Any new issues affecting signatories’ 2021 reports and/or their Assessment scores will be logged on this page. Please check back regularly for updates if you believe you may have encountered an assessment error in your report.
On 8 September, the PRI launched the 2021 pilot reporting outputs. As with any new software release, despite extensive pre-launch testing, there still exists the possibility for bugs to emerge in the 2021 reporting outputs resulting in issues.
To help signatories identify potential issues, we have created a table logging identified bugs for reference. The tables below will be periodically updated to reflect any changes and/or new issues that arise.
10 November 2022: As of this date, we are aware of issues affecting the Assessment scores for investor signatories who reported specifically on the Fixed Income (FI), Investment and Stewardship Policy (ISP), and Listed Equity (LE) modules. To check whether you are impacted, please review the tables below.
For more information about correcting errors in your published reports, please see our change request policy.
Data Portal display issues
The following indicator(s) are affected by a display error on the Data Portal. This issue only relates to the display of the score in the Assessment Report. The underlying calculations of the indicator score and module score are not affected. The module score signatories have received is correct.
| Indicator | Explanation of indicator | Description and impact of the issue | How to identify if you are affected by the issue | Issue status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FI 21 (Corporate) |
This indicator is applicable for signatories that reported >0% on screening as an ESG incorporation strategy for internally managed active Fixed Income assets (Corporate sub-strategy). This encompasses the selection of a strategy which includes: screening alone, screening and integration, screening and thematic, or a combination of screening, thematic, and integration. |
In the Fixed Income (Corporate) module scorecard, the score numerator displayed for FI 21 was incorrectly presenting the numerator scored for FI 20 instead. This issue only relates to the display of the score in the Assessment Report. The underlying calculations of the indicator score and module scores are not affected. |
All signatories who received a score for FI 21 (Corporate sub-strategy) are affected. |
As this is a Data Portal display issue, we are able to correct and update the Data Portal. The correction to the Data Portal is expected to be released later in 2022 and an update will be displayed here once this is completed. In the meantime, signatories who suspect they may be affected by this can contact [email protected] for confirmation. |
| Indicator scores ending in .5 |
Indicator scores calculated as a .5 decimal are rounded to the nearest even number in the indicator scorecard. Therefore, any even scores with decimals are rounded down (e.g. 2.5 rounds down to 2). |
For values exactly halfway between rounded decimal values, the platform incorrectly rounds to the nearest even value. For instance, 2.5 is rounded to 2.0. This issue only relates to the display of the score in the Assessment Report. The underlying calculations of the indicator score and module scores are not affected. |
Affected signatories are those with indicator scores that end in a .5 decimal.
|
This issue only relates to the display of the score in the Assessment Report. The underlying calculations of the indicator score and module scores are not affected. PRI can provide a written confirmation on request. Please contact [email protected] for more information. |
Scoring methodology issues
The following indicators are affected by a scoring issue, due to a gap in the assessment methodology that was published. Regrettably, since the 2021 reporting dataset is now finalised, we cannot retrospectively alter public Transparency Reports and/or private Assessment Reports. However, any identified issues will be shared below and written confirmation to support affected signatories can be provided on request.
Please see our change request policy for more information.
| Indicator | Explanation of indicator | Description of the issue | How to identify if you are affected by the issue | Impact of the issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FI 22 |
This indicator focuses on stewardship for Fixed Income assets, by assessing at which stage a signatory engages with issuers/borrowers. This indicator is applicable for signatories that reported conducting stewardship activities for their FI assets through service providers or through internal staff. |
The scoring methodology states that 64 points were available for “2 selections from A-E”. However, the methodology did not explicitly state that 64 points are also available when more than 2 selections from A-E were made (if the criteria for 100 points was not met). Where the criteria for 100 points was not met, but more than 2 selections from A-E were made, a score of 0/100 was incorrectly awarded. The correct score is 64/100. |
Your FI 22 score is showing as 0/200, and you have selected 3 answer options in FI 22. |
The impact on the final FI 22 score is an increase from 0/200 to 128/200. The impact on overall FI module score is likely to be around 1-2%. PRI can provide a written confirmation on request. Please contact [email protected] for more information. |
| ISP 47 |
This indicator focuses on the disclosure of information for passive Listed Equity and/or passive Fixed Income assets, by assessing how changes to the assets’ ESG benchmark selection and construction are communicated. This indicator is applicable for Investment Manager signatories that reported >0% on passive Listed Equity assets and/or passive Fixed Income assets that are ESG/sustainability-marketed funds or products, and/or ESG/RI-certified or labelled products. |
The scoring methodology states that 32 points were available for “1 selection from A-D”. However, the methodology did not explicitly state that 32 points are also available when more than 1 selection from A-D were made (if the criteria for 64 points was not met). Where the criteria for 100 or 64 points was not met, but more than 1 selections from A-D were made, a score of 0/100 was incorrectly awarded. The correct score is 32/100. |
Your ISP 47 score is 0/200 and you have selected more than 1 option in ISP 47. |
The impact on the final ISP 47 score is an increase from 0/200 to 64/200. The impact on overall ISP module score is likely to be around 1-2%. PRI can provide a written confirmation on request. Please contact [email protected] for more information. |
| ISP 59 |
This indicator focuses on a signatory’s confidence building measures, by assessing the percentage of total assets (per asset class) that carry a formal ESG/RI certification or label. This indicator is applicable for signatories that reported >0% of total assets (per asset class) carry a formal ESG/RI certification or label, and therefore some or all of their funds have been audited as part of the certification process against a sustainable investment/RI label. |
The scoring methodology initially published stated “0 points for 0% coverage; 32 score for 1–10% coverage”, and the score for those who were between 0 and 1% was not explicitly stated. A later publication stated “0 points for 0% coverage; 32 score for >0–10% coverage”, but this was not updated in the assessment calculations. Note that the percentage used is calculated as: (value reported in OO 16.1 as a percentage of the value reported in OO 5). Signatories whose percentage was >0% but <1% were given a score of 0/200. The correct score is 32/100. |
Your ISP 59 score is 0/200 and you have selected more than 1 option in ISP 59, and entered values in OO 5 and OO 16 which would result in a value above 0%. |
The impact on the final ISP 59 score is an increase from 0/200 to 64/200. The impact on overall ISP module score is likely to be around 1-2%. PRI can provide a written confirmation on request. Please contact [email protected] for more information. |
| LE 15-23.1 voting |
These indicators focus on the (proxy) voting policies for Listed Equity assets, including the percentage AUM of listed equity assets covered by (proxy) voting policies, coverage of specific ESG factors, alignment and effectiveness of voting recommendations, how voting is addressed in securities lending programmes, shareholder resolutions, pre-declaration of votes, and voting disclosures. These indicators are applicable for signatories that reported engaging in (proxy) voting on active LE and/or (proxy) voting on passive LE. |
Signatories that do not conduct stewardship activities for LE voting, and hence selected answer option (E) “We did not conduct this stewardship activity”, in OO 9 LE, should have been penalised in their scoring for not conducting voting activities when it was applicable. Due to an issue in the assessment calculation, signatories incorrectly received an LE voting module star score of “N/A”. The correct score is 1 star for the LE voting module, and 0/max for indicator-level scores in LE 15-23.1. |
You received a LE voting band score of “N/A” and selected answer option (E) “We did not conduct this stewardship activity”, in OO 9 LE. |
The impact on the final LE voting module is a score of 1 star instead of N/A. PRI can provide a written confirmation on request. Please contact [email protected] for more information. |
| ISP 11 |
This indicator focuses on the AUM coverage of a signatory’s stewardship policy for their actively managed and/or passive assets, as well as whether the policies cover their entire asset base or a specific asset class, fund, or mandate. This indicator is applicable for signatories that reported having an “approach to stewardship” as part of their RI policy. |
The scoring methodology states that 0 points were awarded for “0-10% coverage” for each asset class (these scores would be averaged out to provide the final score for ISP 11). However, 25 points were awarded for “>10-50% coverage”. Due to an issue in the assessment calculation, 1% was imputed instead of 10%, resulting in signatories receiving a score of 25 instead of 0, if their coverage for any asset class was between 1% and 10%. |
Your AUM coverage percentage figure falls between 1% and 10%, for any of your asset classes in ISP 11. |
The impact on the final ISP 11 score is an increase from 0/200 to 50/200 for each asset class. Please note that for multiple reported asset classes, the scores would be averaged out to provide the final score for ISP 11. The impact on overall ISP module score is likely to be around 1-2%. PRI can provide a written confirmation on request. Please contact [email protected] for more information. |
Common queries
The following indicator(s) have been scored correctly and are not affected by any issues. However, they are common areas of scoring confusion from signatories. Please find below an explanation of why an indicator may have received the score it did.
| Indicator | Explanation of indicator | Query | Correct score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISP 10.1 |
This indicator aims to assess the extent to which signatories incorporate ESG factors into their strategic asset allocation processes. This indicator is applicable for signatories that reported: (A) incorporating ESG factors into calculations for expected risks and returns of asset classes, and/or (B) specifically incorporating physical, transition and regulatory changes related to climate change into calculations for expected risks and returns of asset classes. |
0/200 received despite selection of answer option (B): We specifically incorporate physical, transition and regulatory changes related to climate change into calculations for expected risks and returns of asset classes. | 0 points |
Single selection of answer option (B) is not considered in the assessment. This is not an error as selection of (B) should score 0 points. Indicator scoring methodology: 0 score for no answer selection; 25 score for (A); 50 score for both selections from (A), (B). |
Available resources
- Information about PRI guidelines for sharing your private Assessment Reports with external stakeholders are available here.
- The full 2021 assessment methodology is available here.
- The full 2021 Reporting Framework modules for investors are available here.
- The full 2021 Reporting Framework modules for service providers are available here.
- Historic (2014-2020) Reporting Framework modules and assessment methodology are available here.
- Historic (2014-2020) public reports are available here.
- Data Portal guidance (how to navigate the Data Portal and your reports) is available here.
- Permissions System guidance (how to log in to the Data Portal) is available here.
We sincerely thank all our signatories for their continued support and participation throughout the 2021 pilot reporting cycle and outputs launch. We are committed to providing an effective and efficient reporting system for signatories in 2023 that best meets the needs of our increasingly diverse signatory base.
If you have any additional queries not covered by the available guidance, please contact [email protected].
