ESG RATINGS
LSEG (formerly Refinitiv) derives its ESG scores entirely from publicly disclosed sustainability data — no direct company input, no questionnaire, no submission process. LSEG's data collection team reads publicly available documents — annual reports, sustainability reports, integrated reports, CDP disclosures, regulatory filings — and scores the organization against more than 630 individual data points across Environmental, Social, and Governance themes. This means the LSEG score is not a function of what an organization has achieved — it is a function of what it has disclosed, how clearly it has disclosed it, and whether the disclosure contains the specific data points and formats that LSEG's methodology scores.
The most common LSEG advisory problem is not poor sustainability performance — it is material ESG performance that is not reflected in public disclosures in the format and at the level of specificity that LSEG's data collection methodology requires. Semtrio analyzes the LSEG methodology against the organization's current disclosures, identifies the data points where performance is under-reflected, and structures public reporting to close that gap — without inflating claims or misrepresenting performance.
Unlike EcoVadis or CDP, LSEG does not accept questionnaire responses or direct data submissions from assessed companies. LSEG's methodology derives scores entirely from public disclosures — annual reports, sustainability reports, integrated reports, CDP disclosures, press releases, and regulatory filings. This means organizations cannot directly engage with the LSEG scoring process. They can only influence the score by changing what they disclose publicly.
LSEG's ESG scoring covers more than 630 individual data points across Environmental, Social, and Governance categories. Most organizations do not have visibility into which of these data points their current disclosures satisfy and which they miss — because LSEG does not provide data point-level feedback to assessed companies. Without a systematic methodology analysis, organizations consistently leave significant score points on the table by not disclosing data they already have in the format LSEG requires.
LSEG ESG data underpins multiple institutional investment frameworks — including MSCI, FTSE Russell, and numerous fund managers operating under SFDR. Organizations with low LSEG scores face potential exclusion from ESG indices, higher cost of capital in sustainable finance instruments, and negative investor signalling that is independent of the quality of their actual sustainability management. For listed companies, LSEG score improvement is directly linked to index inclusion and investor perception.
The gap between an organization's LSEG score and its actual ESG performance is almost always a disclosure gap — not a performance gap. An organization that has implemented a robust climate transition plan but has not disclosed the specific quantitative targets, milestone timelines, and governance accountability structures that LSEG's E1-E3 scoring requires will score poorly on those dimensions regardless of how well the plan is managed internally. An organization that tracks water consumption across all facilities but reports only total volume without the breakdown by region and water stress area that LSEG's Social Controversy and Environmental methodology requires will lose points that the performance would otherwise support.
Semtrio's LSEG advisory process begins with a systematic methodology analysis — mapping LSEG's data point requirements against the organization's current public disclosures to identify exactly which data points are missing, which are present but formatted incorrectly, and which require new data collection. We then structure the disclosure improvement plan across the sustainability report, integrated annual report, CDP submission, and other public documents — producing a disclosure architecture that accurately and completely represents the organization's actual ESG performance in the format LSEG's methodology rewards.
OUR PROCESS
A systematic LSEG disclosure improvement process — from methodology mapping to structured public reporting that accurately reflects ESG performance.
LSEG derives its scores primarily from sustainability reports — organizations with GRI-aligned, interoperable data architectures produce more complete, better-structured sustainability disclosures that LSEG's data collection methodology can score accurately and comprehensively.
Learn moreIntegrated annual reports present sustainability data in a governed, comprehensive, consistently formatted document that LSEG uses as a primary data source — organizations publishing integrated annual reports consistently demonstrate higher LSEG score completeness than those maintaining separate sustainability reports.
Learn moreLSEG heavily weights GHG emissions disclosure quality — verified, methodology-aligned Scope 1, 2, and 3 inventories with year-on-year comparability produce the Environmental pillar data that LSEG scores most prominently. Organizations without verified GHG inventories consistently underperform on LSEG's E pillar.
Learn moreCSRD/ESRS sustainability statements produce the comprehensive, audit-quality sustainability disclosures that LSEG's data collection methodology rewards — organizations building ESRS sustainability statements are simultaneously producing the disclosure quality and completeness that drives LSEG score improvement.
Learn moreLSEG methodology expertise built across GRI, IFRS S2, CSRD, and CDP — the disclosure frameworks that determine LSEG score outcomes.
LSEG scores exclusively from public disclosures — which means the quality of the disclosure frameworks an advisor commands directly determines the quality of LSEG advisory they can provide. Semtrio's positioning at the intersection of GRI, IFRS S2, CSRD/ESRS, and CDP — as a GRI Community Member and CDP Accredited Solutions Provider, with deep IFRS S1/S2 methodology expertise — means we work with the exact disclosure frameworks that LSEG's data collection methodology reads. We understand not just what LSEG scores, but how the data appears in GRI sustainability reports, ESRS sustainability statements, and CDP disclosures — the specific documents LSEG prioritizes as data sources.
The practical result is LSEG advisory that works by improving the underlying disclosures — not by creating LSEG-specific supplementary documents or micro-adjusting existing reports with superficial additions. When Semtrio improves an organization's GRI sustainability report for LSEG performance, the improvement simultaneously strengthens the GRI disclosure, the ESRS data foundation, and the CDP evidence base. LSEG score improvement that is based on genuinely better disclosure compounds across every framework that draws from the same public documents.
Talk to our team about your LSEG ESG scoreWhether you're scoping a single service engagement, evaluating end-to-end advisory across multiple clusters, or looking for one accountable partner across strategy and disclosure — start here.
Yaren Ünal
Senior Specialist,Client Solutions
Hamza Söylemez
Specialist,Client Solutions
Frequently asked questions about LSEG ESG advisory
LSEG (formerly Refinitiv) is one of the world's largest financial data providers — its ESG scores are used by institutional investors, fund managers, and index providers globally to assess the ESG performance of listed companies. LSEG derives its scores entirely from publicly disclosed sustainability data — no questionnaire or direct company submission. LSEG's data collection team reads annual reports, sustainability reports, integrated reports, CDP disclosures, regulatory filings, and other public documents, scoring the organization against more than 630 individual data points across Environmental, Social, and Governance pillars. Scores are expressed on a 0–100 scale and expressed as letter grades (A+ to D-). The score is a function of what an organization discloses publicly — not of its actual sustainability performance in isolation from that disclosure.
The fundamental difference is data collection methodology. EcoVadis accepts questionnaire responses and uploaded documents directly from assessed companies — the organization controls what evidence is submitted. CDP operates through an annual questionnaire that organizations complete and submit. LSEG reads only public disclosures — no direct input from the assessed company is accepted. This means LSEG advisory is entirely about what the organization makes publicly available, in what format, and with what level of completeness and specificity — rather than about what is submitted through a proprietary portal. It also means that organizations cannot request corrections or context from LSEG; the score reflects what the data collection algorithm finds in public documents.
The gap between strong sustainability performance and low LSEG scores is almost always a disclosure gap — not a performance gap. Three patterns cause it most frequently. First, data that is collected internally but not disclosed publicly: an organization may track comprehensive GHG data, water consumption, and social KPIs internally, but if that data is not published in the public documents LSEG reads, it contributes nothing to the score. Second, disclosed data that is formatted incorrectly: LSEG's methodology requires specific data formats — Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions broken out by source, water consumption by facility and water stress region, board diversity as a percentage with gender breakdown. Data disclosed in aggregate without the required granularity scores at a lower level than the full data would support. Third, material sustainability programs that are described narratively but not quantified: LSEG's scoring heavily weights quantitative data over qualitative narrative.
LSEG's highest-weighted data points vary by pillar. In the Environmental pillar, GHG emissions data (Scope 1, 2, and 3) with year-on-year comparison, water consumption with intensity ratios, and environmental policy governance (board-level oversight, targets with timelines) carry the greatest weight. In the Social pillar, employee diversity data (gender breakdown by level), health and safety metrics (injury rates, lost time), and human rights policy coverage are among the highest-weighted points. In the Governance pillar, board independence, ESG-linked executive remuneration, and anti-corruption policy formalization are prominently scored. Semtrio's methodology analysis identifies precisely which of these high-impact data points are absent or underperforming in an organization's current disclosures and designs the improvement plan accordingly.
Semtrio's LSEG advisory follows a four-phase process. We begin with a methodology analysis and score decomposition — mapping LSEG's 630+ data point requirements against all current public disclosures to identify which data points are satisfied, partially satisfied, or absent, with score impact quantified per gap. We then prioritize disclosure gaps by score impact and data availability, distinguishing between gaps that can be closed by restructuring existing disclosures and those requiring new data collection or program development. We restructure the relevant public documents — sustainability report, integrated annual report, CDP disclosures — to include and correctly format the required data points within the limits of what the data supports. Following publication, we monitor the LSEG score update, assess improvement against the disclosure changes made, and design the next-cycle improvement strategy.
Talk to our team about your LSEG ESG scoreWhether you are improving an existing LSEG score or building disclosure quality from the ground up — we will map the methodology, identify the gaps, and structure your public reporting to reflect your ESG performance accurately and completely.
Whether you are improving an existing LSEG score or building disclosure quality from the ground up — we will map the methodology, identify the gaps, and structure your public reporting to reflect your ESG performance accurately and completely.
