Shyam Metalics receives voluntary ESG rating of 48
- Shyam Metalics received a voluntary ESG rating of 48 from a SEBI-registered agency
- The assessment was independent as the company did not engage the rating provider
- Disclosure was made under Regulation 30 of SEBI Listing Regulations on September 3, 2026

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Shyam Metalics & Energy disclosed a voluntary environmental, social and governance (ESG) rating of 48 on September 3, 2026. The assessment was conducted by ESG Risk Assessments and Insights Limited, a Category I subscriber-pays provider registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
The company clarified that it did not engage the rating agency for this evaluation. Instead, the provider assigned the score independently based on information available in the public domain. The rating was submitted to the stock exchanges by the entity responsible for the assessment and subsequently intimated to Shyam Metalics via email.
Regulatory Disclosure
This disclosure was made pursuant to Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. The company notified both the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange of India Limited regarding the rating.
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Rating Agency | ESG Risk Assessments and Insights Limited |
| Rating Score | 48 |
| Date of Intimation | September 3, 2026 |
| Engagement Status | Independent (No engagement by company) |
The disclosure is also available on the company’s website. Birendra Kumar Jain, Company Secretary and Compliance Officer, signed the communication.
Historical Stock Returns for Shyam Metalics & Energy
| 1 Day | 5 Days | 1 Month | 6 Months | 1 Year | 5 Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -1.04% | -0.15% | +7.15% | +35.78% | +16.95% | 0.0% |
How does Shyam Metalics' independent ESG score of 48 compare to industry peers in the steel and energy sectors?
Will the company initiate a formal engagement with ESG rating agencies to improve its score or clarify methodology discrepancies?
What specific environmental or governance factors likely contributed to the moderate rating of 48, and how does the company plan to address them?


































