Reporting outputs

Why do “Other, please specify” answer options not always receive a score?

The PRI does not score “Other, please specify” answer options in indicators where the other available options capture practices sufficiently for assessment.

In cases where the “Other, please specify” option is scored, we only count whether the option has been selected or not, as no qualitative data is considered in the scoring.

However, the PRI considers responses to “Other, please specify” answer options to improve the Reporting Framework. We use these responses when reviewing content for module development (e.g., by identifying best practices and making indicators more applicable to signatories).

Why does the scoring methodology differ between certain indicators?

Several scoring styles have been used to ensure assessment best fits the variety of indicator-level questions covered within the Reporting Framework.

You can find more information on the scoring styles in the Assessment methodology.

Why is the selection of some answer options required to get higher points?

In some indicators, certain answer options are considered fundamental market practices within the relevant asset class, as identified by our subject matter experts. We made achieving a higher score conditional on selecting these best practices, as outlined in the Assessment methodology.

Will I be able to compare my organisation’s 2025 scores with previous years?

The content of the 2025 Reporting Framework has not changed significantly, and the Assessment methodology is largely unchanged compared to 2024.

This stability should enable better year-on-year comparison of signatories’ scores across modules and indicators, with only 17 indicators updated or amended in 2025 to fix errors identified during the 2024 reporting cycle or to improve logic and clarity.

Signatories should check the Indicator changes guide to identify where 2024 and 2025 indicators scores can be compared.

Our bar chart feature in the Data Portal allows signatories to track performance from 2023 to 2024, providing a clear summary of their progress. To view this:

1. Navigate to the Assessments Reports page
2. Select any completed module scorecard
3. View the bar chart summarising year-on-year scores

How will the indicator-level assessment translate into the module-level scores?

Module-level scores range between one and five stars.

To calculate the module-level score, all indicator-level points are aggregated (with their multipliers) to form a percentage score. We then use the scoring thresholds to translate the percentage into a grade, ranging from one to five stars.

• 1 star: 0<=25%
• 2 stars: >25<=40%
• 3 stars: >40<=65%
• 4 stars: >65<=90%
• 5 stars: >90%
• N/A: not applicable
• N/R: not reported

We aim to ensure minimum variation in the scoring thresholds from year to year. See the Reporting & Assessment archive for more information on previous years’ scoring thresholds.

What are multipliers, and how does indicator weighting work?

Multipliers reflect the relative importance of an indicator in the module, based on how strongly the actions covered in a question are aligned with responsible investment practices and / or the PRI’s overall mission.

Once an indicator has been given a score, a multiplier is applied: the multiplier could be low, medium or high, depending on the indicator’s level of importance when it comes to RI practices and / or alignment with the PRI’s mission. Descriptions of the multipliers are included in the Reporting Framework modules, while the numbers used are only visible to signatories in the Reporting Tool and in their Assessment Reports.

More details are provided in the Assessment methodology.

What are scoring thresholds and how were they determined?

Scoring thresholds define the percentage boundary at which the module-level stars are allocated. The 2025 scoring thresholds are aligned with those used in the 2024 Reporting Framework to enable the comparison of module scores.

Can my organisation opt out of getting an Assessment Report?

An Assessment Report is generated for each signatory along with a public and private Transparency Report. The Assessment Report is confidential and only visible to the signatory organisation. Signatories do not have to view or download their Assessment Reports, but the PRI strongly encourages them to do so, as the reports can help signatories to identify how they can improve their responsible investment practices.

My organisation is a first-time reporter. When will we receive our first Assessment Report?

New signatories are given a grace period, during which time they are not required to report. Signatories that choose to report in their grace period will receive an Assessment Report. Signatories that do not report during this time will receive their first Assessment Report in their first mandatory reporting year.

Where can I find information on the scoring criteria for each indicator in the Reporting Framework modules?

You can find information about the indicator-level scoring criteria and the Reporting Framework modules on our Investor Reporting Framework  page.

Does the assessment favour any particular investment strategy or engagement method within specific asset classes?

The assessment does not promote any specific investment strategy or engagement method. It instead aims to showcase best practices around the world in responsible investment across asset classes. These activities are assessed within each asset class based on equal value, regardless of approach (e.g., screening or integration), whether they are conducted internally or externally, and whether they are individual, collaborative or conducted through a service provider.

Why does the assessment change over time?

It is important that the PRI’s reporting and assessment stays up to date with the fast-moving changes in the responsible investment industry. Therefore, indicators may be added, modified, or removed to reflect changes in the market, impacting the indicator and/or module-level assessment. The indicator or module-level assessment may also be adjusted based on signatories’ past performance (e.g., to increase the difficulty of high-scoring indicators).

Why is my organisation getting the same one-star score as signatories that do not incorporate ESG factors in their investment decision?

Module-level scores are calculated based on the total points a signatory receives in all the applicable indicators. The scoring thresholds, available in the Assessment methodology, translate points into a numerical grading system (one to five stars). A five-star grade is the highest possible score, awarded to those signatories that demonstrate leading practices within the responsible investment industry. The one-star grade is allocated to those whose responsible investment practices are at the lower end of the scale, including those that do not incorporate ESG factors in their investment decisions.

Where can I provide feedback on the Assessment Report, or the Assessment Methodology?

You can provide feedback on 2024 reporting outputs in this survey. Signatories are also welcome to share their feedback by emailing [email protected].

All feedback will help us develop the Data Portal and Assessment methodology.

How does the PRI ensure reported data is credible?

The PRI has several steps in place to reduce reporting errors and enhance the credibility of our data:

• Transparency Reports are made public.
• The PRI uses various validation mechanisms in the Reporting Tool, depending on the question type, which reduces misreporting.
• The Reporting Framework contains gateway questions to prevent signatories seeing questions that do not apply to them, hence reducing conflicting responses.
• When there is significant variation in the data in comparison with the previous year, some indicators containing key AUM figures are checked by the PRI.

How can signatories increase the credibility of their reported data?

Below we outline how signatories can increase the credibility of their data, via governance and internal controls, and internal audit and external assurance, with the latter representing advanced practice.

We do not expect signatories to undertake all of these measures. Capacity will depend on various factors, including organisational structure, resources, and location.

How signatories can demonstrate or improve the credibility of the information they report:

• solicit independent third-party assurance of selected processes and / or data related to their responsible investment processes, resulting in a formal assurance conclusion; 
• undergo a third-party readiness review and making changes to internal controls or governance processes in preparation for an independent third-party assurance review; 
• conduct an internal audit of selected processes and / or data related to the responsible investment processes reported to the PRI;
• ensure the board, trustees (or equivalent), senior executive-level staff (or equivalent), and / or investment committee (or equivalent) sign off on the PRI report; 
• conduct an audit for some or all funds as part of the certification process against a sustainable investment / responsible investment label;
• carry out an external ESG audit of their ESG / sustainability-marketed funds or products (excluding ESG / responsible investment-certified or labelled assets); and
• undergo an external ESG audit of holdings:
  • to verify compliance with responsible investment policies (e.g., exclusion lists, ESG ratings or thresholds);  
  • to help with risk management, engagement identification or investment decision-making; and
  • to review PRI reporting responses internally before submission.

Developing robust internal controls is the first step for signatories wanting to improve the credibility of their reported information. An organisation’s confidence in its reporting is a direct result of the quality of its internal control environment.

Internal audit and external assurance

Signatories can carry out an internal audit to verify that their control mechanisms on ESG reporting, and those mechanisms specific to responsible investment processes, are working as intended. This helps organisations prepare for external third-party assurance of ESG information and should result in a more efficient assurance process. External assurers can provide guidance on best practices.

Processes typically audited / assured

Based on 2017 analysis, signatories that reported conducting third-party assurance of their internal controls did so for the following responsible investment processes:

• Strategy and governance: policies and overarching responsible investment;
• Active ownership: voting policy and engagement; and
• ESG incorporation strategies: screening (e.g., to prevent breaches).

Assurance standards for ESG information and processes are an emerging field. ISAE 3000 is the most widely used standard, while ISAE 3402 can be used for ESG processes (overlaps with SSAE 18).