Composite ESG disclosure quality scores for NZX-listed companies, combining claim-evidence alignment, disclosure transparency analysis, and ESG data coverage into a single benchmark. Scores range from 0-100, with sector peer comparison.
Methodology Note
This benchmark measures ESG disclosure quality and completeness, not actual ESG performance or intentions. A lower score may reflect limited data availability rather than poor environmental or social practices. Companies may report ESG data through channels not captured in this analysis. All findings should be interpreted in context.
Companies Benchmarked
131
Exemplary Ratings
0
0% of companies
Average Score
27
Rating: Poor
Top Sector
Financials
Avg score: 31
| Rating | ||
|---|---|---|
| HFL | 44 | Weak |
| CO2 | 43 | Weak |
| FCT | 43 | Weak |
| TEM | 41 | Weak |
| BIT | 38 | Weak |
| TCM | 35 | Weak |
| UVA | 35 | Weak |
| MEX | 34 | Weak |
| ANZ | 32 | Weak |
| AFI | 31 | Weak |
| EBO | 31 | Weak |
| MFB | 31 | Weak |
| BIF | 30 | Weak |
| FRW | 30 | Weak |
| POT | 30 | Weak |
| SMI | 30 | Weak |
| VCT | 30 | Weak |
| ARG | 29 | Poor |
| BFG | 29 | Poor |
| BPG | 29 | Poor |
| CRP | 29 | Poor |
| FPH | 29 | Poor |
| GMT | 29 | Poor |
| GTK | 29 | Poor |
| SKC | 29 | Poor |
| WIN | 29 | Poor |
| BRM | 28 | Poor |
| CEN | 28 | Poor |
| CNU | 28 | Poor |
| GNE | 28 | Poor |
| GXH | 28 | Poor |
| IPL | 28 | Poor |
| IPR | 28 | Poor |
| KFL | 28 | Poor |
| MCY | 28 | Poor |
| MKR | 28 | Poor |
| MLN | 28 | Poor |
| NZX | 28 | Poor |
| OCA | 28 | Poor |
| PLP | 28 | Poor |
| RAD | 28 | Poor |
| SKL | 28 | Poor |
| TRA | 28 | Poor |
| VHP | 28 | Poor |
| VNT | 28 | Poor |
| WBC | 28 | Poor |
| AGL | 27 | Poor |
| BAI | 27 | Poor |
| DOW | 27 | Poor |
| ERD | 27 | Poor |
| FWL | 27 | Poor |
| HGH | 27 | Poor |
| IFT | 27 | Poor |
| IKE | 27 | Poor |
| KMD | 27 | Poor |
| KPG | 27 | Poor |
| MEL | 27 | Poor |
| NZL | 27 | Poor |
| NZM | 27 | Poor |
| PCT | 27 | Poor |
| PFI | 27 | Poor |
| RYM | 27 | Poor |
| SCL | 27 | Poor |
| SKT | 27 | Poor |
| SPG | 27 | Poor |
| SPK | 27 | Poor |
| SUM | 27 | Poor |
| VGL | 27 | Poor |
| VSL | 27 | Poor |
| AFT | 26 | Poor |
| AIA | 26 | Poor |
| APL | 26 | Poor |
| BGP | 26 | Poor |
| FBU | 26 | Poor |
| FCG | 26 | Poor |
| FSF | 26 | Poor |
| GEN | 26 | Poor |
| LIC | 26 | Poor |
| MEE | 26 | Poor |
| MHJ | 26 | Poor |
| MOV | 26 | Poor |
| MPG | 26 | Poor |
| NPH | 26 | Poor |
| NZK | 26 | Poor |
| RAK | 26 | Poor |
| RGI | 26 | Poor |
| RUA | 26 | Poor |
| SCT | 26 | Poor |
| SKO | 26 | Poor |
| TAH | 26 | Poor |
| THL | 26 | Poor |
| TRU | 26 | Poor |
| TWR | 26 | Poor |
| WCO | 26 | Poor |
| 2CC | 25 | Poor |
| AFC | 25 | Poor |
| AIR | 25 | Poor |
| ALF | 25 | Poor |
| AOF | 25 | Poor |
| ARB | 25 | Poor |
| BLT | 25 | Poor |
| BRW | 25 | Poor |
| CCC | 25 | Poor |
| CDI | 25 | Poor |
| CHI | 25 | Poor |
| CMO | 25 | Poor |
| CVT | 25 | Poor |
| DGL | 25 | Poor |
| ENS | 25 | Poor |
| HLG | 25 | Poor |
| MFT | 25 | Poor |
| PEB | 25 | Poor |
| PHL | 25 | Poor |
| PYS | 25 | Poor |
| RBD | 25 | Poor |
| RTO | 25 | Poor |
| SAN | 25 | Poor |
| SEK | 25 | Poor |
| SML | 25 | Poor |
| SPN | 25 | Poor |
| STU | 25 | Poor |
| SVR | 25 | Poor |
| TGG | 25 | Poor |
| TWL | 25 | Poor |
| WHS | 25 | Poor |
| LOC | 24 | Poor |
| MCK | 24 | Poor |
| NTL | 24 | Poor |
| PGW | 24 | Poor |
| ATM | 23 | Poor |
| SDL | 23 | Poor |
| Sector | Companies | Avg Score | Top Company |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financials | 22 | 31 | HFL(44) |
| Materials | 10 | 29 | TCM(35) |
| Utilities | 7 | 28 | VCT(30) |
| Real Estate | 16 | 28 | ARG(29) |
| Healthcare | 12 | 27 | EBO(31) |
| Communication Services | 4 | 27 | CNU(28) |
| Industrials | 23 | 26 | FRW(30) |
| Consumer Discretionary | 15 | 26 | BFG(29) |
| Information Technology | 7 | 26 | GTK(29) |
| Consumer Staples | 14 | 25 | FWL(27) |
The ESG Disclosure Quality Benchmark produces a composite score (0-100) by combining three independently computed components:
Measures alignment between ESG narrative frequency in announcements (keyword density, net-zero claims) and actual ESG data coverage (emissions, diversity, safety metrics). Higher alignment yields a higher score. Based on the methodology from our ESG Disclosure Gap Analysis.
Assesses disclosure language quality across five dimensions: hedging level, sentiment volatility, buried risk frequency, guidance consistency, and forward-looking statement density. Lower hedging and more consistent disclosure yields a higher score. Based on our Disclosure Language Analysis engine.
Evaluates the breadth of actual ESG data reported: emissions (scope 1/2), gender diversity (board and workforce), and workplace safety (TRIFR/LTIFR). Multi-year reporting depth adds bonus points. Companies with all three pillars and 5+ years of data may score up to 100 on this component.
Sector percentiles indicate where a company ranks relative to sector peers (higher = above more peers). Confidence is based on data availability: high (50+ data points with ESG data), medium (15+), low (fewer). Scores are computed from structured NZX announcement data and extracted ESG metrics. Companies may disclose ESG information through channels not captured in this analysis.
NZ Governance Power Index — top directors, board interlocks, auditor concentration, and multi-board analysis.
Interactive force-directed visualization of board interlocks across NZX, charities, iwi, and public sector.
Auditor market concentration, tenure analysis, and director-auditor independence.
Data sourced from publicly available records. Our datasets may not be complete. Automated analysis can produce errors. If you believe any data on this page is incorrect, please contact us at hello@nzxplorer.co.nz. For informational purposes only. Not investment advice.