Environmental

Zero reported R&D intensity suggests limited innovation investment, which can lag peers on product efficiency and lower-carbon transition readiness over 2–5 years.

Moderate leverage at 0.44 debt-to-equity indicates manageable balance-sheet pressure, but peers with stronger capital flexibility may fund environmental upgrades more easily.

Low net debt to EBITDA at 0.37 supports operational resilience, yet it does not by itself indicate superior environmental disclosure or emissions performance versus peers.

No provided evidence on emissions, energy use, or waste limits confidence in an above-peer environmental assessment, leaving positioning broadly in line with mid-tier peers.

Social

Stock-based compensation at 0.45% of revenue indicates limited dilution pressure, which can support employee alignment, though peer comparison on retention remains unclear.

Absence of disclosed workforce, safety, or customer-impact metrics limits evidence of stronger social management versus peers, keeping the profile near the middle of the pack.

Moderate leverage reduces near-term financial strain, which can indirectly support employee and stakeholder stability, but this is not a direct social differentiator versus peers.

No provided data on diversity, turnover, or labor practices prevents a stronger relative social score, as peer leaders typically disclose more comprehensive metrics.

Governance

Low stock-based compensation at 0.45% of revenue suggests restrained equity dilution, which is generally more shareholder-aligned than peers with heavier compensation loads.

Moderate debt-to-equity of 0.44 indicates neither aggressive leverage nor exceptional conservatism, leaving governance quality broadly average relative to peers.

Zero reported R&D spend may reflect disciplined capital allocation, but without board or audit disclosures it does not establish stronger governance than peers.

Limited disclosed governance indicators constrain confidence in a top-tier assessment, so the profile appears modestly better than average rather than clearly leading.

Overall Score

KRT appears broadly mid-pack versus peers because leverage and compensation discipline are acceptable, but limited ESG disclosure prevents a stronger relative assessment.

Score Driver: Limited ESG Disclosure Across Environmental And Social Metrics Is The Main Constraint On A Stronger Peer-Relative Score.