Most ESG screening runs on data the company reported about itself.

Around 80% of fund screening relies on self-reported disclosure, and the largest part of any electronics footprint, Scope 3, is usually estimated rather than measured. We cross-reference what a company says against supply chain evidence, so a rating has something underneath it.

What the rating is usually built on

None of this is fraud. It is a measurement gap that everyone in the chain has quietly agreed to work around.

Self-reported inputs
80% of ESG fund screening draws on data companies produced about themselves, with no independent verification step.
The estimated majority
Scope 3 is 70–90% of the footprint and is modelled from spend or averages, not measured at the supplier.
Green bonds
Frequently issued without independent verification of the environmental claim attached to the proceeds.
Peer benchmarking
Comparing one company's claims against another company's claims produces a ranking, not a measurement.

What we check it against

Evidence from the same fieldwork that Consulting and Tech produce, applied to a portfolio rather than to a single client.

Scope 3 exposure

Measured supply chain emissions rather than modelled ones, drawn from mapping work at the supplier tier. Where a measurement does not exist we say so rather than substituting an average.

Mining and biodiversity risk

Cobalt from the DRC, lithium from Chile, rare earths from China. The environmental and social exposure sitting in a portfolio's upstream, mapped to specific extraction sites.

mobicycle.space

Circular economy metrics

Recycled content, take-back rates, product longevity. These separate companies doing the work from companies describing it, and they are hard to overstate because they are observable.

Claim-to-evidence comparison

Where a disclosure and the supply chain data diverge, and by how much. Usually the gap is a reporting boundary rather than an intent to mislead, which is worth knowing before you act on it.

How the output looks

Company-level scoring with the environmental, social, and governance components separated, plus sector trend.

Sample view. The figures below are illustrative, to show the shape of the output. Live ratings are produced per engagement and are not published here.

CompanySectorESGESGRating
UmicoreMaterials78827180A−
Li-CycleRecycling81887479A
Samsung SDIElectronics65616867B+
BolidenMining58526360B
CATLBatteries44384846C

Where the sectors stand

Direction of travel matters more than the level. A low score improving fast is a different investment case from a high score standing still.

Recycling & circular
Highest scores in the sector. Urban mining, precious metal recovery, closed-loop systems, with regulatory tailwinds from WEEE and EPR. Improving
Battery & storage
Lithium-ion chains under scrutiny. Cobalt sourcing, recycled content targets, and Battery Regulation compliance are all pushing performance up quickly. Improving
Semiconductor
Water use, PFC emissions, rare earth dependency. Strong on Scope 1 and 2; Scope 3 remains largely unmeasured. Flat
Consumer electronics
Large Scope 3 footprints from long global chains. Right-to-repair and take-back obligations are adding real compliance cost, which will show up in the numbers before it shows up in the reporting.

Who uses this

Fund managers screening portfolios for performance rather than disclosure quality.

Impact investors measuring outcomes instead of commitments.

Green bond issuers who want the claim independently checked before it is challenged.

Family offices operating under a sustainability mandate.

Analysts covering electronics supply chains who need the upstream picture.

Run an analysis

Describe the holding or the screening question. You get a read on what the disclosure supports, and where it needs independent evidence.

Assessment

mobicycle.capital/api/assess
Working through it
Runs on Workers AI. Nothing is stored.