GreenDIGIT Deliverable D8.1 Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Disclaimer: “Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.” Greener Future Digital Research Infrastructures Deliverable D8.1 Self-Assessment Questionnaire GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER: 101131207 Lead Beneficiary: EGI Foundation Type of Deliverable: Report Dissemination Level: Public Submission Date: 31.08.2025 Version: 1.0 Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 2 of 31 Versioning and contribution history Version Description Contributions 0.1 Initial Draft Damla Rowlandson 0.2 MI review Iida Lehto 1.0 Final version Naomi van der Most, Ineke Brouwer Authors Author Partner Damla Rowlandson EGI Foundation Reviewers Name Organisation Iida Lehto Mandat International Yuri Demchenko University of Amsterdam Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 3 of 31 Disclaimer The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use, which may be made of the information contained therein. Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 4 of 31 Executive Summary The GreenDIGIT project accelerates the transition to sustainable digital Research Infrastructures (RIs) by providing tools, methodologies, and guidance to assess and mitigate environmental impacts across the full lifecycle of digital infrastructures. This deliverable, D8.1, introduces the GreenDIGIT Self-Assessment Questionnaire as a practical instrument enabling RIs to evaluate their current sustainability performance and identify opportunities for improvement The questionnaire is structured to benchmark RI practices against key sustainability dimensions, including climate change mitigation, energy efficiency, resource use and circular economy, water and marine resources, pollution, and biodiversity. It integrates relevant European policies and regulatory frameworks—such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), and the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED)—ensuring that RIs can align their operations with evolving compliance obligations. By offering a user-friendly and structured approach, the GreenDIGIT Self-Assessment Questionnaire not only supports compliance but also promotes continuous improvement. It provides RIs with actionable insights to strengthen sustainability strategies, enhance transparency, and contribute meaningfully to Europe’s green and digital transition. The questionnaire can be found online at: https://uva.data.surfsara.nl/index.php/s/pJxHsdeakKQfL70 using the password GreenDIGITD81Questionnaire! Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 5 of 31 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2 Background and Rationale .............................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Policy and Regulatory Context................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Foundations in GreenDIGIT Deliverable D3.2 ............................................................................ 9 2.3 The Need for a Self-Assessment Tool ...................................................................................... 10 2.4 Added Value of the SAQ .......................................................................................................... 10 3 Methodology and Framework ....................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Basis of the Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Structure of the Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Sheet 0: Introduction........................................................................................................ 12 3.2.2 Sheet 1: Scope & Goals..................................................................................................... 12 3.2.3 Sheet 2-3: Assessment & Actions ..................................................................................... 16 3.2.4 Sheet 4: Priority & Capability Results ............................................................................... 20 3.2.5 Sheet 5-6: Action Plan & Monitoring ............................................................................... 22 4 Guidance on Implementation and Interpretation ......................................................................... 26 4.1 Recommended Process of Use ................................................................................................ 26 4.2 Roles and Responsibilities ....................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Interpretation of Results ......................................................................................................... 27 4.4 Integration into RI Processes ................................................................................................... 27 4.5 Future Considerations: Towards Auditing and Certification ................................................... 28 5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 30 References ............................................................................................................................................. 31 Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 6 of 31 List of Figures Figure 1. Merging of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology and Self-assessment Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2. List of categories and sub-topics in Sheet 1 ........................................................................... 13 Figure 3. Excerpt from Sheet 2-3 (Part 1) .............................................................................................. 17 Figure 4. Excerpt from Sheet 2-3 (Part 2) .............................................................................................. 18 Figure 5. Example excerpt from Sheet 4 ............................................................................................... 21 List of Tables Table 1. Explanation of Capability Levels .............................................................................................. 14 Table 2. Assessment scale levels for ‘effort required’ parameter ........................................................ 24 Table 3. Matrix for implementation priority level determination ........................................................ 25 Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 7 of 31 List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Description AI Artificial Intelligence CSRD Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive CUE Carbon Usage Effectiveness EED Energy Efficiency Directive EGI European Grid Infrastructure ESFRI European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures ESPR Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation ESRS European Sustainability Reporting Standards EU European Union GHG Greenhouse Gas ISO International Organization for Standardization IT Information Technology KPI Key Performance Indicator LCA Lifecycle Assessment PUE Power Usage Effectiveness RI Research Infrastructure SAQ Self-Assessment Questionnaire WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment WUE Water Usage Effectiveness Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 8 of 31 1 Introduction The GreenDIGIT project aims to accelerate the green and digital transitions of Research Infrastructures (RIs) in Europe by developing methodologies, tools, and best practices to enhance their environmental sustainability. As digital RIs represent a critical backbone of European research and innovation, reducing their environmental footprint is both a necessity and an opportunity to contribute to the European Green Deal and the EU’s climate neutrality objectives for 2050. Building on the environmental impact assessment methodology presented in Deliverable D3.2 [11], and the policy and regulatory mapping consolidated in GreenDIGIT Milestone MS4 (Study of existing policies and regulations) [13], this deliverable introduces the GreenDIGIT Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ can be downloaded using the following link: https://uva.data.surfsara.nl/index.php/s/pJxHsdeakKQfL70 and password GreenDIGITD81Questionnaire! The questionnaire has been designed as a practical instrument to support RIs in evaluating their environmental performance across key sustainability dimensions. It provides a structured framework for self-evaluation, allowing RIs to identify strengths, gaps, and areas for improvement, while aligning with relevant EU policies and regulatory requirements such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) [1], the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) [2], the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) [4], and the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) [3]. The SAQ incorporates established standards and guidelines, including ISO 14001 [7] on environmental management and ISO 50001 [8] on energy management, ensuring coherence with international best practices. Its structure reflects the environmental dimensions outlined in the ESFRI Roadmap 2026 [9] and associated environmental considerations, thereby positioning the questionnaire as a tool for both compliance and strategic development within the research community. The primary objectives of this deliverable are: • To present the design and rationale of the GreenDIGIT Self-Assessment Questionnaire. • To explain its alignment with the environmental impact assessment methodology developed in Deliverable D3.2 [11]. • To provide guidance for RIs on how to apply the questionnaire in practice. • To demonstrate how the tool contributes to broader EU sustainability and digital transition goals. The deliverable is structured as follows: • Chapter 2 provides background and rationale for the questionnaire. • Chapter 3 presents the methodology and the structure of the questionnaire, including a detailed description of each sheet. • Chapter 4 offers guidance on implementation and interpretation. • Chapter 5 concludes with reflections on the role of the SAQ in supporting continuous improvement and policy alignment. Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 9 of 31 2 Background and Rationale 2.1 Policy and Regulatory Context The sustainability of Research Infrastructures (RIs) has gained increasing prominence in the European Union’s policy agenda. The European Green Deal sets the overarching objective of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 while fostering a competitive and resource-efficient economy. This ambition is supported by a suite of regulatory instruments that directly affect RIs. • The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) [1] and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) [2] establish harmonised disclosure requirements, covering climate change, pollution, water and marine resources, biodiversity, and circular economy dimensions. • The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) [4] introduces lifecycle sustainability requirements for products and digital equipment, driving improvements in energy and material efficiency. • The Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) [3] sets binding targets for reducing energy consumption and improving efficiency across sectors, with specific attention to digital infrastructures. • The Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1364 [12] establishes an EU-wide rating scheme for data centres, setting out indicators to monitor energy, water, and material performance. • The ESFRI Roadmap 2026 [9] emphasises environmental considerations as a critical element for assessing and funding RI proposals, requiring applicants to demonstrate alignment with EU sustainability goals. Together, these frameworks create a strong obligation for RIs to monitor, report, and continuously improve their environmental performance. 2.2 Foundations in GreenDIGIT Deliverable D3.2 Deliverable D3.2 “Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology & Guidelines for RIs” [11] established the GreenDIGIT environmental impact assessment methodology, designed to harmonise the evaluation of sustainability impacts across digital RIs. This methodology defines indicators for carbon footprint, energy consumption, water use, and waste generation. It provides guidelines and best practices to support consistent evaluation while accommodating the diversity of RI contexts across Europe. The SAQ builds directly on this methodology, operationalising its concepts into a structured selfassessment tool. By doing so, it ensures that the evaluation of RI performance remains consistent with GreenDIGIT’s scientific and methodological foundation, while making the framework more accessible to stakeholders. Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 16 of 31 3.2.2.1.7 Lifecycle Integration • L1: Sustainability embedded in the design phase – checks if sustainability is considered in early design. • L2: Consideration of sustainability during implementation – evaluates whether sustainability principles guide implementation. • L3: Operational sustainability practices – considers how sustainability is ensured during daily operations. • L4: Decommissioning/termination phase planning – checks whether end-of-life or closure phases include sustainability considerations. 3.2.2.2 Function within the SAQ Sheet 1 defines the boundaries and ambitions of the self-assessment. It determines which sub-topics are included, and what capability levels the RI intends to achieve. These decisions directly influence the calculations in Sheet 2–3 and form the reference baseline for capability gap analysis in Sheet 4 (Priority & Capability Results). 3.2.3 Sheet 2-3: Assessment & Actions Sheet 2-3 constitutes the central component of the Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ), bringing together the Assessment and Action Identification stages of the methodology described in Deliverable D3.2 [11]. It provides the detailed requirements and associated questions against which Research Infrastructures (RIs) assess their current capability levels. Sub-topics that were set as out of scope in Sheet 1 are automatically excluded from this sheet; the corresponding rows appear greyed out and are not considered in subsequent calculations. See Figure 3 for an excerpt from the SAQ Sheet2-3 showing the structure of the questionnaire up to the Description column. This illustrates how requirement details are presented and see Figure 4 for the continuation of the page starting from the Recommended Action column. This example includes a pre-filled self-assessment score and rationale to demonstrate how results are recorded. Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 17 of 31 Figure 3. Excerpt from Sheet 2-3 (Part 1) Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 18 of 31 Figure 4. Excerpt from Sheet 2-3 (Part 2) Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 19 of 31 3.2.3.1 Structure of the sheet Each question corresponds to a specific requirement within a sub-topic, supported by methodological framing elements (e.g. lifecycle phase, environmental dimension, references to standards or policies). Sheet 2-3 is organised into columns that contain pre-defined methodological information, calculated results, and a limited set of fields to be completed by the RI. The columns are defined as follows: • Topic area – pre-filled with the sub-topic as listed in Sheet 1. • Type of requirement – pre-filled to indicate the nature of the requirement (output/achievement or task/activity). • Requirement code – pre-filled unique identifier ensuring traceability across the questionnaire and results sheets. • Question – pre-filled question forming the basis of the self-assessment. • Lifecycle Phase – pre-filled indication of the lifecycle stage(s) to which the requirement applies (design, implementation, operation, termination, or cross-cutting). • Environmental Dimension – pre-filled reference to the environmental domain addressed (climate change, energy, waste, water, or non-environmental). • Associated Metric – pre-filled examples of relevant quantitative indicators (e.g. PUE, CUE, WUE, GHG emissions, share of renewable energy, or an indication that no measurable metric is available). • Reference (Standard/Policy) – pre-filled reference to the most relevant EU legislation, international standards, or other policy frameworks supporting the requirement. • Impact Magnitude – pre-filled value reflecting the potential severity of environmental impact if the requirement is not addressed (high, medium, low). • Impact Likelihood – pre-filled value reflecting the expected probability or frequency of occurrence (high, medium, low). • Improvement Priority – pre-filled ranking that combines methodological weighting with later prioritisation in Sheet 4. This field is calculated based on the impact magnitude and likelihood as explained in the Deliverable D3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology & Guidelines for RIs – Chapter 6.4 [11]. • Capability Level – pre-filled textual maturity label derived from the self-assessment score (Levels 1–3). Each capability level corresponds to a description and action item, and is contextualised by impact magnitude, impact likelihood, and improvement priority. • Descriptions – pre-filled contextual information clarifying the scope of the requirement based on the relevant capability level. • Recommended Action – pre-filled suggestion of a potential improvement measure linked to the requirement at the relevant capability level. • Self-assessment score – field to be completed by the RI, representing the current level of capability based on the description at each level: o Level 1 (Initial/Ad hoc): limited awareness and unstructured practices. o Level 2 (Developing/Partial): partial or inconsistent implementation. o Level 3 (Established/Assured): systematic and assured practice. • Rationale for score – field to be completed by the RI, providing a short justification for the selected score. Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 20 of 31 • Evidence Type Expected – pre-filled indication of the typical forms of proof required (e.g. policy, report, monitoring data, audit record). • Evidence (e.g. available documents / records / URLs) – field to be completed by the RI, listing the actual documents, records, or references used to substantiate the self-assessment. (The evidence filled in this field should not point to personal drives.) 3.2.3.2 Function within the SAQ The information entered in this sheet constitutes the primary input for the subsequent processing in Sheet 4 (Priority & Capability Results) and Sheet 5–6 (Action Plan & Monitoring). In this sheet, the Self-assessment score, Rationale for score, and Evidence fields serve as the RI’s contribution to the dataset, while all other columns ensure methodological consistency, traceability, and automated aggregation. 3.2.4 Sheet 4: Priority & Capability Results This sheet presents the consolidated outcomes of the self-assessment, showing for each requirement whether the defined targets have been achieved and what level of improvement priority applies. It corresponds to the Determination of Priority levels step of the GreenDIGIT methodology described in Deliverable D3.2 [11]. An example of the automatically generated results (Sheet 4) is presented in Figure 5 (next page, landscape format). See Figure 5 for an excerpt from Sheet 4 showing how subtopics are assessed against defined capability goals, how achieved levels are compared with targets, and how these are translated into improvement priorities. It is based on a sample filled-in questionnaire. Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 21 of 31 Figure 5. Example excerpt from Sheet 4 Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 22 of 31 3.2.4.1 Structure of the sheet For every requirement from Sheet 2–3, the following information is displayed: • In-scope status – derived from Sheet 1. Requirements linked to sub-topics set to No in Sheet 1 are excluded from the analysis. • Target capability level – the level selected by the RI Operator in Sheet 1 as the desired capability. • Achieved capability level – the level calculated from the self-assessment score provided in Sheet 2–3. • Target met status – indication of whether the achieved capability level is equal to or greater than the target capability level. • Improvement priority – the priority ranking derived from the pre-defined impact magnitude and impact likelihood values embedded in the methodology. The target-met status is displayed separately. 3.2.4.2 Function within the SAQ This sheet functions as the central diagnostic output of the questionnaire. It provides a transparent overview of: • Which requirements were assessed. • Where capability targets have been reached. • Where gaps remain, and how urgent they are to address. By showing results at the level of each individual requirement, the sheet enables Research Infrastructures to trace gaps and priorities directly back to specific questions. These outputs form the direct basis for the structured improvement actions presented in Sheet 5–6 (Action Plan & Monitoring). 3.2.5 Sheet 5-6: Action Plan & Monitoring This sheet consolidates the outcomes of the self-assessment into a structured action plan and a monitoring register. It includes all requirements that were set as in scope, regardless of whether the target capability level has already been achieved. Out-of-scope requirements are automatically greyed out and excluded. The sheet therefore supports both the planning of improvement actions where gaps exist and the continuation of maintenance actions where targets have been met. An example of a pre-filled SAQ showing action items and implementation priorities (based on the selected effort required) is presented in Figure 6 (next page, landscape). Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 23 of 31 Figure 6. Example excerpt from the Sheet 5-6 Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 24 of 31 3.2.5.1 Structure of the sheet Sheet 5-6 lists all in-scope requirements from Sheet 2-3, enriched with priority and target information. The columns are organised as follows: • Requirement Code – Identifier linking back to Sheet 2-3. • Question – Full text of the requirement. • In Scope – Indicates scope selection from Sheet 1. • Lifecycle Phase – The lifecycle stage the requirement relates to. • Environmental Dimension – The sustainability dimension addressed. • Targets – Capability level targets defined in Sheet 1. • Recommended Action – suggested improvement or maintenance action, depending on whether the target is already met and the self-assessment score selected in Sheet 2-3. • Improvement Priority – Derived from Sheet 4. • Effort Required – To be provided by the RI Operator (Low, Medium, High). This will calculate the implementation priority. See Table 2 for definition of the scale. Table 2. Assessment scale levels for ‘effort required’ parameter Scale Effort required High • Involves a significant level of resources, effort, or investment. • Potential efforts and investment may outweigh associated benefits. Medium • Requires a moderate level of resources, effort, or investment. • Potential benefits are balanced with effort and investment. Low • Demands minimal resources, effort, or investment. • Potential benefits outweigh effort and investment. • Implementation Priority – Automatically calculated from the combination of Improvement Priority and Effort Required, using the prioritisation matrix defined in Deliverable D3.2 [11] (possible results: No Action, Low Priority, Planned, Urgent, Immediate). Copyright  2025 GreenDIGIT | D8.1 – Self-Assessment Questionnaire Page 25 of 31 Table 3. Matrix for implementation priority level determination Effort Required High Medium Low Improvement priority High Planned Urgent Immediate Medium Low Planned Urgent Low No action needed Low Planned • Leader – Assigned person responsible for implementation. • Deadline – Planned completion date. • Status – Monitoring field for tracking progress (Not Started, In Progress, Completed). • Remarks – Free text field for contextual notes. 3.2.5.2 Function within the SAQ Sheet 5-6 transforms the self-assessment into a living action plan. By ensuring that every in-scope requirement has a recommended action and a monitoring field, it guarantees that progress can be tracked in a structured and accountable way. Improvement actions are prioritised and resourced, while maintenance actions ensure that achieved targets are sustained over time. In this way, the sheet provides the operational bridge between assessment results and real-world implementation, completing the cycle of the SAQ and reflecting the planning and monitoring phases of the Deliverable D3.2 methodology [11].