RM6.3: Physical Risk Identification

Maximum Score

1 point

Input Method

Assessment Portal

Prefill

Not eligible

Scoring method

Static

Validation

Evidence is manually validated

2026 Updates

Yes

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

Assessment Instructions

Intent: What is the purpose of this indicator?

This indicator assesses 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.

Input: How do I complete this indicator?

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Terminology

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)

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, a FoF entity will use the practices of it’s underlying funds to report and be measured on sustainability performance.

Material financial impact:

In the context of this indicator, material financial impact is used in accordance with its use by the TCFD to express information about impacts on an entity and its financial manifestations insofar as such information is deemed to be material. As per the TCFD, “in determining whether information is material ... organizations should determine materiality for climate-related issues consistent with how they determine the materiality of other information included in their financial filings.” Furthermore, “asset managers and asset owners should consider materiality in the context of their respective mandates and investment performance for clients and beneficiaries.”

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.

Validation: What evidence is required?

Evidence

The evidence and text box provided will be subject to manual validation.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

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

Text box: Describe the entity’s processes of prioritizing physical risks.

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

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

Scoring

Scoring: How does GRESB score this indicator?

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted, depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status

Multiplier

Accepted

2/2

Partially Accepted

1/2

Not Accepted

Scoring Basics

References

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

TCFD. (2021) “2017 to 2021 TCFD Implementation Guidance (Annex) Summary of Changes”

TCFD. (2023) “TCFD Report Index: Implementation Guidance”

Get Support: Solution Providers

GRESB Solution Providers are independent, third-party organizations within the GRESB Partner network that offer specialized products, tools, and services to support sustainability performance outside the GRESB Assessment process.

The organizations below deliver commercially available solutions designed to help drive improvement for this indicator. Engagement is managed directly between the reporting entity and the Solution Provider.

GRESB will continue to update this section as the GRESB Solution Provider network grows. Please check back regularly to find GRESB Solution Providers who can support your sustainability performance.

See Directory Profile

Last updated 4 days ago

Was this helpful?

Assessment Instructions

Terminology

Evidence

Other Answer

Scoring

Get Support: Solution Providers