Issues of methodology and objectivity of ESG rating

Author:

Buchinskaia O. N.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Financial Research Institute of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation (FRI); Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IE UB RAS)

Abstract

Aim. To identify problems in ESG rating methodology to develop principles for creating an  objective assessment of firms’ sustainability transition efforts.Tasks. To conduct a brief review of previous studies that analyze the objectivity of ESG-rating; to examine the rating methodology from three companies that specialize in rating firms by ESG criteria; to identify the main so-called failures that affect the objectivity of assessment; to  formulate principles to improve the objectivity of the rating assessment of firms.Methods. The study considered the methodology of three ESG-ratings: ESG-rating of S&P, the  rating of the American-British company Refinitiv and ESG-rating of the Italian company ECPI. The methods of descriptive analysis, comparative analysis, generalization and systematization have revealed the main directions reflected in the rankings, their similarities and differences as well as the reasons and ways of subjective evaluation which negatively influences the quality of the ranking.Results. The author presents the evidence of biased evaluation of the considered rankings, caused by a number of factors, including doubtful parameters, taken for evaluation, the use of  biased sources, including data of non-governmental organizations and voluntarily published data on information disclosure. It shows the methodology of calculations, which gives preferences to large businesses, the opacity of the assessment and the ability of experts to adjust information in the process of assessment.Conclusions. In order to build an objective ESG-evaluation, the stability and durability of the methodology should be ensured, and the changes made should not violate the comparability of the results. It is necessary to rely on a fixed list of disclosures subject to audit, to ensure the objectivity of the indicators under review and to take into account the dynamics of the identified contradictions over a long period. The author proposes to introduce a unified assessment methodology at the national level.

Publisher

Saint-Petersburg University of Management Technologies and Economics - UMTE

Subject

General Medicine

Reference16 articles.

1. El-Hage J. Fixing ESG: Are mandatory ESG disclosures the solution to misleading ESG ratings? Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law. 2021;26(2):359-390. URL: https:// ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1499&context=jcfl (accessed on 29.05.2023).

2. Larcker D.F., Pomorski L., Tayan B., Watts E.M. ESG ratings: A compass without direction. Stanford Closer Look Series. Aug. 2, 2022. URL: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/ default/files/publication/pdfs/cgri-closer-look-97-esg-ratings_0.pdf (accessed on 29.05.2023).

3. Berg F., Fabisik K., Sautner Z. Rewriting history II: The (un)predictable past of ESG ratings. European Corporate Governance Institute. Finance Working Paper. 2020;(708). URL: https:// abfer.org/media/abfer-events-2021/annual-conference/papers-investment-finance/AC21P3017_ Rewriting-History-II---The-UnPredictable-Past-of-ESG-Ratings.pdf (accessed on 29.05.2023).

4. Berg F., Koelbel J.F., Rigobon R. Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance. 2022;26(6):1315-1344. DOI: 10.1093/rof/rfac033

5. Maksimov M.I., Lebedeva S.R. Analysis and diagnosis of modern Russian ESG practices on the example of Alrosa Company. Ekonomika i upravlenie: problemy, resheniya = Economics and Management: Problems, Solutions. 2022;3(4):244-256. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.36871/ ek.up.p.r.2022.04.03.018

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3