Comparative analysis of the social component when assigning an ESG rating
https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2024-7-118-131
Abstract
Every year, Russian companies are using ESG (environmental, social, governance) ratings more actively as a tool to increase their investment attractiveness. At the same time, there are no clear standards in the world and domestic practice that should be considered when forming these ratings. In this regard, the ESG methodologies presented on the Russian market are based on extremely subjective criteria and approaches to their assessment. This can lead to dramatically different results of the ESG ratings from different analytical agencies. In order to verify this fact, the authors of the article have conducted a study the essence of which is to calculate and further compare the S-criterion based on the methodologies of several large Russian analytical agencies providing ESG assessment services. This approach has allowed us to assess in practice the degree of differences that underlie the formation of the ESG methodologies. The result of the work is that the results of the S-components of the domestic ESG agencies are highly similar, which has not confirmed the hypothesis made by the authors. Despite the fact that each of the ESG methodologies ha included different, often dissimilar indicators, the result of the study has revealed their remarkable efficiency and consistency with each other. Contrary to the concerns of regulators and researchers, the results of the agency ratings show a high degree of mutual similarity. Further research should be aimed at evaluating the E and G components of the ESG ratings of the Russian analytical agencies, and at summarising the findings obtained for the final refutation or acceptance of the made hypothesis.
About the Authors
R. S. GolovninRussian Federation
Ruslan S. Golovnin, Graduate Student
Kirov
T. V. Baibakova
Russian Federation
Tatiana V. Baibakova, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Assoc. Prof. at the Economics Department
Kirov
References
1. Ovechkin D.V. Responsible investments: the divergence of ESG ratings. Modern Economy Success. 2021;1:170–174. (In Russian).
2. Dronov V.N., Makhrova O.N., Gordova T.V. Sustainable development in the context of the introduction of ESG practices. In: Actual problems of modern science and production: Proceedings of the VII All-Russian Scientific and Technical Conference, Ryazan, November 21–23, 2022. Ryazan: Ryazan State Radio Engineering University named after V.F. Utkin; 2022. Pp. 378–389. (In Russian).
3. Savinov Yu.A., Dolzhenko I.B. Changes in international trade in clothing and the activities of TNCs in the fashion goods market. Russian Foreign Economic Bulletin. 2022;9:107–120. (In Russian). http://doi.org/10.24412/2072-8042-2022-9-107-120
4. Kabir L.S. Socially responsible investing: a trend or a temporary phenomenon? Economics and Management. 2017;4:35–41. (In Russian).
5. Chelawat H., Trivedi I.V. Ethical finance: trends and emerging issues for research. International Journal of Business Ethics in Developing Economies. 2013;2(2):34–42.
6. Kamalova A.O., Taibova R.A. ESG criteria and ESG factors in investment policy. Business. Education. Law. 2022;4(61):208–212. (In Russian). http://doi.org/10.25683/VOLBI.2022.61.480
7. Vetrova M.A. The role and risks of ESG transformation of companies in the context of new challenges. Krasnoyarsk Science. 2022;3(11):53–81. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Golovnin R.S., Baibakova T.V. Comparative analysis of the social component when assigning an ESG rating. Vestnik Universiteta. 2024;(7):118-131. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2024-7-118-131