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

2021

Asset

Assessment

Contents

Disclaimer: 2021 GRESB Infrastructure Fund & Asset Assessment Pre-Release

The information in this document has been provided in good faith and on an “as is” basis. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications prior to the official start of the 2021 reporting period on April 1 and the official release of the 2021 Infrastructure Fund and Asset Assessments. We will publicly announce any such modifications.

Introduction

About GRESB

Mission-driven and investor-led, GRESB is the environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmark for real assets. We work in collaboration with the industry to provide standardized and validated ESG data to the capital markets. The 2020 Real Estate benchmark covers more than 1,200 property companies, real estate investment trusts (REITs), funds, and developers. Our coverage for Infrastructure includes 544 infrastructure funds and assets. Combined, GRESB represents USD 5.3 trillion AUM. More than 120 institutional and financial investors use GRESB data to monitor their investments, engage with their managers, and make decisions that lead to a more sustainable and resilient world.

For more information, visit gresb.com. Follow @GRESB on Twitter.

2021 Assessments Structure

In 2020, the Infrastructure Assessments were split into separate Management and Performance Components. This structure allows entities to complete either or both components. Entities starting off on their sustainability journey are thus able to first develop their data collection processes before reporting performance data.

For 2021, the Infrastructure Assessments have been kept stable with relatively few changes. The Resilience Module, which was optional in previous years, has been integrated into the Assessments and is now mandatory, thus facilitating TCFD reporting for all participants. A Development Component will be added to the 2021 Asset Assessment, to enable better reporting and benchmarking for assets (projects) in development (in design or construction). This component will be released in February 2021. We will continue to shift the emphasis and scoring from management and transparency to performance. We are also looking to provide new data and analytical tools in the portal including addressing coming EU regulations and SDG reporting.

For more information about the 2021 Assessments development process, click here.

Grace Period

GRESB offers first-time participants the option to not disclose their Assessment results to their investors. This first year "Grace Period" allows companies and funds a year to familiarize themselves with the GRESB reporting and assessment process without externally disclosing their results to GRESB Investor Members.

While Grace Period participant names are disclosed to GRESB Investor Members, Investor Members are not able to request access to Grace Period participant results.

First-time participants wishing to opt for the Grace Period can select the option from the settings section in the Assessment Portal.

Who can see my data?

Data collected through the GRESB Infrastructure Fund and Asset Assessments is only disclosed to the participants themselves and:

All data provided to GRESB is strictly confidential and will only be disclosed to participants’ investors, with their explicit consent.

Timeline & Process

The GRESB Infrastructure Fund and Asset Assessments will be available in the GRESB Portal on April 1, 2021. The submission deadline is July 1, 2021, providing participants with a three-month window to complete the Assessment. This is a fixed deadline and GRESB will not accept submissions received after this date. GRESB validates and analyzes all participants’ Assessment submissions.

In 2020 we introduced a Review Period in the Assessment cycle to further strengthen the reliability of our Assessments and benchmark results. We will provide this process again in 2021 starting on September 1, when preliminary individual GRESB results will be made available to all participants. The Review Period will run for one month. During the Review Period, participants will be able to submit a review request to GRESB using a dedicated form. The final results will be launched to both participants and Investor Members on October 1. Public Results events and other results outputs will be scheduled in October and November.

For more information about the 2021 Assessment timeline, click here.

Response Check service

A Response Check is a high-level check of a participant’s GRESB Infrastructure Fund or Asset Assessment by the GRESB team, taking place prior to submission. It minimizes the risk of errors that could adversely impact Assessment results. The Response Check fee is €1750 EUR (exclusive of VAT).

Guidance & Support

The 2021 Infrastructure Fund and Asset Assessments will be accompanied by indicator-specific Guidance that explains:

The written Reference Guide will be published on the GRESB website during the first week of March 2021. Starting April 1, 2021, guidance is also available in the GRESB Portal through pop-up fields next to each indicator. GRESB customer support service is open year round.

2021 Infrastructure GRESB Asset Assessment Changes

The 2021 Assessment development process indicated that the topics covered are material to stakeholders across the board. After the structural changes implemented in 2020, the focus has been on consolidating the existing Assessments and ensuring that the Resilience Module was integrated into the Assessment appropriately.

The changes in the Management Component have been limited to small amendments to indicators to provide respondents with more appropriate reporting options, and the integration of the Resilience Module in existing indicators and through the addition of five new indicators in the Risk Management aspect. This will enable all participants to align to TCFD reporting requirements.

The changes in the Performance Component have been focused on providing a better reporting experience for participants, by simplifying some metrics and adding others to support specific sectors in their ESG reporting.

The most substantial change to the Infrastructure Asset Assessment comes from the addition of a Development Component, due to be released in February 2021. This new component will enable assets under development (either in the design or construction phase) to report their management and performance. The Development Component will allow asset managers and investors to benchmark projects and understand their construction performance and the performance they expect once they are operational.

The Asset Assessment will comprise of:

All work on the 2021 Assessments was undertaken with the support and input of the Infrastructure Advisory Board (IAB), the Infrastructure Benchmark Committee (IBC) and the Industry Working Group on New Developments (IWG ND).

For more information, please see our webpage.

Management Component

High-level comments

Integration of Resilience Module

The Resilience Module, which was previously optional, has been integrated into the Management Component. Five new indicators have been added to the aspect Risk Management and changes have been made to two indicators in the Leadership aspect.

Minor changes to indicators

Minor changes have been made to a few indicators to add some new options or to restructure them for better validation.

Indicator Level Changes

LE2

ESG leadership commitments - New commitments added

Description: New commitments have been added under “General ESG commitments: Commitments that are publicly evidenced and do not oblige the organization to take action” and “Formal environmental issue-specific commitments: Commitments that are publicly evidenced and oblige the organization to take action”.

Rationale for change: This allows entities that have made a commitment to these initiatives to report them to investors.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden to provide meaningful information to investors.

LE4

Individual responsible for ESG objectives - Resilience integrated

Description: The indicator has been restructured. It is now split between ESG and climate-related issues so that entities can provide different contact details for each topic.

Rationale for change: This indicator change is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

LE5

ESG senior decision maker - Resilience integrated

Description: The indicator has been restructured. It is now split between ESG and climate-related issues so that entities can provide different contact details for each topic.

Rationale for change: This indicator change is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

RM2.1

Environmental risk assessments - Restructured for simpler validation

Description: The options that can be selected as elements of a risk assessment have been changed and are now listed as radio buttons (i.e., an entity can only select one instead of multiple).

Rationale for change: This change simplifies the validation of the supporting evidence and aligns with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Impact of change: No change in reporting burden.

RM2.2

Social risk assessments - Restructured for simpler validation

Description: The options that can be selected as elements of a risk assessment have been changed and are now listed as radio buttons (i.e., an entity can only select one instead of multiple).

Rationale for change: This change simplifies the validation of the supporting evidence and aligns with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Impact of change: No change in reporting burden.

RM2.3

Governance risk assessments - Restructured for simpler validation

Description: The options that can be selected as elements of a risk assessment have been changed and are now listed as radio buttons (i.e., an entity can only select one instead of multiple).

Rationale for change: This change simplifies the validation of the supporting evidence and aligns with the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard.

Impact of change: No change in reporting burden.

RM3

Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on resilience of strategy to climate-related risks

Rationale for change: This indicator is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

RM4.1

Transition risk identification - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on identification of climate-related transition risks

Rationale for change: This indicator is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations.

Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

RM4.2

Transition risk impact assessment - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on assessment of climate-related transition risks.

Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations.

Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

RM4.3

Physical risk identification - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on identification of climate-related physical risks.

Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations.

Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

RM4.4

Physical risk impact assessment - New indicator

Description: Added new indicator on assessment of climate-related physical risks.

Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations.

Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations.

SE1

Stakeholder engagement program - New option added

Description: A new option has been added to the checklist “elements of the stakeholder engagement program”.

Rationale for change: This allows entities to better report how their stakeholder engagement program is structured.

Impact of change: Very small increase in reporting burden.

SE2

Supply chain engagement program - New option added

Description: A new option has been added to the checklist for “elements of the supply chain engagement program”, and two new issues have been added to the checklist “issues covered by the procurement processes”.

Rationale for change: These small changes allow for a more precise reporting of how the entity’s supply chain program is structured.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.

Performance Component

High-level comments

Output - Indicator now mandatory

As part of the ongoing work to score performance, the reporting of the “Output” metric for the reporting year will become mandatory for all participants in the Performance Component. This will enable the automatic calculation of output intensities for other indicators to allow for better benchmarking and to facilitate the scoring of performance in the future.

Energy - Removed table

The table “Energy generated from fuels” was removed. This table was added in 2020 to enable entities in the Power Generation x-Renewables and Renewable Power sectors to report fuels used in the energy generation process. This was identified as a less relevant set of information and has therefore been removed.

Water - Water quality table added

A new table “Discharge water quality” has been added to the indicator WT2 “Water outflows / discharges”. This table was added to better align with GRI, and to provide relevant information to investors on a potential ESG risk. Only the quality of water discharged to natural bodies of water (i.e., sensitive waterways) will need to be reported.

Waste - Generation metrics added

New metrics have been added to the table “Generation/import”. This will allow entities to provide more granular information to investors on the produced or imported waste and is aligned to several existing legislative frameworks.

Other - Minor changes to tables

All tables in the Performance Component were reviewed. In some cases, metrics were reshuffled or subtotals added to make it clearer to participants how metrics are calculated. In some cases, metrics were renamed to make their scope clearer. These minor changes will improve user experience.

Indicator Level Changes

OI1

Output & impact - Output reporting mandatory

Description: This indicator is now mandatory for all entities reporting to the Performance Component. The only mandatory metric in the indicator is “Output”.

Rationale for change: The output metric is used to calculate intensities for the environmental indicator in the Performance Component. Having all entities report on this metric allows for better benchmarking and allows GRESB to score performance in the future.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden.

EN1

Performance Indicators - Reporting boundaries

Description: The table “Energy generated from fuels” has been removed.

Rationale for change: This table was added in 2020 to enable entities in the Power Generation x-Renewables and Renewable Power sectors to report fuels used in the energy generation process. This was identified as a less relevant set of information and has therefore been removed.

Impact of change: Decrease in reporting burden.


Energy - New metric “LPG, butane and propane” added

Description: A new metric has been added to the tables “Energy imported / purchased” and “Energy exported / sold”: “LPG, butane and propane”.

Rationale for change: This metric was added as many entities reported this fuel under the “other fuel” option in 2020. Having this metric as a separate option in the table facilitates the reporting process and makes it easier for investors to analyse the reported data.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.


Energy - New metric “Biofuels (produced onsite)” added

Description: A new metric has been added to the table “Energy generated onsite”: “Biofuels (produced onsite)”.

Rationale for change: This metric was added to allow the reporting of biofuels generated from internal processes, such as methane during wastewater treatment.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.


Energy - New metric “Ocean” added

Description: A new metric has been added to the table “Energy generated onsite”: “Ocean”.

Rationale for change: This metric was added to distinguish generated tidal and wave energy from hydro-electric energy.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.


Energy - Subtotals added

Description: New subtotal metrics have been added to all of the absolute performance tables, indicating the subtotals for renewable and non-renewable energy for each table.

Rationale for change: This clarifies which metrics in the tables contribute to the renewable and non-renewable energy consumption tables and gives entities the option to report absolute targets relating to the purchase, generation and export of renewable and non-renewable energy.

Impact of change: No increase in reporting burden.

GH1

Greenhouse gas emissions - Re-ordering of metrics in table

Description: The metric “Emissions avoided (export of renewable energy)” has been moved to the bottom of the Greenhouse gas emissions table.

Rationale for change: The metric is relevant only for entities that export renewable energy but was confused by some participants with offsets. Moving it to the bottom of the table makes it clearer that the metric is not included in the calculation of net emissions.

Impact of change: No change in reporting burden.


Greenhouse gas emissions: Metric made mandatory

Description: The metric “Emissions avoided (export of renewable energy)” has been made mandatory for all participants.

Rationale for change: The metric is scored for entities in the sector “Renewable Power”. Making the metric mandatory ensures that these entities complete the aspect “Greenhouse Gas Emissions” correctly. Entities not exporting renewable energy can simply enter “0” to this metric.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.


Greenhouse gas emissions: New scored metric

Description: The metric “Net emissions intensity (/output)” will be the scored metric for all entities with the exception of entities in the sector “Renewable Power”.

Rationale for change: As we move towards scoring of performance, the intensity metrics will enable more meaningful benchmarking. With output becoming a mandatory metric for all entities, all entities reporting the mandatory metrics in the table “Greenhouse gas emissions” in the reporting-year performance column will have the intensity metric for the reporting-year performance calculated automatically. Entities can report targets for the reporting-year and future-year to obtain full points for the indicator Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Impact of change: Increase in reporting burden to facilitate performance scoring.

AP1

Air pollution - New metric “Ozone-depleting substances” added

Description: A new metric, “Ozone-depleting substances”, has been added to the performance table. This will focus on the ozone-depleting potential, rather than on the global warming potential of these substances (which can be reported under Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

Rationale for change: Ozone-depleting substances are a relevant air pollution metric in several legislations.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden.

WT2

Water outflows / discharges - New table on water quality added

Description: A new table on the water quality of water discharged to sensitive waterways has been added.

Rationale for change: Water quality poses a material ESG risk to discharges and is therefore relevant for investors. Only water discharged to sensitive waterways (groundwater, seawater / brackish water and surface water) should be reported under water quality.

Impact of change: Increased reporting burden.


Water outflows / discharges - Metric name change

Description: The metric “Sensitive discharge” has been renamed to “Total discharge to sensitive waterways”.

Rationale for change: To make the scope of the metric clearer.

Impact of change: No change in reporting burden.


Water outflows / discharges - Reordering metrics

Description: The metric “Total discharge to sensitive waterways” has been moved in the table.

Rationale for change: The metric “Total discharge to sensitive waterways” is a subtotal of the first three metrics. To make this clearer, the metric has been moved up in the table.

Impact of change: No change in reporting burden.

WS1

Waste - New metrics added to table “Generation/import”

Description: New metrics for non-hazardous waste have been added to the table “Generation/import”. These metrics are: “Bituminous mixtures, coal tar & tarred products”, “Concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics”, “Glass”, “Metals”, “Paper and cardboard”, “Plastic”, “Organic waste”, “Soil, stones and dredging spoil”, “General/other”.

Rationale for change: Stakeholders indicated a need for more refined reporting of waste generation and import metrics. These metrics will also allow investors to understand recycling and waste disposal routes better.

Impact of change: Increased reporting burden.


Waste - Metric “Total generated” removed

Description: The metric “Total generated” has been removed from the table “Generation/Import”.

Rationale for change: This metric is a duplicate of “Total disposed” and therefore doesn’t add value to have reported separately.

Impact of change: Small reduction in reporting burden.

HS1

Health & Safety: Employees - Metrics now mandatory

Description: The metrics “Lost time injuries”, “Total recordable injuries” and “Hours worked” are now mandatory.

Rationale for change: These metrics are used to calculate the scored metrics, “Lost time injury frequency rate” and “Total recordable injury frequency rate”. As the metrics are highly material, they have been made mandatory.

Impact of change: Increased reporting burden.

HS2

Health & Safety: Contractors - Metrics now mandatory

Description: The metrics “Lost time injuries”, “Total recordable injuries” and “Hours worked” are now mandatory.

Rationale for change: These metrics are used to calculate the scored metrics, “Lost time injury frequency rate” and “Total recordable injury frequency rate”. As the metrics are highly material, they have been made mandatory.

Impact of change: Increased reporting burden.

EM2

Inclusion & Diversity - Gender pay gap reporting

Description: The gender pay gap can now be reported quantitatively.

Rationale for change: The gender pay gap is becoming an increasingly material metric to investors.

Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden

Entity & Reporting Characteristics

Entity Characteristics

2020 Indicator

Reporting Characteristics

2020 Indicator

Not scored

Management: Leadership

Leadership

2020 Indicator

1.8 points , G

Not scored , G

Objectives

2020 Indicator

3.55 points , G

1.8 points , G

1.8 points , G

3.55 points , G

Management: Policies

Policies

2020 Indicator

1.8 points , E

1.8 points , S

1.8 points , G

Management: Reporting

Reporting

2020 Indicator

3.55 points , G

1.8 points , G

Not scored , G

Management: Risk Management

Risk Management

2020 Indicator

3.55 points , G

Risk Assessments

2020 Indicator

3.55 points , E

3.55 points , S

3.55 points , G

Climate-related Risk Management

2020 Indicator

ESG Monitoring

2020 Indicator

1.8 points , E

1.8 points , S

1.8 points

Management: Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder Engagement

2020 Indicator

3.55 points , S

1.8 points , S

1.8 points , S

Not scored , S

Performance: Implementation

Implementation

2020 Indicator

Not scored , E

Not scored , S

Not scored , G

Performance: Output & Impact

Output & Impact

2020 Indicator

Performance: Energy

Energy

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Performance: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Performance: Air Pollution

Air Pollution

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Performance: Water

Water

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Determined by materiality , E

Performance: Waste

Waste

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Performance: Biodiversity & Habitat

Biodiversity & Habitat

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , E

Performance: Health & Safety

Health & Safety

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , S

Determined by materiality , S

Determined by materiality , S

Determined by materiality , S

Performance: Employees

Employees

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , S

Determined by materiality , S

Performance: Customers

Customers

2020 Indicator

Determined by materiality , S

Performance: Certifications & Awards

Certifications and Awards

2020 Indicator

2.4 points , G

Not scored , G