Company Country Asset class ESG Rating Environment Social Governance Dynamics Date ESG Report Link
CREDIT BANK OF MOSCOW Russian Federation Bank
A[esg]
A[e]
BBB[s]
AA[g]
Upgraded 12.11.2021 link
PJSC Polyus Russian Federation Non-financial company
A[esg]
A[e]
BBB[s]
AA[g]
Initial assignment 12.07.2021 link
PJSC Severstal Russian Federation Non-financial company
A[esg]
BBB[e]
A[s]
A[g]
Confirmed 24.03.2022 link
RSHB - Moscow Exchange Index - RSPP Vector of sustainable development, total return Russian Federation Fund
BBB[esg]
BB[e]
BBB[s]
AA[g]
Confirmed 11.07.2022 link
RSHB - Russian corporate eurobonds, vector ESG Russian Federation Fund
BBB[esg]
BB[e]
BBB[s]
AA[g]
Confirmed 21.03.2022 link

Methodology for assigning ESG Ratings to Corporates

ESG Corporate Methodology  - Version 4 as of July 2022

ESG Corporate Methodology  - Version 4 as of July 2022 (in Russian)

An environmental, social and governance (ESG) rating represents the opinion of the Agency on how well corporations manage their exposures to environmental, social and governance risks through policies, programs, disclosures and actions. It also represents the Agency’s opinion on how the entity takes advantage of opportunities related to environmental and social factors.

This methodology describes the system of factors and sub-factors used in the process of assigning ESG ratings to corporates. The overall ESG rating is also separated into environmental (E), social (S) and governance (G) ratings. This allows the users of this methodology not only to understand the overall ESG position of the company, but also the individual exposures and mitigation of E, S and G risks.

Archive

Version 3 - Version as of September 2019

Version 2 - Version as of November 2018

Version 1 - Version as of September 2017

 

The environmental, social, governance and total ESG ratings assigned by Rating-Agentur Expert RA GmbH are defined on the basis of allocating the company to one of 9 rating classes according to the following scale:

 

Rating
ESG
Rating
E
Rating
S
Rating
G
Rating
level
Score Rating Band
AAA[esg] AAA[e] AAA[s] AAA[g] Highest
level
89 - 100% A-rating band
The entity’s position is above average. Minor or no further actions are required, but the entity can benefit from any additional improvement or innovation.
AA[esg] AA[e] AA[s] AA[g] Very high
level
78 - 89%
A[esg] A[e] A[s] A[g] High
level
67 - 78%
BBB[esg] BBB[e] BBB[s] BBB[g] Moderately
high level
56 - 67% B-rating band
The entity’s position is average. The entity faces a bearable amount of risks, which can be mitigated with a reasonable number of further actions.
BB[esg] BB[e] BB[s] BB[g] Sufficient
level
44 - 56%
B[esg] B[e] B[s] B[g] Moderately
low level
33 - 44%
CCC[esg] CCC[e] CCC[s] CCC[g] Low

22 - 33%

C-rating band
The entity’s position is below average. Strong actions are required. The entity faces a significant amount of risks but there is a big room for improvement.
CC[esg] CC[e] CC[s] CC[g] Very low
level
11 - 22%
C[esg] C[e] C[s] C[g] Lowest
level
0 - 11%