esg-source-authority-review

name	esg-source-authority-review
description	Score ESG source credibility across 5 dimensions (institutional, regulatory, methodological, timeliness, independence). Use when the user asks to evaluate, audit, or score ESG sources or domains.
compatibility	opencode
metadata	{"role":"analyst","implementer":"opencode"}

Purpose

Score the authority and credibility of ESG information sources across five weighted dimensions:

Dimension	Weight	Description
institutional_standing	0.25	Recognized standing of the publishing organization
regulatory_mandate	0.25	Whether the source has formal regulatory or standard-setting authority
methodological_rigour	0.20	Transparency and reproducibility of methods/data
timeliness	0.15	How current the content is relative to the fast-moving ESG landscape
independence	0.15	Freedom from conflicts of interest; funding transparency

Trigger Conditions

• User asks to evaluate, audit, or score an ESG source or domain
• User asks "how credible is [source]?"
• User asks to compare authority between two or more sources
• Content review workflows needing source credibility validation

Required MCP Tools

• list_esg_resources — search the curated external resource list by domain
• get_esg_page — retrieve a KB page to assess its source citations

Input Schema

{
  "source": {
    "type": "string",
    "description": "Source name, domain (e.g., 'globalreporting.org'), or ESG Hub page permalink to evaluate."
  },
  "source_type": {
    "type": "string",
    "enum": ["domain", "page_permalink", "page_id"],
    "description": "How to interpret the source value."
  },
  "context": {
    "type": "string",
    "description": "Optional: what the source is being used for (e.g., 'regulatory compliance', 'investment research')."
  }
}

Output Schema

{
  "source": {
    "type": "string",
    "description": "The evaluated source."
  },
  "source_type": {
    "type": "string",
    "description": "Resolved source type (domain, kb_page, etc.)."
  },
  "overall_score": {
    "type": "number",
    "description": "Weighted composite authority score (0–100).",
    "minimum": 0,
    "maximum": 100
  },
  "tier": {
    "type": "string",
    "enum": ["A", "B", "C", "D"],
    "description": "Tier rating: A (≥80), B (60–79), C (40–59), D (<40)."
  },
  "dimension_scores": {
    "type": "object",
    "properties": {
      "institutional_standing": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "score": { "type": "number" },
          "rationale": { "type": "string" }
        }
      },
      "regulatory_mandate": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "score": { "type": "number" },
          "rationale": { "type": "string" }
        }
      },
      "methodological_rigour": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "score": { "type": "number" },
          "rationale": { "type": "string" }
        }
      },
      "timeliness": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "score": { "type": "number" },
          "rationale": { "type": "string" }
        }
      },
      "independence": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "score": { "type": "number" },
          "rationale": { "type": "string" }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "recommendations": {
    "type": "array",
    "items": { "type": "string" },
    "description": "Actionable recommendations for source usage or improvement."
  },
  "comparable_sources": {
    "type": "array",
    "items": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "name": { "type": "string" },
        "domain": { "type": "string" },
        "tier": { "type": "string" }
      }
    },
    "description": "Known comparable sources from the ESG Hub for context."
  }
}

Procedure

1. Resolve the source: if it is a page permalink, call get_esg_page to retrieve its content and extract cited sources/domains.
2. If a domain, call list_esg_resources(domain=<source>) to find whether the domain appears in the curated resource list and gather metadata.
3. Score each dimension on a 0–100 scale:
   • institutional_standing: 90+ for UN bodies, ISO, IASB; 70–89 for established NGOs (GRI, CDP, WRI); 50–69 for industry bodies; <50 for unverified/unknown entities.
   • regulatory_mandate: 90+ for legislated bodies (EU Commission, SEC); 70–89 for standards with regulatory adoption (ISSB, ESRS); 50–69 for voluntary frameworks; <50 for non-binding guidance.
   • methodological_rigour: Assess based on publicly documented methodology, peer review, data provenance, reproducibility.
   • timeliness: Content updated within 12 months = 90+; 1–2 years = 70–89; 2–5 years = 50–69; >5 years = <50.
   • independence: Fully independent non-profit or intergovernmental = 90+; industry-funded with transparent governance = 70–89; opaque funding = 50–69; known conflicts = <50.
4. Compute weighted composite score.
5. Assign tier rating.
6. Provide recommendations and comparable sources.

Worked Example: Score authority for globalreporting.org

User request: "Evaluate the authority of globalreporting.org as an ESG source."

Step 1 — Resolve source

list_esg_resources(domain="globalreporting.org")

Returns: GRI Standards — the most widely used sustainability reporting framework globally.

Step 2–3 — Score dimensions

Dimension	Score	Rationale
institutional_standing	90	GRI is the longest-standing global sustainability reporting body (founded 1997). Recognized by the UN, OECD, and EU. Used by 10,000+ organizations in 100+ countries.
regulatory_mandate	75	GRI is a voluntary framework, not legislated. However, it is referenced by mandatory regulations (CSRD, EU Taxonomy) and is the de facto reporting baseline. One notch below ISSB/ESRS due to lack of direct regulatory mandate.
methodological_rigour	85	GRI Standards undergo a formal due process with multi-stakeholder working groups, public comment periods, and a Global Sustainability Standards Board (GSSB). Methods are publicly documented.
timeliness	80	GRI Universal Standards updated 2023; Sector Standards rolling out through 2024–2026. Content is current but sector coverage is incomplete.
independence	85	Independent non-profit foundation. Transparent governance via stakeholder council, due process oversight committee. Funding from diverse sources (governments, foundations, corporate donors) with public disclosure.

Step 4–5 — Compute and tier

Composite = (90×0.25) + (75×0.25) + (85×0.20) + (80×0.15) + (85×0.15)
         = 22.5 + 18.75 + 17.0 + 12.0 + 12.75
         = 83.0
Tier: A

Step 6 — Full output

{
  "source": "globalreporting.org",
  "source_type": "domain",
  "overall_score": 83.0,
  "tier": "A",
  "dimension_scores": {
    "institutional_standing": {
      "score": 90,
      "rationale": "GRI is the longest-standing global sustainability reporting body (founded 1997), recognized by the UN, OECD, and EU. Used by 10,000+ organizations across 100+ countries."
    },
    "regulatory_mandate": {
      "score": 75,
      "rationale": "Voluntary framework, but referenced by mandatory regulations (CSRD, EU Taxonomy). De facto global baseline for sustainability reporting, though one tier below legislated bodies."
    },
    "methodological_rigour": {
      "score": 85,
      "rationale": "Formal due process with multi-stakeholder working groups, public comment periods, and independent GSSB oversight. Transparent documented methodology."
    },
    "timeliness": {
      "score": 80,
      "rationale": "Universal Standards updated 2023. Sector Standards rolling out through 2026. Current but sector coverage is still expanding."
    },
    "independence": {
      "score": 85,
      "rationale": "Independent non-profit with diverse funding (governments, foundations, corporate donors). Public governance transparency via stakeholder council and due process oversight."
    }
  },
  "recommendations": [
    "GRI Standards are suitable as a primary reference for sustainability reporting methodology.",
    "For regulatory compliance within the EU, pair GRI with ESRS (which references GRI impact materiality).",
    "Monitor GRI-ISSB interoperability guidance as the two frameworks converge on key topics."
  ],
  "comparable_sources": [
    { "name": "IFRS/ISSB", "domain": "ifrs.org", "tier": "A" },
    { "name": "EFRAG/ESRS", "domain": "efrag.org", "tier": "A" },
    { "name": "CDP", "domain": "cdp.net", "tier": "A" },
    { "name": "SASB", "domain": "sasb.org", "tier": "B" }
  ]
}

Notes

• The institutional_standing score should factor in longevity, global adoption, and recognition by other authoritative bodies.
• regulatory_mandate is weighted equally to institutional_standing (0.25 each) because regulatory authority is the strongest signal of credibility in ESG.
• When scoring KB pages, the authority of the page's cited sources should be factored into the page's own scores.
• If the source is not found in list_esg_resources, use search_esg to check for any KB page references to the domain, then score based on publicly available information about the organization.
• Tier A sources should be suitable for regulatory filings and investment decisions. Tier B for research and benchmarking. Tier C for general awareness. Tier D should carry a warning.