Signatories report on their responsible investment activities annually by using the PRI’s Reporting Framework. Signatories can use the resources on this page to prepare for the reporting period by exploring the Reporting Framework and collecting relevant data internally.
We also recommend reading about the reporting process to understand reporting timelines, how to report and what happens after you submit your report.
The definitions of the main and most frequently used terms in the Reporting Framework can be found in the Reporting Framework Glossary.
Structure of the reporting framework
The Reporting Framework is comprised of 12 modules, with CORE (mandatory to report, public, assessed, closed-ended) and PLUS indicators (voluntary to report, public or private, not assessed, closed and open-ended) indicators. The mandatory modules for reporting will depend on the type of signatory (asset owner, investment manager). For more information on what indicators your organisation is required to report on, see our What to report on diagram.
Modules updated on 26 January 2023
Please click on the modules below to expand and view download links
SENIOR LEADERSHIP STATEMENT (SLS)
ORGANISATIONAL OVERVIEW (OO)
POLICY, GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGY (PGS)
MANAGER SELECTION, APPOINTMENT AND MONITORING (SAM)
|ASSET CLASS MODULES|
LISTED EQUITY (LE)
REAL ESTATE (RE)
PRIVATE EQUITY (PE)
FIXED INCOME (FI)
HEDGE FUNDS (HF)
SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES (SO)
CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES (CBM)
Changes made between 2021 and 2023 can be found in the Overview and structure guide (PDF). To complement this guide, an additional resource showing where 2021 responses may be re-used in the 2023 Reporting Framework on an indicator level will be published on the R&A updates page ahead of the 2023 reporting cycle.
In 2023, scores will continue to be confidential and will be provided per module or per asset class/strategy, with no overall organisation score given.
To read more about the assessment process, please see How investors are assessed on their reporting.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Why are signatories asked to provide a breakdown of their investments by asset class?
We continue to ask signatories for a breakdown of their investments by asset class and strategy (where relevant), as this enables the online Reporting Tool to determine which reporting modules and indicators are relevant and material for each individual signatory.
How should signatories report on fund-of-fund investments?
Fund-of-fund investments should be reported as externally managed assets in the Organisational Overview (OO) module and reported on within the Selection, Appointment and Monitoring (SAM) module.
How should signatories report on multi-asset investments?
As the Reporting Framework asks for the asset class breakdown of total AUM, signatories should split multi-asset investments into the respective asset classes, based on their best estimate.
For example, if a fund consists of 50% listed equity and 50% fixed income and accounts for 10% of a signatory’s total AUM, it should be reported as 5% listed equity and 5% fixed income.
Which content elements from the 2021 Reporting Framework are included in the 2023 Reporting Framework?
Overall, signatories will recognise many of the same themes in the 2023 Reporting Framework that were covered in the 2021 Framework. For example, we still ask signatories about their responsible investment policies, governance practices, and investment pre/holding/post- activities. An additional resource indicating where 2021 responses may be re-used in the 2023 Reporting Framework will be shared ahead of the 2023 reporting cycle to complement the Overview and structure guide (PDF), and will also show the extent of changes at the indicator level.
How does the PRI tailor the Reporting Framework for different types of investors?
The Reporting Framework is practice and activity relevant. Therefore, when reporting, only the relevant asset class-specific modules and indicators will be unlocked and assessed in the Reporting Tool, depending on the AUM distribution and practices of each signatory.
How have the Organisational Overview (OO) and Investment and Stewardship Policy (ISP) modules changed in the 2023 Reporting Framework?
The Organisational Overview module is similar to previous years. We still capture general information about the organisation such as total AUM. We have streamlined the module and reduced the granularity of data requests to improve clarity and reduce reporting effort for signatories.
The Policy, Governance and Strategy (PGS) module (previously Investment and Stewardship Policy, or ISP) aims to capture the overall approach of the signatory organisation to responsible investment. This module has been streamlined to capture practices that are applicable to most asset classes. We have also introduced indicators and response options on human rights, which is a priority issue for the PRI in its 2021-24 Strategic Plan. The indicators related to confidence building measures previously included in the ISP module have been moved into a separate Confidence-Building Measures (CBM) module.
More detail on the changes can be found in the Reporting Framework overview and structure guide (PDF).
Can asset owners choose to voluntarily report on their internally managed assets through the asset class modules?
The full asset class modules, including all indicators (questions), continue to be available as an open resource for signatories on the PRI website. However, asset owners will not report to the PRI on the asset class modules, nor will the PRI provide feedback and assessment on those modules for asset owners.
On the decision to remove reporting on the direct asset class modules for internally managed assets, the PRI engaged with signatory feedback to streamline the reporting experience for asset owners and reduce the reporting effort. This has required restructuring elements of other modules, like the Organisational Overview (OO) and Policy, Governance and Strategy (PGS) module (previously Investment & Stewardship Policy, or ISP), to continue capturing relevant aspects of asset owners’ RI practices, such as their approach to stewardship and (proxy) voting policies. As a result of this restructuring, asset owners will not have the option to voluntarily report on their internally managed assets through the asset class modules.
As in previous years, where asset owners outsource their investment activities to external investment managers, they will be required to report on their selection, appointment, and monitoring of managers in the Selection, Appointment and Monitoring (SAM) module.
Why is stewardship or active ownership integrated in the Policy, Governance and Strategy (PGS) module and no longer part of the asset class modules?
We believe that stewardship good practice is conducted for two main objectives: (1) to manage ESG risks and opportunities, including at the portfolio level to address systematic sustainability issues that may go beyond individual holdings, and/or (2) to take action on sustainability outcomes. Stewardship can be practiced across many asset classes and is applicable to both asset owners and investment managers.
The 2023 Reporting Framework structure reflects this, by including questions about stewardship usage - including (proxy) voting, where applicable - to manage ESG risks and opportunities in the PGS module, and separately asking signatories to describe how they use a range of stewardship tools to meet their sustainability outcomes targets, in the Sustainability Outcomes (SO) module.
Some questions about stewardship linked to ESG risks and opportunities are process oriented. However, in other questions we expect the leading answers will focus on the use of stewardship to address systematic sustainability issues and/or take action on outcomes, in line with the PRI’s Active Ownership 2.0 framework.
Are TCFD-aligned indicators considered ‘core’ or ‘plus’?
TCFD-aligned indicators were introduced on a voluntary basis in 2018 and subsequently became mandatory. Completing this process and reflecting the widespread adoption of TCFD reporting in the industry, in the 2023 Reporting Framework all TCFD-aligned indicators in the PGS module are ‘core’ and therefore mandatory to report on.
Why did the PRI decide to gather several themes in the Policy, Governance and Strategy (PGS) module instead of dispersing them throughout asset-class specific modules?
To reduce repetition across asset modules, we analysed the key themes that would be applicable to most asset classes and collected them in the PGS module. However, signatories can still indicate activities that differ by asset class, where relevant.
What are the minimum requirements for investor membership in the 2023 Reporting Framework?
The minimum requirements for investor membership in 2023 will be the same as those in 2021. Read more about the minimum requirements.
What types of questions on sustainability outcomes are included in the Reporting Framework?
There are a few select ‘core’ indicators on sustainability outcomes in the Reporting Framework, similar to those in the 2021 Reporting Framework. These indicators are process-oriented, assessed and, by default, disclosed. They are aligned with two sections of the PRI paper Investing with SDG outcomes: a five-part framework.
- Part 1: Identify sustainability outcomes
- Part 2: Set policies on sustainability outcomes
Any further steps signatories are taking, including measuring and tracking their sustainability outcomes, are included in the Sustainability Outcomes (SO) module. This module consists only of plus indicators, and therefore is entirely voluntary to report on and voluntary to disclose.
Why do signatories automatically get a 1-star score for some reported asset classes?
In the Organisational Overview (OO) module, we ask signatories if they incorporate ESG issues into their investment decision-making for the asset classes they hold. If a signatory reports that it does not incorporate ESG issues in an asset class, it will automatically be scored 1 star for the corresponding module. This assessment happens regardless of how much AUM is invested in that asset class.
Can signatories report having practices and policies in place if they have not yet been implemented but are in the process of developing them?
Signatories should only report on the practices and policies that they already had in place at the end of their indicated 12-month reporting period. Signatories indicate their reporting period in the Organisational Overview (OO) module. Any policies or practices that were put into place after the indicated 12-month period should be included in later reporting cycles.
The reporting process
- Currently reading
Investor reporting framework