- Published
- 2022-05-23
- Venue
- European Finance Review, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1315-1344
- Cited by
- 3,380
- Open access
- Yes, hybrid
- DOI
- 10.1093/rof/rfac033
Abstract
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.
Cite this paper
Formatted from the source metadata, not typed by hand. For a whole reference list, use the citation generator or ask your assistant through Find Research.