Preview

Economics and Management

Advanced search

Issues of methodology and objectivity of ESG rating

https://doi.org/10.35854/1998-1627-2023-7-783-793

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.

About the Author

O. N. Buchinskaia
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)
Russian Federation

Ol'ga N. Buchinskaia - PhD in Economics, senior researcher

 Nastas’inskiy lane, bldg. 2, Moscow 127006 

29 Moskovskaya st., Ekaterinburg 620014



References

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

6. Viarenka N., Grishankova S., Kamenkov A. ESG-ratings: Essence, meaning and possibilities of application. Bankauskі vesnіk = Bank Bulletin. 2022;(11):58-68. (In Russ.).

7. Afanas’ev M.P., Shash N.N. ESG transformation in the corporate sector: systematizing the global approach. Problemy prognozirovaniya = Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2022;(6):185-197. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.47711/0868-6351-195-185-197

8. Khachatryan A.V. Divergence of ESG ratings: Foreign regulatory trends. Finansovyi zhurnal = Financial Journal. 2022;14(5):89-104. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31107/2075-1990-2022-5-89-104

9. Ovechkin D.V. Responsible investments: Divergence of ESG ratings. Modern Economy Success. 2021;(1):170-174. (In Russ.).

10. Environmental, social, and governance evaluation: Analytical approach. New York, NY: S&P Global; 2022. 21 p. URL: https://www.spglobal.com/_assets/documents/ratings/research/101566516.pdf (accessed on 29.05.2023).

11. Environmental, social and governance scores from Refinitiv. Refinitiv. URL: https://www. refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/methodology/refinitiv-esg-scores-methodology.pdf (accessed on 29.05.2023).

12. ECPI ESG rating methodology. Milan: ECPI Group; 2019. 14 p. URL: https://www.ecpi-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ECPI_ESG_Rating_Methodology_Companies.pdf (accessed on 29.05. 2023).

13. Human rights indicators: A guide to measurement and implementation. New York, NY: Unites Nations; 2012. 188 p. URL: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/ Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf (accessed on 29.05. 2023).

14. Bersenev V. Features of legal regulation of activities for ensuring ecological-economic security at a regional level. Oeconomia et Jus. 2018;(1):23-41. (In Russ.).

15. Tkach E.S., Tishina V.N. ESG rating as a tool for reducing financial risk of responsible investment. Upravlencheskii uchet = The Management Accounting Journal. 2022;(12-3):808- 816. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.25806/uu12-32022808-816

16. Lion P.Yu. ESG ratings – future business hygiene. Sotsiodigger. 2021;2(7):27-30. (In Russ.).


Review

For citations:


Buchinskaia O.N. Issues of methodology and objectivity of ESG rating. Economics and Management. 2023;29(7):783-793. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.35854/1998-1627-2023-7-783-793

Views: 520


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1998-1627 (Print)