Energy & Utilities · CH · glencore.com
A written explanation for this grade has not been published yet. The criteria below show what the score rests on.
Not material to this category
Every pillar, criterion by criterion — with the rubric level behind each score.
Serious labor concerns or repeated unresolved criticism from credible sources.
General responsible-sourcing claims without useful specifics.
Basic commitments or generic code-of-conduct statements only.
Same category, higher grade — Energy & Utilities brands that rate better than Glencore.
You represent Glencore? Corrections and new evidence are re-scored by the same methodology — write to privacy@ethica.cc
Weak or unclear external verification; mostly self-reported claims.
Major recent environmental controversy or official sanction, with poor or no credible response.
No meaningful public environmental disclosure.
No meaningful public environmental targets or improvement commitments.
No credible independent environmental evidence found.
Mixed record; some concerns exist, but they are limited, indirect, or unclear.
Some clear policy commitments exist, but they are limited in scope or detail.
Some third-party evidence exists, but it is limited or narrow.
Almost no meaningful ethics, governance, or sustainability disclosure.
Major recent regulatory or privacy issue or sanction, with poor or no credible response.
No meaningful public due-diligence or ethics policies found.
No meaningful response to major issues, or clearly inadequate handling.
The grade says what the evidence shows; this says how much evidence stands behind it — five weighted dimensions.
A guardrail capped confidence at 65/100 — the evidence base is too thin or one-sided to score higher.