Portfolio ESG Screener

10 holdings · Continuous scoring model

45 / 100
Moderate evidence
Gap to Good (Art 8)
0.4
pts needed to reach 45
Gap to Strong (Art 9)
25.4
pts needed to reach 70
Exclusion signals
10
of 10 holdings flagged
R1 Leaders
10
of 10 holdings
Pillar mix (E·S·G)
14% · 46% · 40%
Score range
11 – 59
min – max across holdings
LIVE RISK EXPOSURE
26% of portfolio in high-risk (30d)
Top drivers
  • META 🔴 62
  • AMZN 🔴 7
  • TSLA 🔴 4
Contribution Waterfall
Microsoft Corp
ESG 59 x 18.0% = 10.7 pts
Contribution: +2.63
Apple Inc
ESG 58 x 15.0% = 8.7 pts
Contribution: +2.04
Alphabet Inc
ESG 50 x 12.0% = 5.9 pts
Contribution: +0.59
Procter & Gamble Co
ESG 59 x 8.0% = 4.7 pts
Contribution: +1.13
Meta Platforms Inc
ESG 54 x 8.0% = 4.3 pts
Contribution: +0.71
Amazon.com Inc
ESG 29 x 10.0% = 2.9 pts
Contribution: -1.57
Tesla Inc
ESG 30 x 8.0% = 2.4 pts
Contribution: -1.17
Roche Holding AG
ESG 33 x 7.0% = 2.3 pts
Contribution: -0.80
Intel Corp
ESG 27 x 7.0% = 1.9 pts
Contribution: -1.21
Rio Tinto PLC
ESG 11 x 7.0% = 0.8 pts
Contribution: -2.32
0 Composite: 44.6 100

How to Read This Report

▼

This report scores every holding in your portfolio on a 0–100 ESG scale and shows how each one contributes to — or drags down — the portfolio-level composite. The goal is not to exclude: it is to give you the evidence base to support your chosen SFDR disclosure level.

ESG Score (0–100)

ComponentPointsSource
Risk Quality0–40Inverted percentile rank of RepRisk incident risk, severity, count, persistence, rating
Commitment0–30SBTi target level (Targets Set = 30 pts, Committed = 20, etc.)
Clean Record0–15No UNGC violations (+5), Low-risk flag (+5), minus High-risk flags (−5 each)
Coverage0–15Has RepRisk assessment (+8), SBTi data (+5), Pillar data (+2)

Higher = lower ESG risk + stronger commitments + cleaner record. A company with no data scores ~5. Full data + low risk + commitments can reach 100.

Key Columns

Weight — portfolio allocation percentage
ESG — holding's individual 0–100 score (green ≥ 75, amber ≥ 35, red < 35)
Wtd Score — ESG × Weight ÷ 100. Raw contribution to the composite
Contribution — (holding ESG − composite) × weight ÷ 100. +ve = lifting, −ve = dragging
Pillar — E/S/G incident breakdown bars. Hover for %
Excl Band / R1 Tier — R2/R1 context signals (not mandates)
Insight — RepRisk narrative: incidents, severity, rating, pillar, flags, UNGC, SBTi. Hover for full text.

Continuous Scoring

No holding is automatically excluded. A mining company with ESG 22 can remain if others offset it. The What-If model shows the trade-off — swap drags for same-sector alternatives and see the composite move. This mirrors how real Art 8/9 funds operate: portfolio-level, not position-level.

EU SFDR Articles — What They Require

The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (EU 2019/2088) requires funds to classify by sustainability ambition. Each Article has specific obligations:

Art 6 Baseline
Requires: Disclose how sustainability risks are integrated into investment decisions, or explain why not. Describe likely impact on returns.
In practice: Every EU fund must comply. Funds with no ESG claims use Art 6 alone.
Score: Any composite qualifies. A low score means the fund acknowledges risk without promoting ESG.
Art 8 Light Green
Requires: State which E/S characteristics the product promotes. Explain how attained — binding elements (exclusions, tilts, engagement). Annex II + Annex IV reporting.
In practice: Combine exclusion screens + positive ESG tilt + engagement. Portfolio-level — not every holding needs to be ESG-positive.
Score: Composite ≥ 45 = good evidence for Art 8 claims.
Art 9 Dark Green
Requires: Sustainable investment as the objective. DNSH assessment per holding. Annex III + Annex V reporting. Taxonomy alignment.
In practice: Near-universal ESG assessment, strong SBTi commitments, minimal flags. Hard to justify poor ESG holdings.
Score: Composite ≥ 70 = strong evidence for Art 9 claims.
⚖️ Regulatory note: SFDR does not define numeric score cutoffs. The benchmarks (45 for Art 8, 70 for Art 9) are indicative evidence thresholds — not legal requirements. The classification is a compliance decision based on the totality of evidence: this score, investment strategy, engagement, and disclosure documentation.

Holdings — Contribution Analysis

10 holdings · sorted by drag
Sorted by contribution (biggest drag first). Contribution = how much this holding pulls the composite above or below the portfolio average. A holding with a high ESG score and high weight has the most positive contribution.
TickerCompanyWeight ESGLIVE (30d)CLIMATETierWtd Score ContribPillarExcl BandR1 TierInsight
RTPPF Rio Tinto PLC 7.0% 11 🟢 0 (stable) 🔴 88 Very weak 0.8 -2.32
Environmental: 41%
Social: 50%
Governance: 9%
 Critical R1D 73 incidents (24m); severity 110; rating CC; pillar [E:…
AMZN Amazon.com Inc 10.0% 29 🔴 7 (high risk spike) 🟡 56 Weak 2.9 -1.57
Environmental: 12%
Social: 58%
Governance: 31%
 Critical R1D 558 incidents (24m); severity 665; rating CCC; pillar […
INTC Intel Corp 7.0% 27 🟢 1 (low) 🟡 93 Weak 1.9 -1.21
Environmental: 14%
Social: 50%
Governance: 36%
 Critical R1D 27 incidents (24m); severity 38; rating CCC; pillar [E:…
TSLA Tesla Inc 8.0% 30 🔴 4 (high risk spike) 🟡 86 Weak 2.4 -1.17
Environmental: 20%
Social: 51%
Governance: 29%
 Critical R1D 263 incidents (24m); severity 345; rating CCC; pillar […
RHHVF Roche Holding AG 7.0% 33 🟢 0 (stable) 🟡 19 Weak 2.3 -0.80
Social: 33%
Governance: 67%
 Critical R1D 15 incidents (24m); severity 19; rating A; pillar [S:4 …
GOOGL Alphabet Inc 12.0% 50 🟢 0 (stable) 🟡 56 Moderate 5.9 +0.59
Environmental: 5%
Social: 39%
Governance: 55%
 Critical R1D 136 incidents (24m); severity 175; rating CC; pillar [E…
META Meta Platforms Inc 8.0% 54 🔴 62 (high risk spike) 🟡 56 Moderate 4.3 +0.71
Environmental: 4%
Social: 67%
Governance: 29%
 Critical R1D 419 incidents (24m); severity 492; rating CCC; pillar […
PG Procter & Gamble Co 8.0% 59 🟢 0 (stable) 🟡 56 Strong 4.7 +1.13
Environmental: 33%
Social: 29%
Governance: 38%
 Critical R1D 43 incidents (24m); severity 60; rating B; pillar [E:21…
AAPL Apple Inc 15.0% 58 🟢 0 (stable) 🟡 93 Strong 8.7 +2.04
Environmental: 5%
Social: 37%
Governance: 57%
 Critical R1D 220 incidents (24m); severity 297; rating CCC; pillar […
MSFT Microsoft Corp 18.0% 59 🟡 1 (elevated) 🟡 56 Strong 10.7 +2.63
Environmental: 17%
Social: 49%
Governance: 34%
 Critical R1D 175 incidents (24m); severity 201; rating CCC; pillar […

Interactive What-If Swap

Select a holding to replace
Click a portfolio holding below, then pick a replacement. Shows same-sector candidates by default. Use the search box to find any company by name or ticker.
Remove (click to select)
RTPPF
Rio Tinto PLC · 7.0%
11
AMZN
Amazon.com Inc · 10.0%
29
INTC
Intel Corp · 7.0%
27
TSLA
Tesla Inc · 8.0%
30
RHHVF
Roche Holding AG · 7.0%
33
GOOGL
Alphabet Inc · 12.0%
50
META
Meta Platforms Inc · 8.0%
54
PG
Procter & Gamble Co · 8.0%
59
AAPL
Apple Inc · 15.0%
58
MSFT
Microsoft Corp · 18.0%
59
→
Current
44.6
Select replacement →
Replace with (click to select)
← Select a holding first
Current Portfolio
Composite
44.6
Moderate
Gap to Art 8
0.4
pts needed
Gap to Art 9
25.4
pts needed
→
After All Swaps
Select holdings and substitutes above
⚖️
SFDR Disclosure — Not a Classification
SFDR is a disclosure regime, not a scoring system. There are no regulatory score thresholds that automatically classify a fund as Article 6, 8, or 9. The composite score and evidence strength indicator provide the evidence base to support whichever Article your compliance team chooses to disclose under. A higher score means stronger evidence to substantiate ESG-related claims in pre-contractual documents, periodic reports, and website disclosures. The classification decision remains with the fund's compliance function.

Methodology

ESG Score (0–100): Computed for every company in the scored universe using: Risk Quality (0–40 pts, inverted percentile rank of RepRisk metrics), Commitment (0–30 pts, SBTi target level), Clean Record (0–15 pts, UNGC compliance + flags), Coverage (0–15 pts, data availability). Identical formula to R1.
Portfolio Composite: Weighted average of per-holding ESG scores, weighted by portfolio allocation.
Contribution: (holding score − composite) × weight ÷ 100. Positive = lifting the portfolio, negative = dragging it down.
Evidence Strength: Strong ≥ 70 (supports Art 9) · Good ≥ 45 (supports Art 8) · Moderate ≥ 25 · Weak < 25. These are indicative benchmarks, not regulatory thresholds.
What-If Model: For each high-drag holding, finds a same-sector company with higher ESG, swaps it in at the same weight, and recomputes the portfolio composite. Cumulative shows all swaps combined.
Signals: R2 exclusion flags and R1 leader status are shown as context, not mandates. The composite score determines portfolio evidence strength.