> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://guides.gresb.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://guides.gresb.com/data-center-assessment/2.-completing-gresb-assessment/data-center-assessment/management/physical-risk-and-resilience.md). # Physical Risk & Resilience 2 Points The **Physical Risk & Resilience** aspect assesses whether the entity identifies, assesses, and manages physical climate risks, and implements measures to enhance resilience. Effective management of physical risks supports asset protection, operational continuity, and long-term value preservation in the face of climate-related hazards. *** {% stepper %} {% step %} ## **PR0: Physical Climate Risk and Resilience Context**


Maximum Points	Not scored	Static
Validation	Evidence not required
Control dependent?	No

**Is there context that an investor or similar stakeholder needs to understand the entity's response to the Physical Risk climate & Resilience indicators?**

[SCORING KEY] A "scoring weight" is the fraction of the indicator's maximum score that a selection contributes (a multiplier, not a fixed point value). "[validated]" means the selection is subject to validation outputs. INPUT TYPES: groups are labelled (radio — select exactly one; options are mutually exclusive) or (checkbox — select all that apply); radio options are alternatives (not additive), checkbox options add together. CAPPING: total scoring is capped at the indicator's maximum (1/1); selecting options whose combined weight exceeds 1/1 does not award more than the maximum, and a group's contribution is capped at its own weight.

PR0 | Physical Climate Risk & Resilience Context — Not scored
Yes (provide a short, headline statement to inform interpretation of the Physical Climate Risk & Resilience indicators) / No.

### Assessment Instructions

Intent: What is the purpose of this indicator?

This indicator assesses whether the entity has processes in place to understand and manage physical risks that could disrupt operations. Strong physical risk management helps protect asset resilience and continuity of service, reducing the likelihood and impact of climate- and weather-related disruption.

Input: How do I complete this indicator?

Select ‘**Yes**’ or ‘**No**’. If ‘Yes’, provide context to support the interpretation of the entity’s responses to this aspect’s indicators. **Open text box**: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Insights and Benchmark Reports. Participants should use this open text box to provide further details, context, or comments related to the subject. *** #### Terminology **Physical climate-related risks** > Physical risks emanating from climate change can be event-driven (acute) such as increased severity of extreme weather events (e.g., cyclones, droughts, floods, and fires). They can also relate to longer-term shifts (chronic) in climatic patterns such as precipitation and temperature changes. **Physical climate-related resilience** > The ability of the entity to withstand, adapt to, and recover from climate-related risks and impacts over time.

Validation: What evidence is required?

No evidence required.

### Scoring This indicator is not scored. *** {% endstep %} {% step %} ## **PR1: Physical Climate Risk and Resilience Management**


Maximum Points	2 Points	Static
Validation	Evidence and other answer are manually validated
Control dependent?	No

**Does the entity have processes in place to identify, assess, and manage physical climate risks?**

### Assessment Instructions

Intent: What is the purpose of this indicator?

Input: How do I complete this indicator?

Select ‘**Yes**’ or ‘**No**’. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options. **Other**: State the other process(es) the entity has in place. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of the selected option above. *** #### Terminology **Incident** > An unplanned, undesired event with actual or potential adverse impacts. **Material** > Information is material if omitting, misstating, or obscuring it could reasonably be expected to influence decisions that primary users of general-purpose financial reports make based on those reports, which include an entity's relevant environmental, social, or governance disclosures. **Materiality assessment** > The process for determining and prioritizing which environmental, social, and governance issues are material to an entity. **Physical climate-related risks** > Physical risks emanating from climate change can be event-driven (acute) such as increased severity of extreme weather events (e.g., cyclones, droughts, floods, and fires). They can also relate to longer-term shifts (chronic) in climatic patterns such as precipitation and temperature changes. **Risk mitigation** > Risk mitigation refers to the process of implementing strategies, controls, or actions to reduce the likelihood of identified risks occurring or to minimize their potential impact if they do occur. It involves proactive planning and resource allocation to address vulnerabilities and build resilience against potential threats to an organization's operations, assets, or objectives. **Resilience** > Resilience refers to the ability of systems, organizations, or communities to withstand, adapt to, and recover from environmental, social, or economic disruptions while maintaining essential functions. It involves building adaptive capacity, diversifying resources and strategies, and creating flexible systems that can respond effectively to challenges like climate change, resource scarcity, or supply chain disruptions. **Scenario analysis** > Scenario analysis refers to the systematic use of scenarios in order to better understand the relevant impacts on an organization, and facilitate the creation of robust strategies under probable and potential future developments. It can help the participant to inform their financial planning process and provide insights into their strategies’ resilience to different climate-related scenarios. **Value enhancement assessment** > The process for evaluating how sustainability-related actions, initiatives, or improvements may enhance an entity’s long-term value. **Vulnerability to physical risk** > The extent to which an entity is exposed and sensitive to adverse impacts from acute or chronic physical climate-related hazards.

Validation: What evidence is required?

#### **Evidence** The evidence provided will be subject to manual validation. The evidence should support each of the selected issues. **The provided evidence must cover the following elements:** * Scoping & data gathering inputs: any document section showing scope/objective + hazards/time period/projections approach + required inputs/data sufficiency. * Materiality assessment (current): any output indicating physical + financial materiality thresholds / severity logic applied to quantify vulnerability. * Materiality assessment (future): same as above plus explicit use of projected climate change / scenarios / horizons. * Resilience building: any list of adaptation options tied to hazards, with costs/benefits and/or where intervention occurs. * Value enhancement assessment: any indication of an “investment case for resilience” and/or insurability optimization and/or risk/reward sharing framing. #### **Other Answer** The other answer(s) provided will be subject to manual validation. State the other process and ensure that the process is a formal and documented component of the entity's physical climate risk and resilience management approach. {% hint style="warning" %} The other answer cannot be a duplicate of a previously selected option. Multiple Other answers are acceptable, but only one will count toward the score. {% endhint %}

### Scoring

Scoring: How does GRESB score this indicator?

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the fraction assigned to the selected option, multiplied by the total score of the indicator. **Evidence:** For selections subject to manual validation, the validation status acts as a multiplier to determine that selection's final score. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may not be accepted, depending on the level of alignment with the requirements. | Validation status | Multiplier | | ----------------- | ---------- | | Accepted | 1 | | Not Accepted | 0 | **Other:** The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score, which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below: | Validation status | Score | | ----------------- | ----- | | Accepted | 1 | | Not Accepted | 0 | | Duplicate | 0 | Scoring Basics

{% endstep %} {% step %} ## **Get Support: Solution Providers** **GRESB Solution Providers** are independent, third-party organizations within the GRESB Partner network that offer specialized products, tools, and services to support sustainability performance outside the GRESB Assessment process. The organizations below deliver commercially available solutions designed to help drive improvement for this indicator. Engagement is managed directly between the reporting entity and the Solution Provider. GRESB will continue to update this section as the GRESB Solution Provider network grows. Please check back regularly to find GRESB Solution Providers who can support your sustainability performance.

	Cover image
See Directory Profile	partner-swiss-re-2048x1454.webp

{% endstep %} {% endstepper %} ***

Text	Section Navigation Pane
	Entity & Reporting Characteristics	Management	Material Issues	Innovation

[^1]: **Static:** The score for this indicator is always fixed. Does not change based on whether Operational and/or New Development sections are selected. [^2]: This indicator isn't affected by control status. Its score contributes equally to the Transparency Score and Transparency Score, *Control-Weighted.* --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://guides.gresb.com/data-center-assessment/2.-completing-gresb-assessment/data-center-assessment/management/physical-risk-and-resilience.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.