ESG in Kazakhstan is ceasing to be just a reporting requirement — and is becoming a condition for access to capital.

The results of the PwC rating are mixed: the leaders have indeed learned to manage non-financial risks systematically, but the average market level still perceives ESG as a section of the annual report, rather than as a decision-making tool, reports NBK. The gap between best practices and everyone else is the study's main conclusion.

The Gist

• PwC analyzed 98 companies against 165 criteria. The average score of the top ten is 8.5 out of 10, marking notable progress compared to previous years.
• The rating leader is Samruk-Energy (A+), followed by Kazakhstan Temir Zholy, Solidcore Resources, KMG, Kazatomprom, Kazakhtelecom, QAZAQGAZ, KEGOC, the Development Bank of Kazakhstan, and Karachaganak Petroleum Operating.
• 98% of participants disclose their general approach to sustainable development, 86% identify material ESG topics. However, only 68% set specific targets, less than half use quantitative indicators, and only 18% apply the concept of double materiality.
• The financial sector occupied half of the second ten positions in the rating for the first time — banks and financial institutions are becoming conduits of ESG requirements through lending and investment products.
• The environmental block consistently receives the lowest scores — the transition from declarations to measurable climate indicators remains the main challenge for the Kazakh corporate sector.

Who is in the Top Ten and Why This is No Coincidence

At first glance, the top 10 looks like a list of the country's largest state-owned companies. But something else is more important: the top ten contains virtually no companies focused solely on the domestic market. It is dominated by energy, transport, oil and gas, mining, telecoms, and finance — sectors with a high share of international financing and foreign partners.

This is no coincidence: it is precisely capital-intensive and export-oriented companies that first encounter the demands of international investors, development banks, and rating agencies. For them, the quality of ESG disclosure already affects the cost of capital. The rating reflects not the popularity of ESG as a concept, but the changing rules of the game in the global economy.

An important caveat: the rating assesses the quality of information disclosure, not the actual environmental or social performance of companies. A high ranking indicates the maturity of the ESG data management system — but is not an automatic assessment of the real environmental impact.

Two Levels of ESG: Reporting and Strategy

The PwC study identifies a clear divide between two groups of companies. The first group consists of those for whom ESG has become part of the management system: they set specific targets, use quantitative indicators, and integrate non-financial factors into investment decisions. The second group consists of those who still limit themselves to preparing an ESG section in their annual report.

The difference is fundamental. Preparing an ESG report is relatively straightforward. It is incomparably more difficult to embed environmental, social, and governance factors into a company's strategy, risk management system, and management performance evaluation. This transition is now becoming the main criterion for the maturity of ESG practices — and it is what determines whether a company will gain access to international financing tomorrow.

Environmental Block: The Weakest Link

Among all ESG components, the environmental block consistently receives the lowest scores. The reason is not just the complexity of data collection — investor expectations themselves are changing.

The IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 standards, developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), require disclosing not just environmental initiatives, but how climate risks and opportunities affect a company's strategy, business model, and financial prospects. For Kazakh businesses, this means a transition from describing intentions to demonstrating specific, measurable results — a step that most market participants are not yet ready for.

Financial Sector as a New ESG Driver

The participation of 35 financial organizations out of 98 in the study is not just a statistic. Banks and financial institutions are becoming transmitters of ESG requirements: through lending conditions, investment products, and borrower requirements, they spread ESG standards to real-sector companies that have not yet adopted them on their own.

As the volume of sustainable finance grows, the financial sector will increasingly determine the pace of ESG transformation in the Kazakh economy as a whole.

Author's Conclusion

The PwC rating shows that Kazakhstan has formed a group of leading companies in ESG disclosure, but the gap between them and the rest of the market remains significant. The question is no longer whether to publish an ESG report — it is gradually becoming a basic condition for access to international capital. The question is how quickly non-financial factors will be integrated into actual management decisions. For those who are late, this will result not in reputational damage, but in very concrete financial losses.

#ESG #investments #corporategovernance #ecology #sustainabledevelopment #Kazakhstan #business #PwC