SPOTT provides assessments of palm oil producers and traders and timber and pulp producers on the public disclosure of their policies, operations and commitments to environmental, social and governance (ESG) best practice.

The primary aim of SPOTT assessments is to provide a measure of a company’s transparency as it relates to ESG risks.

ZSL defines transparent information as information communicated by a company via publicly available materials that are freely and readily accessible to all stakeholders. ZSL considers transparency to be a vital first step towards sustainability.

SPOTT scores companies across three colour-coded bands:

  1. lower transparency (< 33%; red)
  2. moderate transparency (33-66%; amber)
  3. higher transparency (> 66%; green)
  • Transparency
    score ranges:
  • lower
    < 33%
  • moderate
  • higher
    > 66%

A higher score on SPOTT (i.e. > 66%) indicates that the company is being relatively transparent about their operations, policies and commitments to ESG best practice. Some SPOTT indicators also consider the quality of policies and commitments, with higher scores awarded for more comprehensive policies.

If a company scores > 66% in its SPOTT assessment, this does not mean the company is itself “green” in an environmentally responsible sense – just that it is being more transparent on ESG issues than the other companies assessed.

We encourage all companies – not just those featured on SPOTT – to make their sustainability policies and commitments publicly available. Without such transparency it is impossible for third parties to evaluate their content, and thus, assess ESG risks or hold companies accountable. SPOTT also encourages companies to regularly report on their progress towards meeting their commitments.

However, a high level of company transparency does not necessarily mean that a company is sustainable in terms of its impacts on the ground. As such, SPOTT does not directly assess the implementation of policies and commitments. While SPOTT includes some indicators focused on companies self-reporting progress against targets (e.g. water intensity of operations), it is primarily focused on the existence and availability of public policies and commitments.  

We urge SPOTT users to perform wider due diligence on companies, using SPOTT as the starting point. Such due diligence activities could include:

  • Direct engagement with companies on missing commitments, and/or whether existing commitments are being implemented on the ground and in line with time-bound plans. SPOTT assessments can be used to identify existing commitments – including self-reporting of progress against certain policies and commitments – and to identify gaps in company policy frameworks and reporting.
  • Review of the SPOTT media monitor, which gathers reports and stories from global media sources, covering specific company activities related to SPOTT indicator categories. The media monitor appears below the latest assessment on individual company pages.
  • Review of research reports and investigations by civil society on the impacts of company (own and supplier) operations. When applicable, review SPOTT scores, media stories and reports for the companies’ suppliers.
  • Inspection of external audit reports to identify areas of non-compliance, which may include second-party audit reports (usually conducted by consultants), and independent third-party audit reports of certification schemes (e.g. FSC, RSPO).
  • Consideration of available spatial data to identify environmental risks associated with company operations (e.g. fire, deforestation, proximity of protected areas).

Non-genuine score changes

SPOTT assessments rely on publicly available information. Though we take every care to capture all available information, there may be instances where we discover new information or reassess data, resulting in a non-genuine* change to a company’s score. Providing reasons for these changes helps users to identify when a company is genuinely improving:

Genuine reasons:

  • New information publicly disclosed by the company
  • Clarifications made by the company through the engagement and feedback process since the previous assessment
  • Information that was publicly available is no longer accessible during the assessment period

Non-genuine reasons:

  • Information missed but publicly available during the previous assessment period
  • Reassessment of information originally provided by the company
  • Correction of indicator framework and/or scoring criteria since the previous assessment

To track trends and score changes between assessments in more detail, visit the SPOTT Dashboard.

*based on a methodology originally developed for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.

Please read our FAQs or contact us if you have further questions.