Methodology

Methodology

The 400 financial institutions in scope of the benchmark were assessed using the Methodology for the 2025 Financial System Benchmark. This methodology includes 39 indicators across five distinct measurement areas: Strategy, governance and stewardship, Financing climate and nature protection and restoration, Environmental footprints, Inclusive finance and Responsible business conduct.

The development of the methodology and its indicators was informed by extensive stakeholder consultations and aligns with existing frameworks, benchmarks and accountability mechanisms.

Benchmark results are presented in 400 individual scorecards that contain detailed assessments of the financial institution’s performance. A separate scoring sheet contains information on the scores of each financial institution on each indicator.

Scope

In order to investigate the current state of the financial system, the Financial System Benchmark looks at the influence of the 400 keystone financial institutions across subsectors, including asset owners, asset managers, banks and insurers.

Our methodology focuses on the characteristics that are common across these industries.

Financial institutions are assessed at group level, not just with regards to certain business units or offerings, and across the spectrum of their financial activities, whether that is investing, lending, investment banking, insurance underwriting or advising. Moreover, financial institutions have impact through the entirety of their activities, meaning that the assessment covers not only business activities but includes stewardship, lobbying and political engagement to look at the coherence between those and sustainability commitments and strategies.

This methodology was designed to capture the activities of financial institutions irrespective of their industry and business model. From this perspective, despite the different roles of different types of financial institutions we want to focus on broader themes and see it as important to hold the financial institutions to the same standard, indicators are hence considered applicable across sub-sectors.

Approach to scoring and ranking

All financial institutions assessed for the Financial System Benchmark are evaluated based on 39 indicators across five measurement areas. Each indicator is scored against a set of predefined criteria related to its elements. The elements for each indicator spell out what is expected of the financial institution and what it will be assessed and scored on. The number of elements per indicator is decided by the aspects of interest and the maturity of the indicator topic. Each indicator gets a score between 0 and 1 that equals the sum of its element scores.

Due to different number of indicators per measurement area the weight per indicator differs between measurement areas (see table below).

Each measurement area has its own weight, as shown in the following table. A financial institution’s total score is the weighted sum of the normalised scores received for each measurement area leading to an overall score between 0 and 100.

It is important to note that a financial institutions’ score reflects evidence available in English and published before the cut-off date of 15 July, 2024. This score may not accurately represent the financial institutions’ level of transparency, particularly if the financial institution reports in languages other than English, nor does it encompass its overall performance beyond what the financial institution discloses regarding that performance. 

For further details on scoring and its applicability, please refer to the public Scoring Guidelines.

Data collection process

Each benchmark assessment involves two research phases: an initial analysis of publicly available information and a review incorporating feedback from financial institutions. We rely on publicly accessible, English-language data, including company websites, financial and non-financial reports, and policies.

After the initial research phase, financial institutions receive a draft assessment for review and are invited to provide written feedback, sharing any relevant, publicly accessible evidence that may have been overlooked. This feedback is then evaluated, and adjustments to the draft assessment are made as needed, following the criteria outlined in the Scoring Guidelines.