A WADI ESG Rating is an independent, evidence-based assessment of an organization’s Environmental, Social, and Governance performance and disclosure quality, calibrated for MENA markets while aligning to leading global standards.

The methodology supports ratings for publicly listed entities, large private companies, financial institutions, strategic public entities, and universities.

The rating framework is aligned to widely used global standards and references, including GRI, ISSB/IFRS S1 and S2, TCFD, SASB sector metrics, and the UN SDGs (through indicator mappings and crosswalks).

WADI applies a maturity-based, phased approach to ESG assessment. In markets and sectors that are still developing ESG practices, the rating initially focuses on disclosure quality, assessing transparency, completeness, and traceability of publicly available ESG information in line with regional maturity.

As companies and markets become more ESG-mature, WADI progressively incorporates performance assessment, evaluating policies, targets, implementation, and measurable outcomes. This approach ensures fair comparability while supporting a structured transition from ESG disclosure to demonstrated ESG performance.

The methodology uses an indicator library of 300+ checks, typically structured as Yes/No/NA across E, S, and G and mapped to global standards and sector metrics.

Each scored ‘Yes’ must be traceable to a specific document and page/section anchor, and evidence is categorized by quality tiers and logged with timestamps for auditability.

WADI applies a Geographic Adjustment to contextualize ratings using publicly available indices aggregated into a Geographic Factor (GF). The uplift is capped and is intended to reflect regional context in a transparent way.

Adjusted ESG Scores map to five levels: Elite (>85), Advanced (70-84), Progressive (61-69), Balanced (50-60), and Developing (<50).

Disclosure scoring considers completeness, timeliness (within 12 months), and year-on-year consistency. Penalties may apply for stale data, broken links, or contradictions.

No. Sector Materiality Matrices are used to adjust issue priority, indicator weights, and in many cases pillar weights, so that scoring reflects sector-specific material ESG risks and opportunities.

Illustrative defaults include: Energy & Utilities (E45/S25/G30), Financials (E20/S35/G45), Industrials/Materials (E40/S30/G30), Telecom/Tech (E25/S35/G40), Consumer (E25/S40/G35).

Sources can include company reports, websites, filings, exchange databases and credible third-party data providers with each data point logged with a link, date, and evidence tier.

Yes. The SOP includes an optional issuer fact-check step for factual accuracy and for providing clarifications or supporting evidence before publication.

Missing data is scored as ‘No’ unless an indicator is explicitly marked NA by sector or context.

They can. An Assurance Uplift of +1 to +3 points may apply for external assurance of key metrics, capped at +3 overall.

The SOP describes engagement setup, data collection, QA/QC, materiality and weighting, scoring and calculations, internal review, optional issuer fact-check, committee approval, and publication and archiving.

Key roles can include the ESG Analyst, Data Quality Lead, Sector Specialist, Compliance Officer, and a Rating Committee for final approval.

The process uses dual review, validation controls, a full audit trail, and change logs for rerates. Governance includes periodic calibration and refresh of sector matrices.

WADI describes itself as independent and does not position itself as a commercial consulting or implementation provider; it focuses on ratings, benchmarks, indices, and research.

Typical outputs include a scorecard and a company rating memo summarizing evidence, scoring, and improvement opportunities. Benchmark outputs may also be produced where relevant.

WADI describes an AI-enabled workflow to accelerate data extraction and drafting, with human-in-the-loop analyst validation for evidence, nuance, and final judgment.

The methodology is designed to be transparent and auditable via evidence traceability requirements, defined scoring logic, documented workflows, and governance controls.