CLIMACTIX INTELLIGENCE SCORE — METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK

The CIS:
Climate Risk Intelligence
Rating System

Institutional-grade climate risk quantification for enterprises, investors, and regulators. Built for capital allocation, regulatory compliance, and enterprise climate-risk decision making.

6Scoring Pillars
20+Industry Sectors
16Rating Grades
18Report Outputs
SCORING ARCHITECTURE

How CIS is Calculated

Every score is traceable through a seven-stage pipeline from raw assessment data to a final rated output. No black-box logic.

01
Assessment Input
Structured data from enterprise assessment, reports, and regulatory filings
02
6-Pillar Scoring
Each pillar scored 0–100 using indicator-weighted algorithms
03
Industry Weights
Sector-specific materiality adjustments applied across 20 industries
04
Verification Engine
Every claim cross-checked against evidence — penalties for missing proof
05
Confidence + Greenwashing
Confidence score (data quality) and greenwashing risk assessment applied separately from performance score
06
Benchmarking
Percentile ranking vs industry, regional, and global peer universes
A
07
CIS Rating Output
Final score (0–100), letter grade (AAA–D), confidence, verification, and 18-component report package
SCORING PILLARS

Six Dimensions of Climate Intelligence

Each pillar measures a distinct dimension of climate risk and readiness. Pillar weights adjust by industry — a bank's transition risk weight differs from a cement producer's.

GOVERNANCE
PILLAR 01
Climate Governance Score
DEFAULT WEIGHT: 15% | RANGE: 12–20%
Board climate committee
CCO or climate executive
Executive remuneration linkage
Board agenda frequency
Climate in enterprise risk framework
External assurance on governance
PHYSICAL RISK
PILLAR 02
Physical Risk Exposure Score
DEFAULT WEIGHT: 20% | RANGE: 10–30%
Flood zone facility exposure
Heat stress composite score
Water stress index
Cyclone & wildfire exposure
Coastal / sea-level risk
Supply chain geo-concentration
CO₂CO₂ CO₂CO₂ CARBON PRICE EXPOSURE HIGH TRANSITION RISK
PILLAR 03
Transition Risk Score
DEFAULT WEIGHT: 20% | RANGE: 15–32%
Carbon intensity (tCO2e / $M revenue)
Fossil fuel dependency %
Net-zero target credibility
CBAM & ETS regulatory exposure
Stranded asset risk ($M)
Carbon price exposure ($M)
CLIMATE DISCLOSURE TCFD ISSB GRI BRSR SASB CDP COMPLETENESS 73% 3RD PARTY ASSURED DISCLOSURE QUALITY
PILLAR 04
Disclosure & Data Quality Score
DEFAULT WEIGHT: 15% | RANGE: 12–20%
BRSR completeness (0–100%)
TCFD / ISSB S2 alignment
GRI / SASB / CDP coverage
Third-party assurance
Historical data coverage (years)
Restatement history
CLIMATE CAPEX 8.4% RESILIENCE
PILLAR 05
Resilience & Adaptation Score
DEFAULT WEIGHT: 15% | RANGE: 10–20%
Adaptation plan documented
BCM plan includes climate scenarios
Climate CAPEX % allocation
Resilience project count
ISSB S2 scenario analysis
Supply chain resilience plan
1.5°C -8% 2°C -14% 3°C -22% 4°C -38% BASE $ FINANCIAL MATERIALITY
PILLAR 06
Financial Materiality Score
DEFAULT WEIGHT: 15% | RANGE: 8–18%
Revenue at risk % (by scenario)
EBITDA sensitivity
Asset impairment risk
Climate in financial statements
NGFS scenario modeling
Investor materiality disclosure
RATING SCALE

CIS Rating Grades — AAA to D

A 16-grade letter rating scale from AAA to D — structured to be intuitive for institutional audiences. A company can hold a high performance rating but a low confidence score — both are always reported separately.

AAA95–100Climate Intelligence Leader — Sector benchmark. Exemplary governance, near-zero transition risk, verified disclosures.
AA+90–94Climate Excellence — Leading climate management with minor gaps.
AA85–89Advanced Climate Resilience — Robust adaptation and disclosure. Top-decile peer performance.
AA-80–84Strong Climate Preparedness — Above-average across most pillars with one area for improvement.
A+75–79Above-Average Climate Readiness — Solid management with meaningful improvement potential.
A70–74Solid Climate Readiness — Above industry median. Credible but not exceptional.
A-65–69Adequate Climate Management — Meeting baseline requirements; lagging on one or more pillars.
BBB+60–64Developing Climate Capabilities — Around industry median. Governance evolving.
BBB55–59Baseline Climate Risk — Material gaps in at least two pillars. Monitor for deterioration.
BBB-50–54Moderate Climate Exposure — Below-median performance. Significant physical or transition risk.
BB45–49Elevated Climate Risk — Structural deficiencies. Inadequate disclosure and adaptation planning.
B40–44High Climate Risk — Multi-pillar failures. Investor-grade caution advised.
CCC30–39Severe Climate Vulnerability — Critical gaps. Near-term financial risk from climate elevated.
CC20–29Critical Climate Exposure — Severe structural vulnerability. No credible pathway disclosed.
C10–19Near-Default Climate Risk — Existential climate exposure without mitigation.
D0–9Climate Risk Default — No meaningful climate management. Immediate remediation required.
VERIFICATION ENGINE

Evidence Quality Scoring

Every assessment answer receives an evidence status. Unverified claims receive score penalties; high-quality verified evidence earns score uplift. No answer is taken at face value.

VERIFIED
Backed by regulatory filing, audited statement, or third-party assurance report. Highest trust weight (0.90–1.00).
+3.5 PTS UPLIFT
PARTIALLY VERIFIED
Sourced from published sustainability report or website but not independently assured. Medium trust weight (0.30–0.55).
NEUTRAL
UNVERIFIED
Self-declared with no supporting evidence document. Trust weight 0.0. Triggers risk flag for high-materiality claims.
-4 TO -8 PTS PENALTY
CONTRADICTORY
Evidence conflicts with disclosed claim — e.g., reported target vs. actual CAPEX or emissions data. Triggers greenwashing flag.
-6 PTS + GW FLAG
CONFIDENCE SCORING

Confidence ≠ Performance

A company can hold an AAA rating with Low Confidence — meaning the score is provisionally high but based on limited evidence. Both scores are always reported separately.

VERY HIGH
90–100
Comprehensive data, third-party assured, 3+ years of history, full framework alignment. Institutional-grade reliability.
HIGH
80–89
Strong data quality with minor gaps. Suitable for investment-grade decision-making. Minor assumptions applied.
MODERATE
65–79
Partial data available. Some material claims unverified. Score directionally reliable but use with caution.
LOW
50–64
Material data gaps. Multiple unverified claims. Rating requires supplemental evidence before institutional use.
INSUFFICIENT
<50
Inadequate evidence base. Score is indicative only. Not suitable for investment or regulatory decisions without further disclosure.
GREENWASHING DETECTION ENGINE

Proprietary Greenwashing Risk Score

Eight automated detection rules flag inconsistencies between disclosed commitments and verifiable evidence. Triggered flags escalate the Greenwashing Risk level independently of the CIS score.

LOW RISK
0–1 FLAGS
Commitments broadly supported by evidence. Minor disclosure gaps only.
MODERATE
2 FLAGS
Isolated target-evidence gap. Requires enhanced disclosure or clarification.
ELEVATED
3 FLAGS
Structural inconsistencies between narrative claims and quantified data.
HIGH RISK
4 FLAGS
Multiple material inconsistencies. High likelihood of misleading stakeholder communications.
CRITICAL
5+ FLAGS
Systemic greenwashing risk. Claims materially unsupported. Regulatory investigation risk elevated.
AUTOMATED DETECTION RULES
R01Net-zero target declared with >60% fossil dependency and no SBTi alignment
R02Climate targets declared with BRSR completeness <50%
R03Emissions >10 MtCO2e with no third-party assurance
R04Revenue-at-risk >15% absent from financial statements
R05Net-zero target with <1% CAPEX allocated to climate investments
R06Banking / insurance / oil & gas with no ISSB S2 scenario analysis
R07Material emitter (>5 MtCO2e) with no CDP response
R08No TCFD and no ISSB S2 alignment — climate risk undisclosed under any international standard
FINANCIAL MATERIALITY ENGINE

NGFS Scenario Impact Translation

Base financial exposure is translated into four NGFS-aligned scenario impact projections. Revenue-at-risk multipliers are calibrated against NGFS transition pathway assumptions.

SCENARIOPATHWAY TYPEREVENUE MULTIPLIERPRIMARY DRIVERASSET RISK PROFILEAPPLICABLE TO
1.5°C Orderly Transition ×0.85 Policy-driven, high upfront cost Low physical / High transition All sectors — best case policy alignment
2°C Delayed Transition ×1.00 Moderate policy + physical risk Medium physical / Medium transition Reference baseline for all assessments
3°C Disorderly Transition ×1.45 Policy failure + rising physical risk High physical / Low transition cost High-exposure sectors (energy, real estate, agriculture)
4°C Hot House World ×2.10 Catastrophic physical impacts Critical physical / Minimal transition Worst-case stress test — all sectors
DATA ARCHITECTURE

Five-Layer Intelligence Stack

The CIS draws from five distinct data layers. Company-submitted data is always cross-referenced against external geospatial, financial, and regulatory intelligence.

LAYER 1
Company Data
Assessment responsesAnnual reportsSustainability reportsBRSR filingsESG disclosuresUploaded evidence documentsCDP submissions
LAYER 2
External Climate Data
IPCC AR6 scenariosNGFS pathwaysNASA GISSNOAA climate projectionsWorld Bank climate portalCMIP6 modelsCopernicus ERA5IMD India
LAYER 3
Hazard & Geo Layer
Flood risk maps (JRC)Drought indicesCyclone tracksWildfire risk zonesWater stress index (WRI Aqueduct)Heat stress indexFacility geolocationSupply chain route exposure
LAYER 4
Financial Intelligence
Revenue & EBITDACAPEX / OPEX breakdownDebt & balance sheetInsurance exposureMarket capCarbon cost modellingAsset book values
LAYER 5
Regulatory Intelligence
ISSB S1/S2BRSR CoreCSRD / ESRSSEC climate rulesCBAM tariff schedulesEU TaxonomyRBI climate guidelinesSEBI BRSR
REPORT OUTPUTS

18-Component Intelligence Report

Every completed assessment automatically generates an 18-component intelligence package — boardroom-ready, investor-grade, and fully auditable.

01
Climactix Intelligence Score (CIS)
Composite 0–100 score with full pillar breakdown
02
Rating Grade
AAA through D with category description
03
Confidence Score
Data quality and evidence reliability rating
04
Verification Score
Claim-by-claim evidence quality assessment
05
Greenwashing Risk Score
Low → Critical with triggered rule citations
06
Industry Benchmark Ranking
Percentile vs industry, regional, and global peers
07
Climate Financial Impact Score
Revenue, EBITDA, and asset risk quantification
08
Climate Governance Score
Board, strategy, and accountability breakdown
09
Physical Risk Score
Per-hazard exposure with geospatial context
10
Transition Risk Score
Carbon, regulatory, and stranded asset analysis
11
Resilience Score
Adaptation investment and planning quality
12
Disclosure Quality Score
Framework alignment and assurance quality
13
Investor Summary
One-page investment-grade intelligence brief
14
Board-Level Summary
Executive climate risk narrative for board reporting
15
Regulatory Readiness Summary
BRSR / ISSB / CSRD compliance gap analysis
16
Climate Risk Heatmap
Facility-level hazard exposure visualization
17
Framework Alignment Matrix
Multi-framework gap and alignment status grid
18
Methodology Appendix
Full calculation trace — every indicator, weight, and evidence reference