infrastructure asset sample benchmark report 1 · 2017-07-13 · example asset manager...

Sample Asset Benchmark ReportGRESB Infrastructure

GRESB Benchmark Report 2016DADATE: 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm FTE: 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTCri UTC

© 2016 GRESB BV

Table of ContentsScorecard/Key Highlights

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Entity & Peer Group Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Additional context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ManagementStrategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Leadership & Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Policy & DisclosurePolicies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Engagement & Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Risks & OpportunitiesSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

ImplementationSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Monitoring & EMSSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Stakeholder EngagementSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Performance IndicatorsOutput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Health & Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Energy & Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Water & Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Biodiversity & Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Certifications & AwardsCertifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Awards & Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC

GRESB Model

Implementation & Measurement

Man

agem

ent &

Pol

icy

0 50 100

0

50

100

This Entity Peer Group Average Peer Group GRESB Average

GRESB Universe Europe North America Oceania Globally Diversified

Peer Average 41GRESB Average 28

GRESB Score


Implementation & Measurement


Management & Policy

70100

56100

89100

Rankings

1stout of 22

Europe 2ndout of 12

Investment type: Transportation 1stout of 12

Transportation / Europe

7thout of 134

All Infrastructure Assets

Sample AssetExample Asset ManagerParticipation & GRESB Score


GRESB Score70100

Peer Comparison

1stout of 12

Transportation / Europe

2016In

fras

truc

ture

Asse

ssm

ent

GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC of 29

Aspects

AspectWWeight in GRESB Scoreight in GRESB Scoree This Entity Peer Group GRESB

Management 11% 76PEER

40AVERAGE

GRESB

42AVERAGE

Policy & Disclosure 14% 93PEER

48AVERAGE

GRESB

39AVERAGE

Risks & Opportunities 10% 71PEER

33AVERAGE

GRESB

31AVERAGE

Implementation 7.5% 90PEER

50AVERAGE

GRESB

43AVERAGE

Monitoring & EMS 10% 95PEER

52AVERAGE

GRESB

39AVERAGE

Stakeholder Engagement 10% 78PEER

37AVERAGE

GRESB

21AVERAGE

Performance Indicators 30% 51PEER

18AVERAGE

GRESB

18AVERAGE

Certifications & Awards 7.5% 0PEER

2AVERAGE

GRESB

9AVERAGE

Management

Policy & Disclosure

Risks & Opportunities

Implementation

Monitoring & EMSStakeholder Engagement

Performance Indicators

Certifications & Awards

25

50

758484

9191

7777

93938282

78

565600

This Entity Peer Group Average

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100


Entity & PeerGroupCharacteristics

This Entity

Benchmark Geography: Europe

Benchmark Sector: Transportation

Peer Group (6 entities)

Benchmark Geography: Europe

Benchmark Sector: Transportation

Countries

[100%][100%] Europe

Sectors

[100%][100%] Transportation: Railroad

Peer Group Countries

[100%][100%] Europe

Peer Group Sectors

[50%][50%] Transportation: Toll RoadOperations

[17%][17%] Transportation: Railroad

[17%][17%] Transportation: Ports

[17%][17%] Transportation: Airport

Additional contextText provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.


ManagementPOINTS:9/11WEIGHT:11%

Strategic Plan

ESG issues in long-term strategic plan(s) Percentage of Peers

Elements addressed in the entity’s long-term strategic plan(s)

Evidence provided

MA1 POINTS: 2.8/2.8

Percentage of Peers

� [80%][80%] No

� [20%][20%] Yes

Yes� 100%

Environmental performance� 100%

Social performance� 80%

Governance performance� 80%

[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided

Additional context

No� 0%

Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomized data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

Leadership &Accountability Senior decision-maker accountable for ESG issues Percentage of Peers

This senior decision maker is part of the

Evidence provided

MA2 POINTS: 2/2.8

Percentage of Peers

� [80%][80%] No

� [20%][20%] Yes

Additional context

Yes

Name: Harold

Job title: Sustainability

LinkedIn profile (optional):

� 100%

Board of Directors� 20%

Senior Management Team� 80%

Other� 0%


No� 0%

Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.



Senior leadership has targets for:

Does performance on these targets have pre-determined consequences?

Evidence provided

Percentage of Peers

[100%][100%] No

[0%][0%] Yes

Additional context

Environmental performance 80%

Social performance 80%

Governance performance 80%

Other 0%

Yes 80%

Positive consequences for meeting or exceeding ESG targets 20%

Negative consequences for not achieving ESG targets 60%

Negative recognition 0%

Loss of financial compensation 60%

Additional support, resources, or training 0%

Other consequences 0%

No 20%


No 20%


ESG performance targets for senior leadership Percentage of Peers

MA3 POINTS: 2/2.8

Yes 80%

Categorize ESG-related training provided to different categories of workers

Evidence provided

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] Yes

� [40%][40%] No

Additional context

Employees� 100%

Environmental issues� 100%

Social issues� 40%

Governance issues� 40%

Other

example

� 0%

Contractors� 40%

Environmental issues� 60%

Social issues� 0%

Governance issues� 0%

Other� 0%

Other� 20%


No� 0%



TrainingESG-related training Percentage of Peers

MA4 POINTS: 2.6/2.8

Yes� 100%


Policy or policies apply to

Evidence provided

Contractors Covered by Entity ESG Policies

� [83%][83%] ≥75, ≤100%

� [17%][17%] ≥25%, <50%

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] Yes

� [40%][40%] No

Additional context

Biodiversity and habitat protection� 80%

Energy� 80%

Greenhouse gas emissions� 60%

Invasive species� 80%

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster� 80%

Resilience (adaptation) to climate change� 60%

Water� 80%

Waste� 80%

Other issues

Material and Construction Life Cycle Impacts, Vehicle Miles Traveled [ACCEPTED]

� 20%

Entity� 100%

Contractors� 100%

Other� 0%


No� 0%


Policy & DisclosurePOINTS:13/14WEIGHT:14%

Policies

Policy or policies on environmental issues Percentage of Peers

Specific issues included in the entity’s policy or policies

PD1 POINTS: 1.8/1.8

Yes� 100%

Air pollutants� 80%

Policy or policies on social issues Percentage of Peers

Specific issues included in the entity’s policy or policies


Evidence provided

PD2 POINTS: 1.8/1.8


[67%][67%] (no answer provided)

[17%][17%] ≥50%, <75%

[17%][17%] ≥75, ≤100%

Percentage of Peers

[100%][100%] No

[0%][0%] Yes

Yes 100%

Child labor 80%

Community relations 100%

Customer satisfaction 80%

Data protection and privacy 100%

Employee engagement 60%

Forced or compulsory labor 80%

Gender and diversity 100%

Health and safety: employees 100%

Health and safety: customers 100%

Health and safety: community 80%

Health and safety: supply chain 20%

Labor standards and working conditions 100%

Discrimination 100%

Other issues

Environmental Justice [ACCEPTED]

0%

Entity 100%

Contractors 20%

Other 0%



Additional context

No 0%

Text provided by respondent will be displayed here.

Policy or policies on governance issues Percentage of Peers

Specific issues included in the entities governance policy or policies:


PD3 POINTS: 1.6/1.8


[83%][83%] (no answer provided)

[17%][17%] ≥75, ≤100%

Yes 100%

Audit committee structure/independence 20%

Board composition 80%

Bribery and corruption 80%

Compensation committee structure/independence 20%

Executive compensation 20%

Fraud 80%

Fiduciary duty 80%

Independence of Board chair 60%

Lobbying activities 80%

One share/one vote 0%

Political contributions 0%

Whistleblower protection 0%

Other

Conflict of Interest, Anti-Discrimination [ACCEPTED]

20%

Entity 100%

Contractors 0%


Evidence provided

Percentage of Peers

� [100%][100%] No

� [0%][0%] Yes

Additional context

Other� 0%


No� 0%


Engagement &Reporting Stakeholder grievances process Percentage of Peers

Describe the elements of the process (select all that apply)

Describe the use of the process during the reporting period (select all that apply)

Evidence provided

PD4 POINTS: 1.6/1.8

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] Yes

� [40%][40%] No

Yes� 100%

Anonymous communications� 100%

24/7 a vailability (e.g., phone, email, post)� 100%

Clear prohibition against retaliation� 20%

Fair and independent review� 20%

Number of grievances communicated� 100%

Summary of types of grievances� 80%

Summary of types of resolutions for grievances� 80%



Additional context

No 0%


Third-party review of ESG reporting and/or data Percentage of Peers

Select the most stringent level of review in each area

PD5 POINTS: 1.2/1.8

Yes 100%

ESG reporting 80%

Internal audit 60%

Externally checked by

• Service Provider Name [ACCEPTED]

0%

Externally verified by 0%

Externally assured by 20%

Environmental data 100%

Internal audit 80%


• 4 See Ltd [ACCEPTED]

0%



Social data 60%

Governance data 80%

Information submitted in this assessment (GRESB Infrastructure) 0%

Internal audit 0%


• Carbon Trust• Asahi Facilities Inc.

[ACCEPTED]

0%



Other ESG information 60%


Evidence provided

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] Yes

� [40%][40%] No

Additional context


No� 0%


Impact assessment during the last 3 years Percentage of Peers

Types of assessments

Evidence provided

PD6 POINTS: 1.8/1.8

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] No

� [40%][40%] (no answer provided)

� [0%][0%] Yes

Additional context

Yes� 60%

Environmental impact statement/report/assessment� 60%

Health Impact Assessment� 0%

Social Impact Assessment� 0%

Community needs assessment� 0%

Other technical assessment

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Cultural and Paleontological Resources;Aesthetic and Visual Quality

[ACCEPTED]

� 0%


No� 40%



CommunicationsCommunication of ESG activities Percentage of Peers

Communication strategy:

Evidence provided

PD7 POINTS: 1.5/1.8

Yes� 80%

No communications� 0%

ESG Policy/Policies� 0%

ESG Targets� 20%

ESG Actions� 0%

ESG Performance� 0%

Website� 20%


ESG Targets� 0%

ESG Actions� 20%


Section of annual report� 20%

Integrated report� 0%

Sustainability report� 20%


ESG Targets� 0%

ESG Actions� 20%


Other

2016 Business Plan [ACCEPTED]

� 80%


ESG Targets� 60%

ESG Actions� 60%



Percentage of Peers

� [80%][80%] Yes


Additional context


No� 20%


Process for communication of ESG-related misconduct or penalties Percentage of Peers

Elements of the entity’s communications process

Application of the communication process

Evidence provided

PD8 POINTS: 1.5/1.8

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] Yes


Additional context

Yes� 60%

Entity informs investors about misconduct or penalties� 60%

Entity informs the public about misconduct or penalties� 60%

Entity informs other stakeholders about misconduct or penalties� 60%

No communications� 0%

The entity has used one or more of these communication processes duringthe reporting period

� 60%

The entity did not use any of these communication processes during thereporting period

� 0%


No� 40%



Risks &OpportunitiesPOINTS:8/10WEIGHT:10%

Assess and mitigate risks associated with environmental issues Percentage of Peers

Issues addressed

RO1 POINTS: 3.1/3.3

Yes� 100%

Air pollutants� 100%

Included in Risk Assessment� 100%

Addressed in Mitigation Plan(s)� 20%

Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%

Biodiversity and habitat protection� 100%




Energy� 100%




Greenhouse gas emissions� 80%




Invasive species� 80%




Resilience to catastrophe/disaster� 100%




Resilience to climate change� 80%




Evidence provided

Assess and mitigate risks associated with social issues Percentage of Peers

Issues addressed

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] Yes

� [40%][40%] No

Additional context

RO2 POINTS: 3.1/3.3


Water resources� 100%

Waste management� 100%




Other� 0%


No� 0%


Yes� 100%

Child labor� 100%

Community relations� 100%


Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%


Customer satisfaction� 100%





Data protection and privacy� 100%




Employee engagement� 80%

Forced labor� 100%




Gender and diversity� 100%

Health and safety: employees� 100%




Health and safety: customers� 100%




Health and safety: community� 80%

Supply chain health and safety� 20%




Labor standards/working conditions� 80%




Discrimination� 80%




Evidence provided

Assess and mitigate risks associated with governance issues Percentage of Peers

Issues addressed

Percentage of Peers

� [100%][100%] No

� [0%][0%] Yes

Additional context

RO3 POINTS: 1.4/3.3

Mitigation Actions Implemented 20%

Other� 0%


No� 0%


Yes� 100%

Audit committee structure/independence� 40%

Board composition� 100%

Bribery and corruption� 100%

Compensation committee structure/independence� 40%




Executive compensation� 40%




Fraud� 80%

Independence of Board chair� 80%

Lobbying activities� 80%


�

Evidence provided

Percentage of Peers

� [100%][100%] No

� [0%][0%] Yes

Additional context

One share/one vote� 0%

Political contributions� 20%

Whistleblower protection� 20%

Other

Legal [ACCEPTED]

� 0%





No� 0%



Assess and mitigate risks associated with governance issues Percentage of Peers

Issues addressed

RO3 POINTS: 1.4/3.3

Yes� 100%

Audit committee structure/independence� 40%

Board composition� 100%

Bribery and corruption� 100%

Compensation committee structure/independence� 40%




Executive compensation� 40%




Fraud� 80%

Independence of Board chair� 80%

Lobbying activities� 80%

ImplementationPOINTS:7/8WEIGHT:7.5%

Examples of ESG management and performance Percentage of Peers

IM1 POINTS: 7/7.5

Additional context

Yes� 80%

No� 20%

[Not provided]


Monitoring & EMSPOINTS:8/10WEIGHT:10%

Environmental Management System Percentage of Peers

Describe the EMS

Aligned with third-party standard

Verified or certified by a third-party

Evidence provided

ME1 POINTS: 3.2/5

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] Yes

� [40%][40%] No

Additional context

Yes� 100%

Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate theappearance and format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomiseddata and does not include any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data maycontain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

Yes� 100%

ISO 14001� 80%

BS7750� 0%

EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme� 0%

Other� 20%

No� 0%

Yes� 40%

No� 60%


No� 0%


Evidence provided

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] Yes

� [20%][20%] No


Additional context

Environmental performance data 80%

Social performance data� 20%

Governance performance data� 0%

Other data� 0%


No� 20%


Collection of ESG performance data Percentage of Peers

Type of ESG data collected by the entity

ME2 POINTS: 5/5

Yes� 80%

�


StakeholderEngagementPOINTS:10/10WEIGHT:10%

Stakeholder engagement program Percentage of Peers

Elements included

Aligned with third-party standards and/or guidance

Evidence provided

SE1 POINTS: 5/5

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] Yes

� [40%][40%] No

Additional context

Yes� 100%

Planning and preparation for engagement� 100%

Implementation of engagement plan� 100%

Program review and evaluation� 100%

Yes� 0%

AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement standard� 0%

International Association for Public Participation spectrum,Australasia

� 0%

UNEP Stakeholder Engagement Manual� 0%

Other� 0%

No� 100%


No� 0%


Actions taken to implement stakeholder engagement program Percentage of Peers

SE2 POINTS: 4.8/5

Additional context

Yes� 40%

No� 60%

[Not provided]


PerformanceIndicatorsPOINTS:17/30WEIGHT:30%

Output

Measures of output Percentage of Peers

Types of information included in evidence

Evidence provided

PI1 Not scored

History

Indicator Units Baseline 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

PI 1 (continued)

Passengers persons 2000 20011 12000 20000 200001 119

Percentage of Peers

� [80%][80%] Yes

� [20%][20%] No

Additional context

Yes� 80%

Methods and calculations underlying output metrics� 20%

Interpretation of output metrics and targets� 20%

Other� 0%


No� 20%



Energy &Emissions Energy generation and purchase Percentage of Peers

Greenhouse gas emissions Percentage of Peers

PI3 POINTS: 0/4.3

Additional context

PI4 POINTS: 0/4.3

Additional context

Yes� 60%

No� 40%

[Not provided]

Yes� 0%

No� 100%




Evidence provided

Percentage of Peers

� [60%][60%] Yes

� [20%][20%] No


Additional context



Other� 0%

No� 20%


Health & SafetyHealth and safety performance Percentage of Peers

PI2 POINTS: 1.4/4.3

Employees

History Targets

Indicator Units Baseline 2013 2014 2015 2018

PI 2 (continued)

Fatalities Number 0 0 1 0

Reportable injuries Number 16 14 12 5

Yes� 80%

Air pollutant emissions Percentage of Peers

PI5 POINTS: 0/4.3

Additional context

Yes� 0%

No� 100%


Water & WasteWater use Percentage of Peers


Evidence provided

PI6 POINTS: 2.1/4.3

Withdrawals

History

Indicator Units Baseline 2013 2014 2015

PI 6 (continued)

Water Supply US gal 180000 190000 200000

Percentage of Peers

� [40%][40%] Yes

� [40%][40%] No


Yes� 60%



Other

Water Estimation Methodology; Water Records [ACCEPTED]

� 0%


Additional context

No� 40%


Waste generation and disposal Percentage of Peers

PI7 POINTS: 0/4.3

Additional context

Yes� 60%

No� 40%

[Not provided]

Biodiversity &Habitat Biodiversity and habitat Percentage of Peers

PI8 POINTS: 0/4.3

Additional context

Yes� 0%

No� 100%

[Not provided]

Certifications &AwardsPOINTS:0/8WEIGHT:7.5%

Certifications

Entity level certifications for ESG-related management and/or performance Percentage of Peers

CA1 POINTS: 0/3.8

Additional context

Yes� 20%

No� 80%

Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not


Project level certifications for ESG-related management and/or performance Percentage of Peers

CA2 POINTS: 0/3.8

Additional context

Yes� 0%

No� 100%


Awards & CaseStudies Awards for ESG-related actions, performance, or achievements Percentage of Peers

ESG case studies, research or similar publications Percentage of Peers

CA3 Not scored

Additional context

CA4 Not scored

Additional context

Yes� 40%

No� 60%

[Not provided]

Yes� 0%

No� 100%



infrastructure asset sample benchmark report 1 · 2017-07-13 · example asset manager...

Documents