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

Entity & Reporting Characteristics

Reporting Characteristics

Leadership

Risk Management

Climate-related Risk Management

Stakeholder Engagement

2024

Infrastructure Development Asset

Scoring Document

Leadership
Policies
Reporting
Risk Management
Stakeholder Engagement
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Materials
Site Selection
Health & Safety
Employees
Contractors
Certifications & Awards

Disclaimer: 2024 GRESB Infrastructure Assessments

This document was prepared in response to industry feedback and discloses the detailed scoring methodology for all indicators of the 2024 Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment. The Scoring Document is shared for information purposes in an effort to increase transparency around the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes. GRESB reserves the right to make edits to this document during the scoring and analysis period preceding the 2024 results launch.

Introduction

This document outlines the scoring methodology of the 2024 Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment. It is shared for information purposes, to provide transparency on the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes.

How to read this document

This document provides a breakdown of how each indicator is scored in the 2024 GRESB Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment. We recommend reading it in conjunction with the Reference Guide, which includes the reporting requirements and validation details for indicators.

Please note the following:

The overall scoring weight for each indicator is shown by the number of points at the bottom of each indicator.
The breakdown of the scoring within each indicator is shown by the numbers and brackets in red (and blue) on the left side of each scored indicator.
Values on the far left represent the fraction of the total indicator score apportioned to the respective indicator element. These values sum to one for each indicator.
The square brackets "[" show a grouping of sub-elements within an indicator. The values within the square brackets represent the fraction of the element that is allocated to each sub-element.
The Symbol "x" (outside or inside brackets) indicates use of a multiplier. A multiplier can take a value between zero and one and is multiplied by other fractional scores within the indicator or by the overall indicator. The details of the multiplier function are provided in the text at the bottom of each indicator.
The text below the indicator explains further how the scoring works.

Scoring Methodology

Development Asset Scoring

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

The GRESB Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment is comprised of an Entity and Reporting Characteristics section and a Development module. The overall GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset is the sum of all indicators of the Assessment.

GRESB Rating

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

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

Materiality-based Scoring

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

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

Materiality Factors

The main part of the process is contained within the GRESB Materiality Assessment indicator (RC6). In this indicator, a set of 15 simple questions relating to Materiality factors are answered using simple drop-down selections. The answers to these questions have an effect then on the materiality outcomes of the ESG issues and indicators in the Development Asset Assessment.

An additional 5 factors are drawn from indicators RC2, RC3 and RC4. These factors include:

The number of employees (RC2)
The number of contractors (RC2)
The primary sector of the asset (RC3)
The primary location of the asset (RC3)
The asset development phase (RC4)

To see how the answers to the materiality factors affect materiality outcomes, please see below:

ESG Issues and Indicators

There are 35 ESG issues (15 Environmental and 20 Social) and 13 indicators affected by materiality in the Development Aset Assessment. Each of the materiality factors is associated with one or more ESG issues and indicators, so that as the factor questions are answered, the materiality of the ESG issues and indicators is determined. Note that the materiality is fixed for two of the 35 ESG issues (i.e. they are unaffected by the Materiality factors), while the materiality for 5 indicators is based on the asset's development phase. There are four possible materiality levels that can be assigned to ESG issues and indicators, and these directly translate to a scoring weighting in the Assessment, as follows:

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

Thus, issues of No or Low relevance are deemed non-material and receive no score in the Assessment - effectively they are removed from consideration. Issues of Medium relevance receive Medium score weighting and issues of High relevance receive a high score weighting. For example, the ESG issue “Air pollution” is of “No relevance” for entities in the primary sector ‘Renewable power: Solar power generation’, therefore it does not need to be considered by entities in this sector in the Assessment. On the other hand, for entities in the primary sector ‘Power generation x-Renewables: Independent Power Producers: Gas-Fired Power Generation’, Air pollution is deemed of High relevance and therefore requires close consideration throughout the Assessment.

The outcome of completing the GRESB Materiality Assessment indicator is an entity-specific materiality weighting for each of the ESG issues. These weightings are displayed at the bottom of each indicator in the portal. Once each of the ESG issues has been assigned a materiality weighting (relevance), these apply to certain indicators in the Assessment in slightly different ways, as described below.

Multiple-issues indicators

These indicators cover the standard list of ESG issues and are scored based on how many of the material issues are addressed. Each of the 15 standard Environmental issues and 20 standard Social issues will receive a materiality weighting from the GRESB Materiality Assessment.

Single-issue indicators

Each indicator addresses a specific ESG issue or is specifically catered for construction-related activities. Indicators relating to ESG issues of High relevance are weighted highly, and Medium relevance moderately. Indicators relating to ESG issues of No or Low relevance are not scored. Indicators relating to construction-related activities are weighted moderately (Medium relevance) if the asset has reported to be in the construction phase, alternatively they are not scored (No relevance) if the asset has reported to be in the pre-construction phase.

Dynamic materiality

After the materiality outcomes of any individual entity are known the scores are then redistributed proportionately across all remaining scored indicators in the assessment, ensuring that the evaluation of a project’s sustainability is contextually nuanced and reflective of the project’s unique circumstances at any given point in its development lifecycle.

For example, an asset in its pre-construction phase will receive a “No relevance” materiality outcome for indicators RP2.1, RM3.1, RM3.2, MA1 and HS3. Dynamic materiality ensures the points are redistributed across the remaining indicators.

This means that materiality-based scoring brings the focus only on material ESG issues and takes into account the different development phases of an asset.

The Materiality Tool

Whilst the GRESB Materiality Assessment and the whole materiality-based scoring process are straightforward to understand and apply, some participants may want to understand them, and how they apply to their situation, in more detail. GRESB provides an Excel based GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool for this purpose.

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

Scoring Weightings

The Development Asset Assessment is made up of 11 Aspects and contains 43 indicators with the exclusion of Entity & Reporting Characteristics. The below weights apply for 2024.

For informational purposes, the Maximum Scores for the materiality-driven performance indicators have been set as equally weighted*

Indicator Scoring

The following is a scoring overview of indicators in the 2024 Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment. Some general remarks and notes on the structure of indicators:

There are four scoring models used within indicators:

One Section indicator - consisting of only Section 1 (Elements)
Two Section indicator (Evidence validated) - consisting of both Section 1 (Elements) & 2 (Evidence).
Two Section indicator (Evidence not validated) - consisting of both Section 1 (Elements) & 2 (Evidence) where the evidence provided is not validated and is for reporting purposes only.
Not scored

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

Section One (Elements)

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

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

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

Section 2 (Evidence)

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

The final indicator score is then calculated as:

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

Example of indicator level scoring:

Example: LE6 indicator

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?

Yes

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

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____

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

________________________

4.59 points , G

This indicator is split into two sections represented by a fraction and an "x" in the far-left column. The first section addresses the predetermined financial consequences of performance targets and the employee group(s) to which they apply, and the second section allows for scoring of evidence. The far-left column tells us that the score for the indicator is calculated as follows; (where the section and evidence scores are all fractions between 0 and 1):

Indicator score = (Employee groups with financial consequences fractional score X 1) X evidence score X 4.59 points

Each checkbox selected is awarded the fraction score displayed next to it.
The different fractions are summed up and then multiplied by the fractional score assigned to financial consequence.
The aggregated fractional score can never be higher than 1.
This aggregate value is then multiplied by the evidence score.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status Score

Accepted 2/2

Partially accepted 1/2

Not accepted/not provided 0

If the respondent achieved maximum fractional score for the first section, with fully accepted evidence (resulting in a multiplier of 1), the score would be:

1 X 1 X 4.59 points = 4.59 points

Leadership

This aspect consists of 6 indicators (16.17% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

Leadership

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)

¹⁄₂

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

¹⁄₂

Engagement with relevant stakeholders to identify which issues are material

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

________________________

2.33 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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

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____

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

________________________

Not scored , G

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

Objectives

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

¹⁄₂

DEI

¹⁄₂

Health and Safety

The objectives are

Publicly available

Provide applicable hyperlink or a separate publicly available document

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____

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

________________________

4.59 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 not necessary to select all checkboxes in order to obtain the maximum score for this indicator. The objectives are not assigned equal weights, with non-publicly available objectives scoring lower.

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

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

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

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

LE4

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

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

Yes

ESG

⁴⁄₆

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)

¹⁄₆

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: ____________

Health and Safety

¹⁄₆

Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)

⁵⁄₅

Dedicated employee for whom Health and Safety is the core responsibility

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Employee for whom Health and Safety 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: ____________

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

________________________

2.33 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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

LE5

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

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

Yes

ESG

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

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₆

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

Board of directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Fund/portfolio managers

Investment committee

Other: ____________

Climate-related risks and opportunities

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

¹⁄₆

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

Board of directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Fund/portfolio managers

Investment committee

Other: ____________

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

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

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

¹⁄₆

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

Board of directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Fund/portfolio managers

Investment committee

Other: ____________

Health and Safety

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on Health and Safety:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

¹⁄₆

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

Board of directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Fund/portfolio managers

Investment committee

Other: ____________

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

________________________

2.33 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.

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

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

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?

Yes

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

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____

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

________________________

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

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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

Policies

This aspect consists of 3 indicators (6.99% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

Policies

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)

Air pollution

Biodiversity and habitat

Contaminated land

Energy

Greenhouse gas emissions

Hazardous substances

Landscape and visuals

Light pollution

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

Net zero

Noise pollution

Physical risk

Waste

Water outflows/discharges

Water inflows/withdrawals

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

2.33 points , E

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of an environmental policy(ies). It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development 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)

Child labor

Community development

Contractor engagement

Customer satisfaction

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Employee engagement

Forced or compulsory labor

Freedom of association

Health and safety: community

Health and safety: contractors

Health and safety: employees

Health and safety: supply chain

Health and safety: users

Heritage

Indigenous people

Labor standards and working conditions

Local employment

Social enterprise partnering

Stakeholder relations

Transport/Traffic management

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

2.33 points , S

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a social policy(ies). It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development 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)

Audit committee structure/independence

Board composition

Board ESG oversight

Bribery and corruption

Compensation committee structure/independence

Conflicts of interest

Cybersecurity

Data protection and privacy

Delegating authority

Executive compensation

Fraud

Independence of board chair

Lobbying activities

Political contributions

Shareholder rights

Whistleblower protection

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

2.33 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a governance policy(ies). It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

Reporting

This aspect consists of 3 indicators (6.92% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

Reporting

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

Externally verified

Externally assured

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

Externally verified

Externally assured

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

Externally verified

Externally assured

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

Externally verified

Externally assured

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

Externally verified

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

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

4.59 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.

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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

RP2.1

ESG incident monitoring - construction

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)

¹⁄₈

Clients/customers

¹⁄₄

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)

________________________

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

Determined by materiality , 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.

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.

Materiality-based Scoring

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the indicator depending on whether the entity reported to be in its construction or pre-construction phase under the Asset Development Phase section of indicator RC4. The weightings are set at one of two levels as shown below:

No relevance (unscored) - pre-construction phase
Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting) - construction phase

Where the indicator is of ‘No relevance’, and therefore the entity has reported to be in its pre-construction phase, it is not considered for scoring. If the indicator is of ‘Medium relevance’, and therefore the entity has reported to be in its construction phase, the indicator counts towards the score with ‘standard’ weighting. This ensures that the evaluation of a project’s sustainability is contextually nuanced and reflective of the project’s unique circumstances and at any given point in its development lifecycle.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

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

________________________

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

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.

Risk Management

This aspect consists of 13 indicators (21.75% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

Risk Management

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)

¹⁄₂

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)

¹⁄₄

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____

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

________________________

3.52 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. 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.

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

FAQ

RM2.1

Environmental risk assessment - design

Has the entity performed an environmental risk assessment(s) for the design of the asset 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

Air pollution

Biodiversity and habitat

Contaminated land

Energy

Greenhouse gas emissions

Hazardous substances

Landscape and visuals

Light pollution

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

Noise pollution

Physical risk

Waste

Water outflows/discharges

Water inflows/withdrawals

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

3.27 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 Development Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC6) (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’.

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

This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the GRESB Development Materiality Assessment (RC6).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC6). 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, see the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

RM2.2

Social risk assessment - design

Has the entity performed a social risk assessment(s) for the design of the asset 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

Child labor

Community development

Contractor engagement

Customer satisfaction

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Employee engagement

Forced or compulsory labor

Freedom of association

Health and safety: community

Health and safety: contractors

Health and safety: employees

Health and safety: supply chain

Health and safety: users

Heritage

Indigenous people

Labor standards and working conditions

Local employment

Social enterprise partnering

Stakeholder relations

Transport/Traffic management

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

3.27 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 Development Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC6) (i.e., the denominator)

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

This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the GRESB Development Materiality Assessment (RC6).

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC6). 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)

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development 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

Risks are identified

Risks are identified and analyzed

Risks are identified, analyzed and evaluated

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

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

Audit committee structure/independence

Board composition

Board ESG oversight

Bribery and corruption

Compensation committee structure/independence

Conflicts of interest

Cybersecurity

Data protection and privacy

Delegating authority

Executive compensation

Fraud

Independence of board chair

Lobbying activities

Political contributions

Shareholder rights

Whistleblower protection

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

4.52 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a governance risk assessment. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve full points.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

RM3.1

Environmental risk assessment - construction

Has the entity performed an environmental risk assessment(s) for its construction phase?

Yes

Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity

Risks are identified

Risks are identified and analyzed

Risks are identified, analyzed and evaluated

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

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

Air pollution

Biodiversity and habitat

Contaminated land

Energy

Greenhouse gas emissions

Hazardous substances

Landscape and visuals

Light pollution

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

Noise pollution

Physical risk

Waste

Water outflows/discharges

Water inflows/withdrawals

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Determined by materiality , E

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of an environmental risk assessment for the construction phase of the asset. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve full points.

Materiality-based scoring

No relevance (unscored)- pre-construction phase
Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)- construction phase

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

RM3.2

Social risk assessment - construction phase

Has the entity performed a social risk assessment(s) for its construction phase?

Yes

Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity

Risks are identified

Risks are identified and analyzed

Risks are identified, analyzed and evaluated

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

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

Child labor

Community development

Contractor engagement

Customer satisfaction

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Employee engagement

Forced or compulsory labor

Freedom of association

Health and safety: community

Health and safety: contractors

Health and safety: employees

Health and safety: supply chain

Health and safety: users

Heritage

Indigenous people

Labor standards and working conditions

Local employment

Social enterprise partnering

Stakeholder relations

Transport/Traffic management

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Determined by materiality , S

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of an social risk assessment for the construction phase of the asset. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve full points.

Materiality-based scoring

No relevance (unscored)- pre-construction phase
Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)- construction phase

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

Climate-related Risk Management

FAQ

RM4

Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks

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

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

SSP1-1.9

SSP1-2.6

SSP4-3.4

SSP5-3.4OS

SSP2-4.5

SSP4-6.0

SSP3-7.0

SSP5-8.5

TPI

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: ____________

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

________________________

0.81 points , G

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

FAQ

RM5.1

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: ____________

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: ____________

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: ____________

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: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing transition risks.

________________________

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

________________________

0.81 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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

RM5.2

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: ____________

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: ____________

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: ____________

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: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

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.

________________________

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

________________________

0.81 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'.

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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

RM5.3

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: ____________

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: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes of prioritizing physical risks.

________________________

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

________________________

0.81 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'.

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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

RM5.4

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: ____________

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: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

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.

________________________

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

________________________

0.81 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'.

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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

RM5.5

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(ies) to which the entity 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: ____________

Energy Source

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

Select the opportunity(ies) to which the entity is exposed (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: ____________

Products and Services

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

Select the opportunity(ies) to which the entity is exposed (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: ____________

Markets

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

Select the opportunity(ies) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)

Access to new markets

Use of public-sector incentives

Access to new assets and locations needing insurance coverage

Other: ____________

Resilience

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

Select the opportunity(ies) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)

Participation in renewable energy programs and adoption of energy efficiency measures

Resource substitutes/diversification

Other: ____________

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing transition risks.

________________________

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

________________________

0.81 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'.

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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

RM5.6

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 impact assessment process (multiple answers possible)

Resource efficiency

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 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: ____________

Energy Source

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 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: ____________

Products and Services

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 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: ____________

Markets

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 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: ____________

Resilience

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 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: ____________

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.

________________________

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

________________________

0.81 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'.

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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

Stakeholder Engagement

This aspect consists of 4 indicators (9.25% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

Stakeholder Engagement

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

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: ____________

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

________________________

4.59 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.

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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

SE2

Supply chain engagement program

Does the entity include ESG speciﬁc requirements in its 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

Contractors/suppliers (tier 1)

¹⁄₃

Contractors/suppliers (beyond tier 1)

¹⁄₃

Other: ____________

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

________________________

2.33 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 is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

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: ____________

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

________________________

2.33 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 is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

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: ____________

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

________________________

Not scored , S

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

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This aspect consists of 3 indicators (3.65% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

Greenhouse gases

FAQ

GH1

Net Zero

Does the entity have a Net Zero target?

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

Does the Net Zero target include embodied carbon?

Yes

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

Yes

Net Zero target-setting framework: ____________

Is the target science-based?

Yes

Is the target validated by a third party?

Yes

Validated by: ____________

Does the Net Zero target have a baseline year?

Yes

Does the Net Zero target include an interim target?

Yes

Interim target: ____________%

Is the target publicly communicated?

Yes

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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)

________________________

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

________________________

1.33 points , E

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a Net Zero target.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

GH2

Life cycle Assessment

Does the entity carry out a life cycle emissions assessment in the development phase?

Yes

Select the boundaries of the calculation applied:

Cradle-to-gate

Cradle-to-practical completion/handover

Use stage

End-of-life stage

Cradle-to-grave

Whole life

Other: ____________

Select the standards/methodologies/tools applied:

BBCA Label (Bâtiment Bas Carbone)

E+C- Label (Énergie Positive & Réduction Carbone)

Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3) Tool

EN 15978

EN 15804

GHG Protocol - Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard

ISO 14040/44

ISO 14025

One Click LCA

The Carbon Smart Materials Palette®

Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment, RICS

Other: ____________

Exceptions

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

Yes

Indicate which facilities 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)

________________________

2.32 points , E

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a Life Cycle Assessment.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

FAQ

GH3

Embodied Carbon

Does the entity measure its embodied carbon emissions in the development phase?

Yes

Total embodied carbon emissions (kgCO2e): ____________

Select the life cycle stages included in scope:

A1-A3 (Cradle to gate)

A1-A3, A4 (Cradle to site)

A1-A3, A4, A5 (Cradle to practical completion)

Other: ____________

Exceptions

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

Yes

Indicate which facilities 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)

________________________

Not scored , E

This indicator is not scored.

Materials

This aspect consists of 1 indicator (2.32% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Materials

FAQ

MA1

Materials selection - construction

Does the entity consider sustainable material sourcing?

Yes

Select all issues addressed (multiple answers possible)

Disclosure of the environmental and/or health attributes of construction materials (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₂

Environmental Product Declarations

¹⁄₂

Health Product Declarations

Other types of health and environmental disclosure

¹⁄₂

____________

Material characteristics specification preferences, including (multiple answers possible)

²⁄₃

¹⁄₄

Locally extracted or recovered materials

¹⁄₄

Low embodied carbon materials

¹⁄₄

Low-emitting VOC materials

¹⁄₄

Materials and packaging that can easily be recycled

¹⁄₄

Materials that can be reused as part of a circular economy

¹⁄₄

Materials that disclose environmental impacts

¹⁄₄

Materials that disclose potential health hazards

¹⁄₄

Rapidly renewable materials and recycled content materials

¹⁄₄

“Red list” of prohibited materials or ingredients that should not be used on the basis of their human and/or environmental impacts

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Determined by materiality , E

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Materiality-based Scoring

No relevance (unscored) - pre-construction phase
Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting) - construction phase

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Site Selection

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

Site selection requirements

FAQ

SS1

Previous site use

Was the site previously used for built development?

Yes

Select the % that applies

0% - 25%

25% - 50%

50% - 75%

75% - 100%

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

________________________

Not scored , E

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

Health & Safety

This aspect consists of 3 indicators (19.77% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Health & Safety

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____

Exceptions

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

Yes

Please indicate which facilities 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)

________________________

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 (RC6).

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 score with ‘standard’ weighting. If an issue is of 'High relevance' the indicator counts towards the 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) indicator are automatically redistributed to ensure that the evaluation of a project’s sustainability is contextually nuanced and reflective of the project’s unique circumstances. For more details refer to the section on Materiality Based Scoring in this Reference Guide or download the Materiality Tool.

Scoring of Metrics

This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The scored metrics for Health & Safety: Employees are “Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR)” and “Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR)”.

For the scored metrics only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (50% of HS1):

30% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance” for LTIFR.
10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target” LTIFR. For 2024, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target” for LTIFR. For 2024, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (50% of HS1):

30% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance” for TRIFR.
10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target” for TRIFR. For 2024, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target” for TRIFR. For 2024, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool)

Reporting of external data review and exceptions is 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____

Exceptions

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

Yes

Please indicate which facilities 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)

________________________

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 (RC6).

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)

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” and “Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate”.

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 HS2):

30% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance” for LTIFR.
10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target” LTIFR. For 2024, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target” for LTIFR. For 2024, 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 HS2):

30% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance” for TRIFR.
10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target” for TRIFR. For 2024, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
10% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target” for TRIFR. For 2024, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool)

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

FAQ

HS3

Health & safety: community - construction

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____

Exceptions

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

Yes

Indicate which facilities 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)

________________________

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

No relevance (unscored)- pre-construction phase
Medium relevance (scored at medium weighting)- construction phase

Scoring of Metrics

This indicator is scored as a one-section indicator where evidence is optional. Only the metric in the performance table cells shaded in light green is used for scoring. The only scored metric for Health & Safety: Community is “Total recordable injuries”.

For the scored metric only, all columns (“Reporting-year performance”, “Reporting-year target” and “Future-year target”) should be completed to obtain points as follows:

60% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a value in “Reporting-year performance”.
20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Reporting-year target”. For 2024, scoring is based on whether a target was set, not on whether the target was achieved.
20% of the indicator score will be based on the reporting of a target in “Future-year target”. For 2024, scoring will be based on whether a target was set, not on whether the entity is on track to achieve the target.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

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

Employees

This aspect consists of 2 indicators (9.40% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Employees

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

________________________

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

²⁄₃

Overall satisfaction score

²⁄₃

Other: ____________

Exceptions

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

Yes

Indicate which facilities 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)

________________________

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 (RC6).

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)

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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

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) for the entire reporting year (EC4)? (for reporting purposes only)

Yes

Indicate which facilities 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)

________________________

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 'Inclusion and diversity’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC6).

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)

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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

Reporting of exceptions is not scored in 2024.

Contractors

This aspect consists of 2 indicators (3.79% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Contractors

FAQ

CO1

Contractor engagement

Does the entity ensure its contractors are engaged in training or satisfaction monitoring? 

Yes

Do contractors receive traning and development?

Yes

¹⁄₂

Percentage of contractors who received professional training in the reporting year

________________________

¹⁄₂

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

________________________

Have contractors undertaken 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

²⁄₃

Overall satisfaction score

²⁄₃

Other: ____________

Exceptions

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

Yes

Indicate which facilities 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)

________________________

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 'Contractor engagement’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC6).

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)

Scoring of Metrics

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 contractors, has two elements that are professional training (fractionally 1/2 of this part) and ESG training (fractionally 1/2 of this part).

The second part of the indicator, contractors satisfaction monitoring, has two elements that are scored - contractor 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 contractor satisfaction survey, points are awarded for providing the percentage of contractors 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.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool).

Reporting of exceptions is not scored in 2024.

FAQ

CO2

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - contractors

Does the entity monitor its contractors’ track of diversity, equity and inclusion?

Yes

Diversity of the entity's contractors

Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)

Age group distribution

Percentage of employees that are:

Under 30 years old: ____________%

Between 30 and 50 years old: ____________%

Over 50 years old: ____________%

Gender pay gap

________________________

Gender ratio

Percentage of employees that identify as:

Women: ____________%

Men: ____________%

International background

Racial diversity

Socioeconomic background

Exceptions

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

Yes

Indicate which facilities 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)

________________________

Determined by materiality , S

Materiality-based scoring

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)

Scoring of Metrics

This indicator is scored based on the reporting of the gender ratio of all contractors.

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see ‘Materiality Based Scoring’ in the Reference Guide for more information or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool)

Certifications & Awards

This aspect consists of 2 indicators (0% of the GRESB Score - Infrastructure Development Asset).

Certifications and Awards

FAQ

CA1

Infrastructure certifications

Did the entity maintain or achieve asset-level certifications for ESG-related design/construction?

Yes

List certifications achieved

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Not scored , G

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

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

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

________________________

Not scored , G

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

2024

Infrastructure Development Asset

Scoring Document

Contents

Disclaimer: 2024 GRESB Infrastructure Assessments

Introduction

How to read this document

Scoring Methodology

Development Asset Scoring

GRESB Rating

Materiality-based Scoring

Materiality Factors

ESG Issues and Indicators

The Materiality Tool

Scoring Weightings

Indicator Scoring

Section One (Elements)

Section 2 (Evidence)

Example of indicator level scoring:

Leadership

Leadership

Objectives

Policies

Policies

Reporting

Reporting

Scheme name

Guideline name

Risk Management

Risk Management

Risk Assessments

Climate-related Risk Management

Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder Engagement

Guideline name

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gases

Materials

Materials

Site Selection

Site selection requirements

Health & Safety

Health & Safety

Scheme name

Scheme name

Scheme name

Employees

Employees

Contractors

Contractors

Certifications & Awards

Certifications and Awards

Scheme Name/Sub-scheme Name

Phase