How the ESG rating landscape is shifting in 2026 — MSCI's model update, the withdrawal of public score databases, and consolidation among the agencies.
Introduction
If managing ESG ratings feels like aiming at a moving target, that is because it is. In 2026 the rating landscape is shifting on every axis at once — methodologies, access, ownership and regulation. For GCC companies whose ratings matter to investors and buyers, understanding the direction of travel is as important as understanding any single score. This article maps the changes. It builds on our overview of the main ESG raters.
What’s changing
Four shifts are reshaping the landscape simultaneously:
| Shift | What is happening |
|---|---|
| Methodology updates | MSCI updating its model — tougher top ratings, more stability |
| Reduced free access | Some agencies withdrew public ESG score databases |
| Regulation | The EU ESG Ratings Regulation brings ESMA supervision |
| Consolidation | Partnerships and acquisitions among raters and data providers |
Each is significant; together they amount to a market in active transition.
Methodology updates
Rating agencies routinely revise their methodologies, but the effects ripple. MSCI announced a model update aimed at raising the requirements for funds to achieve the top ratings (such as AA and AAA) and at improving stability. The point that matters for companies: your rating can change even when your underlying performance does not, simply because the model changed beneath you.
The transparency paradox
A curious tension defines 2026. On one hand, regulation (the EU ESG Ratings Regulation) is pushing for more methodological transparency. On the other, some raters withdrew their public score databases in 2025, putting scores that were once freely visible behind paywalls. The market is becoming more transparent about how ratings are made and less transparent about what the scores are.
The methodologies will keep moving. The companies that thrive are those building real performance, not those chasing the model of the moment.
Consolidation
The industry is also consolidating — through partnerships (such as ratings and data tie-ups between major financial-information providers) and acquisitions. Over time this may reduce rating divergence somewhat, but it also concentrates influence in fewer hands. For rated companies, it reinforces the case for engaging deliberately with the raters that matter most.
How ESGweise helps
ESGweise helps GCC companies navigate the shifting rating landscape — tracking methodology changes, focusing on durable performance and disclosure, and engaging with the raters that drive their commercial outcomes. See our ESG Rating Improvement practice and our guide to improving your ESG rating.
Conclusion
The ESG rating landscape in 2026 is in flux — methodologies tightening, free access shrinking, regulation arriving, and agencies consolidating. For GCC companies, the lesson is to aim at genuine, durable performance rather than a moving methodological target. The scores will keep shifting; real substance is what survives the change.
Frequently asked questions
What is changing in ESG ratings in 2026?
Several things at once: methodologies are being updated (MSCI announced a model update raising the requirements for top fund ratings and improving stability), some agencies withdrew their public ESG score databases (reducing free access), regulation is arriving (the EU ESG Ratings Regulation brings ESMA supervision), and the industry is consolidating through partnerships and acquisitions. The landscape is in active flux.
Why did MSCI update its ESG ratings model?
MSCI announced changes aimed at raising the requirements for a fund to achieve the highest ratings (such as AA or AAA) and improving the stability of ratings over time. Methodology updates like this are routine for raters, but they matter to rated entities because a company's or fund's rating can change even if its underlying performance does not.
What does the withdrawal of public ESG score databases mean?
In 2025, some major raters removed their free public ESG score databases, meaning company ESG scores that were previously visible to anyone are now available mainly to paying clients. For rated companies and the public, this reduces transparency and free access to ratings, even as regulation pushes for more methodological transparency — a notable tension in the market.
How should companies respond to a shifting rating landscape?
By focusing on genuine, durable ESG performance and disclosure rather than chasing a moving target. Methodologies will keep changing, so the resilient strategy is to build real performance and transparent disclosure that holds up across model updates, rather than optimising to the specifics of any single methodology that may change next year.