Discover How IdealRatings Adheres to International ESG Regulatory Standards and Industry Codes of Conduct
EU ESG Ratings Regulation Disclosures
The EU ESG Ratings Regulation 2024/3005 establishes a regulatory framework for ESG rating providers, aiming to enhance transparency, integrity and independence in the ESG ratings market. IdealRatings provides public disclosures on its ESG rating activities. These disclosures aim to inform users and other stakeholders about how IdealRatings’ ESG data and ratings are developed and governed.
Issuer ESG Scores & Ratings
IdealRatings Issuer ESG Scores & Ratings assess issuers’ environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices and disclosures using sector-specific materiality and predefined weighted indicators. The assessment produces individual Environmental, Social and Governance scores, combined into an overall ESG score from 0 to 300 and an absolute rating from CC to AAA, where AAA represents the highest rating.
ESG Controversies Severity Assessment Methodology
IdealRatings ESG Controversies Severity Assessment evaluates companies’ involvement in documented ESG-related legal proceedings and selected international-norm violations. The assessment considers controversy impact alongside the existence of relevant management policies, controls and monitoring mechanisms, assigning severity classifications of Low, Medium, High or Severe at the KPI, ESG pillar and overall company levels.
SDGs Revenue Alignment Methodology
IdealRatings SDGs Revenue Alignment assesses the alignment of companies’ revenue-generating business activities with the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The assessment evaluates positive and negative contributions based on business activities and associated revenues, producing a net alignment percentage and a score ranging from -3 (strongest misalignment) to +3 (strongest alignment) for each SDG.
Conflicts of Interest Policy
IdealRatings maintains safeguards to identify, prevent and manage actual or potential conflicts of interest in its ESG data and rating activities.
Main Sources of Conflict Risk
Conflicts may arise from commercial client relationships, fee structures, other business activities, or personal and financial interests of personnel involved in ESG ratings.
Measures to Mitigate Conflicts
Commercial Independence
IdealRatings does not charge rated entities for assessments. Analysts do not participate in fee negotiations, and rating outcomes are not influenced by commercial considerations or client spending.
Separation of Activities
IdealRatings does not provide consulting, credit ratings, benchmark administration, investment services or statutory audit services. Other non-rating solutions, including Faith-Based screening and factual regulatory datasets, are subject to functional and operational separation.
Personnel Safeguards
Personnel involved in ESG data and ratings must disclose relevant conflicts, comply with personal trading restrictions and recuse themselves where personal or financial interests could compromise objectivity. Gifts or hospitality that could compromise independence are prohibited.
Complaints & Reasoned Concerns Policy
IdealRatings maintains dedicated procedures to receive, assess, and handle feedback regarding its ESG data and rating activities.
- Scope & Categories
Complaints
May be submitted by clients, rated entities, or issuers concerning an individual ESG rating or data assessment. Complaints may address: data sources or factual errors; the application of methodology; or whether the output is representative of the entity.
Reasoned Concerns
May be submitted by any stakeholder who provides their identity, position, and substantive details regarding IdealRatings' ESG data or rating activities.
- Submission Channel Submissions can be sent through the designated website form below or by email to support@idealratings.com, accompanied by relevant supporting evidence.
- Review & Resolution Process
Acknowledgment
Submissions are recorded and reviewed under the applicable handling procedures.
Independent Review
Complaints concerning an individual ESG rating are reviewed by personnel independent from those involved in the determination of that rating.
Timelines
Complaints are investigated fairly and in a timely manner, and the outcome is communicated to the complainant within a reasonable period, subject to applicable legal restrictions.
Record Retention
Records of complaints and their handling are retained in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Pricing Framework
IdealRatings operates a subscription-based licensing model for its ESG data and ratings. IdealRatings does not operate an issuer-paid model and does not charge rated entities for research or rating assessments.
Subscription fees are transparent, fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. Pricing is determined using predefined, objective commercial criteria, including:
Scope of Service
Dataset depth (high-level scores vs. granular raw metrics), covered issuer universe, and delivery setup.
Licensing & Use Case
Application rights, ranging from Internal Usage Only to broader client reporting or product creation.
Billing Structure
Standard billing options, including flat fees, fixed-plus-portfolio rates, or Assets Under Management (AUM) tiers.
Ownership Structure
IdealRatings, Inc. (Delaware, USA) is an independent ESG data and ratings provider headquartered in San Francisco, California, operating with no parent entity and maintaining an affiliate in Egypt (Ratings Soft).
We are dedicated to upholding the highest standards in ESG ratings and data. We proudly adhere to internationally recognized codes of conduct from leading financial authorities, including ICMA, Hong Kong, Japan's JFSA, Singapore's MAS, and India's SEBI.
Use this form to submit a Complaint or Reasoned Concern relating to an IdealRatings ESG rating.
A complaint submitted by a user of ESG ratings, a rated item or an issuer of a rated item concerning an individual ESG Rating. A Complaint may concern: (i) the sources of data used for the rating, including factual errors or mistakes; (ii) the way in which the rating methodology has been applied in relation to the individual ESG Rating; or (iii) whether the individual ESG.
A reasoned concern submitted by a stakeholder who provides their name and position, and which is handled under the Reasoned Concerns process where it does not meet the criteria for classification as a Complaint.