Interview scorecard template

Environmental Social Governance (ESG) Analyst interview scorecard

Evaluate Environmental Social Governance (ESG) Analyst candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical command, deals and deliverables that closed, risk judgement, and explaining it to decision-makers. Technical command leads at 35%, so check fluency with GRI, SASB, CSRD/ESRS and TCFD reporting frameworks, plus GHG Protocol Scope 1, 2 and 3 calculation methods, emission. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
finance riskcsrdesgghg protocolsustainability reporting
TL;DR
For technical command, look for evidence the candidate names specific standards and explains how double materiality assessment or Scope 3 category boundaries changed their calculations. For deals and deliverables that closed, look for evidence the candidate points to filed reports or scored questionnaires, states their exact section ownership, and cites rating or assurance outcomes. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Technical command

35% weight

Check fluency with GRI, SASB, CSRD/ESRS and TCFD reporting frameworks, plus GHG Protocol Scope 1, 2 and 3 calculation methods, emission factor sources and MSCI or Sustainalytics rating methodologies.

Evidence to listen for

  • Commands the instruments, models, or reporting standards the role turns on
  • Can build the analysis rather than only interpret someone else's
  • Knows the assumptions inside a model and which ones actually drive the answer
  • Fluent in the frameworks and disclosure regimes that apply

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain the instruments or standards they claim to work with.

2
Needs Improvement

Interprets others' analysis but cannot build or defend it.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working command; thin on unfamiliar structures or standards.

4
Very Good

Builds the analysis and knows which assumptions actually move the answer.

5
Excellent

Names specific standards and explains how double materiality assessment or Scope 3 category boundaries changed their calculations.

02
Evaluation factor

Deals and deliverables that closed

25% weight

Probe deliverables that were published: annual sustainability reports, CDP or EcoVadis submissions, limited assurance engagements, or ESG data packs used in investor due diligence.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names transactions, filings, or reports they worked, with size, counterparties, and their own scope
  • Distinguishes their contribution from the deal team's
  • Knows what happened afterwards, including what underperformed
  • Can describe one that fell over and why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No completed work; describes process rather than outcomes.

2
Needs Improvement

Involved in transactions but cannot state their own scope.

3
Satisfactory

Real deliverables with adequate ownership; outcomes described loosely.

4
Very Good

Named transactions or filings with clear personal scope and honest post-mortems.

5
Excellent

Points to filed reports or scored questionnaires, states their exact section ownership, and cites rating or assurance outcomes.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

25% weight

Assess how they treat greenwashing exposure, data gaps in supplier emissions, estimation versus primary data, and controversy screening on portfolio holdings or counterparties.

Evidence to listen for

  • Distinguishes a modelled risk from a real one
  • States confidence and what would change their view
  • Comfortable disagreeing with a number that suits everybody
  • Knows the limits of the data behind a projection, especially over long horizons

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats model output as truth; no sense of data limits.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports numbers without qualifying them; avoids unwelcome conclusions.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.

4
Very Good

States confidence unprompted and will hold an unpopular position on evidence.

5
Excellent

Flags where evidence was thin, documented assumptions and restated figures rather than defending an unsupportable number.

04
Evaluation factor

Explaining it to decision-makers

15% weight

Look for experience briefing CFOs, audit committees or investment committees, and turning messy ESG datasets into board papers, engagement letters or Power BI dashboards.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains a technical position to an investment committee, board, or regulator so they can act on it
  • Writes to the standard the audience is held to
  • Handles challenge without either caving or digging in
  • Works across legal, operations, and external counterparties

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate beyond technical peers.

2
Needs Improvement

Explanations lose the audience or oversimplify to the point of error.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate with familiar audiences; less effective under challenge.

4
Very Good

Explains clearly to committees and regulators and holds up under challenge.

5
Excellent

Translates methodology detail into financial and reputational consequences, and recalls a recommendation the committee acted on.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Environmental Social Governance (ESG) Analyst

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe your experience with ESG reporting frameworks such as GRI, SASB and TCFD?

  2. 02

    How do you assess the materiality of different ESG factors across industries?

  3. 03

    Which tools and software are you proficient in for ESG data analysis and reporting?

  4. 04

    Can you give an example where your ESG analysis led to a significant decision or change?

  5. 05

    How have you helped an organisation incorporate ESG factors into investment decisions?

See the complete Environmental Social Governance (ESG) Analyst question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards