Reporting entity
Entity Name: ____________
Fund Manager Organization Name (May be same as entity name): ____________
The GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment Reference Guide (“Reference Guide”) accompanies the GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment and is published both as a standalone document and in the GRESB Portal alongside each assessment indicator. The Reference Guide reflects the opinions of GRESB and not of our members. The information in the Reference Guide has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. We take reasonable care to check the accuracy and completeness of the Reference Guide prior to its publication. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications to the Reference Guide. We will publicly announce any such modifications.
The Reference Guide is not provided as the basis for any professional advice or for transactional use. GRESB and its advisors, consultants, and sub‑contractors shall not be responsible or liable for any advice given to third parties, any investment decisions or trading, or any other actions taken by you or by third parties based on information contained in the Reference Guide.
Except where stated otherwise, GRESB is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights in all the information contained in the Reference Guide.
The Infrastructure Fund Reference Guide provides a comprehensive explanation of the reporting requirements for each indicator of the GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment. It reflects the structure of the assessment itself, which participants should complete within the GRESB Portal.
The Reference Guide is complemented by the Scoring Document, which explains each indicator’s scoring methodology. Together, these documents help participants understand the assessment criteria, meet reporting requirements, and interpret their scores effectively.
For more information about GRESB, please contact info@helpdesk.gresb.com.
For additional guidance in completing the assessment and interpreting its results, refer to Appendix 3.
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessments are the global standard for ESG benchmarking and reporting for institutional investors, fund managers, infrastructure companies, and asset operators working in the infrastructure space. The methodology is consistent across different regions, investment vehicles, and asset types, and it aligns with international reporting frameworks, such as Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI).
There are three complementary GRESB Infrastructure Assessments: a Fund Assessment, an Asset Assessment, and a Development Asset Assessment. The Fund Assessment is intended for infrastructure funds and portfolios of assets, while the Asset Assessment and the Development Asset Assessment are meant to be completed by the individual underlying assets (portfolio companies). All assessments cover the full breadth of infrastructure sectors, including:
Infrastructure funds, portfolios and companies can participate in the Fund Assessment. Common examples of infrastructure funds include:
Fund managers complete the Fund Assessment to describe their investment management and engagement processes and performance. Additionally, we encourage funds to participate with their underlying assets participating in the Asset Assessment and Development Asset Assessment.
The Infrastructure Fund Assessment is made of only one Management Component. The Infrastructure Asset and Development Asset Assessments, which funds’ underlying assets complete, include Performance and Development Components (respectively) that may contribute to a fund’s overall GRESB Score.
All funds must complete the Management Component. The Management Component measures the entity’s strategy and leadership management, policies and processes, risk management, and stakeholder engagement approach. It is framed at the organizational level and is suitable for any type of infrastructure fund.
The Management Component of the Infrastructure Asset Assessment consists of 24 indicators across 6 aspects:
Funds completing the Management Component will obtain a Management Score— Infrastructure Fund.
Performance and Development Components
Funds do not complete a Performance or a Development Component themselves. Instead, the underlying assets of the fund complete them.
If more than 25% of the fund’s underlying assets complete the Infrastructure Asset Assessment and/or Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment, the scores of these assets are averaged and the fund will obtain a Performance Score - Infrastructure Fund
If more than 25% of the fund’s underlying assets complete the Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment and are linked to the fund in the GRESB Portal, the scores of these development assets are averaged and the fund will obtain a Development Score – Infrastructure Fund.
Together, the Performance and Development Scores join with the fund’s Management Score to create the premier measurements of ESG performance:
In cases where a fund’s portfolio is comprised of both operational and development assets and it meets the 25% participation threshold for both asset assessments, it will receive two scores, two GRESB ratings, two peer groups, etc., capturing how an entity approaches its respective activities in both benchmarks.
* For more information on the results metrics included in the Benchmark Report, refer to How to Read your Benchmark Report.
Each indicator is allocated to one of the three sustainability dimensions (E‑ environmental; S‑ social; G‑ governance):
E | S | G | |
---|---|---|---|
Fund Assessment | 4% | 18% | 78% |
Every indicator has a short title (e.g. ESG Specific Objectives) and a code (e.g. LE3). These are usually followed by a primary question that can be answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ Performance Component indicators also require participants to input quantitative data in a tabular format.
When selecting ‘Yes,’ participants are required to provide further information by selecting one or more options. When selecting 'No,’ participants may not select any additional sub-options. Participants should select all options that accurately describe the organizational activities. Indicators that require an additional upload of supporting evidence are highlighted at the bottom of the indicator. A list of manually validated indicators can also be found in Appendix 4. Scoring details can be found in the Scoring Document.
Response options for each indicator may use one or more of the following five core elements: radio buttons, checkboxes, performance tables, ’Other’ answers, and open text boxes. These elements are explained below:
A concise summary of the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment indicators and their corresponding reporting and evidence requirements can be found here.
The GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment provides investors with actionable information and tools to monitor and manage the ESG-related risks and opportunities of their investments, and to prepare for increasingly rigorous ESG obligations. Assessment participants receive comparative business intelligence on where they stand against their peers, a roadmap with the actions they can take to improve their ESG performance, and a communication platform to engage with investors. Participants that submit the Infrastructure Fund Assessment will receive a Benchmark Report.
Participants can purchase additional products and services, such as a Results Consultation, via the GRESB Portal following the results release to clarify outcomes and identify improvement opportunities.
The Assessment Portal opens on April 1. The submission deadline is July 1 (23:59:59 PST), providing participants with a three-month window to complete the assessment. This is a fixed deadline. GRESB will not accept submissions received after this date.
GRESB releases preliminary results to participants on September 1. In September, during the Review Period, participants can submit an Assessment Correction request to GRESB to amend any incorrect or incomplete data point. More information can be found here.
GRESB launches the final results to GRESB Participant and Investor Members on October 1. For more information about the assessment timeline, click here.
Information provided in the Entity and Reporting Characteristics consists of two parts:
Entity characteristics: Identifies the reporting entity's characteristics that remain constant across different reporting periods (year-on-year).
Reporting characteristics: Describe the entity, define the reporting scope for the current reporting year and determines the structure of the Assessment submission.
EC1
Reporting entity
Entity Name: ____________
Fund Manager Organization Name (May be same as entity name): ____________
EC1
Identify the reporting (participating) entity. The entity name will be used to identify the entity on the GRESB portal and will be displayed in the entity’s Benchmark Report.
Complete all applicable fields.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Entity name: Name of the fund or portfolio for which the Assessment is submitted. In the case of listed funds, the entity name is the legal name of the fund, also used for identification on international stock exchanges. In the case of non-listed entities, the entity name identifies the investable fund or portfolio for which the Assessment is submitted.
Fund Manager Organization name (May be same as entity name): Legal name of the organization responsible for the overall management, governance and oversight of the entity.
EC2
Nature of ownership
Public entity (listed on a Stock Exchange)
Specify ISIN: ____________
Private (non-listed) entity
Entity style classification
Debt
Core
Value added
Opportunistic
Open or closed end:
Open end
Closed end
Type of investment vehicle
Direct investment
Joint venture (JV)
Separate account
Special Purpose Vehicle
Other
-
________________________
Government entity
Legal Entity Identifier (optional): ____________
EC2
Describe the ownership status and characteristics of the participating entity.
Select the nature of the participating entity. Select at least one of the applicable sub-options and provide details if applicable. Entities reporting to GRESB are expected to represent investable vehicles, and these entities are expected to represent all infrastructure assets held by the vehicle (i.e., the whole portfolio).
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Note: GRESB Infrastructure Investor Members that invest in listed infrastructure securities have access to the results of all listed entities that participate in the GRESB Infrastructure Assessments. Publicly traded closed-end funds should be considered as non-listed entities given their level of disclosure requirements.
Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid.
Closed end fund: Fund with a fixed amount of capital and a finite life. Limited liquidity, with the redemption of units provided for at the end of the life of the fund.
Core, Value Add, Opportunistic: These are classifications of investment risk and return sometimes used by infrastructure investors. GRESB does not seek to define these but merely requires participants to select if they apply one of these classifications.
Debt: A fund or similar entity that has been set up for the purposes of issuing or investing in loans.
Direct investment:The purchase of a controlling interest or a minority interest of such size and influence that active control is a feasible objective.
Government entity: An infrastructure portfolio owned and managed by a government agency. Government portfolios are formed of publicly owned, and/or publicly managed assets.
ISIN: International Securities Identification Number. ISINs are assigned to securities to facilitate unambiguous clearing and settlement procedures. They are composed of a 12-digit alphanumeric code and act to unify different ticker symbols, which can vary by exchange and currency for the same security. In the United States, ISINs are extended versions of 9-character CUSIP codes.
Joint Venture: A vehicle where at least two parties share a common investment objective. Control over significant risk management decisions is not transferred to an external manager, but is exercised by members in the venture.
Open end fund: An investment vehicle with a variable and unlimited amount of capital. Investors may purchase or redeem units or shares from the vehicle as outlined in contractual agreements.
Private entity: A company or fund that is not a listed or traded on any stock exchange. Also known as non-listed entities or private portfolios.
Public entity: A company that is publicly listed and traded on a recognized stock exchange, such as Nasdaq or NYSE. Also known as "listed entities”.
Separate account: A portfolio of assets managed by a professional investment firm with a single investor client.
Special Purpose Vehicle: A subsidiary created by a parent company to isolate financial risk.
INREV Guidelines, Definitions, 2017
EC3
Entity commencement date
EC3
Describe the activity commencement or establishment date of the entity.
Provide the year of commencement/establishment.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Year of commencement: The year in which the reporting entity began investing in the market. If a listed entity is delisted (i.e., taken private) but remains under the same management, the date of original commencement can be used for “date of first closing” for the new non-listed entity. If the entity is taken private by a new management company, the first day of closing should be the date of privatization. This information is not used for scoring and used for context only; portfolio vintage may affect the ability to implement ESG policies and strategies.
Year of establishment: A date specified by the manager on which the vehicle is launched, the initial capital subscription is completed, and the commitment period commences.
EC4
Reporting year
Calendar year
Fiscal year
Specify the starting month Month
EC4
Set the entity’s annual reporting year.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Select one of the options.
Participants are required to specify the starting month of their fiscal year. If participants select Fiscal year, starting months between February and June must correspond to calendar years 2024/2025. For example, an entity reporting from April to March will be considered covering the period of April 2024 - March 2025. On the other hand, starting months between July and December must correspond to calendar years 2023/2024. For example an entity reporting from October to September will be considered as covering the period of October 2023 - September 2024.
The table below details the period for which information throughout the Assessment would be expected, should a given starting month be selected:
Starting month | Reporting Year |
---|---|
January | Select "Calendar Year" |
February | Feb 2024 - Jan 2025 |
March | Mar 2024 - Feb 2025 |
April | Apr 2024 - Mar 2025 |
May | May 2024 - Apr 2025 |
June | Jun 2024 - May 2025 |
July | Jul 2023 - Jun 2024 |
August | Aug 2023 - Jul 2024 |
September | Sept 2023 - Aug 2024 |
October | Oct 2023 - Sept 2024 |
November | Nov 2023 - Oct 2024 |
December | Dec 2023 - Nov 2024 |
Calendar year: January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024.
Fiscal year: The period used to calculate annual financial statements. Depending on the jurisdiction the fiscal year can start on April 1, July 1, October 1, etc.
Reporting year: Answers must refer to the reporting period identified in EC3 in the Infrastructure Assessment. A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting period; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting period. GRESB does not favor the use of calendar year over fiscal year or vice versa, as long as the chosen reporting period is used consistently throughout the Assessment.
RC1
Reporting currency
Values are reported in Currency
RC1
Set the currency for which the entity is denominated.
State the currency used by the entity for Assessment indicators that require a monetary value as a response.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
RC2
Economic size
Aggregate Gross Asset Value (GAV) (in millions): ____________
Aggregated Net Asset Value (NAV) (or invested capital) (in millions):
________________________
RC2
Establish the economic size of the entity.
Complete the measure(s) of the economic size of the entity in terms of aggregate Gross Asset Value (GAV) and aggregate Net Asset Value (NAV), both in millions (e.g. $75,000,000 must be reported as 75). Both values should be provided as at the end of the reporting year.
As with all information provided to GRESB, this information will be kept confidential to just you and any investors for which you give access permission.
Do not include a currency (symbol) with the value provided, as this has been reported in indicator RC1 above, but make sure the value reported is consistent with the currency selected in RC1.
Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the primary measure of economic size and the applicable value.
Aggregate Gross Asset Value (GAV): The total market value of assets owned by the entity.
Aggregate Net Asset Value (NAV) or Invested Capital: The total equity invested in assets by the entity. Aggregate NAV = Aggregate GAV - Aggregate Debt.
INREV Guidelines, Definitions, 2017
RC3
Sector & geography
What is the sector focus of the entity?
Diversified
Data Infrastructure
Energy and Water Resources
Environmental Services
Network Utilities
Power Generation X-Renewables
Renewable Power
Social Infrastructure
Transport
Other: ____________
What is the regional focus of the entity?
Globally diversified
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
RC3
Establish the sector and geographic focus of the entity. This is used to determine peers for benchmarking and reporting purposes.
Select the sector and geographic focus of the entity. If this is sector specific, then select the relevant sector.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Other: Other answer must be outside the options listed in the indicator to be valid. State the sector focus.
Data Infrastructure: Companies involved in the provision of telecommunication and data infrastructure.
Diversified focus: If the entity is invested in more than one of the listed sectors.
Energy and Water Resources: Companies involved in the treatment and delivery of natural resources.
Environmental Services: Companies involved in the treatment of water, wastewater, and solid waste for sanitation and reuse purposes.
Globally diversified: If the entity is significantly invested in more than one of the listed geographic regions.
Network Utilities: Companies operating an infrastructure network with natural monopoly characteristics (barriers to entry, increasing returns to scale).
Power Generation x-Renewables: Stand-alone power generation using a range of technologies except wind, solar, and other renewable sources.
Renewable Power: Stand-alone power generation and transmission companies using wind, solar, hydro and other renewable energy sources. Also energy storage companies.
Sector: A group of specific industrial activities and types of physical assets and technologies.
Social Infrastructure: Companies involved in the delivery of support and accommodation services for public or other services.
Transport: Companies involved in the provision of transportation infrastructure services.
EDHECInfra, The Infrastructure Company Classification Standards (TICCS™), 2020
United Nations Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49)
RC4
Nature of entity's business
What is the entity's core business?
Management of standing investment/operating assets
Development of new construction and major renovation projects
RC4
The entity’s primary business activities during the reporting year is useful for distinguishing infrastructure funds. The information can be used to develop further insights and potentially for peer grouping.
Select the option applicable to the reporting entity.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Major Renovations: Alterations that affect more than 50 percent of the total asset or cause relocation of more than 50 percent of regular building occupants. Major renovation projects refer to assets that were under construction at any time during the reporting year.
New Construction: Includes all activities to obtain or change building or land use permissions and financing. Includes construction work for the project with the intention of enhancing the asset's value. Development of new facilities and additions to existing facilities can be treated as new constructions. New construction projects refer to facilities that were under construction at any time during the reporting year.
Standing Investments: Assets where construction work has been completed and which are owned for the purpose of providing a service in exchange of an income. Also known as an operating asset.
RC5
Description of the fund
Provide a description of the entity (max 250 words): ____________
RC5
Provide a description of the entity.
The description may include:
It is not necessary to re-state information that has already been provided in prior indicators, such as the entity's sector focus, geographic focus or nature of business.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
RC6
Portfolio of entity assets
Did the entity own or lend to any asset investments?
Yes
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RC6
The Portfolio Assets Table shows the entity’s portfolio of underlying investments in infrastructure assets. The table includes details on each asset; including Primary Sector, weight within the portfolio and whether the asset is in development [pre-operational].
Linking its underlying assets allows the fund to earn a Performance Score and/or Development Score, so long as asset participation thresholds are met (see the Scoring section and/or Scoring Document for more information).
These two scores combined with the score of the fund in its Management Component generate the fund’s overall scores, referred to as ‘GRESB Score - Infrastructure Fund’ and/or ‘GRESB Development Score – Infrastructure Fund’.
Pre-fill: The table will be prefilled with assets that were connected in 2024. It is very important to review the table carefully, with particular attention to the weightings assigned. Participants have the option to delete, edit or add assets to the table, if necessary.
The table can be accessed in two locations, either within the Assessment Portal (via the 'Assets' tab) or within the Assessment Response (in the 'Summary of Entity Assets' section).
It is mandatory for participants to list and complete details for ALL infrastructure assets (operational and pre-operational) held by the Fund, as at the end of the reporting year (identified in EC4), irrespective of whether they are participating in the 2024 GRESB Asset Assessment or not.
The Table includes the following columns:
Asset sector: Select the primary sector of the asset from the dropdown box. The sector classification has been aligned with the new EDHECInfra TICCS standard Industrial Classifications and is provided in the Terminology. If the sector of the asset sits outside the listed options, then select 'Other' and specify the sector. This information will not be used for benchmarking purposes.
Asset weight: Enter the weight of the asset within the portfolio. Weights must sum up to 100%. Weights should be equity based i.e. the weight of an asset is the equity invested in the asset divided by the total equity invested in all assets in the fund (i.e. the invested capital).
% ownership: Enter the fund’s % ownership share in the asset as a proportion of the asset’s total GAV. I.e the fund’s investment in the asset divided by the asset’s total GAV.
Reason for excluding from scoring (optional): Participants have the option to exclude specific assets from contributing to the Performance Component Score - Infrastructure Fund and Development Component Score - Infrastructure Fund if there is a valid reason. Valid exclusion reasons are:
Contact name: Provide the name of the contact person for the asset entity.
Email: Provide the email address for the contact person for the asset entity.
The 'Connect' button should be selected if the reporting entity wants to create a connection to an existing GRESB Assessment or invite someone to respond for the Asset. Once selected, there are four options (with supporting guidance) to follow in order to Connect. Only select 'Connect' if the asset intends to participate in the 2025 GRESB Assessment, otherwise leave the status at 'Not Connected'.
What happens once a connection request has been sent:
No points are awarded for completing the table.
However, to receive a GRESB Score - Infrastructure Fund [Management + Performance Scores] or a GRESB Development Score – Infrastructure Fund [Management + Development Scores], the following conditions must be met:
Performance Score: At least 25% of the fund’s underlying assets (based on equity invested) must participate in a GRESB Assessment and be linked to the fund in the GRESB Portal. Within this 25%, at least one asset must participate in the GRESB Asset Assessment.
Development Score: At least 25% of the fund’s underlying assets (based on equity invested) must participate in a GRESB Assessment and be linked to the fund in the GRESB Portal. Within this 25%, at least one asset must participate in the GRESB Development Asset Assessment.
2025 Updates
Exclusions of assets from the aggregate Performance/Development Score – Infrastructure Fund
Funds are entitled to exclude specific assets from contributing to the Performance/Development Score if there is a valid reason (see reasons in ‘Requirements’ section above). The weights of excluded assets will be redistributed among the remaining assets.
In addition, in 2025, first-time GRESB Fund Assessment participants can exclude any assets from scoring using the “New Fund Participant” exclusion reason, under the following conditions:
Note also that in 2025, first-year participant assets choosing to report to GRESB Asset Assessment or Development Asset Assessment using the Grace Period will be automatically excluded from the Fund Score and data.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Asset in development: Refers to an investment in a new asset that has some level of development or construction requirement and risk.
Energy and Water Resources: Companies involved in the treatment and delivery of natural resources.
Environmental Services: Companies involved in the treatment of water, wastewater, and solid waste for sanitation and reuse purposes.
Data Infrastructure: Companies involved in the provision of telecommunication and data infrastructure.
Network Utilities: Companies operating an infrastructure network with natural monopoly characteristics (barriers to entry, increasing returns to scale).
Power Generation x-Renewables: Stand-alone power generation using a range of technologies except wind, solar, and other renewable sources.
Renewable Power: Stand-alone power generation and transmission companies using wind, solar, hydro and other renewable energy sources. Also energy storage companies.
Sector: A group of specific industrial activities and types of physical assets and technologies.
Social Infrastructure: Companies involved in the delivery of support and accommodation services for public or other services.
Transport: Companies involved in the provision of transportation infrastructure services.
EDHECInfra, The Infrastructure Company Classification Standards (TICCS™️), 2021
This aspect evaluates how the entity integrates ESG into its overall business strategy, its ESG commitments and objectives, and how responsibilities for making decisions relating to ESG have been assigned within the entity.
LE1
ESG leadership commitments
Has the entity made a public commitment to ESG standards or principles?
Yes
ESG commitments (multiple answers possible)
Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action (multiple answers possible).
Equator Principles
PRI
UN Global Compact
Business for nature
Climate Action in Financial Institutions Initiative
Climate Action 100+
Climate League 2030
EV100
Finance for Biodiversity
Global Launch of Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF)
IFC Operating Principles for Impact Management
IIGCC Paris Aligned Investment Initiative
Montreal Pledge
Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials
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).
UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative
Support the goals
Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment (CCRI)
Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change (including AIGCC, Ceres, IGCC, IIGCC)
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
World Business Council for Sustainable Development's Call to Action
30% Club
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
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
UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance
UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge
WorldGBC Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
LE1
Not scored , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess the entity's commitment to ESG leadership standards or principles. By making a commitment to ESG leadership standards or principles, an entity publicly demonstrates its commitment to ESG, uses organizational standards and/or frameworks that are universally accepted and may have obligations to comply with the standards and/or frameworks.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Commitments: All commitments should be publicly available, and the entity should be either a member or signatory if it selects an option. The commitments are divided between those that require action to be taken by the entity and those that don’t.
Commitments that oblige to act may, for example:
It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
List commitment: Open text box, enter name of relevant commitment(s).
The Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change (GIC): Participants may select this checkbox only if they are a member of any part of the four regional groups (i.e. AIGCC, Ceres, IGCC and IIGCC).
Hyperlink: Providing a hyperlink is mandatory for this indicator when ‘Publicly available’ is selected. Ensure that the hyperlink is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. The URL should demonstrate the existence of the publicly available objective(s) selected.
Evidence: Document or hyperlink. The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include:
Other: Add an external, formal, commitment that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “UN Sustainability Goals” when “‘Support the Goals” is selected). Note that other answers provided in the “General ESG commitments” section of this indicator will not be accepted again as an other answer in any of the E, S or G “ issue-specific commitments” sections a second time.
Any ‘Other’ answer provided will be manually validated and must be accepted before achieving the respective fractional score.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for information about GRESB Validation.
This indicator is not scored and used for reporting purposes only.
40:40 Vision:
Business for Nature:
Climate Action in Financial Institutions Initiative:
Climate League 2030:
Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment (CCRI):
Equator Principles: The Equator Principles is a risk management framework, adopted by financial institutions, for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risks.
EV100:
Finance for Biodiversity:
Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change:
Operating Principles for Impact Management:
IIGCC Paris Aligned Investment Initiative:
Montreal Carbon Pledge:
RE100:
Science Based Targets Initiative:
Support the Goals:
Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials:
Powering PastCoal Alliance (PPCA):
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures:
Transform to Net Zero:
UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative:
UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge
UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance:
The Climate Pledge:
UN Global Compact:
UN Global Compact Our Only Future:
United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI):
World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Call to Action:
WorldGBC’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment:
30% Club:
UNPRI, PRI Reporting Framework, 2021
Equator Principles, 2013
UN Global Compact Principles, 2000
UNEP Finance Initiative Statement, 1992
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2015
International Labour Organization, International Labour Organization Standards, 2014
Climate Action in Financial Institutions Initiative, Principles for Mainstreaming Climate Action, 2015
Good practice example: Please refer to this linkLE2
Responsible investment strategy
Does the entity have a sustainable investment strategy?
Yes
The strategy incorporates the following approaches (multiple answers possible)
Corporate engagement and shareholder action
Impact/community investing
Integration of ESG factors
Positive/best-in-class screening
Negative/exclusionary screening
Norms-based screening
Sustainability themed investing
Describe the strategy and how it is being implemented (for reporting purposes only)(maximum 250 words)
________________________
The strategy is:
Publicly available
Provide applicable hyperlink or a separate publicly available evidence
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Not publicly available
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
LE2
1.62 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess and categorize the sustainable investment strategies adopted by the entity. The Global Sustainable Investment Review (GSIA) standardized seven sustainable investment strategies which have emerged as a global standard of classification. Alignment with standardized responsible investment strategies provides more valuable benchmarking information for investors.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Open Text Box (for reporting purposes only): Explain the strategy and how it is implemented within the entity. The description may include the following criteria:
Hyperlink: Providing a hyperlink is mandatory for this indicator when ‘Publicly available’ is selected. Ensure that the hyperlink is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. The URL should demonstrate the existence of the publicly available approaches selected.
Evidence: Document or hyperlink. Participants may upload several documents. When providing a document upload, it is mandatory to indicate where relevant information can be found within the document.
Evidence requirements:
Evidence examples may include but are not limited to:
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for information about GRESB Validation.
1.62 points, G
Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Corporate engagement and shareholder action: The use of shareholder power to influence corporate behavior, including through direct corporate engagement (i.e., communicating with senior management and/or boards of companies), filing or co-filing shareholder proposals, and proxy voting that is guided by comprehensive ESG guidelines.
ESG integration: The systematic and explicit inclusion by investment managers of environmental, social and governance factors into financial analysis.
Formally adopted: To set and communicate a strategy/target/program, at least internally, and having implemented or prepared actions to achieve this.
Impact/community investing: Targeted investments, typically made in private markets, aimed at solving social or environmental problems, and including community investing, where capital is specifically directed to traditionally underserved individuals or communities, as well as financing that is provided to businesses with a clear social or environmental purpose.
Negative/exclusionary screening: The exclusion from a fund or portfolio of certain sectors, companies or practices based on specific ESG criteria.
Norms-based screening: Screening of investments against minimum standards of business practice based on international norms.
Positive/best-in-class screening: Investment in sectors, companies or projects selected for positive ESG performance relative to industry peers.
Sustainability themed investing: Investment in themes or assets specifically related to sustainability (for example clean energy, green technology or sustainable agriculture).
Impact/community investing: Targeted investments, typically made in private markets, aimed at solving social or environmental problems, and including community investing, where capital is specifically directed to traditionally underserved individuals or communities, as well as financing that is provided to businesses with a clear social or environmental purpose.
Sustainable investing: An investment approach that considers environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in portfolio selection and management.
Global Sustainable InvestmentAlliance (GSIA), Global Sustainable Investment Review, 2018
LE3
ESG, climate-related and/or Human Capital senior decision maker
Does the entity have a senior decision-maker accountable for ESG, climate-related, and/or Human Capital issues?
Yes
ESG
Provide the details for most senior decision-maker on ESG issues
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
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: ____________
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: ____________
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: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
LE3
1.62 points , G
The intent of the indicator is to emphasize the importance of senior management’s active role in overseeing ESG, climate-related risks and opportunities, and/or Human Capital initiatives. Their involvement increases the likelihood of successfully achieving objectives in these areas. Having a structured governance mechanism to keep the most senior decision-maker informed about the entity’s performance promotes accountability and continuous improvement.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Senior decision-maker: The entity’s most senior decision-maker on ESG issues, climate-related risks and opportunities and/or Human Capital is expected to be actively involved in the process of defining the objectives relating to the topic(s) and should approve associated strategic decisions regarding ESG issues, climate-related risks and opportunities and/or Human Capital. It is also possible to list the same person for ESG issues, climate-related risks and opportunities and/or Human Capital. The employee details provided will be used for reporting purposes only.
Role of the senior decision-maker: Select one option from the list of bodies that the senior decision-maker is part of. If multiple options apply, select the body that bears the highest level of responsibility. It is possible to report using the ‘other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Details of employee: Participants must provide the name and job title of the relevant employee. This information will be used for reporting purposes only. This information will remain confidential.
Reporting level: Answers should be applicable at the entity and/or manager level. In the case where the senior decision-maker that is accountable for ESG issues is part of a third-party organization, then provide the organization name.
Prefill: This indicator remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
The ‘Other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: List a specific senior decision-maker’s position title who is accountable for ESG issues and/or climate-related issues. Vague answers will not be sufficient for validation. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Executive board” when “‘Board of directors” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for information about GRESB Validation.
1.62 points, G
Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is necessary to select all checkboxes to obtain the maximum score.
Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of investments at asset level.
Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.
C-suite level staff: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. C-suite level staff are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as senior management, executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.
Human capital: Human capital refers to the knowledge, culture, skills, experience, and overall contributions of an organization’s workforce. It encompasses strategies for fairly attracting, developing, and retaining talent, fostering a productive and engaged workplace, and ensuring fair and effective workforce management. Many organizational approaches can contribute to human capital objectives, including talent development & advancement; skills-based hiring & development; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
ESG strategy: Strategy that (1) sets out the participant’s procedures and (2) sets the direction and guidance for the entity’s implementation of ESG measures.
Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of investments and the deployment of investor capital by creating and implementing asset level strategies across the entire portfolio or fund.
Investment Committee: A group of individuals who oversee the entity’s investment strategy, evaluates investment proposals and maintains the investment policies, subject to the Board’s approval.
Person accountable: A person with sign off (approval) authority over the deliverable task, project or strategy. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.
Senior decision-maker accountable for ESG issues: A senior individual with sign off (approval) authority for approving strategic ESG objectives and steps undertaken to achieve these objectives. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.
Senior decision-maker accountable for climate-related issues: A senior individual with sign off (approval) authority for approving strategic climate-related objectives and steps undertaken to achieve these objectives. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.
Senior decision-maker accountable for Human Capital: A senior individual with sign off (approval) authority for approving strategic ESG objectives and steps undertaken to achieve these objectives. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.
CDP, CDP Scoring Methodology, CC1.1, 2017
Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 2: General Disclosures 2021
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)
All other employees
Asset managers
Board of directors
C-suite level staff/Senior management
Dedicated staff on ESG issues
ESG managers
External managers or service providers
Fund/portfolio managers
Investment analysts
Investment committee
Investor relations
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
LE4
1.62 points , G
This indicator intends to identify whether and to what extent ESG issues are addressed in personnel performance targets. Including ESG factors in annual performance targets for all personnel can increase the entity’s capacity to achieve improved ESG performance.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Financial consequences: Select from the available sub-options. Financial consequences are any consequences that relate to monetary impacts. For good practice examples, see the ‘References’ section below.
It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2024 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2024 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
The evidence and ‘Other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Executive board” when “‘Board of directors” is selected). If multiple ‘Other’ answers are listed, more than one may be accepted in manual validation.
Evidence: Document or hyperlink. The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.
The provided evidence must cover all the following elements:Existence of ESG-related performance targets: demonstrate that ESG performance targets are explicitly tied to the annual performance of the selected personnel groups:
Personnel group applicability: targets must relate to all members within the selected personnel groups:
Financial consequences tied to ESG performance: the evidence must explain the financial implications (positive or negative) for meeting or failing to meet ESG targets for each selected personnel group. This includes clearly linking the financial consequences (e.g., bonuses, pay adjustments, penalties, etc.) to the ESG targets of each selected personnel group. The connection must be clearly defined within the provided documents, open text box, or cover page.
Examples of acceptable evidence: policy documents, process guidelines, employee performance reviews for the reporting year, employment contracts or documentation describing financial consequences (e.g., bonus schemes, web pages). Note that sensitive information may be redacted from the documents as long as the requirements outlined above are clearly met. If the consequences are not clearly defined and connected to the ESG targets within the provided evidence, then sufficient explanation must be provided within the evidence open text box.
Other answers: state the specific employee type and ensure the following:
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for information about GRESB Validation.
1.62 points, G
Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is necessary to select all checkboxes to obtain the maximum score.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Annual performance targets: Targets set in annual performance reviews based on assessments of employee performance.
Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of investments at asset level.
Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.
C-suite level staff: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. C-suite level staff are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as senior management, executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.
Dedicated employee(s) for whom ESG is the core responsibility: The employee(s)’ main responsibility is defining, implementing and monitoring the ESG objectives at entity level.
ESG manager: Dedicated employee(s) who manages the ESG strategy and implementation of the entity.
External manager or service provider: Organizations, businesses or individuals that offer services to others in exchange for payment. These include, but are not limited to, consultants, agents and brokers.
Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of investments and the deployment of investor capital by creating and implementing asset level strategies across the entire portfolio or fund.
Investment analysts: A person or group with expertise in evaluating financial and investment information, typically for the purpose of making buy, sell and hold recommendations for securities.
Investment Committee: A group of individuals who oversee the entity’s investment strategy, evaluates investment proposals and maintains the investment policies, subject to the Board’s approval.
Investor relations: A person or a group that provides investors with an accurate account of company affairs so investors can make better informed decisions.
Financial consequences: Predetermined monetary benefits (or detriments) incorporated into the employee compensation structures. Examples include bonuses, raises, profit-sharing, financial rewards, and financial incentives. The financial consequences are contingent upon the achievement of the annual performance targets.
Global Reporting Initiative, GRI 102-35: Remuneration policies, 2016
Good practice example: Please refer to the remuneration report using this link
Good practice example: Please click here
This aspect evaluates the steps undertaken to stay abreast of material ESG related risks.
PO1
Policies on environmental issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on environmental issues?
Yes
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Does the entity have a policy to address Net Zero?
Yes
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PO1
1.08 points , E
The intent of this indicator is to assess the existence and scope of policies that address environmental issues. Policies on environmental issues assist organizations with incorporating environmental criteria into their business practices.
Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
This indicator is subject to manual validation.
Evidence: Document of hyperlink. The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.
This indicator has two sections for evidence upload:
Supporting evidence is mandatory for both sections. However, only section 2 (Net Zero policies) will be subject to manual validation. Any evidence uploaded in section 1 (General/issue-specific policies) is for reporting purposes only.
An entity should report that it has an environmental policy when:
The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of a formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected environmental issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.
A policy is a guide for action which can serve the purpose of:
Acceptable evidence may include an environmental policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's environmental policy(ies). References such as bullet points or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
The evidence should support each of the selected issues with a relevant document such as energy consumption policy or a waste management policy. The same document can be used to support the existence of a policy addressing Net Zero as well as all other selected environmental issues. Note that overarching environmental policy documents covering multiple issues must have separate sections/clauses relevant to each of the selected issues.
For entities that either achieved full points for any of the indicator PO1 in the previous submission or do not wish to modify their selections or evidence, GRESB allows them to forgo reporting on these indicators, provided the same policies remain in place and the supporting documents remain unchanged. GRESB recognizes that an entity's policies typically remain consistent year over year and are often in place for multiple reporting periods. In such cases, the entity will retain the same validation status and points as in the previous year.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.Scoring is based on the number of selected options.
Evidence
If selecting ‘Yes’ to having a policy(ies) on environmental issues, evidence is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.
If selecting ‘Yes’ to having a Net Zero policy, evidence is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport, contamination, GHG emissions, energy, water, waste, natural hazards, supply chain environmental standards, and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.
Net Zero: Net zero means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining emissions re-absorbed from the atmosphere.
Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.
Indicator partially aligned with
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 02, INF 13
PO2
Policies on social issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on social issues?
Yes
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PO2
1.08 points , S
The intent of this indicator is to assess the existence and scope of policies that address social issues. Policies on social issues assist organizations with incorporating social criteria into their business practices.
Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options.
Supporting evidence is mandatory but is for reporting purposes only.
An entity should report that it has a social policy when:
The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of a formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected social issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.
A policy is a guide for action which can serve the purpose of:
Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as a social policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's social policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
Scoring is based on the selection of ‘Yes,’
Evidence not scored and used for reporting purposes only.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.
Social issues: Concerns the impacts the entity has on the social systems within which it operates. This includes, but is not limited to community social and economic impacts, safety, health & well-being.
Indicator partially aligned with
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 02, INF 13
The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures Recommendations (TNFD) version 1.0 September 2023: Governance Pillar
PO3
Policies on governance issues
Does the entity have a policy or policies on governance issues?
Yes
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
PO3
1.08 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess the existence and scope of policies that address governance issues. Policies on governance issues assist organizations with incorporating governance criteria into their business practices.
Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options.
Supporting evidence is mandatory but is for reporting purposes only.
An entity should report that it has a governance policy when:
The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of a formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected governance issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.
A policy is a guide for action which can serve the purpose of:
Acceptable evidence may include a formal policy that is in place such as a governance policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's governance policies. Reference can be provided, such as bullets or passages within a policy, to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
Scoring is based on the selection of ‘Yes,’
Evidence not scored and used for reporting purposes only.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Governance issues: Governance structure and composition of the entity. This includes how the highest governance body is established and structured in support of the entity’s purpose, and how this purpose relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions.
Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.
Indicator partially aligned with
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 02, INF 13
Good practice example: Please refer to this link.
Net Zero targets guide entities and their employees towards measurable improvements and are a key driver for integrating sustainability into business operations. This aspect confirms the existence and scope of Net Zero targets.
T1
Net Zero Targets
Does the entity have a GHG emissions reduction target aligned with Net Zero?
Yes
Target baseline year
Target end year
Select the scope of the Net Zero target:
Scope 1+2 (location-based)
Scope 1+2 (market-based)
Scope 1+2 (location-based) + Scope 3
Scope 1+2 (market-based) + Scope 3
Is the target aligned with a Net Zero target-setting framework?
Yes
Net Zero target-setting framework: ____________
No
Is the target science-based?
Yes
No
Is the target validated by a third party?
Yes
Validated by: ____________
No
Does the Net Zero target include an interim target?
Yes
Interim target: ____________%
Interim target year
No
Is the target publicly communicated?
Yes
Provide applicable hyperlink
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Explain the methodology used to establish the target and communicate the entity’s plans/intentions to achieve it (e.g. energy efficiency, renewable energy generation and/or procurement, carbon offsets, anticipated budgets associated with decarbonizing assets, acquisition/disposition activities, etc.) (maximum 500 words)
________________________
No
NEW
Not scored , E
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether the entity has a GHG emissions reduction target aligned with Net Zero.
Net Zero targets are considered a key part of an entity’s decarbonization strategy. They can strengthen investor confidence regarding the entity’s decarbonization strategy and guide the entity in its transition to a low-carbon economy. This indicator provides an opportunity for the entity to indicate the existence of a Net Zero target and collects additional information on understanding the target’s underlying characteristics and the methodology used to set them.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', then the following subsections must be completed to detail the characteristics of the target:
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.
Net Zero: Net zero means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining emissions re-absorbed from the atmosphere.
Net Zero
The intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity’s ESG policies and approach to disclosure.
RP1
ESG Reporting
Does the entity disclose its ESG actions and/or performance?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Integrated Report*
*Integrated Report must be aligned with the IIRC framework
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Stand-alone sustainability report(s)
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Section in Annual Report
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Dedicated section on website
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Entity reporting to investors
Frequency of reporting: ____________
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Other: ____________
Select the applicable reporting level
Group
Investment manager or business unit
Entity
Aligned with third-party standard Guideline name
Is this disclosure third-party reviewed?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RP1
3.24 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess the level of ESG disclosure undertaken by the entity. It also evaluates the entity’s use of third-party review to ensure the reliability, integrity, and accuracy of ESG disclosure. Reporting of ESG information and performance demonstrates an entity’s transparency in explaining how ESG policies and management practices are implemented by the entity, and how these practices impact the business and may form an important part of the entity’s communication to external stakeholders In addition, third-party ESG disclosure review increases investors’ confidence in the information disclosed.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
In all cases:
The full list of accepted schemes is located in Appendix 5 of the Reference Guide. Additional schemes may also receive recognition if they meet GRESB’s criteria. To submit a new scheme for review, please contact the GRESB team. The final deadline for submitting a new assurance/verification scheme for review by the GRESB team is March 15th. Schemes submitted for review after March 15th will not be reviewed until the subsequent reporting year.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
The evidence and ‘Other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: Add a disclosure method that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option selected. It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring.
Evidence: Document or hyperlink. The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found. A piece of supporting evidence document or URL cannot be uploaded for more than one disclosure method selected, i.e., identical documents will not be accepted for more than one disclosure type.
General evidence requirements:
Specific evidence requirements per disclosure type:
Evidence requirements IR report: The document upload or URL provided must contain clear evidence of alignment with the IFRS Integrated Reporting Framework (formerly the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework (December 2013)) within the report itself. Note that references to the IFRS accounting standards, IFRS S1 or S2, and SASB are not equivalent. Integrated reports can reference 2024, 2023, or 2022 performance and/or actions.
Evidence requirements Annual Report: Annual Reports should cover the reporting year as described in EC4. Annual Reports from the prior reporting year detailing actions and/or performance are acceptable if it is explicitly stated that the Annual Report for the current reporting year has not yet been published. If an entity reports on a semi-annual basis, both semi-annual reports must be uploaded to cover the 12 months of reporting identified in EC4.
Evidence requirements Standalone sustainability report: Sustainability reports referencing the current or previous reporting year as described in EC4 are accepted. They must be published separately from the Annual Report. If the entity intends to refer to a section in the Annual Report they should select ‘Annual Report’.
Evidence requirements Dedicated section on corporate website: The webpage(s) must explicitly address ESG and include actions and/or performance undertaken by the entity during the reporting year as given in EC4. A hyperlink to the Annual Report or Sustainability report is not valid. In addition, a list of general goals and/or commitments on the website is not sufficient.
Evidence requirements Entity reporting to investors: A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach to sustainability that does not contain any analysis of performance is insufficient. Entity reporting to investors should include year-on-year comparison of sustainability performances supported by explanatory comments. Performance achievements should be linked to measures formerly implemented by the entity. Updates to investors provided after the reporting year may be valid, as long as the actions described apply to the reporting year (as indicated in EC4). Quarterly updates, newsletters, or press releases disclosing ESG actions and/or performance are also considered valid, but the entity should indicate the frequency of reporting (i.e., Quarterly). Additionally, evidence of periodical ESG disclosures required by regional sustainable finance regulations can be included and will be counted as evidence for this indicator. Entity reporting to investors must reference actions/performance of the entity itself, not solely its investment manager or group.
Evidence requirements ‘Other’:An additional disclosure method such as third-party forms of disclosure like CDP Questionnaires or UN PRI Transparency Reports is considered valid. Disclosure methods with a different reporting level can also be provided (i.e. if an entity-level ESG report is provided for Stand-alone sustainability report, a group-level ESG report can be provided for ‘Other’.) Quarterly updates, Board reports, investor presentations, newsletters, or press releases disclosing ESG actions and/or performance are considered valid. Ensure applicability to the reporting year as provided in EC4 based on the actions and/or performance disclosed.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Alignment: To agree and match with a recognized sustainability reporting standard (either voluntary or mandatory).
Annual report: A yearly record of an entity’s financial performance that is distributed to investors under applicable financial reporting regulations.
Dedicated section on corporate website: A section of the entity’s website that explicitly addresses ESG performance.
Disclosure: The act of making information or data readily accessible and available to all interested individuals and institutions. Disclosure must be external and cannot be an internal and/or ad hoc communication.
Entity:Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable portfolio for which you are submitting an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions/performance disclosure that is in direct reference to and/or matches the entity subject to the GRESB submission. For example, an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity in addition to other entities within the group of companies.
Entity reporting to investors: A report prepared by the participant for the purpose of informing investors on the ESG performance of the entity. A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach to ESG that does not contain any analysis of performance (as defined below) is insufficient.
ESG actions: Specific activities performed to improve management of environmental, social and governance issues within the entity.
ESG performance: Reporting of material indicators that reflect implementation of environmental, social, or governance (ESG) management
Externally checked:applies to instances when a third party has reviewed the data in a structured and consistent process, but no official certification has been awarded.
Externally verified:applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the reporting against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants must select the scheme name from the dropdown.
Externally assured:applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the data against an existing scheme. When this checkbox is ticked, participants should select the scheme name from the dropdown.
Note that GRESB treats verification and assurance equally in the context of the assessment
Group: Related to a group of companies of which the participating entity forms a part. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) covers the entity subject to the GRESB submission, but doesn’t include a breakdown at the entity level. An example is an Annual Report that does not include specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity itself, but rather for the larger group of companies as an aggregate.
Integrated report: A report that is aligned with the requirements of the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS) Integrated Reporting Framework (formerly the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework). Integrated reporting joins relevant information about both the entity's financial and non-financial strategy, governance, performance, and prospects in a manner that conveys the holistic commercial, social, and environmental context in which it operates.
Investment Manager:Related to the investment management entity or company of which the participating entity forms a part. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g. Annual Report) includes the entity subject to the GRESB submission. For example, an Annual report that does not include specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity itself, but rather for the investment manager as an aggregate.
Standalone sustainability report: A separately-issued report dedicated to the entity’s sustainability performance.
IIRC - Integrated Reporting Framework
IFRS - International Reporting Standards Foundation
Alignment with External Frameworks
GRI Standards 2016 - 102: General Disclosures
Good practice examples: Please refer to the links below:
Integrated Report Section of Annual Report. (See pages from 42 to 53 Dedicated section on the website Entity reporting to investors Other
RP2.1
ESG incident monitoring
Does the entity have a process to monitor and communicate ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics?
Yes
The process includes external communication of misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents to (multiple answers possible):
Clients/customers
Community/public
Contractors
Employees
Investors/shareholders
Regulators/government
Special interest groups
Suppliers
Other stakeholders: ____________
Describe the communication process (for reporting purposes only) (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
* The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of Sector Leaders
RP2.1
1.62 points , G
This indicator intends to identify whether the entity has a defined process in place to monitor and communicate any ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics to its stakeholders. The entity’s external communication process is one aspect of management controls necessary to provide investors with transparency about regulatory risks and liabilities. Recurring ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents can increase the risk profile of the entity as they can translate into reputational, compliance, and financial risks.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants may use this open text box to provide additional detail on the process the entity follows to communicate ESG-related misconducts to its stakeholders.
The ‘Other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: List applicable parties that would be notified of misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents or breaches, but that is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “local residents” when “‘Community/Public” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are accepted, only one will be counted towards scoring.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the number of selected options.
Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.
Diminishing Scoring approach: This indicator incorporates a diminishing increase in score approach, where the fractional score achieved for each selection decreases as the number of selections increases. In the Scoring Document this is represented by the blue line.
The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of Sector Leaders.
Accident: An unplanned, undesired event that results in damage or injury.
Clients/costumers: A customer is understood to include end-customers (consumer) as well as business-to-business customers.
Codes of conduct/ethics: An agreement on rules of behavior for the employees of the entity.
Controversy: A prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.
ESG fines and/or penalties: Sanctions resulting from an illegal act or non-compliant behavior, which directly harms the environment and/or stakeholders of the entity.
Incident: An unplanned, undesired event with actual or potential adverse impacts.
Misconduct: Unacceptable or improper behavior, especially by an employee or organization.
Penalty: A punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.
Special interest groups: Organization with a shared interest or characteristic (e.g. trade unions, non-governmental organizations).
Suppliers: Organization upstream from the reporting entity (i.e., in the entity’s supply chain), which provides a product or service that is used in the development of the entity’s own products or services. Note that for the purposes of this assessment, 'suppliers' only refers to tier 1 suppliers with whom the entity has a direct commercial relationship.
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 19
DSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.1 Codes of Conduct
SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.4 Systems/Procedures
GRI Standards 2016 - 102-17: Mechanisms for advice and concerns about ethics
GRI Standards 2016 - 205-2: Communication and training about anti-corruption policies and procedures
RP2.2
ESG incident occurrences
Has the entity been involved in any ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics in the reporting period?
(For reporting purposes only)
Yes
Specify the total number of cases that occurred: ____________
Specify the total value of fines and/or penalties incurred (must align with currency selected in RC1)
________________________
Specify the total number of currently pending investigations: ____________
Provide additional context for the response, focusing on the three most serious incidents
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
* The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of Sector Leaders
RP2.2
Not scored , G
The intent of this indicator is to ensure the communication of any ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics to the reporting entity’s investor. Recurring misconducts and penalties can increase the risk profile of the portfolio as they impose financial, management and regulatory burdens on the entity.
Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options.
ESG incident occurrences: Any cases that are related to ESG incidents that occurred during the reporting year can be reported here. This may include both incidents for which the entity received a fine or other formal reprimand by a regulator, as well as incidents that were not formally penalized.
Open Text Box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants may use this open text box to communicate on the process the reporting entity intends to follow in order to communicate any ESG-related misconducts to its stakeholders.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
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 2025 Sector Leaders.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
ESG fines and/or penalties: Sanctions resulting from an illegal act or non-compliant behavior, which directly harms the environment and/or stakeholders of the entity.
Incident: An unplanned, undesired event with actual or potential adverse impacts.
Alignment with External Frameworks
SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.6 Corruption and Bribery Cases
SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) - 3.4.7 Reporting on Breaches
GRI Standards 2016 - 205-3: Confirmed incidents of corruption and actions taken
The intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity’s understanding and mitigation of material ESG risks and opportunities.
RM1.1
ESG due diligence for new acquisitions
Does the entity have a process to formally address ESG risks and/or opportunities in its pre-investment processes?
Yes
Select elements of the pre-investment process (multiple answers possible)
ESG risks and opportunities are identified (relating to the material issues) are identified
ESG risks are analysed
ESG risks are evaluated and treated
ESG risks and opportunities are considered and can impact the investment decision
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RM1.1
4.47 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether the entity has a process to address ESG risks and opportunities in its pre-investment process. The integration of ESG policies may assist in reducing risk and identifying opportunities for improved ESG performance.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.
Evidence Requirements: Evidence should clearly demonstrate the selected elements of the pre-investment process. Each selected process step is explained further below:
The entity may redact any portion of evidence not necessary to illustrate the overall response or selected process steps.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the number of selected options.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Material: An issue is material if it may reasonably be considered important for reflecting an entity's relevant environmental, social or governance impacts; or substantively influencing the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.
ESG Risk: Environmental, social, governance risks (i.e regulatory, license to operate) stemming from the business or operational activities of an entity.
UNPRI Limited Partners’ Responsible Investment Due Diligence Questionnaire, 2015
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 05, INF 07
(Partially aligned with)
UNPRI, PRI Reporting Framework - Main definitions, 2018
RM1.2
ESG risks and opportunities in investment monitoring processes/asset management
Does the entity formally address ESG risks and/or opportunities in its investment monitoring processes/asset management?
Yes
Elements of the investment process including ESG factors:
Integrate ESG risks and/or opportunities into business plans
Describe how and which ESG risks and/or opportunities are treated or mitigated, and which tools are used: (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Regular review of ESG risks and/or opportunities
Describe how and which ESG risks and/or opportunities are regularly reviewed, and which tools are used: (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Externally report or communicate ESG risks and/or opportunities
Describe how and which ESG risks and/or opportunities are reported or communicated externally, and which tools are used: (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Who are the risks and/or opportunities communicated to:
Community/public
Investors
Regulators/government
Special interest groups
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RM1.2
4.47 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess how the entity addresses ESG risks and opportunities in its investment monitoring processes/asset management and communication for its standing/current investments.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options and complete the open text boxes.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Open Text Box requirements: The text must include all of the applicable elements below:
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
Open text box: The contents of the open text box are manually validated, and points are contingent upon the validation decision.
Diminishing Scoring approach: This indicator incorporates a diminishing increase in score approach, where the fractional score achieved for each selection decreases as the number of selections increases. In the Scoring Document this is represented by the blue line.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Community/Public: Persons or groups of persons living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by an entity’s operations.
Investment monitoring process: A process that monitors the performance of entity's standing/current investments on a regular basis.
Investors/shareholders: The entity’s current investors and/or equity stake owners in the entity.
Regulators/Government: The state and/or local authoritative and administrative governing body.
Special interest groups: Organization with a shared interest or characteristic (e.g. trade unions, non- governmental organizations).
Indicator partially aligned with
PRI Reporting Framework 2018, Direct Infrastructure Supplement, INF 11, INF 14
RM2
Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks and opportunities
Does the entity’s strategy incorporate resilience to climate-related risks and opportunities?
Yes
Describe the resilience of the organization’s strategy.
________________________
Does the process of evaluating the resilience of the entity’s strategy involve the use of scenario analysis?
Yes
Select the scenarios that are used (multiple answers possible)
Transition scenarios
IEA SDS
IEA B2DS
IEA NZE2050
IPR FPS
NGFS Current Policies
NGFS Nationally determined contributions
NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with CDR
NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with limited CDR
NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with CDR
NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with limited CDR
NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with CDR
NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with limited CDR
SBTi
TPI
SSP1 - 1.9
SSP1 - 2.6
SSP4 - 3.4
SSP5 - 3.4OS
SSP2 - 4.5
SSP4 - 6.0
SSP3 - 7.0
SSP5 - 8.5
Other: ____________
Physical scenarios
RCP2.6
RCP4.5
RCP6.0
RCP8.5
SSP1 - 1.9
SSP1 - 2.6
SSP4 - 3.4
SSP5 - 3.4OS
SSP2 - 4.5
SSP4 - 6.0
SSP3 - 7.0
SSP5 - 8.5
Other: ____________
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RM2
0.54 points , G
The clear articulation of a strategy helps fund managers navigate risks and opportunities as they arise. Integrating an understanding of resilience to climate-related risks and opportunities into business strategy fosters alignment between the management of climate-related issues and the overall strategy of the entity. It is also important to communicate how the strategy would be able to handle scenarios in which the global economy transitions to become “lower-carbon”.
Additionally, an entity’s disclosure of how its strategies might change to address potential climate-related risks and opportunities is a key step to better understanding the potential implications of climate change on the entity.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. Note: The NGFS scenarios included as options in the 2025 GRESB Assessment refer to the 2020 version. Please report any 2024 NGFS scenarios under 'Other'.
Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants should use this open text box to communicate on:
Prefill: This indicator is similar to the one included in the 2024 Assessment and some sections have been prefilled from the 2024 Assessment. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
This indicator is not subject to manual validation.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a strategy that incorporates resilience to climate-related risks and opportunities. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Climate-related opportunities: The opportunities produced by efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, such as through resource efficiency and cost savings, the adoption and utilization of low-emission energy sources, the development of new products and services, and building resilience along the supply chain. Climate-related opportunities will vary depending on the region, market, and industry in which an organization operates
Climate-related risks: The risks associated with the potential negative impacts of climate change on an organization. These are generally categorized as either transition risks or physical risks. See Transition risks and Physical climate-related risks below.
Overall business strategy: The entity’s long-term strategy for meeting its objectives.
Physical climate-related risks: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). Physical risks emanating from climate change can be event-driven (acute) such as increased severity of extreme weather events (e.g., cyclones, droughts, floods, and fires). They can also relate to longer-term shifts (chronic) in climatic patterns such as precipitation and temperature that affect entities. Participants who possess long-lived or fixed assets, operate in climate-sensitive regions, rely on water availability, or have value chains exposed to the aforementioned hazards, are likely to be exposed to physical climate-related risk.
Physical risk scenarios: Scenarios used in the exploration and assessment of physical climate risks. These scenarios can include projections of a host of climatic variables, including the frequency and severity of particular extreme weather events. Generally, these scenarios are linked to one of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The RCPs, adopted by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], have been used for analysis by ensembles of climate models and have become associated with particular climate targets. RCP2.6, which represents an atmospheric concentration profile ending at a radiative forcing of 2.6 watts per square meter at the year 2100, is associated with an atmospheric limit of 450 parts per million CO2‑equivalent, and is taken as satisfying a 2°C goal.
Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.
Transition risk scenarios: Scenarios that describe the evolution of the global economy to a lower-carbon state. These scenarios often describe the interactions between various sectors of the economy and link such interactions to wider narratives around the relative aggression of the transition to lower carbon economics. Commonly used transition risk scenarios include those produced by the IEA [International Energy Agency] including its Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS), Beyond 2 Degrees Scenario (B2DS), and Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario (NZE2050), the NGFS [Network for Greening the Financial System], and the Inevitable Policy Response’s Forecast Policy Scenario (FPS). Real Estate Participants might also use the CRREM decarbonization pathways. Infrastructure Participants might also use pathways from TPI [Transition Pathway Initiative] or those in line with the SBTi [Science Based Targets initiative].
2°C or lower scenario: A 2°C scenario is one in which the world is able to hold the increase in global average temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Such a scenario often entails a moderate to aggressive shift in the economy to a lower-carbon state and includes the associated severity of transition risks. A “lower” scenario in this context is one in which the global economy changes in such a way that the temperature rise is held to lower than a 2°C global average temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. A 1.5°C scenario is an example of a lower scenario.
Scenario analysis: Scenario analysis refers to the systematic use of scenarios in order to better understand the relevant impacts on an organization, and facilitate the creation of robust strategies under probable and potential future developments. It can help the participant to inform their financial planning process and provide insights into their strategies’ resilience to different climate-related scenarios.
Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor.
International Energy Agency. Achieving Net Zero Emissions by 2050.
International Energy Agency. Energy Technology Perspectives 2017.
International Energy Agency. Sustainable Development Scenario.
Science Based Targets initiative.
RM3.1
Transition risk identification
Does the entity have a systematic process for identifying transition risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the risk identification process (multiple answers possible)
Policy and legal
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Increasing price of GHG emissions
Enhancing emissions-reporting obligations
Mandates on and regulation of existing products and services
Exposure to litigation
Other: ____________
No
Technology
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Substitution of existing products and services with lower emissions options
Unsuccessful investment in new technologies
Costs to transition to lower emissions technology
Other: ____________
No
Market
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Changing customer behavior
Uncertainty in market signals
Increased cost of raw materials
Other: ____________
No
Reputation
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Shifts in consumer preferences
Stigmatization of sector
Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing transition risks.
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RM3.1
0.54 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for identifying transition risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity.
A comprehensive system for managing transition risks begins with a systematic process for identifying risks that could have a material financial impact on the organization or entity. Such a process ensures that subsequent risk assessments and analyses are focused on the most relevant risks to which an entity is exposed.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation for this indicator.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:
Other: State the other transition risk issue. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the selection of ’Yes' or ’No.’ It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.
Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.
Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.
Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).
Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.
Policy and legal risk: Policy risk derives from policy action that either tries to constrain actions which contribute to climate change, or to promote adaptation to climate change. Legal risk arises from an increase in climate-related litigation, for instance due to failure of an organization to properly communicate and account for its interactions with the climate.
Increasing price of GHG emissions: Examples include, but are not limited to: the implementation of a carbon tax, or cap and trade systems (e.g. EU ETS)
Enhancing emissions-reporting obligations:
Examples include, but are not limited to: TCFD reporting, the Regulation on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR), EU Taxonomy, Streamlined Energy & Carbon Reporting (SECR)Mandates on and regulation of existing products and services: For infrastructure, this will depend on the assets in question. Examples include, but are not limited to: Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS).
Exposure to litigation Examples include, but are not limited to: tort, negligence, and nuisance claims of contribution to climate change and thereby leading to specific damages; state-brought claims against energy companies; claims of breach of entity board members' duty to act in the best interests of the entity; claims by shareholders of failure to properly disclose in annual reports the risk of climate change resulting from possible investments
Technology risk: New technologies may displace old systems and disrupt existing parts of the economic system. Therefore, technological improvements and innovations can affect competitiveness, production and distribution costs, and potentially the demand for certain products and services, thus resulting in considerable uncertainty.
Substitution of existing products and services with lower emissions options: The “existing products and services” as used here refers to the main function of the entity. The risk of substitution for lower emissions options refers to a shift in the use of technologies that results in the reduction of the demand of such a function. For infrastructure, this will depend on the assets in question. This does not refer to the substitution of lower emissions technologies in the provision of the same core function (see Costs to transition to lower emissions technologies. Examples include, but are not limited to: substitution of cars and the associated use of road infrastructure for lower-emission public transportation options; the electrification of buildings and building appliances and the resulting reduction in demand for natural gas and its distribution services; substitution of rail for low-emission long-distance trucking fleets
Unsuccessful investment in new technologies Examples include, but are not limited to: investment into new technology unsuccessful due to difficulty of adoption or more efficient substitutes; unanticipated costs of operation, installation, or permitting; incompatibility with existing local electric grid operations; underperformance of new technologies compared to expected performance; insufficient infrastructure and/or adoption of technology (e.g., electric car charging stations) to achieve network effects, etc.
Costs to transition to lower emissions technology Examples include, but are not limited to: change in electric grid energy generation mix; costs of replacing vehicle fleet with lower-emission vehicle fleet
Market risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.
Changing customer behavior: Examples include, but are not limited to: shift in preferences around mode of travel; preference for clean or renewable energy sources
Uncertainty in market signals: Examples include, but are not limited to: timing, shape, and magnitude of economy-wide decarbonization; energy price volatility; insufficient “pricing-in” of climate-related premiums; misguided assessment of industry and competition trends
Increased cost of raw materials: Examples include, but are not limited to:increased price of electricity, fuel, concrete, steel
Reputation risk: The risk around changing customer or community perceptions of an entity’s contribution or detraction from the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Shifts in consumer preferences: This option describes the shift of consumer preferences specifically around the provider of the good or service as a result of that provider’s treatment of climate-related issues. It does not describe an overall or provider-agnostic shift, which would be categorized as Changing customer behavior as described above
Stigmatization of sector: Loss in financial loans or increase in cost of capital due to hesitation about the sector’s general handling of climate-related issues
Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback: Such increased stakeholder concern or negative feedback might not be immediately financially material to an entity, but it signals that it could become so -- in the form of loss in financial loans or increase in cost of capital -- if action is not taken with regard to an entity’s identification, assessment, and management of climate-related issues. Examples include, but are not limited to: stricter requirements to incorporate climate risk in investment decisions
RM3.2
Transition risk impact assessment
Does the entity have a systematic process to assess the material financial impact of transition risks on the business and/or financial plannings of the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the impact assessment process (multiple answers possible)
Policy and legal
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased operating costs
Write-offs, asset impairment and early retirement of existing assets due to policy changes
Increased costs and/or reduced demand for products and services resulting from fines and judgments
Other: ____________
No
Technology
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Write-offs and early retirement of existing assets
Reduced demand for products and services
Research and development (R&D) expenditures in new and alternative technologies
Capital investments in technology development
Costs to adopt/deploy new practices and processes
Other: ____________
No
Market
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Reduced demand for goods and services due to shift in consumer preferences
Increased production costs due to changing input prices and output requirements
Abrupt and unexpected shifts in energy costs
Change in revenue mix and sources, resulting in decreased revenues
Re-pricing of assets
Other: ____________
No
Reputation
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Reduced revenue from decreased demand for goods/services
Reduced revenue from decreased production capacity
Reduced revenue from negative impacts on workforce management and planning
Reduction in capital availability
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing transition risks are integrated into its overall risk management.
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RM3.2
0.54 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of transition risks on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.
Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific risks manifest themselves on business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation for this indicator.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:
Other: State the other transition risk issue. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.
Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is not manually validated and is for reporting purposes only.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the selection of ’Yes' or ’No.’ It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.
Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.
Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.
Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).
Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.
Policy and legal risk: Policy risk derives from policy action that either tries to constrain actions which contribute to climate change, or to promote adaptation to climate change. Legal risk arises from an increase in climate-related litigation, for instance due to failure of an organization to properly communicate and account for its interactions with the climate.
Technology risk: New technologies may displace old systems and disrupt existing parts of the economic system. Therefore, technological improvements and innovations can affect competitiveness, production and distribution costs, and potentially the demand for certain products and services, thus resulting in considerable uncertainty.
Market risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.
Reputation risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.
RM3.3
Physical Risk Identification
Does the entity have a systematic process for identifying physical risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the risk identification process (multiple answers possible)
Acute hazards
Has the process identified any acute hazards to which the entity is exposed?
Yes
Indicate to what factor(s) the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Extratropical storm
Flash flood
Hail
River flood
Storm surge
Tropical cyclone
Other: ____________
No
Chronic stressors
Has the process identified any chronic stressors to which the entity is exposed?
Yes
Indicate to what factor(s) the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Drought stress
Fire weather stress
Heat stress
Precipitation stress
Rising mean temperatures
Rising sea levels
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe the entity’s processes of prioritizing physical risks.
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RM3.3
0.54 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for identifying physical risks that could be financially material.
A comprehensive system for managing physical risks begins with a systematic process for identifying risks that could be financially material to an entity. Such a process ensures that subsequent risk assessments and analyses are focused on the most relevant risks to which an entity is exposed.
While many traditional physical risk assessments utilize re-analysis methods, it is becoming increasingly important to make use of forward-looking climate-driven models.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation for this indicator.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:
Other: State the other physical risk issue. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.
Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is not manually validated and is for reporting purposes only.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the selection of ’Yes' or ’No.’ It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).
Acute hazards: Acute hazards are physical events, such as extreme weather events, that could damage a real asset. They include cyclones, hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. Non-climate-related acute hazards include tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic activity.
Chronic stressors: Chronic stressors are longer-term physical shifts, such as sea level rise or changes in precipitation patterns, that can affect the operations and costs associated therein of an entity and its assets. While such stressors may not have as noticeable impacts as acute hazards within any given year, such longer-term shifts in climate patterns (e.g., sustained higher temperatures) can impact the cost of operations, availability of resources, accessibility of assets, availability of upstream or downstream suppliers, etc.
Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.
Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.
Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.
2017 TO 2021 TCFD IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE (ANNEX) - Summary of changes
RM3.4
Physical risk impact assessment
Does the entity have a systematic process for the assessment of material financial impact from physical climate risks on the business and/or financial plannings of the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the impact assessment process (multiple answers possible)
Direct impacts
Has the process concluded that there are material impacts to the entity?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased capital costs
Other: ____________
No
Indirect impacts
Has the process concluded that there are material impacts to the entity?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased insurance premiums and potential for reduced availability of insurance on assets in “high-risk” locations
Increased operating costs
Reduced revenue and higher costs from negative impacts on workforce
Reduced revenue from decreased production capacity
Reduced revenues from lower sales/output
Write-offs and early retirement of existing assets
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing physical risks are integrated into its overall risk management.
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
RM3.4
0.54 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of physical risks on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.
Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific risks manifest themselves on business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation for this indicator.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:
Other: State the other material financial impact resulting from physical risk. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.
Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is not manually validated and is for reporting purposes only.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the selection of ’Yes' or ’No.’ It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).
Direct impacts: Direct damages to assets.
Indirect impacts: Impacts from supply chain disruption, or impacts on the entity’s financial performance based on changes in availability, sourcing and quality of water; food security; and extreme temperature affecting premises, operations, supply chain, transport needs and employee safety.
Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.
Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.
Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.
2017 TO 2021 TCFD IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE (ANNEX) - Summary of changes
RM3.5
Climate-related Opportunities Identification
Does the entity have a systematic process for identifying climate-related opportunities that could have a material financial impact on the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the opportunities identification process (multiple answers possible)
Resource Efficiency
Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?
Yes
Select the opportunity(s) which the entity can utilize (multiple answers possible)
Use of more efficient modes of transport
Use of more efficient production and distribution processes
Use of recycling
Move to more efficient buildings
Reduced water usage and consumption
Other: ____________
No
Energy Source
Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?
Yes
Select the opportunity(s) to which the entity (multiple answers possible)
Use of lower-emission sources of energy
Use of supportive policy incentives
Use of new technologies
Participation in carbon market
Shift toward decentralized energy generation
Other: ____________
No
Products and Services
Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?
Yes
Select the opportunity(s) which the entity can utilize (multiple answers possible)
Development and/or expansion of low emissions goods and services
Development of climate adaptation and insurance risk solutions
Development of new products or services through R&D and innovation
Ability to diversify business activities
Shift in consumer preferences
Other: ____________
No
Markets
Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?
Yes
Select the opportunity(s) which the entity can utilize (multiple answers possible)
Access to new markets
Use of public-sector incentives
Access to new assets and locations needing insurance coverage
Other: ____________
No
Resilience
Has the process identified any opportunities in this area?
Yes
Select the opportunity(s) which the entity can utilize (multiple answers possible)
Participation in renewable energy programs and adoption of energy efficiency measures
Resource substitutes/diversification
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing opportunities.
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
0.54 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for identifying climate-related opportunities that could have a material financial impact on the entity.
A comprehensive system for identifying climate-related opportunities begins with a systematic process for identifying opportunities that could have a material financial impact on the organization or entity. Such a process ensures that entities are able to identify the most relevant business opportunities and position themselves to benefit from these.
Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation for this indicator.
Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:
Other: State the 'Other' climate-related opportunities. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the selection of ’Yes' or ’No.’ It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Climate-related opportunities: The opportunities produced by efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, such as through resource efficiency and cost savings, the adoption and utilization of low-emission energy sources, the development of new products and services, and building resilience along the supply chain. Climate-related opportunities will vary depending on the region, market, and industry in which an organization operates.
Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.
Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.
Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.
Systematic opportunity identification process: A process for identifying opportunities that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential opportunities that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).
RM3.6
Climate-related Opportunities Impact Assessment
Does the entity have a systematic process to assess the material financial impact of climate-related opportunities on the business and/or financial plannings of the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the opportunities identification process (multiple answers possible)
Resource Efficiency
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts as a result of identified opportunities to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Reduced operating costs (e.g., through efficiency gains and cost reductions)
Increased production capacity, resulting in increased revenues
Increased value of fixed assets (e.g., highly rated energy efficient buildings)
Benefits to workforce management and planning (e.g. Improved health and safety, employee satisfaction) resulting in lower costs
Other: ____________
No
Energy Source
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts as a result of identified opportunities to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Reduced operational costs (e.g., through use of lowest cost abatement)
Reduced exposure to future fossil fuel price increases
Reduced exposure to GHG emissions and therefore less sensitivity to changes in cost of carbon
Returns on investment in low-emission technology
Increased capital availability (e.g., as more investors favor lower-emissions producers)
Reputational benefits resulting in increased demand for goods/services
Other: ____________
No
Products and Services
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts as a result of identified opportunities to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased revenue through demand for lower emissions products and services
Increased revenue through new solutions to adaptation needs (e.g., insurance risk transfer products and services)
Better competitive position to reflect shifting consumer preferences, resulting in increased revenues
Other: ____________
No
Markets
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts as a result of identified opportunities to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased revenues through access to new and emerging markets (e.g., partnerships with governments, development banks)
Increased diversification of financial assets (e.g., green bonds and infrastructure)
Other: ____________
No
Resilience
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts as a result of identified opportunities to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased market valuation through resilience planning (e.g., infrastructure, land, buildings)
Increased reliability of supply chain and ability to operate under various conditions
Increased revenue through new products and services related to ensuring resiliency
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing opportunities are integrated into its overall risk management.
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
0.54 points , G
The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of climate-related opportunities on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.
Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific opportunities can benefit the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.
Select Yes or No: If selecting ‘Yes’, select applicable sub-options. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
Evidence: Evidence is subject to manual validation.
Evidence: Document or hyperlink. The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.
The provided evidence must cover the following elements:
Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:
Other: State the 'Other' climate-related opportunities. It is not subject to automatic or manual validation but is used for reporting purposes only.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the selection of ’Yes' or ’No.’ It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
Evidence: The evidence is manually validated, and points are contingent on the validation decision.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Climate-related opportunities: The opportunities produced by efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, such as through resource efficiency and cost savings, the adoption and utilization of low-emission energy sources, the development of new products and services, and building resilience along the supply chain. Climate-related opportunities will vary depending on the region, market, and industry in which an organization operates
Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable asset for which participants submit an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions or performance disclosure that is in direct reference to, and/or matches, the entity completing the GRESB submission. This could be an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.
Entity-level: Explicitly applicable to the reporting entity as identified in EC1. Note that references to the overarching fund and/or group of which the reporting entity is part do not imply entity-level applicability.
Fund-of-Funds (FoF): A Fund-of-Fund (FoF) is an investment fund that allocates capital across multiple underlying investment funds rather than directly investing in individual assets, securities, or properties. In the context of GRESB Fund and Asset Assessments, a FoF entity will use the practices of its underlying funds to report and be measured on ESG performance.
Systematic opportunity identification process: A process for identifying opportunities that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential opportunities that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g. expert consultation, working groups).
Improving the sustainability performance of infrastructure assets requires dedicated resources, a commitment from senior management and tools for measurement/management of resource consumption. It also requires the cooperation of other stakeholders, including employees and suppliers.
This aspect identifies actions taken to engage with those stakeholders, as well as the nature of the engagement.
SE1
Employee engagement program
Does the entity have an employee engagement program?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Development of action plan
Feedback sessions with Senior Management Team
Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments
Focus groups
Implementation
Planning and preparation for engagement
Program review and evaluation
Training
Other: ____________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE1
1.08 points , S
The intent of this indicator is to assess the existence, scope and reach of the entity’s employee engagement program. Effective employee engagement programs are often critical in preventing or addressing controversy that may create regulatory risks, legal liabilities, or undermine the entity’s social license to operate and maximizing opportunities for creating shared value.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Elements of employee program: Select the elements that apply to the program. It is possible to report using the ‘Other’ answer option. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
The ‘Other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: State measures/activities that were part of the employee engagement program. It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. Add a program element that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). Any accepted ‘Other’ answers will be awarded fractional points.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
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.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Action Plan: An action plan has three major elements (1) Specific tasks: what will be done and by whom; (2) Time horizon: when will it be done; (3) Resource allocation: what specific funds are available for specific activities, and (4) Measurable outcomes.
Engagement plan: An engagement plan is the action plan for engagement.
Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.
Focus groups: Working groups established to, in this context, focus on improving employee engagement/satisfaction.
Implementation: The process of putting the engagement strategy and action plan into effect, i.e. execution.
Planning and preparation for engagement:Formal process where the entity outlines the employee engagement plan and strategy.
Program review and evaluation:Regular assessment of the state of the implemented program to determine whether or not it is successful in improving employee satisfaction/engagement.
Senior Management Team: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. Senior management are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.
SE2
Employee training
Does the entity provide training and development for employees?
Yes
Percentage of employees who received professional training in the reporting year
________________________
Percentage of employees who received ESG-related training in the reporting year
________________________
ESG-related training focuses on the following elements (multiple answers possible)
Environmental issues
Social issues
Governance issues
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE2
1.08 points , S
This indicator examines the types and content of training received by employees responsible for this entity. A more skilled and aware workforce enhances the entity's human capital and may help to improve employee satisfaction. Employee training and development contribute to improved business performance.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Percentage of employees covered: The percentage of employees covered based on headcount for employees responsible for the entity . If the number of employees responsible for the entity changed during the reporting year, calculate the percentage based on the average number.
Both percentages should be calculated based on the following formulas:
Training topics: Select the applicable training topics included in the training series during the reporting year.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.
Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport, contamination, GHG emissions, energy, water, waste, natural hazards, supply chain environmental standards, and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.
ESG-specific training: Training related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.
Governance issues: Governance structure and composition of the entity. This includes how the highest governance body is established and structured in support of the entity’s purpose, and how this purpose relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions.
Professional training: Training related to day-to-day operations, health and safety, specialization career development courses, or related/similar topics. Training can be delivered in person, online or in other formats.
Social issues: Concerns the impacts the entity has on the social systems within which it operates. This includes, but is not limited to community social and economic impacts, safety, health & well-being.
RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.3.2, Coverage
SE3
Employee satisfaction monitoring
Has the entity undertaken an employee satisfaction survey during the last three years?
Yes
The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible)
Internally
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
By an independent third party
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
The survey includes quantitative metrics
Yes
Metrics include
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Other: ____________
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE3
1.08 points , S
This indicator examines whether and to what extent the entity engages with employees regarding their satisfaction. Employee satisfaction surveys help entities understand critical issues within the business, engage with their staff and increase employee satisfaction, which may contribute to improving retention rates and overall productivity.
Using widely applied employee satisfaction surveys should be translated into easily interpretable metrics that can help analyze and compare outcomes, despite the many variations between departments and teams.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Percentage of employees covered: The percentage of employees covered based on headcount for employees responsible for the entity. If the number of employees responsible for the entity changed during the reporting year, calculate the percentage based on the average number.
Percentage of employees covered = Number of employees receiving the satisfaction survey / Total number of employees x 100%
Survey response rate: Report the proportion of employees that received and completed the survey, compared to the total number of employees that have received the survey expressed as a percentage (see example).
Survey response rate = Number of individual survey responses / Number of employees receiving the satisfaction survey x 100%
Survey date (recency): Survey should have taken place within the last three years; up to and including the end of the reporting year identified in EC3.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
The ‘Other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.
Other: State a quantitative metric applied to an employee satisfaction survey. It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. Add a response that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “General satisfaction score” when “‘Overall satisfaction score” is selected). If you have multiple ‘Other’ answers accepted, only one will be counted towards the scoring.
See Appendix 4 of the reference guide for additional information about GRESB Validation.
Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.
See the Scoring Document for additional information.
Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.
Employee satisfaction survey: Survey measuring overall and work-specific employee satisfaction at the individual and organizational levels. The survey should directly address employee concerns and include the opportunity to provide recommendations for improvement.
Independent third party: An external organization that is responsible for both the creation of the survey content (input) and the administration of the survey process and results (output). This includes ensuring anonymity, conducting independent analysis, and managing the overall survey process. The use of survey development tools, such as SurveyMonkey or SurveyGizmo, does not qualify as an independent third party unless the tool’s service explicitly includes independent creation and administration.
Net promoter score: The Net Promoter Score ® (NPS) is a customer loyalty metric developed by Bain & Company, Fred Reichheld, and Satmetrix. It divides customers, tenants or employees into three segments: passives, detractors and promoters, using the following question “On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely would you be to recommend this company (or this product) to friends and colleagues?” The Net Promoter Score ® (NPS) ratings of 9 or 10 indicate promoters; 7 and 8, passives; and 0 through 6, detractors. The NPS is the percentage of promoters minus the percentage detractors.
Overall satisfaction score: An overarching metric in a satisfaction survey, with no prescribed scale, that measures how happy an employee or tenant is with the organization, lease, and/or services provided. The industry best practice is a 1-5 scale - very poor, poor, average, good, and excellent, respectively.
Quantitative metric: Any measure or parameter in employee satisfaction that can be represented numerically.
Survey response rate: The proportion of complete survey responses received as a percentage of the total number of employees that invited to participate.
GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: 102-43, Approach to stakeholder engagement
SE4
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
Gender ratio
Percentage of employees that identify as:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
Organization'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
Gender ratio
Percentage of employees that identify as:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
SE4
1.08 points , S
This indicator identifies the metrics used by the entity to monitor human capital at governance and workforce level. Human capital has become a clear priority for investors and is considered to positively impact investment decisions and increases organizational competitiveness.
Select Yes or No: If selecting 'Yes', select applicable sub-options.
Prefill: This indicator has remained the same as the 2024 Assessment and has been prefilled with 2024 Assessment answers. Review the response and/or evidence carefully.
This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.
This indicator is scored as a one section indicator consisting of a checklist of elements. Evidence is not required.
Points are awarded for reporting on the gender ratio metrics for both 'governance bodies' and/or 'employees'.
Click here for the Fund Assessment Scoring Document .
Age group distribution: Percentage of a population, at each age.
Board tenure: Refers to the period or term of an entity’s board of directors.
Gender ratio: Proportion of one gender to another in a given population.
Gender pay gap: Percentage difference of average hourly earnings between men and women.
Governance body: Committee or board responsible for the strategic guidance of the entity, the effective monitoring of management, and the accountability of management to the broader organization and its stakeholders. Examples of governance bodies may include Board of Directors and Non-Executive Directors.
International Background: The breakdown of nationalities within an organization's workforce. GRESB primarily considers nationality to refer to an individual’s country of origin.
Socioeconomic background: Combined measure of the sociological and economic background of a person. Examples of relevant metrics include, but are not limited to, income, education, employment, community safety, and social support.
EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.1, Diversity-Employee gender diversity
GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): 102-22
DJSI CSA 2021: 3.1.2 Board Diversity Policy
This section provides an overview of the 2025 Infrastructure Fund Standard updates.
Updates to the GRESB Infrastructure Standards maintain the strategic direction set by the GRESB Foundation—an independent, mission-driven non-profit responsible for overseeing their evolution alongside industry development.
The list below is a comprehensive overview of the 2025 updates, including their scoring and reporting impacts for participants. For additional details, including an overview of the assessment’s scoring weight redistribution and estimated scoring impacts, see the full List of Updates. For a more concise overview of updates, refer to the summary tables here.
These changes were developed through extensive engagement with GRESB Members throughout the reporting year. GRESB always welcomes additional feedback at info@helpdesk.gresb.com to inform future improvements.
Update | |
---|---|
Assets under Grace Period |
Background and Purpose: Before 2025, assets under Grace Period still contributed to the aggregated Fund Score and provided data to the Fund Portfolio Impact section of a fund’s Benchmark Report. This process could disadvantage Fund Managers, as they could be penalized by the low scores of first-time assets that are using the Grace Period to focus on improving their own data collection processes for the subsequent submissions rather than focusing on score. Description of Update: Starting in 2025, assets that choose to use the Grace Period will be excluded from the aggregated Fund Score and data. Scoring Impact: A GRESB Fund Score is calculated based on the Management Score derived from the Fund Assessment and the aggregation of the underlying scores from the Asset Assessments. This aggregated score no longer includes first-year assets that chose to use the Grace Period. Reporting Impact: No reporting impact. |
Asset Exclusion for New Fund Participants |
Background and Purpose: For funds completing the GRESB Assessment for the first time, reporting on the entire portfolio in the first year can be challenging, often resulting in fund score penalties or decisions to delay participation. This update allows new GRESB Fund Participants to exclude certain assets for up to two years, providing time to gradually increase portfolio participation and achieve full coverage. Description of Update: Introduction of a ‘New Fund Participant’ exclusion reason. Scoring Impact: Funds participating in GRESB for the first time will not be penalized for low asset coverage if using the “New Fund Participant” exclusion criterion. As a result, any new fund has the potential to receive maximum points as they gradually build their portfolio towards full asset coverage. Reporting Impact: Funds with at least 25% of assets reporting to GRESB may exclude assets from their score to avoid penalization for incomplete asset coverage during the first two years of reporting. |
LE1 |
Background and purpose: The structure of LE1 -- a long list of checkboxes -- has made it burdensome and time-consuming to complete. Description of the Change: Structure amendment of ESG Leadership Commitments indicator. Scoring Impact: No scoring impact. Reporting Impact: Participants can report ESG leadership public commitments via a simplified dropdown menu instead of a multi-faceted selection list. |
LE3 |
Background and purpose: Since by completing the GRESB assessment an entity could already claim to have an individual responsible for ESG, reporting this data was ubiquitous among respondents and created no score differentiation. Description of the Change: Individual responsible for ESG, climate-related, and/or Human Capital objectives no longer assessed. Scoring Impact: No longer scored. Remaining points redistributed across the Assessment. Reporting Impact: LE3 is removed; reduced reporting burden. |
RM4.1-RM4.6 |
Background and purpose: GRESB aims to enhance the clarity of the manual validation requirements for these indicators in its guidance, based on industry feedback collected in 2024. Description of the Change: Clarification of manual evidence validation requirements. Scoring Impact: No scoring impact. Reporting Impact: No reporting impact. |
* Note: Indicator codes have shifted in 2025 with the removal of several indicators. The indicator codes listed in this table refer to 2024 codes.
Translation |
As of 2025, GRESB accepts evidence in any language. However, the systems must be able to read the text contained in the file. Information or text contained in pictures will only be accepted if accompanied by a translation. Note that information provided in open text boxes that appear in the Benchmark Report will be displayed exactly as submitted, in the original language. |
Driven largely by Member feedback, in 2025 GRESB did a thorough review and update of the existing Reference Guides to streamline and clarify key information. This Appendix aims to summarize these improvements.
Notes: Standards-related updates – which are driven by the GRESB Foundation – are highlighted within indicator-specific guidance and summarized in Appendix 1. The focus of Appendix 2 is to summarize substantive updates that GRESB made to existing content. It does not include minor editorial changes.
The introduction to the Standards and Reference Guide was updated to focus on core content while improving navigation and clarity. The purpose of the Reference Guide is to explain the reporting requirements that need to complete the assessment; as such, GRESB repositioned all supplementary information that was not directly related to assessment input.
Key sections such as ‘Infrastructure Asset Assessment Components and Structure’, ‘Indicator structure’ and ‘Key Dates & Deadlines’ remain within the introduction.
Many other sections, however, were better positioned within an Appendix or the GRESB Website. For example, all information about evidence, reporting boundaries, the Review Period, and the validation process were centralized within Appendix 4 (Validation). Supplementary tools and guidance were consolidated within a new Appendix 3 (Additional Guidance and Resources).
To find information related to assessment output, scoring, data access and confidentiality, etc. – GRESB suggests reviewing the Reference Guide Appendices and referring to our website.
Previous Location | New Location |
---|---|
Appendix 1 - 2024 GRESB Fund Assessment Changes | Appendix 1 – 2025 Standard Updates |
Appendix 2 - GRESB Evidence Cover Page | Appendix 4 - Validation |
Appendix 3 – Assurance and Verification Schemes | Appendix 5 – Assurance and Verification Schemes |
Appendix 4 – Validation | Appendix 4 - Validation |
Appendix 5 – Review Period | Appendix 4 - Validation |
Appendix 6 – Peer Group Allocation Logic | Removed – new resource to be created; Refer to 2024 Reference Guide in interim |
Appendix 7 – GRESB Infrastructure Partners | Appendix 7 – GRESB Partners |
GRESB implemented targeted changes to the validation requirements for the following indicators to provide clearer guidance, reduce the reporting burden, and allow participants more time to analyze, aggregate, and prepare the data collected for the reporting year:
PO1-3
Starting from 2025, entities that either achieved full points for the indicators PO1, PO2, and PO3 in the previous submission, or do not wish to modify their selections or evidence, may forgo reporting on these indicators. This is allowed provided the same policies remain in place and the supporting documents remain unchanged.
RP1
RP1 allows participants to indicate whether certain disclosure methods are aligned with an external guideline or framework. GRESB updated the list of guideline names available for selection in line with industry trends.
Removed Frameworks | Added Frameworks |
---|---|
GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, G4 | ANREV Sustainability Reporting Guidelines |
IIRC International Integrated Reporting Framework | ESRS-aligned reporting |
TCFD Recommendations | IFRS Integrated Reporting Framework |
ISSB standards (IFSR S1, IFSR S2) |
In addition, the following text was introduced to the Validation section:
RM3.1-3.6
The ‘Other’ answer is no longer subject to manual validation. It is used for reporting purposes only.
Risk assessments must be applicable to the reporting year or two years prior. For 2025, a grace period allows participants to use assessments up to four years old if they were previously accepted in 2024.
GRESB requires evidence to be specific to the reporting entity identified in EC1. References to the overarching organization cannot be used as substitutes for entity-level risk assessment outcomes.
Entity and Reporting Characteristics
RC6: Simplified text in the ‘Intent’ and ‘Scoring’ sections
Leadership
LE3
Reporting
RP1
Risk Management
RM3.1-3.6: Enhanced evidence requirements in the ‘Validation’ section.
Stakeholder Engagement
SE4: Improved definition for ‘International background.’
Scoring Sections
Validation Sections
Appendix 4 – Validation
In addition to the Reference Guide and Scoring Document, GRESB maintains a suite of resources to support participants, partners, and investors in navigating the GRESB reporting process and results interpretation.
This section provides a comprehensive overview of these additional resources.
Visit the GRESB website for key information about our mission, vision, values, and governance structure, including the relationship between the GRESB Foundation and GRESB.
GRESB Online Training Platform
GRESB Service: QuickStart
This service helps new participants familiarize themselves with GRESB quickly so they can better navigate the assessment process.
GRESB Service: Pre-submission CheckThis service is a high-level check of your assessment response designed to reduce errors and oversights before submission.
Evidence Document Library: Participants may view all evidence documents that have been uploaded to the assessment within the ‘Documents’ tab of the Assessment Portal.
Data validation is an important part of GRESB’s annual benchmarking process. The purpose of data validation is to encourage best practices in data collection and reporting. It is the basis of GRESB’s effort to provide investment-grade data to its investor members.
GRESB validation is a check on the existence, accuracy, and logic of data submitted through the GRESB Assessments. The validation process includes both manual and automatic validation.
Automatic Validation |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Automatic validation is integrated into the GRESB portal as participants fill out their Assessment responses. Validation ScopeAutomatic validation consists of errors and warnings displayed in the GRESB Assessment to ensure that all quantitative data input is complete and accurate. Validation CriteriaAssessment Portal-General Validation Checks
Validation OutcomesThe automatic validation process generates: Errors Errors, displayed in red, are generated when data does not meet the logical criteria outlined above. Participants cannot submit the assessment response unless all errors are resolved. Warnings Warnings, displayed in grey, are generated when values appear to be abnormal based on the context of previous responses (for instance, if it remained identical to the previous year). GRESB encourages participants to review warnings to ensure data accuracy but does not require them to be resolved for assessment submission. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manual validation |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manual validation takes place after assessment submission and consists of document and text review to ensure that sufficient evidence supports the answers provided in the assessment when required. Validation ScopeGRESB and subject matter experts from Sustainability Assurance Services (SAS) manually verify the indicator selections and their corresponding evidence pieces for the following content:
Validation CriteriaEvidence Format Participants may upload evidence as a document or active hyperlink. Document: Participants may upload multiple documents of any file type. GRESB encourages participants follow the following documentation best-practices to ensure that validators can identify relevant information as efficiently and clearly as possible:
Hyperlink: The evidence must be accessible within two clicks. Note that to support selections pertaining to public availability, participants must upload a hyperlink. Reporting Year Regardless of whether the indicator is manually validated, all* answers must refer to the reporting year identified in indicator EC4: Reporting year. *Several indicators, however, have different reporting year requirements and may refer to the past three calendar years or fiscal years, including the current one, depending on the entity's reporting period selection: RM3.1-3.6: Climate-related Risk Management; SE3: Employee satisfaction monitoring. A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting year; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting year. For example, if a policy was put in place one month prior to the end of the reporting year, this is acceptable, it need not have been in place for the entire reporting year. For manually validated indicators, it is mandatory to clearly specify the year to which the evidence corresponds within evidence or an open text box. Reporting Entity Answers must directly apply to the entity identified in EC1, i.e., the investable entity for which participants submit an Assessment response, regardless of whether the indicator is manually validated. When a participating entity belongs to a larger investment management organization or group of companies (the 'organization'), it must clearly explain the relationship between the entity and the organization. This ensures that group-level answers or evidence are appropriately linked to the reporting entity. This clarification can be provided within the evidence itself or in an open text box.
Language As of 2025, GRESB accepts evidence in any language. However, the system must be able to read the text contained in the file. Information or text contained in pictures will only be accepted if accompanied by a translation. Note that information provided in open text boxes that appear in the Benchmark Report will be displayed exactly as submitted, in the original language. Validation Criteria for Evidence - Summary TableThe table below highlights the indicators manually validated in the Infrastructure Asset Assessment and offers a high-level summary of the validation requirements for each. For detailed guidance on the evidence needed for each indicator, refer to the ‘Validation Requirements’ section specific to that indicator. As a general rule, the evidence submitted must clearly support each option chosen by participants for all indicators.
Validation OutcomesValidators will make one of the three decisions below depending on the degree to which evidence meets GRESB’s requirements. Each validation outcome corresponds with a scoring weight that impacts the indicator’s final score (see Scoring Document introduction for more information about validation multipliers).
Pre-submission checkA Pre-submission Check is a high-level check of a participant’s submission. The Pre-Submission Check is carried out by GRESB’s third party validation provider Sustainability Assurance Services (SAS) and features a careful review of your Assessment response followed by a 1-hour discussion call. After the discussion call, you will receive a feedback report highlighting issues found. You can also choose to only receive a feedback report, without a call. You can request a Pre-Submission Check for all reporting entities and we encourage all participants to do so. The Pre-Submission Check does not exclude the participant from any element of the validation process, nor does it guarantee a higher GRESB Score. It is intended to ensure that no important details have been overlooked in the submission and provides the opportunity to ask for additional guidance and clarification on the GRESB Assessment indicators. The Pre-Submission Check helps reduce errors that may adversely impact Assessment results and identifies inconsistent responses and incorrect answer formats. The Pre-Submission Check is available for request from April 1 to June 1, 2025 (11:59:59 p.m., PST) subject to available time slots. We strongly encourage participants to place their requests as early as possible. The Pre-Submission Check can be requested before the Assessment has been completed, but the scope of the review will be limited to the information filled in one week prior to the call. Evidence templatesEvidence Cover Page This document may be used as a standalone document, or as a cover page for uploaded evidence. It helps identify relevant information for each selected answer option within an indicator. For indicators subject to manual validation, we strongly recommend using the cover page to clearly indicate where each selected answer can be found in the evidence uploads. It is the reporting entity’s responsibility to ensure that the provided information is clear, concise, and easily accessible for the validator. Any answers or selected options not supported by clear evidence may be rejected by the validator. Click to download |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Data Quality Control |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alongside manual and automatic validation, GRESB conducts other additional verification processes, to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and compliance of the reported data. Outlier Detection GRESB will conduct a review of quantitative data entered by participants for the 2025 Assessments in June 2025 and may reach out to participants via email if outliers are detected. The goal of this process is to help participants correct potential mistakes and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the dataset. Assessment Correction Period Following the assessment submission and data validation process, the GRESB Assessment Cycle transitions to a Review Period to further strengthen the reliability of the final benchmark results. During these weeks, participants may view preliminary assessment results to review validation decisions and check that the data they submitted to the assessment is correct and accurate. If, upon reviewing their preliminary results, participants have questions on individual validation decisions or would like to purchase an Assessment Correction to amend incorrectly input data, they can contact the GRESB Helpdesk. Following the end of the Review Period, GRESB re-runs the scoring model to produce the final results, at which point no part of the original submission can be modified. |
Indicator RP1 allows participants to identify whether the data reported has been externally assured or verified. Below is GRESB’s list of recognized assurance/verification schemes.
Additional schemes may also receive recognition if they meet GRESB’s criteria (outlined below). To submit a new scheme for review, please contact the GRESB team. The final deadline for submitting a new assurance/verification scheme for review by the GRESB team is March 15. Schemes submitted for review after March 15th will not be reviewed until the subsequent reporting year.
GRESB’s verification and assurance scheme acceptance criteria align with the Carbon Disclosure Project. The six criteria for a third-party assurance/verification scheme to be recognized by GRESB are defined as follows:
This appendix outlines how the data of GRESB participant members is accessed, controlled, and protected.
Data is submitted to GRESB through a secure online platform. It can only be seen by current GRESB staff or authorized personnel from GRESB’s third-party validation provider, Sustainability Assurance Services (SAS).
GRESB scores are not made public. Results and data output of the GRESB Infrastructure Assessments are only disclosed to the participants themselves and their investors:
Entities have the option to disclose or withhold any documentation provided as evidence from GRESB Infrastructure Investor Members. Each uploaded document has a checkbox (with the default set to ‘not available’) which, when selected by the participant, makes this evidence available to all investors with access to that entity. If the entity chooses to share their evidence with investors, it will appear in the Benchmark Report.
Note that it is not possible to share documents with investors on a case-by-case basis.
As a default, GRESB does not disclose a participant’s data to other participants.
An entity’s participation status is disclosed on the GRESB website
Before the start of the Infrastructure Assessment, GRESB provides an opt-in option in the portal that will disclose the entity’s name, as well as the scores for the different components, to other participants in the GRESB Model of the Benchmark Report that also opted to disclose their name and component scores.
The contents of the open text boxes are included in the GRESB Benchmark Report.
First year participants can submit the assessment without providing GRESB Investor Members with the ability to request access to their results. This is referred to as a “Grace Period.” The Grace Period allows participants a year to familiarize themselves with the GRESB reporting and assessment process.
First year participants wishing to report under the Grace Period can select the option on an entity-by-entity basis from the settings section in the Assessment Portal. After receiving their preliminary results during the Review Period, participants can still choose to disable the Grace Period if they wish.
Once final results are released on October 1, participants can still opt in or out of the Grace Period to restrict investor access to their results through the portal. However, any changes made after the final results are released will not hide the GRESB Score in the Benchmark Report. This is because the Benchmark Report is static and hard-coded, meaning the participant's score will remain visible in the report's scorecard. While investors will not be able to access the participant's results through the portal, the historical scores from the current year will still appear in the following year’s Benchmark Report.
The Grace Period is not available in the second year of participation, regardless of whether it was used in the first year or not.
Note that GRESB still discloses the entity/fund’s participation status during its Grace Period (see Disclosure of GRESB Participant Members section above).
GRESB is fully compliant with GDPR. The GRESB Privacy Statement can be found here. We also have specific internal policies, such as our Data Breach Policy and our Data Protection Policy, related to GDPR that we cannot share externally for security reasons. Please note that asset level data does not fall under the incidence of GDPR because it does not contain any personal data.
GRESB’s data security measures and systems have been reviewed by an external expert and no issues were flagged. The GRESB website and the GRESB Portal are fully HTTPS/TLS encrypted. GRESB has strict and extensive policies on data security that cannot be shared externally for security reasons.