When controversy timelines help more than severity labels
Severity tags travel poorly across sectors. A dated timeline of controversies often serves engagement prep better.
Controversy databases love severity labels. Engagement meetings love sequences: what happened, what was disclosed, what changed in the next sustainability report.
Build chronology first
List incidents with dates, sources, and whether the issuer recognised the event in a filing or report. A fine reported only in local news and absent from the annual report is itself a disclosure finding.
Separate settled from open
Open proceedings belong in a different column from closed fines. Mixing them inflates drama and confuses proxy questions.
Match the factor list
If the peer comparison already covers workforce safety metrics, the controversy timeline should emphasise safety incidents rather than every reputational headline. Stay inside the factor charter.
Use timelines in the room
A one-page chronology is easier to walk through with IR than a heat map. Ask what changed operationally after the latest incident and whether the next report will describe it.
Limits
Public timelines miss private settlements. State that limit in the review so readers do not treat the chronology as exhaustive forensic work.