Community Engagement

This indicator provides contextual information that helps investors and other stakeholders interpret the entity’s responses to the Community Engagement indicators. It allows the entity to disclose any material circumstances, local factors, or strategic considerations that may influence its approach to community engagement and the way its performance should be considered.

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 Reports. Participants should use this open text box to provide further details, context, or comments related to the subject.

Terminology

Persons or groups of persons living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by an entity’s operation

Community Engagement

The communication, interaction, and formation of relationships between the entity and its community.

No evidence required.

This indicator assesses whether the entity has set a community engagement strategy and/or direction of travel, including short- and medium- to long-term targets/objectives and, where relevant, alignment with external voluntary frameworks. A clear strategy supports proactive management of community-related risks and helps sustain stakeholder support for development and operations.

Select ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

If applicable, select the framework with which the strategy is aligned.

• Governmental frameworks should only include non-binding frameworks established by government bodies. A legislative framework falls outside the scope.

• Other: State the other framework with which the strategy is aligned. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above.

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

Community concerns

Issues of importance raised by the community, that are causing social, mental or other distress.

Community engagement

The communication, interaction, and formation of relationships between the entity and its community.

Direction of travel

The overall trajectory of an entity's approach over time, which outlines its strategic priorities and the milestones it expects to achieve.

Governmental framework(s)

Non-binding guidelines or initiatives established by government bodies to support greenhouse gas emissions management.

Industry-agnostic framework(s)

Frameworks that are intended to be applied across multiple sectors and are not specific to one industry.

Industry-specific framework(s)

Frameworks tailored to a the data center sector, addressing industry-specific greenhouse gas emissions sources and reduction approaches.

Sustainability objectives

Strategic priorities and key topics for the management and/or improvement of sustainability, resilience, and efficiency issues.

Sustainability strategy

Strategy which (1) sets out the participant’s procedures and (2) sets the direction and guidance for the entity’s implementation of sustainability measures.

No evidence required.

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

This indicator examines whether the entity has implemented structured community engagement management practices to deliver its strategy. Effective governance, clear accountability, established policies, and communication and feedback mechanisms demonstrate the entity’s ability to engage stakeholders proactively and address concerns.

Select ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Other: State the other practices used to manage community engagement. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above.

Terminology

Communication protocol

Formally established processes for sharing relevant information.

Corrective action

Corrective action in the context of safety refers to the systematic steps taken to eliminate the root causes of safety incidents, hazards, or non-compliance issues to prevent their recurrence. It typically involves investigating the underlying causes, implementing specific measures to address deficiencies, and monitoring the effectiveness of these measures to ensure lasting improvement in workplace safety performance.

Day-to-day implementation responsibility

The assigned responsibility for carrying out, managing, and monitoring the regular activities needed to put a policy, program, or process into practice.

Dedicated employee(s) on sustainability issues

Employee(s) whose primary responsibility is defining, implementing and monitoring the sustainability objectives at entity level.

External

Individuals or groups outside the reporting entity who influence or are influenced by its activities or decisions (e.g., investors, customers/tenants, communities).

Internal

Individuals or groups within the reporting entity who directly contribute to, oversee, or are affected by its operations and decisions (e.g., employees, leadership, contractors working under the organization's direction).

Policy

A policy is an organizational commitment, direction or intention that is formally adopted by the organization. It may serve the purpose of:

1. Outlining rules and procedures

2. Providing principles that guide action

3. Setting roles and responsibilities

4. Describing values and beliefs

5. Stating an intention to act or achieve defined goals and/or company vision

Mechanisms for evaluation and corrective action

Processes used to review greenhouse gas emissions performance and implement changes or improvements where needed.

Risk assessment

Careful examination of the factors that could potentially adversely impact the value or longevity of a data center. The results of the assessment assist in identifying measures that have to be implemented in order to prevent and mitigate the risks.

Risk evaluation

Comparing risk analysis results with risk criteria to determine whether the residual risk is tolerable.

Senior decision-maker responsible for sustainability-related issues

A senior individual with sign off (approval) authority for approving strategic sustainability objectives and steps undertaken to achieve these objectives. The responsible person oversees day-to-day execution, coordinates relevant stakeholders, and ensures progress towards define sustainability goals, but does not hold final-sign off authority for approving strategic decisions.

System(s) for performance measurement, data management, and reporting

The processes, tools, and systems used to collect, manage, analyze, and report energy-related data. These systems enable the monitoring of energy performance, tracking of targets, identification of trends, and disclosure of energy information to support decision-making and accountability.

Evidence

The evidence provided will be subject to manual validation.

The evidence should support each of the selected practices. The provided evidence must ensure the following:

1. Senior decision-maker vs. day-to-day responsibility: If the same person is selected for both “a senior decision-maker or executive with end responsibility” and “one or more persons with responsibility for day-to-day implementation,” the evidence must explicitly state that this person both signs off on the community engagement approach and oversees its implementation on a day-to-day basis.

2. Policy: The evidence must demonstrate the existence of a formal policy document that addresses community engagement, and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments. A policy is a guide for action and may serve the purpose of:

   • outlining rules and procedures;

   • providing principles that guide action;

   • setting roles and responsibilities;

   • describing values and beliefs;

   • stating an intention to act or achieve defined goals and/or company vision.

   Acceptable evidence may include, but is not limited to, a community engagement policy, official internal documents, or links to online resources describing the entity’s community engagement policy. References such as bullet points or extracts from the policy may be provided to show the relevant sections. Where overarching policy documents cover multiple issues, the evidence must clearly identify the section(s) relevant to community engagement.

3. Systems for performance measurement, data management, and reporting: The evidence must demonstrate a systematic process used to measure, manage, and report community engagement performance data. This may include tools, systems, dashboards, registers, or other formal processes used for tracking and reporting community engagement information.

4. Internal and external communication protocols: The evidence must demonstrate the process used to communicate material community engagement information internally and, where relevant, externally. If a policy is in place, what matters here is not only the existence of the policy, but also the communication channels or protocols used to share relevant community engagement information with the appropriate stakeholders.

5. Mechanisms for evaluation and corrective action: The evidence must demonstrate the method used to review community engagement performance and address identified issues. This may include incident investigation processes, corrective action plans, audits, root-cause analysis, escalation procedures, or other methods used to respond to incidents, accidents, breaches, or non-compliance.

Other Answer

The other answer(s) provided will be subject to manual validation.

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.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score, which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

​Scoring Basics

This indicator identifies whether the entity can describe the implementation of its community engagement strategy during the reporting year. Demonstrating implementation provides evidence that commitments are being translated into action and helps stakeholders understand delivery across the portfolio.

Select ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Other: State the other "means of engaging approach", "impact mitigating approach", and/or "benefit" that are part of the entity's community strategy. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above.

Control-Weighted

Control: The extent to which the reporting entity has the authority and ability to (i) implement actions and/or (ii) influence and collect performance measurement outcomes for a given sustainability topic.

Control-Weighted Score: GRESB provides a Control-Weighted Score as a supplementary score in the Insights Report. This score adjusts results based on the entity’s level of control over the indicators, illustrating how the GRESB Base Score changes when control is taken into account.

Scoring Basics

Terminology

Action plan

A structured approach for implementation that identifies specific tasks to be completed, the time horizon for completion, and the resources allocated to support the work.

Communication plan

A structured approach for sharing information that identifies the intended audience, key messages, delivery channels, timing, and responsibilities for communication.

Community

Persons or groups of persons living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by an entity’s operation

Community impact

An organization's affects on the community that include, but are not limited to, increased noise, traffic congestion, lack of housing, resettlement requirements or pressure on access to local services that arise from influx of construction personnel, site development work or operational processes that are novel to the area.

Focus group

A selected group of participants tasked with gathering and acting upon feedback, insights, or opinions on a specific topic, product, service, or initiative.

Light pollution

Excessive or obtrusive artificial light also known as photo pollution or luminous pollution. Examples of light pollution and reflection include: spilled light from construction zones and parking lots which may impact breeding grounds or resting areas; highly reflective towers which may affect bird flight.

Noise pollution

Also known as environmental noise, noise pollution is the propagation of noise with harmful impact on the activity of human or animal life.

Partnerships with local education

Affiliations with local schools and/or universities to develop training or skills and enhance community education.

Professional training

Training that supports employees in advancing their careers and/or handling day-to-day work responsibilities. Examples of professional training topics include, but are not limited to: information security, annual compliance, leadership and project management, effective communication, technical tools and software, remote work best practice, customer service.

Training can be delivered in person, online or in other formats.

Retail electricity price protection

Actions taken to minimize price increases for local communities, for example, collaborations with utilities, investments in efficiency improvements and behind-the-meter generation.

Support for local businesses

Any activities and/or investments with local business intended to provide community benefits.

Support for local non-profits

Any activities and/or investments with local non-profit organizations intended to provide community benefits.

Watershed protection

The consideration of measures in site selection and development planning to protect watershed functions and manage water-related impacts, including drainage, runoff, and water resource use.

Water replenishment

Water returned, restored, or offset through actions taken to compensate for water consumption.

Workforce education or training

Investment in building skills and knowledge for local workers in the entity’s operations.

No evidence required.

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

Smith, 2026. Building community-first AI infrastructure. Microsoft On the Issues, January 13. Link

This indicator assesses whether the entity can report quantitative community engagement performance during the reporting year, including the coverage of reported data. Measurement supports transparency and accountability by enabling tracking over time and helping stakeholders understand the extent of community impacts and outcomes associated with the entity’s activities.

Select ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

• Selecting 'Yes' to the indicator will require at least one community impact and corresponding metrics to be selected to complete (Economic activity and employment, Financial investment, and/or Other).

• Other: State the other community impact and benefit metrics that are part of the entity's community engagement strategy. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above.

Control-Weighted

Control: The extent to which the reporting entity has the authority and ability to (i) implement actions and/or (ii) influence and collect performance measurement outcomes for a given sustainability topic.

Control-Weighted Score: GRESB provides a Control-Weighted Score as a supplementary score in the Insights Report. This score adjusts results based on the entity’s level of control over the indicators, illustrating how the GRESB Base Score changes when control is taken into account.

Scoring Basics

Terminology

Contractor

Persons or organizations working onsite or offsite on behalf of an entity. A contractor can contract their own workers directly, or contract sub-contractors or independent contractors. Suppliers are not considered contractors for the purposes of this indicator.

FTE

Full Time Equivalent, a unit to measure the number of employed persons to make them comparable regardless of the number of working hours. FTE can be calculated by comparing the number of hours worked by an employee against the average number of hours of a full time worker. For example, if the number of hours worked by an employee in a week is 20, and the standard full time work week consists of 40 hours, the employee is counted as 0.5 FTE.

No evidence required.

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.