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

Entity & Reporting Characteristics

Reporting Characteristics

Leadership

Risk Management

Climate-related Risk Management

2025

Development Asset

Scoring Document

GRESB Scoring Model
Indicator Score Breakdown
Additional Clarifications
Leadership
Policies
Reporting
Risk Management
Stakeholder Engagement
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Materials
Site Selection
Health & Safety
Employees
Contractors
Certifications & Awards
Appendix 1 - 2025 Scoring Weight Redistribution

Disclaimer: GRESB Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment Scoring Document

The GRESB Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment Scoring Document accompanies the GRESB Infrastructure Development Asset Standard and Reference Guide and is published as a standalone document. The Scoring Document reflects the opinions of GRESB and not of our members. The information in the Scoring Document has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. We take reasonable care to check the accuracy and completeness of the Scoring Document prior to its publication. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications to the Scoring Document. We will publicly announce any such modifications. The Scoring Document is not provided as the basis for any professional advice or for transactional use. GRESB and its advisors, consultants and sub‑contractors shall not be responsible or liable for any advice given to third parties, any investment decisions or trading or any other actions taken by you or by third parties based on information contained in the Scoring Document. Except where stated otherwise, GRESB is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights in all the information contained in the Scoring Document.

Purpose of this document

The GRESB Infrastructure Asset Scoring Document provides a comprehensive explanation of how individual indicators are scored within the Infrastructure Asset Assessment. It is designed to complement the Reference Guide, which outlines the specific reporting requirements for each indicator. Together, these documents help participants understand the assessment criteria, meet reporting requirements, and interpret their scores effectively.

For additional guidance on understanding the Benchmark Report insights, refer to the “How to Read Your Benchmark Report” document. Frequently asked scoring-related questions are also addressed in the FAQ document.

GRESB Scoring Model

Scoring within the GRESB Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment is fully automated and completed without manual intervention. The maximum score for the Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment is 100 points, all of which come from a single Development Component (module).

GRESB Rating

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

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

Indicator Score Breakdown

Each indicator within the GRESB Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment is assigned a specific scoring weight. The maximum score an entity can achieve for each indicator depends on several factors, with the scoring process incorporating scoring weights and scoring multipliers. For details on materiality-based scoring, please refer to this section below.

Simple Scoring Weights

The options and sub-options of most scored indicators* have different scoring weights. These weights, displayed in red on the left side of each indicator, represent the distribution of total available points per indicator according to the priorities established by the GRESB Foundation, aligning with market trends and sustainability best practices.

When indicators have options and sub-options, the scoring weight for each sub-option is first summed, and the resulting value is multiplied by the main fraction assigned to that option. The final score is the cumulative sum of these weighted sub-options across all main options within the indicator, multiplied by the indicator's maximum points.

If the sum of sub-option weights surpasses one, the value is capped at one. If the sum of the options surpasses the indicator's maximum score, the value will be capped at that maximum.

The score for these indicators is determined as follows:

Indicator Score = [(Sum of sub-option scoring weights) * (Selection weight)] × (Maximum score for the indicator)

Example: Indicator LE3 – ESG, climate-related and/or Human Capital and/or Health and Safety senior decision maker (2.44 points).

The indicator consists of three main options: ‘ESG,’ ‘Climate-related risks and opportunities,’ and ‘Human Capital’. ESG, for example, carries a weight of (3/6). Within each main option, there are several sub-options (i.e., Board of directors, C-suite level staff), each assigned its own weight. In the case of LE3, each sub-option contributes a scoring weight of 1. If an entity chooses one elements under ‘ESG,’ one element under ‘Climate-related risks and opportunities,’ and one element under ‘Human Capital’, the calculation would read as:

[(\frac{3}{6} \times 1) + (\frac{1}{6} \times 1) + (\frac{1}{6} \times 1) + (\frac{1}{6} \times 1)] \times 2.44 = 2.44 points

*Not applicable to indicators HS1-3, which instead involve performance table scoring. See the ‘Performance Tables’ section for clarification on how GRESB scores these indicators.

Scoring Multipliers

Validation Multiplier

For indicators that are subject to manual validation (see Appendix 4 of the Reference Guide), the evidence’s validation status acts as a multiplier to determine the indicator’s final score.

If supporting evidence for indicators is fully accepted, it results in the application of the full multiplier (100%) to the indicator's score. If supporting evidence is partially accepted, it results in a reduced multiplier (50%). If the evidence is not accepted, the multiplier is set to 0, regardless of the original selection’s predefined scoring weight. Indicators and responses subject to manual validation can be found in Appendix 4 of the Reference Guide.

Validation Multiplier Example

For indicators with a validation multiplier, the final score is calculated using the following formula:

Indicator Score = ((Sum of scoring weights) × (Multiplier)) × (Maximum score for the indicator)

Example: Indicator LE4 - Personnel ESG Performance Targets (4.81 points). Each selected personnel group contributes a specific scoring weight. It is mandatory to upload evidence that supports the entity’s selections. The evidence’s validation status (i.e., accepted, partially accepted or not accepted) is associated with a scoring weight that is used as a multiplier to determine the final score.

If an entity chooses ‘ESG managers’ and ‘Investment analysts’ but its evidence is given a partially accepted validation status (multiplier: 0.5), the calculation would be as follows:

{[(\frac{2}{4} + \frac{2}{4}) \times 0.5] \times 3.26} = 4.81 points

Coverage Multipliers

When applicable, coverage percentage can also be used as a multiplier to determine the assigned score. This multiplier applies to the following indicators as follows:

Percentage of employees who received training: EM1
Percentage of contractors who received training: CO1

Coverage Multiplier Example

Example: Indicator Employee engagement (max score determined by materiality). Taking the following scenario:

The entity provides professional training to 100% of employees, and ESG-specific training to 10% of employees. It has also undertaken an employee survey within the last three years. An independent third party conducted the survey, and it included a Net Promoter Score.

Scoring is then calculated as follows:

Does the entity provide training and development?
- $[(\frac{1}{2} \times 1) + (\frac{1}{2} \times 0.1)] \times \frac{1}{2} = 0.275$
The survey is undertaken:
- $[(\frac{3}{3} \times \frac{2}{3}) + (\frac{3}{3} \times \frac{1}{3})] \times \frac{1}{2} = 0.5$
0.275 + 0.5 = 0.76 * 4.62 (max score) = 3.51 points

Performance Tables

Indicators HS1-3 require participants to input quantitative data into a table. For these indicators, scoring depends on the values input to certain cells. Scored cells are shaded to indicate their scoring impact. For details on which cells are scored and how, please refer to the indicator-specific requirements in this document.

Materiality Factors and ESG Issues

The GRESB Materiality Assessment (indicator RC6), as well as additional information drawn from the Entity & Reporting Characteristics indicators (RC2, RC3, and RC4) determine the relevance of 35 ESG issues across the assessment. Each ESG issue’s relevance level then determines its scoring weight.

An asset’s ESG issue weightings are displayed at the bottom of the indicator in the GRESB Portal.

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

Issues of ‘no’ or ‘low’ relevance are deemed non-material and receive no score in the assessment and are effectively removed from consideration. Issues of ‘medium’ and ‘high’ relevance are scored proportionally, with weights of one and two, respectively.

For example, for entities in the primary sector ‘Renewable power: Solar power generation,’ the issue ‘Air pollution’ is of ‘No relevance’ and does not need to be considered by entities in this sector in the Assessment.
On the other hand, for entities in the primary sector ‘Power generation x-Renewables: Independent Power Producers: Gas-Fired Power Generation’, ‘Air pollution’ is of ‘High relevance’ and will have a greater scoring impact across the assessment.

Once each of the ESG issues has been assigned a materiality weighting (relevance), these apply to certain indicators in slightly different ways.

All indicators: Each indicator is directly tied to an ESG issue or is specifically catered for construction-related activities; as such, the materiality weighting of 0, 1, or 2, applies to its entire maximum score. This means that the weight of each indicator within overall GRESB Score is redistributed proportionately across the entire assessment. GRESB often refers to this concept as ‘dynamic materiality.’
Note for indicators RM2.1 and RM2.2: Materiality determines these indicators’ maximum scores and sub-option scoring weights. This means that within these indicators, each sub-option (i.e., ‘Child labor’ or ‘Community development’ in PO2) is also associated with a materiality/relevance level of 0, 1 or 2.

Materiality and Scoring Tool

Participants can model an entity’s materiality results and their scoring implications using the Materiality and Scoring Tool. This tool, which models the GRESB Materiality Assessment of indicator RC6, contains the following information:

Each indicator’s E, S, and G designation
Each indicator’s maximum score
Each indicator’s weight in its respective Aspect
The entity’s maximum score per indictor, once materiality is applied
Details on how the materiality weightings are assigned based on materiality factor responses
Sector definitions and sector-specific output metrics

Additional Clarifications

Open text boxes are not used for scoring purposes but are intended for additional reporting or explanatory purposes.

Leadership

FAQ

LE1

ESG leadership commitments

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

Yes

ESG commitments (multiple answers possible)

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

UN Global Compact

Business for nature

Climate League 2030

EV100

Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA)

RE 100

Science Based Targets Initiative

UN Global Compact Our Only Future

40:40 Vision

Other: ____________

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

Support the Goals

Task force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures

The Responsible Labor Initiative (RLI)

World Business Council for Sustainable Development's Call to Action

30% Club

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Net Zero Commitments (multiple answers possible)

Net Zero Asset Managers initiative: Net Zero Asset Managers Commitment

PAII Net Zero Asset Owner Commitment

Science Based Targets initiative: Net Zero Standard commitment

The Climate Pledge

Transform to Net Zero

WorldGBC Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment

UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance

UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Not scored , G

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

Objectives

FAQ

LE2

ESG objectives

Does the entity have ESG objectives?

Yes

The objectives relate to (multiple answers possible)

General objectives

⁴⁄₅

¹⁄₃

Environment

¹⁄₃

Social

¹⁄₃

Governance

Issue-specific objectives

¹⁄₅

¹⁄₂

Human Capital

¹⁄₂

Health and Safety

The objectives are

Publicly available

Provide applicable hyperlink or a separate publicly available document

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Not publicly available

Provide applicable evidence

³⁄₄

Upload

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

4.81 points , G

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

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

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

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

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

This indicator is affected by dynamic materiality (see 'Materiality Based Scoring' in the Scoring Document Introduction or download the GRESB Development Materiality & Scoring Tool for more information).

FAQ

LE3

ESG, climate-related, Human Capital and/or Health and Safety senior decision maker

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

Yes

ESG

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

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₆

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

Board of directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Fund/portfolio managers

Investment committee

Other: ____________

Climate-related risks and opportunities

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

¹⁄₆

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

Board of directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Fund/portfolio managers

Investment committee

Other: ____________

Human Capital

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on Human Capital:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

¹⁄₆

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

Board of directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Fund/portfolio managers

Investment committee

Other: ____________

Health and Safety

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

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

¹⁄₆

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

Board of directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Fund/portfolio managers

Investment committee

Other: ____________

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

________________________

2.44 points , G

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

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

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

FAQ

LE4

Personnel ESG performance targets

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

Yes

Does performance against these targets have predetermined financial consequences?

Yes

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

²⁄₄

All other employees

³⁄₄

Asset managers

³⁄₄

Board of directors

³⁄₄

C-suite level staff/Senior management

²⁄₄

Dedicated staff on ESG issues

²⁄₄

ESG managers

²⁄₄

External managers or service providers

²⁄₄

Fund/portfolio managers

²⁄₄

Investment analysts

²⁄₄

Investment committee

²⁄₄

Investor relations

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

4.81 points , G

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

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

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

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

Policies

FAQ

PO1

Policies on environmental issues

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

Yes

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

Air pollution

Biodiversity and habitat

Contaminated land

Energy

Greenhouse gas emissions

Hazardous substances

Landscape and visuals

Light pollution

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

Net zero

Noise pollution

Physical risk

Waste

Water outflows/discharges

Water inflows/withdrawals

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

2.44 points , E

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

Evidence is not subject to manual validation for this indicator.

FAQ

PO2

Policies on social issues

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

Yes

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

Child labor

Community development

Contractor engagement

Customer satisfaction

Human capital

Employee engagement

Forced or compulsory labor

Freedom of association

Health and safety: community

Health and safety: contractors

Health and safety: employees

Health and safety: supply chain

Health and safety: users

Heritage

Indigenous people

Labor standards and working conditions

Local employment

Social enterprise partnering

Stakeholder relations

Transport/Traffic management

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

2.44 points , S

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

Evidence is not subject to manual validation for this indicator.

FAQ

PO3

Policies on governance issues

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

Yes

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

Audit committee structure/independence

Board composition

Board ESG oversight

Bribery and corruption

Compensation committee structure/independence

Conflicts of interest

Cybersecurity

Data protection and privacy

Delegating authority

Executive compensation

Fraud

Independence of board chair

Lobbying activities

Political contributions

Shareholder rights

Whistleblower protection

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

2.44 points , G

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

Evidence is not subject to manual validation for this indicator.

Reporting

FAQ

RP1

ESG reporting

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

Yes

Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)

⁵⁄₅

³⁄₆

Integrated Report*

*Integrated Report must be aligned with the IIRC framework

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Group

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

⁴⁄₅

²⁄₆

Stand-alone sustainability report(s)

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Group

¹⁄₆

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

³⁄₅

²⁄₆

Section of Annual Report

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Group

¹⁄₆

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

¹⁄₅

²⁄₃

Dedicated section on website

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₃

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Group

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

²⁄₅

⁴⁄₆

Entity reporting to investors

Frequency of reporting: ____________

Select the applicable reporting level

Entity

Group

¹⁄₆

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

¹⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

²⁄₅

²⁄₆

Other: ____________

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Group

¹⁄₆

Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Scheme name

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

4.81 points , G

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ

RP2.1

ESG incident monitoring - construction

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

Yes

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

¹⁄₈

Clients/customers

¹⁄₄

Contractors

¹⁄₈

Community/public

¹⁄₈

Employees

¹⁄₈

Investors/shareholders

¹⁄₈

Regulators/government

¹⁄₈

Special interest groups

¹⁄₈

Suppliers

¹⁄₈

Other stakeholders: ____________

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

________________________

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

________________________

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

Determined by materiality , G

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

Fractional points are awarded based on the selection of the elements.

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

Materiality-based Scoring

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

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

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

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

FAQ

RP2.2

ESG incident occurrences

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

(For reporting purposes only)

Yes

Specify the total number of cases that occurred: ____________

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

________________________

Specify the total number of currently pending investigations: ____________

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

________________________

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

________________________

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

Not scored , G

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

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

Risk Management

FAQ

RM1

Management systems

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

Yes

Accreditations maintained or achieved (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₂

ISO 55000/550001

¹⁄₂

ISO 14001

¹⁄₂

ISO 9001

¹⁄₂

ISO 45001

¹⁄₄

Other standard: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Management standards aligned with (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₄

ISO 55000/550001

¹⁄₄

ISO 14001

¹⁄₄

ISO 9001

¹⁄₄

ISO 45001

¹⁄₄

ISO 26000

¹⁄₄

ISO 20400

¹⁄₄

ISO 50001

¹⁄₄

Other standard: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

3.7 points , G

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risk Assessments

FAQ

RM2.1

Environmental risk assessment - design

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

Yes

Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity

²⁄₅

¹⁄₄

Risks are identified

²⁄₄

Risks are identified and analyzed

³⁄₄

Risks are identified, analyzed and evaluated

⁴⁄₄

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

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

³⁄₅

Air pollution

Biodiversity and habitat

Contaminated land

Energy

Greenhouse gas emissions

Hazardous substances

Landscape and visuals

Light pollution

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

Noise pollution

Physical risk

Waste

Water outflows/discharges

Water inflows/withdrawals

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Materiality results

[DevelopmentAssetMaterialityOutcome:Environmental]

3.44 points , E

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

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

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Development Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC6) (i.e., the denominator)

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

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

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

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

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

Materiality-based scoring

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

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC6). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

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

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

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

FAQ

RM2.2

Social risk assessment - design

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

Yes

Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity

²⁄₅

¹⁄₄

Risks are identified

²⁄₄

Risks are identified and analyzed

³⁄₄

Risks are identified, analyzed and evaluated

⁴⁄₄

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

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

³⁄₅

Child labor

Community development

Contractor engagement

Customer satisfaction

Human capital

Employee engagement

Forced or compulsory labor

Freedom of association

Health and safety: community

Health and safety: contractors

Health and safety: employees

Health and safety: supply chain

Health and safety: users

Heritage

Indigenous people

Labor standards and working conditions

Local employment

Social enterprise partnering

Stakeholder relations

Transport/Traffic management

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Materiality results

3.44 points , S

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

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

Selected by the entity (i.e., the numerator)
Material to the entity, as determined by the GRESB Development Materiality Assessment (see output and guidance under RC6) (i.e., the denominator)

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

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

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

Materiality-based scoring

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

Specific materiality weightings are assigned to the entity for each ESG issue as described in (RC6). The weightings are set at one of four levels for each of the ESG issues:

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

FAQ

RM2.3

Governance risk assessment

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

Yes

Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity

Risks are identified

Risks are identified and analyzed

Risks are identified, analyzed and evaluated

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

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

Audit committee structure/independence

Board composition

Board ESG oversight

Bribery and corruption

Compensation committee structure/independence

Conflicts of interest

Cybersecurity

Data protection and privacy

Delegating authority

Executive compensation

Fraud

Independence of board chair

Lobbying activities

Political contributions

Shareholder rights

Whistleblower protection

Other issues: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

4.74 points , G

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

FAQ

RM3.1

Environmental risk assessment - construction

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

Yes

Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity

Risks are identified

Risks are identified and analyzed

Risks are identified, analyzed and evaluated

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

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

Air pollution

Biodiversity and habitat

Contaminated land

Energy

Greenhouse gas emissions

Hazardous substances

Landscape and visuals

Light pollution

Material sourcing and resource efficiency

Noise pollution

Physical risk

Waste

Water outflows/discharges

Water inflows/withdrawals

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Determined by materiality , E

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

Materiality-based scoring

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

FAQ

RM3.2

Social risk assessment - construction phase

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

Yes

Select elements of the risk assessment process undertaken by the entity

Risks are identified

Risks are identified and analyzed

Risks are identified, analyzed and evaluated

Risks are identified, analyzed, evaluated and treated

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

Child labor

Community development

Contractor engagement

Customer satisfaction

Human capital

Employee engagement

Forced or compulsory labor

Freedom of association

Health and safety: community

Health and safety: contractors

Health and safety: employees

Health and safety: supply chain

Health and safety: users

Heritage

Indigenous people

Labor standards and working conditions

Local employment

Social enterprise partnering

Stakeholder relations

Transport/Traffic management

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Determined by materiality , S

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

Materiality-based scoring

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

Climate-related Risk Management

FAQ

RM4

Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks

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

Yes

Describe the resilience of the organization’s strategy.

________________________

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

Yes

Select the scenarios that are used (multiple answers possible)

Transition scenarios

IEA SDS

IEA B2DS

IEA NZE2050

IPR FPS

NGFS Current Policies

NGFS Nationally determined contributions

NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with CDR

NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with limited CDR

NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with CDR

NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with limited CDR

NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with CDR

NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with limited CDR

SBTi

SSP1-1.9

SSP1-2.6

SSP4-3.4

SSP5-3.4OS

SSP2-4.5

SSP4-6.0

SSP3-7.0

SSP5-8.5

TPI

Other: ____________

Physical scenarios

RCP2.6

RCP4.5

RCP6.0

RCP8.5

SSP1-1.9

SSP1-2.6

SSP4-3.4

SSP5-3.4OS

SSP2-4.5

SSP4-6.0

SSP3-7.0

SSP5-8.5

Other: ____________

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

________________________

0.85 points , G

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

FAQ

RM5.1

Transition risk identification

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

Yes

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

Policy and legal

Has the process identified any risks in this area?

Yes

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

Increasing price of GHG emissions

Enhancing emissions-reporting obligations

Mandates on and regulation of existing products and services

Exposure to litigation

Other: ____________

Technology

Has the process identified any risks in this area?

Yes

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

Substitution of existing products and services with lower emissions options

Unsuccessful investment in new technologies

Costs to transition to lower emissions technology

Other: ____________

Market

Has the process identified any risks in this area?

Yes

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

Changing customer behavior

Uncertainty in market signals

Increased cost of raw materials

Other: ____________

Reputation

Has the process identified any risks in this area?

Yes

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

Shifts in consumer preferences

Stigmatization of sector

Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing transition risks.

________________________

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

________________________

0.85 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying transition risks, the outcomes of that process, and whether those outcomes are at the entity level.

Evidence is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. The validation status of the evidence affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

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

FAQ

RM5.2

Transition risk impact assessment

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

Yes

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

Policy and legal

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

Yes

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

Increased operating costs

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

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

Other: ____________

Technology

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

Yes

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

Write-offs and early retirement of existing assets

Reduced demand for products and services

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

Capital investments in technology development

Costs to adopt/deploy new practices and processes

Other: ____________

Market

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

Yes

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

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

Increased production costs due to changing input prices and output requirements

Abrupt and unexpected shifts in energy costs

Change in revenue mix and sources, resulting in decreased revenues

Re-pricing of assets

Other: ____________

Reputation

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

Yes

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

Reduced revenue from decreased demand for goods/services

Reduced revenue from decreased production capacity

Reduced revenue from negative impacts on workforce management and planning

Reduction in capital availability

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

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

________________________

0.85 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying transition risks, the outcomes of that process, and whether those outcomes are at the entity level.

Evidence is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. The validation status of the evidence affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

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

FAQ

RM5.3

Physical risk identification

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

Yes

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

Acute hazards

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

Yes

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

Extratropical storm

Flash flood

Hail

River flood

Storm surge

Tropical cyclone

Other: ____________

Chronic stressors

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

Yes

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

Drought stress

Fire weather stress

Heat stress

Precipitation stress

Rising mean temperatures

Rising sea levels

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes of prioritizing physical risks.

________________________

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

________________________

0.85 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying transition risks, the outcomes of that process, and whether those outcomes are at the entity level.

Evidence is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. The validation status of the evidence affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

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

FAQ

RM5.4

Physical risk impact assessment

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

Yes

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

Direct impacts

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

Yes

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

Increased capital costs

Other: ____________

Indirect impacts

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

Yes

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

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

Increased operating costs

Reduced revenue and higher costs from negative impacts on workforce

Reduced revenue from decreased production capacity

Reduced revenues from lower sales/output

Write-offs and early retirement of existing assets

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

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

________________________

0.85 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying transition risks, the outcomes of that process, and whether those outcomes are at the entity level.

Evidence is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. The validation status of the evidence affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

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

FAQ

RM5.5

Climate-related opportunities identification

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

Yes

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

Resource efficiency

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

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

Use of more efficient modes of transport

Use of more efficient production and distribution processes

Use of recycling

Move to more efficient buildings

Reduced water usage and consumption

Other: ____________

Energy Source

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

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

Use of lower-emission sources of energy

Use of supportive policy incentives

Use of new technologies

Participation in carbon market

Shift toward decentralized energy generation

Other: ____________

Products and Services

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

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

Development and/or expansion of low emissions goods and services

Development of climate adaptation and insurance risk solutions

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

Ability to diversify business activities

Shift in consumer preferences

Other: ____________

Markets

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

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

Access to new markets

Use of public-sector incentives

Access to new assets and locations needing insurance coverage

Other: ____________

Resilience

Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?

Yes

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

Participation in renewable energy programs and adoption of energy efficiency measures

Resource substitutes/diversification

Other: ____________

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing transition risks.

________________________

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

________________________

0.85 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying transition risks, the outcomes of that process, and whether those outcomes are at the entity level.

Evidence is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. The validation status of the evidence affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

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

FAQ

RM5.6

Climate-related opportunities impact assessment

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

Yes

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

Resource efficiency

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

Yes

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

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

Increased production capacity, resulting in increased revenues

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

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

Other: ____________

Energy Source

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

Yes

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

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

Reduced exposure to future fossil fuel price increases

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

Returns on investment in low-emission technology

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

Reputational benefits resulting in increased demand for goods/services

Other: ____________

Products and Services

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

Yes

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

Increased revenue through demand for lower emissions products and services

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

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

Other: ____________

Markets

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

Yes

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

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

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

Other: ____________

Resilience

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

Yes

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

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

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

Increased revenue through new products and services related to ensuring resiliency

Other: ____________

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

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

________________________

0.85 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying transition risks, the outcomes of that process, and whether those outcomes are at the entity level.

Evidence is mandatory for this indicator if 'Yes' was selected in Section 1 above. The validation status of the evidence affects the final score for the indicator through a multiplier, as below:

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

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

Stakeholder Engagement

FAQ

SE1

Stakeholder engagement program

Does the entity have a stakeholder engagement program?

Yes

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

³⁄₅

¹⁄₇

Identification of stakeholders and impacted groups

¹⁄₇

Planning and preparation for engagement

¹⁄₇

Development of action plan

¹⁄₇

Implementation of engagement plan

¹⁄₇

Program review and evaluation

¹⁄₇

Feedback sessions with senior management team

¹⁄₇

Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments

¹⁄₇

Focus groups

¹⁄₇

Training

¹⁄₇

Other: ____________

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

Yes

¹⁄₅

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

¹⁄₅

Clients/customers

¹⁄₅

Community/public

¹⁄₅

Contractors

¹⁄₅

Investors/shareholders

¹⁄₅

Regulators/government

¹⁄₅

Special interest groups

¹⁄₅

Other: ____________

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

________________________

4.81 points , S

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

Fractional points are awarded based on the selection of the elements.

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

FAQ

SE2

Supply chain engagement program

Does the entity include ESG speciﬁc requirements in its procurement processes?

Yes

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

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₆

Developing or applying ESG policies

¹⁄₆

Planning and preparation for engagement

¹⁄₆

Development of action plan

¹⁄₆

Due diligence process

¹⁄₆

Implementation of engagement plan

¹⁄₆

Training

¹⁄₆

Program review and evaluation

¹⁄₆

Feedback sessions with stakeholders

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

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₇

Bribery and corruption

¹⁄₇

Business ethics

¹⁄₇

Child labor

¹⁄₇

Human capital

¹⁄₇

Environmental process standards

¹⁄₇

Environmental product standards

¹⁄₇

Forced or compulsory labor

¹⁄₇

Human rights

¹⁄₇

Human health-based product standards

¹⁄₇

Occupational health and safety

¹⁄₇

Labor standards and working conditions

¹⁄₇

Other: ____________

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

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₂

Contractors/suppliers (tier 1)

¹⁄₂

Contractors/suppliers (beyond tier 1)

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

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

________________________

2.44 points , S

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

Fractional points are awarded based on the selection of the elements.

FAQ

SE3

Stakeholder grievance process

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

Yes

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

¹⁄₂

¹⁄₈

Accessible and easy to understand

¹⁄₈

Anonymous

¹⁄₈

Dialogue-based

¹⁄₈

Equitable and rights compatible

¹⁄₈

Improvement based

¹⁄₈

Legitimate and safe

¹⁄₈

Predictable

¹⁄₈

Prohibitive against retaliation

¹⁄₈

Transparent

¹⁄₈

Other: ____________

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

¹⁄₂

¹⁄₈

Clients/customers

¹⁄₈

Community/public

¹⁄₈

Contractors

¹⁄₈

Employees

¹⁄₈

Investors/shareholders

¹⁄₈

Regulators/government

¹⁄₈

Special interest groups

¹⁄₈

Suppliers

¹⁄₈

Supply chain (beyond Tier 1 suppliers and contractors)

¹⁄₈

Other: ____________

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

________________________

2.44 points , S

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

Fractional points are awarded based on the selection of the elements.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gases

FAQ

GH1

Net Zero

Does the entity have a Net Zero target?

Yes

Select the scope of the Net Zero target:

Scope 1+2 (location-based)

Scope 1+2 (market-based)

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

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

Does the Net Zero target include embodied carbon?

Yes

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

Yes

Net Zero target-setting framework: ____________

Is the target science-based?

Yes

Is the target validated by a third party?

Yes

Validated by: ____________

Does the Net Zero target have a baseline year?

Yes

Does the Net Zero target include an interim target?

Yes

Interim target: ____________%

Is the target publicly communicated?

Yes

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

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

________________________

1.4 points , E

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

FAQ

GH2

Life cycle Assessment

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

Yes

Select the boundaries of the calculation applied:

Cradle-to-gate

Cradle-to-practical completion/handover

Use stage

End-of-life stage

Cradle-to-grave

Whole life

Other: ____________

Select the standards/methodologies/tools applied:

BBCA Label (Bâtiment Bas Carbone)

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

Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3) Tool

EN 15978

EN 15804

GHG Protocol - Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard

ISO 14040/44

ISO 14025

One Click LCA

The Carbon Smart Materials Palette®

Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment, RICS

Other: ____________

Exceptions

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

Yes

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

________________________

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

________________________

2.43 points , E

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

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

FAQ

GH3

Embodied Carbon

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

Yes

Total embodied carbon emissions (tCO2e): ____________

Select the life cycle stages included in scope:

A1-A3 (Cradle to gate)

A1-A3, A4 (Cradle to site)

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

Other: ____________

Exceptions

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

Yes

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

________________________

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

________________________

Not scored , E

This indicator is not scored.

Materials

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Materials

FAQ

MA1

Materials selection - construction

Does the entity consider sustainable material sourcing?

Yes

Select all issues addressed (multiple answers possible)

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

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₂

Environmental Product Declarations

¹⁄₂

Health Product Declarations

Other types of health and environmental disclosure

¹⁄₂

____________

Material characteristics specification preferences, including (multiple answers possible)

²⁄₃

¹⁄₄

Locally extracted or recovered materials

¹⁄₄

Low embodied carbon materials

¹⁄₄

Low-emitting VOC materials

¹⁄₄

Materials and packaging that can easily be recycled

¹⁄₄

Materials that can be reused as part of a circular economy

¹⁄₄

Materials that disclose environmental impacts

¹⁄₄

Materials that disclose potential health hazards

¹⁄₄

Rapidly renewable materials and recycled content materials

¹⁄₄

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

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Determined by materiality , E

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

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

Materiality-based Scoring

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

Site Selection

Site selection requirements

FAQ

SS1

Previous site use

Was the site previously used for built development?

Yes

Select the % that applies

0% - 25%

25% - 50%

50% - 75%

75% - 100%

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

________________________

Not scored , E

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

Health & Safety

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Health & Safety

FAQ

HS1

Health & safety: employees

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

Yes

External review

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

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Exceptions

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

Yes

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

________________________

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

________________________

Scheme name

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

Determined by materiality , S

Materiality-based scoring

This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the ‘Health and safety: employees’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC6).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

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

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

As a result, the weight of this indicator may differ for each participant based on its materiality profile. The weighting of the material (scored) indicator are automatically redistributed to ensure that the evaluation of a project’s sustainability is contextually nuanced and reflective of the project’s unique circumstances. For more details refer to the section on Materiality Based Scoring in this Reference Guide or download the Materiality Tool.

Scoring of Metrics

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

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

Lost Time Injuries:

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

Total Recordable Injuries:

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

Reporting of external data review and exceptions is not scored in 2025.

FAQ

HS2

Health & safety: contractors

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

Yes

External review

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

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Exceptions

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

Yes

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

________________________

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

________________________

Scheme name

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

Determined by materiality , S

Materiality-based scoring

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

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

Scoring of Metrics

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

Lost Time Injuries:

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

Total Recordable Injuries:

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

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2025.

FAQ

HS3

Health & safety: community - construction

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

Yes

External review

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

Yes

Externally checked

Externally verified

Externally assured

Please provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Exceptions

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

Yes

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

________________________

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

________________________

Scheme name

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

Determined by materiality , S

Materiality-based scoring

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

Scoring of Metrics

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

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

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

Reporting of external data review and exceptions are not scored in 2025.

Employees

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Employees

FAQ

EM1

Employee engagement

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

Yes

Does the entity provide training and development for employees?

Yes

¹⁄₂

Percentage of employees who received professional training in the reporting year

________________________

¹⁄₂

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

________________________

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

Yes

¹⁄₂

The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible):

²⁄₃

Internally

²⁄₃

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

By an independent third party

³⁄₃

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

Does the survey include quantitative metrics?

Yes

¹⁄₃

Metrics include:

³⁄₃

Net Promoter Score

²⁄₃

Overall satisfaction score

²⁄₃

Other: ____________

Exceptions

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

Yes

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

________________________

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

________________________

Determined by materiality , S

Materiality-based scoring

This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the 'Employee engagement’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC6).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

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

Scoring of Metrics

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

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

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

The second part of the indicator, employee satisfaction monitoring, has two elements that are scored - employee satisfaction survey (fractionally 2/3 of this part) and using quantitative metrics within the survey (1/3). It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score. For the employee satisfaction survey, points are awarded for providing the percentage of employees covered by the survey for those undertaken internally or independently respectively. Full fractional score is obtained if the survey is undertaken by an independent third party versus internally. In regard to quantitative metrics (in the survey) full fractional score is obtained for using Net Promoter Score, with lesser score for other metrics.

Reporting of exceptions are not scored in 2025.

FAQ

EM2

Human Capital

Does the entity report on Human Capital?

Yes

Entity's governance bodies

Select all human capital metrics (multiple answers possible)

Age group distribution

Board tenure

Gender pay gap

¹⁄₂

Gender ratio

Percentage of individuals that identify as:

Women: ____________%

Men: ____________%

International background

Racial diversity

Socioeconomic background

Entity's employees

Select all human capital metrics (multiple answers possible)

Age group distribution

Percentage of employees that are:

Under 30 years old: ____________%

Between 30 and 50 years old: ____________%

Over 50 years old: ____________%

Gender pay gap

________________________

¹⁄₂

Gender ratio

Percentage of employees that identify as:

Women: ____________%

Men: ____________%

International background

Racial diversity

Socioeconomic background

Exceptions

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

Yes

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

________________________

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

________________________

Determined by materiality , S

Materiality-based scoring

This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the 'Human Capital’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC6).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

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

Scoring of Metrics

This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.Fractional points are awarded for reporting values for:

Gender ratio of governance bodies
Gender ratio of all employees

Fractional points are aggregated to calculate the final fractional score. The options are assigned equal weights. Entities can only obtain maximum points for this indicator if they provide values for both the gender ratio of governance bodies and the gender ratio of all employees.

Reporting of exceptions are not scored in 2025.

Contractors

This aspect’s weight is subject to materiality.

Contractors

FAQ

CO1

Contractor engagement

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

Yes

Do contractors receive traning and development?

Yes

¹⁄₂

Percentage of contractors who received professional training in the reporting year

________________________

¹⁄₂

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

________________________

Have contractors undertaken satisfaction surveys within the last three years?

Yes

¹⁄₂

The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible):

²⁄₃

Internally

²⁄₃

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

By an independent third party

³⁄₃

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________%

Does the survey include quantitative metrics?

Yes

¹⁄₃

Metrics include:

³⁄₃

Net Promoter Score

²⁄₃

Overall satisfaction score

²⁄₃

Other: ____________

Exceptions

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

Yes

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

________________________

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

________________________

Determined by materiality , S

Materiality-based scoring

This indicator applies materiality-based scoring. The materiality weighting for this indicator is determined by the materiality level of the 'Contractor engagement’ issue in the GRESB Materiality Assessment (RC6).

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

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

Scoring of Metrics

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

The first part of the indicator, training and development for contractors, has two elements that are professional training (fractionally 1/2 of this part) and ESG training (fractionally 1/2 of this part).

The second part of the indicator, contractors satisfaction monitoring, has two elements that are scored - contractor satisfaction survey (fractionally 2/3 of this part) and using quantitative metrics within the survey (1/3). It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score. For the contractor satisfaction survey, points are awarded for providing the percentage of contractors covered by the survey for those undertaken internally or independently respectively. Full fractional score is obtained if the survey is undertaken by an independent third party versus internally. In regard to quantitative metrics (in the survey) full fractional score is obtained for using Net Promoter Score, with lesser score for other metrics.

Reporting of exceptions are not scored in 2025.

FAQ

CO2

Human Capital - contractors

Does the entity monitor its contractors’ track of human capital?

Yes

Select all human capital metrics (multiple answers possible)

Age group distribution

Percentage of contractors that are:

Under 30 years old: ____________%

Between 30 and 50 years old: ____________%

Over 50 years old: ____________%

Gender pay gap

________________________

Gender ratio

Percentage of contractors that identify as:

Women: ____________%

Men: ____________%

International background

Racial diversity

Socioeconomic background

Exceptions

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

Yes

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

________________________

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

________________________

Determined by materiality , S

Materiality-based scoring

The weighting of this indicator is determined by the materiality outcome of the issue, which is set at one of four levels:

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

Scoring of Metrics

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

Reporting of exceptions are not scored in 2025.

Certifications & Awards

Certifications and Awards

FAQ

CA1

Infrastructure certifications

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

Yes

List certifications achieved

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

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

________________________

Not scored , G

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

FAQ

CA2

Awards

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

Yes

Information about third-party awards

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

________________________

Not scored , G

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

Appendix 1 - 2025 Scoring Weight Redistribution

GRESB redistributed indicator scores across the assessment upon retiring several indicators as part of the 2025 Standards Updates, led by the GRESB Foundation. The table below summarizes the scoring weight redistribution:

Aspect	Indicator	Code	2024 max score (p)	2025 max score (p)
Leadership	Entity Materiality Assessment	LE1	2.33	-
	ESG Leadership Commitments	LE2*	0.00	0.00
	ESG Objectives	LE3*	4.59	4.81
	Individual Responsible for ESG, Climate-Related and/or Human Capital	LE4	2.33	-
	ESG, Climate-Related and/or Human Capital Senior Decision Maker	LE5*	2.33	2.44
	Personnel ESG Performance Targets	LE6*	4.59	4.81
Policies	Policies on Environmental Issues	PO1	2.33	2.44
	Policies on Social Issues	PO2	2.33	2.44
	Policies on Governance Issues	PO3	2.33	2.44
Reporting	ESG Reporting	RP1	4.59	4.81
	ESG Incident Monitoring – Construction	RP2.1	2.33	2.44
	ESG Incident Occurrences	RP2.2	0.00	0.00
Risk Management	Management Systems	RM1	3.52	3.70
	Environmental Risk Assessment – Design	RM2.1	3.27	3.44
	Social Risk Assessment – Design	RM2.2	3.27	3.44
	Governance Risk Assessment	RM2.3	4.52	4.74
	Environmental Risk Assessment – Construction	RM3.1	0.75	0.79
	Social Risk Assessment – Construction	RM3.2	0.75	0.79
	Resilience of Strategy to Climate-Related Risks	RM4	0.81	0.85
	Transition Risk Identification	RM5.1	0.81	0.85
	Transition Risk Impact Assessment	RM5.2	0.81	0.85
	Physical Risk Identification	RM5.3	0.81	0.85
	Physical Risk Impact Assessment	RM5.4	0.81	0.85
	Climate-Related Opportunities Identification	RM5.5	0.81	0.85
	Climate-Related Opportunities Impact Assessment	RM5.6	0.81	0.85
Stakeholder Engagement	Stakeholder Engagement Program	SE1	4.59	4.81
	Supply Chain Engagement Program	SE2	2.33	2.44
	Stakeholder Grievance Process	SE3.1	2.33	2.44
	Stakeholder Grievance Monitoring	SE3.2	0.00	-
Greenhouse Gases	Net Zero Target	GH1	1.33	1.40
	Life Cycle Assessment	GH2	2.32	2.43
	Embodied Carbon Assessment	GH3	0.00	0.00
Materials	Materials Selection – Construction	MA1	2.32	2.43
Site Selection	Previous Site Use	SS1	0.00	0.00
Health & Safety	Health & Safety: Employees	HS1	6.59	6.91
	Health & Safety: Contractors	HS2	6.59	6.91
	Health & Safety: Community – Construction	HS3	6.59	6.91
Employees	Employee Engagement	EM1	4.40	4.62
Employees	Human Capital	EM2	5.00	5.24
Contractors	Contractor Engagement	CO1	2.20	2.31
Contractors	Human Capital – Contractors	CO2	1.59	1.67
Certifications & Awards	Infrastructure Certifications	CA1	0.00	0.00
Certifications & Awards	Awards	CA2	0.00	0.00

*Note: Due to indicator removals, this code was updated in the 2025 Standard

2025

Development Asset

Scoring Document

Contents

Disclaimer: GRESB Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment Scoring Document

Purpose of this document

GRESB Scoring Model

GRESB Rating

Indicator Score Breakdown

Simple Scoring Weights

Scoring Multipliers

Validation Multiplier

Coverage Multipliers

Performance Tables

Materiality Factors and ESG Issues

Materiality and Scoring Tool

Additional Clarifications

Leadership

Leadership

Objectives

Policies

Policies

Reporting

Reporting

Scheme name

Guideline name

Risk Management

Risk Management

Risk Assessments

Climate-related Risk Management

Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder Engagement

Guideline name

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gases

Materials

Materials

Site Selection

Site selection requirements

Health & Safety

Health & Safety

Scheme name

Scheme name

Scheme name

Employees

Employees

Contractors

Contractors

Certifications & Awards

Certifications and Awards

Scheme Name/Sub-scheme Name

Phase

Appendix 1 - 2025 Scoring Weight Redistribution