consumer) as well as business-to-business customers.

Community/Public: Persons or groups of persons living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by an entity’s operations.

Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite or offsite on behalf of an entity. A contractor can contract their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors.

Employee(s): Either the entity’s employees or the organization’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

Investors/shareholders: The entity’s current investors and/or equity stake owners in the entity.

Regulators/Government: The state and/or local authoritative and administrative governing body.

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

Suppliers: Organizations that have a direct commercial relationship with the entity to provide a product or service. Note that here, suppliers only include tier 1 suppliers.

Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors): Organizations that have an indirect commercial relationship with the entity to provide a product or service somewhere in the entity’s supply chain.

Users:Users are people that interact physically with the asset when they use its services.

Appendix 3

The list of sectors aligns to the EDHECInfra TICCS™ standard Industrial Classifications.

Sector Definitions

Superclass Superclass Description Class Class Description
Data Infrastructure Companies involved in the provision of telecommunication and data infrastructure. Data Transmission Data transmission companies involved in the construction, operation, and maintenance of data transmission assets including telecommunications towers, land or sea based long-distance communication cables, and communication satellites.
Data Storage Data storage companies involved in the development, operation, and maintenance of physical data storage infrastructure. This does not include companies that offer data storage in addition to other products.
Energy and Water Resources Companies involved in the treatment and delivery of natural resources. Natural Resources Transportation Companies Natural Resources Transportation Companies develop and operate high-pressure transmission pipelines and natural resources transportation.
Energy Resource Processing Companies Energy natural resource processing companies transform crude oil, natural gas, and other commodities into various derivative or transformed products.
Energy Resource Storage Companies Energy natural resource storage companies provide storage services to private and public clients by exploiting large natural caverns or buildings and maintaining over- or underground tanks.
Environmental Services Companies involved in the treatment of water, wastewater, and solid waste for sanitation and reuse purposes. Waste Treatment Waste treatment services include the collection and disposal of waste refuse from residential, commercial, or industrial sources.
Water Supply and Treatment Stand-alone water treatment companies produce water for various uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial end users.
Wastewater Treatment Stand-alone wastewater treatment companies treat wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial sources to a certain discharge or reuse standard.
Environmental Management Environmental management companies invest in projects that conserve natural resources, protect habitats, and control hazards.
Network Utilities Companies operating an infrastructure network with natural monopoly characteristics (barriers to entry, increasing returns to scale). Electricity Distribution Companies Electricity distribution companies distribute medium-voltage electricity to final consumers.
Electricity Transmission Companies Electricity transmission companies transmit relatively high-voltage electricity from the point of generation source to a distribution network.
District Cooling/Heating Companies Heating or cooling companies provide service in urban areas using combined heat and power to recycle or reuse waste heat.
Water and Sewerage Companies Water and sewerage companies provide potable water treatment and distribution services as well as the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater and sewerage.
Gas Distribution Companies Gas distribution companies operate low-pressure pipeline networks delivering natural gas to end residential, commercial, and industrial consumers.
Data Distribution Companies Data distribution companies involve in provision of essential data network especially to sectors of economy (e.g. financial systems, industrial supply chain, public utilities, etc) through utilisation of fiber networks, cell towers, data centers and other data infrastructure.
Power Generation x-Renewables Stand-alone power generation using a range of technologies except wind, solar, and other renewable sources. Independent Power Producers Independent power producers (IPP) provide electricity to power distribution and transmission companies or directly to industrial or commercial clients.
Independent Water and Power Producers Independent water and power producers (IWPP) are power producers with a colocated water-desalination or filtration facility. Industrial, potable, or ultra-pure water is typically a by-product of the power generation process.
Renewable Power Stand-alone power generation and transmission companies using wind, solar, hydro and other renewable energy sources. Also energy storage companies. Wind Power Generation Wind power