Abbie joined Integrum ESG as Head of Business Development in 2025. Prior to this, Abbie headed up the Sales Team at SeedLegals, consistently driving double digit YoY growth. Having worked in a variety of Sales roles in multiple industries (Digital Marketing, Law, Fashion, LegalTech), Abbie has a keen awareness of understanding exactly what a prospective client needs, in order to translate this into a successful product and commercial strategy. Abbie has a M.A. in Modern Languages from Oxford University.
In March 2026, MSCI will launch Version 5 of its ESG Ratings methodology.
MSCI estimates that 37 percent of its coverage universe will see a rating change.
For asset managers that rely on MSCI ESG Ratings across investment processes, product construction, risk frameworks and client reporting, methodological updates of this scale create material downstream work even when the changes in rating are constrained.
Firms that have embedded MSCI ESG Ratings into their investment process will likely need to:
Where ESG ratings are integrated into mandates, product eligibility rules and reporting frameworks, methodology changes can trigger governance reviews and client engagement across multiple teams.
The firm estimates that 37 percent of corporate ratings will change, but because MSCI has ensured Version 5 still emphasizes the concept of ‘signal stability’, only around 1 percent are expected to move by more than one letter grade.
This outcome is ensured by the introduction of buffer zones around rating thresholds and to scoring mechanics intended to limit larger movements. MSCI describes a 0.1 point buffer around band cut-offs, which allows letter grades to remain unchanged when scores move marginally across thresholds.
MSCI also states that Version 5 will involve expanded ESG data coverage and additional drill-down within issuer reporting and dashboards.
The update is framed by MSCI as delivering greater transparency, a more quantitative structure and clearer attribution.
However, the metric level scoring logic that translates underlying ESG data into 0 to 10 scores remains undisclosed.
As a result, users may still struggle to determine how specific data changes translate into overall ESG score and rating movements.
For example, a company may receive a score of 7.4 out of 10 for a metric such as water consumption. The underlying disclosures, policies or performance indicators may be visible, but it can still be difficult to explain what a 7.4 actually represents in practice:
Additional data availability and reporting layers do not resolve this structural limitation.
The underlying scoring mechanics remain difficult to interrogate and explain to clients, investment committees and asset owners.
Additional data availability and reporting layers do not resolve this structural limitation. The underlying scoring mechanics remain difficult to interrogate and explain to clients, investment committees and asset owners.
Several elements highlighted in Version 5 align with concerns asset managers have raised for years, both to MSCI and across the wider ESG data market, including:
ESG ratings not being updated frequently enough
Scores being overly influenced by policy disclosures rather than measurable performance
Limited explicit focus on financial materiality
Scoring logic that is difficult to explain to asset owners and clients
These challenges have shaped how asset managers evaluate ESG data providers and were a core driver behind the development of more transparent ESG data architectures, including the approach taken by us at Integrum ESG.
They also reflect long-standing feedback directed at incumbent providers around transparency, attribution and explainability.
Version 5 responds to some of these criticisms, but the underlying model remains structurally opaque.
A change in ESG ratings methodology at this scale means new ratings will not be fully comparable with historic ratings produced under previous versions.
There has been no indication that ratings will be recalculated or backdated under the new framework, meaning prior ratings will remain tied to a methodology that is no longer in use. This introduces complexity for time series analysis, mandate monitoring and client reporting where ESG ratings are embedded into thresholds or historical comparisons.
MSCI has also indicated that additional source information will be incorporated over time. This suggests continued modification within the existing model.
In parallel, expanded source transparency appears restricted to MSCI ONE. ESG Manager is likely to become a legacy environment, encouraging migration to MSCI ONE with associated operational and cost implications for asset managers.
Version 5 does not resolve several structural issues commonly raised by asset managers evaluating ESG data providers:
These issues continue to shape how firms assess ESG data transparency, explainability and usability in investment workflows.
In parallel, expanded source transparency appears restricted to MSCI ONE. ESG Manager is likely to become a legacy environment, encouraging migration to MSCI ONE with associated operational and cost implications for asset managers.
From our perspective, many of the issues highlighted by this update reflect structural gaps that asset managers have been navigating for years.
These include the need for full traceability from raw ESG data to final scores, stronger emphasis on measurable performance, clearer links to financial materiality and scoring frameworks that can be explained confidently to clients and investment committees.
Integrum ESG was built to address these requirements directly. Our Glass Box Data framework is designed to show how source data feeds scoring, how scoring feeds outputs and how outputs feed investment decisions.
This architecture prioritises:
These principles sit at the core of the Integrum ESG Platform and solutions suite, spanning public company coverage and workflow integration, with explainable outputs supported by our AI and disclosure extraction approach.
Rather than retrofitting transparency into an existing framework, the platform was designed around these principles from the outset and continues to evolve in line with them, supported by our published methodologies and tutorials.
Many asset managers continue to use MSCI ESG Ratings despite cost and operational complexity, often due to change aversion.
However, methodology changes of this scale require documentation updates, governance reviews and client conversations.
When these processes are already being revisited, this represents an inflection point for ESG data strategy.
Firms may wish to consider:
This is a natural point for asset managers to review whether their current ESG data approach provides the level of transparency, traceability and cost efficiency required for long term investment processes.
For firms already reassessing their ESG data architecture, the priority is not simply replacing one provider with another, but ensuring that underlying signals are explainable, attributable and fit for investment use.
If you are reviewing your ESG data strategy and considering how to improve transparency and explainability, speak with our team today.
Browse frequently asked questions about the platform.
Can’t find the answer you’re looking for? Please get in touch with our team.
