In November and December 2021, S&P Global Ratings applied about 13,000 ESG credit indicators to approximately 4,200 rated corporate and infrastructure entities in 26 ESG credit indicator sector report cards. The report cards express our opinion of how environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors influence our credit rating analysis for specific sectors and at the entity level.

This report offers a high-level overview of these report cards and highlights our key takeaways for corporates and infrastructure. We provide a consolidated, benchmarked, and quantitative view of ESG in credit ratings and a cross-sector comparison of ESG factors. In addition, for the first time, we quantify the amount of debt positively and negatively influenced by ESG factors.

Table 1

Overview

ESG considerations that are material to our rating analysis have a negative influence more often than a positive one.   In corporates and infrastructure, environmental factors are credit negative--that is have a credit indicator outcome of '3', '4', or '5'--for 28% of entities we rate. This notably reflects our view that environmental factors have a direct negative influence on 15 out of our 38 corporate and infrastructure industry risk criteria scores. Social factors are credit negative for 16% of entities and primarily influence entity-specific components of our analysis rather than differentiating industry scores. We believe this is because the influence of social risks becomes more important when assessing an entity's specific exposure to and management of social risks, since it often relates to its own staff, communities, and customer base. Governance factors are credit negative for 39% of entities. For the latter, about two-thirds of such impacts relate to sponsor-owned firms whose focus on maximizing shareholder returns we consider a moderately negative factor under our management and governance criteria. When excluding sponsor-owned entities, the negative influence from governance would still apply to a relatively high 20.6% of entities (see Governance section).

When narrowing the scope to only the most meaningful negative credit impacts--that is indicator outcomes of '4' or '5'--environmental factors affect 6.8% of entities versus 4.3% for social and 3.3% for governance. This means that while ESG credit factors can have a negative influence on a relatively large share of our rated entities, the severity of it remains generally contained on a net basis, either because the materiality of this influence is low or because the rated entities have sufficient mitigants to manage these risks.

Also interestingly, ESG factors are a net positive consideration in our rating analysis of only to a modest number of entities: just 1.5% have 'E-1' credit indicators, 0.7% 'S-1', and 5.7% 'G-1'. That said, positive ESG attributes are also reflected in our analysis of many entities with ESG credit indicators outcomes of '2' or even '3', since we analyze ESG impacts on a net basis. This means company-specific ESG strengths may mitigate industry-specific ESG risks, such that the overall ESG influence is neutral or better than peers.

Chart 1

Environmental factors are credit negative for more than $8 trillion of debt.   When assessing the ESG credit indicator distribution on the basis of debt quantum rather than number of entities, environmental factors negatively influence 38% of debt (versus 28% of entities; see chart 2). This is because the emission-intensive sectors whose credit quality is more negatively affected by environmental considerations also carry an above-average share of debt in view of their capital intensity. For social factors, the difference in distribution between debt and number of entities is negligeable. Meanwhile, governance considerations weigh on our assessment of about 22% of debt (just above half the 39% when measured in terms of entities). This reflects the fact that governance tends to be stronger at larger entities carrying more debt, which equally can be observed in the 10% of 'G-1' credit indicators in terms of debt versus 5.7% on an entity-basis.

Chart 2

Chart 3

Climate transition risks are by far the most significant environmental credit driver, influencing our credit analysis of one-quarter of entities.  This is mostly driven by increasingly tight regulations across the globe and across industries to fight climate change and meet net zero carbon targets over the coming decades. As such, we see a relatively high correlation between negative influence from climate transition risks and exposure to high carbon emissions from Scope 1 to Scope 3. This negative influence reflects the entity's necessity to modify its production processes, supply chain and/or product lines to adapt to stricter regulations, taxonomy, or pressure from its stakeholders, including financers. Interestingly, despite our view that climate physical risks may have a significant financial impact if and when they materialize, they only influence the credit quality of 1% of entities. This is explained by the diversity of operating assets for many corporates as well as the limited visibility of future climate impacts and companies' mitigating actions.

As for social factors, health and safety, which captures both employee and customer considerations, influences 12.7% of entity ratings.  While the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the impact on credit quality, we believe the long-term relevance of and sensitivity to health and safety considerations will remain prevalent. Other customer and product safety considerations may relate to low-probability, high-impact incidents, notably in sectors such as mining, offshore oil and gas production and refining, as well as airlines and aerospace, but also cruise ships or theme parks.

Not surprisingly, governance factors remain a key credit consideration, with governance structure influencing about one-third of entities.   Roughly two-thirds of these impacts relate to financial sponsor-owned entities whose corporate decision-making tends to promote the interests of the controlling owners above those of other stakeholders, in our view. Finally, risk management, culture, and oversight weigh on our rating analysis in 12.4% of cases, which can reflect for instance some shortcomings at the entity level in executing on a defined strategy, failure to understand the impacts of market risks, or high exposure to litigation risks.

Environmental Credit Factors

Environmental credit indicator distributions are heavily influenced by how our industry risk criteria capture environmental risks, including risk of substitution and secular change.  When looking at environmental credit indicator distributions of the most exposed sectors (see Chart 4 and 5), many sectors have only a handful of outliers. This is because environmental considerations directly affect our industry criteria score for 15 out of 38 corporate sectors (see Table 5 of "ESG Credit Indicator Definitions And Application," published Oct. 13, 2021).

We could see more differentiation in credit quality and thus of environmental credit indicators as the importance of environmental considerations rises, including from its influence on accessing capital or higher future carbon costs. This is already the case in the power generation sector, which has been adapting to climate transition risks and regulations for decades, resulting in entities having more differentiated competitive positions and a wider distribution of environmental indicator outcomes.

Generally speaking, we see some correlation between environmental credit indicators and the level of required investments to mitigate environmental risks, notably carbon emissions or physical risks. We also see that the fast rise in sustainable debt is largely underpinned by green-denominated debt and sustainability-linked instruments. The latter comprise mostly key performance indicators (KPIs) that remain heavily weighted toward greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the near term as countries and companies ratchet up their emission-reduction targets. Scope 1 and 2 GHG emission reduction represents over 70% of all KPIs used to date in sustainability-linked debt (see "Global Sustainable Bond Issuance To Surpass $1.5 Trillion In 2022," published Feb. 7, 2022).

Chart 4

Oil and gas and power generation sectors are most exposed to environmental risks, since they need to transform business models to adapt to regulations.  For the upstream oil and gas and refining sectors, we factor in issuers' exposure to climate transition risk and the potential loss of market share to renewables and long-term substitution risks as well as other factors such as pollution and spillages. As a result, for 95% of issuers in this sector environmental factors are a negative consideration in our rating analysis ('E-4' credit indicator). Currently, we have no pure oil and gas players with 'E-3' outcomes, since we see environmental risk (notably the pressure on Scope 3 emissions by end consumers) as meaningfully rather than just moderately negative in our credit rating analysis, even if we recognize that entities with lower Scope 1 emissions, low flaring, or more gas-focused assets may be better positioned as the energy transition accelerate. While midstream companies tend to be exposed to similar long-term transition risks, we see the credit impact as somewhat more manageable (explaining their 'E-3' rather than 'E-4' credit indicators typically). This is due to their lower investment needs and lower exposure to oil and gas prices than upstream players.

The power generation sector has been at the forefront of the energy transition over the past decade as renewable generation has increased. The sector has a much more pronounced distribution of environmental credit indicators, reflecting much bigger credit differentiation between those entities that have shifted their portfolios to renewables (strengthening their competitive position score) and those with still-high coal or gas exposure (which also tend to have higher volatility of profitability and will most likely incur higher carbon costs). At the same time, environmental risks remain a key negative credit consideration for the sector as a whole, as reflected in our industry criteria score. This is because we expect power utilities will need to continue decarbonizing their generation mix, requiring huge capital spending, to mitigate the likelihood of stricter regulations and rising emissions costs. Such regulatory focus is likely to remain since the utility sector will continue accounting for over 40% of global combustion-based GHG emissions.

Chart 5

Fast-changing environmental regulations and policies are key credit considerations for many other sectors too, but we view them as better positioned to adapt and protect profitability.  This adaptation can take the form of economically viable new technologies or new end markets, or an expected ability to pass through part of the additional costs to their end customers. As such, in the agribusiness, automotives, cement, paper and forest products, and chemicals, we believe environmental considerations have a moderately negative industry influence on credit (explaining many 'E-3' outcomes). That said, as regulations and policies evolve, resulting in higher investment needs or lower profitability, there is risk that the more polluting entities could see a greater rating impact, which would shift more environmental credit indicators to 'E-4'.

Interestingly, the bulk of cement companies, a subset within the building materials sector, have 'E-3' rather than 'E-4' environmental credit indicators, despite being among the highest carbon emitters. A key mitigating credit consideration is the limited substitution alternatives for cement, which in our current view should enable the industry to increase prices, including from rising carbon costs or investment needs. Also, several rated cement companies, particularly those in Europe that will be more exposed to carbon taxes over the medium term, have already brought down their emission intensity substantially in the past few years by making significant investments to improve plants' thermal efficiency and increasing the use of alternative fuels, such as biomass. However, to achieve carbon neutrality in the sector a significant further drop of emissions is required. This can only be achieved by the wider use of carbon capture and storage--which requires technology that is still under demonstration and in the prototype stage and will require significant infrastructure investments to scale--and by increased use of recycled materials or low-clinker products, which will require reshaping of the construction value chain and wide end-user acceptance.

The auto industry also faces considerable change in light of ongoing changes to environmental regulations and policies. Here, we already factor environmental risks--specifically climate transition risks--in as a negative consideration in our industry risk assessment, including because of the massive financial effort needed for capital expenditures and research and development. All auto manufacturers and suppliers have, however, developed major electric vehicle strategies, allowing them to adapt their products to the energy transition (unlike oil which faces true substitution risk). At the same time, this could impact their competitive position and notably profitability. With very few exceptions and until new dedicated platforms and lower battery costs become mainstream, electric vehicles have lower profit margins than corresponding internal combustion engine-powered vehicles due to higher production costs, despite widespread government subsidies.

Managing environmental risks is also relevant for less exposed sectors.   Consumer product companies face energy transition risk in their distribution and manufacturing footprints, with for example an increasing need to recycle or reduce carbon emissions across their supply chain. However, the branded nature of the products provides pricing power, which will likely enable issuers to pass on the cost of making investments in sustainable manufacturing facilities, packaging, and logistics. As a result, less than 5% of issuers' credit quality in the sector is moderately negatively influenced by environmental risks. Although branded food companies' sourcing of agricultural commodities will likely face physical climate-related risks and long-term upward price pressure from carbon costs, these costs typically account for a low share of companies' overall cost of sales and do not materially influence our credit outlook on profit margins and cash flow stability.

Chart 6

Weaker environmental credit indicators in Asia-Pacific and Latin America largely reflect their higher share of emission-intensive industries in their rated universe (see chart 6).  We do not, however, observe a clear, more negative environmental influence regionally within specific sectors. This reflects that although entities operating in emerging markets may lag emission or pollution standards of entities in advanced economies, they are also less subject to local harsh regulations and fines. That said, with the bulk of countries having announced long-term net zero commitments, together with the possibility of seeing a cross-border tax implemented by advanced economies in the future, the emission intensity of companies will be a heightened credit focus also in emerging markets

Social Credit Factors

Social factors generally have a less negative influence on our credit ratings than governance or environmental factors.   For about 83% of the corporate entities we rate, social factors are a neutral consideration ('S-2') in our credit analysis.

Chart 7

The pandemic raised health and safety risks, which are the most influential social factor for corporates (affects 13% of entities).  Currently, social factors have a particularly negative influence on our credit ratings for mobility- and leisure-related sectors. Government-imposed closures, travel restrictions, consumers' lingering travel fears, the slow return of business and group travel, social distancing guidelines or other health and safety measures restricting operations all weigh significantly on cash flows. As a result, social factors present the most significant ESG risk to leisure companies, comprising hotels, holiday homes, ski operators, theme parks, and gaming companies, and weigh on our rating analysis ('S-3', 'S-4', or 'S-5' outcomes) for 90% of entities. Similarly, sectors like airlines (69% with 'S-3', 'S-4', or 'S-5'), aerospace and defense (43%) and transportation infrastructure (30%) have suffered severe negative credit impacts from the pandemic, highlighting their sensitivity to health and safety factors. Many airlines that we have downgraded (usually by multiple notches) and that carry negative outlooks, or have ratings on CreditWatch with negative implications, face a protracted recovery and still-high uncertainty from health and safety concerns, which translates into 'S-5' outcomes. That said, for many airlines in the U.S. we revised our outlooks to stable or positive last year, based on substantial progress toward revenue recovery in the U.S. domestic market. Such improvement in credit quality means U.S. airlines typically have an 'S-4' social credit indicator, compared to 'S-5' for most European airlines whose credit quality is still very negatively influenced. We expect these social indicators to be dynamic, at least so long as COVID-19 and the recovery create uncertainty. Whether these risks merit 'S-3' indicators over the longer term, based on health and safety risks thereafter, remains to be determined.

Very different non-pandemic-related health and safety considerations affect the mining sector, which contributes to the high 57% share of 'S-3', 'S-4', or 'S-5' credit indicators.   Mining remains the most hazardous occupation when the number of people exposed to risk is taken into account. The exposure of mining companies to safety risks partly depends on the location and nature of their operations; for example, underground mining is typically riskier than open-pit operations, and mines are often located in remote and sometimes hostile environments.

Social capital risk is the other main influential social factor (affecting 8% of entities), with metals and mining companies, power generators, integrated utilities, and media companies especially affected.   Metals and mining companies face considerable pressure on the "social license to operate," given the land use, emissions, and disruptions for neighboring communities, including indigenous groups. Mining operations are also often in emerging markets, which further heightens social risk, including resulting from strikes or social unrest due to low living standards.

For power generators and integrated utilities, price affordability and quality of service is often a social credit consideration, implying regulatory or political risk. Additionally, the planning of wind farms is increasingly sensitive to local community acceptance, while large hydro plants can face severe opposition if they disrupt peoples' lifestyles or biodiversity.

For media companies, we believe some are at a higher risk due to the highly public nature of the content they create and how it influences society. We believe that as media companies create edgier content, they may face backlash or negative feedback from consumers, potential sanctions/fines from regulators, or increased government oversight. This risk is heightened with the rise of social-media movements through microblogging that can hurt reputation.

While social factors are equally key to consumer product and health care companies, the negative credit influence has been limited.   Social risk most frequently influences our analysis of consumer products companies in the form of consumers' increasing demand for products that promote health and wellness. The overall impact on credit ratings has been neutral, with 89% of social credit indicators being 'S-2'. Many large, rated multinational players in the consumer goods sector have well-established sustainability strategies and action plans. They have made significant investments in their supply chain and scaled up production of sustainable products, new technology, and business practices. The materialization of social risks has been so far slow in the sector. This has enabled competitors with a less-advanced approach to sustainability to maintain their market shares and profitability. As a result, we have not yet widely observed sustainability leadership translating into a stronger competitive advantage for industry players. In particular, price-based local and regional competition remains a major factor.

Social risk is material for health care companies, given that patient and public health and safety, access to and affordability of health care, employee health and safety, responsible marketing, and privacy protection are highly relevant for the sector. Still, we apply a neutral indicator ('S-2') to 90% of rated entities because, on balance, these social risks did not materially influence the creditworthiness of rated companies, while recognizing also the social benefits these entities bring. The 7% of companies with 'S-3', 'S-4', or 'S-5' indicators relate notably to the risk of litigation, fines, and plant shutdowns associated with safety matters as well as price affordability pressures, in particular in the U.S. The proliferation of opioids has become a public health issue in the U.S. and has hurt the credit quality of some pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. Similarly, increased public scrutiny of drug prices in the U.S., where profitability is often highest, is an increasing social risk that could hamper the pharmaceutical industry's profitability and growth. Pharmaceutical companies with a limited pipeline that primarily develop and manufacture "lifestyle" drugs or that raise prices significantly may face greater challenges, and we have reflected this in their social indicator score.

Chart 8

There is very limited regional divergence in our social credit indicators.  This reflects that social factors have a similar impact on our rating analysis across the globe (see chart 8), albeit for different reasons. While reputation with customers and communities as well as safety considerations may be more relevant for entities in advanced economies, community impacts and workforce issues tend to be more prevalent in emerging markets.

Governance Credit Factors

Governance credit indicators are strongly linked to our management and governance criteria scores.  The influence of governance tends to be a more idiosyncratic, than sector-specific credit driver. Governance credit indicators are strongly linked to our management and governance (M&G) criteria score (see "Methodology: Management And Governance Factors For Corporate Entities," published Nov. 13, 2012). We may assign a strong M&G score to reflect, among other factors, our positive assessment of management's ability to anticipate, monitor, and rapidly adapt to changing operating or financial conditions and successfully execute its strategy. Such positive credit influence translates into a governance credit indicator of 'G-1'. A satisfactory M&G score would generally reflect a neutral view of governance factors on creditworthiness and would therefore correlate to a 'G-2' credit indicator. A fair M&G score would generally reflect two or fewer strategic positioning, risk management, and organizational effectiveness subfactor scores as positive, or at least one governance deficiency, and typically correlates to a 'G-2' or weaker indicator outcome, depending on the circumstances, including high exposure to country risk. And a weak M&G score under our criteria would generally reflect that governance factors are a very negative consideration on creditworthiness, therefore correlating to a 'G-5' credit indicator.

Chart 9

A large part of our 'G-3' and some 'G-4' indicator outcomes relate to control by a financial sponsor.  Close to 40% of rated entities carry a 'G-3', 'G-4' or 'G-5' governance credit indicator (see Chart 9). About two-thirds of these relate to financial sponsor-owned firms whose focus on maximizing shareholder returns, we consider as a moderately negative governance influence under our management and governance criteria. We view it is akin to promoting the interests of the controlling owners above those of other stakeholders, and flag this a governance structure factor. Governance structure factors affect 32% of entities, of which about three-quarters relates to financial sponsors.

When looking at the rated corporate universe excluding sponsor-owned/private equity firms, the percentage of 'G-3', 'G-4' and 'G-5' credit indicators would be substantially lower, but still significant at a combined 20.6% (see Chart 10).

Chart 10

Execution and risk management is the other key governance driver affecting credit (12.4% of entities).  In some sectors though, a larger share of 'G-3' or 'G-4' outcomes may relate to other factors. For instance, for nearly one-third of rated real estate entities, risk management, culture and oversight weighs on our credit rating analysis. This reflects that shortcomings in risk management and board oversight have led to subpar execution of operating strategies and weaker risk-management standards. For developers, particularly in Russia and Asia, we view less favorably the lack of transparency in strategy or disclosures, weaker internal controls, and private ownership structures. For autos, risk management, culture, and oversight is equally seen as a frequent credit factor, but indicator outcomes are more diversified since they reflect both excellence in executing strategic planning ('G-1') as well as failure to execute and/or understanding the impact of market risks ('G-3' or 'G-4'). For some engineering and construction companies, weaker governance credit indicators stem from the inherent complexity of projects, which exposes companies to contingent liabilities and litigation risks in tandem with challenges to complete a project profitably and on time.

Appendix 1: ESG Credit Indicator Distributions By Sector

Table 2

Appendix 2: ESG Credit Indicators

In our ESG credit ratings criteria "Environmental, Social, And Governance Principles In Credit Ratings," Oct. 10, 2021, we articulate the principles that S&P Global Ratings applies to incorporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into its credit ratings analysis. In that criteria we define ESG factors as those ESG factors that can materially influence the creditworthiness of a rated entity or issue and for which we have sufficient visibility and certainty to include in our credit rating analysis. We note that when sufficiently material to affect our view of creditworthiness, ESG factors can influence credit ratings.

In our commentary "ESG Credit Indicator Definitions And Application," Oct. 13, 2021, we discuss the introduction of ESG credit indicators as a complement to our existing credit rating analysis. Whereas our ESG criteria seek to enhance transparency in how and where we capture ESG factors in credit ratings, our ESG credit indicators provide additional disclosure by reflecting our opinion of how material the influence (on a 1-5 scale) of ESG factors is on our credit rating analysis. We assess these indicators on a net basis, meaning that we take a holistic view of exposure to environmental, social and governance factors and related mitigants on the credit rating analysis. They are applied after the rating has been determined. They are not a sustainability rating or an S&P Global Ratings ESG evaluation.[1]

Accordingly, the application--or change--of an ESG credit indicator cannot in itself trigger a credit rating or outlook change. However, the impact of ESG factors on creditworthiness could contribute to a rating action, which in turn could lead to a change in the ESG credit indicator. Through the release of ESG credit indicators, we aim to further delineate and summarize the relevance of ESG factors to our credit analysis by isolating our opinion of their credit influence and separating it from the non-ESG factors affecting the credit rating.

The scale for environmental credit indicators is identical for social and governance credit indicators. It has a negative skew, which reflects our view that environmental, social and governance considerations (including risks outside of a company's control) have a negative influence more often than a positive one. An ESG credit indicator of 'E-2', 'S-2', or 'G-2' means that it is currently a neutral consideration in our credit rating analysis. This does not necessarily mean that ESG factors are not relevant, rather that they are currently not sufficiently material to alter the credit rating analysis or that positive ESG considerations are offset by ESG-related risks.

Also, entities may have identical ESG credit indicators, even if they diverge on ESG characteristics and performance. This may be the case because we only incorporate in our credit rating analysis those ESG factors that materially influence creditworthiness and for which we have sufficient visibility and certainty or because the differentiation in ESG characteristics is not in our view sufficiently material to warrant a different ESG credit indicator outcome.

Appendix 3: ESG Credit Factors

Below is a summary of our publication: "ESG Credit Factors: A Deeper Dive," published, Nov. 17, 2021.

Environmental factors:   The environmental dimension describes how private and public entities interact with, influence, and respond to changes in the physical environment. Environmental analysis considers entities' exposure to physical and transition risks and how they preserve or deplete natural capital. The environmental perspective can include the positive and negative environmental impacts and dependencies generated in the provision of goods and services, when relevant to our credit rating opinion (for information on how we analyze these factors see "Criteria For ESG Principles In Credit Ratings," published Oct. 11, 2021). We identify the following environmental factors: Climate transition risk, physical risk, natural capital, waste and pollution, and other environmental factors.

Social factors:   The social dimension describes how private and public entities manage and are affected by health and safety and how they develop, use, and preserve their human and social capital to secure their social license to operate or mandate to govern. The social perspective can include positive and negative social impacts and dependencies generated in the provision of goods and services, when relevant to our credit rating opinion (for information on how we analyze these factors see "Criteria For ESG Principles In Credit Ratings"). We identify the following social factors: Health and safety, social capital, human capital, and other social factors.

Governance factors:  The governance dimension describes the organization and impact of decision-making at all levels of private and public entities. Governance considers the system of rules, procedures, statutory frameworks, and practices by which entities are directed and controlled, how they make decisions, comply with the law, and weigh and communicate the interests of the entity with stakeholders. This includes how the entity manages strategic risks and opportunities to navigate potential disruptions (for information on how we analyze these factors see "Criteria For ESG Principles In Credit Ratings"). We identify the following governance factors: Governance structure, risk management, culture and oversight, transparency and reporting, and other governance factors.

Related Research

• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Paper & Forest Products, Packaging & Containers, Dec. 17, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Investment Holding Companies And General Trading Investment Companies, Dec. 17, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Consumer Products, Dec. 17, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Agribusiness, Commodity Foods, And Commodity Trading, Dec. 17, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Business, Environmental, And Consumer Services, Dec. 16, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Health Care, Dec. 16, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Retail And Restaurants, Dec. 16, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Real Estate, Dec. 14, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Transportation Infrastructure, Dec. 13, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Aerospace And Defense, Dec. 10, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Shipping, Road, And Rail, Dec. 10, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Airlines And Aircraft Leasing, Dec. 10, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Telecoms, Dec. 9, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Leisure, Dec. 8, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Media And Entertainment, Dec. 7, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Technology, Dec. 7, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Engineering And Construction, Dec. 3, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Chemicals, Dec. 2, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Capital Goods, Dec. 2, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Metals And Mining, Nov. 30, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Midstream Energy, Nov. 29, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Oil And Gas Upstream And Refining, Nov. 23, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Autos, Nov. 19, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Building Materials, Nov. 19, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Power Generators, Nov. 18, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Regulated Utility Networks, Nov. 18, 2021
• ESG Credit Factors: A Deeper Dive, Nov. 17, 2021
• ESG Credit Indicator Definitions And Application, Oct. 13, 2021
• Criteria For ESG Principles In Credit Ratings, Oct. 11, 2021
• Environmental, Social, And Governance Principles In Credit Ratings, Oct. 10, 2021
• Environmental, Social, And Governance Evaluation Analytical Approach, Dec. 15, 2020