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
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