Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative analysis reveals substantial divergence across six major ESG rating agencies, indicating that measurement differences and rater bias drive most inconsistencies.
This paper investigates the divergence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings based on data from six prominent ESG rating agencies: Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini (KLD), Sustainalytics, Moody’s ESG (Vigeo-Eiris), S&P Global (RobecoSAM), Refinitiv (Asset4), and MSCI. We document the rating divergence and map the different methodologies onto a common taxonomy of categories. Using this taxonomy, we decompose the divergence into contributions of scope, measurement, and weight. Measurement contributes 56% of the divergence, scope 38%, and weight 6%. Further analyzing the reasons for measurement divergence, we detect a rater effect where a rater’s overall view of a firm influences the measurement of specific categories. The results call for greater attention to how the data underlying ESG ratings are generated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berg et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: