Infrastructure plays a crucial role in the global transition to a low-carbon future. With its significant contribution to global emissions, achieving net-zero performance across infrastructure assets is essential. However, setting net-zero targets for this diverse asset class presents a host of challenges. While it would be ideal to have a universally agreed set of net-zero performance pathways covering every sector and sub-class, such pathways are only available for select sectors.
At GRESB, we are tackling this challenge by prioritizing transparency, recognizing that clear and consistent reporting is a pillar to driving meaningful action. By addressing the complexities of net-zero target setting outlined below, our 2025 Infrastructure Standards provide the market with the tools it needs to engage with this data effectively. While there may not yet be a single, universal way to standardize or assess net-zero progress across all infrastructure assets, GRESB is delivering a clear and structured reporting mechanism to produce straightforward and actionable insights for investors. These updates empower stakeholders to evaluate targets, benchmark progress, and meaningfully engage with assets, providing a clear pathway to track and drive alignment with global net-zero ambitions.
The Challenges of net-zero target setting for infrastructure
1. The Scope challenge
Setting net-zero targets begins with defining which emissions scopes are included. Standard guidance suggests including Scope 1 (direct emissions), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased energy), and material Scope 3 (indirect emissions from the value chain).
The challenge lies in determining what constitutes material Scope 3 emissions, as these vary significantly between seemingly similar assets. Additionally, poor data availability for many Scope 3 categories complicates the process. Targets relying on incomplete Scope 3 data may lack precision, reducing their reliability.
GRESB’s approach in 2025:
The 2025 Infrastructure Asset Standard allows the submission of Scope 1 and 2, or Scope 1, 2, and 3 net-zero targets. Scope 2 emissions can be calculated using either the location-based or market-based method, but consistent reporting is required. GRESB does not mandate what constitutes material Scope 3 emissions, leaving this decision to the reporting entity.
2. The metric challenge
Net-zero targets can be set using absolute or intensity-based metrics. Absolute targets reduce total emissions, making them suitable for stable operations, while intensity-based targets measure efficiency, accommodating growth or increased output.
The lack of a standardized denominator for intensity targets (e.g., revenue, output, or other metrics) further complicates comparisons. These denominators vary significantly across infrastructure sub-classes and geographies.
GRESB’s approach in 2025:
GRESB accepts both absolute and intensity-based metrics for target setting. For intensity-based metrics, the denominator must be clearly reported to enable performance tracking against targets.
3. The ambition challenge
Net-zero targets must balance ambition with feasibility. Targets that reflect the ambition needed for a net-zero future can lose credibility if they are unrealistic. Conversely, targets that are too lenient risk falling short of meaningful climate action.
Sector-specific carbon budgets offer guidance but often involve assumptions that affect performance expectations. The choice of scope, metric, and methodology also influences the level of ambition reflected in the target.
GRESB’s approach in 2025:
Under the 2025 Standard, Participants can map out performance targets as percentage reductions from a defined base year. This is consistent with target-setting guidance from the SBTi and the Net Zero Asset Owners Alliance (NZAOA). GRESB asks participants to clarify whether their targets are science-based, verified by a third party, and if so, by whom.
4. The timeframe challenge
Net-zero targets often include short-, medium-, and long-term goals. However, the definitions of these timeframes vary across reporting frameworks, adding complexity. For example, let’s examine two of the most established authorities on net-zero target setting for infrastructure assets. The SBTi requires that companies set a short-term target, and a long-term net-zero target. The IIGCC’s guidance for infrastructure assets requires a short-term target, a medium-term target, and a long-term goal for the asset to be net-zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. The distinction here being that the goal need not take the form of a quantified GHG performance target.
Furthermore, differing base years for targets make it challenging to standardize interim milestones, such as 2030 targets.
GRESB’s approach in 2025:
Participants define their own short-, medium-, and long-term target years, and will be asked for the targeted reduction value as a percentage of the base year value. The Standard requires information for at least two of these timeframes to ensure transparency and alignment with science-based emissions reduction pathways.
5. The offset challenge
While the primary focus of net-zero targets should be on reducing operational emissions, certain sectors may need to rely on offsets for residual emissions that are difficult to eliminate.
The challenge lies in striking a balance: providing transparency around offset use without incentivizing reliance on offsets at the expense of direct emissions reductions.
GRESB’s approach in 2025:
GRESB captures real performance targets and separately discloses the volume of offsets used to achieve net performance. Offsets are not scored but are included for transparency, ensuring focus remains on actual emissions reductions.
The GRESB approach: transparency first
Net–zero targets for infrastructure assets are vital for the global low-carbon transition, but they come with significant challenges. The 2025 GRESB Infrastructure Standards address these complexities by emphasizing transparency, flexibility, and science-based approaches. GRESB employs three main mechanisms to drive change through its Infrastructure Standards:
- Transparency: Providing clear, detailed information about targets ensures stakeholders can assess their quality and completeness.
- Benchmarking: Comparing performance against peers helps contextualize achievements.
- Scoring: Rewarding strong performance incentivizes best practices.
While scoring produces the most direct impact, the current weighting of net-zero target setting is relatively low in the Standards, reflecting the nascent stage of scalable net-zero target assessment and the recent introduction of new content for the industry to report. It is expected that increasing maturity of both the content and the industry’s adoption will be matched with an increase in score weighting in the future. Similarly, while the challenges outlined above make benchmarking of net-zero targets difficult, GRESB provides clarity to the tracking of asset performance against the targets that they’ve set for themselves.
Transparency is the foundation upon which benchmarking and scoring are built. By prioritizing transparency at this stage, GRESB empowers stakeholders to evaluate targets on their own merits and track progress on the wide diversity of infrastructure assets effectively. We envisage that being open with this data will create a meaningful dialogue among investors, funds, and assets regarding the current progress being made against long-term ambitions, allowing all parties to react, discuss, and make impactful changes.
Conclusion
Despite the inherent uncertainties in the industry, GRESB recognizes that inaction risks slowing progress toward sustainability. By prioritizing transparency and science-based approaches, GRESB enables stakeholders to make informed decisions and incentivizes best practices. This proactive stance reflects GRESB’s commitment to driving meaningful change, ensuring infrastructure assets are equipped to meet evolving environmental demands and contribute effectively to a sustainable future.