SHAKTI Scoring Methodology

Version 2.0 — July 2026

Framework Overview
Pillar Architecture
Indicator Types & Scoring
Weighting Rationale
Numeric Benchmarks & Sources
Band Classification
Data Confidence
Process vs Outcome Indicators
NAAC Criterion 7 Mapping
NEP 2020 Alignment
Limitations & Disclosures

1. Framework Overview

SHAKTI is a quantitative sustainability assessment framework for Indian educational institutions across K-12, colleges, and universities. It measures sustainability performance across 8 pillars using 121 indicators — combining outcome data (measurable operational metrics) with process indicators (governance, management systems, and institutional commitment).

The framework is designed to:

Provide a standardised, comparable sustainability score across institution types
Align with CBSE SHVR reporting requirements, NAAC Criterion 7, NIRF SDG, and UI GreenMetric
Support NEP 2020's emphasis on environmental education and holistic development
Identify actionable improvement pathways through gap analysis

2. Pillar Architecture

SHAKTI is structured as 8 pillars in two tiers:

Tier 2 — Operational Pillars (81 indicators)

Code	Pillar	Indicators	Required	Focus
EC	Energy & Carbon	17	6	Electricity, solar, DG, BEE rating, carbon footprint, energy management plan
WA	Water	13	6	Consumption, rainwater, recycling, per-student intensity, water conservation plan
WS	Waste	13	7	Segregation, composting, e-waste, paper recycling, waste management SOP
GI	Green Infrastructure	12	5	Campus area, green cover, biodiversity, certifications, maintenance plan
CC	Curriculum & Culture	15	7	Environmental education, eco-clubs, teacher training
CT	Community & Transport	11	6	Bus fleet, cycling, community engagement

Tier 3 — Governance & Social Pillars (40 indicators)

Code	Pillar	Indicators	Required	Focus
GP	Governance & Policy	20	4	Policy, committee, budget, audits, procurement, compliance
SS	Social Sustainability	20	7	Accessibility, safety, wellbeing, diversity, community

3. Indicator Types & Scoring

Each indicator is scored on a 0.0 to 1.0 scale based on its data type:

Boolean (Yes/No)

True = 1.0 | False = 0.0

Used for policy existence, committee presence, audit completion — binary process indicators.

Percentage (0-100%)

Score = value / 100 (clamped 0.0 – 1.0)

Used for renewable energy share, recycling rate, green cover percentage.

Numeric (continuous values)

Scored against three-point benchmarks: low, good, excellent. Linear interpolation between thresholds.

If higher-is-better: ≤ low → 0.0 | good → 0.5 | ≥ excellent → 1.0 If lower-is-better (inverted): ≥ low → 0.0 | good → 0.5 | ≤ excellent → 1.0 Between thresholds: linear interpolation No benchmark defined: presence scoring (>0 = 0.5, 0 = 0.0)

Select (ordinal categories)

Predefined options mapped to scores based on sustainability quality. Each option receives a fixed score from 0.0 (worst) to 1.0 (best). Mapping tables are published in full below.

Text (descriptive)

Not scored. Used for qualitative data capture only (e.g., sustainability certifications held).

4. Weighting Rationale

Pillar Weights

All 8 pillars receive equal weight in the overall score. This is a deliberate design choice:

Rationale: Sustainability is multi-dimensional. Over-weighting energy/carbon (common in carbon-centric frameworks) undervalues social sustainability, governance, and biodiversity — all of which are critical for educational institutions.
Precedent: UI GreenMetric uses unequal weights but draws criticism for energy-centricity. CBSE SHVR uses equal section weighting. NAAC criteria are equally weighted within Criterion 7.
Implication: An institution that excels in one pillar but neglects others cannot achieve a top band.

Overall Score = (1/8) × Σ Pillar_i_Score (i = EC, WA, WS, GI, CC, CT, GP, SS)

Indicator Weights Within Pillars

Within each pillar, indicators are weighted as:

Category	Weight	Rationale
Required indicator	1.5x	Captures foundational sustainability practices that every institution should report. Missing required data is a stronger signal of poor practice.
Optional indicator	1.0x	Captures advanced or context-specific practices. Not penalised if missing — only scored if data is provided.

Transparency note: The 1.5x/1.0x weighting is a design parameter, not derived from empirical analysis. We selected this ratio because: (a) it gives meaningful priority to required indicators without dominating the score; (b) a higher ratio (e.g., 3x) would make optional indicators irrelevant; (c) a lower ratio (e.g., 1.2x) would not sufficiently differentiate. We welcome feedback on this parameter and will review it annually based on assessment data.

Pillar Score = (Σ score_i × weight_i) / (Σ weight_i) × 100 Only indicators with submitted data are included in the calculation. Missing indicators are excluded (not scored as zero).

Why missing data is excluded, not zero-scored: Institutions should not be penalised for indicators that may not apply to their context (e.g., a K-12 school does not have NAAC accreditation). However, data completion percentage is tracked and reported, and confidence level decreases with lower completion — so institutions are incentivised to report comprehensively.

5. Numeric Benchmarks & Sources

Benchmarks for numeric indicators are derived from:

Energy: BEE (Bureau of Energy Efficiency) — Star Rating programme, ECBC benchmarks for institutional buildings
Water: CPHEEO (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation) manual, CGWA guidelines
Waste: SWM Rules 2016 targets, CPCB annual reports on waste generation intensities
Infrastructure: GRIHA/IGBC benchmarks for green cover and building certifications
Carbon: CEA (Central Electricity Authority) CO2 database 2023 for grid emission factors
Education: CBSE circulars on environmental education hours, NEP 2020 recommendations

Energy & Carbon Benchmarks

Indicator	Low	Good	Excellent	Direction
Annual electricity (kWh)	200,000	80,000	30,000	Lower is better
Solar capacity (kW)	0	20	100	Higher is better
Solar generation (kWh)	0	25,000	100,000	Higher is better
DG hours/month	200	50	5	Lower is better
Per-student kWh	500	200	80	Lower is better
Carbon footprint (tCO2e)	500	150	30	Lower is better

Water Benchmarks

Indicator	Low	Good	Excellent	Direction
Annual consumption (KL)	50,000	20,000	8,000	Lower is better
RWH capacity (KL)	0	50	500	Higher is better
Recycled water (KL/yr)	0	10	100	Higher is better
Per-student KL	20	8	3	Lower is better

Select Option Scoring

All ordinal scoring maps are defined in the scoring engine source code and are available via the /api/gsr/schema endpoint. Example:

Indicator	Options (score)
BEE Star Rating	None (0.0) → 1-Star (0.2) → 2-Star (0.4) → 3-Star (0.6) → 4-Star (0.8) → 5-Star (1.0)
Water testing frequency	Never (0.0) → Annually (0.25) → Bi-annually (0.5) → Quarterly (0.75) → Monthly (1.0)
Fire safety readiness	None (0.0) → Minimal (0.2) → Partial (0.5) → Full (1.0)

6. Band Classification

The overall score (0-100) maps to a sustainability band using nature-themed vocabulary:

Band	Score Range	Interpretation
Evergreen	80 – 100	Sector-leading sustainability performance across all pillars
Canopy	65 – 79	Strong sustainability practices with minor improvement areas
Bloom	50 – 64	Growing sustainability programme with clear foundations
Sprout	35 – 49	Early-stage sustainability with significant improvement potential
Seed	0 – 34	Beginning the sustainability journey — foundational work needed

Band thresholds rationale: These thresholds are calibrated so that an institution demonstrating basic compliance across all pillars achieves at least Bloom (50+). Evergreen requires excellence — not just presence of initiatives, but measurable impact. Thresholds will be reviewed annually as we accumulate assessment data.

7. Data Confidence

The confidence level reflects how much of the assessment was completed:

Confidence	Data Completion	Interpretation
High	≥ 80%	Score is a reliable representation of sustainability performance
Medium	50 – 79%	Score is directionally accurate but may shift with more data
Low	< 50%	Score is preliminary — complete more indicators for a reliable assessment

8. Process vs Outcome Indicators

SHAKTI intentionally combines two indicator types:

Outcome Indicators (Tier 2 pillars — primarily)

Measurable operational data: kWh consumed, water recycled, trees planted, waste composted. These track what is being achieved.

Process Indicators (GP & SS pillars — primarily)

Management system and governance data: sustainability policy, committee meetings, coordinator appointment, audit completion, safety procedures, stakeholder engagement. These track how sustainability is managed.

Why both matter

Outcome without process: Good results without governance structures are fragile — they depend on individual champions and are unlikely to be sustained.
Process without outcome: Policies and committees without measurable impact are performative — sustainability theatre rather than genuine progress.
SHAKTI's equal weighting of GP and SS alongside operational pillars ensures that institutions cannot score well without both management commitment and demonstrated outcomes.

Process indicators in operational pillars: Several Tier 2 indicators also capture process elements — e.g., whether an energy audit was conducted (EC), whether an eco-club exists (CC), whether the institution has green procurement policies (GP auto-fill). This hybrid approach ensures every pillar has some management-system coverage.

9. NAAC Criterion 7 Mapping

For higher education institutions, SHAKTI indicators map to NAAC Criterion 7: Institutional Values and Best Practices. The mapping covers:

NAAC Metric	SHAKTI Indicators
7.1.1 — Gender equity measures	SS_D02, SS_D03, SS_D10, SS_D14
7.1.2 — Alternative energy, waste management	EC_D03, EC_D04, EC_D09, WS_D01, WS_D03, WS_D04
7.1.3 — Disabled-friendly environment	SS_D01, SS_D04
7.1.4 — Environmental consciousness	CC_D01, CC_D04, CC_D05, CC_D08, GP_D01, GP_D18
7.1.5 — Green campus initiatives	GI_D01, GI_D02, GI_D04, GI_D05, GI_D09, GI_D10
7.1.6 — Quality audits	GP_D12, GP_D13, GP_D14
7.1.7 — Divyangjan facilities	SS_D01, SS_D04
7.1.8 — Institutional values	SS_D09, SS_D11, GP_D01, GP_D08
7.1.9 — Waste management	WS_D01, WS_D02, WS_D03, WS_D04, WS_D05, WS_D11
7.1.10 — Water management	WA_D01, WA_D04, WA_D05, WA_D07, WA_D10
7.1.11 — Green audit/energy audit	GP_D12, GP_D13, GP_D14, EC_D01, EC_D10

Coverage note: SHAKTI covers all quantitative metrics under NAAC 7.1. Qualitative metrics (7.2 Best Practices, 7.3 Institutional Distinctiveness) require narrative evidence that is outside the scope of a quantitative assessment framework. Institutions using the Green Assured tier receive guidance on preparing narrative sections.

10. NEP 2020 Alignment

The National Education Policy 2020 emphasises environmental awareness, experiential learning, and holistic development. SHAKTI indicators align with specific NEP provisions:

NEP 2020 Provision	SHAKTI Indicators
§4.23 — Environmental education integration	CC_D01 (env education hours), CC_D02 (env topics in curriculum), CC_D03 (env awareness activities)
§4.6 — Experiential learning	CC_D05 (student projects), CC_D14 (field trips), CC_D09 (competitions)
§5.7 — Teacher development	CC_D06 (teacher training hours), CC_D07 (teachers trained)
§6.7 — Student participation	CC_D04 (eco-club members), CC_D08 (env days celebrated), SS_D16 (community service)
§7.5 — Inclusive education	SS_D01 (accessibility), SS_D04 (CWSN toilet), SS_D17 (scholarships)
§8.5 — Vocational/skill integration	CC_D11 (kitchen garden/composting), WS_D04 (vermicompost), CT_D04 (cycling infrastructure)
§25.6 — Holistic report cards	SS_D11 (wellbeing survey), SS_D19 (sports hours), GP_D01 (sustainability policy)

11. Limitations & Disclosures

Self-Reported Data

SHAKTI assessments at the Free and Green Standard tiers are based on self-reported data. Scores reflect what institutions report, not independently verified reality. The verification state (self-reported, assurance-ready, or assured) is displayed alongside every score.

Benchmark Limitations

Benchmarks are calibrated for the Indian context. They may not be appropriate for institutions in other countries.
K-12, college, and university benchmarks use the same thresholds. We acknowledge that absolute consumption differs by institution size — per-student intensity indicators (EC_D10, WA_D10) partially address this, but further segment-specific calibration is planned.
Benchmarks are reviewed annually and updated when new authoritative data becomes available (e.g., updated CEA emission factors, revised BEE benchmarks).

Framework Evolution

SHAKTI is a living framework. We publish a changelog of all methodology changes, including benchmark adjustments, new indicators, and weight modifications. Major changes trigger re-scoring of existing assessments with clear before/after disclosure.

Independence

Resilient Sustainance operates both the GreenCampus platform and an AA1000 Licensed Assurance practice. Our Governance & Independence page documents our conflict management framework for institutions that use both services.

SHAKTI Methodology v2.0 — Published July 2026
GreenCampus by Resilient Sustainance Private Limited
methodology@rsustain.com for feedback or questions

Contents

1. Framework Overview

2. Pillar Architecture

Tier 2 — Operational Pillars (81 indicators)

Tier 3 — Governance & Social Pillars (40 indicators)

3. Indicator Types & Scoring

Boolean (Yes/No)

Percentage (0-100%)

Numeric (continuous values)

Select (ordinal categories)

Text (descriptive)

4. Weighting Rationale

Pillar Weights

Indicator Weights Within Pillars

5. Numeric Benchmarks & Sources

Energy & Carbon Benchmarks

Water Benchmarks

Select Option Scoring

6. Band Classification

7. Data Confidence

8. Process vs Outcome Indicators

Outcome Indicators (Tier 2 pillars — primarily)

Process Indicators (GP & SS pillars — primarily)

Why both matter

9. NAAC Criterion 7 Mapping

10. NEP 2020 Alignment

11. Limitations & Disclosures

Self-Reported Data

Benchmark Limitations

Framework Evolution

Independence