You can use this archive to view reporting and assessment resources from previous years. Information on the 2023 Reporting Framework is available on the Investor Reporting Framework page.
2021 Reporting Framework
Investor guides
Overview and structure guide
What to report on diagram
Reporting for investors
Introduction video
All Framework modules, guides and mapping documents
| Senior leadership statement | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| Organisational overview | |||
| Investment and stewardship policy | |||
|
|||
| Manager selection, appointment and monitoring (SAM) | |||
| Asset specific modules | |||
|
Listed equity (LE)
|
Real estate (RE) |
Private equity (PE) |
|
|
Fixed income (FI)
|
Infrastructure (INF) |
Hedge funds (HF) |
|
| Sustainability outcomes | |||
Frequently asked questions
In general
Reporting Framework structure
In the Reporting Framework, a signatory can opt-out of the asset-class specific module where it invests less than 10% of its assets under management (AUM). Will this rule be applied to the new reporting framework?
Yes, it will only be mandatory to complete an asset-class module if a signatory has 10% or more of their AUM invested directly in that asset class. However, there will be an additional threshold established for mandatory reporting in 2021. Signatories who directly invest less than 10% but US$10bn or more of their AUM in any particular asset class will also be required to report on that asset class. If signatories instead use external managers for their responsible investment in an asset class, they will need to report on this in the external investment manager selection, appointment and monitoring (SAM) module.
Will signatories still be asked to provide a breakdown of investments by asset class, or will they be required to provide more granular disclosures?
We will continue to ask signatories for a breakdown of their investments by asset class, as this enables the online reporting tool to determine which reporting modules are relevant and material for each individual signatory. A new element of the Reporting Framework is that signatories will have the option to provide a more detailed breakdown by investment strategy. This is particularly beneficial for signatories that have multi-strategy investment approaches, or where their responsible investment approach differs significantly between investment strategies.
Which content elements from the former Reporting Framework will be included in the new Reporting Framework?
Overall, signatories will recognise many of the same themes in the new Reporting Framework that were covered in the former framework. For example, we will still ask signatories about their personnel and capabilities, their responsible investment policies, external communication and investment pre/holding/post activities. New areas include engagement with policymakers and outcomes themes. However, while the general themes are still quite similar in the ‘core’ section, the comparison between old ’mandatory’ indicators and the new ‘core’ indicators is quite hard to make. The new ‘core’ indicators have been upgraded to reflect best practice and reduce the scope for gaming and misinterpretation, by asking for details around how systematically an activity is being conducted and what assets under management it covers.
Why did you choose the ‘core’ and ‘plus’ model and what is the conceptual difference from the former model?
In the Reporting Framework which signatories reported on for the last time in 2020, there are five indicator types (Gateway, Peering, Core assessed, Additional assessed and Descriptive), and three different indicator characteristics (mandatory to report and disclose, mandatory to report and voluntary to disclose, and voluntary to report and disclose). By introducing the ‘core’ and ‘plus’ model, we are grouping some of the different characteristics of indicators - mandatory to report and disclose on, and voluntary to report and disclose on - into two simple categories: indicators are either ‘core’ or ‘plus’ respectively. This is to ensure simplicity and consistency in the overall framework.
How do you plan to tailor the new Reporting Framework for different types of investors?
Like the former Reporting Framework, the new Reporting Framework will be practice and activityrelevant, therefore only the relevant asset-class-specific modules and indicators will be unlocked and assessed, depending on the AUM distribution and practices of each signatory.
How are the Organisational Overview and Strategy and Governance modules changing in the new Reporting Framework? Will these modules be similar to the former version of the Reporting Framework?
The Organisational Overview module will be very similar to previous years, we will still be capturing general information about the organisation, such as number of staff and AUM size. A new firm-level module, called Investment and Stewardship module, will be in place of the old Strategy & Governance module. This module is where we collected the key themes, and so indicators, that would be applicable to most asset classes, in this way we reduced repetition and the reporting burden for signatories. The ISP module will be divided into 5 sections: Policy & Governance, Stewardship, Climate change, Sustainability outcomes, Transparency and CBMs measures.
What will be the approximate ratio of voluntary ‘plus’ and mandatory ‘core’ indicators in the new Reporting Framework in 2021?
Most questions (around 70%) will be mandatory ‘core’ indicators. The voluntary ‘plus’ indicators, including those related to sustainability outcomes, will be limited.
How will the ‘core’ and ‘plus’ indicators fit into the new Reporting Framework structure and flow?
The ‘core’ and ‘plus’ indicators are integrated throughout the structure of the new Reporting Framework. The process-focussed, closed-ended ‘core’ indicators are questions about responsible investment practices that the PRI would reasonably expect most signatories to have a position on. The mostly open-ended, descriptive ‘plus’ indicators include groups of questions exploring ESG themes and sustainability outcomes. Quite often, ‘plus’ indicators follow on from ‘core’ indicators to allow signatories to give more context to their closed-ended responses.
Why is stewardship or active ownership integrated in the asset class modules and no longer a separate module?
We believe that stewardship good practice is conducted for one of two main objectives: as a core part of ESG incorporation, and to drive outcomes on systemic issues that may go beyond individual companies or an investment portfolio. The new Reporting Framework structure reflects this, by including questions about stewardship usage as a core part of ESG incorporation practices in the asset class modules, and separately asking signatories to describe how they use a range of stewardship tools to shape outcomes on their most important/salient issues, including collaboration and related mechanisms.
While questions on stewardship linked to ESG incorporation may be process oriented, in other areas of the framework and particularly in the Sustainability Outcomes module, we expect leading answers to focus on the role of stewardship in shaping outcomes in the context of specific targets and be aligned strongly to the to the PRI’s Active Ownership 2.0 framework.
How will responses to ‘plus’ indicators support the identification of signatories for the annual PRI Leaders’ Group?
As with the former Reporting Framework, we will be looking at responses to the ‘core’ (assessed and mandatory) questions for identification of signatories for the Leaders’ Group. Currently, we consider governance, responsible investment implementation and transparency to identify leading signatories. The new Reporting Framework will continue to capture this, but the ‘core’ questions and assessment will be more challenging overall, which will support us to identify more advanced practices. We will then use selected ‘plus’ indicators (depending on the Leaders’ Group theme) as additional screening criteria.
The PRI hopes to capture untested or more advanced practices through the ‘plus’ indicators. However, completing ‘plus’ questions does not by default mean that a signatory is leading; it will also be used to capture additional, contextual information on more established responsible investment practices that are not necessarily leading.
Will TCFD-aligned climate questions be considered ‘core’ or ‘plus’ indicators?
The questions that were mandatory to report on during the 2020 reporting cycle will be considered ‘core’ indicators (i.e. mandatory to report, publicly disclosed and assessed). Signatories will no longer be able to submit a private response to the PRI for these indicators, which relate to the TCFD recommendations around strategy and governance.
Some ‘plus’ questions aligned with the TCFD recommendations around risk management and metrics and targets will remain voluntary and non-assessed, with a view to making them ‘core’ in 2022. More detailed information about the TCFD-based climate indicators will be released in October 2020.
Why did you decide to gather several themes in the Investment and Stewardship Policy (ISP) module instead of dispersing them throughout asset-class specific modules?
To reduce repetition across asset modules, we analysed the key themes that would be applicable to most asset classes and collected them in this module. However, signatories will still be able to indicate activities that differ by asset class, where relevant.
How will you advance minimum requirements with the new Reporting Framework?
The current minimum requirements will stay the same for the 2021 reporting cycle. The PRI will be reviewing the minimum requirements as planned and will therefore consult with signatories in October 2020 on a proposal for how to increase the requirements from January 2022. Signatories will be notified of the consultation via email and social media.
Where do I find the definition of a term or concept used in the Reporting Framework?
The definitions of the main and most frequently used terms in the Reporting Framework can be found in the Reporting Framework glossary.
Sustainability Outcomes
How does the PRI define ‘sustainability outcomes’?
All investor actions – investment decisions and the use of tools of influence (stewardship, policy engagement etc.) – shape positive and negative outcomes in the world. Sustainability outcomes can be identified and measured at the level of a particular asset, economic activity, company, sector, country or region. We describe ‘impact’ as a change in outcome (i.e. an outcome shaped by an investor, in line with the SDGs – refer to PRI’s paper Investing with SDG outcomes: a five-part framework). Progress can be assessed against recognised global sustainability performance thresholds and timeframes – including the SDG targets and indicators.
The voluntary ‘plus’ Sustainability Outcomes module is based on three sections aligned with the paper:
- Part 2: Set targets on sustainability outcomes (including the SDGs, the Paris Agreement, human rights, targets set for increasing positive outcomes, and for decreasing negative outcomes).
- Part 3: Investors shape sustainability outcomes, through investment/asset allocation, stewardship with investees, stewardship undertaken with other stakeholders (e.g. policymakers, businesses, governments, NGOs, media, academia), any collaborative activities (e.g. collaborative engagements).
- Parts 4 and 5: Investors’ collective and collaborative actions to shape sustainability outcomes.
What type of questions on sustainability outcomes are included in the new Reporting Framework?
There will only be a few select ‘core’ indicators on outcomes in the 2021 reporting cycle These indicators are process oriented, assessed and, by default, disclosed.
The majority of the outcomes-related content can be found in the ‘Sustainability Outcomes’ module, which is voluntary to report on. It consists only of ‘plus’ indicators that are not assessed and voluntary to disclose. The mandatory ‘core’ outcomes indicators cover two sections aligned with the PRI’s paper Investing with SDG outcomes: a five-part framework:
- Part 1: Identify sustainability outcomes
- Part 2: Set policies on sustainability outcomes
How will the PRI continue to add questions on additional SDG or ESG themes to the Reporting Framework?
The PRI report on “Investing with SDG outcomes: a five-part framework” was open for consultation with signatories from March 9th to April 24th 2020, and is the starting point for a deeper and ongoing body of work on the subject.This will act as the basis for future guidance and support in the Reporting Framework and will help shape how we add questions on other SDG/ESG themes.
How will inclusive finance be captured in the new Reporting Framework?
There will not be an Inclusive Finance module in the new Reporting Framework, but sustainability outcomes will be considered throughout, specifically in the organisation-wide modules on responsible investment and sustainability outcomes.
Module specific
Organisation Overview
How do we know which modules to report on?
All signatories must report on the Organisational Overview module and the Investment and Stewardship Policy module and must complete the Senior Leadership Statement.
The answers provided to the Organisational Overview module will determine the other modules that signatories will complete in the Reporting Framework. Signatories are asked to break down their investments by asset class, as a percentage of total assets under management (AUM) and to indicate whether they are directly and indirectly managed. This information will reveal the relevant asset-class specific modules for signatories to report on.
It is mandatory to complete an asset class module if a signatory has either 10% or more of its AUM in that asset class, or if the asset class investment constitutes US$10bn or more. The same asset class thresholds apply if the assets are managed indirectly, through external managers, but signatories will need to report on this in the external investment manager Selection, Appointment and Monitoring (SAM) module.
How do we report our assets under management (AUM)?
The AUM figure refers to the market value at the end of the reporting year. Where market value is not available, we advise signatories to report the latest net realisable value estimate of those assets.
How should we report our fund-of-fund investments?
Fund-of-fund investments should be reported as externally managed assets in the Organisational Overview module and reported on within the Selection, Appointment and Monitoring (SAM) module.
How should we report on multi-asset investments?
As the Reporting Framework asks for the asset class breakdown of total AUM, signatories should split multi-asset investments into the respective asset classes, based on their best estimate.
For example, if a fund consists of 50% listed equity and 50% fixed income and accounts for 10% of a signatory’s total AUM – it should be reported as 5% listed equity and 5% fixed income.
Why do we automatically get a 1-star score for some of our reported asset classes?
In the Organisational Overview module, we ask signatories if they incorporate ESG issues into their investment decision making for the asset classes they hold. If a signatory reports that it does not incorporate ESG issues in an asset class, it will automatically be scored 1 star for the corresponding module. This assessment happens regardless of how much AUM is invested in that asset class.
For more detail on how the information in the Organisational Overview module affects the reporting process and assessment, please see What to report on and read more about the PRI’s assessment scoring methodology.
How should we report on cash and monetary assets in [OO 5]?
Cash, cash equivalents and/or overlays and money market assets should be reported as ’Other’. If these assets are off-balance sheet, they should be reported as ’Off-balance sheet’.
Investment and Stewardship Policy
When does the PRI consider a resource (i.e. policy, voting records, etc) to be publicly available?
A publicly available resource is readily available to the public. For the purpose of PRI assessment, we consider this to be either directly accessible from a website or from a portal where anyone can register to get access. In the latter case, we would require the signatory to provide a link to the registration page. We don’t consider the resource to be publicly available if the user needs to actively request access, via email for example.
Can we report that we have practices and policies in place if we have not yet implemented them but are in the process of developing them?
Signatories should only report on the practices and policies that they already had in place at the end of their indicated 12-month reporting period. Signatories indicate their reporting period in the Organisational Overview module. Any policies or practices that were put into place after the indicated 12-month period can be included in later reporting cycles.
While questions on stewardship linked to ESG incorporation may be process oriented, in other areas of the framework and particularly in the Sustainability Outcomes module, we expect leading answers to focus on the role of stewardship in shaping outcomes in the context of specific targets and be aligned strongly to the PRI’s Active Ownership 2.0 framework.
Why is it important to have a policy on your approach to stewardship?
Signatories should clearly articulate and formalise their stewardship approach in a policy – it can be a standalone policy or incorporated into a broader responsible investment policy (or similar).
A public stewardship policy provides clarity and accountability. It allows clients, beneficiaries and other stakeholders to understand a signatory’s approach to stewardship and compare it against peers. Signatories can also use it as a reference when assessing their day-to-day stewardship activities (e.g. when making decisions on who to engage).
It is considered best practice for a stewardship policy to be applied consistently to as high a proportion of AUM as possible (regardless of asset class or strategy), and for it to clarify how stewardship tools beyond company engagement are used – for example, how policy engagement on ESG issues contributes to stewardship goals.
What is the difference between ‘sign-off’ and ‘review of responses’?
‘Sign-off’ implies a degree of responsibility and accountability from senior management such as the board or C-level staff confirming that the reported information is correct, whereas ’Review of responses’ is less formal, such as colleague or colleagues having read through what is being reported.
Where can I read more about assurance?
You can find more information about the PRI’s assurance work here. To find out what other signatories have reported in 2020 in relation to how they assure their reported data, log in to the Data Portal, go to the ‘Explore Data’ function and search for responses to the CM05 and CM06 indicators.
Responses to the 2021 Reporting Framework indicators will be displayed through a new platform, which will be communicated closer to April 2021.
In the section on confidence-building measures, does the PRI give higher scores to signatories that reported using a third party to assure their reports?
No, the PRI does not weight third-party assurance differently from other confidence-building measures, such as internal audit, internal verification or similar. Scoring is based on the number of confidence-building measures that a signatory implements.
Selection, Appointment and Monitoring
How do we report on selection and appointment if we did not select or appoint any new managers during the reporting year?
As signatories do not necessarily select and/or appoint new external investment managers every year, they should report on how they selected and appointed their existing external managers, regardless of when they were hired.
Fixed Income
How will signatories be able to report on private debt?
Signatories will be able to report on private debt in the Fixed Income module. They will be able to differentiate their private debt practices throughout the module by selecting this asset type when responding to the applicable indicators. The module will also include one indicator specifically focused on private debt.
Private Equity
One of / some of my private equity investments were listed during the reporting year. Do I need to report this in the Listed Equity module?
If the listing was part of an exit strategy for that private equity investment, we would recommend that signatories still report on it within the Private Equity module. Signatories should not report on these assets in the Listed Equity module.
Should I report my co-investments in the private equity module as directly held assets or in the Selection, Appointment and Monitoring (SAM) module as externally managed assets?
Generally, we recommend that LPs report on their co-investments in the Private Equity module if their strategy resembles what a GP would employ for its direct investments. However, if a signatory’s approach to co-investments is indistinguishable from how it would approach assessing the ESG capabilities of a GP in which it might make a fund investment, we recommend reporting these as externally managed assets in the Organisational Overview module and reporting on them alongside fund investments in the SAM module.
Real Estate
Should our listed REITs AUM be classified as real estate or listed equity?
For the purpose of the PRI Reporting Framework and in line with some indices, investment trusts and similar quoted financial vehicles are considered to be listed equity investments.
Is the PRI Reporting Framework aligned with other frameworks or initiatives?
The PRI has referenced GRESB where indicators in the module have been (partially) based on GRESB indicators. This has been indicated in the References to other standards section of the explanatory notes for the relevant indicators. Where applicable, definitions have also been aligned with GRESB.
Infrastructure
Is the Infrastructure module mandatory to report on?
From the 2021 reporting cycle onwards, the Infrastructure module is mandatory to report on for signatories that invest more than 10% of their total AUM or US$10bn or more in this asset class.
Is the PRI Reporting Framework aligned with other frameworks or initiatives?
The PRI has referenced GRESB where indicators in the module have been (partially) based on GRESB indicators. This has been indicated in the References to other standards section of the explanatory notes for the relevant indicators. Where applicable, definitions have also been aligned with GRESB.
2021 assessment methodology
2021 reporting update FAQs
Our submitted data for the 2021 reporting cycle is incorrect. What is the PRI’s change request policy in this case? Can we request a change to our 2021 reports?
The 2021 Transparency Reports and Assessment Reports are based on self-reported data. Once the reporting period is closed, the PRI begins generating reports and scores, and are from that point unable to change signatories’ responses in the Reporting Tool. Due to the data issues identified in signatories’ 2021 reports following the end of the 2021 reporting cycle, the PRI engaged in a comprehensive data collection and change request process to improve the accuracy of signatories’ reports, and postponed the release of 2021 outputs as a result. The 2021 dataset was finalised to launch signatories’ reporting outputs in September, and as a result of the strict change request policy we have in place, the PRI is unable to retrospectively make additional changes to 2021 reports.
The next reporting cycle will open in 2023, and signatories will have a chance to provide their updated data submission during this next reporting period.
I think there is a scoring error in our 2021 Assessment Report. What is the PRI’s change request policy in this case? What should I do?
The 2021 dataset was finalised to launch signatories’ reporting outputs in September, and as a result of the strict change request policy we have in place, the PRI is unable to retrospectively make changes to 2021 reports. However, we will investigate potential scoring errors and answer queries from signatories about their reports and their scores, providing an explanation of any potential identified errors.
Please contact us at reporting@unpri.org for clarification, detailing the reporting organisation’s name, the indicator in question, and with as much specific information as you can provide on the identified error.
Although it will not be possible to republish 2021 reports, a written response will be provided on a case-by-case basis either to confirm that the received score is correct, or to explain any scoring discrepancies if applicable . Our response times may vary depending on the number of queries the team are handling and the complexity of the score in question, and will be communicated to you in our follow up email.
We also recommend periodically checking R&A Updates, where an issues log is available for signatories to self-identify issues in their reports.
The 2021 reports do not reflect our most recent responsible investment practices. What is the PRI’s change request policy in this case? Can we update our reports with the latest information?
The 2021 reporting data was finalised for the launch of reporting outputs in early September. As a result of the strict change request policy we have in place, the PRI is unable to make additional changes to 2021 reports allowing signatories to amend data that was previously submitted. The upcoming reporting cycle in 2023 will be the next opportunity for signatories to provide their most recent RI practices.
Please be assured that it is adequately signposted that the information in your report relates to previously submitted data. The front cover of your public Transparency Report reads 2021, as this was the year of submission. Indicator OO 3 specifies the reporting year, so that readers will understand the timeframe of the report, and that practices may have changed since the time of submission.
When is the next reporting cycle?
The next reporting cycle will open in 2023. However, unlike previous years, the reporting cycle will not take place in Q1 (January to March) of 2023. Given the ongoing work to deliver the 2021 reporting outputs, we feel it is prudent to take the decision to move reporting out of Q1 of 2023 to ensure that the PRI is able to effectively deliver this process for signatories. In lieu of opening reporting in Q1, we will devote further resources towards delivering an optimised framework which reflects signatory feedback and delivers improved tools and functionality for the 2023 reporting season. Please rest assured reporting will still take place in 2023.
Signatories will have access to the updated Reporting Framework in advance of the 2023 reporting cycle to prepare. We will continue to work closely with signatories to provide support and guidance during the 2023 window.
Our aim now is to finalise the period for 2023 reporting as soon as possible and as part of our ongoing work to deliver a revised and improved Reporting Framework. We will communicate more with signatories about the timing of the 2023 reporting timeframe following the September Board meeting. Further updates on the upcoming reporting cycle will also be available through R&A Updates.
Which year’s data will signatories report on when reporting re-opens in 2023?
As in previous years, signatories will be able to choose which 12-month period they report on. Most signatories report on their most recent calendar year and would, therefore, in the 2023 reporting cycle, cover their ESG incorporation practices during 2022. Signatories will not report on both 2021 and 2022 practices (24-months).
The PRI has traditionally provided a one-year grace period with no required reporting and assessment to new signatories. Will this grace period change?
Signatories that would have reported voluntarily in 2022 will have their grace period extended to 2023.
What other initiatives were impacted by the delay in 2021 reporting?
The Leaders’ Group on Stewardship has been postponed. The announcement and implementation of further minimum requirements has also been postponed. Updates on these projects will be shared on R&A Updates ahead of the 2023 reporting cycle. Engagement with signatories identified as not meeting the minimum requirements for 2021 has resumed in 2022.
What was the overall signatory feedback on the revised Reporting Framework, including the content and the Reporting Tool?
Signatories provided a range of valuable feedback on the Reporting Framework content. The feedback received varied between modules and between asset owners and investment managers. There was general acceptance of the content of the framework and an improvement in the quality of the questions, which allowed signatories to better reflect their responsible investment practices. Many signatories found it a great learning opportunity to improve their responsible investment practices and processes over time. However, signatories found that there was a considerable investment of time and resources required to report on the pilot framework, particularly for asset owners. Some aspects were also less suited to specific signatories, including asset owners and stewardship in private market investors.
Regarding the technical side of the Reporting Tool, whilst some signatories thought the new Reporting Tool interface was clear, many highlighted some user experience and design concerns. The platform navigation was not always intuitive and sometimes behaved in a fixed manner, specifically when moving between questions, and when completing the submission phase. Some signatories found it challenging that the tool only allowed one person to report at a time and highlighted that they were not able to track their progress during the reporting process. These platform limitations contributed to the overall time taken to report. It was noted that the functionality of the Reporting Tool required additional work to fully cater to signatories’ needs. We value all this feedback highly and will take it into account while developing the improved Reporting Framework for launch in 2023.
Were signatories able to request any changes to their 2021 Transparency Reports as a result of the data issues identified in their reports?
The PRI reached out to all signatories in October 2021 to highlight areas of their reports where information was missing, allowing them one month to request changes. We only accepted changes in line with our change request policy. All changes were made by the PRI on behalf of signatories in the Reporting Tool. In March, signatories were given a last opportunity to confirm that changes were made correctly on their behalf before we finalised the 2021 reporting dataset.
Service provider guides
Overview and structure guide
What to report on diagram
Reporting for service providers
Introduction video
Main definitions guide
All Framework modules
| Organisational overview | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Module: DOCX | |||
| Strategy and governance | |||
| Module: DOCX | |||
| Business specific modules | |||
Investment consultancy
|
Reporting
|
Research and data provision
|
Active ownership services
|
| Closing module | |||
| Module: DOCX | |||
2020 Reporting Framework
General guides
Introduction to the framework guides
- Main definitions (PDF)
- Overview and guidance (PDF)
Online reporting tool video
How to access reported data 2014-2020
The Data Portal
The Data Portal is a platform that allows asset owners and investment managers to access reported data. They can easily search, group and request access to private Transparency Reports and Assessment Reports from other signatories. Signatories can also find out public responses to selected indicators or whole modules for a desired group of signatories.
So far, over 800 requests for private Transparency Reports have been sent through the Data Portal, with nearly half accepted. Use the filters in the graph below to see more stats about reports requested through the Data Portal.
Why the Data Portal?
The Data Portal:
- supports asset owner engagement with their managers by enabling easier access and comparison of reported data;
- promotes the sharing of best practice/knowledge by giving signatories easy access to each other’s reports;
- helps the PRI identify areas of further work based on most popular searches;
- facilitates the informed decision making between signatories working together;
- increases the use of PRI data for identifying responsible investment trends.
Tutorials and signatory insight
The Data Portal allows users to:
- search and group public Transparency Reports;
- request access to private Transparency Reports and Assessment Reports;
- view scores for specific groups;
- export public responses for any number of indicators per module;
- access resources, such as presentations with key findings, snapshot reports and list of guidance documentations published by the PRI;
- allow signatories to view their own reports.
Video:
The Data Portal functionalities
How to use the Data Portal
For information on how to get the most out of the Data Portal, as well as how to log in, who can access it, the different access permissions read our guide . Use the filters below to see stats on how many signatories use the Data Portal.
How was the Data Portal developed?
The Data Portal is the outcome of a consultation the PRI conducted in April 2012. One of the topics of the consultation was specifically on a “data tool”. The majority of signatories supported the idea of the PRI developing a tool that enables easier access to reports and exporting responses. As part of the development process, the PRI conducted various interviews and consulted on the portal’s functionality and objectives with the Reporting and Assessment Advisory Committee , the Asset Owner Advisory Committee and the Manager Selection Working Group .
Public Transparency Reports and historic Reporting Frameworks
Public Transparency Reports can be found in the signatory directory . Historic Reporting Frameworks can be found below.
Download the Reporting Framework
Interactive data charts
The PRI’s interactive data charts, which use data from the Reporting Framework, were introduced in 2017 to highlight mainstream and advanced practices among our signatory base. They enable signatories and members of the public to quickly query PRI data for their specific markets and other criteria. Use the filters in the graph below to see stats about responsible investment activity by asset class.
We have produced a number of charts to highlight responsible investment activity across our signatories:
Fixed income
Looking at 2019 and 2017 data , find insights and trends on RI practices across fixed income asset classes such as:
- How much AUM is invested in each fixed income category
- What the preferred ESG incorporation strategies are and for what AUM they account for
- How investors integrate ESG analysis as part of the investment process
- How common it is to benchmark ESG analysis against other providers for quality
- The percentage of fixed income assets that are engaged on
- The criteria investors use to select their engagements
Climate change
This interactive report is a combination of practical examples and trends based on responses to the 2018 Reporting Framework. These include questions aligned with the TCFD recommendations and other climate related questions. The interactive graphs and database can be customised for investors’ key characteristics such as country and asset holding. The snapshot provides:
- examples of board-level and management level execution of climate oversight and assessment responsibilities;
- examples of engagement with investee companies to improve climate disclosure;
- examples of identification, assessment and management of climate-related risks;
- three year trend in climate change action and emissions management;
- uptake of 2 degrees or lower climate scenario analysis;
- uptake of climate reporting aligned with TCFD recommendations and level of public disclosure;
- assets invested in environmental themed areas.
General snapshot
The general snapshot provides:
- a list of reporters meeting criteria such as region, asset type and location;
- assets breakdown based on 2017 reported public data;
- AUM covered by some form of responsible investment activity.
Listed equity
Our listed equity incorporation interactive report highlights main practices and answers questions such as:
- How much AUM is invested in active and how much in passive investments?
- Is screening or integration or combination of them more popular?
- What is the average portfolio universe reduction by integrating ESG effects into screening or integration?
Active ownership in listed equity
Find information on RI active ownership practices in listed equity such as:
- How common is it to set specific objectives for majority of engagements?
- What methods signatories typically use to monitor their engagements?
- Is insight from engagements shared with portfolio managers?
- Are managers using their clients’ voting policy make voting decisions?
- To what extent are SP recommendations reviewed?
Manager selection, appointment and monitoring
Find information on manager selection, appointment and monitoring , such as:
- How the asset allocation strategy differs between pensions and insurances
- How much is invested in emerging markets
- What the most common policy components are
- What documents asset owners evaluate as part of manager selection
- What criteria are used to monitor managers
- How many asset owners are setting incentives and controls as part of appointment
- The degree to which asset owners are willing to move their assets to managers with better RI practices
Data sharing policy
Reported signatory data is publicly available via the PRI website, where any visitor can access individual Transparency Reports. There are several other formats to access public, private and aggregated data:
1. The Data Portal , which provides access to signatory reports and a repository of data. This is only accessible to signatories.
2. The public dataset can be provided in a spreadsheet upon request to eligible categories.
3. Snapshot reports which enable basic data analysis by narrowing the data set to a particular type of signatory, practice, asset mix, region etc.
To access PRI data in a spreadsheet, non-signatories must sign the PRI’s Terms and Conditions.
Investor guides
Introduction to reporting video
Module guides
The reporting framework is split into 12 modules. Each module has a separate theme and includes a number of indicators to respond to.
If ESG factors are considered in an asset class where the signatory invests less than 10% of their AUM, indicator OO 12 will allow the signatory to opt out from reporting on the specific module. Not all information within each module is mandatory to complete or disclose. Signatories are free to choose the period they report on but should report on the same period each year.
Indicator guide download
- Indicator updates 2019-2020 (XLSX)
Module downloads
| Organisational overview | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy and governance | ||||
| Climate change reporting | ||||
| Asset class-specific modules | ||||
| DIRECT Listed equity (incorporation) |
DIRECT Private equity |
DIRECT Inclusive finance |
DIRECT Hedge funds |
|
| DIRECT Listed equity (active ownership) |
DIRECT Property |
INDIRECT Manager selection, appointment and monitoring |
||
| DIRECT Fixed income |
DIRECT Infrastructure |
INDIRECT Inclusive finance |
||
| Closing module | ||||
Full reporting framework downloads
Frequently asked questions
- Organisation overview
- Strategy and governance
- Selection, appointment and monitoring (SAM) of external managers
- Listed equity incorporation
- Listed equity active ownership
- Fixed income
- Private equity
- Property
- Infrastructure
- Closing module
Organisation overview
How do we know which modules to report on?
All signatories report on the organisational overview, strategy and governance and closing modules.
The organisational overview module is the main gateway that will determine the other modules that you will complete in the reporting framework. You are asked to breakdown your investments in specific asset classes by the percentage of your AUM, and to split those into indirectly and directly managed. Based on this response, the relevant asset-class specific modules will unlock. The 10% threshold rule means that any assets that represent >10% of your total AUM are voluntary to report on in the asset-class specific modules.
Why do we automatically get an ‘E’ score for some of our reported asset classes?
In the organisational overview module, we ask whether you incorporate ESG issues into your investment decision making for the asset classes that you hold. If you report that you do not incorporate them, then the automatic score will be an ‘E’ for those asset classes. Read more about the PRI’s assessment scoring methodology.
This assessment happens regardless of how much of your AUM is in that asset class (i.e., the “E” score is not affected by the rule that asset classes below 10% are voluntary to report).
How should we report on multi-assets?
As the reporting framework asks for the asset class breakdown of your entire AUM, we ask that you estimate and split them out as best as possible using your own professional judgment. You can choose to report your asset class mix to the nearest 5% if the exact figures are difficult to separate out.
For example, if a fund consists of 50% listed equity and 50% fixed income and accounts for 10% of your total AUM – it should be reported as 5% listed equity and 5% fixed income. To provide more detailed information to stakeholders, you can attach your own asset class mix and/or add further information in the additional information sub-indicators.
Strategy and governance
What do you mean by an ‘investment policy’?
An overall statement that outlines how an organisation will achieve its mission and investment objectives, build on its investment strategy, and guide investment processes and standards for measuring their success. Responsible investment policies can take many forms, including high-level statements on an organisation’s webpage, a code, communications on a separate responsible investment policy, a range of policies that cover different areas, or can be incorporated into an organisation’s Investment Policy Statement.
Read our asset owner guide on how to write an integrated investment policy.
Can we report that our investment policy covers our responsible investment approach if we are in the process of developing one?
You should report on the practices in place at the end of the reporting period you have chosen to report on in the Organisational Overview module. If you did not have an investment policy that covered your approach to responsible investment at the time, we suggest you report ‘No’ and add that you are developing one in the additional information sub-indicator. This will help stakeholders understand what stage you are at.
Why does the PRI prioritise climate change and related issues in the scoring methodology of long-term trends?
The importance of investors considering climate change is emphasised by the PRI’s Blueprint for responsible investment and is a reason why in 2018 the PRI introduced climate change related indicators aligned with the TCFD recommendations. The PRI has guidance and research on this trend, whereas there is not yet enough information about signatories’ practices related to other long-term trends for us to include relevant follow-up questions.
How can we ‘proactively disclose detailed asset class-specific information’, as asked for in the communications section?
With ‘proactively’ we mean beyond the publication of your responses on the PRI’s website. We consider it proactive disclosure if you publish your Transparency Report on your own website. An example of detailed information for Listed Equity Incorporation may include information about each type of incorporation strategy used, the process by which ESG factors are incorporated, any relevant policy documents and case studies/examples. The mandatory indicators in each asset class-specific module is considered detailed information of your RI activities.
Selection, appointment and monitoring (SAM) of external managers
Why does the PRI use the term ‘review and agree’ in SAM? It doesn’t apply to us as we don’t formally agree on some things with our investment managers or put them in contracts.
The ‘review and agree’ wording signifies reviewing certain aspects of your investment manager’s (IM) approach and raising a conversation about it to ensure that you are comfortable enough with the IM’s approach.
How do we report on selection and appointment if we did not select or appoint any new managers during the reporting year?
Because asset owners (AOs) do not necessarily select and appoint new managers every year, the SAM module is set up differently to other modules. It instead asks signatories to report on their ‘typical’ processes and activities in SAM.
How does selection differ from appointment?
‘Selection’ refers to all actions that lead up to choosing one manager (shortlisting, questionnaires, meetings, etc.) and ‘appointment’ is when the relationship is formalised through specific goals and objectives via agreements, side letters, etc. To read more about the manager selection process, please see the Asset owner guide: enhancing manager selection with ESG insight.
What do you mean by ‘ESG weight’?
In discussions with asset owners, the PRI has found that they use ESG scoring of investment managers, but the degree to which this ESG score plays into the overall manager selection process varies. Some do not put importance on it, and others consider it only in certain cases in the selection process. Some asset owners weight the ESG score to correspond to organisational ESG priorities. To find out more, read Asset owner guide: enhancing manager selection with ESG insight.
Listed equity incorporation
What are the definitions of screening, thematic and integration?
Screening: as it is referred to in the Listed Equity - Incorporation module:
- Negative/exclusionary screening: the exclusion from a fund or portfolio of certain sectors, companies or practices based on specific ESG criteria.
- Positive/best-in-class screening: investment in sectors, companies or projects selected for positive ESG performance relative to industry peers.
- Norms-based screening: screening of investments against minimum standards of business practice based on international norms. Norms-based screening involves either defining the investment universe based on investees’ performance on international norms related to responsible investment/ESG factors; or excluding investees from portfolios after investment if found to contravene norms. Such norms include, but are not limited to; UN Global Compact Principles, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Labour Organization standards, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
Thematic: Investment in themes or assets specifically related to sustainability (for example, clean energy, green technology or sustainable agriculture).
Integration: The systematic and explicit inclusion by investment managers of ESG factors into traditional financial analysis. For guidance and case studies for ESG integration refer to the PRI’s ESG integration publication.
What is the difference between ‘listed equity - active ownership’ and ‘listed equity - incorporation’ modules?
Listed Equity Incorporation, or LEI, is the module that considers the incorporation of ESG issues into organisations’ strategies. These strategies, include fundamental, quantitative (quant), and passive strategies.
Meanwhile, Listed Equity Active Ownership, or LEA, deals with the active ownership factors that relate to listed equity, including both engagement and proxy voting.
Why are thematic incorporation strategies not assessed?
There are not enough assessable indicators included in the module that can fairly and adequately make a judgement on whether a signatory’s incorporation of thematic strategies is representative of good practice. This will also avoid unfairly awarding or penalising signatories.
Where a signatory uses only a thematic incorporation strategy for their listed equity assets, they will not receive a score for the LEI module as there will have been zero assessable indicators.
Why are passive strategies not assessed?
There are not enough assessable indicators included in the module that can fairly and adequately make a judgement on whether a signatory’s passive strategy is representative of good practice. This will also avoid unfairly awarding or penalising signatories.
Where a signatory uses a passive strategy for 100% of their listed equity assets, they will not receive a score for the LEI module as there will have been zero assessable indicators.
Why are quantitative strategies considered active strategies?
As a quantitative strategy involves actively constructing the model, with the intention of outperforming an index/benchmark, without having to hold all the constituents of the index/benchmark, the PRI consider this strategy to be active.
Should the ‘proportion impacted by analysis’ be a representation of all actively managed listed equity or the actively managed listed equity that is subject to an ESG incorporation strategy
The proportion impacted by analysis should be a representation of all actively managed listed equity.
Listed equity active ownership
What is the PRI’s view on types of engagements?
Active ownership may be conducted in-house, externally through investment managers or service providers, or a combination. When active ownership is conducted in-house, investors are responsible for defining their engagement and proxy voting programmes, setting objectives and conducting dialogue and voting directly. In cases where these practices are outsourced, investors must define and consider criteria to assess the capacity and performance of external providers during the selection, appointment and monitoring processes of these external parties.
While these types of engagement interactions may utilise a different form of approach, in terms of practices adopted throughout the engagement process, these remain very similar, varying mostly in who the practice applies to as opposed to the practices themselves.
The PRI’s underpinning belief is that, whether conducted individually, jointly with other investors, or through a service provider, engagement activities preserve and enhance long-term value creation, which benefits shareholders and their beneficiaries and/or clients.
This is reflected in the PRI Reporting Framework and its assessment of signatory responses to indicators on engagement activity. Regardless of whether the engagement was conducted individually, collaboratively or through a service provider, is based on:
- having a formal engagement policy;
- several engagement practices, i.e. objective setting, result tracking;
- total number of engagements
- degree of involvement
- level of comprehensiveness
With regard to the PRI Reporting Framework, these activities, whether engagement is individual, collaborative or through a service provider, are assessed based on equal value.
Why is it important to have a formal engagement policy?
It is useful for organisations to define their active ownership approach directly in their investment policy. In doing so, the organisation signals that active ownership is not a standalone practice but rather a means to enhance investment decision making and executing investment objectives. Alternatively, investors could outline their approach and the relationship of active ownership with the overall investment policy in a separate responsible investment policy or engagement/proxy voting policies.
Why should we define milestones, objectives and track results of our engagement activity?
Understanding the overall impact of an engagement can be difficult to determine. However, in an attempt to improve the ability to measure and assess the degree of impact, the PRI has identified that setting goals and objectives, and tracking the results of engagement activity are necessary steps to assess achievements and next steps. Measuring performance of specific ESG KPIs and scores could be another way to assess success. Examples of objectives include developing a human rights policy, creating whistleblowing monitoring systems and defining emissions reduction targets.
Case studies of PRI signatories signalled several benefits of these processes, such as:
- allowing investors to capture the narrative around materiality;
- enabling investors to better understand the impact of the progress made by a company;
- assisting in identifying new trends and target companies on an ongoing basis;
- informing future engagements based on past recorded engagement experiences;
- assisting in the preparation of progress reports for clients and the public;
- enabling investors to continually monitor progress against specified goals and objectives.
Furthermore, investors may find it useful to define milestones and timelines at the start of engagement. They would need to be continuously reviewed to reflect internal and external developments.
While applying these practices may be intuitive when engaging individually or collaboratively, the same practices may be applied when engaging through a service provider. This can mean reviewing the service provider’s engagement process, discussing which situations they would engage in, requesting examples and outcomes, and reviewing how the engagement outcomes feed back into the investment decision-making process. Further, monitoring processes could include ensuring alignment of the service provider’s objectives and results of engagement practices with internal engagement activities.
What is the benefit of publicly disclosing our ESG engagement approach?
Disclosing your ESG engagement approach to beneficiaries, clients and the public is an important signal of your commitment to active ownership. Specifically, it can help with developing expectations of companies that can then be communicated alongside the company’s internal policies. The consequence of this is that companies can understand which ESG practices are highly valued by investors, the type of disclosure that can meet investors’ needs, the areas to focus on in preparation for the dialogue with shareholders, and what to expect of long-term active owners.
How do you assess the quantity and quality of our engagements?
The outcomes and outputs section of the Listed Equity Active Ownership module looks to understand the quality of engagements undertaken within the reporting year, specifically LEA 09. Responses are assessed based on the number of engagements a signatory has approached and the degree of involvement. Where an engagement interaction was conducted by means of collaborative engagement or through a service provider, the degree of involvement is indicated by the responder, given this can vary significantly depending on the role adopted by the responder. To note, individual engagement is deemed to require 100% involvement. The algorithm used to find a final score for this indicator does not discriminate between the type of engagement interaction.
A practical guide to active ownership in listed equity provides guidance that specifically relates to this topic and the PRI’s Principle 2.
Fixed income
What is the difference between how we measure whether incorporating ESG issues impacts financial returns and whether it impacts funds’ ESG performance?
With ‘impact on financial returns’ we mean whether the incorporation of ESG issues has positively or negatively affected the financial performance of your funds. With ‘impact on the funds’ ESG performance’, we ask whether the ESG financial performance of the funds have been impacted positively or negatively by incorporating ESG factors. Here we ask specifically about the ESG financial performance. ESG performance can be the whole or part of the overall financial performance of the funds.
How do we differentiate/identify high-yield from investment-grade bonds?
Generally speaking, BBB- is the threshold between high-yield (HY) and investment grade (IG). Any rating below can be considered HY and above is IG.
If a bond has been rated by more than one rating agency, a good approach is to look at the average/median of the ratings (for instance if a particular bond is rated AAA, BBB- and BB, then the average is more around BB, which counts as a high-yield bond). You should use all ratings available (this also include ratings from smaller credit rating agencies).
If no rating is available, you can use the credit spreads to determine whether the bond is HY or IG by taking a country/group of countries as a reference. Again, there is no particular basis points threshold to consider, but the higher the credit spreads between two bonds, the more likely one of these will be a HY bond.
Why are FI SSA engagements not assessed?
Engagements with sovereign, supranational and agency bond issuers are not a common practice but some signatories have shown that engagement within these asset classes is possible. The PRI would like to capture this information to gain insights and monitor the developments in this space. Once there is a better understanding within the industry of the constraints, opportunities and best practices of engaging on these bond types, scoring might be introduced.
ESG engagement remains less common among fixed income investors. This is understandable when considering the unique challenges they face, such as their different legal standing point compared with equity investors, and the inherent complexity of bond markets given the variety of instrument types, maturities and issuing entities. However, the fact is that ESG issues can and do impact fixed income investment returns, and ESG risks need to be managed and addressed via integrated research and engagement programmes. Read the PRI’s guidance on ESG engagement for fixed income investors.
Can you give an example of what qualifies as ‘other’ when you ask how we ensure that our ESG research process is robust?
Your response to the ‘Other, specify’ option should be within context and involve processes that you have in place to ensure the quality of ESG data in your ESG analysis. This could, for instance, be internal control mechanisms and internal review processes by teams such as the compliance team, or sign-off by senior staff levels. Other signatories have previously included the following responses to this indicator:
- social partners with expertise review and challenge our research;
- mandatory ESG checklists;
- committee review of ESG research;
- external audits;
- quality check by head of research.
Are we allowed to include enagements where we are both shareholders and debtholders of a company?
We aim to capture bondholder engagements, which is why any engagements carried out solely as shareholders do not fit the criteria. You are welcome to include engagements where you are both shareholders and debtholders of a company – this is a common strategy among PRI signatories – as long as you make it clear to the company that you are engaging in your capacity as both shareholders and bondholders.
Why does the PRI make a distinction between financial/non-fnancial issuers in your definitions?
The corporate financial market is considerably larger than the non-financial, with distinct risk and ESG considerations.
In non-financial corporate issuers, the ESG impact can be accessed directly, whereas that of financial issuers is made up cumulatively of the companies they’re working with. A bank may be exposed to multiple sectors, whereas non-financial corporate issuers are more likely to sit within one. Some investors have a clear policy not to invest in specific sectors, and so exclude banks with such exposures from their portfolios.
Where do I report on my private debt assets?
Private debt should be classified as fixed income corporate non-financial and should be reported in the fixed income module.
Private equity
How will the module be changed in the future?
Any changes to the module are reviewed by the PRI Private Equity Advisory Committee (PEAC) to make sure they are appropriate. Minor changes are made to either tighten the wording for the purposes of data collection, or to align the reporting module with the PRI private equity publications to ensure consistency. However, we expect the module to remain largely consistent in the coming years.
Should I report my fund-of-fund investments in this module?
Fund-of-fund investments should be reported as externally managed assets in the Organisational Overview module and reported on within the Selection, Appointment and Monitoring module.
My investments were listed during the reporting year/last year. Do I need to report this in listed equity?
We would recommend that if this listing is part of your exit strategy for private equity investments, to report these assets under private equity. We recommend that you still report these assets as private equity.
Should I report my co-investments in the direct private equity module?
Generally, we recommend that LPs report on their co-investments in the Direct- Private Equity module if they have a more detailed strategy for understanding ESG issues in their co-investments. However, if your approach to co-investments is indistinguishable from your standard approach to ESG with fund managers, we recommend that you report these assets as “indirect” (externally managed assets in the Organisational Overview module) and report on alongside all fund investments them in the manager Selection, Appointment and Monitoring (SAM) module and use the free text to clarify your reporting scope.
Property
Should our listed REITs AUM be classified as ‘property’ or ‘listed equity’?
When reporting, REITs can be listed as either property or listed equity. The main defining factor for which asset class to report on with REITs, is whether or not you have voting rights. It is possible to voluntarily complete both the property and listed equity modules. You will be able to complete the property module for your private real estate that represents under 10% AUM by voluntarily choosing to report on it in section in the Organisation Overview module. We recommend when reporting that you clearly specify the scope of what you are reporting on by using the free text sections provided in the Organisational Overview module and at the start of the property and listed equity modules. This will give you the opportunity to explain and contextualise your investments.
How does the PRI align with GRESB and other initiatives?
Each year the PRI reviews the property module and updates indicators and definitions to ensure alignment when possible. The PRI references the GRESB survey number in the explanatory notes of all aligned indicators.
Infrastructure
Is the infrastructure module mandatory to report on?
The infrastructure module is voluntary to report on, regardless of the percentage of your total AUM invested in infrastructure, while the PRI gathers additional information about approaches to responsible investment in this asset class.
Closing module
What is the difference between ‘sign-off’ and ‘review of responses’?
‘Sign-off’ implies a degree of responsibility from senior management such as the board or C-level staff that the reported information is correct whereas. ’Review of responses’ is less formal and can be a simple check of what is being reported.
What do you mean with ‘link to original data source if public’?
This would be a link to the original data/report that was subject to third party assurance. Providing a link to this data/report is voluntary.
Where can I read more about assurance?
You can find more information about the PRI’s assurance work here. To find out what other signatories are doing to assure their reported data is credible, log in to the Data Portal and go to the ‘Explore Data’ function.
In the section on confidence-building measures, does the PRI give higher scores to signatories that reported that a third party assured their reports?
No, the PRI does not weight third-party assurance differently from other confidence-building measures like internal audit, internal verification or similar. Scoring is currently based on the number of confidence-building measures that a signatory implements.
Why can’t I opt out of publishing my public report online? The Word version of the closing module shows the option to not permit publication
PRI signatories are required to report publicly on their responsible investment activities each year. Only signatories reporting on a voluntary basis in their preparatory year will see the option ‘I do not give the PRI permissions to publish it’.
Assessment
Signatories report on their responsible investment activities by responding to asset-specific modules in the reporting framework. Each module houses a variety of indicators that address specific topics of responsible investment. Signatories’ answers are then assessed and results are compiled into an assessment report.
The assessment report includes:
- indicator scores – summarising the individual scores achieved and comparing them to the median;
- section scores – grouping similar indicator scores together into categories (e.g. policy, assurance, governance) and comparing them to the median;
- module scores – aggregating all the indicator scores within a module to assign one of six performance bands (from E to A+).
Each module contains two types of assessed indicators:
Core assessed: all signatories will be assessed on these indicators and they will make up the majority (~75%) of their overall assessment score for each module. Completing these indicators and demonstrating advanced levels of implementation will enable a signatory to reach the third-highest performance band (B).
Additional assessed: signatories can generally complete these indicators if they wish (i.e. they will usually be ‘voluntary to report’) and they will provide an opportunity to demonstrate more advanced stages of implementation or reflect alternative practices. To achieve the highest possible bands (A and A+), a signatory will need to complete and score well on some, but not all, of these indicators. Only a subset of the best scoring additional indicators will be taken into account in the final performance band.
To determine the amount of additional assessed indicators that will be included in each module score, we follow a 75/25 guideline. The core assessed indicators should ideally not comprise of more than 75% of the total number of indicators assessed, while the remaining 25% should comprise of additional assessed indicators. In the example below, there are seven core assessed indicators and five additional assessed indicators. To ensure that the number of core assessed indicators are below 75%, the total number of indicators to be included in the score must be ten. That means three of the additional assessed indicators will be included in the score.
At a module level, the percentages of core and additional indicator scores obtained is then converted into a final performance band, as per the conversion table below.
The PRI does all these calculations for each assessed module and presents them in an easy to understand summary scorecard present at the beginning of the assessment report. View an Assessment Report example.
Service provider guides
Introduction to reporting video
Module guides
The Reporting Framework is split into seven modules. Each module has a separate theme and includes a number of indicators to respond to. All signatories complete the organisational overview, strategy & governance and closing module. The remaining modules are business specific. The organisational overview module contains gateway indicators that will inform which of the business specific modules that will be relevant to report on. Not all information within each module is mandatory to complete, or disclose.
Signatories are free to choose the period they report on but should report on the same period each year.
Indicator guide download
- Indicator updates 2019-2020 (XLSX)
Module downloads
| 1. Organisational overview | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Strategy and governance | |||
| 3. Relevant modules only: | |||
| Investment consultancy | Reporting | Research and data provision | Active ownership services |
| 4. Closing module | |||
Full reporting framework downloads
- Reporting framework for service providers (PDF)
- Download Reporting framework for service providers (DOC)
Historic Public Transparency Reports and Reporting Frameworks
Historic Public Transparency Reports can be found in Public signatory reports. Historic Reporting Frameworks can be found below.
Downloads
Reporting framework 2019
Zip, Size 29.25 mbReporting framework 2018
Zip, Size 15.52 mbReporting framework 2017
Zip, Size 27.99 mbReporting framework (service providers) 2017
Zip, Size 5.14 mbReporting framework 2016
Zip, Size 26.86 mbReporting framework 2014-15
Zip, Size 28.56 mb
The reporting process
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
Currently readingReporting & assessment archive
- 9
- 10
- 11
