Fifty-eight out of 140 companies included in the WIG20, mWIG40 and sWIG80 indices have no ESG rating at all, according to the “Artha ESG Rating Monitor 2026”. In practice, this means that 41% of the largest issuers listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange remain outside the systematic picture created by global rating agencies — a picture used by investors, banks and counterparties in supply chains. The largest companies are assessed most frequently: in the WIG20, every company has an external ESG rating; in the mWIG40, almost 90% do; while in the sWIG80, only one third of companies are rated.
The report by Artha Consulting Network is the first study in Poland to examine ESG rating coverage of 140 companies from the main WSE indices by five leading agencies: S&P Global, MSCI, CDP, EcoVadis and Sustainalytics. The authors of the report emphasise that an ESG rating is becoming not only an element of corporate communication, but also a tool for building credibility with the financial market and business partners.
“Ratings examine and verify how companies are dealing with ESG goals, decarbonisation targets and social objectives. For the first time on the Polish market, we decided to assess 140 companies and see how they are evaluated through the eyes of external rating agencies,” Irena Pichola, CEO of Artha Consulting Network, told the Newseria news agency. “The study shows that 41% of the 140 companies effectively have no external assessment. It could be said that they are invisible to investors, banks and people interested in investing in these companies. At the same time, two companies achieved the highest scores from the majority of the rating agencies we examined. So we have leaders, strong polarisation and a large area for improvement, but also examples to draw inspiration from.”
In total, 82 of the 140 companies analysed, or 59% of the market covered by the study, have at least one ESG rating. The report shows that rating coverage is strongly linked to company size.
“In the WIG20, every company has at least one ESG rating; in the mWIG40, eight out of ten companies do; while in the sWIG80, as many as 53 out of 80 companies have no such rating,” says Maciej Orczyk, ESG manager at Artha Consulting Network.
As he explains, these differences result from pressure exerted by different groups of stakeholders. The larger the company, the greater the interest from institutional investors, banks, rating agencies and counterparties from global supply chains. In the case of smaller issuers, the pressure is weaker, although EcoVadis plays a particularly important role in this group. This rating is used primarily to assess risk in the value chain and focuses on suppliers of large market players.
The authors of the report point out that the absence of a rating does not automatically mean poor ESG performance. However, it may indicate a lack of visibility in systems that increasingly underpin investment, lending and purchasing decisions. For a listed company, this may have not only reputational but also business consequences.
“There are three main consequences of not having an ESG rating. The first is limited transparency towards financial institutions. Banks and investors highly value ESG ratings and use them in credit analyses, as well as in structuring financing,” says Maciej Orczyk. “The second consequence is limited visibility in the value chain. Large companies with ambitious climate goals expect their suppliers to have such ratings, especially EcoVadis. The absence of such an assessment may make business relations with foreign partners more difficult.”
The third risk is the possibility of receiving an unsolicited rating, prepared by an agency on the basis of publicly available data. The report presentation indicates that MSCI and Sustainalytics may publish assessments without consulting the company, which means that an enterprise may be rated before it has prepared the appropriate communication and data itself.
An important conclusion from the “Artha ESG Rating Monitor 2026” is also the divergence between ratings issued by different agencies. As the authors of the publication emphasise, this does not necessarily indicate flaws in the system, but rather different methodologies and different audiences for the ratings. MSCI and S&P Global focus primarily on the perspective of institutional investors and financial risks related to ESG. Sustainalytics compares ESG risk in a way that allows companies from different sectors to be assessed against one another. CDP focuses on environmental impact, including climate, water and deforestation. EcoVadis, meanwhile, is particularly important for procurement departments and large companies analysing supply chain risks.
“Each of these agencies speaks, in a sense, a different language and addresses a different audience. That is why the choice of rating should depend on who our target group is, what our strengths are and what matters to us,” explains Irena Pichola. “A company should understand what is important to the target group for whom a given rating is intended and then review its policies, strategies and objectives in these areas. This makes it easier to obtain a rating or improve it.”
The importance of ESG ratings will also increase due to regulatory changes. From 2 July 2026, EU Regulation 2024/3005 on the transparency and integrity of the market for sustainability rating services will begin to apply.
“The regulation will organise the functioning of rating agencies in Europe. Every institution that assigns such ratings will have to be authorised by ESMA, the European Securities and Markets Authority. Ratings will have to be presented separately for each of the three pillars: environment, society and corporate governance. If they are presented in an aggregated form, the agency will have to show very transparently how the results are aggregated,” explains Maciej Orczyk.
The approach to an ESG rating should not begin with filling out a questionnaire. According to experts, a well-prepared company works on the process for several months. The key stages include diagnosing the current situation and stakeholder needs, mapping the methodology of the selected agency, auditing data and gaps, completing the questionnaire and planning how to communicate the result to the management board, investors, banks and business partners.
“Expectations will differ depending on whether we are talking about investors or the value chain. The next step should be to understand the methodology of a given rating and analyse how European leaders perform under it. Only after identifying gaps is it worth planning a strategy to close them and proceeding with the assessment,” stresses the ESG manager at Artha Consulting Network.
Experts indicate that an ESG rating is increasingly ceasing to be merely an external assessment and is becoming part of managing relations with the market. For some companies, it will be a tool for communicating with investors; for others, a condition for participation in global supply chains. For all of them, however, it means the need for greater transparency and better management of ESG data.
