# Scoring Basics 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](#scoring-weights) and [score multipliers.](#multipliers) {% hint style="warning" %} **It is not possible to estimate the GRESB Score due to the influence of validation decisions.** {% endhint %} ## 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](https://guides.gresb.com/completing-gresb-assessments/getting-started/broken-reference) 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
Coverage Multiplier Example **Indicator EM1 - Employee engagement (Asset Assessment, 4.29 points).** Taking the following scenario: * The entity provided professional and sustainability-related training to 80% of its employees. It also undertook an employee survey within the last three years. An independent third party conducted the survey, and it included a Net Promoter Score. Scoring is then calculated as follows: * *Does the entity provide training and development?* * ((½ \* 0.8) + (½ \* 0.8)) × ½ = 0.4 * *The survey is undertaken:* * \[(1 × ⅔ ) + (1 × ⅓ )] × ½ = 0.5 * 0.4 + 0.5 = 0.9 \* 4.29 (max score) = 3.86 points
## Materiality-Based Scoring GRESB uses materiality‑based scoring across the Asset Assessment. This process ensures that all assets are assessed and scored based on the sustainability issues that are most material to their circumstances. It also reduces the reporting burden by removing the need to report on issues with little to no material significance to the participant.
Materiality Factors and Sustainability Issues The GRESB Materiality Assessment (indicator RC7), along with additional information derived from the Entity & Reporting Characteristics indicators (RC2, RC3, RC4, and RC5), determine the relevance of 46 sustainability issues across the assessment. Each issue’s relevance level then determines its scoring weight. **An asset’s sustainability issue weightings are displayed at the bottom of the indicator in the GRESB Portal.** | Materiality | Weighting | | -------------------- | --------- | | **No relevance** | 0 | | **Low relevance** | 0 | | **Medium relevance** | 1 | | **High relevance** | 2 | Issues of ‘no’ or ‘low’ relevance are deemed non-material and receive no score in the assessment and are effectively removed from consideration. Issues of ‘medium’ and ‘high’ relevance are scored proportionally, with weights of one and two, respectively. * For example, for entities in the primary sector ‘Renewable power: Solar power generation,’ the issue ‘Air pollution’ is of ‘No relevance’ and does not need to be considered by entities in this sector in the Assessment. * On the other hand, for entities in the primary sector ‘Power generation x-Renewables: Independent Power Producers: Gas-Fired Power Generation’, ‘Air pollution’ is of ‘High relevance’ and will have a greater scoring impact across the assessment. Once each of the sustainability issues has been assigned a materiality weighting (relevance), these apply to specific indicators in both the Management and Performance Components in slightly different ways. * **Management Component Materiality:** Materiality influences two Aspects in the Management Component: Risk Management and Policies. Within these indicators, each sub-option (i.e., ‘Child labor’ or ‘Community development’ in PO2) is associated with a materiality/relevance level of 0, 1, or 2. * **Performance Component Materiality:** Materiality influences **all** scored Aspects in the Performance Component. Each indicator is directly tied to an ESG issue; as such, the materiality weighting of 0, 1, or 2 applies to its entire maximum score. This means that the weight of each indicator within the Performance Component and overall GRESB Score is redistributed so that the component retains its overall 60% weight within the Asset Assessment.
Materiality & Scoring Tool Participants can model an entity’s materiality results and their scoring implications using the Materiality and Scoring Tool. This tool, which models the GRESB Materiality Assessment of indicator RC7, contains the following information: * Each indicator’s E, S, and G designation * Each indicator’s default maximum score * Each indicator's maximum score, once materiality is applied * Each indicator’s weight in its respective Aspect and Component * Details on how the materiality weightings are assigned based on materiality factor responses * Sector definitions and sector-specific output metrics 2026 Materiality Tool How to Use the Materiality Tool
## Performance Tables Most performance indicators (i.e., EN1, GH1, AP1) require participants to input quantitative data into a table. For these indicators, scoring depends on the values entered in specific cells. Scored cells are shaded to indicate their scoring impact. For details on which cells are scored and how, please refer to the indicator-specific requirements in the [Completing GRESB Assessments page.](https://guides.gresb.com/completing-gresb-assessments/completing-the-assessment/2026-asset-assessment) GRESB uses materiality‑based scoring across the Asset Assessment. This process ensures that all assets are assessed and scored based on the sustainability-related issues that are most material to their circumstances. It also reduces the reporting burden by removing the need to report on issues with little to no material significance to the participant. ## Additional Considerations Open text boxes are not used for scoring but are intended for additional reporting or explanatory purposes.