What makes ISR credible in a professional context
Credibility comes from a controlled process that can be explained, repeated, and reviewed. It is less about “intent” and more about evidence and governance.
What institutional stakeholders actually evaluate
| Methodology | Definitions, criteria, thresholds, and how judgement is documented. |
|---|---|
| Monitoring | Cadence, triggers, controversy handling, and escalation (including exit logic). |
| Governance | Roles, responsibility layers, conflicts management, and oversight routines. |
| Transparency | Access to policies and stable vocabulary aligned with disclosures and reporting expectations. |
Information that signals seriousness and governance
Stable definitions
Terms are used consistently over time; changes are explicit and documented.
Traceable decisions
Decisions cite evidence sources and are recorded with dates and rationale.
Monitoring discipline
Periodic + event-driven reviews; controversies are handled with escalation, not with messaging.
Governance clarity
Responsibility layers and controls are clear; conflicts are treated as governance events.
ESG clichés and anti-patterns to avoid
In a professional ISR context, the following often reads as weak signal:
- Nature-metaphor visuals used as proof (“leaves”, “hands”, “planet” stock imagery).
- Generic future promises (“invest for a better future”) without evidence or a reporting structure.
- Emotional framing that replaces definitions and controls.
- Performance-led ISR claims.
Practical test: if the page can’t be used as a reference in a due diligence file, it’s likely too narrative.