ESG Rating Disclosure

Methods, models and assumptions underlying our Impact Score

On this page, we disclose the methods, models and fundamental assumptions we use in our ESG rating activities. The disclosures follow Article 23 and Annex III, point 1, of Regulation (EU) 2024/3005 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/871.

Our rating product

All of the following disclosures apply to the rating product listed below. You can also find a detailed description on our page Our methodology.

Rating objective and materiality

Annex III, point 1(f)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 3(1)

Objective: The Impact Score shows retail investors and our business clients how a company affects the climate, society and gender equality.

Under the principle of double materiality, the score assesses only one dimension: the impact of the company on the environment and society. We do not assess financial risks to the company.

Context-based assessment (Triple Materiality)

We measure a company's impacts against scientifically and socially grounded sustainability thresholds, rather than comparing it with other companies. This approach is discussed as Context-based Materiality or Triple Materiality. It distinguishes between relative sustainability performance (How well does a company perform compared with others?) and absolute sustainability performance (Does it stay within the limits consistent with sustainable development?).

For example, a company may reduce its CO₂ emissions by 30% and outperform its competitors. Nevertheless, its remaining emissions may still be far above the level consistent with climate targets. Our score reflects absolute performance.

Triple Materiality is not a standard defined by regulation. Within the CSRD framework, the ESRS use the concept of double materiality. Within this concept, our score assesses impact materiality and measures it against absolute thresholds.

Impacts covered

• Climate: Share of renewable energy in energy consumption, own greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1 and 2), emissions including the supply chain (Scope 1 to 3), waste recycling
• Society: Employee coverage by collective bargaining agreements, ratio of CEO remuneration to average or median employee remuneration, employee turnover rate, anti-discrimination
• Gender: Women at the top, gender pay gap, women in management, glass ceiling

Risks covered

None. The score is not a risk rating.

What the score does not assess

Business activities, product impacts and company targets are not included in the assessment.

Scope of the rating

Annex III, point 1(g)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 3(2)Art. 23(2) and (3)

For each company, we publish the twelve indicators with their underlying raw data, three category scores and an aggregated overall Impact Score derived from them. Our categories are organised by theme and do not fully correspond to the E, S and G factors. The table shows how each indicator is assigned.

We do not report specific aspects such as transition risks separately.

Weighting in the aggregated rating

Annex III, point 1(h)Art. 23(3)

The three categories are equally weighted in the overall Impact Score, as are the four indicators within each category. Each indicator therefore accounts for 1/12. Based on the mapping in section g, this results in the following weights for the E, S and G factors:

Weighting method

We give Climate, Society and Gender equal weight because we consider the three areas equally important for sustainable development. The weights are the same for all companies and industries.

Topics within the E, S and G factors

Annex III, point 1(i)

The table shows the topics covered by the score and whether they correspond to topics in the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS, Art. 29b of Directive 2013/34/EU).

Absolute or relative values

Annex III, point 1(j)

The score is expressed in absolute values. Each company is measured against fixed thresholds, rather than compared with other companies. There is no best-in-class ranking.

Environmental factor and international agreements

Annex III, point 1(o)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 3(3)

The score covers the E factor and takes the objectives of the Paris Agreement into account.

Assessment of whether commitments align with the objectives of these agreements: No. We assess actual emissions in relation to the CO₂ budget, not the company's climate targets or commitments.

Social and governance factors and international agreements

Annex III, point 1(p)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 3(3)

The score covers the S and G factors and takes the following international agreements into account:

Assessment of whether commitments align with the objectives of these agreements: No. We assess the current position, not the company's commitments.

Rating methodologies

Annex III, point 1(a)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 4(1)

The Impact Score measures the extent to which a company currently operates within planetary and social boundaries. It is based on Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics model and the Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPI) of the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), which are aligned with the 2030 Agenda.

Core principles

• Transparency: Company data comes exclusively from companies' public disclosures.
• Impact rather than ESG risk: We assess how a company affects the environment and society, rather than primarily assessing the risks this creates for the company.
• Holistic approach: Climate, society and gender equality are weighted equally.
• Comparability: We assess all companies and industries using the same threshold and data logic.

Supporting models and key assumptions

• Threshold model: Each of the twelve indicators has a defined threshold describing sustainable business practices. The company's figure is normalised against this threshold.
• CO₂ budget model: The greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1 and 2) and supply chain (Scope 1 to 3) indicators measure reported emissions against a company-specific CO₂ budget consistent with a 1.5°C pathway. The basis is the Context-Based Carbon Metric of the Center for Sustainable Organizations (CSO), as described in UNRISD's SDPI manual. We take the global emissions pathway from the Emissions Gap Reports of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); each company receives an annual budget based on its number of employees (details in the disclosures for users).
• Scope 2 emissions: We primarily use the location-based approach because it makes companies more consistently comparable.
• Key assumption on missing data: Missing data is not estimated from external or industry-wide data. An indicator without a reliable public disclosure counts as zero.
• Key assumption on equal boundaries for all: Planetary and social boundaries apply equally to all companies. There is no industry-specific weighting and no best-in-class ranking. We avoid industry-specific exceptions because they limit comparability and may systematically favour or disadvantage business models.

Ensuring data quality and reliability

• AI-assisted extraction of data from companies' reports (see section k)
• Automatic alerts (flagging) in our data collection tool when values are unusual
• Validation and approval of every value by analysts under the four-eyes principle
• Companies may send us clarifications and additional public information; we make corrections when they are supported by publicly accessible evidence

Ranking system

Each indicator is calculated as the degree of target attainment relative to its threshold and reported on a scale of 0 to 100 points; scores above 100 are not possible. Each value is assigned to one of four colour-coded rating categories. Indicators without a reliable public disclosure are shown in grey as “No data”.

The four indicators in a category are averaged to produce the category score. The average of the three category scores produces the overall Impact Score. The same rating categories and colours also apply to category scores and the overall Impact Score.

Methodology changes

Last updated: 1 October 2023 (version 1.0).

Classification of economic sectors

Annex III, point 1(b)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 4(2)

We use our own industry classification. It is used for categorisation and filtering and has no effect on the score, because all industries are assessed against the same thresholds.

Data sources and processes

Annex III, point 1(c)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 4(3)

Overview of data sources

Company data comes exclusively from companies' public disclosures.

The use of ESMA FIRDS reference data does not constitute endorsement of or support for money:care or its products by ESMA.

CSRD and SFDR: We assess companies worldwide. For companies subject to the CSRD, data comes from their sustainability statements under Directive 2013/34/EU; for all others, from voluntary reports. We do not use information disclosed by financial market participants under Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (SFDR) as a source, including for ETFs: for these, we use company data for the equities and bonds they hold. Some of our indicators correspond in substance to SFDR principal adverse impact (PAI) indicators, such as greenhouse gas emissions, the gender pay gap and women on governing bodies.

Data process

1. CollectionWe collect each company's public reports and documents.
2. ExtractionArtificial intelligence searches the documents for the relevant disclosures for the twelve indicators. Each value is linked to its source location.
3. ValidationOur data collection tool flags unusual values. Analysts check and approve every value under the four-eyes principle.
4. CalculationValues are normalised against the thresholds and averaged into category and overall scores.

Handling missing input data

We do not estimate missing values from external or industry-wide data. If the preferred disclosure is unavailable, we follow a predefined order to use alternative disclosures from the same company or calculate the value from reported figures, for example the CEO pay ratio from salary information. If no reliable public disclosure is found for an indicator, it counts as zero. A missing value therefore means that the company has not published reliable information on that indicator.

Frequency of data updates

We update the rating when a company publishes a new annual or sustainability report, or earlier if necessary. We incorporate new reports as quickly as possible, within our capacity and internal processes.

Interaction with rated items

Companies are not informed before the first publication, and we do not contact them on our own initiative. However, they may send us clarifications, error reports and additional public information at any time to office@moneycare.io. We review these submissions and make corrections when they are supported by publicly accessible evidence. Companies have no influence on the methodology or thresholds.

Scientific basis

Annex III, point 1(e)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 4(4)

The methodology is based on scientific concepts of planetary and social boundaries:

• Doughnut Economics (Kate Raworth): ecological ceilings and a social foundation as the framework for thresholds
• Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPI) of UNRISD: indicators of companies' performance in terms of sustainable development, aligned with the 2030 Agenda
• 1.5°C pathway and Context-Based Carbon Metric: The climate indicators measure emissions against a CO₂ budget consistent with the 1.5°C target, allocated to companies using the method of the Center for Sustainable Organizations (CSO)

Not all thresholds come directly from scientific sources: where no directly applicable value exists, money:care sets the threshold as a documented modelling decision, supported by normative or statistical references.

How we identify relevant findings

Once a year, we review new publications by UNRISD and the IPCC and on Doughnut Economics for implications for our thresholds.

Use of artificial intelligence

Annex III, point 1(k)

We use artificial intelligence in two areas:

• Data collection: AI analyses sustainability and business reports and finds the relevant disclosures for the indicators. Every value is then checked and approved by analysts under the four-eyes principle.
• Company descriptions: The descriptions of companies on our platform are generated using AI. They are not included in the score.

Limitations and risks

• It cannot be ruled out that reports contain disclosures that neither the AI nor our analysts find. The indicator concerned then counts as zero.
• Every value can be traced back to its source. This enables us to trace and verify results against the data used whenever questions arise.
• AI-generated company descriptions may be incomplete or inaccurate and should be cross-checked against other sources.

Limitations of data sources and methods

Annex III, point 1(m)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 5

Data availability and consistency

We depend on what companies publish. Companies that disclose little receive zero points for missing indicators. A low score may therefore reflect a lack of transparency, not only poor performance.

Completeness, timeliness and accuracy

Reports are often published months after the end of the financial year. We incorporate new reports as quickly as possible, within our capacity and internal processes. The score therefore reflects the position in the last reporting year.

The disclosures used are generally not externally assured. Limited assurance applies only to sustainability statements of companies subject to the CSRD assurance requirement, and even then not to every disclosure. We cannot determine for every company whether an individual value has been assured.

Assumptions, proxies and estimates

We do not estimate missing values from external or industry-wide data. If the preferred disclosure is unavailable, we follow a predefined order to use alternative disclosures from the same company or calculate the value from reported figures, for example the CEO pay ratio from salary information. If a disclosure is entirely missing, the indicator counts as zero.

Limitations of the methodology

• Business activities and product impacts are not assessed. A company may achieve a high Impact Score even if its products harm the environment or society.
• There is no industry-specific weighting. Differences between industries, for example in emissions or recycling, are not adjusted for.
• Company targets and transition plans are not taken into account.

Limitations of available information

Annex III, point 1(q)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 5

We rely exclusively on publicly available information. We do not have access to companies' internal documents. We cannot assess what a company does not publish; the indicator concerned then counts as zero.

Ownership structure

Annex III, point 1(d)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 6(1)

The chart shows who holds shares in money:care GmbH and identifies activities under Article 16(1) or other services under Article 16(6) of the Regulation.

money:care GmbH has no subsidiaries. No individual or company in the ownership structure provides consulting within the meaning of Article 16(1), credit ratings, benchmarks, investment services, statutory audits, or banking and insurance activities.

Fees and business model

Annex III, point 1(l)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 6(2)

Business model

We operate a user-pays model. Rated companies do not pay us to display their data. The Impact Check is free for users on our platform.

Fee criteria

The fees for our data modules are based on these criteria:

• Size of the company universe covered, from individual companies to the entire universe of over 2,000 companies
• Number and type of modules licensed
• Number of end customers using the data
• Licence term

Fair, reasonable, transparent and non-discriminatory fees

Our prices are based exclusively on the criteria listed above, and we offer all clients the same terms for the same services. The price never depends on whether a client is itself rated or on the outcome of its rating.

Influence of other services

Revenue from IT services has no influence on data module fees or on the score.

Conflicts of interest

Annex III, point 1(n)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 6(3)

Ratings are based on fixed thresholds, without discretion, and exclusively on public data. This limits the ability to influence individual results.

For users & rated items

Detailed disclosures on methodology and data

We make these disclosures available on an ongoing basis to users of our Impact Score, rated companies and their issuers. They supplement the public disclosures and follow Article 24 and Annex III, point 2, of Regulation (EU) 2024/3005.

Detailed methodology

Annex III, point 2(a)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 7(2), Art. 8(1) and (2)

i. Scientific findings and assumptions

• Doughnut Economics (Kate Raworth): the thresholds describe when a company operates within ecological ceilings and above the social foundation.
• Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPI) of the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD): selection and definition of indicators, aligned with the 2030 Agenda.
• Missing data assumption: An indicator without a reliable public disclosure counts as zero.

CO₂ budget per company

The greenhouse gas emissions and supply chain indicators measure reported emissions against a company-specific CO₂ budget consistent with the 1.5°C pathway. The basis is a global emissions pathway consistent with the 1.5°C target, taken from the Emissions Gap Reports of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Each company receives an annual budget from this pathway according to its number of employees.

• Method: The basis is the Context-Based Carbon Metric of the Center for Sustainable Organizations (CSO), as described in UNRISD's SDPI manual.
• Allocation by employees: We allocate the budget according to the number of employees because it is stable, never negative and available for almost all companies.
• Two emissions indicators: The relevance of Scope 3 emissions varies considerably by industry. We therefore assess emissions using two indicators: greenhouse gas emissions covers Scope 1 and 2, while supply chain covers Scope 1 to 3. The supply chain indicator is particularly informative when comparing companies within an industry.
• Location-based Scope 2: We primarily use the location-based approach because it makes companies consistently comparable regardless of renewable electricity certificates and electricity contracts.

ii. Key performance indicators and thresholds

Each indicator accounts for one quarter of its category score, and therefore 1/12 of the overall Impact Score.

Weighting method: Each indicator is calculated as the degree of target attainment relative to its threshold and capped at 100 points. The four indicators in a category are averaged; the average of the three categories produces the overall Impact Score.

• Upper limits (CEO pay ratio, employee turnover rate, gender pay gap): if the value is at or below the limit, target attainment is 100%. Otherwise: upper limit ÷ actual value × 100. For example, a CEO pay ratio of 60:1 with a limit of 30:1 yields 50 points. For the gender pay gap, the size of the unadjusted difference matters, regardless of its direction. If only partial turnover data is available, a correspondingly lower limit applies.
• Anti-discrimination: The policy accounts for half, and the three protection mechanisms (reporting channel, protection against retaliation following a report, confidentiality) together account for the other half. Partially met criteria count for half; missing disclosures count as zero.

iii. Results by category and indicator

For each rating, we report the twelve indicators, the three category scores and the overall Impact Score, all on the same scale of 0 to 100 points. This makes the categories comparable. As our categories do not correspond to the E, S and G factors, the result for each factor can be derived from the twelve indicators and their assignment to E, S and G (public disclosures, section g). For each indicator, we also state the underlying raw value, for example: “Example Company AG: 60% of employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements.”

iv. Methodology shortcomings and countermeasures

Weaknesses of predefined statistical or algorithmic models

Fixed thresholds do not capture differences between industries, countries and company sizes. For indicators with yes/no criteria, such as anti-discrimination, the model assesses whether policies exist, not whether they are effective. With AI-assisted data collection, it cannot be ruled out that reports contain disclosures that neither the AI nor our analysts find.

v. Policies for reviewing methodologies

vi. Changes resulting from methodology or data changes

If a rating changes materially because we have changed the method, models, assumptions or data sources, we state the reasons and the impact alongside the rating.

vii. Date of the last review and version

viii. Relationship to the EU Taxonomy

The score does not assess Taxonomy alignment under Regulation (EU) 2020/852. We have not yet determined a correlation with the percentage of Taxonomy alignment. Material differences are to be expected because the score measures emissions, energy and recycling at company level, whereas the Taxonomy classifies individual economic activities. The score neither indicates nor ensures alignment with the Taxonomy.

Detailed data processes

Annex III, point 2(b)Delegated Regulation 2026/871, Art. 7(1), Art. 8(3)

i. Data sources in detail

Taxonomy and SFDR disclosures: Disclosures under Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (Taxonomy) are not included; from the reports, we use only raw data such as Scope emissions. We do not use information under Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (SFDR), including for ETFs.

Transition plans: Disclosures on transition plans are not included because we assess a company's current position, not its targets.

Collection of non-public data: We do not collect non-public data.

ii. Estimates and industry averages

We do not estimate missing values from external or industry-wide data. If the preferred disclosure is unavailable, we follow a predefined order to use alternative disclosures from the same company or calculate the value from reported figures, for example the CEO pay ratio from salary information. If a disclosure is entirely missing, the indicator counts as zero.

iii. Updating data and handling historical data

• Updates: When a company publishes a new annual or sustainability report, or earlier if necessary. We incorporate new reports as quickly as possible, within our capacity and internal processes.
• Historical data: With each new report, we collect data only for the current reporting year. The most recent value is displayed. We archive earlier values and ratings internally.
• Latest data update: We update continuously; there is no common reference date. For each rating, we state the reporting year and data sources. We make each company's last update date available to users through our application programming interface (API) and to rated companies on request.
• Corrections: If we correct previously collected values, for example following an evidenced submission, the correction is checked under the four-eyes principle, just like the initial collection.

iv. Data quality controls

v. Steps to address limitations of data sources

Companies may send us additional public information, which we take into account in the rating.

Interaction with rated items

Annex III, point 2(c)

Companies may send us clarifications, error reports and additional public information at any time to office@moneycare.io. We do not contact companies on our own initiative.

Unsolicited ratings

Annex III, point 2(d)

All our ratings are unsolicited. Rated companies do not commission or pay us. Each rating therefore carries a clearly visible notice. This is what it looks like:

AI methodology

Annex III, point 2(e)

1. Collect documentsSustainability and business reports, along with other public documents, are compiled for each company.
2. Find disclosuresArtificial intelligence analyses the documents and finds the relevant disclosures for the twelve indicators. Every value found is linked to its source location.
3. Check and approveOur data collection tool flags unusual values. Analysts validate and approve every value under the four-eyes principle. Only approved values enter the score.
4. Create descriptionsCompany descriptions on the platform are generated using AI. They are not included in the score.

Important new information

Annex III, point 2(f)

If we receive important new information about a company outside the regular update cycle that may affect the result, for example through a submission from the company, we document in the following table how we took it into account and whether the score changed. If necessary, we also update the rating before the next annual or sustainability report.