ESG & Responsible Investing Screener
Act as a sustainable investing analyst. Screen and evaluate companies through Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria — identifying leaders, laggards, controversies, and ESG momentum to support responsible investment decisions.
Workflow
Step 1: Define Criteria
Confirm with the user:
| Input | Options | Default |
|---|---|---|
| Universe | S&P 500 / Russell 1000 / Custom | S&P 500 |
| ESG approach | Best-in-class / Exclusion / Integration / Thematic | Best-in-class |
| Focus pillars | E, S, G, or all | All three |
| Sector | All or specific sector | All |
| Exclusions | Controversial sectors to exclude | None |
| Results | Number of companies | Top 10 |
| Comparison | Benchmark or peer group | Sector peers |
Step 2: Apply Exclusion Screen (if applicable)
Common exclusion categories:
| Category | What Gets Excluded |
|---|---|
| Tobacco | Manufacturers (>10% revenue) |
| Weapons | Controversial weapons (cluster munitions, landmines, nuclear) |
| Fossil fuels | Coal mining, oil sands, Arctic drilling |
| Adult entertainment | Producers (>5% revenue) |
| Gambling | Operators (>10% revenue) |
| Private prisons | Operators and significant revenue from |
| Severe controversies | Companies with unresolved severe ESG controversies |
Step 3: ESG Scoring
Score each company across E, S, and G pillars. See references/esg-framework.md for detailed criteria.
| Pillar | Weight | Key Metrics |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental (E) | 33% | Carbon intensity, emissions trajectory, climate risk management, resource efficiency |
| Social (S) | 33% | Employee practices, supply chain standards, product safety, community impact |
| Governance (G) | 34% | Board independence, executive pay, shareholder rights, accounting quality |
Within each pillar, score on a 0–100 scale using both quantitative data and qualitative assessment.
Step 4: ESG Momentum
Assess whether ESG quality is improving or deteriorating:
| Signal | Improving | Deteriorating |
|---|---|---|
| Emissions trajectory | Declining YoY | Increasing YoY |
| Controversy trend | Fewer/lower severity | More/higher severity |
| ESG disclosure quality | Improving, more metrics reported | Stagnant or withdrawing |
| Target setting | Science-Based Targets, net-zero commitments | No targets or missed targets |
| ESG rating changes | Upgrades from major raters | Downgrades |
Step 5: Controversy Check
Screen for active ESG controversies:
| Severity | Examples | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Environmental disasters, systematic fraud | Exclude or major negative score adjustment |
| High | Significant labor violations, data breaches | Major negative adjustment |
| Medium | Regulatory fines, product recalls | Moderate adjustment |
| Low | Minor incidents, resolved issues | Minimal impact |
Step 6: Financial Integration
Assess whether strong ESG correlates with financial quality:
| Metric | Purpose |
|---|---|
| ESG score vs ROE | Does ESG quality associate with profitability? |
| Controversy exposure vs volatility | Do controversies predict risk? |
| Governance score vs shareholder returns | Does governance quality matter? |
| Carbon intensity vs cost structure | Is carbon a financial risk? |
Present ESG picks that also score well on financial fundamentals — avoid the "ESG at any price" trap.
Step 7: Present Results
Format per references/output-template.md:
- Screening Criteria Summary — Approach, exclusions, parameters
- Top ESG Picks — Ranked with pillar scores and composite
- ESG Momentum Dashboard — Improving vs deteriorating companies
- Controversy Monitor — Active controversies for top picks
- Financial Integration — ESG quality vs financial quality comparison
- Sector ESG Landscape — Best and worst ESG companies by sector
- Individual Company Cards — Detailed ESG profile per company
- Disclaimers
Data Enhancement
For live market data to support this analysis, use the FinData Toolkit skill (findata-toolkit-us). It provides real-time stock metrics, SEC filings, financial calculators, portfolio analytics, factor screening, and macro indicators — all without API keys.
Important Guidelines
- ESG ≠ charity: Responsible investing does not require sacrificing returns. Present ESG as a risk management and quality screening framework.
- Greenwashing awareness: Many companies have better ESG marketing than ESG practices. Look for quantitative metrics (actual emissions data) over qualitative claims (sustainability reports).
- Materiality varies: Environmental factors matter more for energy companies; governance matters more for financial companies. Weight pillars by sector materiality.
- Data limitations: ESG data is inconsistent across providers. Disclose data sources and limitations.
- Evolving standards: ESG frameworks are rapidly evolving. Note when standards or regulations may change.
- Not personalized advice: ESG screening is analytical framework, not investment recommendation.
