Intent

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

Requirements

Complete all applicable fields.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

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

Intent

Describe the ownership status and structure of the participating entity.

Requirements

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

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

Terminology

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

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

Legal Entity Identifier (LEI): The Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) is a unique global identifier for legal entities participating in financial transactions. Also known as an LEI code or LEI number, its purpose is to help identify entities on a global accessible database.

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

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

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

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

References

Intent

Establish the age of the entity.

Requirements

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

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

If the entity is still under construction, the expected year that operations will commence should be given.

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

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

Requirements

Select one of the options.

Participants are required to specify the starting month of their fiscal year. If participants select Fiscal year, starting months between February and June must correspond to calendar years 2024/2025. For example, an entity reporting from April to March will be considered covering the period of April 2024 - March 2025. On the other hand, starting months between July and December must correspond to calendar years 2023/2024. For example an entity reporting from October to September will be considered as covering the period of October 2023 - September 2024.

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

Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2024 assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2024 assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

Calendar year: January 1 – December 31.

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

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

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

Establish the economic size and number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workers of the entity. GAV and revenue are information used (as denominators) to calculate intensity performance metrics in the Performance Component.

The number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workers and contractors influence materiality (see guidance in RC7 and the GRESB Materiality and Scoring Tool for more details).

Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

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

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

Gross Asset Value (GAV): The gross infrastructure value owned by the entity being the enterprise value associated with the infrastructure asset. The GAV reported here does not deduct cash or cash equivalents e.g. bank accounts, short-term investments etc. Use of the 'tangible fixed assets' or 'property, plant and equipment' value may be a suitable estimate if enterprise value is not known.

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

Worker: Someone who is either an employee or a contractor, that is, workers include both employees and contractors, and the number of workers is the sum of employees plus contractors.

References

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Full-time_equivalent_(FTE)

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contractor-designation

https://www.business.gov.au/People/Contractors/Employee-or-contractor

Intent

The intent of this section is to describe the sectors and locations of the facility or facilities that comprise the asset and to provide metrics that describe the entity’s capacity and output in the reporting year. This information is used for materiality-based scoring and to determine peers for benchmarking and reporting purposes. It is also used in combination with the Ancillary Activities (RC4) and Reporting Year (EC4) descriptions to describe the entity’s reporting boundary. The output metric is used as a denominator with quantitative metrics in the Performance section (e.g. GHG emissions) to calculate intensity metrics.

Requirements

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

• Weight GAV: Assign the % weight that this facility represents in proportion to the GAV value reported in RC2.
• Country: Select from the list of countries (aligned to the UN Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use). The value of your investment in the facility with respect to the combined value of all your investments across all facilities.
• Address: Enter the address of the facility including the number, street, town/city, and region/state. Suggestions will appear in a drop-down menu, select the address that applies. Latitude and longitude coordinates will be automatically pre-filled if the address is valid. If the typed address is not found, provide an approximate location (e.g. street name) or enter the latitude and longitude coordinates in the next field.
• Latitude and Longitude Coordinates: Enter the latitude and longitude of the facility in the relevant fields. The address coordinates will automatically pre-fill based on the address reported. Coordinates should be provided in decimal degrees.
• Sector: Select the appropriate sector by selecting an option from the drop-down list or entering by typing a keyword. Only list the facility’s core sector (its main infrastructure service). If there is more than one core sector for the facility, consider splitting it up into multiple facilities with one core sector per facility. The full list of sectors aligns to the EDHECInfra TICCS™ standard Industrial Classifications and is provided in Appendix 7.
• Other:For sectors that do not appear in the drop-down list, “Other” can be selected.
• Lifecycle stage:Select whether the facility is in operation or development
• Reporting boundaries:Select whether the facility is included in the entity’s reporting boundaries.

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

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

Primary Sector: The asset’s primary sector is determined by summing the GAV weights provided in the facility table by sector. Assets are assigned a primary sector at the subclass, class or superclass level, according to the following logic:

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

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

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

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

Note: The country, subregion, region are defined using the UN historical classification of developed and developing regions here. For the online UN M49 Standard please see here.

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

Capacity and Output:The intent of this aspect is to provide metrics that describe the entity’s capacity, output, and impact in the reporting year. The capacity and output metrics and units are driven by the Primary Sector assigned to the asset. See Appendix 10 for the capacity and output metrics associated with each sector. These metrics assess the physical output from the entity and the service it provides.

Note for diversified assets: Some entities may not have sector-specific metrics due to their facilities covering different sectors. These entities will see the output metric as revenue in USD instead, so they are still able to provide a value that can be used to calculate output intensities throughout the Performance Component.

Provide measures of capacity and output in the table as follows:

• Previous-year performance (2023): This column shows performance for capacity and output metrics for the previous year (e.g. calendar year 2023) reported by the entity in OI1 (Output and Impact) indicator in the 2024 GRESB Asset Assessment. If there is no data available for the entity for the previous year, ‘N/A’ is shown. It is not possible to edit any data into this column. As previous-year data is directly drawn from the 2024 GRESB Asset Assessment, it is not possible to amend erroneous data.
• Reporting-year performance (2024): Enter data for performance during the reporting year for capacity and output metrics. ‘Zero’ is an acceptable answer if it is true and accurate. Only the Output metric is mandatory to fill in

The output metric will be used as a denominator with quantitative metrics (e.g., GHG emissions) in the Performance Component to calculate intensity metrics. Intensity metrics will not be used as a basis for scoring in 2025.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

Gross Asset Value (GAV): The gross infrastructure value owned by the entity being the enterprise value associated with the infrastructure asset. The GAV reported here does not deduct cash or cash equivalents (e.g. bank accounts, short-term investments etc). Use of the 'tangible fixed assets' or 'property, plant and equipment' value may be a suitable estimate if enterprise value is not known.

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

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

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

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

Capacity: The entity’s physical capacity or maximum output over a period of time.

Output: The entity's physical primary output for the reporting period.

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

References

EDHECInfra - The Infrastructure Company Classification Standards (TICCS™), 2022

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

The SROI Network, 2012 - A Guide to Social Return on Investment

Social Return on investment methodology

Alignment with External Frameworks

GRI Standard 201: Economic Performance

GRI Standard 203: Indirect Economic Impacts

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

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

References

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

Intent

Describe the structure and business risk of the participating entity. The scope of service of the entity influences materiality (see guidance in RC7 and the GRESB Materiality Tool for more details).

Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Intent

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

Requirements

Description The description may include:

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

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

• Number of employees (from RC2);
• Number of contractors (from RC2);
• Primary sector (from RC3);
• Primary location (from RC3;
• Scope of Service (from RC5);
• Biodiversity and Habitat (this indicator, RC7);
• Contaminated land (this indicator, RC7);
• Resilience (this indicator, RC7);
• Water inflows / withdrawals (this indicator, RC7);
• Water outflows / discharges (this indicator, RC7);
• Light pollution (this indicator, RC7);
• Noise pollution (this indicator, RC7);
• Number of customers (this indicator, RC7);
• Number of users (this indicator, RC7);
• Assurance/verification of GHG data (this indicator, RC7).

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

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

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

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

Additional materiality criteria for verification and assurance of GHG data: Eligibility of an asset to third-party review of performance data requirement is determined by the size of the entity (this indicator, RC7). If a corporate entity, that reporting asset is part of, falls within the set size bracket, then third-party assurance/verification requirements will apply to this asset in the GHG Emissions indicator (GH1).

Prefill: This indicator is mostly similar to the one included in the 2024 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2024 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2025 Updates: New question to determine materiality for third-party review of performance data.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social issues: Concerns the impacts the organization has on the social systems within which it operates.

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

DSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.2 Materiality

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

Commitments that oblige to act may, for example:

1. Require signatories/members to set targets/plans/strategies/principles and be accountable for tracking progress and reporting against.

2. Require engagement with its signatories/members to promote the upholding and implementation of a specific objective or set of goals.

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

Prefill: This indicator has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment responses/answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

2025 Updates: The structure of this indicator was amended. Participants can report ESG leadership public commitments via a simplified dropdown menu instead of a multi-faceted selection list.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

See Appendix 4 for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

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

Terminology

30% Club:

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

40:40 Vision:

An investor-led initiative to achieve gender balance in executive leadership across all ASX200 companies by 2030.

Business for Nature:

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

Climate League 2030:

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

EV100:

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

Net Zero Asset Managers initiative: Net Zero Asset Managers Commitment:

The Net Zero Asset Managers initiative is an international group of asset managers committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, in line with global efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius; and to supporting investing aligned with net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.

Net Zero Standard:

The initiative is a collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and one of the We Mean Business Coalition commitments. The SBTi defines and promotes best practice in science-based target setting, offers resources and guidance to reduce barriers to adoption, and independently assesses and approves companies’ targets.

PAII Net Zero Asset Owner Commitment:

IIGCC’s Paris Aligned Investment Initiative (PAII) looks at how investors can align their portfolios to the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Powering PastCoal Alliance (PPCA):

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

RE100:

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

Science Based Targets Initiative:

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

Support the Goals:

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

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures:

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

The Responsible Labor Initiative (RLI):

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

The Climate Pledge:

Signatories commit to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040—10 years ahead of the Paris Agreement.

Transform to Net Zero:

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

UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance:

The UN-convened Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA) is a member-led initiative of institutional investors committed to transitioning their investment portfolios to net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 – consistent with a maximum temperature rise of 1.5°C.

UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge:

The Climate Neutral Now Initiative encourages and supports organizations and other interested stakeholders to act now in order to achieve a climate neutral world by 2050 as enshrined in the Paris Agreement.

UN Global Compact:

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

UN Global Compact Our Only Future:

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

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

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

WorldGBC’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment:

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

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

The evidence provided will be subject to manual validation.

Evidence: Document or hyperlink. The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. Providing a hyperlink is mandatory for this indicator when ‘Publicly available’ is selected. Ensure that the hyperlink is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. The URL should demonstrate the existence of the publicly available objective(s) selected.

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

• Actionable ESG objective(s) that relate to a specific issue/issues within the selected criteria and have been formally adopted and/or implemented by the entity.

• Public availability of the objectives (if applicable).

Acceptable evidence may include illustrative portions of business plans, sustainability plan/strategy, annual report, policies, documented ESG-related targets/goals, company presentations, etc. Note that overarching sustainability documents must have separate sections/clauses relevant for each of the selected topics.

Scoring

3.26 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is necessary to select all checkboxes to obtain the maximum score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Human capital: Human capital refers to the knowledge, culture, skills, experience, and overall contributions of an organization’s workforce. It encompasses strategies for fairly attracting, developing, and retaining talent, fostering a productive and engaged workplace, and ensuring fair and effective workforce management. Many organizational approaches can contribute to human capital objectives, including talent development & advancement; skills-based hiring & development; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Environmental objectives: Overall goals arising from policies that an entity sets itself to achieve regarding relevant environmental issues, such as greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy, or sustainable procurement. The objectives should be quantifiable and correlated with the entity's ambitions. In turn, they determine targets, which are detailed performance requirements necessary to achieve the environmental objectives.

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

Governance objectives: Overall goals arising from policies that an entity sets itself to achieve regarding relevant governance issues, such as bribery and corruption, cybersecurity, or board composition. These objectives should be quantifiable and correlated with the entity's ambitions.

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

Social objectives: Overall goals arising from policies that an entity sets itself to achieve regarding relevant social issues, such as customer satisfaction, employee engagement, or stakeholder relations. These objectives should be quantifiable and correlated with the entity's ambitions.

References

Good practice example: Please refer to this link

ISO14001: Environmental Management

UNPRI, PRI Reporting Framework, 2018

Intent

The intent of the indicator is to emphasize the importance of senior management’s active role in overseeing ESG, climate-related risks and opportunities, and/or Human Capital initiatives. Their involvement increases the likelihood of successfully achieving objectives in these areas. Having a structured governance mechanism to keep the most senior decision-maker informed about the entity’s performance promotes accountability and continuous improvement.

Requirements

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

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

Other: List a specific senior decision-maker’s position title who is accountable for ESG, Human Capital and/or climate-related issues. Vague answers will not be sufficient for validation. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Executive Board” when “Board of Directors” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

Scoring

1.65 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is necessary to select all checkboxes to obtain the maximum score.

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

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

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

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

Human capital: Human capital refers to the knowledge, culture, skills, experience, and overall contributions of an organization’s workforce. It encompasses strategies for fairly attracting, developing, and retaining talent, fostering a productive and engaged workplace, and ensuring fair and effective workforce management. Many organizational approaches can contribute to human capital objectives, including talent development & advancement; skills-based hiring & development; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures October 2021: Governance A&B

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures Recommendations (TNFD) version 1.0 September 2023: Governance Pillar

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Climate Change 2021 - C1 Governance

GRI Standards 2021 - GRI 2: General Disclosures 2021: 2-12 and 2-14

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

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

Prefill: This indicator remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Sustainability Manager”” when “‘ESG Managers” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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

The provided evidence must cover all the following elements:

1. Existence of ESG-related performance targets: demonstrate that ESG performance targets are explicitly tied to the annual performance of the selected personnel groups.

   • If ESG objectives apply to all employees, the evidence must clearly state that. For example, a policy document stating that sustainability goals are mandatory for all employees during performance reviews would suffice. Language that references all employees will support all personnel groups except the Board of Directors, which must be explicitly referenced.
   • If ESG objectives are specific to certain personnel groups, the evidence must clearly link the targets to only those groups. For example, a performance review template that explicitly requires asset managers to meet carbon emission reduction targets for client trave would suffice.

2. Personnel group applicability: targets must relate to all members within the selected personnel groups:

   • If the ESG target applies to only one individual within a broader personnel group, this must be reported under the "Other" answer.
   • For personnel groups consisting of a single individual, the evidence must explicitly clarify this in the provided documentation or the open text box.
   • If an entity provides evidence showing how an ESG target has a financial consequence for a specific employee within a personnel group and clearly states that the target and consequences apply to the remaining employees in the group, this evidence will be considered sufficient to support the applicability of the target for the entire group.
3. Financial consequences tied to ESG performance: the evidence must explain the financial implications (positive or negative) for meeting or failing to meet ESG targets for each selected personnel group. This includes clearly linking the financial consequences (e.g., bonuses, pay adjustments, penalties, etc.) to the ESG targets of each selected personnel group. The connection must be clearly defined within the provided documents, open text box, or cover page.

Examples of acceptable evidence: policy documents, process guidelines, employee performance reviews for the reporting year, employment contracts or documentation describing financial consequences (e.g., bonus schemes, web pages). Note that sensitive information may be redacted from the documents as long as the requirements outlined above are clearly met. If the consequences are not clearly defined and connected to the ESG targets within the provided evidence, then sufficient explanation must be provided within the evidence open text box.

Other answers:  state the specific employee type and ensure the following:

• Other answers should relate to groups of employees such as acquisition, development, or facilities teams, or specific personnel who have ESG targets assigned to them.
• If a target relates to a single employee within a personnel group, their name and role must be reported as an ‘Other’ answer.
• Other answers cannot be a duplicate of a previously selected option. For example, ‘sustainability team’ should not be used if ‘dedicated staff on ESG issues’ is already selected.
• Multiple Other answers are acceptable, but only one will count toward the score.

Scoring

3.26 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is necessary to select all checkboxes to obtain the maximum score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

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

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

ESG Factor: Criteria associated with the entity’s ESG objectives identified in LE2.

ESG Manager: Dedicated employee(s) who manages the ESG strategy and implementation of the entity.

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

Financial consequences: Predetermined monetary benefits (or detriments) incorporated into the employee compensation structures. Examples include bonuses, raises, profit-sharing, financial rewards, and financial incentives. The financial consequences are contingent upon the achievement of the annual performance targets.

• Note: If a promotion/demotion consequence is listed as financial, it will be accepted.
• Note: Consequences can be negative.

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

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

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

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

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

CDP Climate Change 2021 - C1.3 Employee Incentives

CSA 2021 - 4.4.2 Climate-Related Management Incentive

GRI Standards 2016 - 102-35: Remuneration policies

Good practice example: Please refer to the remuneration reporting using this link

Good practice example: Please click here

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

Other: List applicable environmental issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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

The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected environmental issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.

A policy is a guide for action which can serve the purpose of:

1. Outlining rules and procedures
2. Providing principles that guide action
3. Setting roles and responsibilities
4. Describing values and beliefs
5. Stating an intention to act or achieve defined goals and/or company vision

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

The evidence should support each of the selected issues with a relevant document such as energy consumption policy or a waste management policy. The same document can be used to support the existence of a policy addressing Net Zero as well as all other selected environmental issues. Note that overarching environmental policy documents covering multiple issues must have separate sections/clauses relevant to each of the selected issues.

Evidence Exemption Criteria

For entities that either achieved full points for any of the indicators PO1, PO2, and PO3 in the previous submission or do not wish to modify their selections or evidence, GRESB allows them to forgo reporting on these indicators, provided the same policies remain in place and the supporting documents remain unchanged. GRESB recognizes that an entity's policies typically remain consistent year over year and are often in place for multiple reporting periods. In such cases, the entity will retain the same validation status and points as in the previous year.

Scoring

1.65 points, 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: Specific scoring weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue based on materiality, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

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

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Net Zero: Net zero means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining emissions re-absorbed from the atmosphere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

Good practice examples: Examples of policies on Climate change mitigation and resilience, or Air pollution can be found on this page.

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

Other: List applicable social issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Health and Safety: Customers” when “‘Health and Safety: Users” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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

The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected social issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.

A policy is a guide for action which can serve the purpose of:

1. Outlining rules and procedures
2. Providing principles that guide action
3. Setting roles and responsibilities
4. Describing values and beliefs
5. Stating an intention to act or achieve defined goals and/or company vision

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

The evidence should support each of the selected issues with a relevant document such as an employee health & wellbeing policy, human rights policy, code of conduct, or community investment statement. Note that overarching social policy documents covering multiple issues must have separate sections/clauses relevant to each of the selected issues.

Evidence Exemption Criteria

For entities that either achieved full points for any of the indicators PO1, PO2, and PO3 in the previous submission or do not wish to modify their selections or evidence, GRESB allows them to forgo reporting on these indicators, provided the same policies remain in place and the supporting documents remain unchanged. GRESB recognizes that an entity's policies typically remain consistent year over year and are often in place for multiple reporting periods. In such cases, the entity will retain the same validation status and points as in the previous year.

Scoring

1.65 points, 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: Specific scoring weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue based on materiality, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

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

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

Community: Persons or groups of persons living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by an entity’s operations.

Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite or offsite on behalf of an entity. A contractor can contract their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors.

Community development: Actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse social and/or economic impacts, and/or to identify opportunities or actions to enhance positive impacts on individuals/groups living or working in areas that are affected/could be affected by the organization's activities

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

Human capital: Human capital refers to the knowledge, culture, skills, experience, and overall contributions of an organization’s workforce. It encompasses strategies for fairly attracting, developing, and retaining talent, fostering a productive and engaged workplace, and ensuring fair and effective workforce management. Many organizational approaches can contribute to human capital objectives, including talent development & advancement; skills-based hiring & development; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

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

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

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

Health and safety: Protecting the entity's stakeholders from harm or death due to injury or disease. Often, this is executed by developing policy, analyzing and controlling health and safety risks, providing training, and recording and investigating health and safety incidents.

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

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

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

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

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

Supply chain: Range of activities carried out by organizations upstream from the reporting entity (i.e. with whom the entity has an indirect commercial relationship), which provide products or services that are used in the development of the entity's own products or services.

Users: Users are people that interact physically with the asset when they use its services.

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

Good practice examples: Multiple policies on issues such as Local engagement, Stakeholder engagement or Health and Safety can be found on this page.

Good practice examples: Multiple policies on issues such as Local employment, Human Capital, Community development can be found on this page.

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

Other: List applicable governance issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Solicitation ” when “‘Bribery ” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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

The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected governance issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.

A policy is a guide for action which can serve the purpose of:

1. Outlining rules and procedures
2. Providing principles that guide action
3. Setting roles and responsibilities
4. Describing values and beliefs
5. Stating an intention to act or achieve defined goals and/or company vision

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

The evidence should support each of the selected issues with a relevant document such as a cybersecurity policy, board charter, code of conduct or shareholder rights policy/agreement. Note that overarching governance policy documents covering multiple issues must have separate sections/clauses relevant to each of the selected issues.

Evidence Exemption Criteria

For entities that either achieved full points for any of the indicators PO1, PO2, and PO3 in the previous submission or do not wish to modify their selections or evidence, GRESB allows them to forgo reporting on these indicators, provided the same policies remain in place and the supporting documents remain unchanged. GRESB recognizes that an entity's policies typically remain consistent year over year and are often in place for multiple reporting periods. In such cases, the entity will retain the same validation status and points as in the previous year.

Scoring

1.65 points, G

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: Specific scoring weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue based on materiality, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

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

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political contributions: Financial or in-kind support given directly or indirectly to political parties, their elected representatives, or persons seeking political office.

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

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

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

Good practice example: Multiple policies on issues such as Good business conduct, or Tax can be found on this page.

Good practice example: Please click here

Intent

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

Requirements

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

In all cases:

1. Select the applicable reporting level. If the entity reports at multiple levels, the most detailed reporting level should be selected.
2. If applicable, select alignment from the dropdown lists to confirm that your method of reporting is aligned with an external standard or guideline. The list is based on leading international best practice guides for sustainability reporting. If reporting is aligned with more than one standard, select the standard with which there is most alignment.
3. State whether the methods of reporting are checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the disclosure was subject to).
4. Select the assurance/verification standard (if applicable) from the dropdown menu

• The full list of accepted schemes is located in Appendix 5 of the Reference Guide. Additional schemes may also receive recognition if they meet GRESB’s criteria. To submit a new scheme for review, please contact the GRESB team. The final deadline for submitting a new assurance/verification scheme for review by the GRESB team is March 15th. Schemes submitted for review after March 15th will not be reviewed until the subsequent reporting year.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

Other: Add a disclosure method that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option selected. It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring.

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

General evidence requirements:

1. Content requirements: All evidence must explicitly address ESG and include actions and/or performance undertaken by the entity; a list of general goals and/or commitments is not sufficient.In order for evidence to be accepted, it should cover at least two of the three pillars of ESG (i.e., environmental, social and/or governance). If it meets all other requirements but only one pillar is referenced, the evidence will be ‘partially accepted.
   1. An exception to this requirement is given for ‘Dedicated Section on Corporate Website.’ If the website covers actions and/or performance for at least one of the three pillars, it will be fully accepted.
2. Reporting level requirements: Answers must clearly reference the applicable reporting level. If entity-level is chosen, then the ESG actions and/or performance must not only be relevant to the entity via connection to the investment manager/group, but must directly reference the entity by name.
3. Alignment requirements: The evidence provided must support the alignment chosen (if applicable). If listing an alignment that is not predefined, the alignment must be specific and entered in full, (i.e. avoid using acronyms). The evidence should clearly mention the alignment chosen.
4. Third-party review requirements:The evidence provided must support the selected level of third party review (if applicable). The assurance and/or verification of ESG disclosure is separate from the assurance and/or verification of performance data reported in the Performance Component. The assurance and/or verification statement and selected scheme must be included within the evidence uploaded for the selected disclosure method. Supplementary evidence such as a letter can be provided if the disclosure itself does not include confirmation of review. The evidence relating to the check, verification, and/or assurance must be in reference to the uploaded disclosure method provided (i.e., Annual Report). If submitting an assurance and/or verification letter externally to the report it must be made clear that the letter does apply to the respective evidence. The scope of assurance/verification of the selected option should cover all ESG-related information contained in the report and not only the environmental data.
5. Disclosure of GRESB results alone (i.e. without any additional analysis or ESG performance disclosure) is not sufficient for any disclosure type.

Specific evidence requirements per disclosure type:

1. Evidence requirements IR report: The document upload or URL provided must contain clear evidence of alignment with the IFRS Integrated Reporting Framework (formerly the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework (December 2013)) within the report itself. Note that references to the IFRS accounting standards, IFRS S1 or S2, and SASB are not equivalent. Integrated reports can reference 2024, 2023, or 2022 performance and/or actions.

2. Evidence requirements Annual Report: Annual Reports should cover the reporting year as described in EC4. Annual Reports from the prior reporting year detailing actions and/or performance are acceptable if it is explicitly stated that the Annual Report for the current reporting year has not yet been published. If an entity reports on a semi-annual basis, both semi-annual reports must be uploaded to cover the 12 months of reporting identified in EC4. Similarly, if an entity reports quarterly, all 4 quarterly reports must be uploaded to cover the 12 months of reporting identified in EC4. Similarly, if an entity reports quarterly, all 4 quarterly reports must be uploaded to cover the 12 months of reporting identified in EC4.

3. Evidence requirements Standalone sustainability report: Sustainability reports referencing the current or previous reporting year as described in EC4 are accepted. They must be published separately from the Annual Report. If the entity intends to refer to a section in the Annual Report they should select ‘Annual Report’.

4. Evidence requirements Dedicated section on corporate website: The webpage(s) must explicitly address actions and/or performance undertaken by the entity during the reporting year as given in EC4, including at least one pillar of ESG (but can address all 3 ESG pillars). A hyperlink to the Annual Report or Sustainability Report or any other documents is not valid. In addition, a list of general goals and/or commitments on the website is not sufficient.

5. Evidence requirements Entity reporting to investors:A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach to ESG or sustainability that does not contain any analysis of performance is insufficient. Updates to investors provided after the reporting year may be valid, as long as the actions described apply to the reporting year (as indicated in EC4). Quarterly updates, Board reports, investor presentations, newsletters, or press releases disclosing ESG actions and/or performance are also considered valid, but the entity should indicate the frequency of reporting (i.e., Quarterly). Additionally, evidence of periodical ESG disclosures required by regional sustainable finance regulations can be included and will be counted as evidence for this indicator. Similar to entity-level reporting for other disclosure types, evidence provided for Entity reporting to investors must specifically reference actions and/or performance of the entity itself, not solely its investment manager or group.

6. Evidence requirements ‘Other’:An additional disclosure method such as third-party forms of disclosure like CDP Questionnaires or UN PRI Transparency Reports is considered valid. Disclosure methods with a different reporting level can also be provided (i.e. if an entity-level ESG report is provided for Stand-alone sustainability report, a group-level ESG report can be provided for ‘Other’.) Quarterly updates, Board reports, investor presentations, newsletters, or press releases disclosing ESG actions and/or performance are considered valid. Ensure applicability to the reporting year as provided in EC4 based on the actions and/or performance disclosed.

Scoring

3.26 points, G

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

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

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.

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

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

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

Externally checked: applies to instances when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process, but no official certification has been awarded.

Externally verified: Applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the reporting against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants must select the scheme name from the dropdown.

Externally assured: Applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.

• Note that GRESB treats verification and assurance equally in the context of the assessment

Group: Related to a group of companies of which the participating entity forms a part. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) covers the entity subject to the GRESB submission, but doesn’t include a breakdown at the entity level. An example is an Annual Report that does not include specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity itself, but rather for the larger group of companies as an aggregate.

Integrated report: A report that is aligned with the requirements of the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS) Integrated Reporting Framework (formerly the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework). Integrated reporting joins relevant information about both the entity's financial and non-financial strategy, governance, performance, and prospects in a manner that conveys the holistic commercial, social, and environmental context in which it operates.

Standalone sustainability report: A report solely dedicated to the entity’s sustainability performance.

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

Good practice examples: Please refer to the links below:

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

Other: List applicable parties that would be notified of misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches, but that is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “local residents” when “‘Community/Public” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring.

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

Scoring

1,65 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options.

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

Diminishing Scoring approach: This indicator incorporates a diminishing increase in score approach, where the fractional score achieved for each selection decreases as the number of selections increases. In the scoring document this is represented by the blue line.

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

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

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

Community: Persons or groups of persons living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by an entity’s operations.

Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite or offsite on behalf of an entity. A contractor can contract their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors.

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

Clients/costumers: A customer is understood to include end-customers (consumer) as well as business-to-business customers.

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

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

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

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

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

Suppliers: Organization upstream from the reporting entity (i.e., in the entity’s supply chain), which provides a product or service that is used in the development of the entity’s own products or services. Note that for the purposes of this assessment, 'suppliers' only refers to tier 1 suppliers with whom the entity has a direct commercial relationship.

References

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

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

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

Scoring

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

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

Terminology

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

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

References

Alignment with External Frameworks

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

Other: Add an ESG-related management system standard that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option selected. It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referring to evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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

Specific evidence requirements:

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

Examples of appropriate evidence include a certificate or formal letter issued by the third party accreditation body stating the selected management system standard(s) and indicated by date as current during at least part of the reporting period stated in EC4.

Aligned to a standard: If a management system is aligned with a ESG-related standard, the evidence must include the name of the standard. Elements of the management system that align with the standard can be summarized, called out, highlighted, or shown in a diagram.

Examples of appropriate evidence include a policy, strategy, plan, annual report, corporate presentation or management system manual that clearly demonstrates that a management system in alignment with the selected standard is implemented into the entity’s operations.

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

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

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

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

Scoring

2.85 points, G

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

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

Diminishing Scoring approach: This indicator incorporates a diminishing increase in score approach, where the fractional score achieved for each selection decreases as the number of selections increases. In the scoring document this is represented by the blue line.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISO 55001: 2014 Asset Management specifies the requirements for effective and efficient asset management systems.

ISO 26000:2010 Social Responsibility provides guidance on how businesses and organizations can operate in a socially responsible way. This means acting in an ethical and transparent way that contributes to the health and welfare of society.

ISO 50001:2018 Energy Management System sets out the criteria for an energy management system. It provides a framework of requirements for organizations to: (i) Develop a policy for more efficient use of energy, (ii) Fix targets and objectives to meet the policy, (iii) Use data to better understand and make decisions about energy use, (iv) Measure the results, (v) Review how well the policy works, and (vi) Continually improve energy management.

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

References

Intent

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

Requirements

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

Elements of risk assessment process: Select one of the available options. These have been aligned with the ISO 31001:2018 Risk Management System standard.

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

Other: List environmental issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referencing evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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

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

The provided evidence must include the following elements:

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

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Documents or section of documents, in their original or redacted form, such as:
  • Corporate risk registers
  • Environmental aspects and impacts registers
  • Environmental inspections and audits
  • Monitoring reports
  • Annual reports
  • Environmental impact assessments
  • Environmental management plans/reports
  • Meeting minutes or company presentations
• Procedure or process document(s) (e.g. from a risk management system) when supported with documentation that details the outcome of the risk assessment for selected issues.

See below for an example of a risk register structure:

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

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

Scoring

2.85 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options.

• Materiality Scoring: Specific scoring weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue based on materiality, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

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

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risk analysis: Studying probabilities and consequences given the existing controls, to identify the level of residual risk.

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

Risk evaluation: Comparing risk analysis results with risk criteria to determine whether the residual risk is tolerable.

Risk identification: Identifying what could prevent an organization from achieving their objectives.

Risk treatment: Control / mitigation of the risk.

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

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

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

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

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

References

ISO 31001 Risk Management standard

ISO 14001 Environmental Management

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures Recommendations (TNFD) version 1.0 September 2023: Risk & impact management Pillar

Alignment with External Frameworks

Good practice examples: Please refer to the following link.

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

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

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

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

The provided evidence must include the following elements:

• Confirms that a social risk assessment was conducted and clearly presents the outcomes of the risk assessment.
• Includes all selected elements of the risk assessment process, for all selected social issues, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
• Include all selected social issues within the assessment, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
• Relates to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting year identified in EC4.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Documents or section of documents, in their original or redacted form, such as:
  • Corporate risk registers
  • Social aspects and impacts registers
  • H&S inspections and audits
  • Employee surveys
  • Monitoring reports
  • Annual reports
  • Social impact assessments
  • Social management plans/reports
  • Meeting minutes or company presentations
• Procedure or process document(s) (e.g. from a risk management system) when supported with documentation that details the outcome of the risk assessment for selected issues.

See below for an example of a risk register structure:

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

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

Scoring

2.85 points, S

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

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

Materiality Scoring: Specific scoring weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue based on materiality, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

Community: Persons or groups of persons living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by an entity’s operations.

Community development: Actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse social and/or economic impacts, and/or to identify opportunities or actions to enhance positive impacts on individuals/groups living or working in areas that are affected/could be affected by the organization's activities

Contractors: Persons or organizations working onsite or offsite on behalf of an entity. A contractor can contract their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors.

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

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

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

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

Health and safety: Protecting the entity's stakeholders from harm or death due to injury or disease. Often, this is executed by developing policy, analyzing and controlling health and safety risks, providing training, and recording and investigating health and safety incidents.

Human capital: Human capital refers to the knowledge, culture, skills, experience, and overall contributions of an organization’s workforce. It encompasses strategies for fairly attracting, developing, and retaining talent, fostering a productive and engaged workplace, and ensuring fair and effective workforce management. Many organizational approaches can contribute to human capital objectives, including talent development & advancement; skills-based hiring & development; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

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

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

Risk analysis: Studying probabilities and consequences given the existing controls, to identify the level of residual risk.

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

Risk evaluation: Comparing risk analysis results with risk criteria to determine whether the residual risk is tolerable.

Risk identification: Identifying what could prevent an organization from achieving their objectives.

Risk treatment: Control / mitigation of the risk.

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

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

Supply chain: Range of activities carried out by organizations upstream from the reporting entity (i.e., with whom the entity has an indirect commercial relationship), which provide products or services that are used in the development of the entity's own products or services.

Users: Users are people that interact physically with the asset when they use its services.

References

Intent

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

Requirements

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

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

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

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

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

Other: List social issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Health & Safety: Customers” when “‘Health & Safety: Users” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring. Answers referencing evidence and/or other indicators will not be accepted.

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

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

The provided evidence must include the following elements:

• Confirms that a governance risk assessment was conducted and clearly presents the outcomes of the risk assessment.
• Includes all selected elements of the risk assessment process, for all selected governance issues, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
• Include all selected governance issues within the assessment, highlighting or bringing attention to these where possible.
• Relates to an assessment that has taken place within the last three years, up to and including the end of the reporting year identified in EC4.

Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:

• Documents or section of documents, in their original or redacted form, such as:
  • Corporate risk registers
  • Governance-specific risk register or a section of a governance, Board, ethics, cybersecurity plan/report
  • H&S inspections and audits
  • Impact registers
  • Corporate/Governance internal audits
  • Monitoring reports
  • Annual reports
  • Meeting minutes or company presentations
• Procedure or process document(s) (e.g. from a risk management system) when supported with documentation that details the outcome of the risk assessment for selected issues.

See below for an example of a risk register structure:

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

Note: If certain governance issues are embedded in law and/or regulation in the countries of operation, the entity may select the issue and evidence can be provided as a reference to the specific law or regulation and how it has been complied with, on the provided Evidence template.

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

Scoring

2.85 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

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

Materiality Scoring: Specific scoring weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue based on materiality, as determined by the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC7).

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corruption: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political contributions: Financial or in-kind support given directly or indirectly to political parties, their elected representatives, or persons seeking political office

Risk analysis: Studying probabilities and consequences given the existing controls, to identify the level of residual risk.

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

Risk evaluation: Comparing risk analysis results with risk criteria to determine whether the residual risk is tolerable.

Risk identification: Identifying what could prevent an organization from achieving their objectives.

Risk treatment: Control / mitigation of the risk.

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

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

References

Intent

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

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option. Note: The NGFS scenarios included as options in the 2025 GRESB Assessment refer to the 2020 version. Please report any 2024 NGFS scenarios under ‘Other’.

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

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

Prefill: This indicator remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled from the 2024 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to manual validation.

Scoring

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

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor.

International Energy Agency. Achieving Net Zero Emissions by 2050.

International Energy Agency. Energy Technology Perspectives 2017.

International Energy Agency. Sustainable Development Scenario.

Inevitable Policy Response.

NGFS Scenarios Portal.

Science Based Targets initiative.

SSP: Shared socioeconomic pathways.

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

Transition Pathway Initiative.

Intent

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

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

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation for this indicator.

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

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk identification process for transition risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment;
2. Demonstrate outcomes of the transition risk identification assessment. It is expected that the document list/state which risks, or lack thereof, were identified as a consequence of the risk assessment having been carried out.
3. The outcome based information must pertain to the entity/portfolio in question and not only to the manager/group/business-unit level. Note: For fund-of-funds, entity-level applicability must be explicitly established.
4. The risk assessments must be applicable to the reporting year or two years prior (2024, 2023, 2022). For 2025, a grace period allows participants to use assessments up to four years old, if they were previously accepted in 2024.

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

• For Process: A document describing the entity’s process towards transition risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity. This process-based information can include information akin to materiality determination, scenario analysis, modeling or review of legislation.
• For Outcomes: An extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk framework or risk management plan addressing transition risks. Such documents can help exhibit the outcomes of the risk assessments.
• For Entity-level Outcomes: Entity-level documentation that highlights specific transition risks identified for the entity. If using group-level documentation, ensure the outcomes relevant to the entity are explicitly highlighted within the broader assessment.

Other: State the other transition risk issue. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.

Scoring

2.85 points, G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying transition risks

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Costs to transition to lower emissions technology Examples include, but are not limited to: change in electric grid energy generation mix; costs of replacing vehicle fleet with lower-emission vehicle fleet

Changing customer behavior: Examples include, but are not limited to: shift in preferences around mode of travel; preference for clean or renewable energy sources

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

Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.

Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.

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

Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.

Increased cost of raw materials: Examples include, but are not limited to: increased price of electricity, fuel, concrete, steel

Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback: Such increased stakeholder concern or negative feedback might not be immediately financially material to an entity, but it signals that it could become so -- in the form of loss in financial loans or increase in cost of capital -- if action is not taken with regard to an entity’s identification, assessment, and management of climate-related issues. Examples include, but are not limited to: stricter requirements to incorporate climate risk in investment decisions

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

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

Market risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.

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

Reputation risk: The risk around changing customer or community perceptions of an entity’s contribution or detraction from the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Shifts in consumer preferences: This option describes the shift of consumer preferences specifically around the provider of the good or service as a result of that provider’s treatment of climate-related issues. It does not describe an overall or provider-agnostic shift, which would be categorized as Changing customer behavior as described above

Stigmatization of sector: Loss in financial loans or increase in cost of capital due to hesitation about the sector’s general handling of climate-related issues

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

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

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

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

Uncertainty in market signals: Examples include, but are not limited to: timing, shape, and magnitude of economy-wide decarbonization; energy price volatility; insufficient “pricing-in” of climate-related premiums; misguided assessment of industry and competition trends

Unsuccessful investment in new technologies Examples include, but are not limited to: investment into new technology unsuccessful due to difficulty of adoption or more efficient substitutes; unanticipated costs of operation, installation, or permitting; incompatibility with existing local electric grid operations; underperformance of new technologies compared to expected performance; insufficient infrastructure and/or adoption of technology (e.g. electric car charging stations) to achieve network effects, etc.

References

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

2017 TO 2021 TCFD IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE (ANNEX) - Summary of changes

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of transition risks on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.

Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific risks manifest themselves on business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation for this indicator.

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

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk impact assessment process for transition risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
2. Demonstrate outcomes of the transition risk impact assessment. It is expected that the document list/state which risks, or lack thereof, were identified as a consequence of the risk assessment having been carried out.
3. The outcome based information must pertain to the entity/portfolio in question and not only to the manager/group/business-unit level. Note: For fund-of-funds, entity-level applicability must be explicitly established
4. The risk assessments must be applicable to the reporting year or two years prior (2024, 2023, 2022). For 2025, a grace period allows participants to use assessments up to four years old, if they were previously accepted in 2024.

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

• For Process: A document describing the entity’s transition risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity. This process-based information can include information akin to materiality determination, scenario analysis, modeling or review of legislation.
• For Outcomes: Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk management plan addressing transition risks. Such documents can help exhibit the outcomes of the risk assessments.
• For Entity-level Outcomes: Entity-level documentation that highlights specific transition risk impacts identified for the entity. If using group-level documentation, ensure the outcomes relevant to the entity are explicitly highlighted within the broader assessment.

Other: State the other transition risk issue. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.

Scoring

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for assessing the impact of transition risks.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.

Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.

Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.

Market risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.

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

Reputation risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.

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

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

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

References

2017 TO 2021 TCFD IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE (ANNEX) - Summary of changes

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for identifying physical risks that could be financially material.

A comprehensive system for managing physical risks begins with a systematic process for identifying risks that could be financially material to an entity. Such a process ensures that subsequent risk assessments and analyses are focused on the most relevant risks to which an entity is exposed.

While many traditional physical risk assessments utilize re-analysis methods, it is becoming increasingly important to make use of forward-looking climate-driven models.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation for this indicator.

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

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk identification process for physical risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
2. Demonstrate outcomes of the physical risk identification assessment. It is expected that the document list/state which risks, or lack thereof, were identified as a consequence of the risk assessment having been carried out.
3. The outcome based information must pertain to the entity/portfolio in question and not only to the manager/group/business-unit level. Note: For fund-of-funds, entity-level applicability must be explicitly established
4. The risk assessments must be applicable to the reporting year or two years prior (2024, 2023, 2022). For 2025, a grace period allows participants to use assessments up to four years old, if they were previously accepted in 2024.

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

• For Process: A document describing the entity’s physical risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity. This process-based information can include information akin to materiality determination, scenario analysis, modeling or review of legislation.
• For Outcomes: An extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk framework or risk management plan addressing physical risks. Such documents can help exhibit the outcomes of the risk assessments.
• For Entity-level Outcomes: Entity-level documentation that highlights specific physical risks identified for the entity. If using group-level documentation, ensure the outcomes relevant to the entity are explicitly highlighted within the broader assessment.

Other: State the other physical risk issue. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only

Scoring

0.57 points, G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying physical risks.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Acute hazards: Acute hazards are physical events, such as extreme weather events, that could damage a real asset. They include cyclones, hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. Non-climate-related acute hazards include tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic activity.

Chronic stressors: Chronic stressors are longer-term physical shifts, such as sea level rise or changes in precipitation patterns, that can affect the operations and costs associated therein of an entity and its assets. While such stressors may not have as noticeable impacts as acute hazards within any given year, such longer-term shifts in climate patterns (e.g., sustained higher temperatures) can impact the cost of operations, availability of resources, accessibility of assets, availability of upstream or downstream suppliers, etc.

Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.

Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.

Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.

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

References

2017 TO 2021 TCFD IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE (ANNEX) - Summary of changes

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of physical risks on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.

Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific risks manifest themselves on business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.

Validation

Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation for this indicator.

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

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrate that there is a systematic risk impact assessment process for physical risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
2. Demonstrate outcomes of the physical risk impact assessment. It is expected that the document list/state which risks, or lack thereof, were identified as a consequence of the risk assessment having been carried out.
3. The outcome based information must pertain to the entity/portfolio in question and not only to the manager/group/business-unit level. Note: For fund-of-funds, entity-level applicability must be explicitly established
4. The risk assessments must be applicable to the reporting year or two years prior (2024, 2023, 2022). For 2025, a grace period allows participants to use assessments up to four years old, if they were previously accepted in 2024.

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

• For Process: A document describing the entity’s process towards physical risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity. This process-based information can include information akin to materiality determination, scenario analysis, modeling or review of legislation.
• For Outcomes: An extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk framework or risk management plan addressing physical risks. Such documents can help exhibit the outcomes of the risk assessments.
• For Entity-level Outcomes: Entity-level documentation that highlights specific physical risk impacts identified for the entity. If using group-level documentation, ensure the outcomes relevant to the entity are explicitly highlighted within the broader assessment.

Other: State the other material financial impact resulting from physical risk. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.

Scoring

0.57 points, G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for assessing the impact of physical climate risks.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Direct impacts: Direct damages to assets.

Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.

Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.

Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.

Indirect impacts: Impacts from supply chain disruption, or impacts on the entity’s financial performance based on changes in availability, sourcing and quality of water; food security; and extreme temperature affecting premises, operations, supply chain, transport needs and employee safety.

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

References

2017 TO 2021 TCFD IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE (ANNEX) - Summary of changes

Intent

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

A comprehensive system for identifying climate-related opportunities begins with a systematic process for identifying opportunities that could have a material financial impact on the organization or entity. Such a process ensures that entities are able to identify the most relevant business opportunities and position themselves to benefit from these.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Validation

Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation for this indicator.

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

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrates there is a systematic climate-related opportunity identification process in place.
2. Demonstrate outcomes of the climate-related opportunity identification process. It is expected that the document list/state which opportunities, or lack thereof, were identified as a consequence of the opportunity identification process having been carried out.
3. The outcome based information must pertain to the entity/portfolio in question and not only to the manager/group/business-unit level. Note: For fund-of-funds, entity-level applicability must be explicitly established.
4. The risk assessments must be applicable to the reporting year or two years prior (2024, 2023, 2022). For 2025, a grace period allows participants to use assessments up to four years old, if they were previously accepted in 2024.

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

• For Process: A document describing the entity’s process towards identification of climate-related opportunities or other tangible proof of the entity's climate-related opportunity identification activity. This process-based information can include information akin to materiality determination, scenario analysis, modeling or review of legislation.
• For Outcomes: An extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk and opportunities register or matrix , checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk/opportunity framework or management plan addressing climate-related opportunities. Such documents can help exhibit the outcomes of the opportunity identification exercise.
• For Entity-level Outcomes: Entity-level documentation that highlights specific climate opportunities identified for the entity. If using group-level documentation, ensure the outcomes relevant to the entity are explicitly highlighted within the broader assessment.

Other: State the 'Other' climate-related opportunities. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.

Scoring

0.57 points, G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying climate-related opportunities

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.

Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.

Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.

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

References

2017 TO 2021 TCFD IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE (ANNEX) - Summary of changes

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of climate-related opportunities on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.

Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific opportunities can benefit the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.

Requirements

Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.

Validation

Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation.

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

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrates there is a systematic climate-related opportunity impact assessment process in place.
2. Demonstrate outcomes of the climate-related opportunity impact assessment. It is expected that the document list/state the probabilities and impact of the various opportunity, or lack thereof, that we analyzed during the impact assessment.
3. The outcome based information must pertain to the entity/portfolio in question and not only to the manager/group/business-unit level. Note: For fund-of-funds, entity-level applicability must be explicitly established.
4. The risk assessments must be applicable to the reporting year or two years prior (2024, 2023, 2022). For 2025, a grace period allows participants to use assessments up to four years old, if they were previously accepted in 2024.

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

• For Process: A document describing the entity’s process towards assessing impacts of climate-related opportunities or other tangible proof of the entity's climate-related opportunity impact assessment activity. This process-based information can include information akin to materiality determination, scenario analysis, modeling or review of legislation.
• For Outcomes: An extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk and opportunities register or matrix , checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk/opportunity framework or management plan addressing climate-related opportunities. Such documents can help exhibit the outcomes of the opportunity impact assessments.
• For Entity-level Outcomes: Entity-level documentation that highlights specific climate opportunities impacts identified for the entity. If using group-level documentation, ensure the outcomes relevant to the entity are explicitly highlighted within the broader assessment.

Other: State the 'Other' climate-related opportunities. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.

Scoring

0.57 points, G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for assessing the impact of climate-related opportunities.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

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

Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.

Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.

Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.

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

References

2017 TO 2021 TCFD IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE (ANNEX) - Summary of changes