Fund Benchmark Report

Introduction

Participation & GRESB Score

This section highlights the fund’s GRESB Score over the past four years. The GRESB Score is an absolute measure resulting from the sum of all indicators in the Assessment and reflects the fund’s overall ESG performance relative to all participating entities. Funds with all three components (Management completed by the fund itself, Performance, and Development completed by underlying assets) will receive a GRESB Score and GRESB Development Score.

GRESB Rating

The GRESB Rating is determined based on the entity’s GRESB Score and its quintile position relative to all participating entities in the same GRESB Benchmark, that is, the Fund Benchmark, which evaluates the Management and Performance components of funds with operational underlying assets, or the Fund Development Benchmark, which evaluates the management and development strategies of assets in development. The GRESB Benchmarks are calibrated annually. For example, entities in the top quintile receive a GRESB 5-star rating, while those in the bottom quintile get a GRESB 1-star rating.

Peer Comparison

GRESB assigns each participant to a peer group to contextualize their assessment results. Peer groups do not influence the GRESB Score, Star Rating, or points, but help to put the Benchmark Report insights into perspective. 



Fund peer groups are based on the entity’s location, primary sector, and legal status. To ensure participant anonymity, GRESB will only create a peer group once there are at least six participants with similar characteristics (the participant and five other peers).

Note: Peer groups are distinct from benchmark groups. Whereas benchmark groups refer generally to collections of entities, which vary based on context, GRESB creates one predefined peer group per Fund report using a standardized methodology.

See here for more information about GRESB’s predefined peer group allocation process.

*Note for entities that complete only one component: Participants who only submit one component are not eligible to receive a GRESB Score or GRESB Rating but will still be assigned a peer group.

Rankings

In addition to the peer comparison, GRESB provides a broad range of additional rankings by comparing participants’ scores against various benchmarks.

This approach aligns with the comparative nature of the Benchmark Report and helps contextualize scores by comparing them against participants with similar geographic, sectoral, and legal status criteria.

GRESB Model

The GRESB Model is an interactive chart* that displays the GRESB Scores of all entities that submitted the Management and Performance Component and/or the Management and Development Component.

The scores of participants who only complete one component are shown along either side of the model's axes. The four diagonal lines represent the star rating cutoffs, indicating where each entity falls within the relative quintiles.

Hovering over the stars above the graph reveals the score ranges corresponding to each star rating. Entity names remain confidential, unless the participant opted to disclose their name and score to other participants. By opting to disclose its score, that entity gains access to the names and scores of other participants who also chose to share this information.

The sum of all indicator scores (on the right-hand side) totals 100 points. The Management Component accounts for 30 points, while the Performance and Development Components each contribute 70 points.

*Note that the interactive chart feature is available exclusively when accessing the Benchmark Report through the Portal. This functionality is not available in the PDF version of the report.

GRESB Average, Benchmark Average, & Peer Average

The GRESB Average is the average score of all GRESB Universe entities within the same Benchmark (i.e., Fund Benchmark).

The Peer Average is the average score of all entities within one’s peer group, which are shown in the Entity and Peer Characteristics section.

The Benchmark Average is the average score of all entities sharing similar characteristics within a single component. For each component, the benchmark average refers to the average scores of entities with the same geography, sector, and/or nature of ownership that received a score for that component.

• The Fund Performance Score and Fund Development Score depend on the GRESB Scores of the fund’s underlying assets/development assets. To obtain a Fund Performance and/or Development Score, at least 25% of the fund’s underlying assets (based on equity invested) must participate in the GRESB Assessment and, among that 25+%, at least one underlying asset must take the Infrastructure Asset and/or Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment. Assets with a valid exclusion reason do not contribute to the 25% threshold.

• Note that underlying assets must be linked to the Fund and submit an assessment to contribute to the Fund’s Performance/Development Score, or they will contribute a score of zero.

Trend

The trend graph shows the entity’s score progression across each year of participation. It also includes historical performance metrics such as the GRESB Range (i.e., lowest and highest scores achieved) and average scores for the GRESB Universe and peer group.

The graph will highlight the entity’s Grace Period year (if any) to indicate its participation status, but will not reveal the entity’s performance that year. If the entity opted into the Grace Period in the previous reporting year, this section does not include a score or rating change between the current and previous year.

Aspects, Strengths, & Opportunities

The Aspects, Strengths, & Opportunities rose graph is an interactive tool showing how the entity’s performance in each aspect (e.g., Reporting, Risk Management) compares to its benchmark group for the current reporting year.

Along with the tables below, the graph provides a high-level overview of which areas the entity performs well in and which it could improve upon. This can help readers of the Benchmark Report direct their attention before delving further into the entity’s underlying results.

The Management Component consists of five Aspects. The table below outlines each Aspect, the points earned for each, and their respective weight within the overall Component and GRESB Score.

The interactive Benchmark Distribution graph on the right side of the table reveals the entity’s score per Aspect compared to the GRESB Universe and Peer Group Averages. The grey bars represent the distribution of entities within the corresponding benchmark group. The benchmark group characteristics are displayed above the table’s header.

All assets that the fund listed in its Summary of Entity Assets (indicator RC6) will appear within the Performance/Development Component section of Aspects, Strengths and Opportunities (within the Fund and Fund Development Scorecards, respectively).

The table displays the fund’s percentage ownership of the asset, the asset’s scoring breakdown within the Infrastructure Asset/Development Asset Assessment and its GRESB Rating, the asset’s performance relative to the fund’s portfolio, its performance compared to its peer group, and the asset’s peer group location and sector.

First-year Asset Assessment participants who opted into the Grace Period will be listed in this table, but their results metrics will remain hidden and do not contribute to the Fund Score.

The same is true for assets that submitted assessments but were eligible for exclusion from the fund’s Performance Score and Development Score. Assets that did not submit a GRESB Assessment are included with the note Asset did not participate.

Entity & Peer Group Characteristics

This section provides an overview of the entity and its peer group. See the Peer Group Allocation Methodology for more information on peer group creation.

Validation

GRESB validation verifies the existence, completeness, accuracy, and logic of data submitted to the GRESB Assessments. GRESB conducts both automatic and manual validation.

The Evidence: Manual Validation table summarizes the validation decisions of all manually validated indicators.

For manually validated indicators that require multiple validation decisions depending on the entity’s selections (e.g., PO1, RP1), the table reveals the outcome of each possible selection.

Lastly, the table provides a brief explanation for any indicators that received less than a fully accepted decision (for evidence and ‘Other’ answers).

Score Summary

The Score Summary table details the number of points the entity earned per indicator. The maximum points and their weight within the overall component are listed alongside each Aspect title. This section also reveals the entity’s score relative to the component-level benchmark on an indicator-by-indicator basis. This can help with identifying more precise improvement opportunities.

Indicator Breakdown

Every indicator can be answered with ‘Yes, ‘No,’ and ‘Not applicable’ in some cases. From a scoring perspective, ‘Not applicable’ is considered the same way as ‘No,’ and will yield 0 points. The header displays the points achieved per indicator.

The percentage bars located next to the indicator’s answers reflect the Component benchmark’s selections. This can help the fund compare its responses to those of similar entities; if the majority of a fund’s benchmark group selected something that it did not, this can reveal a specific and achievable opportunity to align with peer leaders.

Summary of Entity Assets

The table, shown separately in the Fund Scorecard (operational assets) and Fund Development Scorecard (development assets), shows the entity’s portfolio of underlying infrastructure assets. It outlines each asset’s Primary Sector, development status, exclusion reason (if applicable), and weight within the fund’s portfolio. Excluded assets will not contribute to the fund’s GRESB Performance or GRESB Development Score. Asset weight is redistributed to account for excluded assets when aggregating the Fund Performance and Development data and scores.

Portfolio Impact

This section offers an overview of the material sustainability performance data associated with the fund’s portfolio of underlying assets/development assets during the reporting year. 


The absolute performance values displayed in these tables account for the fund’s percentage of ownership at the asset level. While validly excluded assets do not contribute to the fund's Performance and/or Development Scores, their performance is still included in the fund’s portfolio impact section by virtue of their assessment submissions and connection to the fund.

The data coverage values account for the equity weight of the fund’s underlying assets, as reported to indicator RC6.


Assets that are reported under the Grace Period are automatically excluded from the Fund’s Score and data.


For operational assets (Performance table), the charts also show the:

• Renewable energy consumed relative to total consumption (MWh);

• Amount of energy exported (MWh);

• Net GHG emissions (Scope 1 + location-based Scope 2), including market-based emissions if reported (tCO₂e);

• Amount of GHG offsets, if any, relative to the total emissions generated by the portfolio (in tCO₂);

• Emissions avoided as a result of renewable energy export (tCO₂e);

• Water discharge (ML) and waste diverted relative to total disposed (t);

• Health & Safety of employees and contractors in terms of lost time injuries relative to total injuries;

• Gender ratio of employees compared to the fund’s performance benchmark.

For development assets (Development table), the charts also show:

• The Health & Safety of employees, contractors, and the community in terms of lost time injuries and fatalities relative to total recordable injuries;

• The total reported embodied carbon emissions (KgCO₂e);

• The gender ratio of employees and contractors compared to the fund’s development benchmark.

The second column contextualizes the absolute footprint data by providing a real-world example of the consumption impact, where applicable. The third column shows the portion of the portfolio that has performance targets in place, compared to the underlying asset portfolios of peer funds. 


Below the table of absolute footprint data, the Portfolio Impact section outlines the GHG reduction targets in place for the fund’s underlying portfolio assets.