> 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/methodology-disclosures/esg-rating-methodology-disclosure.md). # ESG Rating Methodology Disclosure ## About this page If you participate in a GRESB Assessment, use a GRESB rating, or are an entity to which a GRESB rating relates, this page sets out the additional methodology and data disclosures GRESB B.V. makes available to you on an ongoing basis, in accordance with Article 24 of the EU ESG Rating Regulation. It covers every GRESB ESG rating product in scope of the Regulation: the GRESB Assessments and GRESB Public Disclosure. #### **GRESB Assessments** GRESB Assessments are structured frameworks through which participants submit information for validation and assessment, receiving standardized results and, where applicable, scores, ratings, and benchmark insights to support sustainability management, risk management, stakeholder engagement, and decision-making. They include: * **GRESB Real Estate Assessment**: for real estate managers, companies, funds, and portfolios, including the Lender Assessment for real estate capital providers assessing sustainability practices in lending. * **GRESB Infrastructure Assessments:** comprising the Infrastructure Fund Assessment, Infrastructure Asset Assessment, and Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment, covering infrastructure funds, operational assets, and development-stage assets. * **GRESB Data Center Assessment:** a purpose-built, sector-specific Assessment for data center developers and operators that evaluates the transparency and completeness of information provided on material sustainability risks and impacts and produces standardized, validated outputs and, where available, peer context. {% hint style="info" %} The business lines of the GRESB Assessments listed here may evolve over time. This list is representative of GRESB's 2026 assessment cycle offerings. {% endhint %} #### **GRESB Public Disclosure** GRESB Public Disclosure evaluates publicly available sustainability disclosures of listed property companies and real estate investment trusts. Unlike the GRESB Assessments, it does not rely on participant-submitted data and may cover companies whether or not they participate in a GRESB Assessment. References in this document to participants “self-reporting,” “submitting,” or “voluntarily providing” information apply only to the GRESB Assessments. **How to read this alongside our public disclosures:** This page goes beyond, and should be read together with, the Public Disclosures, which is the primary source for how GRESB Standards are built, weighted, and applied. Where a topic is already fully covered there, this page links to the specific section rather than repeating it — the focus here is what's specific to your position as a rated entity, issuer, or user of a rating. ## Part 1: The Evidence and Structure Behind Your Rating ### The Evidence Behind Your Rating Covered in full by our public disclosures, §2.2 Standards Evidence Base: the Standards' origins in criteria identified by GRESB's founding investor members, their alignment with established assessment frameworks (including the GHG Protocol, CDP, and TCFD), and how the evidence base differs by Standard (Real Estate, Infrastructure, Data Center). That section applies equally here. Where a specific Benchmark Report incorporates additional reference points — for example, CRREM decarbonization pathways or ASHRAE Standard 100 thresholds — these are noted in the relevant Guide for that assessment line. | GRESB ESG Rating Assessment | Link to Scoring Methodology | Link to Structure & Scope | | --------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Real Estate Assessment | [Scoring Basics](https://guides.gresb.com/completingassessments/prepare/basics/scoring-basics) | [Assessment Structure & Scope](https://guides.gresb.com/completingassessments/prepare/basics/reporting_scope) | | Infrastructure Assessment | [Scoring Basics](https://guides.gresb.com/fund/prepare/scoring-basics) | [Assessment Structure & Scope](https://guides.gresb.com/fund/prepare/assessment-structure-and-scope) | | Lender Assessment | [Scoring Basics](https://guides.gresb.com/lender/getting-started/scoring-basics) | [Assessment Structure & Scope](https://guides.gresb.com/lender/getting-started/assessment-structure-and-scope) | | Data Center Assessment | [Scoring Basics](https://guides.gresb.com/data-center-assessment/1.-getting-started/scoring-basics) | [Assessment Structure & Scope](https://guides.gresb.com/data-center-assessment/1.-getting-started/assessment-structure-and-scope) | | Public Disclosures | [Scoring Basics](https://guides.gresb.com/publicdisclosure/get-started/scoring-basics) | [Public Disclosure](https://guides.gresb.com/publicdisclosure) | ### How E, S and G Are Weighted GRESB provides a single aggregated ESG Score and Rating, rather than separate E, S, and G ratings, in accordance with the derogation available under Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/3005. Use of this derogation is conditional on disclosing, at this rating-specific level, how the weighting is determined and applied. Allocation logic: each indicator in an Assessment is allocated to exactly one of the three sustainability dimensions — never split or double-counted across pillars: * E — indicators related to actions and efficiency measures used to monitor, manage, and reduce environmental impacts. * S — indicators related to the entity's relationship with and impact on its stakeholders and the direct social impact of its activities. * G — indicators related to the governance of sustainability, policies and procedures, and approach to sustainability at the entity or organization level. How the weighting is set: for most Assessments and Components, the E/S/G ratio is fixed — determined by how many indicators, and what scoring weight, fall under each dimension for that specific Assessment and Component. Where an Assessment has multiple Components (Management, Performance, Development), each Component carries its own independent E/S/G ratio, reflecting the different mix of indicators relevant to governance versus operational performance versus development-stage activity. For two specific cases — the Infrastructure Asset Assessment's Performance Component and the Infrastructure Development Asset Assessment — the ratio is not fixed at all: it depends on the materiality of the specific asset being assessed (sector, location, and asset characteristics). Participants can use the GRESB Materiality & Scoring Tool to identify the E, S, and G weighting applicable to their asset. The resulting figures for every Assessment and Component are published in full in our public disclosures. ### Your E, S and G Breakdown Each scored indicator rolls up into one of the three dimensional breakdowns shown below — see our public disclosures, §1.2, for how this fits into the overall Score and Rating structure.
{% hint style="info" %} The Score Structure and Components shown here reflect the 2026 Assessments. This process is assessed continuously and expected to evolve over time. {% endhint %} GRESB's Benchmark Reports currently display this E/S/G breakdown for the Real Estate, Infrastructure Asset, and Lender Assessments; this is being extended to the Data Center Benchmark Report launched in 2026. ### Known Methodology Limitations 1. Stakeholder-informed prioritization — because Standards evolve through a committee/voting governance process (see Part 2), the resulting indicator set reflects priorities established through a structured multi-stakeholder governance process rather than a single theoretical model. This is mitigated, by the gap-assessment and industry-maturity criteria described in Part 2. 2. Asset-class pacing differences — decarbonization pathways and the pace of transition vary across asset classes, reflecting differences in sector characteristics, available data, and market maturity. 3. Self-reported data depth — participant data is primarily self-reported and is therefore subject to the limitations described in our public disclosures, §3.3. GRESB has reviewed its scoring model, weighting logic, and benchmarking calculations specifically against the criterion of potential shortcomings in pre-established statistical or algorithmic systems or models (as distinct from AI-assisted review, addressed in Part 4) and has not identified additional material limitations beyond those disclosed here and in §3.3 of our public disclosures. ### Taxonomy and International Alignment GRESB ratings are not calculated based on participants' EU Taxonomy alignment percentages or equivalent framework-alignment measures — the rating is based on GRESB's own methodology. That said, several datapoints collected through the GRESB Assessment (e.g., GHG emissions-intensity data underpinning EU Taxonomy Technical Screening Criteria thresholds) are themselves taxonomy-relevant, even though they don't feed into the rating via a taxonomy-alignment calculation. For the broader set of international agreements and frameworks GRESB Standards reference, see our public disclosures, §1.4. ## Part 2: How and When We Update Our Methodology Your rating is based on a Standard that evolves over time. This Part covers who governs that evolution, how changes happen, how their impact is assessed and communicated before they apply to you, and what's planned next. ### Who Sets the Standard The GRESB Foundation (an independent Dutch Stichting) is the standard-setter, defining, maintaining and evolving the Standards; GRESB B.V. applies them as assessor — see our public disclosures, "GRESB Foundation governance." Standard changes are proposed, reviewed and voted on through Foundation governing bodies — the Foundation Board, the Infrastructure Standards Committee (ISC), and the Real Estate Standards Committee (RESC) — hosted on the Foundation's dedicated platform. ### How Often We Review, and What Triggers a Change Each Standard is subject to continuous review by the Foundation, with the consensus arising from this review reflected in an annual update cycle. Outside this schedule, a Standard may be revised where the Foundation identifies a development driver from the Foundation Roadmap, or where GRESB identifies an actual error in the methodology. An identified error is not queued for a future cycle — it's prioritized for correction in the next assessment cycle, consistent with the closed-cycle principle that no change applies mid-cycle. **Prioritization follows two lines of analysis:** 1. **Gap assessment:** Each sustainability topic is broken into "areas of focus" (e.g., for Energy: policy adoption, target-setting, disclosure, data validation, performance improvement), mapped against the current Standard, with gaps prioritized by materiality. 2. **Industry and membership maturity**: A topic proceeds to development once industry views have sufficiently converged and the relevant data is available and reportable across GRESB's membership. Where either condition isn't met, development is deferred. Changes are documented in a dedicated "\[Assessment] Standard – \[Year] Updates" publication, communicated ahead of the relevant assessment cycle. **Version numbering:** GRESB does not maintain incremental version numbers within a Standard; each annual cycle corresponds to a single, dated version identified by year (e.g., "2026 Real Estate Standard"). The current version and its date are stated on the cover of each GRESB Guide, with changes from the prior year set out in that Guide's linked "What's New" section. Archived versions remain available. ### How We Consult You Three channels inform a revision: * **Focused member consultation:** Forums and surveys with the ISC, RESC and related working groups. * **Public consultation:** Announced through official GRESB channels and run via a dedicated public consultation webpage, supplemented by webinars. * **Targeted expert consultation:** One-to-one sessions with subject-matter experts on technical topics where Committee members don't have sufficient specialist expertise. ### How We Assess and Classify Impact Before a revision is finalized, GRESB assesses its expected effect on participant scores and, where applicable, ratings. Because the GRESB Rating is relative — based on a participant's quintile position across the global distribution — any prospective assessment of rating impact is inherently an estimate, since it also depends on other participants' inputs; scoring-impact assessment is therefore the primary focus. Each annual Standard Updates publication includes a quantified "Scoring Impact" section where possible — modeled using data already collected under the current Standard, before the change applies. Where a change introduces an entirely new data point not previously collected, this modeling isn't possible (see the [Principles for Governing Standards Development](https://cdn.svc.gresb.com/gresb-prd-public/2025/Foundation/Principles_Final.pdf)). What counts as material: GRESB classifies every methodology change as either scoring-impacting or minor (clarification, structure, or presentation changes with no scoring impact). This classification is disclosed for each change in the relevant Standard Updates publication and is GRESB's criterion for materiality under the Regulation. When a material change affects your rating: where a scoring-impacting change moves a participant's Score or Rating, the Standard Updates publication for that cycle explains the reason and expected effect as part of the Scoring Impact section — distinct from movement caused by peer performance shifts or evidence-validation outcomes, which aren't methodology-driven. ### What's on the Roadmap: Advanced Ratings & Rankings GRESB is exploring potential enhancements to the GRESB Rating ("Star Rating") to address feedback on its single, global, sector-agnostic design, set out in the *Advanced Ratings* report published January 2026 and open for public consultation ahead of any decision on implementation for the 2027 cycle. Three approaches are under exploration, not mutually exclusive: 1. Thematic Ratings — a focused view for a specific theme or group of themes (e.g., Energy and Carbon, Health and Wellbeing). 2. Sliced Ratings — ratings calculated on consistent, comparable subsets of the population (e.g., by region, sector, or size). 3. Absolute Thresholds — narrative-based or fixed score cut-offs for more predictable and stable ratings over time.
## Part 3: Where Your Data Comes From and How We Protect It GRESB Assessments provide a mechanism to securely and voluntarily collect non-public information — documentary evidence and operational data such as energy use and water consumption. For the broader public/non-public data-source split across all products, see our public disclosures, §3.1. ### How we collect data Non-public data is collected through structured, indicator-specific questionnaires completed directly in the GRESB Portal, supported by documentary evidence uploads (policies, certificates, invoices, utility bills) against each response. Third-party verification or assurance is recognized where obtained voluntarily by the participant, but is not a mandatory precondition for submission. ### How We Protect Your Data | Protection area | GRESB practice | | ---------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Restricted access | Assessment responses in the GRESB Portal are accessible only to GRESB staff and, where needed, authorized personnel at GRESB's third-party validation provider | | Confidential asset-level data | Treated as strictly confidential; not shared externally in identifiable form without participant consent | | Aggregation and anonymization | Used in aggregated, non-traceable form for benchmarking/sector statistics; individual assets not identifiable unless consented | | Controlled disclosure of results | Scores not publicly released by default; disclosed only to the participant and authorized investors (private-entity investor access requires explicit consent) | | First-year Grace Period | First-year participants may prevent investor access to their Benchmark Report during their first assessment cycle | | Participant-controlled permissions | Portal access is permission-based; users must be invited by the participant | | Confidentiality obligations | GRESB's Terms & Conditions classify submissions/asset-level data as confidential; need-to-know access for staff/consultants/subcontractors | | GDPR compliance | GRESB maintains internal Data Protection and Data Breach policies | | Secure transmission | HTTPS/TLS encryption across the Portal and website | | Cybersecurity oversight | External cybersecurity review undertaken; internal information-security policies maintained (not published, for security reasons) | | Password-protected portal | Individual, non-shared credentials required | **Relationship to CSRD/ESRS-derived data:** For the Real Estate, Infrastructure, and Data Center Assessments, GRESB does not systematically source participant data from CSRD/ESRS sustainability statements or SFDR disclosures — participants submit data and evidence directly. GRESB does not use information solely because it was reported under Articles 19a or 29b of Directive 2013/34/EU as a separate scoring input, and doesn't track overlap where a participant's own data happens to coincide with its CSRD/SFDR disclosures. For GRESB Public Disclosure, the public sources GRESB reviews (public disclosures §3.1, "Data sourcing for GRESB Public Disclosure") may include CSRD-mandated sustainability statements where applicable. ### Use of Estimates Covered in full by our public disclosures, §3.4: year-over-year energy-intensity tracking and ASHRAE Standard 100 recognition for energy efficiency; standardized GHG conversion factors; and, for investors specifically, GRESB's internal estimation model (GEM) for portfolio-level gap-filling — clearly labeled and never used in scoring. ### Updating and Correcting Data Participants may correct previously submitted data during the Assessment Correction Period each year, between preliminary and final results (see the engagement timeline in Part 4). Corrections are validated using the same evidence-review procedures as original submissions, then logged and cross-checked against the original submission before being incorporated into the finalized dataset. Outside the Correction Period: GRESB does not revise previously finalized results. Each year's finalized dataset reflects the Standard and data as validated for that specific cycle and stands as the record for that cycle once Final Results are published. Any new information is instead captured in the following cycle's submission. ### Our Data Quality Controls Covered in full by our public disclosures, §3.5: guidance and training, automated validation, outlier detection, manual validation, quantitative data checks, the Correction Period, estimation limits, and third-party assurance. ## Part 4: Engagement and Other Practical Notes ### How We Engage With You Engagement with rated items follows a [defined annual cycle](https://www.gresb.com/key-dates-gresb-assessments-timeline/), conducted entirely through the GRESB Portal, scheduled calls, and email correspondence — no on-site engagement is required. 1. **Onboarding and Pre-Submission (Nov–Jun)** — Member Success onboarding calls covering process and timeline, plus a Pre-Submission Check call on preliminary validation outcomes. 2. **Data Submission (Apr–Jun)** — the rated item submits assessment data and evidence via the Portal. 3. **Validation (Jul–Aug)** — the validation team reviews data and evidence; outliers or gaps are relayed for correction and resubmission. 4. **Preliminary Results & Correction Window (Sep)** — the rated item receives findings, may raise questions, and may submit corrected data before finalization. 5. **Final Results (Oct)** — finalized scores are published. {% hint style="info" %} **A note on the Data Center Assessment:** unlike the Real Estate, Infrastructure, and Lender Assessments, the Data Center Assessment runs on an ongoing, on-demand basis rather than a fixed annual cycle. Validation, correction, and results follow the same sequence of steps, just anchored to each participant's own submission date rather than a shared annual timeline. {% endhint %} ### Scope of engagement: * Input received during validation and correction is incorporated into the finalized dataset only — it is not used to alter the underlying methodology. * Engagement is limited to data, evidence, and clarifications on the rated item's own data. GRESB staff may explain published requirements and processes but do not determine or alter methodology, scoring rules, or rating outcomes through that engagement, consistent with Article 16's separation-of-activities requirement. **How this differs for GRESB Public Disclosure:** GRESB Public Disclosure isn't based on data the rated company submits. GRESB sources the underlying data directly from public sources (annual reports, sustainability statements) and adds it to the Portal. Companies in the dataset can review and amend their data between April 1 and July 1, alongside the annual cycle; all data is then subject to the same validation process as above. In every product, the rated entity gets a chance to review its data before results are finalized — what differs is whether that data started as the entity's own submission or as GRESB's public-source research. **Issuers of rated items:** not applicable to GRESB's model — GRESB rates the entity, portfolio, fund, or asset directly rather than a financial instrument with a distinct issuer, so there's no separate "issuer" engagement channel. ### Solicited and Unsolicited Ratings For the Real Estate, Infrastructure, and Data Center Assessments, GRESB does not issue unsolicited ratings: every rating is issued only for an entity, portfolio, fund, or asset that has voluntarily submitted to a GRESB Assessment as a participant, with full awareness of and direct participation in the process. GRESB Public Disclosure works differently: covered companies are included and rated whether or not they participate in a GRESB Assessment, since the underlying data is already public. Companies are notified of their inclusion and can review and amend their data, as above. Where a Public Disclosure rating is issued for a company that hasn't participated in a GRESB Assessment, GRESB includes a prominent statement on the rating output itself, noting: the rating is based on the company's own public information rather than direct participation; the company was notified and given a review-and-amend opportunity; and GRESB's engagement was limited to that process, without access to the company's internal or non-public documents. ### Our Use of AI AI supports human review, not final validation determinations — see our public disclosures, §2.4, for the full description of how AI is piloted in a human-in-the-loop capacity, its current limitations, and GRESB's approach to oversight. That description applies equally to the engagement and validation processes described above. ### When New Information Emerges GRESB Ratings reflect a fixed 12-month assessment period. Since participants submit information relating to the prior-year period during the annual assessment window (currently 1 April–30 June), any significant new information relevant to that period is expected to be reflected in that year's submission. GRESB does not amend a published rating mid-cycle or after Final Results are published, even where new information is material — this preserves the consistency and comparability of that cycle's benchmark population. New information is instead captured in the following cycle's submission. Each rating remains the published rating until superseded by the following cycle's Final Results. ### How This Applies Across Our Rating Products This disclosure applies to all ESG rating products in scope of the ESG Rating Regulation, and is made available to rating participants accordingly in the GRESB Guides. --- # 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 dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter: ``` GET https://guides.gresb.com/methodology-disclosures/esg-rating-methodology-disclosure.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal. 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.