ESG assessments generally request a combination of quantitative metrics, qualitative descriptions, and robust supporting evidence. The aim is not only to capture strategic intentions, but above all to assess in a transparent way the actual implementation, management capability, and how firmly sustainability is embedded within the company. The specific scope and level of detail vary by provider—such as EcoVadis or CDP—as well as by industry and company size, but they usually follow a similar logic.
In the environmental area, the focus is typically on data relating to greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2 and — where relevant — Scope 3), energy and water consumption, waste volumes, and recycling rates. These metrics are complemented by information on climate targets, climate strategies, transition plans, and evidence of implementation, for example in the form of monitoring systems, calculation methodologies, or certificates.
In the social area, companies are asked to provide information on occupational health and safety, accident rates, training, diversity, human rights standards, and supplier requirements, among other topics. This is not only about figures, but also about processes, such as risk analyses, preventive measures, or functioning grievance mechanisms.
The governance section typically focuses on policies and structures, for example on compliance, anti-corruption, data protection, or risk management. It also assesses clear responsibilities, internal control mechanisms, management reviews, and—increasingly—the linking of remuneration systems to ESG targets. Across all topics, management systems and organizational processes play a central role: assessments examine whether ESG topics are strategically embedded, how targets are defined and monitored, and whether progress is reviewed regularly.
Ultimately, the quality of the submitted evidence is crucial. This includes formal policies, process descriptions, reports, audit results, training records, or certificates. These must be up to date, consistent, and traceable in order to be recognized as robust evidence. Overall, it becomes clear: companies that have their sustainability strategy, reporting and operational processes well aligned can handle ESG assessments far more efficiently and generally achieve better ratings.
