IMPACTIN joins TechQuartier FinTech community!

We are thrilled to announce that we joined TechQuartier‘s leading FinTech community, following our participation in the recent Female FinTech Competition 2020. TechQuartier is based in the heart of Frankfurt am Main, in Germany.

Germany is indeed a very interesting market regarding Sustainable Finance, with a high potential: despite the fact that the country is the largest European economy, it trails other countries on sustainable finance, and ranks as fourth regarding green funds. To remediate the situation, the country announced in 2019 its ambition to become a leading location for sustainable finance.

In the wake of the Brexit, a recent Bundesbank’s study also confirmed banks’ preference for Germany as a base for operations away from London. The assets to be relocated in the country have been estimated to total €675bn . Frankfurt, already a major hub for Financial Services both in Germany and in Europe, is already attracting many financial institutions in the Brexit aftermath.

Joining the vibrant TechQuartier FinTech ecosystem of startups, investors, technology partners and others will no doubt be a great opportunity for IMPACTIN to find strategic partners or investors.

Let’s conclude with a quote from the cosmopolitan and European thinker, writer and poet, born in Frankfurt:

What can you do, or dream you can , begin it,

Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Prelude at the theatre


Credit: Photo by Mathias Konrath on Unsplash

Celebrating one year of impact!

What a year… 12 months ago, we launched IMPACTIN with the mission of providing investors with a concrete measure of the ESG impact of their investment portfolios—and we did it!

After a first customer in Singapore, we continuously took feedback from the market and from our business leads in order to challenge our business vision, methodology, and impact products. This allow us, after some pivots, to identify the proper market needs, and regulatory opportunities, and we validated the feasibility of a quantitative impact scoring approach based on Smart ESG Data.

Our products portfolio now includes both impact scoring datasets and impact scorecards. Our impact scoring datasets, already available on DAWEX, cover the following emitters:

These impact score datasets allowed us to develop several on-demand impact scorecards:

Along the path, we also participated in the jury of the South Europe Startup Awards (SESA), and we had the pleasure of having been shortlisted in several startup awards:

Participating to startups and entrepreneurs’ competitions is indeed a good way to get additional feedbacks on our startup pitch and business model, and the occasion to network.

Launching a business is always challenging, but probably even more in a context of worldwide pandemic with months spent in lockdown… but it was the occasion for us to focus on our product roadmap and R&D—and it allowed us to deliver several innovative products in a record time.

The COVID-19 crisis also exacerbated the awareness on the required transition toward an impactful finance. Today, the European Commission confirmed that no delay will be granted to asset managers to comply with the incoming Sustainable Finance “disclosure regulation” which will require to measure and disclose the ESG impact of investment portfolios, funds, or indexes—Are you not ready ? Don’t worry: we are.

Credit: Photo by Angèle Kamp on Unsplash

3 key takeaways on the PRI taxonomy tests

The PRI released early September a report with case studies from 37 Asset Managers—including e.g. BlackRock, Crédit Suisse, Amundi—, which agreed to test their funds regarding the Green Taxonomy compliance, to be mandatory by the end of 2021. Beyond the exercise itself, positive and necessary, what are the results, and what can we learn? Here are our three key takeaways.

  1. First, let’s start with the funds being tested: they are quite different, hence very difficult to compare. Some AM used fixed income, and others equity funds, another green bonds and climate change thematic funds, and even funds not proposed as “sustainable funds” on the market. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the funds, we cannot compare or benchmark the results.
  2. The taxonomy integration approach are also very different, each AM having its own way—but usually the method is based on external rating providers, which doesn’t support today the taxonomy requirements with their existing ESG scores, designed well before the taxonomy. Some methodologies are based on several suppliers, well known for having divergent view of a same company—the “aggregate confusion” of ESG ratings pointed out by the MIT Sloan study. Another common constatation: the great majority of AM mention the lack of trustable and exhaustive corporate data. When data was lacking, “estimates” have been made. Such a limitation obviously leads to unprecise and subjective ratings… So, yes, we definitively see here that the traditional ESG rating approach hit its limits, and the taxonomy tests case studies are the living proof of that. But how to comply with the regulation, to be applicable in 2021? All AM hope that the market leaders will provide their solutions well before the regulatory deadline—But, considering their ESG scoring approaches, and data… good luck with that.
  3. Eventually, the results: in a word… divergent. It seems easy to get a percentage of the eligible funds depending on the sectors—since the taxonomy defines which sectors are eligible—, but when it comes to the calculation of the compliance score with the taxonomy… well, “surprise”: one AM says less than 5%, others 20%, some other “a majority of the funds” without even providing a percentage… In brief, a nightmare—especially considering that the EU didn’t define any compliance threshold to reach.

we definitively see here that the traditional ESG rating approach hit its limits, and the taxonomy tests case studies are the living proof.


To date, the institutional or retail investors will not be able to understand anything about the taxonomy compliance, and neither who will be controlling the compliance, nor will they be able to discriminate between truly sustainable funds, and others. A taxonomy compliance percentage doesn’t mean nothing, per se: it needs to be explained, justified.

The EU taxonomy is a great project, and it’s absolutely required for the good progress of Sustainable Finance. But the road ahead will be quite long, and for the EU taxonomy to be useful, the final objective must not be lost in the process: empowering and enlightening the sustainable investors, allowing them to understand how much sustainable a fund truly is, in order to make responsible investment choices, based on trustful information— pedagogy and responsibility being shared between the companies, the AM, and the end investors.

Positive Impact Iceberg Model: Why you probably overlooked 90% of your company or positive impact portfolio

The “Positive Impact” thinking has been making the buzz for a while now, but the approach is often mixed up with the more restrictive notion of “Positive Social Impact”, or limited to the direct impact linked to a company “Business Model”, and, by doing so, it misses 90% of a company impact—and, incidentally, of a Positive Impact portfolio composed of “Positive Impact” companies.

The UNEP-FI Principles for Positive Impact Finance indeed define “Positive Impact Business & Finance as that which serves to deliver a positive contribution to one or more of the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, environmental and social), once any potential negative impacts to any of the pillars have been duly identified and mitigated.

An Iceberg Model of Positive ESG Impact

The iceberg metaphor is well known, and self-explicit: 90% of the iceberg is not visible, being immersed below the waterline.

The same applies to the concept of Positive Impact. Most of the Positive Impact portfolios approaches or Positive Impact startups focus on the identification and quantification of the direct outcome of their business model impact: e.g. improving the health of the customer, reducing social inequalities, improving social inclusion or diversity, etc.

This kind outcome is of course very desirable and positive, and its more directly visible. But it’s the top of the iceberg, visible above the waterline.  

Impact, below the waterline

By focusing on the direct business model outcome, the risk is to overlook the overall ESG impact (Environment, Social, Governance), linked to any company’s operations—let’s call it the Corporate Impact—, and particularly to the specific Key ESG Impact topics related to the sector of activity: the Sectoral Impact.

For instance, the Retail and Apparel industry is well known to have strong issues related to water pollution or child labor.

You might say that this is covered by the traditional CSR processes and reporting, by CSR certifications, or by the traditional SRI analysis. The problem with the SRI analysis approach is that it is well known by professional to be poorly relevant, subjective—an “aggregate confusion”, according to the MIT Sloan Sustainability Initiative.

Regarding common (and sometimes trendy) CSR certifications (e.g. EcoVadis, B-Corp, etc.), they are usually based on self-assessment with a strong bias toward the checking of intentions, policies, and signature of initiatives (PRI, PSI, etc.) more than the real outcomes. Recently, a paper indeed questioned the link between a supposed intention, and the concrete ESG performance delivered. Focused on the PRI commitment of Asset Managers, the study concluded that “overall, only a small number of funds improve ESG while many others use the PRI status to attract capital without making notable changes to ESG”.

A good and transparent CSR disclosure process and reporting will provide us with the ESG data required, which is indeed available through different Data Brokers (with, unfortunately, heterogeneous coverages and qualities), after data entry. But to be able to leverage these ESG data, they need, according to us, to be handled appropriately:

  • Quantitative ESG indicator selection: The relevant quantitative ESG indicators to assess need to be carefully selected, among the thousands ESG indicators more or less relevant available on the market. The objective is to be able to evaluate the quantitative outcome—i.e. impact—on the ESG topics. Among others, the coverage of each indicator needs to be taken into account as selection criteria, in order to allow ranking and comparison between peers.
  • ESG Impact scoring: The ESG indicators need to be scored to evaluate the positiveness of the impact, based on quantitative metrics, and specific impact thresholds. As exemplified here above, we must now move beyond intention-checking (such as ESG initiative commitment, or existing corporate policies) to measure the sustainable and positive impact of a company, or investment portfolio, and “do not harm” is one of the guiding principles for the implementation of Impact Scoring.

Conclusion: don’t overlook impact below the waterline!

Positive impact is not restricted to the sole outcome of a company’s business model, and thus needs to be assessed at the global level of a company’s operations, i.e. on the three, and still relevant,  dimensions of Environment, Social, and Governance—and, in case you didn’t notice, that’s precisely why we launched IMPACTIN: Sustainable impact, measured. That’s our motto.


5 ways to better engage on ESG—through impact

ESG Engagement is not limited to Proxy Voting policy!

Are you a responsible investor willing to influence the ESG performance of a company you invested in ? Then “Engagement” is probably one of the tools you are using to try to achieve this end.

But the fact is that, today, Engagement has little or no impact on companies’ ESG performance. In most of the cases, the so-called “Engagement” is unfortunately limited to the definition of the Proxy voting policy of the professional investor for the shareholders General Meeting. This is so true that the communication of Asset Managers in their Engagement Reports usually only provides, as key indicators, the respective percentage of votes: FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN…

By the way, and as an example, according to a study published by Majority Action in 2019, the 25 largest Asset Managers, during the 2019 general meeting of the Energy and Utilities sector, didn’t systematically vote for the climate resolutions…

Anyway, voting against a company resolution is not truly engaging with a company on its ESG performance: It’s too late. A responsible investor should engage early with companies in its portfolio, in order to have a chance to really influence the policies and operations of companies—for the benefit of us all.

Better Engage on ESG performance, through impact

To go beyond Proxy Voting policies will require to start a true Engagement process through a mid/long-term discussion between interested parties, and build on trust.

And, as a Responsible Investor, looking at the ESG impact performance can offer you several, and non-exclusive, approaches to improve your engagement process—and here is some of them.

1. Identify ESG weaknesses and strengths

Identify a company’s ESG weaknesses and strengths, using ESG impact areas rating, and then target your engagement effort around ESG impact themes: Gender Equality ? Energy consumption ? Tax evasion ? etc.

2. Track ESG progress and trends

Using the historical part of the available ESG impact ratings of a company, track its progress on the several ESG topics of interest identified. Does the ratio of hazardous waste increased ? The proportion of women in management decrease ? These kind of signals can trigger your discussion with the company, based on facts.

3. Benchmark the ESG performance amongst peers

Benchmarking the position of the company ESG impact performance, relatively to its peers within sub-industries, geographies, and other relevant dimensions, will provide you with interesting insights. You could then focus, for instance, your Engagement process on the companies with the greater room for improvement, or foster thematic Engagement on specific developping countries—depending on your Engagement objectives, and Core Values.

4. Converge on quantitative performance indicators

During the discussion phase with a company, within the engagement process, you will be able to propose, discuss, and engage with the company on the improvement of quantitative and positive impact indicators — e.g. percentage of women in management, percentage of renewable in the energy mix, etc.—i.e. you will be able to track facts, and not intentions.

5. Divest—progressively

An Engagement process, obvisouly, takes time. But, ultimately, if the engagement fails, after several cycles, and the company doesn’t demonstrate its willingness to improve its ESG performance—based on quantitifed results—, then, as a Responsible Investor, you should take responsibility for your investment, and also for your end-customer—which might have selected you for your strong ESG values—, and thus divest, from the company, probably progressively, in order to demonstrate your convictions, and allow the company to alter its negative ESG strategy during the process.

ESG Engagement: a responsible investor’s duty 

At IMPACTIN, we think that the current situation regarding Engagement—focused on poorly efficient Proxy Voting policy—is not a fatality, and that another approach is possible.

The ESG impact ratings, available today, empower the Responsible Investors, and provide them with the right tools to better select the more relevant companies in their portfolio, and truly engage on the improvement of specific, quantitative, measurable indicators of positive impact.

As Responsible Investors, you have the power to redirect the investment flows to have a real positive impact on our planet and society. Money, through finance, is a great lever, maybe the greater of all—and remember Archimedes’ saying : “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth“. The transition towards a more suistanable economy thus lies in your hands.

3 incoming regulations in Sustainable Finance—will investors be ready ?

Within the coming two years, several regulations on Sustainable Finance will come into effect, which will directly affect the Asset Management, Insurance, and Pension Funds activities. All of those evolutions are emerging from the overall “EU Green Deal” context, and from EU working groups on Sustainable Finance and Sustainable Insurance.

But will concerned businesses be ready ? Already, concerns have begun to be issued. On June, the 9th, several european banking, insurance, and pension funds associations wrote a joint letter to the European Commission, calling for a “centralized register for environmental, social and governance (ESG) data in the EU“, in order to be able to fulfill incoming regulatory reporting obligations… Let’s take a brief look at what is coming.

March 2021: EU Disclosure Regulation

In March 2021, the EU regulation on sustainability‐related disclosures (known as the “Disclosure Regulation”) will become applicable. The regulation will require financial market participants and advisers to provide investors with pre-contractual ESG-related information linked to specific financial products. The objective is to allow investors to make their investment decisions also on the basis of ESG insights.

For instance, regarding positive impact investments, the regulation states that “As regards financial products which have as an objective a positive impact on the environment and society, financial market participants should disclose which sustainable benchmark they use to measure the sustainable performance and where no benchmark is used, explain how the sustainable objective is met“.

2021: MiFID II and the IDD

Expected to be adopted in 2021, the EU Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID II) and the Insurance Distribution Directive (IDD) regulations focus on ESG considerations . Both amendment initiatives aim indeed at integrating sustainability risks and factors into the investment process.

More precisely, the objective of the IDD, for instance, is to “create a mandatory requirement to take into account ESG preferences in the advisory process (both in the customer profiling and product selection).

Jan. 2022: EU Taxonomy

Finally, the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance will come into effect in Jan. 2022: this regulation  aims to introduce an EU-wide classification system for ESG-related investments. Now adopted by the European Council, the agenda aims to establish the taxonomy by the end of 2020, with full application by the end of 2021.

The taxonomy will “create the world’s first-ever “green list” – a classification system for sustainable economic activities – that will create a common language that investors can use everywhere when investing in projects and economic activities that have a substantial positive impact on the climate and the environment“.

A core objective: Positive impact

A first good point, is that all the initiatives aim at measuring and reporting the environmental and climate impact, in order to contribute to tackle the Climate Change issues. The second good point, is that the objective is wider and not restricted to the environment: all ESG impacts will need to be explained, and reported—the target is the measurement of the overall “sustainable performance”, in order empower the end investors in their investment decisions.

We cannot agree more this mission statement, underlying the regulation—and this will also address the current transparency issue. The challenge investors are now facing is the way to evaluate the ESG impact of their investments. The current ESG rating approaches available on the market cannot provide an evaluation of the impact, and instead offer “an aggregate confusion“, usually anchored in intention- or policy-checking, and subjectivity…

But another approach is possible—and it must rely on quantitative ESG data analysis for a factual positive or negative impact evaluation.

Will investors be ready ? The recent joint letter from the financial investment industry seems to indicate the contrary. But if we don’t yet have the definitive answer to this last question, on our side, we already planned, and developped ESG impact rating solutions to help investors comply, be transparent, and credible.

Portfolio ESG Impact scorecard—the IMPACTIN way

Are you an Asset Manager or an investor wanting to understand the real impact of your fixed income or equity portfolio ? Or maybe do you want to measure the physical risk and mitigation or transition impact of your Real Estate portfolio ? Do you need to measure the alignment of your portfolio vis-à-vis the 17 SDGs ?

Then the whole IMPACTIN team is pleased to announce the launch of our Portfolio ESG Impact & Climate Change Scorecard to you. We designed this scorecard to provide both the positive or negative ESG impact of a portfolio through several dimensions, and provides physical risk, climate mitigation and adaptation scores.

The following ESG performance scores are provided for any scored portfolio, with their associated trends:

  • ESG impact rating scores (x4);
  • ESG Smart Areas scores (x11): Infrastructure, Building, Education, etc.
  • SDG alignment scores (x18);
  • 5P scores (x6) — where 5P stands for Planet, People, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership;
  • Climate Change scores (x5): Mitigation, Adaptation, Physical Risks and Transition score;
  • Rating class (AAA – D).

It allows both to benchmark a portfolio vis-à-vis market indexes and funds, to promote your fund impact performances respectively to other competitors, and clearly disclose your funds ESG impact to your end customers.

Please contact us for detailled information, discussion and samples!

Climate Change and Physical Risk scored for 1554 territories featured in IMPACTIN last dataset

The IMPACTIN Countries and Territories Climate Change and Physical Risk Mitigation and Adaptation Rating dataset is our new Data Product available on the DAWEX data marketplace.

Our Climate Change Adaptation and Climate Change Mitigation ratings are based on guidelines from the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities framework and the EEA, on both topics. The EEA is the European Environment Agency of the European Union.

Climate Change Mitigation means the reduction or prevention of the emissions linked to human activities, such as, e.g., CO2 and GHG, or fluorinated gases (F-gases), whereas the Climate Change Adaption regards actions to adapt to the impacts of climate change, already happening: flooding, droughts, sea level rise, wild fires, rainfall patterns alteration, etc.

Climate change is already happening […] This leads to many adverse impacts on ecosystems, economic sectors, and human health and well-being. Therefore, actions to adapt to the impacts of climate change are paramount and should be tailored to the specific circumstances in different parts of Europe

— European Environment Agency

This dataset provides 14 climate change and physical risk scores and trends for 1554 territories, i.e. countries, regions or cities, for a total of 21,756 data points. The following numbers of territories are covered:

  • 200+ countries,
  • 650+ regions,
  • 600+ cities (urban areas).

The scores and data included in the dataset provide the following information, for each territory featured:

  • Territory general information: code, name, country, population, geographical coordinates, etc.;
  • Climate Change score;
  • Climate Change Mitigation score;
  • Climate Change Adaptation score;
  • Physical Risks score: exposure to natural hazards such as flood, droughs, tsunami, etc.;
  • Climate Change Transition score;
  • Rank in territory group (countries, regions, cities);
  • Rating class.

The associated data theme is available on the DAWEX marketplace, feel free to contact us for a sneak peek at the data offer online: dataset content, samples, dataset structure, cities and regions coverage maps!

La notation d’impact ESG Pays d’IMPACTIN est disponible sur la place de marché de donnée DAWEX

Notre coeur de métier est de mesurer l’Impact ESG pour les besoins de la Finance Durable, et, à cette fin, nous venons tout juste de publier notre jeu de données Impact ESG Pays pour le premier trimestre 2020.

Notre jeu de données d’Impact ESG Pays IMPACTIN contient 48 scores d’impact et leurs tendances, pour 218 pays, soit un total de 20,928 points de données organisés en 8 domaines:

  • Notation d’Impact ESG;
  • Notation 5P — Planète, Société, Prospérité, Paix, Partenariat (Planet, People, Prosperity, Peace, Partnership);
  • Notations du Domaine SMART Environnement;
  • Notations du Domaine SMART Social;
  • Notations du Domaine SMART Gouvernance ;
  • Notations de Transition;
  • Notations de l’alignement aux 17 SDGs ;
  • Notations et rangs par groupe (économiques et géographiques).

Le jeu de données est accompagné avec un rapport de 200 pages contenant les Profils d’Impact ESG des pays, et est d’ors et déjà disponible sur la place de marché de données DAWEX: DAWEX data marketplace — cf. notrepage entreprise et nos thèmes Données pour plus de détail, et n’hésitez pas à nous contacter pour accéder aux exemples et pour plus d’information sur nos jeux de données.

La platform DAWEX est une solution leader de place de marché de données, permettant un échange de données totalement sûr.

Une notation d’impact ESG rating pour les pays unique sur le marché!

Le jeu de données d’Impact ESG Pays IMPACTIN offre de nombreux avantages par rapport aux autres offres du marché:

  • 218 pays couverts — soit 20% à 65% de pays en plus, en comparaison des jeux de données concurrents ;
  • 87% des Pays ISO couverts ;
  • 100% des grands emetteurs d’obligations souveraines couverts ;
  • 7 régions géographiques modiales 100% couvertes ;
  • 4 groupes de revenus 100% couverts ;
  • 20,928 indicateurs (notes et tendances and trends) ;
  • Notation d’impact ESG (en comparaisons des notations risques ESG de la concurrence) ;
  • Méthode objective, basée sur des indicateurs ;
  • Approche quantitative, objective, et répétable ;
  • Mise à jour fréquente vs. annuelle à pluriannuels (12, 24, 36 mois…)
  • 218 Profils ESG des pays, dans un rapport,
  • Régions géographiques et Groupes de revenus pré-filtrés, et cartographies associées.

Pourquoi une notation d’impact ESG des pays ?

Après des décennies passées dans le domaine de l’évaluation extra-financière, la RSE, l’ISR et la Finance Durable en général, nous n’étions pas satisfait des solutions disponibles sur le marché : trop de subjectivité, une qualité hétérogène des notes, un délai trop long entre les mises à jour, une approche basée sur les risques et non alignée sur la nécessité de suivre et démontrer l’impact réel d’un investissement, etc.

Investir pour un impact durable est la nouvelle frontière pour l’investissement responsable, avec un focus fort sur comment les décisions d’investissement ont un impact réel sur les facteurs ESG, par dessus la matérialité financière.

— Directrice Générale du PRI, Fiona Reynolds, décembre 2019

Pour les raisons ci-dessus, nous avons décidé d’élaborer notre propre approche : après plusieurs mois de recherche et développement, nous avons mises au points nos méthodologies exclusives de notation d’Impact ESG, pour les pays, territoires et villes, les sociétés cotées et les portefeuilles d’investissement : IMPACTIN est née avec la vision que l’investissement à impact ESG sera la prochaine étape pour la finance durable, et que des notes d’impact ESG de qualité sont nécessaires pour alimenter le développement de l’investissement à impact ESG, en pleine croissance..

Notre jeu de données d’Impact ESG Pays IMPACTIN est l’une de nos solutions de jeu de données, fournissant 48 scores d’impact et leurs tendances pour 218 pays, et individualisant l’impact de chaque pays noté au travers de nombreuses dimensions : Smart Infrastructures, Smart Health, Prosperité, Climate Change Transition, alignement avec les 17 SDGs, etc.

Nous avons plusieurs autres produits de données en cours de finalisation, et qui seront disponibles dans les semaines qui viennent—restez à l’écoute!

IMPACTIN Countries ESG Impact rating available on the DAWEX data marketplace

Our core business is to measure the ESG impact for the Sustainable Finance needs, and to this end we just released our countries ESG impact rating for the first quarter of 2020.

The IMPACTIN Countries ESG Impact Rating dataset contains 48 impact scores and their trends, for 218 countries, i.e. a total of 20,928 data points organized in 8 domains:

  • ESG Impact ratings;
  • 5P ratings — Planet, People, Prosperity, Peace, Partnership,
  • Environment Smart Areas ratings;
  • Social Smart Areas ratings;
  • Governance Smart Areas ratings;
  • Transition ratings;
  • 17 SDGs Contribution ratings;
  • Groups ratings (economical and geographical groups).

The dataset comes with a 200+ pages-long Countries ESG Impact Profiles report, and is now available on the DAWEX data marketplace — see our company page and data themes for more details, and feel free to contact us for access on more information on our data offers.

The DAWEX platform is a leading and multi-awarded data marketplace, allowing a totally secure and scalable data exchange.

A unique countries ESG rating on the market

The IMPACTIN Countries ESG Impact Rating dataset offers many advantages vis-à-vis other market offers available:

  • 218 countries featured — i.e. 20% to 65% more countries than market competitors
  • 87% of ISO Countries covered
  • 100% of larger sovereign bonds emitters covered
  • 7 Geographical Regions 100% covered
  • 4 Income Groups 100% covered
  • 20,928 indicators (scores and trends)
  • ESG impact scores vs. ESG risk scores
  • Indicators-based vs. criteria-based
  • Quantitative, objective, and repeatable approach vs. qualitative and subjective rating
  • Quarterly updates vs. Yearly
  • 218 Country ESG Impact profiles featured in a report
  • Pre-filtered geographical regions and income groups ratings, and associated geographical maps.

The case for an ESG impact rating of countries

After decades of experience in the field of extra-financial evaluation, CSR, SRI and Sustainable Finance in general, we were not satisfied with the solutions available on the market: we found there too much subjectivity, a heterogeneous quality in the ratings, a too long duration between the updates, a risk-based approach not aligned with the necessity to track and demonstrate the real impact of an investment, etc.

Investing for sustainability impact is the new frontier for responsible investment, with a stronger focus on how investment decisions have real world impact on ESG factors over financial materiality

— PRI CEO, Fiona Reynolds, Dec. 2019

For the here above reasons, we decided to craft our own approach: after months of research and development we ended with our proprietary methodologies of ESG Impact rating, for countries, territories and cities, listed companies, and investment portfolios: IMPACTIN was born, with the vision that Impact Investment is the next step for Sustainable Finance, and that high-quality Impact ratings are required to fuel the development of the growing Impact Investment landscape.

The IMPACTIN Countries ESG Impact Rating dataset solution is one of our ESG Impact Rating dataset solutions, providing 48 impact scores and their trends for 218 countries, allowing to individualize the impact of countries through many dimensions: Smart Infrastructures, Smart Health, Prosperity, Climate Change Transition, contribution to the 17 SDGs, etc.

We have several other data products on their way, which will be released in the coming weeks — stay tuned!