The Global Risks Alliance (GRA)
Investment decisions about climate, nature and governance rest on data that companies disclose, vendors estimate and funds re-disclose to their own investors. Each step adds choices about scope, boundary and method. This page sets out where portfolio sustainability data come from, why the same company can carry very different ratings, how disclosure standards are converging, and what a comparability check needs before two figures can be set side by side.
GRA · Established · service level R0
ESG data quality is the reliability of the climate, nature and governance data that companies disclose, vendors estimate and funds re-disclose. Each step adds choices about scope, boundary and method, so ratings of the same company diverge by design, and reported, estimated and modelled data must be told apart.
Where a portfolio's assets sit, and how much of its value is most exposed. Hypothetical assets, not an assessment.
Comparability and source limits. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Company disclosure covers some issuers and some metrics. Gaps are filled by vendor estimates and models, often without a visible label. A portfolio figure can rest mostly on estimates while reading as fact.
ESG ratings differ in what they measure, how they weight it and what they assume for missing data. Low agreement between providers reflects different definitions, not only noise, so a rating is a method as much as a measurement.
Issuer reports feed vendor data, which feed fund disclosures such as SFDR templates, which feed distributor and asset owner reports. An error or a change of method at the start travels through every report downstream.
ISSB standards are adopted jurisdiction by jurisdiction with different timing, reliefs and assurance. European, US state and other regimes overlap. Comparability across a global portfolio stays partial for a long transition period.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| PCAF data quality score | A score from one to five showing how far financed emissions rest on reported rather than estimated data. |
| ESG rating divergence | Disagreement between providers' ratings of the same company, driven by scope, measurement and weighting. |
| Restatement | A correction of previously reported figures. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financed emissions resting on reported data | percent of financed emissions | annual | Issuer disclosure against vendor estimates | ESTIMATED |
| PCAF data quality score | exposure-weighted score on the PCAF scale | annual | Financed emissions inventory | ESTIMATED |
| Coverage of holdings by issuer sustainability disclosure | percent of portfolio value | annual | Issuer reports and filings | REPORTED |
| Rating agreement across providers | rank correlation, dimensionless | annual | Vendor ratings | ESTIMATED |
| External assurance of disclosed metrics | share of issuers by assurance level | annual | Issuer reports | REPORTED |
| Restatements of previously reported metrics | count per reporting cycle | annual | Issuer and fund reports | REPORTED |
| Nature-related disclosure coverage | share of holdings reporting against TNFD | annual | Issuer reports and TNFD adopter records | REPORTED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| IFRS S1, IFRS S2 and the ISSB jurisdictional adoption profiles | Disclosure requirements and the status of adoption by jurisdiction | Free to read, IFRS Foundation copyright |
| TNFD recommendations and adopter records | Nature-related disclosure requirements and organisations that have committed to report | Free to read, attribution |
| PCAF Global GHG Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Financial Industry | Methods for financed emissions and the data quality scale | Free to read, attribution |
| CDP disclosure data | Company responses on climate, water and forests | Licensed; public summary scores |
| IOSCO report on ESG ratings and data products providers | Recommendations on transparency, governance and conflicts of ratings and data providers | Free to read, IOSCO terms |
| SEC EDGAR filings | Issuer annual reports and fund disclosures in the United States | Public domain |
| Officially appointed mechanisms and the European Single Access Point | Regulated disclosures of EU issuers and, as it is phased in, a single point of access | Public records, terms per mechanism |
| ESMA supervisory reports on sustainability disclosure and greenwashing | Findings on SFDR implementation, fund names and sustainability claims | Free reuse, attribution |
Asset Management Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Fund boards and management companies | Whether a fund's sustainability disclosures rest on data of adequate coverage, quality and method consistency | Coverage and data quality by metric; lineage from source to template |
| Securities regulators, including ESMA and national authorities | Whether funds' names, claims and periodic reports are supported by their data | Comparability checks and the share of estimated data behind headline metrics |
| Jurisdictional standard setters and finance ministries | How and when to adopt ISSB standards, and with which reliefs | Comparability gaps across regimes and how investors use disclosed metrics |
| Assurance providers and audit committees | What level of assurance a disclosed metric can bear | Method documentation, restatement history and the share of estimated data |
Disclosure frameworks have developed rapidly, but coverage and consistency remain uneven. Companies choose methods, boundaries and assumptions, so figures that look similar may not be comparable. Smaller and private companies disclose less.
Data providers fill gaps with estimates and combine information into ratings or scores. Research has found that environmental, social and governance ratings from different providers often diverge, reflecting differences in what they measure, how they weight it and how they estimate missing data.
Physical risk analysis requires knowing where assets are, which companies often do not disclose in detail. Supply-chain exposure is harder still, since it depends on suppliers' locations and practices.
Reviewing what companies report and how. Self-reported data may be selective.
Studying differences between providers' methods and results. Methods are not always transparent.
Linking physical assets to owners and hazards using geospatial data. Coverage is incomplete.
Filling gaps with models using econometrics. Estimates carry uncertainty that is often not shown.
The platform does not rate companies or endorse data providers. It studies methods and their limits.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.