RECI does not evaluate “good intentions.” It evaluates execution readiness.
Our methodology reviews seven operational domains to understand whether an organisation has the governance, data, controls, and resourcing structures needed to deliver commitments in a repeatable, evidence-led way.
Regulatory notice: RECI is decision-support intelligence only. It is not a credit rating, ESG rating, assurance opinion, certification, or financial advice. Indicators are evidence-dependent and reflect conditions at a point in time.
How RECI differs from disclosure-led ESG scoring approaches.
| Dimension | Traditional Approaches | RECI Diagnostic |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Signal | Disclosure & policy intent (“What is stated?”) | Execution readiness (“What can be operationalised and sustained?”) |
| Evidence Type | Static documents and narrative disclosures | Controls, traceability, system linkages, and resourcing signals |
| Output Model | Composite scores or tiers based on disclosed information | Maturity indicators (L1 - L5) by pillar and overall |
Examines decision rights and accountability: board mandate, executive ownership, delegated authority, and whether responsibilities are embedded beyond communications or branding functions.
Reviews the data journey end-to-end: ownership, definitions, controls, and traceability. Distinguishes between manual workflows and system-integrated data pipelines (ERP/API) that enable repeatability.
Assesses whether funding and governance mechanisms exist to execute: ring-fenced budgets, project-level CAPEX/OPEX mapping, approvals, tracking, and control evidence for transition initiatives.
Checks whether commitments are translated into operations: SOPs, procurement logic, performance incentives, and documented workflows that connect strategy to day-to-day execution.
Reviews how climate and transition risks are identified, assessed, and governed—such as integration into risk registers, ownership, monitoring cadence, and escalation pathways.
Evaluates internal auditability: presence of documented trails, controls testing, and whether relevant metrics have been subject to internal review or external assurance engagements (where applicable).
Considers alignment to recognised, interoperable disclosure standards (e.g., GRI, SASB, ISSB) and the consistency of reporting definitions, boundaries, and methodologies over time.
Limited formalisation. Evidence is inconsistent. Execution reliability is low.
Foundational policies exist. Execution relies on manual workflows. Controls are developing.
Core processes are defined. Partial standardisation exists. Evidence may be distributed across systems.
System-linked execution. Strong governance. Traceable workflows and auditable records.
Continuous improvement culture. High traceability. Advanced analytics and proactive risk management.
Free provisional view. Outputs are evidence-dependent and intended for decision-support purposes only.
