Sustainability Ratings Methodology
This document sets out how SYNE constructs, weights, scores, and governs a Sustainability Rating for unlisted organisations, non-profits and institutions. 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
Disclosure questionnaires, site visits, and licensed third-party data.
03Criteria Framework
Environmental, Social, Governance and Economic & Industry, 60 criteria in total.
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 unlisted and privately held companies, non-profits, foundations, and other institutions not subject to securities-law disclosure obligations, across any sector and any of SYNE's 71 licensed jurisdictions. It does not apply to publicly listed companies, which fall under the ESG Ratings Methodology, or to national, state or municipal governments, which fall under the Sustainability Ratings for Governments framework.
An organisation becomes eligible for a Sustainability Rating once it has completed SYNE's structured disclosure questionnaire, covering the criteria that public filings would otherwise provide for a listed company. Ratings can be commissioned directly by the organisation, or by an investor, lender or funder as part of due diligence.
At a glance
- Applies to
- Unlisted companies, non-profits, foundations & institutions
- Minimum eligibility
- Completed structured disclosure questionnaire
- Commissioned by
- The organisation itself, or an investor, lender or funder
- Geographic scope
- Any of SYNE's 71 licensed jurisdictions
- Excludes
- Listed companies and governments - see the respective methodologies
Where the underlying evidence comes from.
Because unlisted organisations rarely have the disclosure infrastructure of a listed company, Sustainability Ratings place more weight on structured direct submission and site-level verification.
Structured disclosure questionnaire
A comprehensive questionnaire covering all 80 criteria, completed directly by the organisation being rated.
Site visits & document review
On-site verification and review of governance documents, financial statements, and impact reporting where available.
Licensed & public sector data
Country and sector benchmarking data licensed through SYNE Data, and any available public regulatory filings.
60 weighted criteria across four dimensions.
Each criterion is scored on a normalised 0–100 basis by a lead analyst, using a documented scoring rubric adapted for the disclosure maturity typical of unlisted organisations, before dimension and composite scores are calculated. Controversies and disclosure quality are scored as part of Governance, rather than as a standalone dimension.
Environmental
How the organisation manages its direct environmental footprint, proportionate to its size and sector.
- Resource & Energy Use
- Waste & Emissions Management
- Environmental Policy & Commitments
- Facilities & Operational Footprint
Social
The core mission delivery dimension for most non-profits and mission-driven institutions.
- Mission Delivery & Beneficiary Outcomes
- Workforce Practices & Wellbeing
- Community & Stakeholder Engagement
- Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
Governance
Whether the organisation is run in a way that deserves the trust placed in it - including, as the largest dimension, the controversy and disclosure quality checks that keep the other three dimensions honest.
- Board & Oversight Structure
- Financial Controls & Stewardship
- Conflict of Interest Management
- Regulatory & Legal Compliance
- Controversy Severity & Frequency
- Disclosure Completeness & Third-Party Verification
- Data Traceability
Economic & Industry
Economic value creation and institution-type materiality factors that shape what "good" looks like for this organisation's category.
- Economic Value Generation & Distribution
- Institution-Type Materiality Factors
- Funding Diversification & Sustainability
- Sector Positioning & Resilience
How 60 individual scores become one number.
Each of the 60 criteria carries a base weight set by institution-type materiality mapping - a foundation, a private company, and a hospital system are weighted differently within the same four dimensions. 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 25/20/35/20 dimension weights shown in Section 03.
Institution-type materiality mapping
Criterion weights are adjusted by institution type - mission delivery criteria carry more weight for a non-profit than for a private trading company.
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
An unresolved governance failure - such as an undisclosed conflict of interest - caps the composite score, regardless of performance elsewhere.
A strong score on self-reported 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 a site visit, independent audit, or an independently verifiable public record.
Organisation-disclosed, unassured
Reported directly by the organisation through the disclosure questionnaire, without independent verification.
Modelled or inferred
Estimated using sector or institution-type proxies where direct organisational data isn't available.
How adverse events and sector 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 organisation'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 organisation 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.
Institution-type benchmarking
Market intelligence positions an organisation's controversy record against comparable institution types, 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 organisation'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, being actively addressed.
Significant improvement needed across multiple dimensions.
Fundamental gaps in governance or transparency.
No material evidence of sustainability 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 Sustainability 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.
A Sustainability Rating is an opinion of an organisation's sustainability performance as of the rating date - it is not a credit rating, an audit of financial statements, or a guarantee of future performance. It relies on data provided by, or obtained about, the rated organisation and cannot detect fraud or concealment that no available evidence would reveal.
| Version | Effective date | Summary of changes |
|---|---|---|
| v1.2 | Jul 2026 | Restructured dimensions to Environmental (15 criteria), Social (12), Governance (21, now including controversies & disclosure quality), and Economic & Industry (12), totalling 60 criteria; added Controversies & Market Intelligence and Continuous Monitoring sections. |
| v1.1 | Jan 2026 | Refreshed institution-type materiality map; added Diversity, Equity & Inclusion to Social Impact & Community. |
| v1.0 | Jan 2024 | Initial publication of the Sustainability 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 organisation.
Talk to our team about commissioning a Sustainability Rating, or request a readiness assessment first.