ESG Ratings Methodology
This document sets out how SYNE constructs, weights, scores, and governs an ESG Rating for publicly listed and other public companies. It covers scope, data sources, the full criteria framework, grade assignment, governance, review cycle, and appeals.
Twelve sections, start to finish.
Scope & Applicability
Who is eligible to be rated, and how a rating is commissioned.
02Data Sources & Collection
Public filings, direct submissions, and licensed third-party data.
03Criteria Framework
Environmental, Social, Governance and Economic & Industry, weighted to 100.
04Weighting & Scoring Methodology
How individual criterion scores combine into one composite score.
05Data Quality Adjustment
Why a score needs verified evidence to reach the top grade bands.
06Controversies & Market Intelligence
How adverse events and market signals are tracked and scored.
07Continuous Monitoring
Ongoing surveillance between scheduled review cycles.
08Grade Assignment & Rating Scale
How the composite score maps to the shared AAA–D scale.
09Mapping to the SYNE Index
How this rating becomes a position on the two-axis Index.
10Governance & Independence
Who signs off on a rating, and how conflicts are managed.
11Review Cycle, Triggers & Appeals
When ratings are revisited, and how to challenge one.
12Limitations & Version History
What this rating does not do, and how the methodology has changed.
Who and what this methodology rates.
This methodology applies to publicly listed companies and other public companies subject to securities-law disclosure obligations, across any sector and any of SYNE's 71 licensed jurisdictions. It does not apply to unlisted or privately held organisations, which fall under the separate Sustainability Ratings Methodology, or to carbon credit projects, which fall under the Carbon Ratings Methodology.
A company becomes eligible for an ESG Rating once it has at least one full annual reporting cycle of public disclosure available, or has voluntarily submitted equivalent disclosure directly to SYNE. Ratings can be commissioned by the rated entity, or initiated independently by SYNE for companies within actively covered indices.
At a glance
- Applies to
- Publicly listed & other public companies
- Minimum eligibility
- One full annual reporting cycle of public disclosure, or an equivalent direct submission
- Commissioned by
- The rated company, or initiated independently by SYNE within covered indices
- Geographic scope
- Any of SYNE's 71 licensed jurisdictions
- Excludes
- Unlisted organisations and carbon credit projects - see the respective methodologies
Where the underlying evidence comes from.
Every ESG Rating draws on a combination of public and directly submitted sources, weighted toward independently verifiable evidence wherever possible.
Public disclosure & filings
Annual reports, sustainability reports, regulatory filings, and disclosures made under CSRD/ESRS, SASB or GRI-aligned frameworks.
Direct company submission
A structured disclosure questionnaire submitted directly by the rated company, covering criteria not addressed in public filings.
Licensed & third-party data
Emission factors and market data licensed through SYNE Data, and controversy data from Market & Trade Intelligence.
80 weighted criteria across four dimensions.
Each criterion is scored on a normalised 0–100 basis by a lead analyst, using a documented scoring rubric specific to that criterion, before dimension and composite scores are calculated. Controversies and disclosure quality are scored as part of Governance, rather than as a standalone dimension.
Environmental
Resource use, emissions and environmental management, scored primarily from disclosed data and licensed emission factors.
- Emissions & Climate Management
- Resource & Waste Management
- Biodiversity & Land Use
- Environmental Management Systems & Certification
Social
How the company treats its workforce, communities and customers.
- Labor Practices & Human Rights
- Health & Safety
- Community & Stakeholder Impact
- Product Responsibility & Customer Welfare
Governance
Board structure, executive incentives, ethical conduct, and - as the largest dimension - the controversy and disclosure quality checks that keep the other three dimensions honest.
- Board Structure & Independence
- Executive Compensation Alignment
- Anti-Corruption & Business Ethics
- Shareholder Rights & Audit Quality
- Controversy Severity & Frequency
- Disclosure Completeness & Third-Party Verification
- Data Traceability
Economic & Industry
Economic value creation and industry-specific materiality factors that shape what "good" looks like for this company's sector.
- Economic Value Generation & Distribution
- Industry-Specific Materiality Factors
- Innovation & Sustainable Product Mix
- Market Position & Competitive Resilience
How 80 individual scores become one number.
Each of the 80 criteria carries a base weight set by sector materiality mapping, reviewed annually against evolving disclosure standards. Criterion scores are aggregated into a dimension score using the weighted average of that dimension's criteria, and dimension scores are then combined into the composite score using the 21/17/42/20 dimension weights shown in Section 03.
Sector materiality mapping
Criterion weights are adjusted by sector using a materiality map - for example, emissions criteria carry more weight for heavy industry than for a services business.
Weighted average, not simple average
No criterion is dropped for missing data; a missing criterion is scored as zero unless a documented exemption applies, preventing silent grade inflation.
Non-compensatory floors
A severe, unresolved controversy scored within Governance caps the composite score, regardless of performance in the other three dimensions.
A strong score on unverifiable data isn't a strong rating.
Every criterion score carries a parallel data quality flag - Assured, Disclosed, or Estimated - based on the strength of its underlying evidence. A composite score cannot reach the AAA or AA band unless at least 80% of its criteria carry an Assured or Disclosed data quality flag, and no more than 10% are flagged Estimated.
Independently verified
Backed by third-party assurance, audited disclosure, or independently verifiable public record.
Company-disclosed, unassured
Reported directly by the company without independent assurance, but consistent with other available evidence.
Modelled or inferred
Estimated using sector proxies or licensed emission factors where direct company data isn't available.
How adverse events and market signals feed into the Governance dimension.
Controversy and market intelligence data is sourced systematically from SYNE's Market & Trade Intelligence coverage, rather than relying on the rated company's own disclosure of adverse events. Each identified event is classified by severity and materiality before it affects the Governance dimension score.
Systematic adverse media monitoring
Every rated company is monitored on the same basis, regardless of whether it has appeared in the news.
Severity & materiality scoring
Controversies are scored by severity and materiality, so a minor local dispute isn't weighted the same as a systemic failure.
Sector & peer benchmarking
Market intelligence positions a company's controversy record against sector peers, not in isolation.
What happens between scheduled review cycles.
A rating is not frozen for a full year between reviews. Continuous monitoring tracks signals that could affect a rated company's score in real time, feeding into the interim review triggers described in Section 11.
Controversy & event alerts
New adverse events are flagged as they're identified, not held until the next scheduled review.
Quarterly data refresh
Licensed data feeds underlying the Environmental and Economic & Industry dimensions refresh at least quarterly.
Threshold-based escalation
A monitoring signal that crosses a defined materiality threshold is escalated to the Rating Committee for an interim review decision.
How the composite score becomes a letter grade.
The composite score, after data quality adjustment, is mapped to the six-tier AAA–D scale shared across every SYNE product.
Requires Assured data quality on at least 80% of criteria, per Section 05.
Requires Assured or Disclosed data quality on at least 80% of criteria.
Material gaps identified in one or more dimensions.
Significant improvement needed across multiple dimensions.
Fundamental gaps in governance or controversy management.
No material evidence of ESG performance or oversight.
How this rating becomes a point on the Index.
The SYNE Index plots every rating on two axes: Standards Alignment and Data Quality & Assurance. For ESG Ratings, the Standards Alignment axis is derived from the weighted average of the Environmental, Social and Economic & Industry dimension scores; the Data Quality & Assurance axis is derived from the Governance dimension's controversy and disclosure-quality criteria, combined with the data quality flags described in Section 05. See the SYNE Index Methodology for the full cross-product calculation.
Front Runners
Strong Environmental, Social and Economic & Industry performance, backed by well-governed, independently verified disclosure.
Rising Stars
Strong underlying performance, with governance, disclosure or controversy management still maturing.
Emerging Stars
Well-governed and well-verified, but with narrower Environmental, Social or Economic & Industry ambition.
Backmarkers
Limited performance across the three performance dimensions, with unresolved governance or disclosure gaps.
Who signs off on a rating, and how conflicts are managed.
Independent Rating Committee
A committee separate from the lead analyst reviews and approves every rating before publication.
No pay-for-rating influence
Fees are agreed before an engagement begins and have no bearing on the rating outcome; analysts hold no financial interest in rated companies.
Factual accuracy review only
Rated companies may review a draft rating once, strictly for factual accuracy - not to negotiate the score.
When a rating is revisited, and how to challenge one.
Annual review
Every rating is fully reassessed at least once every 12 months, aligned to the company's own reporting cycle where possible.
Interim review triggers
A material controversy, restatement, M&A event, or leadership change can trigger an interim review ahead of the next scheduled cycle.
Factual accuracy window
Rated companies have 10 business days from draft delivery to raise a factual accuracy challenge before a rating is finalised.
What this rating does not do.
An ESG Rating is an opinion of ESG performance as of the rating date - it is not a credit rating, an investment recommendation, or a guarantee of future performance. It relies on data provided by, or obtained about, the rated company and cannot detect fraud or concealment that no available evidence would reveal.
| Version | Effective date | Summary of changes |
|---|---|---|
| v1.3 | Jul 2026 | Restructured dimensions to Environmental (21%), Social (17%), Governance (42%, now including controversies & disclosure quality), and Economic & Industry (20%); added Controversies & Market Intelligence and Continuous Monitoring sections. |
| v1.2 | Jan 2026 | Added non-compensatory floor for unresolved severe controversies; refreshed sector materiality map. |
| v1.1 | Jan 2025 | Introduced the three-tier data quality flag (Assured / Disclosed / Estimated). |
| v1.0 | Jan 2024 | Initial publication of the ESG Ratings Methodology. |
This document is available in full, including prior versions, on request as part of SYNE's regulatory disclosure pack. For questions about how a specific criterion is scored, contact SYNE's methodology team.
See how this methodology applies to your company.
Talk to our team about commissioning an ESG Rating, or request a readiness assessment first.