top of page
Image by Vlad Kutepov

Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) score/rating

Data source provider

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

Use cases

Climate-related disclosures, Exposure quantification, Investment and lending decisions

Data group

Climate-related index and scoring

Metric Type

Combined metrics

Methodology/ Standard / Classification/ Taxonomy / Reference

1. Rating provider's methodology
2. ESGBook: Arabesque S-Ray Methodology (Global Compact (GC) Score, ESG Score, Temperature Score)
3. R1ESGo

Unit (e.g. CO2)

1. Climate Risk / ESG Score rating
2. GC Score: (0-100) on human rights, labour right, environment, anti-corruption
3. ESG Score: (0-100) on environmental, social, and governance
4. Temperature Score:
• (tCO2/m$US) on emissions intensity ratio (EIR)
• range from (1.5°C, 2°C, 2.7°C, >2.7°C, 3°C) on the temperature score and is reflected on scenario category

Dimension (e.g. Sector, Customer)

By Entity

Time horizon 

Backward-looking

Frequency

Latest update

Time series

Latest update

Accessibility

Public

Observation on data availability/gaps

Different methodologies and scales would require internal evaluation, as it is not transparent on how the ESG scoring is derived. The coverage of companies also varies across these platforms. The Sustainable Banking Assessment (SUSBA) tool shows year-on-year changes and highlights progression or regression in banks’ performance on the integration of environmental and social (E&S) considerations in their corporate strategy and decision-making processes.

bottom of page