One of the biggest problems with ESG funds is that they rely on ESG ratings of companies while creating a portfolio and, at present, there is a lack of consensus regarding what it is that ESG ratings actually measure. ESG ratings can roughly be categorized as ‘impact based’ or ‘risk based.’ Impact-based ESG ratings measure the impact of a company on environmental, social and governance issues. On the other hand, risk-based ESG ratings are based on the potential impact of the world on the company and its shareholders. Consequently, risk based ESG ratings are only concerned with how a company’s exposure to climate, social and governance risks can affect its bottom line
In addition, there is an acute lack of consistency across ERPs in terms of their methodology, objectives, the quality of their ratings, transparency standards and coverage. This results in high levels of variance in their ratings which, in turn, contribute to difficulties for investors and fund managers seeking ESG investments. The extent of the problem becomes evident considering the fact that a team of Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers found only an average correlation of 61% in the ESG rating of six major ERPs, as opposed to a 99% correlation between the scores of credit rating agencies. It is relevant to note that this extreme divergence can be, in part, attributed to the inconsistency in the selection of indicators utilized by ERPs for determining a rating. Bloomberg ESG Data Service covers close to 120environmental, social and governance indicators while evaluating ESG ratings. On the other hand, Thomson Reuters ESG Research Data analyzes 400 different ESG metrics, selecting 178 of the most important indicators to arrive at its ratings. Meanwhile, RepRisk and MSCI ESG Research focus on 28 and 37 ESG key issues, respectively, while conducting their research.
However, such an extreme degree of variation can decrease a corporation’s incentive to improve its ESG performance, as it does not allow them to have a clear understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. The mixed signals from various ERPs also do not allow companies to effectively evaluate if their efforts in introducing initiatives are paying off. Further, the inconsistency of ratings across ERPs also inhibits effective pricing of companies’ ESG performance in the market.
Nevertheless, the disagreements in ESG ratings are not a result of bias or incompetence. Instead, these differences in ratings exist because ESG performance is a difficult parameter to capture, and reasonable individuals can disagree. This does not imply that ESG ratings are unreliable or that they cannot be utilized. Rather, the individuals utilizing these ratings and the investors investing in ESG funds need to pay closer attention to what different ERPs are trying to capture, as different ERPs define ESG differently. That being said, it is also important for the securities markets regulator, SEBI, to take active steps to highlight the differences between ‘risk based’ and ‘impact based’ ESG ratings to eliminate misinformation in the markets.
– Shuchi Agrawal