S&P Global vs Sustainalytics: Key Differences Explained

Quick Comparison

What is S&P Global ESG?

S&P Global's ESG capabilities center on the Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA), an annual questionnaire-based evaluation that has been running since 1999—making it one of the longest-running corporate sustainability assessments in existence. Originally created by RobecoSAM (a Swiss sustainable investing firm), the CSA passed to S&P Global when it bought RobecoSAM's ESG ratings business, a deal announced in November 2019 and completed in January 2020.

The CSA is one of the most detailed company-submitted ESG questionnaires in the market. Companies answer about 120 industry-specific questions on average, according to S&P Global's 2026 ESG Scores methodology, organized across environmental, social, and governance dimensions, with criteria weighted by industry. Companies provide extensive documentation—policies, performance data, governance structures, management systems—which S&P Global analysts verify and score. The resulting S&P Global ESG Score ranges from 0-100 and compares a company's performance with its industry peers, covering ESG opportunities and impacts, not just risk management.

The CSA's most visible output is the Dow Jones Best-in-Class Indices, called the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI) until February 2025. Companies scoring in the top percentiles of their industry on the CSA are included in the family's world, regional, and country indices, such as Dow Jones Best-in-Class World. Inclusion is a prestigious benchmark that companies actively pursue, making the CSA both an assessment tool and a competitive ranking mechanism. S&P Global ESG Scores also drive S&P Dow Jones Indices' other sustainability indices, such as the S&P 500 Scored & Screened Index (the former S&P 500 ESG Index). They are not part of S&P's credit ratings: S&P Global Ratings states that its credit ratings are separate and distinct from S&P Global ESG Scores, which S&P Global Sustainable1 produces.

What is Sustainalytics?

Sustainalytics is a global ESG research and ratings firm, now fully owned by Morningstar. Its ESG Risk Rating methodology, launched in 2018, assesses the degree to which a company's economic value is at risk due to material ESG factors. The model evaluates two core dimensions: a company's exposure to material ESG issues (driven by industry, geography, and business model) and the quality of its management of those issues (policies, programs, certifications, and track record).

The gap between exposure and management produces the ESG Risk Rating—an absolute measure of unmanaged risk on an open-ended scale that starts at zero, where lower scores indicate less risk and 95% of companies score below 50, according to the Sustainalytics methodology. Companies fall into five categories: Negligible (0-10), Low (10-20), Medium (20-30), High (30-40), and Severe (40+). Sustainalytics also maintains a separate Controversies Research practice that monitors incidents and events that may affect a company's ESG risk profile.

Sustainalytics covers more than 16,000 companies—one of the broadest coverage universes among ESG rating agencies. Its integration with Morningstar means Sustainalytics data directly powers the Morningstar ESG Risk Rating for Funds (the "globe" rating, called the Morningstar Sustainability Rating until 2025) applied to mutual funds and ETFs, influencing retail investment flows and advisor recommendations at massive scale.

Key Differences

1. Assessment Model. S&P Global uses a company-submitted questionnaire (CSA) supplemented by public data and media analysis. Sustainalytics primarily uses publicly available data—company reports, regulatory filings, NGO research, media—supplemented by company engagement. This means S&P Global's assessment captures more proprietary information that companies choose to share, while Sustainalytics' assessment reflects what's visible to external stakeholders.

2. Scoring Direction and Interpretation. S&P Global scores run 0-100 where higher is better (stronger ESG performance). Sustainalytics scores start at zero and have no fixed ceiling, and lower is better (less unmanaged ESG risk). This inversion creates confusion when comparing across agencies. A company scoring 75 on S&P Global and 15 on Sustainalytics is performing well on both—but the numbers appear contradictory without understanding the methodologies.

3. What Gets Measured. S&P Global's CSA evaluates comprehensive ESG performance—a company's policies, management systems, performance metrics, and leadership on ESG topics. It rewards ambition and disclosure depth. Sustainalytics focuses specifically on material risk—how much ESG-related risk exists and how much remains unmanaged. A company can score well on Sustainalytics by simply being in a low-risk industry with basic management, even without ambitious sustainability leadership.

4. Company Participation. The CSA is an invited, company-completed questionnaire. Companies that don't participate still receive S&P Global ESG Scores based on public data, but these tend to be lower—active participation typically results in better scores because the company can present its full story. Sustainalytics rates companies regardless of participation, using its own research methodology. Companies can engage with Sustainalytics to verify data, but the assessment doesn't depend on company submission.

5. Index and Product Integration. S&P Global ESG Scores drive Dow Jones Best-in-Class (formerly DJSI) inclusion and other S&P sustainability index products. Sustainalytics drives Morningstar's ESG Risk Ratings for funds. The downstream impact differs: S&P Global influences which companies are in sustainability indices that institutional investors benchmark against, while Sustainalytics influences how funds are rated and marketed to retail and advisory channels.

6. Industry Specificity. S&P Global's CSA is highly industry-specific—different industries receive different questionnaires with different criteria and weights. S&P publishes 62 industry-specific questionnaires. Sustainalytics also uses industry-specific materiality, but its exposure-management framework is more uniform in structure across sectors, with industry differences reflected primarily in which ESG issues are deemed material and how exposure is calibrated.

7. Transparency and Accessibility. S&P Global publishes company ESG Scores publicly through its website and the CSA results feed into the publicly visible S&P Global Sustainability Yearbook. Sustainalytics' ESG Risk Ratings are partially public (summary scores are visible on Morningstar and Sustainalytics websites), with detailed reports available to subscribers. Both agencies provide rated companies with detailed feedback, but S&P Global's CSA process typically includes more structured engagement opportunities.

Which One Do You Need?

For companies pursuing prestigious sustainability recognition, the S&P Global CSA is worth the effort. Dow Jones Best-in-Class (formerly DJSI) inclusion and the S&P Global Sustainability Yearbook listing carry significant brand value, and the CSA process itself—while time-intensive—produces valuable internal insights. The detailed questionnaire forces companies to document and evaluate practices they might not otherwise scrutinize.

For companies focused on risk management and broad investor coverage, Sustainalytics engagement is essential. Its 16,000+ company coverage and Morningstar integration mean your Sustainalytics ESG Risk Rating is visible to a vast investor and advisor audience. Active engagement—verifying data, providing context, correcting errors—can significantly improve your rating.

For most large companies, engagement with both is standard practice. The S&P Global CSA runs on an annual cycle (the 2026 assessment opened April 1, with two-month participation windows starting between April and November), while Sustainalytics engagement is ongoing. Build a sustainability data infrastructure that serves both, plus other raters. The data collection effort overlaps significantly—emissions data, governance structures, workforce metrics, policy documentation—and maintaining a centralized ESG data repository eliminates redundant work.

Council Fire's Perspective

S&P Global and Sustainalytics represent two philosophically different approaches to ESG assessment, and companies benefit from understanding both. S&P Global asks: "How comprehensively are you managing ESG?" Sustainalytics asks: "How much ESG risk remains despite your management?" A company that engages seriously with both questions develops a more complete and honest picture of its ESG position.

We frequently see companies pour resources into the S&P Global CSA because they want the DJSI badge, while neglecting their Sustainalytics profile that actually influences how most investors screen them. Or conversely, companies that manage their Sustainalytics risk rating but miss the strategic benchmarking value of the CSA process. The integrated approach—using the CSA to drive internal improvement and Sustainalytics to monitor external risk perception—produces the strongest outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which ESG rating has more influence on investment decisions?

It depends on the investment channel. S&P Global ESG Scores directly determine inclusion in the Dow Jones Best-in-Class Indices (formerly DJSI), which matters for institutional investors benchmarking against sustainability indices. Sustainalytics, through Morningstar integration, influences fund ratings visible to retail investors and financial advisors managing trillions in client assets. In aggregate, Sustainalytics likely touches more total investment capital through its Morningstar reach, but S&P Global has deeper influence with institutions that specifically track the Dow Jones Best-in-Class and other S&P sustainability indices.

Is the CSA questionnaire required?

No, participation is voluntary. S&P Global invites the largest companies by market cap in each industry to participate, and any company can request to take the assessment. However, non-participating companies receive S&P Global ESG Scores based solely on publicly available data, which typically results in lower scores due to information gaps. Companies serious about their ESG positioning generally benefit from participating.

How do S&P Global and Sustainalytics handle controversy events differently?

S&P Global incorporates a Media & Stakeholder Analysis (MSA) component into the CSA that monitors controversies and can adjust scores based on their severity and recency. Sustainalytics operates a dedicated Controversies Research practice that assigns severity levels (1-5) to incidents and integrates them into the ESG Risk Rating. Both agencies flag controversies, but Sustainalytics' dedicated controversy framework tends to produce more visible and rapid score impacts from major incidents.

Can a company score well on one and poorly on the other?

Yes, and it happens frequently. A company with excellent policies and comprehensive disclosure might score well on S&P Global's CSA but poorly on Sustainalytics if it operates in a high-risk industry with significant unmanaged exposure. Conversely, a company in a low-risk industry with basic management might score well on Sustainalytics (low unmanaged risk) but poorly on S&P Global (limited sustainability ambition). Understanding why scores diverge between agencies is often more valuable than the scores themselves.