Skip to main content
The Three Letters

Norms-Based Screening: UN Standards in ESG Portfolios

Pomegra Learn

How Does Norms-Based ESG Screening Work?

Norms-based screening is the third major exclusion approach in ESG investing, distinct from both sector-based negative screening (excluding industries) and best-in-class positive screening (selecting top performers within sectors). Norms-based screening focuses on conduct: companies that have committed serious, unresolved violations of internationally recognized standards for responsible business behavior are excluded regardless of their industry or sector ESG score. A well-governed mining company can fail a norms-based screen; a well-managed arms manufacturer can pass one.

Quick definition: Norms-based screening excludes companies in serious, ongoing violation of international standards — primarily the UN Global Compact, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and ILO core labor conventions — rather than excluding entire industries. It focuses on conduct rather than sector membership.

Key takeaways​

  • Norms-based screening is the dominant ESG exclusion methodology in Northern European institutional investing, particularly in Scandinavia.
  • The three primary normative frameworks used are the UN Global Compact (10 principles on human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and ILO fundamental labor conventions.
  • In practice, norms-based screening is applied through ESG data providers (Sustainalytics, ISS ESG, MSCI) who monitor companies for violations and categorize severity.
  • Companies at risk of exclusion typically receive engagement first; exclusion follows if engagement fails to produce credible remediation.
  • The approach differs from sector exclusion because a company's industry does not determine its norms-screen status — its conduct does.

The Three Normative Frameworks​

UN Global Compact (UNGC): The 10 UNGC principles (see Chapter 1) cover human rights (support and respect), labor (freedom of association, no forced labor, no child labor, non-discrimination), environment (precaution, responsibility, technology diffusion), and anti-corruption (work against corruption in all forms). Norms-based screening identifies companies in "clear violation" of these principles based on documented conduct, not on whether the company has signed the Compact.

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: The OECD Guidelines provide more detailed conduct standards for companies operating across national borders, covering disclosure, human rights, employment and industrial relations, environment, combating bribery, consumer interests, science and technology, competition, and taxation. The Guidelines have a binding dispute-resolution mechanism: governments that have endorsed the Guidelines must establish National Contact Points to handle complaints from stakeholders affected by multinational conduct.

ILO Fundamental Conventions: The ILO's eight fundamental conventions (now effectively four categories under the 1998 Declaration) cover freedom of association and collective bargaining, elimination of forced or compulsory labor, abolition of child labor, and elimination of discrimination in employment. Violations of these conventions — documented through ILO monitoring, NGO investigation, or regulatory action — can trigger norms-based exclusion flags.

How Norms-Based Screening Is Implemented​

In practice, norms-based screening is operationalized through ESG data providers that continuously monitor company conduct against the relevant normative frameworks:

Controversy monitoring: Providers including Sustainalytics, RepRisk, ISS ESG, and MSCI track media coverage, NGO reports, regulatory filings, and litigation records for events that suggest potential norms violations. A pattern of forced-labor allegations against a company's supply chain, documented corruption convictions, or significant environmental spill events would all trigger controversy flags.

Severity assessment: Not every controversy constitutes a norms violation sufficient for exclusion. Providers assess severity on dimensions including: severity of the alleged harm; credibility of the evidence; the company's own acknowledgment or denial; whether the violation is ongoing or remediated; and whether the violation is systematic or isolated.

Clear violation categorization: The most serious norms violations — typically those characterized by systematic, ongoing, and unresolved harm to people or environment — are categorized as "clear violations" or equivalent. Companies in this category are typically flagged as norms-screen exclusion candidates.

Norms screening process​

Engagement Before Exclusion​

Most institutional norms-based screening frameworks include an engagement phase before exclusion. When a significant norms concern is identified, the investor (or a coalition of investors) contacts the company to:

  • Communicate the specific concern and normative standard implicated
  • Request information about the company's knowledge of and response to the issue
  • Ask for a credible remediation plan with timeline and accountability
  • Monitor progress against commitments

Exclusion follows only if engagement fails to produce a credible response. This engagement-first approach aligns with the view that active ownership is more effective than exit for inducing corporate behavior change. It also allows investors to assess management quality in responding to challenges — a governance signal in itself.

The Norges Bank Investment Management (Norway GPFG) exemplifies this approach: its Council on Ethics issues detailed recommendations for company exclusions, including documentation of the alleged violation, previous engagement attempts, and the assessment of why engagement has been insufficient to remediate the concern.

Real-world examples​

Samsung Electronics engagement (2013–2018): Multiple institutional investors, coordinated partly through the PRI's norms-screening networks, engaged Samsung over documented labor violations in its semiconductor supply chain in South Korea and component manufacturing in China. The engagement produced visible improvements in Samsung's audit programs and supplier conduct standards over several years — an example of norms-based screening leading to remediation without requiring exclusion.

Freeport-McMoRan and environmental violations: The mining company's operations in Papua Indonesia — specifically the Grasberg copper mine's waste disposal practices — generated sustained norms-based screening flags related to environmental damage and indigenous community impacts. Multiple European institutional investors engaged on these issues; some ultimately excluded the company when engagement produced insufficient remediation progress.

Norwegian coal exclusions under norms framework: Norway's GPFG applies both sector-based exclusions (thermal coal above revenue thresholds) and norms-based exclusions to its portfolio. Its Council on Ethics recommendations for norms-based exclusions are published with detailed reasoning — creating one of the most transparent norms-based screening examples in global institutional investing. Publications are available through Norges Bank Investment Management's public reports.

Common mistakes​

Confusing norms-based screening with sector exclusion: Companies can be excluded under norms-based screening regardless of their sector, and companies in "excluded" sectors can avoid norms-based screening flags if their conduct meets normative standards. The two approaches are complementary but independent.

Assuming norms-based exclusion is more objective than sector exclusion: Norms-based assessment requires judgments about what constitutes a "clear violation," whether engagement has been adequate, and whether remediation plans are credible. These judgments require expertise and involve subjectivity — particularly when assessing complex supply-chain situations with contested facts.

Treating all norms frameworks as equivalent: UN Global Compact principles are broader and more behavioral than OECD Guidelines, which are more procedural and legally detailed. ILO fundamental conventions are the most specifically focused on labor. Using all three frameworks in combination provides broader coverage; using only one may miss violations in the others' domains.

FAQ​

How many companies are typically excluded under norms-based screening?​

For a broad global equity universe (e.g., MSCI ACWI), typically 0.5%–2% of companies are identified as clear norms violators at any given time. The exact number depends on the stringency of the norms-violation assessment and the specific frameworks applied. By global market capitalization, the exclusions are typically small but can include significant companies in controversial sectors.

Do norms-based exclusions include financial companies?​

Yes. Banks and financial institutions can face norms-based exclusion flags for: enabling corrupt transactions (OFAC sanction violations, money laundering convictions), failing to prevent financing of human rights violations through their lending, or direct governance failures. Financial-sector norms violations have historically centered on anti-corruption and tax-evasion facilitation rather than environmental or labor issues.

How does norms-based screening handle contested allegations?​

Credible, documented allegations typically generate engagement rather than immediate exclusion. Exclusion typically follows a documented pattern of conduct and an inadequate company response, rather than a single contested allegation. The strength of evidence required for exclusion recommendation varies by provider.

Can a company be reinstated after norms-based exclusion?​

Yes. If a company that was excluded under norms-based criteria subsequently remediates the issue — settling litigation, implementing credible conduct improvements, and demonstrating changed behavior over time — it can be reinstated to eligible status. Norges Bank's Council on Ethics has reinstated companies after successful remediation.

What is the relationship between norms-based screening and ESG engagement?​

They are complementary tools in an escalating engagement strategy. ESG engagement is the standard first response to identified norms concerns; norms-based exclusion is the escalation response when engagement fails. The combination — engage first, exclude if engagement fails — creates a continuum from dialogue to divestment that most sophisticated institutional norms-based screening frameworks apply.

Summary​

Norms-based screening excludes companies that have committed serious, unresolved violations of international conduct standards — the UN Global Compact, OECD Guidelines, and ILO conventions — regardless of their industry. Unlike sector-based exclusion, it focuses on how companies behave rather than what they produce. Implementation requires continuous monitoring for conduct violations, severity assessment, engagement-first response, and documented exclusion reasoning. The approach is dominant in Scandinavian institutional investing and increasingly integrated into mainstream ESG frameworks globally. Its primary challenge is that norms assessment requires expert judgment that introduces subjectivity alongside the objectivity of the normative standards themselves.

Next​

→ Thematic Investing: ESG Themes and Trends