Hi Reader,

A CSO at a major private-equity fund said something that won’t leave me:

“My pet complaint is the ‘ESG score’ investors sometimes ask for. There is no single organisation that calculates a Fund’s ESG score, but several, using different methodologies. And to my knowledge no recognised international body that vets these things. Very irritating, I just leave the question blank on surveys.”

It’s blunt, but fair and it mirrors what we see across Southern Africa every week. Just yesterday a partner of ours was also saying how their clients 'bristle' at the prevalence of scorers, or anything that looks like a score.

Here’s the tension: Scores compress living, context-rich operational change into a neat number, which is handy for screening but shaky for steering. I find that in our Souther African market - characterised by variable data quality, informal suppliers, and uneven utilities - the method differences and data gaps can swamp the signal. Without a common arbiter or clear evidentiary trail, two providers can rate the same business months apart and land miles apart. That’s not decision-useful; it’s confusing.

My take isn’t to bin scores, but to box them: use them as an initial lens —then anchor decisions in verification. Imagine a light-touch verification layer that links each claim to its data source and the activity behind it; timestamps it; and packages it so lenders, customers and boards can test “says who?” and “show me?” in one pass. You could still report a score if asked - but you wouldn’t be hostage to it.

To keep the story practical (and honest), imagine pairing verification with a maturity badge (which I wrote about last week) rather than a rank: Explorer → Pragmatic Builder → Integrator → Trailblazer.

A Trailblazer isn’t “better” because they’re bigger; they’re further integrated. We’ve seen startups sit at Trailblazer because it’s in their DNA, while large incumbents are Builders doing real, verifiable work. The badge could set expectations and keep momentum - no performative theatre, just progress in context.

Why this could work here:

1 - It reduces variance panic. Method changes or data upgrades are documented, not mysterious;

2- It shortens diligence. Your evidence travels with you into tenders, funding rounds and customer audits; and

3 - It flips ESG from a year-end scramble into a quarterly operational drumbeat. In other words, data-to-credentials, not data-to-a-number.

Tip you can use tomorrow:

Replace the DD question “What’s your ESG score?” with a two-line answer:
​“We don’t rely on a single third-party score due to methodology variance. Instead, we maintain a verified evidence pack covering [top 5 claims], each tied to sources, owners and dates; available on request.”

Then keep a one-page Evidence Register (Claim → Evidence Source → Owner & Next Check). Five claims is enough to start; review quarterly.

How are you handling the score-vs-verification debate in your business or portfolio?

What’s actually working with your lenders, customers or ICs?

Hit reply and share your approach. I’m happy to trade notes over coffee if you want to kick the tyres on a verification + badge model.