Norway was the third-highest ranking country worldwide by overall Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score. Finland ranked second overall with a score of **. Denmark was the highest-ranking country worldwide, scoring an ESG rating of ****.

Belarus received an overall Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score of **. This was almost ** points below the ******-lowest ranking country, Ukraine. Both Ukraine and Albania received a general "C" grade. Moldova began the "*" grades with an overall ESG score of ****. Those scoring ** and above were awarded an "A" grade, with Denmark having scored the highest overall score, reaching ****.

Nicaragua received an overall Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score of ****. This was more than ** points below the second-lowest ranking country, Mexico, which received a "*" grading having achieved an ESG score of under ** points. Canada was the best performing country across the Americas, having achieved a score of ****.

ISS ESG’s Country Rating solution provides a highly relevant and material assessment of a country’s ESG performance, allowing investors to draw well-informed conclusions about the long-term solvency of government bond issuers. The rating comprises more than 100 quantitative and qualitative criteria and follows a profound methodology, reflecting global best practices as well as normative considerations.

The sustainability performance of countries is analyzed via two dimensions and six categories:

Social & Governance Rating 1. Political System/Governance 2. Human Rights/Fundamental Freedoms 3. Social Conditions

Environmental Rating 4. Natural Resources 5. Climate Change/Energy 6. Production/Consumption

A wide range of ESG topics are assessed in the ISS ESG Country Rating including both qualitative and quantitative criteria. For instance, the safeguarding of fundamental freedoms by a country’s government is mostly assessed in qualitative terms, while a country’s consumption of resources is quantified. The rating also includes a comprehensive analysis of relevant controversies, allowing investors to consider countries' performance and actions in areas especially critical to them.

The rating dimensions environment, social and governance are comprised of specifically defined topics, which in turn are further split into several criteria and sub-criteria. This allows for an individual assessment of each country’s performance in a very detailed way and to take into account the various individual interdependencies and multidimensional nature of the criteria.

The overall evaluation is based on a twelve–point grading system from A+ (excellent performance) to D- (poor performance). Countries are categorized as ISS ESG “Prime” if they achieve or exceed the minimum sustainability performance requirements (Prime threshold: B-) defined for the ESG Country Rating.

Coverage includes approximately 100% coverage of global sovereign debt issued and more than 120 countries.

ISS ESG’s Country Ratings are based on a variety of trustworthy sources, including:

• Supranational organizations such as the UN Development Programme, World Health Organization, and International Labor Organization • Public authorities such as the US State Department and German Foreign Affairs Department • Non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, International Trade Union Confederation, Transparency International, and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Direct contact via telephone or e-mail is conducted only occasionally if data is ambiguous or if more background information is necessary.

Data is used by a broad range of institutional investors, asset managers, asset owners, fund managers, banks, government institutions, universities and research firms.

This horizontal bar chart displays ESG score (/ 100) by country using the aggregation average in Chipata. The data is about companies.

A large portion of countries within the Asia-Pacific region received an Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score below **, leaving **** of the region's countries with an "E" grade. There were four nations that achieved an "A" grade, having scored ** ESG points or over. Australia was the ************** ranking country overall with a score of **. New Zealand was the *** ranking country in the Asia-Pacific, having achieved ****.

This horizontal bar chart displays environmental score (ESG) (/ 100) by country using the aggregation average in Wiesbaden. The data is about companies.

This bar chart displays ESG score (/ 100) by country using the aggregation average. The data is filtered where the sector is Information Technology. The data is about companies.

As ESG investing has gone mainstream in the public equity space, the spotlight has turned to fixed income investments and sovereign bonds in particular. Investors increasingly recognize that ESG factors, such as corruption, climate protection, and human rights, could impact the long-term solvency of government bond issuers.

ISS ESG’s Country Controversy Assessment enables investors to assess a country’s exposure to various controversies, including alignment with international norms and conventions, to effectively manage potential ESG risks and opportunities. The assessment covers various ESG factors across the following themes:

• Authoritarian Regime • Biodiversity • Child Labour • Climate Protection • Coal Power • Corruption • Death Penalty • Discrimination • Euthanasia • Freedom of Association • Freedom of Speech & Press • Global Peace Index • Human Rights • Labour Rights • Military Budget • Money Laundering • Nuclear Power • Nuclear Weapons • Whaling

Coverage for the Country Controversy Assessment includes more than 800 sovereign issuers:

• Approximately 100% coverage of global sovereign debt issued • More than 120 countries as well as Hong Kong and the European Union • All member countries of the European Union and the OECD

Analysts gather the controversy-related information from credible and acknowledged external sources, such as indices and blacklists, and the ISS ESG Country Rating to deliver high-quality, relevant and actionable data.

Examples of sources:

• Amnesty International • Financial Action Task Force • Germanwatch • Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Data is used by a broad range of institutional investors, asset managers, asset owners, fund managers, banks, government institutions, universities and research firms.

South Africa received an overall Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score of 63.8. This was 0.01 point above Botswana, which ranked in third place overall. Namibia was the country with the highest overall ESG score across Africa and the Middle East. Qatar was the best performing country in the Middle East, having an overall ESG score of 53.2 earning the nation a "C" grade.

This horizontal bar chart displays ESG score (/ 100) by country using the aggregation average. The data is filtered where the sector is Consumer Staples. The data is about companies.

We track over 500 ESG factors and process around 200 features (based on statistical significance) to create our ESG scores. We have built a powerful proprietary algorithm to aggregate the data from raw values (such as carbon intensity metrics, employee satisfaction, diversity metrics etc.) to an overall score.

The key differentiators of our scores are that they are: 1) Real-time 2) Explainable 3) Comprehensive across all 3 E, S, G pillars

1) Real-time Scores

Our platform uses the latest technologies which means that we are able to provide real-time ESG scores for our c.17,000 companies at scale. Some of the ESG factors that we use are real-time numbers such as people-related features like board diversity, management gender pay gap and employee satisfaction. As a result, as we get new data it will contribute to companies’ scores in real-time, which keeps investors up-to-date with the latest available numbers.

2) Explainable Scores

We have built a proprietary algorithm that aggregates ESG features to give an overall score. Our scores have 4 levels: overall score, ESG pillar level scores, theme level scores, and feature level scores so you can see exactly where these scores came from.

3) Comprehensive across all 3 E, S, G pillars

There is a lot of focus on the Environmental pillar generally, but we still also process a huge volume of data for the Social and Governance pillars.

Global Environmental, Social And Governance (ESG) Rating Services market size is expected to reach $18.66 billion by 2029 at 11%, segmented as by addressing environmental, social, and governance (esg) expectations, esg risk assessment, esg performance benchmarking, sector-specific esg guidance, stakeholder engagement strategies

InvestVerte is an independent ESG and corporate governance research, rating and analytics company which provides information to help investors around the world make the best investment decisions. Created in 2020, InvestVerte is a young, innovative company which builds on firm foundations, adaptability and artificial intelligence. Nowadays, sustainability in business is essential; InvestVerte is here to help it’s customers evaluate companies and choose those that best match their needs. Composed of a dynamic team with more than 15 years of data, the company’s main advantage is its ability to adapt and respond to its customers’ requirements. Putting customer relationships at the forefront, the firm aims to develop itself through strong collaborations.

This bar chart displays ESG score (/ 100) by country using the aggregation average in Haddonfield. The data is about companies.

ESG Ratings Market size was valued at USD 2.02 Billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 6.59 Billion by 2031, growing at a CAGR of 18.3% during the forecasted period 2024 to 2031. Global ESG Ratings Market Drivers The market drivers for the ESG Ratings Market can be influenced by various factors. These may include:

• Regulatory Pressure and Compliance: Governments and regulatory bodies are increasingly mandating ESG disclosures and transparency. This regulatory push is driving companies to obtain ESG ratings to comply with new regulations and avoid potential penalties. • Investor Demand: There is a growing demand from investors for ESG-compliant investments. Institutional investors, such as pension funds and asset managers, are increasingly incorporating ESG criteria into their investment decisions to align with their own sustainability goals and manage risks associated with environmental and social factors.

Global ESG Ratings Market Restraints Several factors can act as restraints or challenges for the ESG Ratings Market. These may include:

• Lack of Standardization: The absence of standardized methodologies for ESG ratings can lead to inconsistencies in ratings across different agencies. This lack of uniformity can undermine the credibility and comparability of ESG ratings. • High Costs: Implementing and maintaining ESG rating systems can be costly for organizations, especially for smaller firms or those in developing regions. The costs involved in data collection, analysis, and reporting can be a barrier to entry and adoption.

Data includes ESG scores and some financial indicators of companies from different countries and industries.

In 2023, a significant share of European investors trusted Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings to provide a true and accurate understanding into company practices. The proportion of respondents who trusted ESG ratings was highest in Italy, at ** percent, followed by Spain, where ** percent of investors expressed trust in ESG ratings to provide insights.

This horizontal bar chart displays ESG score (/ 100) by country using the aggregation average. The data is filtered where the sector is Information Technology. The data is about companies.