2026 Asset Standard Updates
Introduction
Updates to the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Standards maintain the direction of travel established by the GRESB Foundation. The 2026 updates include further development aligned to our members’ needs and to reflect ongoing change and progress in the industry. Updates include streamlining the reporting process and decreasing reporting burden for GRESB Participants, raising the bar on sustainability risk assessment requirements for material issues, and reflecting materiality outcomes for net zero more appropriately.
The table below provides an overview of all 2026 Infrastructure Asset Standard updates and their impacts on reporting and scoring. Reporting impact refers to a change in data input. Scoring impact refers to a change in criteria or interpretation impacting an entity’s score.
Summary of Updates
Click on each indicator code for detailed information about the summarized updates below.
Topic
Indicator
Description
Reporting Impact
Validation Impact
Scoring Impact
Sustainability Reporting
Indicator simplified so that only one disclosure type is required. List of third-party standards expanded to include SFDR.
Reduced reporting burden. Participants are only required to identify elements of a single sustainability report.
Risk Management
Removal of the option to report management systems that lack alignment to a standard. Addition of ISO 50001 to the list of standards.
Participants may report on management systems aligned with or accredited by ISO 50001.
Risk Assessment
Simplified indicator so that it only recognizes risk assessments that include 1) identification, 2) analysis, 3) evaluation, and 4) treatment of material issues.
Participants can only report risk assessments that include all four elements.
Climate Resilience
Updated climate scenarios to reflect most recent NGFS data and discontinuation of the 2°C scenario from CRREM.
Participants may select the most recent climate scenarios.
Net-Zero Targets
Introduction of a new Net-Zero Targets indicator (GH2) comprising the net-zero questions previously included under GH1.
Reduced material relevance of net zero from “medium” to “low” for renewable sector assets.
Renewable Sector Assets: Participants may optionally answer the Net-Zero Targets indicator.
All other sectors: No impact.
Asset Classification
Introduction of two new asset classes:
Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, and
Maritime Service Operation Vessels
Participants may choose two new asset classes with unique materiality outcomes.
NZIF Module
Introduction of a new module that integrates GRESB Assessment data to evaluate an asset’s alignment with the IIGCC Net Zero Investment Framework (NZIF).
Reporting is optional and will not impact GRESB output. Participants that complete this module will receive an NZIF Alignment Report alongside final GRESB results.
General Standards Updates
Net Zero Materiality for Renewables Sectors and Split of GHG emissions and Net-Zero Targets Reporting (GH1 / GH2)
Background & Purpose
In the 2023 Standard, various changes were introduced to score efforts related to net zero, including target setting and policies.
Since then, GRESB has received feedback regarding the materiality of net zero indicators when applied to specific renewable energy asset classes. Given that for many renewables assets and investors. the strategic priorities are around investing in climate solutions rather than decarbonization, and given that these assets tend to be low-intensity emitters, the GRESB Foundation reviewed net-zero materiality for these renewable energy asset classes for better alignment with the focus of efforts in those businesses.
Description
The materiality of net-zero will be reduced from “Medium” to “Low” for the following asset classes that produce electricity directly from natural energy flows without reliance on fuel inputs or storage:
On-Shore Wind Power Generation
Off-Shore Wind Power Generation
Photovoltaic Power Generation
Thermal Solar Power
Hydroelectric Dam Power Generation
Hydroelectric Run-of-River Power Generation
Geothermal Power Generation
Wave Power Generation
To allow for this separate materiality for net zero and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions indicator (GH1) will be split into two separate indicators:
GH1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, including total GHG emissions table, Scope 3 GHG emissions table, and GHG emissions intensities table; driven by the materiality level of GHG emissions.
GH2 Net-Zero Targets, including the net-zero target setting table, driven by the materiality level of net-zero.
Please refer to the 2026 GRESB Infrastructure Materiality and Scoring Tool for details on materiality-driven scoring in the Asset Assessment.
Reporting Impact
For the renewables sectors listed above, providing detailed information on Net-Zero Targets (GH2) will not be required to achieve full scores. However, these participants will still be able to report this information if they choose to do so, in order to communicate their net-zero targets and efforts to investors and managers. For all other sectors, there will be no reporting impact other than the split in indicators mentioned. However, this does not require any additional data input for users.
Scoring Impact
For sectors other than those listed above, there will be no scoring impact.
For the renewable energy generation assets listed above, the scoring of Environmental Policies (PO1) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GH1) will be impacted.
All points previously assigned to net-zero policy and targets will be redistributed to other indicators or issues in the performance and/or management components:
In instances where the asset’s score that has been redistributed attains fewer points than the score they received for net-zero content, a minor score drop may occur.
In instances where the asset didn’t complete the net-zero content, the redistributed score will result in a score increase.
Simplification of Sustainability Reporting Indicator
RP1
Background & Purpose
The intent of the Sustainability Reporting (RP1) indicator is to assess the level of sustainability disclosure undertaken by the entity, including disclosure of sustainability actions and performance. Given the complex and comprehensive nature of the content within the indicator, and recognizing that its scoring system does not always award best practice, the indicator will be streamlined and updated to reduce reporting burden and reward only best practice.
The changes will shift the focus from awarding entities based on the number of channels through which they report sustainability data to recognizing the quality and reach of their disclosures.
Description
GRESB will ask participating funds to report only on one sustainability report that will be assessed on aspects that are deemed to be best practice, including the level of reporting (group or entity), whether reporting to the public or only to investors, alignment to recognized third-party guidelines, and third-party review.
In addition, the list of accepted third-party standards/frameworks will be updated to include the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR).
Reporting Impact
In 2026, the prefill feature will not be available for this indicator due to the change of the indicator structure. From 2027 onwards, this indicator will be subject to prefill and pre-validation. As a result, reporting burden decreases for funds with over 60 data fields removed from the survey. Participants will report on only one sustainability disclosure applicable specifically for the reporting entity and only in the first year, unless their reporting practices change over the years.
Scoring Impact
Only one report will be scored as follows, instead of rewarding a number of different disclosures:
The level of reporting: Entity-level reporting will be scored higher than group level. Group-level reports shall be accepted and can be reported as entity level if containing specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity.
Stakeholder outreach: Public reporting will be scored higher than reporting only to investors. GRESB considers the report to be public if the information is publicly accessible on the internet.
Alignment to a recognized third-party guideline: A full score will be rewarded where the entity aligns to a guideline from the drop-down list in the portal.
Third-party review: A full score will be awarded for third-party verification and assurance; fractional scores will be awarded if the disclosure is checked by a third party.
Evidence: The evidence will be subject to manual validation. The validation status of the evidence will affect the final score for the indicator through a multiplier.
The expected impact on average asset assessment scores is approximately -1.38 points with a maximum possible score drop of -3.26 points if an entity does not report on sustainability actions and/or performance on an asset level:
The report is group level and does not reference the entity directly by name
-3.26
-0.65
The report is only for investors
-0.32
-0.08
The report is not aligned to a recognized guideline
-1.30
-0.52
The report is not reviewed by a third party
-0.65
-0.21
Future Development
The addition of the “Other guideline” option to the third-party standard/framework section will help inform future development of the Standard. GRESB will track commonly used frameworks reported in this field to inform the list of scored frameworks.
Raising the Bar for Sustainability-Related Risk Assessment Indicators
RM2.1-2.3
Background & Purpose
Due to the maturity of the industry’s approach to sustainability risk management, GRESB is raising the bar to require a full risk assessment to be undertaken for material issues, removing the option to report partial risk management processes.
Description
Performing a full risk assessment including risk identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment will be mandatory to receive a score for any material issue across the following indicators:
RM2.1 Environmental Risk Assessment
RM2.2 Social Risk Assessment
RM2.3 Governance Risk Assessment
Reporting Impact
Reporting burden and complexity decrease due to the removal of data fields for individual elements of the risk assessment process.
Participants will now have to respond “Yes” to RM2 indicators only if they have a full risk assessment in place for at least one issue, including risk identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment. Participants must provide evidence that supports all four stages of the risk assessment for each material issue.
Scoring Impact
Only the full risk assessment process—including risk identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment—will be scored. The expected impact on average assessment scores is approximately -0.06 points with a maximum possible score drop of -2.52 points per indicator and -7.56 points in total:
RM2.1
0 to -2.52
Negligible
RM2.2
0 to -2.52
Negligible
RM2.3
0 to -2.52
Negligible
Tactical Updates to Management Systems Indicator
RM1
Background & Purpose
During the review of the risk management aspect of the Infrastructure Asset Assessment, minor improvements were identified for the RM1 Management Systems indicator.
Description
The unscored checkbox to report on management systems that are not aligned to any sustainability-related standard/certification will be removed.
ISO 50001 will be added to the list of accreditations maintained or achieved.
A typo in the ISO 55001 accreditation name will be corrected.
Update to Climate Scenarios
RM3
Background & Purpose
Indicator RM2 (Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks and opportunities) lists climate scenarios available for participants to use in their assessment of transition and physical climate risks and opportunities
Description
The list of climate scenarios available in RM2 has been updated in the 2026 Standard, including:
NGFS: The latest release now incorporates the most recent climate and economic data for both short-term and long-term climate scenarios.
CRREM: The CRREM Foundation has discontinued the provision of the 2°C scenario, citing an inability to guarantee full scientific quality. CRREM may reinstate or add new scenarios over time.
Reporting Impact
Participants are now able to select the latest climate scenarios available as part of their reporting.
Sector Classification Update
RC3
Background & Purpose
GRESB used the Infrastructure Company Classification Standard (TICCS) framework, developed by EDHEC Infrastructure, as a basis for sector classification in the Infrastructure Standards. Further development of the GRESB Infrastructure Sector Classification is informed by the industry and the feedback from participants that GRESB reviews on an annual basis.
Description
Based on participants’ feedback, two new asset classes with materiality outcomes will be introduced in the 2026 Asset Standard:
Energy and Water Resources
Natural Resources Exploration and Production Companies
Oil and Gas Exploration and Production
Entities exploring for, extracting, or producing crude oil and natural gas, including unconventional reserves, onshore/offshore.
Transport
Water Transport Companies
Maritime Service Operation Vessels
Entities that own, manage, or operate vessels designed to support offshore and marine activities.
For all new classes and subclasses, sector-determined materiality outcomes are available in the 2026 GRESB Infrastructure Materiality and Scoring Tool.
Reporting Impact
Participants are required to select the relevant subclass of their asset in RC3 Sector and Geography. Options now include the new classes/subclasses noted above.
Scoring Impact
Participants choosing to report under the new subclasses shall check their materiality outcomes and the maximum achievable scores for all indicators in the 2026 GRESB Materiality and Scoring Tool.
Non-Standards Updates
Integration of GRESB IIGCC NZIF Alignment Module
Background & Purpose
Beginning in 2026, participants in the GRESB Asset Assessment will have the option to complete an additional set of indicators designed to generate new insights based on alignment with the IIGCC Net Zero Investment Framework (NZIF). The NZIF, and now the integrated data collection and alignment module within the GRESB Asset Assessment, evaluates the net-zero maturity of an infrastructure asset by assessing whether the asset has undertaken specific actions, made relevant disclosures, and achieved defined outcomes—and will assign the asset an NZIF-alignment or maturity level based on those responses.
To ensure a practical and industry-aligned approach, GRESB and IIGCC convened a working group comprising 11 global infrastructure investors and asset managers to co-develop and refine a standardized methodology for assessing progress against the NZIF. The resulting mapping was fully endorsed by the working group and the IIGCC, and subsequently shared with the GRESB Foundation.
A pilot exercise launched in May 2025 enabled an initial cohort of asset managers and operators reporting to the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment to voluntarily complete a short complementary module. This exercise allowed GRESB to generate NZIF alignment reports for participating assets.
From 2026, this module will be fully integrated into the GRESB Asset Assessment as an optional component available to all participants. Those choosing to complete the module will receive an NZIF Alignment Report alongside their GRESB Benchmark Report, providing a clear view of each asset’s level of alignment with NZIF. For funds and investors linked to reporting assets, a portfolio-level output report will also be made available.
By enabling consistent, comparable assessments across assets within a trusted global framework, this initiative aims to support the standardized and actionable implementation of net-zero alignment across infrastructure portfolios, leveraging NZIF as an independent, investor-backed benchmark.
Description
An NZIF Alignment Module, consisting of six additional indicators, will appear in the Asset Assessment Portal as an optional section for any participant. Information provided through these additional indicators, in combination with existing GRESB Asset Assessment data, will enable a comprehensive evaluation of performance against the NZIF framework. The indicators that will be included in the assessment portal as part of this module can be found at the bottom of this page.
The additional indicators are not formally part of the GRESB Standards, completion of the indicators is not required to report to GRESB and the content provided in these indicators is only for the purposes of NZIF alignment and does not impact GRESB scoring, benchmarking or reporting.
Although participation is non-mandatory, there is no additional fee for completing the module and receiving an NZIF Alignment Report.
Any additional guidance related to the individual indicators will be provided as part of the final NZIF Alignment Module Reference Guide which will refer to this module. These indicators are subject to minor revisions before publication of the Reference Guide as GRESB, IIGCC and the industry working group review final feedback from the 2025 pilot exercise.
Reporting Impact
This module is entirely optional, and only those who wish to receive an NZIF Alignment Report in addition to the GRESB Benchmark Report need to complete the module. Note that for those who do take part, there is no validation for these indicators at this stage, and no mandatory evidence uploads are required.
Feedback from our pilot exercise suggests the effort required to complete these additional indicators is low, and therefore, we encourage any participant with an interest in NZIF alignment, or who is connected to a fund or existing or potential investor with interest, should take part.
Scoring Impact
The NZIF module is not a formal part of the GRESB Standards and so is not connected to and does not impact GRESB scoring.
NZIF Alignment Module Indicators
Last updated
Was this helpful?