Environmental

SHG’s environmental profile appears broadly neutral versus peers because the provided metrics contain no direct emissions, energy, or water intensity data to evidence a clear advantage.

The absence of disclosed R&D spend relative to revenue limits visibility into transition-oriented investment, leaving SHG less demonstrably prepared than peers with explicit climate-capex disclosure.

No environmental controversy or high-intensity operating metric is provided, which avoids a clear peer disadvantage, but also prevents SHG from ranking above better-disclosed banks.

Social

SHG’s social positioning is supported by the lack of any provided labor, safety, or customer-misconduct indicators, reducing evidence of peer-level social weakness.

The negative stock-based compensation ratio suggests limited dilution pressure, which can align with more disciplined stakeholder treatment than peers with heavier equity-based pay.

However, the dataset does not include workforce, inclusion, or conduct metrics, so SHG cannot be assessed as structurally stronger than peers on social execution.

Governance

SHG’s governance profile is relatively strong because the provided leverage metrics show no immediate sign of excessive balance-sheet risk versus peers, despite elevated debt ratios.

The very low stock-based compensation to revenue indicates restrained equity dilution, which is typically more shareholder-aligned than peers with heavier compensation issuance.

A high debt-to-equity ratio and net debt-to-EBITDA level temper the score, but they do not by themselves indicate weaker governance than similarly leveraged peers.

Overall Score

SHG screens as a moderate ESG name versus peers, with governance relatively stronger than environmental disclosure and social evidence, which remain limited in the provided data.

Score Driver: Governance Is The Main Support, Driven By Restrained Stock-Based Compensation And No Clear Peer-Level Governance Failure In The Supplied Metrics.