ESG-Ratings: Nonparametric Methods of Construction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2024-2-92-107Keywords:
ESG-rating, sustainable development, nonparametric methods, Dea, TopsisAbstract
Many of the largest Russian companies are evaluated by international financial institutions or rating agencies in terms of their influence on ESG factors that take into account environmental issues, interaction with society and corporate governance. Such ratings can have various names, most often referred to as ESG ratings. The inherent subjectivity of the assessments, along with the lack of generally recognized standards and transparency of the methodology, cause concern both from the assessed companies and from investors and regulators. ESG ratings of Russian rating agencies are at an early stage of their development, which is reflected in a small number of evaluated companies. The purpose of the study is to study the main methodological problems in the compilation of ESG ratings identified by the academic and business community with a focus on studying the issue of choosing weights when constructing a summary indicator. The information base of the study is the data published by the rating agency RAEX, which is positioned as the largest agency in the field of non-credit ratings. A comparative analysis of the rating agency's weight selection methods with nonparametric methods, such as methods of shell analysis, determination of preferences based on similarity with the ideal solution and calculation of the geometric mean is carried out. Based on the results of the study of the initial data of the rating agency, it can be concluded that most companies have low ratings for the environmental component and high ratings for the corporate governance component, while none of the companies has a benchmark rating. The main methodological problem in the selection of weights is the subjective nature of the weights used by the rating agency. Correlation analysis of the studied non-parametric methods showed a high correlation with each other and with the initial ratings of the rating agency, however, at the level of some individual companies, the ratings may differ depending on the chosen method.Downloads
References
Бабенко М. В., Бик С. И., Постнова А. И. Зеленая экономика. Определения и понятия. М. : Всемирный фонд дикой природы (WWF), 2018 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.b-soc.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/zelenaya-ekonomika-glossarij.pdf (дата обращения: 14.02.2024).
Бобылев С. Н. Экономика устойчивого развития. М. : КноРус, 2021.
Вереникин А. О., Маханькова Н. А., Вереникина А. Ю. Измерение устойчивости развития крупных российских компаний // Российский журнал менеджмента. 2021. Т. 19, № 3. C. 237–287. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2021.301
Гиляровская Л. Т. Экономический анализ. 2-е изд. М. : ЮНИТИ ДАНА. 2004.
Гришанкова С. Д. Рейтинги ESG // ESG-трансформация как вектор устойчивого развития. В 3-х т. / под общ. ред. К. Е. Турбиной и И. Ю. Юргенса. Т. 2. М. : Аспект Пресс, 2022.
Данилов Ю. А., Пивоваров Д. А., Давыдов И. С. Рейтинговые оценки устойчивых финансов // Экономическое развитие России. 2021. Т. 28, № 4. С. 25–33.
Коршунов О. Ю., Львова Н. А., Рахимов З. Ю. Адаптация функции полезности для оценки влияния ответственного инвестирования на финансовые рынки // Финансы и бизнес. 2021. Т. 17. № 3. С. 70–86.
Моргунов Е. П., Моргунова О. Н. Продвижение метода оценки эффективности систем Data Envelopment Analysis в России // XX Междунар. науч.-практ. конф. Системный анализ в проектировании и управлении. Труды в 2 ч. Санкт-Петербургский политехн. ун-т Петра Великого, 2016.
Нефедов А. С., Шакиров В. А. Многокритериальная оценка альтернатив на основе метода TOPSIS в условиях неопределенности предпочтений лица, принимающего решения // Информационные технологии. Проблемы и решения. 2019. № 3 (8). С. 25–32.
Овечкин Д. В. Ответственные инвестиции: дивергенция ESG-рейтингов // Modern Economy Success. 2021. № 1. С. 170–174. EDN: ZTJJDO.
Столбов М. И., Щепелева М. А. 2022. Влияние ESG-факторов на финансовую стабильность // Вопросы экономики. 2022. № 11. С. 136–148. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-11-1-13.
Соболева О. В., Стешенко А. С. ESG-факторы как новый механизм активизации ответственного инвестирования и достижения целей устойчивого развития // Устойчивое развитие: вызовы и возможности: сб. науч. статей / под ред. Е. В. Викторовой. СПб. : СПбГЭУ, 2020.
Халицкая К. Выбор технологий с помощью метода TOPSIS // Форсайт. 2020. T. 14, № 1. C. 85–96.
Хачатрян А. В. Расхождение в ESG-рейтингах: зарубежные регуляторные тренды // Финансовый журнал. 2022. Т. 14. № 5. С. 89–104. https://doi.org/10.31107/2075-19902022-5-89-104.
Aiba Y., Ito T.. Ibe Y. Network structure in ESG ratings suggests new corporate strategies: Evolving AI technology to quantify qualitative data // Securities Analysts Journal. 2020.
D’Amato V., D’Ecclesia R., Levantesi S. Fundamental ratios as predictors of ESG scores: A machine learning approach // Decisions in Economics and Finance. 2021. Vol. 44. P. 10871110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10203-021-00364-5.
Arthur H., Urban M. A., Wójcik D. Alternative ESG ratings: How technological innovation is reshaping sustainable investment // Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13 (6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063551.
Berg F., Koelbel J. F., Rigobon R. Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. // Review of Finance. 2022. Nov. Vol. 26 (6). P. 1315–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033.
Charlin V., Cifuentes A., Alfaro J. ESG ratings: an industry in need of a major overhaul. // Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. 2022. P. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2022.2113358.
Chen L., Lipei Z., Jun H., Helu X., Zhongbao Z. Social responsibility portfolio optimization incorporating ESG criteria. // Journal of Management Science and Engineering. Vol. 1. P. 75– 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmse.2021.02.005.
Christensen D. M., Serafeim G., Sikochi A. Why is Corporate Virtue in the Eye of The Beholder? The Case of ESG Ratings // The Accounting Review. 2022. Vol. 97 (1). P. 147–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0506.
Gillan S. L., Koch A., Starks L. T. Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance // Journal of Corporate Finance. 2021. Vol. 66. P. 101889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101889.
Li F., Polychronopoulos A. What a difference an ESG ratings provider makes // Research affiliates. 2020. Vol. 24 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.researchaffiliates.com/content/dam/ra/publications/pdf/770-what-a-difference-an-esg-ratings-provider-makes.pdf (дата обращения: 20.12.2023).
Liern V., Pérez-Gladish B. Ranking corporate sustainability: A flexible multidimensional approach based on linguistic variables. // International Transactions in Operational Research. 2018. Vol. 25 (3). P. 1081–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12469.
MacNeil I., Esser I. From a financial to an entity model of ESG // European Business Organization Law Review. 2022. Vol. 23 (1). P. 9–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-021
Stevens S. S. On the Theory of Scales of Measurement // Science. 1946. Vol. 103 (2684). P. 677–680. DOI: 10.1126/science.103.2684.677.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Yurkov A.V., Babaeva Z.R.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Коды статьи
- EDN FARZRW
- Тип статьи (РИНЦ) Научная статья (Научная статья)