Blog — S&P Global Sustainable1 — 13 March, 2026
How an engaged, transparent approach provides a higher quality view of sustainability performance
Highlights
- Stable, evolution‑driven methodology by design: S&P Global ESG Scores & Raw Data are built on an annually reviewed continually evolving methodology that preserves comparability over time, minimizing abrupt, model‑driven volatility for time series analysis, strategic targets and long-term investor use.
- A “glass-box” scoring architecture: S&P Global provides a transparent view of its scoring logic: dimensions, criteria, weights, question‑level scoring and aggregation steps are published and systematically documented1. The scoring framework is documented down to question and criterion level, using a mix of company‑submitted and public data. This granularity allows the investor community to link specific data changes to topic-level and overall ESG Score movements.
- Double materiality: Through the Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA), S&P Global evaluates both financially material risks and opportunities, as well as companies’ impacts on society and the environment, using sector‑specific criteria and weights, progressively shifting scoring from disclosure to measurable KPIs that reflect what is material in each covered industry and real-world performance.2
Across the market for ESG scores, users continue to face persistent challenges: score instability, limited transparency, narrow interpretations of materiality, risk of overstating sustainability progress and tendency to emphasize disclosure over demonstrated outcomes. At many providers, methodology updates can trigger abrupt score swings driven more by model changes than by underlying improvements or deterioration in corporate sustainability performance. This can undermine time series analysis, strategic asset allocation and the use of ESG scores for KPIs and incentive setting. Compounding this issue, many methodologies remain opaque to end users, offering little visibility into how policies, performance metrics and controversies translate into final scores.
These challenges are intensified by growing regulatory and stakeholder demands to assess both financial risks and real world environmental and social impacts. Yet many frameworks still rely primarily on a single financial materiality lens and are criticized for rewarding “tick-box” disclosure over measurable outcomes — sometimes favoring reporting maturity over underlying performance and actual impact.
These issues have long been systematically addressed by the S&P Global ESG Scores and Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA): a stable yet adaptive methodology, transparent scoring logic, a clear double materiality framework, controlled score volatility and annual independent external assurance. Reflecting this approach, S&P Global ESG Scores ranked first for perceived quality in the Rate the Raters Report 2025 (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Ranks of average quality of ESG raters, Source: Rate the Raters 2025, ERM Sustainability Institute: https://www.erm.com/insights/rate-the-raters-2025-esg-ratings-in-evolution-corporate-survey-results/
Beware of areas of limitations in other approaches
Not all approaches to measuring sustainability performance of companies are equivalent, and various approaches present areas which may have limitations linked to the challenges mentioned above. The following are some of the approaches S&P Global takes in measuring corporate sustainability.
Methodology evolution — continuous improvement, not disruptive step changes
The S&P Global ESG Scores methodology is reviewed annually to stay aligned with evolving sustainability priorities and regulatory expectations. This approach favors continuous, incremental improvement rather than infrequent, large-scale methodological overhauls. It allows the framework to evolve with changing materiality and company performance, while preserving year-on-year consistency — avoiding unnecessary disruption to index construction, portfolio holdings, investment mandates, lending decisions and stewardship activities.
Drawing on sustainability and financial specialization, S&P Global reassesses the materiality of existing and emerging issues each year and adjusts question weightings accordingly. Statistical analysis of scoring outcomes helps identify questions that no longer differentiate performance — whether due to widespread adoption or limited variability — triggering targeted refinement. Each assessment cycle concludes with a structured review to enhance scoring precision, clarify methodology and retire outdated questions.
Score dynamics demonstrate the value of this approach. With a granular 0 to 100 scale, the methodology captures the maturity of corporate sustainability practices without introducing artificial volatility. Using a 10-point movement as a benchmark for significance, only around 5% of companies experienced a notable score change between 2024 and 20253 (see Figure 2). S&P Global ESG Scores have been used in index and portfolio construction for over 25 years — evidence that methodological stability, not abrupt change, underpins their long‑standing adoption in investor workflows.
Figure 2: YoY S&P Global ESG Score changes >10 points; Source: S&P Global Sustainable1; Data as of Feb. 27, 2026.
A transparent scoring methodology, not an opaque process
S&P Global ESG Scores are built on a transparent, bottom-up methodology‑ that goes well beyond a headline score. The public documentation4 clearly explains how scores are constructed — from question-level assessments (0–100), to criteria and dimension scores, through to the overall ESG Score — using disclosed, industry-specific weights. The methodology‑ also sets out the materiality rationale for each theme in the CSA, helping companies and investors understand why issues are included. Where public disclosure is not mandatory or data is unavailable, a clearly defined modelling approach is applied to ensure comprehensive topic coverage.
Methodology updates are communicated well in advance of each assessment cycle and are accompanied by detailed notes. These changes are subject to a formal public consultation, allowing companies and investors to provide feedback and ensuring the CSA remains decision-useful and aligned with regulatory and market developments. To further strengthen confidence, S&P Global voluntarily subjects the CSA methodology, models, research process and resulting scores to an independent annual third-party audit5.
S&P Global also publishes its industry materiality assessments, grounded in a double-materiality perspective that considers both enterprise value impacts and companies’ effects on society and the environment (see Figure 3). These assessments directly inform the weighting of topics in the CSA, providing a clear, published basis for defining industry-specific material issues. Together, the S&P Global also publishes its industry materiality assessments, grounded in a double-materiality perspective that considers both enterprise value impacts and companies’ effects on society and the environment (see Figure 3)6. These assessments directly inform the weighting of topics in the CSA, providing a clear, published basis for defining industry-specific material issues. Together, the transparency, governance and double-materiality lenses underpin ESG Scores designed to support forward-looking decisions.
Figure 3: Materiality Matrix 2025: Diversified Financial Services and Capital Markets; Source: S&P Global Sustainable1; Data as of April 3, 2025.
Measuring performance, not just disclosure
In many cases, the CSA evaluates companies based on the actual results of their programs by measuring quantitative key performance indicators (KPIs). To give one example, in assessing a company’s Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Policy7, we score companies on KPIs such as the lost-time injury frequency rate. Companies receive points not only for disclosing these values but also for how these values have evolved over the last four years, and how they compare with their peers. In this way, the CSA reflects whether a company demonstrates transparency about a topic as well as whether its performance on the topic is improving or worsening.
When new questions are introduced in the CSA, the scoring framework initially focuses on transparency and disclosure, and companies receive points for providing relevant information. As reporting practices mature and data availability improves, the methodology progressively shifts toward performance-based scoring. This continuous evolution enables the evaluation of progress over time and facilitates comparison of a company’s results against peers.
In the 2025 CSA, 60% of all questions collect quantitative KPI-based information. Of these KPI-based questions, 23% are scored based on sharing the values regardless of the performance, reflecting only disclosure. The other 77% of KPI-based questions also award points based on how the values have changed over time and how they compare with the company’s peers (see Figure 4).
In this way, the CSA has evolved to focus more on assessing a company’s sustainability efforts by measuring the change in KPIs over time — not just whether a KPI is disclosed at all.
Figure 4: Percentage of quantitative questions in the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment that score performance. Source: S&P Global Sustainable1. Data as of Feb. 27, 2026.
By design, the S&P Global ESG Scores are intended to address these blind spots and put real-world sustainability performance at the center. Grounded in a transparent, assured methodology, double materiality approach and a growing share of performance-based KPIs, they are built to support investors and companies that want to understand how sustainability is really progressing over time.
1S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) documentation
2S&P Global Industry Materiality Matrices
3 2025 scores published as of 27 February 2025, the CSA 2025 cycle ends at 31.03.2026 therefore not all 2025 scores are included
4S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) documentation
5CSA_Independent_Assurance_Report2024.pdf
6S&P Global Industry Materiality Matrices
7According to the CSA 2025 OHS Policy question rationale: “The OHS policy provides an overall commitment and a necessary framework for the organization to set its objectives and take action to achieve the intended outcomes of the OHS management system.”