综合混乱:ESG评级的分歧

Florian Berg, Julian F. Kölbel, R. Rigobón
{"title":"综合混乱:ESG评级的分歧","authors":"Florian Berg, Julian F. Kölbel, R. Rigobón","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3438533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the divergence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings. Based on data from six prominent rating agencies - namely, KLD (MSCI Stats), Sustainalytics, Vigeo Eiris (Moody's), RobecoSAM (SP Global), Asset4 (Refinitiv), and MSCI IVA- we decompose the divergence into three sources: different scope of categories, different measurement of categories, and different weights of categories. We find that scope and measurement divergence are the main drivers, while weights divergence is less important. In addition, we detect a rater effect where a rater's overall view of a firm influences the assessment of specific categories.","PeriodicalId":204440,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance & Finance eJournal","volume":"280 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"507","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings\",\"authors\":\"Florian Berg, Julian F. Kölbel, R. Rigobón\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3438533\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper investigates the divergence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings. Based on data from six prominent rating agencies - namely, KLD (MSCI Stats), Sustainalytics, Vigeo Eiris (Moody's), RobecoSAM (SP Global), Asset4 (Refinitiv), and MSCI IVA- we decompose the divergence into three sources: different scope of categories, different measurement of categories, and different weights of categories. We find that scope and measurement divergence are the main drivers, while weights divergence is less important. In addition, we detect a rater effect where a rater's overall view of a firm influences the assessment of specific categories.\",\"PeriodicalId\":204440,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Governance & Finance eJournal\",\"volume\":\"280 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"507\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Governance & Finance eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3438533\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance & Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3438533","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 507

摘要

本文研究了环境、社会和治理(ESG)评级的差异。根据六大知名评级机构的数据,即KLD (MSCI Stats)、Sustainalytics、Vigeo Eiris(穆迪)、RobecoSAM (SP Global)、Asset4 (Refinitiv)和MSCI IVA,我们将这种差异分解为三个来源:不同的类别范围、不同的类别度量和不同的类别权重。我们发现范围和度量差异是主要的驱动因素,而权重差异则不那么重要。此外,我们还发现了评分者效应,即评分者对公司的整体看法会影响对特定类别的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings
This paper investigates the divergence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings. Based on data from six prominent rating agencies - namely, KLD (MSCI Stats), Sustainalytics, Vigeo Eiris (Moody's), RobecoSAM (SP Global), Asset4 (Refinitiv), and MSCI IVA- we decompose the divergence into three sources: different scope of categories, different measurement of categories, and different weights of categories. We find that scope and measurement divergence are the main drivers, while weights divergence is less important. In addition, we detect a rater effect where a rater's overall view of a firm influences the assessment of specific categories.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信