Current Scope
- Shipowners, ship managers and DOC holders.
- Vessel operators and charterers where data is available.
- Vessel-level evidence supporting the corporate rating.
Methodology / Public Overview
VS Maritime ESG Rating Methodology
The methodology evaluates maritime companies using vessel and fleet evidence through Double Materiality, regulatory compliance evidence, operational ESG performance, data validation and rating committee review.
Future Product Scope
- Marine suppliers and service providers.
- Ports, terminals, shipyards and recycling facilities.
- Standalone vessel ratings and rankings, subject to separate product approval.
Rating Process
Ten-step methodology workflow
This summary highlights the evidence and oversight controls used in the public maritime ESG rating methodology. Ratings are generally reviewed annually, with event-driven reviews for major regulatory actions, environmental incidents, safety events, governance failures or material ESG controversies.
1Company Registration
2Materiality
3Question Selection
4Data Collection
5Evidence
6Evidence Check
7Scoring
8E/S/G
9Overall Rating
10Rating Report
Committee Review and quality controls
Analyst review, four-eyes checks, conflict-of-interest controls, quality assurance and ESG Rating Function oversight operate across the workflow. Factual review addresses errors in evidence and does not permit negotiation of rating outcomes.
Regulatory Foundation
Maritime rules integrated into the ESG risk universe
Environmental / 45%
EU MRV, EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime, MARPOL, IMO DCS, EEXI, CII, Ballast Water Management, EU Ship Recycling Regulation and Hong Kong Convention.
Social / 25%
Maritime Labour Convention 2006, STCW Convention, SOLAS and evidence of crew training, safety, welfare and labour-rights controls.
Governance / 30%
ISM Code, ISPS Code, GDPR, NIS2, CSRD, ESRS, CSDDD where applicable, anti-bribery controls and supply chain due diligence.
Scoring Architecture
Four evidence dimensions support every material topic.
The methodology combines absolute compliance expectations with peer-sensitive maritime performance. Exposure determines which topics apply and how the context is interpreted; it is not treated as a reward by itself.
Management system
Policies, procedures, accountable roles, control activities and training connected to the vessels in scope.
Compliance evidence
Valid, complete and traceable certificates, reports, audit records, regulatory filings and supporting documentation.
Performance outcomes
Measured outcomes and trends, including emissions intensity, incidents, injuries, detentions and corrective action performance.
Data reliability
Timeliness, completeness, traceability, consistency and the extent to which evidence is verified or independently supportable.
Material controversies, missing evidence and data limitations are considered separately in the rating rationale and may constrain the final assessment.
Topic Weights
Environmental, Social and Governance topics are weighted inside each pillar.
The pillar scores are aggregated using the published E/S/G pillar weights. Topic applicability may vary by company role, vessel type, operating area, fleet mix and available evidence.
Environmental topics
| GHG emissions, carbon intensity and climate transition | 30% |
|---|---|
| Energy efficiency and alternative fuel readiness | 15% |
| Air pollution control | 15% |
| Marine pollution prevention | 15% |
| Ballast water and biodiversity | 10% |
| Waste management and port reception | 7.5% |
| Hazardous materials, IHM and ship recycling | 7.5% |
Social topics
| Seafarer labour rights and working conditions | 30% |
|---|---|
| Occupational health and safety onboard | 30% |
| Crew competence, training and certification | 20% |
| Human rights and crew welfare | 15% |
| Diversity, inclusion and workforce development | 5% |
Governance topics
| Safety management and regulatory compliance | 25% |
|---|---|
| Product, equipment safety and quality | 15% |
| Maritime security | 10% |
| Cybersecurity and digital resilience | 12.5% |
| Business ethics, anti-bribery and sanctions | 12.5% |
| Data protection and privacy | 7.5% |
| Supply chain and human rights due diligence | 10% |
| ESG disclosure and governance | 7.5% |
Data Sources
- Sustainability and annual reports.
- Company policies, public disclosures and regulatory filings.
- Verified emissions reports and maritime databases.
- Classification society records and rated-entity information.
Governance Arrangements
- Rating committee oversight.
- Methodology governance and review process.
- Conflict of interest management.
- Quality assurance procedures and internal controls.
Transparency under Regulation (EU) 2024/3005
This portal publishes methodology, governance, scope and disclaimers for the ESG rating activity. It should not be read as a credit rating, investment advice or a substitute for statutory certification, legal due diligence or technical vessel assessment.
Evidence Quality
Traceability affects the confidence of every conclusion.
Evidence is checked before scoring. Accepted estimates, proxies and limitations must be classified, documented and reflected in the rating rationale.
1
Verified statutory and regulatory evidence
Highest reliability when validity, scope and reporting period can be checked.
2
Independent verification and audit evidence
Class survey, audit, laboratory, insurance or assurance records with traceable scope.
3
Company internal records
Safety-management, training, maintenance, incident and policy records checked for consistency.
4
Public disclosures and official records
Public reports and databases used for cross-checking and context.
5
Unsupported self-reports
Limited reliability where statements are not backed by dated, traceable evidence.
6
Estimates and proxies
Used only where necessary, disclosed with assumptions and treated with uncertainty.
Review, Reporting and Independence
Ratings are reviewed, evidenced and controlled.
Annual and event review
Annual full review is expected on a 12-month cycle. Event-driven review may be triggered by material incidents, detentions, fatalities, pollution, cyber events, sanctions, major regulatory breaches or significant fleet changes.
Rating report content
Reports include the overall rating, separate E/S/G scores, topic-level observations, rating band, rationale, strengths, gaps, evidence limitations, assumptions and material controversies where applicable.
Human oversight
Final rating responsibility remains with human reviewers. Technology may assist evidence handling and consistency checks, but methodology judgement and rating approval remain subject to controlled review.
Independence and factual review
Commercial activity is separated from methodology judgement and rating approval. Rated entities may identify factual errors, but the process does not permit negotiation of rating outcomes.