Benchmark Report
How to Use Your 2026 Infrastructure Asset Benchmark Report
Introduction
GRESB Rating
The GRESB Rating is based on the GRESB Score and its quintile position relative to all participants in the GRESB Assessment, with annual calibration of the model. If the entity is placed in the top quintile, it will be a GRESB 5 Star-rated entity; if it ranks in the bottom quintile, it will be a GRESB 1 Star-rated entity.
Peer Comparison
Use this section to see how the entity compares to others with shared characteristics.
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.
Peer groups are based on the entity’s sector, location, and scope of service. 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 Benchmark 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
Use this section to position the entity's results within the sector, region, and ownership segments most relevant to it.
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 geographical, sectoral, and ownership style criteria.
In some cases, one or more of the ranking badges may be greyed out. This happens when there are not enough entities in that respective ranking category.
GRESB Model
Use this section to see where the entity sits relative to this year's star-rating cutoffs and the score range of the next rating.
The GRESB Model is an interactive chart* that displays the GRESB Scores of all entities that submitted the Management and Performance 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 40 points, while the Performance Component contributes 60 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
Use this section to judge whether a score gap is specific to the entity or could reflect the wider market.
The GRESB Average is the average score of all GRESB Universe entities within the same Benchmark (i.e., Asset Benchmark = Management + Performance component participants).
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 component.
Component Benchmark Averages:
For the Management Component, this refers to the average scores of entities within the same geography, nature of ownership, and scope of service.
For the Performance Component, the benchmark average would include the average scores of all entities grouped according to a similar sector, geography, nature of ownership, and scope of service.
GRESB Score Breakdown
Use this section to see whether the entity's score is being shaped more by environmental, social, or governance performance.
Each indicator is allocated to one of the three dimensions (E- Environmental; S- Social; G- Governance):
Environmental indicators are related to actions and efficiency measures undertaken in order to monitor and decrease the environmental footprint of the portfolio.
Social indicators are related to the entity’s relationship with and impact on its stakeholders and direct social impact of its activities.
Governance indicators are related to the governance of environmental, financial, and operational sustainability policies, procedures and approach to sustainability at the entity level.
Participants may use the GRESB Materiality and Scoring Tool to identify the weight of E, S, and G issues based on their specific asset characteristics.
Trend
Use this section to show progress across years of participation, and identify where methodological evolution might affect year-over-year comparability.
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
Use this section to decide which aspects to prioritize and direct resources towards first.
The Aspects, Strengths, & Opportunities rose graph is an interactive tool that shows how the entity’s performance in each Aspect (e.g., Reporting, Risk Management) compares to that of its benchmark group for the current and previous reporting years.
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, and the Performance Component consists of up to twelve Aspects (depending on the asset’s materiality results). The tables below outline each Aspect, the points earned for each, and their respective weight within the overall Component and GRESB Score. For the Performance Component, Aspects with little or no material relevance to the asset are excluded from scoring logic.
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.
Note: The benchmark group characteristics are displayed above the table’s header.
Entity & Peer Group Characteristics
Use this section to learn more about the peers an entity is being compared against.
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.
Business Activities
Use this section to see how reported facilities shape the entity's primary sector and location, and what to update in RC3 before the entity's next submission if its facilities change.
This section displays the list of facilities, as reported to indicator RC3 of the assessment, that make up the asset. The asset’s underlying facilities determine its primary sector and location. This can help readers of the Benchmark Report better understand the asset’s reporting boundaries.
Validation
Use this section to see which evidence was not fully accepted and what to address before the entity's next submission.
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).
Materiality
Use this section to see which sustainability issues are material to the entity and how its materiality results compare with its peer group.
The Materiality table provides an overview of the sustainability issues deemed material to the reporting entity, determined by the asset’s Reporting Characteristics (RC2-5, RC7).
The table allows for comparison between the materiality results of the reporting entity and those of its peer group. For more information on the materiality levels and how they are considered in scoring, please refer to the Materiality Page.
Score Summary
Use this section to pinpoint aspects and indicators where the entity may trail the Management and Performance Component benchmarks.
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
Use this section to spot practices common across the benchmark that the entity doesn't yet report.
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 benchmark’s selection. This can help the asset compare its responses to those of similar entities; if the majority of an asset’s benchmark group selected something that it did not, this can reveal a specific and achievable opportunity to align with peer leaders.
Asset Impact
Use this section to put the entity's performance on material sustainability issues into context against its peer group.
This section offers an overview of the asset’s sustainability performance data for the reporting year. The issues reflected in this section are Energy, GHG, Air Pollution, Water, Waste, Biodiversity, Health & Safety (Employees and Contractors), and Diversity (Governance bodies and Employees). Non-material sustainability issues will include the note Entity and peers did not complete the indicator. Peer group insights contextualize the entity’s performance but do not influence its scores.
Note that intensity calculations will only include assets that reported complete data coverage. Otherwise, the intensity graphics will note the incompletion.
Under the GHG section, the Net Zero Target Setting chart shows the asset's pathway from its base year to its short-, medium-, and long-term targets, as reported in indicator GH1. The asset's reporting year value is also shown, so you can see where it currently sits relative to that pathway.
The panel next to the chart summarizes the target's scope, the Scope 2 accounting method, and the reporting year emissions by scope.
The chart appears only when the asset reported a Net Zero target in GH1 with a base year value, a reporting year value, and at least two target values.
Last updated
Was this helpful?