1. Data Sources
All ESG Financial Quotient scores are derived exclusively from companies' own public regulatory disclosures. We do not use estimates, surveys, or third-party data providers. The primary sources are:
2. Scoring Overview
The ESG Financial Quotient (EFQ) score is a composite 0–10 risk score. A higher score indicates greater financial exposure to ESG-related risks — not a lower ESG performance. This is a risk lens, not a ratings system.
3. The 7 Risk Dimensions
Each dimension is scored independently on a 0–10 scale before being combined into the composite EFQ score.
Measures carbon emissions intensity relative to revenue. Derived from Scope 1 and Scope 2 absolute emissions disclosed in BRSR (Section C, Principle 6). Scored higher for heavy emitters and for companies with incomplete or nil emissions disclosures, which signals potential SEBI enforcement exposure.
Evaluates water withdrawal and consumption relative to sector benchmarks. Scored using absolute water withdrawal (m³) from BRSR, cross-referenced against sector water-stress classifications under CPCB norms. High scores indicate exposure to water-related regulatory tightening or operational disruption risk.
Assesses total waste generation (hazardous + non-hazardous) relative to revenue. Scored using BRSR Principle 6 waste data. Companies with high waste generation and no disclosed reclamation or recycling protocols receive maximum scores. Linked directly to EPR obligations.
Quantifies financial risk from Extended Producer Responsibility obligations under Battery Waste Management Rules 2022, Plastic Waste Management Rules, E-Waste (Management) Rules 2022, and Waste Tyre notification. Scored based on product categories, sector classification, and disclosed EPR compliance status in BRSR Section C.
The highest-weight dimension. Evaluates the completeness and accuracy of BRSR disclosures against SEBI's mandatory framework. Missing mandatory indicators, nil responses for quantitative fields, inconsistencies between reported figures, and absence of third-party assurance all contribute to a higher compliance risk score. Directly linked to SEBI enforcement and potential delisting risk.
Assesses human rights and labour practice risks based on BRSR Principle 5 disclosures. Considers MSME sourcing percentage (supply chain inclusion), presence of human rights due diligence policies, contractor workforce treatment, and value chain disclosures. Low MSME sourcing (below 15%) increases this score due to preferential procurement policy risk.
Evaluates anti-corruption policies, conflict of interest frameworks, BRSR assurance level, and board-level ESG accountability from BRSR Principle 1 and Principle 7. Companies with no disclosed anti-corruption policy or no independent BRSR assurance receive higher governance risk scores. Lowest weight as Indian listed companies have relatively standardised governance frameworks under SEBI LODR.
4. Dimension Weights
Weights reflect the relative financial materiality of each dimension to Indian regulatory risk and market exposure, not universal ESG importance. Compliance Risk and EPR Exposure carry the highest weight because they represent the most direct and quantifiable financial penalties under Indian law.
| Dimension | Weight | Primary Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance Risk | 20% | Direct SEBI enforcement exposure; mandatory BRSR Core from FY 2023-24 |
| EPR Exposure | 20% | Quantifiable penalties under 4 EPR rules; growing CPCB enforcement |
| GHG Intensity | 20% | SEBI BRSR Core mandatory; Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) exposure |
| Waste Intensity | 15% | Linked to EPR obligations and Hazardous Waste Management Rules |
| Water Intensity | 10% | Sector-specific; operational risk in water-stressed regions of India |
| HR Risk | 10% | MSME sourcing policy risk; BRSR Principle 5 compliance |
| Governance Risk | 5% | SEBI LODR baseline governance already mandated for listed entities |
| Total | 100% |
The composite EFQ score is calculated as:
5. Sector-Adjusted Weight Profiles
The base formula above applies equal 20% weight to GHG Intensity, EPR Exposure, and Compliance Risk across all companies. In practice, ESG financial materiality is highly sector-dependent — a steel plant's dominant exposure is carbon (CCTS, PAT Scheme), while a bank's is governance and HR. Green Curve applies the following sector-adjusted profiles so scores reflect where regulatory penalties are most likely to land for that specific business.
| Dimension | Base | Heavy Industry Steel · Metals · Mining Cement · Chemicals |
Power & Energy Power Gen · Oil & Gas Utilities |
Financial Services Banks · NBFC Insurance · AMC |
IT & Software IT Services · SaaS Tech |
Consumer & FMCG FMCG · Retail Food · Textiles |
Real Estate & Infra Realty · Construction Infrastructure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHG Intensity | 20% | 30% ↑ | 35% ↑ | 10% ↓ | 15% ↓ | 10% ↓ | 20% |
| EPR Exposure | 20% | 15% ↓ | 8% ↓ | 5% ↓ | 2% ↓ | 28% ↑ | 2% ↓ |
| Compliance Risk | 20% | 18% | 20% | 30% ↑ | 30% ↑ | 22% ↑ | 25% ↑ |
| Waste Intensity | 15% | 20% ↑ | 15% | 5% ↓ | 5% ↓ | 15% | 17% ↑ |
| Water Intensity | 10% | 10% | 15% ↑ | 5% ↓ | 8% ↓ | 5% ↓ | 18% ↑ |
| HR Risk | 10% | 5% ↓ | 5% ↓ | 20% ↑ | 22% ↑ | 18% ↑ | 8% ↓ |
| Governance Risk | 5% | 2% ↓ | 2% ↓ | 25% ↑ | 18% ↑ | 2% ↓ | 10% ↑ |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Carbon pricing under the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (₹600–900/tCO₂e) and PAT Scheme non-compliance are the largest quantifiable financial exposures. Hazardous waste from Schedule I industries amplifies Waste Intensity weight over EPR, which is narrower here than in consumer sectors.
Scope 1 emissions define the ESG risk profile — thermal plants account for the majority of India's industrial GHG. Water intensity raised because cooling water withdrawals at thermal stations create a direct operational and regulatory exposure under CPCB consent conditions.
Negligible direct emissions but high governance exposure — RBI and SEBI dual regulation, board accountability under SEBI LODR, and climate risk embedded in loan books. HR Risk elevated for workforce-intensive operations and POSH compliance obligations.
Low physical footprint, but Compliance and Governance dominate — SEBI BRSR mandatory disclosures, upcoming DPDP Act obligations, and board-level ESG accountability. HR Risk elevated due to talent-intensive workforce, DEI scrutiny, and complex global supply chain labour standards.
Highest EPR exposure of any sector group: multi-layer plastic packaging, PET bottles, and extended supply chains create layered obligations under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, Battery Rules, and upcoming packaging EPR targets. HR Risk elevated for supply chain labour conditions.
Construction water consumption and solid waste (concrete, steel, cement) are disproportionately material. Governance weight raised due to elevated related-party transaction risk and project-level accountability gaps consistently observed in sector BRSR filings.
6. Risk Tier Thresholds
Companies are classified into three tiers based on their composite EFQ score. Thresholds are calibrated to the Indian listed company universe — most companies score in the Medium range due to widespread partial disclosures across BRSR mandatory fields.
7. Financial Exposure Estimates
The Estimated Compliance Cost Band shown on company profiles (e.g., ₹10–38 crore) is a directional estimate of potential regulatory compliance costs, not an audited figure. It is derived from:
- Published penalty structures under SEBI BRSR enforcement guidelines
- CPCB EPR non-compliance penalty rates for Plastics, Batteries, E-Waste and Tyres
- Sector-wide carbon pricing frameworks (₹600–900/tonne CO₂e under India's Carbon Credit Trading Scheme)
- Company revenue scale and waste/emissions intensity as a multiplier
8. Double Materiality Assessment
Following the ISSB IFRS S1/S2 and EU CSRD double materiality framework, each company is assessed on two axes:
How ESG risks affect the company's own financial position, earnings, and access to capital. Derived from the composite EFQ score.
How the company's operations affect the environment and society. Derived from absolute GHG, water, and waste figures relative to sector peers — independent of disclosure completeness.
| Quadrant | Financial Materiality | Impact Materiality | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dual Materiality | High (≥5) | High (≥5) | ESG risks affect both company finances and the environment — highest priority for disclosure and action |
| Financially Material | High (≥5) | Low (<5) | Strong regulatory/financial risk but relatively lower absolute environmental impact |
| Impact Material | Low (<5) | High (≥5) | High environmental impact but lower near-term regulatory financial risk |
| Watch List | Low (<5) | Low (<5) | Currently lower risk on both axes — monitor for regulatory changes |
9. Update Cycle
10. Limitations & Disclaimers
All scores are based on data companies have chosen to disclose in their BRSR filings. Companies that disclose less may appear riskier than they are (due to penalising incomplete disclosures), and companies that over-report may appear less risky. We score what is disclosed — not what is true.
ESG Financial Quotient scores are analytical outputs for informational purposes only. They do not constitute investment advice, a buy/sell recommendation, or a securities rating. Green Curve is not a SEBI-registered Research Analyst or ESG Rating Provider.
Company risk summaries are generated using AI analysis of BRSR data. While grounded in disclosed data, AI-generated summaries may contain inaccuracies or omissions. Always verify findings against the original company BRSR filing.
Scores reflect the most recently available BRSR filing, which may be 12–18 months old at any given time. Company circumstances, regulatory compliance, and environmental performance may have changed since the filing date.
The current dataset covers 155 companies — a subset of India's listed universe. Absence from our database does not imply lower or higher ESG risk. We are working to expand coverage to NIFTY 500.
11. Frequently Asked Questions
Why does a higher score mean higher risk? Shouldn't a better company score higher?
The EFQ is a financial risk score, not an ESG performance rating. It measures how much ESG-related regulatory and financial risk a company is exposed to. A score of 10 means maximum identified risk — similar to how a credit risk score works. Think of it as: the higher the score, the more work the company needs to do to reduce its ESG-related financial exposure.
Why do some companies have identical scores across all dimensions?
When a company's BRSR filing contains nil or missing data across multiple required fields, the scoring algorithm applies a disclosure-penalty score reflecting the regulatory risk of non-disclosure. This can result in identical dimension scores for companies with similar disclosure gaps, even if their actual environmental performance differs.
My company is listed here — can I request a correction?
Yes. If you believe your company's score reflects an error in reading your BRSR filing, please contact us with the specific BRSR page reference and we will review. We are committed to accuracy and will update scores when corrections are warranted.
Is this the same as SEBI's ESG Rating Provider framework?
No. SEBI's ERP framework regulates registered ESG rating agencies that issue formal ESG ratings used for regulatory and investment purposes. Green Curve is not a SEBI-registered ESG Rating Provider. Our scores are research-grade analytical outputs derived from public BRSR data — not formal regulatory ratings.
How is the ESG Financial Quotient different from MSCI, Sustainalytics or other ESG ratings?
Global ESG rating providers use proprietary datasets, surveys, and estimated data across global frameworks. The EFQ is designed specifically for the Indian regulatory environment — it focuses on financial risk from Indian laws (SEBI BRSR, EPR rules, CCTS) and uses only publicly disclosed Indian regulatory data. It is narrower in scope but more directly relevant to India-specific compliance risk.
Can I use this data in my research or reports?
Yes, with attribution. You may cite Green Curve ESG Financial Quotient scores in research, journalism, or analysis with a reference to greencurve.github.io and the data date. You may not reproduce the dataset wholesale or use it for commercial redistribution without written permission.