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

Management: Leadership

This aspect consists of 6 indicators (10% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

Leadership

2023 Indicator

FAQ

LE1

Entity materiality assessment

Has the entity undertaken an ESG materiality assessment in the last three years?

Yes

Elements covered in the materiality assessment report (multiple answers possible)

1

¹⁄₂

Identification of the material ESG issues from the entity's operations

¹⁄₂

Engagement with relevant stakeholders to identify which issues are material

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

LE1

1.44 points , G

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.

FAQ

LE2

ESG leadership commitments

Has the entity made a public commitment to ESG leadership standards or principles?

Yes

General ESG commitments (multiple answers possible)

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

UN Global Compact

Other: ____________

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

Support the Goals

Other: ____________

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Formal environmental issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

Business for nature

Climate League 2030

EV100

Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA)

RE 100

Science Based Targets Initiative

UN Global Compact Our Only Future

Other: ____________

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

Task force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures

Other: ____________

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Formal social issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

40:40 Vision

Other: ____________

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

The Responsible Labor Initiative (RLI)

World Business Council for Sustainable Development's Call to Action

30% Club

Other: ____________

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Formal governance issue-specific commitments (multiple answers possible)

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

List commitment(s): ____________

Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).

List commitment(s): ____________

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Net Zero Commitments (multiple answers possible)

Net Zero Asset Managers initiative: Net Zero Asset Managers Commitment

PAII Net Zero Asset Owner Commitment

Science Based Targets initiative: Net Zero Standard commitment

The Climate Pledge

Transform to Net Zero

WorldGBC Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment

UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance

UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge

Other: ____________

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

LE2

Not scored , G

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

Objectives

2023 Indicator

FAQ

LE3

ESG objectives

Does the entity have ESG objectives?

Yes

The objectives relate to (multiple answers possible)

General objectives

⁴⁄₅

¹⁄₃

Environment

¹⁄₃

Social

¹⁄₃

Governance

Issue-specific objectives

¹⁄₅

1

DEI

The objectives are

×

Publicly available

Provide applicable hyperlink or a separate publicly available document

1

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Not publicly available

Provide applicable evidence

³⁄₄

Upload

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

LE3

2.84 points , G

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 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.

FAQ

LE4

Individual responsible for ESG, climate-related, and/or DEI objectives

Does the entity have one or more persons responsible for implementing ESG, climate-related, and/or DEI objectives?

Yes

ESG

⁴⁄₅

Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)

⁵⁄₅

Dedicated employee for whom sustainability is the core responsibility

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Employee for whom sustainability is among their responsibilities

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

²⁄₅

External consultant/manager

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

Climate-related risks and opportunities

Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)

Dedicated employee with core responsibility

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

Employee where this is among their responsibilities

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

External consultant/manager

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

¹⁄₅

Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)

⁵⁄₅

Dedicated employee for whom DEI is the core responsibility

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Employee for whom DEI is among their responsibilities

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

²⁄₅

External consultant/manager

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

LE4

1.44 points , G

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.

FAQ

LE5

ESG, climate-related and/or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) senior decision maker

Does the entity have a senior decision-maker accountable for ESG, climate-related, and/or DEI issues?

Yes

ESG

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on ESG issues:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

The individual's most senior role is as part of:

1

Board of directors

1

C-suite level staff/Senior management

1

Fund/portfolio managers

1

Investment committee

1

Other: ____________

Climate-related risks and opportunities

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

¹⁄₅

The individual's most senior role is as part of:

1

Board of directors

1

C-suite level staff/Senior management

1

Fund/portfolio managers

1

Investment committee

1

Other: ____________

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on DEI:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

¹⁄₅

The individual's most senior role is as part of:

1

Board of directors

1

C-suite level staff/Senior management

1

Fund/portfolio managers

1

Investment committee

1

Other: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

LE5

1.44 points , G

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.

FAQ

LE6

Personnel ESG performance targets

Does the entity include ESG factors in the annual performance targets of personnel?

Yes

Does performance against these targets have predetermined financial consequences? (multiple answers possible)

Yes

Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible):

1

²⁄₄

All other employees

³⁄₄

Asset managers

³⁄₄

Board of directors

³⁄₄

C-suite level staff/Senior management

²⁄₄

Dedicated staff on ESG issues

²⁄₄

ESG managers

²⁄₄

External managers or service providers

²⁄₄

Fund/portfolio managers

²⁄₄

Investment analysts

²⁄₄

Investment committee

²⁄₄

Investor relations

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

LE6

2.84 points , G

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 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.

Management: Policies

This aspect consists of 3 indicators (4.32% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

Policies

2023 Indicator

FAQ

PO1

Policies on environmental issues

Does the entity have a policy or policies on environmental issues?

Yes

Select all material issues that are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)

1

M

Air pollution

M

Biodiversity and habitat

M

Contaminated land

M

Energy

M

Greenhouse gas emissions

M

Hazardous substances

M

Light pollution

M

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

M

Net zero

M

Noise pollution

M

Physical risk

M

Waste

M

Water outflows/discharges

M

Water inflows/withdrawals

M

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PO1

1.44 points , E

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:

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
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.

FAQ

PO2

Policies on social issues

Does the entity have a policy or policies on social issues?

Yes

Select all material issues that are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)

1

M

Child labor

M

Community development

M

Customer satisfaction

M

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

M

Employee engagement

M

Forced or compulsory labor

M

Freedom of association

M

Health and safety: community

M

Health and safety: contractors

M

Health and safety: employees

M

Health and safety: supply chain

M

Health and safety: users

M

Labor standards and working conditions

M

Local employment

M

Social enterprise partnering

M

Stakeholder relations

M

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PO2

1.44 points , S

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:

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
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.

FAQ

PO3

Policies on governance issues

Does the entity have a policy or policies on governance issues?

Yes

Select all material issues that are covered by a policy or policies (multiple answers possible)

1

M

Audit committee structure/independence

M

Board composition

M

Board ESG oversight

M

Bribery and corruption

M

Compensation committee structure/independence

M

Conflicts of interest

M

Cybersecurity

M

Data protection and privacy

M

Delegating authority

M

Executive compensation

M

Fraud

M

Independence of board chair

M

Lobbying activities

M

Political contributions

M

Shareholder rights

M

Whistleblower protection

M

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

PO3

1.44 points , G

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:

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
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.

Management: Reporting

This aspect consists of 3 indicators (4.28% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

Reporting

2023 Indicator

FAQ

RP1

ESG reporting

Does the entity disclose its ESG actions and/or performance?

Yes

Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)

⁵⁄₅

³⁄₆

Integrated Report*

*Integrated Report must be aligned with the IIRC framework

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Group

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

1

Externally verified

1

Externally assured

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

⁴⁄₅

²⁄₆

Stand-alone sustainability report(s)

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Group

¹⁄₆

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

1

Externally verified

1

Externally assured

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

³⁄₅

²⁄₆

Section of Annual Report

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Group

¹⁄₆

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

1

Externally verified

1

Externally assured

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

¹⁄₅

²⁄₃

Dedicated section on website

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₃

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Group

×

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

²⁄₅

⁴⁄₆

Entity reporting to investors

Frequency of reporting: ____________

Select the applicable reporting level

Entity

Group

¹⁄₆

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

¹⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

1

Externally verified

1

Externally assured

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

²⁄₅

²⁄₆

Other: ____________

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Group

¹⁄₆

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

1

Externally verified

1

Externally assured

No

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RP1

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

2.84 points , G

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.

FAQ

RP2.1

ESG incident monitoring

Does the entity have a process to monitor and communicate about ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics?

Yes

The entity would communicate misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents to (multiple answers possible)

1

¹⁄₈

Clients/customers

¹⁄₈

Contractors

¹⁄₈

Community/public

¹⁄₈

Employees

¹⁄₈

Investors/shareholders

¹⁄₈

Regulators/government

¹⁄₈

Special interest groups

¹⁄₈

Suppliers

¹⁄₈

Other stakeholders: ____________

Describe the communication process (for reporting purposes only) (maximum 250 words)

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

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

RP2.1

1.44 points , G

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 2024 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 2024 Sector Leaders.

FAQ

RP2.2

ESG incident occurrences

Has the entity been involved in any significant ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents during the reporting period? (The response to this indicator will be reviewed as part of sector leader requirements)

(For reporting purposes only)

Yes

Specify the total number of cases that occurred: ____________

Specify the total value of fines and/or penalties incurred (must align with currency selected in RC1)

________________________

Specify the total number of currently pending investigations: ____________

Provide additional context for the response, focusing on the three most serious incidents

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

* The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2022 Sector Leaders

RP2.2

Not scored , G

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

NB: The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2024 Sector Leaders.

Management: Risk Management

This aspect consists of 14 indicators (15.64% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

Risk Management

2023 Indicator

FAQ

RM1

Management systems

Does the entity have a management system accredited to, or aligned with, ESG-related management standards?

Yes

Accreditations maintained or achieved (multiple answers possible)

1

¹⁄₂

ISO 55000/550001

¹⁄₂

ISO 14001

¹⁄₂

ISO 9001

¹⁄₂

ISO 45001

¹⁄₄

Other standard: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Management standards aligned with (multiple answers possible)

1

¹⁄₄

ISO 55000/550001

¹⁄₄

ISO 14001

¹⁄₄

ISO 9001

¹⁄₄

ISO 45001

¹⁄₄

ISO 26000

¹⁄₄

ISO 20400

¹⁄₄

ISO 50001

¹⁄₄

Other standard: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

The management system is not aligned with an ESG related standard nor external certification

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM1

2.49 points , G

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 2024 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.

Risk Assessments

2023 Indicator

FAQ

RM2.1

Environmental risk assessment

Has the entity performed an environmental risk assessment(s) within the last three years?

Yes

Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity

²⁄₅

¹⁄₄

Risks are identified

²⁄₄

Risks are identified and analyzed

³⁄₄

Risks are identified, analyzed, and evaluated

⁴⁄₄

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

Select all material issues for which risk(s) is(are) assessed (multiple answers possible)

³⁄₅

M

Air pollution

M

Biodiversity and habitat

M

Contaminated land

M

Energy

M

Greenhouse gas emissions

M

Hazardous substances

M

Light pollution

M

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

M

Noise pollution

M

Physical risk

M

Waste

M

Water outflows/discharges

M

Water inflows/withdrawals

M

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM2.1

2.49 points , E

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:

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
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.

FAQ

RM2.2

Social risk assessment

Has the entity performed a social risk assessment(s) within the last three years?

Yes

Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity

²⁄₅

¹⁄₄

Risks are identified

²⁄₄

Risks are identified and analyzed

³⁄₄

Risks are identified, analyzed, and evaluated

⁴⁄₄

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

Select all material issues for which risk(s) is(are) assessed (multiple answers possible)

³⁄₅

M

Child labor

M

Community development

M

Customer satisfaction

M

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

M

Employee engagement

M

Forced or compulsory labor

M

Freedom of association

M

Health and safety: community

M

Health and safety: contractors

M

Health and safety: employees

M

Health and safety: supply chain

M

Health and safety: users

M

Labor standards and working conditions

M

Local employment

M

Social enterprise partnering

M

Stakeholder relations

M

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM2.2

2.49 points , S

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:

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
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.

FAQ

RM2.3

Governance risk assessment

Has the entity performed a governance risk assessment(s) within the last three years?

Yes

Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity

²⁄₅

¹⁄₄

Risks are identified

²⁄₄

Risks are identified and analyzed

³⁄₄

Risks are identified, analyzed, and evaluated

⁴⁄₄

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

Select all material issues for which risk(s) is(are) assessed (multiple answers possible)

³⁄₅

M

Audit committee structure/independence

M

Board composition

M

Board ESG oversight

M

Bribery and corruption

M

Compensation committee structure/independence

M

Conflicts of interest

M

Cybersecurity

M

Data protection and privacy

M

Delegating authority

M

Executive compensation

M

Fraud

M

Independence of board chair

M

Lobbying activities

M

Political contributions

M

Shareholder rights

M

Whistleblower protection

M

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM2.3

2.49 points , G

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:

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
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.

Climate-related Risk Management

2023 Indicator

FAQ

RM3

Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks and opportunities

Does the entity’s strategy incorporate resilience to climate-related risks and opportunities?

1

Yes

Describe the resilience of the organization’s strategy.

________________________

Does the process of evaluating the resilience of the entity’s strategy involve the use of scenario analysis?

Yes

Select the scenarios that are used (multiple answers possible)

Transition scenarios

IEA SDS

IEA B2DS

IEA NZE2050

IPR FPS

NGFS Current Policies

NGFS Nationally determined contributions

NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with CDR

NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with limited CDR

NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with CDR

NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with limited CDR

NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with CDR

NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with limited CDR

SBTi

TPI

SSP1 - 1.9

SSP1 - 2.6

SSP4 - 3.4

SSP5 - 3.4OS

SSP2 - 4.5

SSP4 - 6.0

SSP3 - 7.0

SSP5 - 8.5

Other: ____________

Physical scenarios

RCP2.6

RCP4.5

RCP6.0

RCP8.5

SSP1 - 1.9

SSP1 - 2.6

SSP4 - 3.4

SSP5 - 3.4OS

SSP2 - 4.5

SSP4 - 6.0

SSP3 - 7.0

SSP5 - 8.5

Other: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM3

0.5 points , G

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

FAQ

RM4.1

Transition risk identification

Does the entity have a systematic process for identifying transition risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity?

Yes

Select the elements covered in the risk identification process (multiple answers possible)

Policy and legal

Has the process identified any risks in this area?

Yes

Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)

Increasing price of GHG emissions

Enhancing emissions-reporting obligations

Mandates on and regulation of existing products and services

Exposure to litigation

Other: ____________

No

Technology

Has the process identified any risks in this area?

Yes

Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)

Substitution of existing products and services with lower emissions options

Unsuccessful investment in new technologies

Costs to transition to lower emissions technology

Other: ____________

No

Market

Has the process identified any risks in this area?

Yes

Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)

Changing customer behavior

Uncertainty in market signals

Increased cost of raw materials

Other: ____________

No

Reputation

Has the process identified any risks in this area?

Yes

Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)

Shifts in consumer preferences

Stigmatization of sector

Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback

Other: ____________

No

Provide applicable evidence

1

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing transition risks.

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM4.1

0.5 points , G

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements and evidence. The open-text box is not scored and for reporting purposes only.

Section 1: The first section of this indicator is solely based on the selection of 'Yes' or 'No'.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. 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 score for the checkbox selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

FAQ

RM4.2

Transition risk impact assessment

Does the entity have a systematic process to assess the material financial impact of transition risks on the business and/or financial plannings of the entity?

Yes

Select the elements covered in the impact assessment process (multiple answers possible)

Policy and legal

Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Increased operating costs

Write-offs, asset impairment and early retirement of existing assets due to policy changes

Increased costs and/or reduced demand for products and services resulting from fines and judgments

Other: ____________

No

Technology

Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Write-offs and early retirement of existing assets

Reduced demand for products and services

Research and development (R&D) expenditures in new and alternative technologies

Capital investments in technology development

Costs to adopt/deploy new practices and processes

Other: ____________

No

Market

Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Reduced demand for goods and services due to shift in consumer preferences

Increased production costs due to changing input prices and output requirements

Abrupt and unexpected shifts in energy costs

Change in revenue mix and sources, resulting in decreased revenues

Re-pricing of assets

Other: ____________

No

Reputation

Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Reduced revenue from decreased demand for goods/services

Reduced revenue from decreased production capacity

Reduced revenue from negative impacts on workforce management and planning

Reduction in capital availability

Other: ____________

No

Provide applicable evidence

1

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing transition risks are integrated into its overall risk management.

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM4.2

0.5 points , G

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements and evidence. The open-text box is not scored and for reporting purposes only.

Section 1: The first section of this indicator is solely based on the selection of 'Yes' or 'No'.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. 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 score for the checkbox selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

FAQ

RM4.3

Physical risk identification

Does the entity have a systematic process for identifying physical risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity?

Yes

Select the elements covered in the risk identification process (multiple answers possible)

Acute hazards

Has the process identified any acute hazards to which the entity is exposed?

Yes

Indicate to what factor(s) the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)

Extratropical storm

Flash flood

Hail

River flood

Storm surge

Tropical cyclone

Other: ____________

No

Chronic stressors

Has the process identified any chronic stressors to which the entity is exposed?

Yes

Indicate to what factor(s) the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)

Drought stress

Fire weather stress

Heat stress

Precipitation stress

Rising mean temperatures

Rising sea levels

Other: ____________

No

Provide applicable evidence

1

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes of prioritizing physical risks.

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM4.3

0.5 points , G

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements and evidence. The open-text box is not scored and for reporting purposes only.

Section 1: The first section of this indicator is solely based on the selection of 'Yes' or 'No'.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. 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 score for the checkbox selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

FAQ

RM4.4

Physical risk impact assessment

Does the entity have a systematic process for the assessment of material financial impact from physical climate risks on the business and/or financial plannings of the entity?

Yes

Select the elements covered in the impact assessment process (multiple answers possible)

Direct impacts

Has the process concluded that there are material impacts to the entity?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Increased capital costs

Other: ____________

No

Indirect impacts

Has the process concluded that there are material impacts to the entity?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Increased insurance premiums and potential for reduced availability of insurance on assets in “high-risk” locations

Increased operating costs

Reduced revenue and higher costs from negative impacts on workforce

Reduced revenue from decreased production capacity

Reduced revenues from lower sales/output

Write-offs and early retirement of existing assets

Other: ____________

No

Provide applicable evidence

1

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing physical risks are integrated into its overall risk management.

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM4.4

0.5 points , G

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements and evidence. The open-text box is not scored and for reporting purposes only.

Section 1: The first section of this indicator is solely based on the selection of 'Yes' or 'No'.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. 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 score for the checkbox selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

FAQ

RM4.5

Climate-related Opportunities Identification

Does the entity have a systematic process for identifying climate-related opportunities that could have a material financial impact on the entity?

Yes

Select the elements covered in the opportunities identification process (multiple answers possible)

Resource Efficiency

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

Select the opportunity(s) which the entity can utilize is exposed (multiple answers possible)

Use of more efficient modes of transport

Use of more efficient production and distribution processes

Use of recycling

Move to more efficient buildings

Reduced water usage and consumption

Other: ____________

No

Energy Source

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

Select the opportunity(s) to which the entity can utilize (multiple answers possible)

Use of lower-emission sources of energy

Use of supportive policy incentives

Use of new technologies

Participation in carbon market

Shift toward decentralized energy generation

Other: ____________

No

Products and Services

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

Select the opportunity(s) which the entity can utilize (multiple answers possible)

Development and/or expansion of low emissions goods and services

Development of climate adaptation and insurance risk solutions

Development of new products or services through R&D and innovation

Ability to diversify business activities

Shift in consumer preferences

Other: ____________

No

Markets

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

Select the opportunity(s) which the entity can utilize (multiple answers possible)

Access to new markets

Use of public-sector incentives

Access to new assets and locations needing insurance coverage

Other: ____________

No

Resilience

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

Select the opportunity(s) which the entity can utilize (multiple answers possible)

Participation in renewable energy programs and adoption of energy efficiency measures

Resource substitutes/diversification

Other: ____________

No

Provide applicable evidence

1

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing opportunities.

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

0.5 points , G

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements and evidence. The open-text box is not scored and for reporting purposes only.

Section 1: The first section of this indicator is solely based on the selection of 'Yes' or 'No'.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. 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 score for the checkbox selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

FAQ

RM4.6

Climate-related Opportunities Impact Assessment

Does the entity have a systematic process to assess the material financial impact of climate-related opportunities on the business and/or financial plannings of the entity?

Yes

Select the elements covered in the opportunities identification process (multiple answers possible)

Resource Efficiency

Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts as a result of identified opportunities to the entity in this area?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Reduced operating costs (e.g., through efficiency gains and cost reductions)

Increased production capacity, resulting in increased revenues

Increased value of fixed assets (e.g., highly rated energy efficient buildings)

Benefits to workforce management and planning (e.g. Improved health and safety, employee satisfaction) resulting in lower costs

Other: ____________

No

Energy Source

Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts as a result of identified opportunities to the entity in this area?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Reduced operational costs (e.g., through use of lowest cost abatement)

Reduced exposure to future fossil fuel price increases

Reduced exposure to GHG emissions and therefore less sensitivity to changes in cost of carbon

Returns on investment in low-emission technology

Increased capital availability (e.g., as more investors favor lower-emissions producers)

Reputational benefits resulting in increased demand for goods/services

Other: ____________

No

Products and Services

Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts as a result of identified opportunities to the entity in this area?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Increased revenue through demand for lower emissions products and services

Increased revenue through new solutions to adaptation needs (e.g., insurance risk transfer products and services)

Better competitive position to reflect shifting consumer preferences, resulting in increased revenues

Other: ____________

No

Markets

Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts as a result of identified opportunities to the entity in this area?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Increased revenues through access to new and emerging markets (e.g., partnerships with governments, development banks)

Increased diversification of financial assets (e.g., green bonds and infrastructure)

Other: ____________

No

Resilience

Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts as a result of identified opportunities to the entity in this area?

Yes

Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)

Increased market valuation through resilience planning (e.g., infrastructure, land, buildings)

Increased reliability of supply chain and ability to operate under various conditions

Increased revenue through new products and services related to ensuring resiliency

Other: ____________

No

Provide applicable evidence

1

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing opportunities are integrated into its overall risk management.

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

0.5 points , G

This indicator is scored as a two section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements and evidence. The open-text box is not scored and for reporting purposes only.

Section 1: The first section of this indicator is solely based on the selection of 'Yes' or 'No'.

Section 2: ‘Evidence’ is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. 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 score for the checkbox selected in section 1 of the indicator will be multiplied by the evidence multiplier to give the final absolute score for the indicator.

ESG Monitoring

2023 Indicator

FAQ

RM5.1

Monitoring of environmental performance

Does the entity monitor environmental performance?

Yes

Select all material issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)

1

M

Air pollution

M

Biodiversity and habitat

M

Contaminated land

M

Energy

M

Greenhouse gas emissions

M

Hazardous substances

M

Light pollution

M

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

M

Noise pollution

M

Physical risk

M

Waste

M

Water outflows/discharges

M

Water inflows/withdrawals

M

Other: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM3.1

0.74 points , E

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:

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
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.

FAQ

RM5.2

Monitoring of social performance

Does the entity monitor social performance?

Yes

Select all material issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)

1

M

Child labor

M

Community development

M

Customer satisfaction

M

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

M

Employee engagement

M

Forced or compulsory labor

M

Freedom of association

M

Health and safety: community

M

Health and safety: contractors

M

Health and safety: employees

M

Health and safety: supply chain

M

Health and safety: users

M

Labor standards and working conditions

M

Local employment

M

Social enterprise partnering

M

Stakeholder relations

M

Other: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM3.2

0.74 points , S

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:

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
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.

FAQ

RM5.3

Monitoring of governance performance

Does the entity monitor governance performance?

Yes

Select all material issues for which performance is monitored (multiple answers possible)

1

M

Audit committee structure/independence

M

Board composition

M

Board ESG oversight

M

Bribery and corruption

M

Compensation committee structure/independence

M

Conflicts of interest

M

Cybersecurity

M

Data protection and privacy

M

Delegating authority

M

Executive compensation

M

Fraud

M

Independence of board chair

M

Lobbying activities

M

Political contributions

M

Shareholder rights

M

Whistleblower protection

M

Other issues: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM3.3

0.74 points

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:

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
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.

Management: Stakeholder Engagement

This aspect consists of 4 indicators (5.72% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

Stakeholder Engagement

2023 Indicator

FAQ

SE1

Stakeholder engagement program

Does the entity have a stakeholder engagement program?

Yes

Select elements of the stakeholder engagement program (multiple answers possible)

³⁄₅

¹⁄₇

Identification of stakeholders and impacted groups

¹⁄₇

Planning and preparation for engagement

¹⁄₇

Development of action plan

¹⁄₇

Implementation of engagement plan

¹⁄₇

Program review and evaluation

¹⁄₇

Feedback sessions with senior management team

¹⁄₇

Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments

¹⁄₇

Focus groups

¹⁄₇

Training

¹⁄₇

Other: ____________

Is the stakeholder engagement program aligned with third-party standards and/or guidance?

Yes

¹⁄₅

No

Which stakeholders does the stakeholder engagement program apply to? (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₅

Clients/customers

¹⁄₅

Community/public

¹⁄₅

Contractors

¹⁄₅

Investors/shareholders

¹⁄₅

Regulators/government

¹⁄₅

Special interest groups

¹⁄₅

Other: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

SE1

2.84 points , S

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 2024 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.

FAQ

SE2

Supply chain engagement program

Does the entity include ESG speciﬁc requirements in procurement processes?

Yes

Select elements of the supply chain engagement program (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₆

Developing or applying ESG policies

¹⁄₆

Planning and preparation for engagement

¹⁄₆

Development of action plan

¹⁄₆

Due diligence process

¹⁄₆

Implementation of engagement plan

¹⁄₆

Training

¹⁄₆

Program review and evaluation

¹⁄₆

Feedback sessions with stakeholders

Select all issues covered by procurement processes (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₇

Bribery and corruption

¹⁄₇

Business ethics

¹⁄₇

Child labor

¹⁄₇

Diversity, equity and inclusion

¹⁄₇

Environmental process standards

¹⁄₇

Environmental product standards

¹⁄₇

Forced or compulsory labor

¹⁄₇

Human rights

¹⁄₇

Human health-based product standards

¹⁄₇

Occupational health and safety

¹⁄₇

Labor standards and working conditions

¹⁄₇

Other: ____________

Select the external parties to whom the requirements apply (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₂

Contractors/suppliers (tier 1)

¹⁄₂

Contractors/suppliers (beyond tier 1)

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

SE2

1.44 points , S

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 2023 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.

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.

FAQ

SE3.1

Stakeholder grievance process

Is there a formal process for stakeholders to communicate grievances that apply to this entity?

Yes

Select all the characteristics applicable to the process (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₂

¹⁄₈

Accessible and easy to understand

¹⁄₈

Anonymous

¹⁄₈

Dialogue-based

¹⁄₈

Equitable and rights compatible

¹⁄₈

Improvement based

¹⁄₈

Legitimate and safe

¹⁄₈

Predictable

¹⁄₈

Prohibitive against retaliation

¹⁄₈

Transparent

¹⁄₈

Other: ____________

Which stakeholders does the process apply to? (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₂

¹⁄₈

Clients/customers

¹⁄₈

Community/public

¹⁄₈

Contractors

¹⁄₈

Employees

¹⁄₈

Investors/shareholders

¹⁄₈

Regulators/government

¹⁄₈

Special interest groups

¹⁄₈

Suppliers

¹⁄₈

Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)

¹⁄₈

Other: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

SE3.1

1.44 points , S

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 2024 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.

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.

FAQ

SE3.2

Stakeholder grievance monitoring

Has the entity received stakeholder grievances during the reporting period? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

Describe the grievances received during the reporting period

Number of grievances communicated: ____________

Summary of grievances: ____________

Summary of resolutions for grievances: ____________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

SE3.2

Not scored , S

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

Performance: Implementation

This aspect consists of 3 indicators (0% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

Implementation

2023 Indicator

FAQ

IM1

Implementation of environmental actions

Can the entity list the key actions implemented to mitigate environmental risks or improve environmental performance?

Yes

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

IM1

Not scored , E

This indicator is not scored.

FAQ

IM2

Implementation of social actions

Can the entity list the key actions implemented to mitigate social risks or improve social performance?

Yes

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

IM2

Not scored , S

This indicator is not scored.

FAQ

IM3

Implementation of governance actions

Can the entity list the key actions implemented to mitigate governance risks or improve governance performance?

Yes

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

IM3

Not scored , G

This indicator is not scored.

Performance: Output & Impact

This aspect consists of 1 indicator (0% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

Output & Impact

2023 Indicator

FAQ

OI1

Output & impact

Provide measures of output and impact in the table below.

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

OI1

Not scored

This indicator is not scored.

Performance: Energy

This aspect consists of 1 indicators (4.08% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Energy

2023 Indicator

FAQ

EN1

Energy

Can the entity report on energy?

Yes

Has the entity imported or purchased energy?

Yes

No

Has the entity generated energy onsite?

Yes

No

Has the entity exported or sold energy?

Yes

No

Complete the table below for any energy consumption targets that apply

Complete the table below for any energy intensity targets that apply

External review

Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

EN1

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

Determined by materiality , E

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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”. The scoring will be 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”. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2024.

Performance: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This aspect consists of 1 indicator (4.08% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2023 Indicator

FAQ

GH1

Greenhouse gas emissions

Can the entity report on greenhouse gas emissions?

Yes

⁴⁄₅

Can the entity report on scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions?

Yes

Please describe the process used to determine the Scope 3 emission categories that are deemed material/relevant to the asset

________________________

No

Scope 2 emissions reporting

Indicate which of the following approaches was used to calculate the scope 2 emissions reported above:

Location-based

Market-based

Net Zero Targets

Does the entity have a GHG emissions reduction target aligned with Net Zero?

¹⁄₅

Yes

Select the scope of the Net Zero target:

Scope 1+2 (location-based)

Scope 1+2 (market-based)

Scope 1+2 (location-based) + Scope 3

Scope 1+2 (market-based) + Scope 3

Is the target aligned with a Net Zero target-setting framework?

Yes

Net Zero target-setting framework: ____________

No

Is the target science-based?

Yes

No

Is the target validated by a third party?

Yes

Validated by: ____________

No

Does the Net Zero target include an interim target?

Yes

Interim target: ____________%

No

Is the target publicly communicated?

Yes

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Explain the methodology used to establish the target and communicate the entity’s plans/intentions to achieve it (e.g. energy efficiency, renewable energy generation and/or procurement, carbon offsets, anticipated budgets associated with decarbonizing assets, etc.) (maximum 500 words)

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

GH1

Determined by materiality , E

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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 metrics 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 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”.
10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. The 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”. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

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 metrics, only the fields given below should be completed to obtain points as follows:

56.3% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”. This field is automatically calculated from other mandatory fields in the same column (indicated by the dark green cell outline).
9.4% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
9.4% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.
2.5% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of data coverage for “Total scope 1”. Participants are only awarded points if “Full coverage (100%)” is reported.
2.5% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of data coverage for “Scope 2”. Participants are only awarded points if “Full coverage (100%)” is reported.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

The remaining 20% of the indicator score for all sectors will be awarded based on reporting the existence of a Net Zero target. Where a Net Zero target is reported, participants must provide additional unscored information on the target’s underlying characteristics.

Reporting of Scope 2 emissions methodology, Scope 3 emissions data coverage and , third-party data review are not scored in 2024.

Performance: Air Pollution

This aspect consists of 1 indicator (4.08% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Air Pollution

2023 Indicator

FAQ

AP1

Air pollution

Can the entity report on air pollution?

Yes

External review

Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

AP1

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

Determined by materiality , E

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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”. The 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”. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2024.

Performance: Water

This aspect consists of 2 indicators (8.16% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Water

2023 Indicator

FAQ

WT1

Water inflows / withdrawals

Can the entity report on water inflows / withdrawals?

Yes

External review

Has the entity’s water withdrawal data been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

WT1

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

Determined by materiality , E

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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”.The scoring will be 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”.The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2024.

FAQ

WT2

Water outflows / discharges

Can the entity report on water outflows / discharges?

Yes

External review

Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

WT2

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

Determined by materiality , E

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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”.The scoring will be 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”.The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2024.

Performance: Waste

This aspect consists of 1 indicators (4.08% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Waste

2023 Indicator

FAQ

WS1

Waste

Can the entity report on waste generated and disposed?

Yes

External review

Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

WS1

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

Determined by materiality , E

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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”. The scoring will be 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”. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2024.

Performance: Biodiversity & Habitat

This aspect consists of 1 indicator (4.08% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Biodiversity & Habitat

2023 Indicator

FAQ

BI1

Biodiversity & habitat

Can the entity report on biodiversity and habitat?

Yes

External review

Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

BI1

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

Determined by materiality , E

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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”. The scoring will be 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”. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2024.

Performance: Health & Safety

This aspect consists of 4 indicators (16.32% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Health & Safety

2023 Indicator

FAQ

HS1

Health & safety: employees

Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of its employees?

Yes

External review

Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

HS1

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

Determined by materiality , S

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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. The scoring will 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. The 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. The scoring will 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. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2024.

FAQ

HS2

Health & safety: contractors

Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of its contractors?

Yes

External review

Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

HS2

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

Determined by materiality , S

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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: Contractors 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. The scoring will be 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. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

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. The scoring will be 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. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2024.

FAQ

HS3

Health & safety: users

Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of its users?

Yes

External review

Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Please indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

HS3

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

Determined by materiality , S

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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”. The scoring will be 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”. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2024.

FAQ

HS4

Health & safety: community

Can the entity report on the health and safety performance of its local community?

Yes

External review

Has the data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

HS4

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

Determined by materiality , S

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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”. The scoring will be 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”. The scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Note: Participants need to input a target year under "Future-year target" as well as a numeric value in the underlying scored metric in order to score for this metric.

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2024.

Performance: Employees

This aspect consists of 1 indicators (8.16% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Employees

2023 Indicator

FAQ

EM1

Employee engagement

Does the entity engage with its employees through training or satisfaction monitoring?

Yes

Does the entity provide training and development for employees?

Yes

¹⁄₂

Percentage of employees who received professional training in the reporting year

________________________

¹⁄₂

Percentage of employees who received ESG-related training in the reporting year

________________________

No

Has the entity undertaken employee satisfaction surveys within the last three years?

Yes

¹⁄₂

The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible):

²⁄₃

Internally

²⁄₃

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

By an independent third party

³⁄₃

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

Does the survey include quantitative metrics?

Yes

¹⁄₃

Metrics include:

³⁄₃

Net Promoter Score

Score: ____________

²⁄₃

Overall satisfaction score

²⁄₃

Other: ____________

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

EM1

Determined by materiality , S

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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:

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator. Evidence is not required.

The checkbox section of indicator is broken into two parts, each worth 1/2 of the total points available for the indicator.

The first part of the indicator, training and development for employees, has two elements that are professional training (fractionally 1/2 of this part) and ESG training (fractionally 1/2 of this part) where the coverage percentage will be used as a multiplier for both.

The second part of the indicator, employee satisfaction monitoring, has two elements that are scored - employee satisfaction survey (fractionally 2/3 of this part) and using quantitative metrics within the survey (1/3). 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 2024.

FAQ

EM2

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Does the entity report on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?

Yes

Diversity of the entity's governance bodies

Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)

Age group distribution

Board tenure

Gender pay gap

¹⁄₂

Gender ratio

Percentage of individuals that identify as:

Women: ____________%

Men: ____________%

International background

Racial diversity

Socioeconomic background

Diversity of the entity's employees

Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)

Age group distribution

Percentage of employees that are:

Under 30 years old: ____________%

Between 30 and 50 years old: ____________%

Over 50 years old: ____________%

Gender pay gap

%

________________________

¹⁄₂

Gender ratio

Percentage of employees that identify as:

Women: ____________%

Men: ____________%

International background

Racial diversity

Socioeconomic background

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

EM2

Determined by materiality , S

Materiality-based Scoring: This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the Diversit, Equity and Inclusion' 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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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 2024.

Performance: Customers

This aspect consists of 1 indicator (4.08% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Customers

2023 Indicator

FAQ

CU1

Customer satisfaction monitoring

Has the entity undertaken customer satisfaction surveys within the last three years?

Yes

The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible):

²⁄₃

Internally

²⁄₃

Percentage of customers covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

By an independent third party

³⁄₃

Percentage of customers covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

Does the survey include quantitative metrics?

Yes

¹⁄₃

Metrics include (multiple answers possible)

³⁄₃

Net Promoter Score

²⁄₃

Overall satisfaction score

²⁄₃

Satisfaction with communication

²⁄₃

Satisfaction with responsiveness

²⁄₃

Satisfaction with asset management

²⁄₃

Understanding customer needs

²⁄₃

Value for money

²⁄₃

Other: ____________

No

Exceptions

Does the entity’s data reported above cover all, and only, the facilities (as reported in RC3) and activities (RC4) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

No

Indicate which facilities, activities and/or time periods are additional or excluded from the data reported above

________________________

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

CU1

Determined by materiality , S

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 (weighting: 0)
Low relevance (weighting: 0)
Medium relevance (weighting: 1)
High relevance (weighting: 2)

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 2024.

Performance: Certifications & Awards

This aspect consists of 2 indicators (2.88% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Asset).

Certifications and Awards

2023 Indicator

FAQ

CA1

Infrastructure certifications

Did the entity maintain or achieve asset-level certifications for ESG-related performance?

Yes

List certifications achieved

1

×

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

CA1

2.88 points , G

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. Maximum points are awarded when a participant completes the table for at least one certification.

FAQ

CA2

Awards

Did the entity receive awards for ESG-related actions, performance, or achievements? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

Information about third-party awards

No

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

CA2

Not scored , G

This indicator is not scored.

2024

Infrastructure Asset

Scoring Document

Contents

Disclaimer: 2024 GRESB Infrastructure Assessments

Introduction

How to read this document

Scoring Methodology

Asset Scoring

GRESB Rating

Materiality-based Scoring

Materiality Factors

ESG Issues

Management Component

Performance Component

The Materiality Tool

Scoring Weightings

Indicator Scoring

Section One (Elements)

Section 2 (Evidence)

Example of indicator level scoring:

Management: Leadership

Leadership

2023 Indicator

Objectives

2023 Indicator

Management: Policies

Policies

2023 Indicator

Management: Reporting

Reporting

2023 Indicator

Scheme name

Guideline name

Management: Risk Management

Risk Management

2023 Indicator

Risk Assessments

2023 Indicator

Climate-related Risk Management

2023 Indicator

ESG Monitoring

2023 Indicator

Management: Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder Engagement

2023 Indicator

Guideline name

Performance: Implementation

Implementation

2023 Indicator

Performance: Output & Impact

Output & Impact

2023 Indicator

Performance: Energy

Energy

2023 Indicator

Scheme name

Performance: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2023 Indicator

Performance: Air Pollution

Air Pollution

2023 Indicator

Scheme name

Performance: Water

Water

2023 Indicator

Scheme name

Scheme name

Performance: Waste

Waste

2023 Indicator

Scheme name

Performance: Biodiversity & Habitat

Biodiversity & Habitat

2023 Indicator

Scheme name

Performance: Health & Safety

Health & Safety

2023 Indicator