Scoring Basics
Understand scoring methodology applicable to all infrastructure assessments.
Each GRESB Infrastructure Assessment indicator is assigned a specific scoring weight.
The maximum score an entity can achieve for each indicator depends on several factors, with the scoring process incorporating scoring weights and score multipliers.
For scoring basics unique to the different infrastructure assessments, click on the buttons below.
It is not possible to estimate the GRESB Score due to the influence of validation decisions.
Scoring Weights
For some indicators, scoring is based solely on the cumulative sum of the scoring weights assigned to the indicator's elements. These weights, displayed in red on the left side of each indicator, represent the allocation of total available points per indicator according to the priorities established by the GRESB Foundation, aligning with market trends and sustainability best practices.
Oftentimes, not all elements within an indicator need to be selected to achieve full points. If the sum of weights exceeds the indicator's maximum score, the score will be capped at that maximum.
Scoring Weight Formulas and Examples
Example with multiple sub-options:
Indicator score =
[ (Sum of scoring weights) ] × (Maximum score for the indicator)
Indicator LE3 [Asset Assessment] – sustainability, climate-related and/or Human Capital senior decision maker (1.65 points).
The indicator consists of three main options: ‘Sustainability,’ ‘Climate-related risks and opportunities,’ and ‘Human Capital.’ Sustainability, for example, carries a weight of (3/5). Within each main option, there are several sub-options (i.e., Board of directors, C-suite level staff), each assigned its own weight.
In the case of LE3, each sub-option contributes a scoring weight of 1. If an entity chooses one element under ‘Sustainability,’ one element under ‘Climate-related risks and opportunities,’ and one element under ‘Human Capital’, the calculation would read as:
Note: Diminished scoring may influence sub-options’ scoring weights. See this section below for more information.
Diminishing Increase in Scoring
For other indicators, diminishing scoring impacts the assigned scoring weight of the options and sub-options. When applicable, the scoring document represents this with a blue line next to the selections’ fractional weights.
Diminished Scoring Method and Examples
The idea behind this concept is that the fractional score achieved for each additional data point provided decreases as the number of provided data points increases.
This means that the fractional score achieved for the first data point will be higher than the fractional score achieved for the second, which again will be higher than for the third, and so on.
In this approach, the full assigned scoring weight is only achieved per selection if the entity selects the minimum number of required elements.
In indicator SE1, for example, selecting ‘Clients/customers’ as an applicable stakeholder will only earn a 1/5 scoring weight if the entity selects five stakeholder groups. Otherwise, the scoring weight of this selection would be a logarithmic function of the fractional score.
Multipliers
Validation Status Multipliers
For indicators subject to manual validation, the evidence’s validation status acts as a multiplier to determine the indicator’s final score.
If supporting evidence for indicators is fully accepted, it results in applying the full multiplier (100%) to the indicator's score. If supporting evidence is partially accepted, it results in a reduced multiplier (50%). If the evidence is not accepted, the multiplier is set to 0, regardless of the original selection’s predefined scoring weight. Indicators and responses subject to manual validation can be found in the Validation page.
Validation Multiplier Example
For indicators with a validation multiplier, the final score is calculated using the following formula:
Indicator Score = ((Sum of scoring weights) × (Multiplier)) × (Maximum score for the indicator)
Example: Indicator LE4 [Asset Assessment] - Personnel Sustainability Performance Targets (3.26 points). Each selected personnel group contributes a specific scoring weight. It is mandatory to upload evidence that supports the entity’s selections. The evidence’s validation status (i.e., accepted, partially accepted, or not accepted) is associated with a scoring weight used as a multiplier to determine the final score.
If an entity chooses ‘Sustainability managers’ and ‘Investment analysts’ but its evidence is given a partially accepted validation status (multiplier: 0.5), the calculation would be as follows:
Coverage Multipliers
When applicable, coverage percentage can also be used as a multiplier to determine the assigned score. This multiplier applies to the following indicators:
Percentage of employees: EM1
Data coverage (as defined by the entity): GH1, EN1, WT1-2, WS1, HS1-4
Additional Considerations
Open text boxes are not used for scoring but are intended for additional reporting or explanatory purposes.
Last updated
Was this helpful?