Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Videos
  • Submit an article
  • More
    • About JWM
    • Editorial Board
    • Published Ahead of Print (PAP)
  • IPR Logo
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Publish
  • Advertise
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • More
    • Awards
    • Article Licensing
    • Academic Use
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

User menu

  • Sample our Content
  • Request a Demo
  • Log in

Search

  • ADVANCED SEARCH: Discover more content by journal, author or time frame
The Journal of Wealth Management
  • IPR Logo
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Publish
  • Advertise
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • More
    • Awards
    • Article Licensing
    • Academic Use
  • Sample our Content
  • Request a Demo
  • Log in
The Journal of Wealth Management

The Journal of Wealth Management

ADVANCED SEARCH: Discover more content by journal, author or time frame

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Videos
  • Submit an article
  • More
    • About JWM
    • Editorial Board
    • Published Ahead of Print (PAP)
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Sustainable Investing: The Black Box of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Ratings

Subhash Abhayawansa and Shailesh Tyagi
The Journal of Wealth Management Summer 2021, jwm.2021.1.130; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3905/jwm.2021.1.130
Subhash Abhayawansa
is an associate professor in accounting and finance at Swinburne University of Technology in Hawthorn, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shailesh Tyagi
is a a climate change and sustainability specialist. He founded VIRIDI Global—a boutique consulting firm and worked as a strategic partner at GIST Advisory Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF (Subscribers Only)
Loading

Click to login and read the full article.

Don’t have access? Click here to request a demo 
Alternatively, Call a member of the team to discuss membership options
US and Overseas: +1 646-931-9045
UK: 0207 139 1600

Abstract

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing is becoming mainstream, and the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the momentum. The interest in ESG investing creates greater demand for ESG data, ratings, and rankings, spawning a proliferation of agencies offering these products, which investors, academics, and regulators rely on unquestioningly. Research highlights that different ESG ratings and rankings produce significantly different assessments of the ESG performance of companies. This article examines the causes of differences in the ratings and rankings generated by different agencies. Findings indicate that the divergences among raters can be attributed to differences in the definitions of ESG constructs (i.e., a theorization problem) and methodological differences (i.e., a commensurability problem). While users of ESG ratings and rankings are advised to study the definitions and methodologies before their use, a lack of transparency about the data sources, weightings, and methodologies makes it difficult to ensure that companies’ true ESG performance is accounted for when making portfolio selection and investment decisions. As a solution, the article notes that instead of attempting to compare and contrast ratings and rankings of different agencies, investors should determine the ESG constructs that are material to their own investment strategies and then match them with an ESG rating or ranking product that closely resembles those constructs.

TOPICS: ESG investing, information providers/credit ratings, portfolio construction, portfolio theory

Key Findings

  • ▪ There are significant divergences among the ratings and rankings provided by different ESG rating agencies.

  • ▪ Differences among various ESG ratings and rankings are caused by differences in the definitions of ESG constructs (i.e., a theorization problem) and differences in the methods applied for measuring ESG performance of companies (i.e., a commensurability problem).

  • ▪ Agencies providing ESG ratings and rankings are not transparent about what constitutes ESG performance and how ESG performance is measured, including information sources used.

  • ▪ Theorization, commensurability, and transparency problems contribute to masking the true ESG risks and the performance of companies.

  • © 2021 Pageant Media Ltd
View Full Text

Don’t have access? Click here to request a demo

Alternatively, Call a member of the team to discuss membership options

US and Overseas: +1 646-931-9045

UK: 0207 139 1600

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?
PreviousNext
Back to top

Explore our content to discover more relevant research

  • By topic
  • Across journals
  • From the experts
  • Monthly highlights
  • Special collections

In this issue

The Journal of Wealth Management: 23 (4)
The Journal of Wealth Management
Vol. 23, Issue 4
Spring 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The Journal of Wealth Management.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Sustainable Investing: The Black Box of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Ratings
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The Journal of Wealth Management
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The Journal of Wealth Management web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Sustainable Investing: The Black Box of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Ratings
Subhash Abhayawansa, Shailesh Tyagi
The Journal of Wealth Management Mar 2021, jwm.2021.1.130; DOI: 10.3905/jwm.2021.1.130

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Save To My Folders
Share
Sustainable Investing: The Black Box of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Ratings
Subhash Abhayawansa, Shailesh Tyagi
The Journal of Wealth Management Mar 2021, jwm.2021.1.130; DOI: 10.3905/jwm.2021.1.130
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Tweet Widget Facebook Like LinkedIn logo

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • OVERVIEW
    • ALL ESG RATINGS ARE NOT MADE EQUAL
    • ENDNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF (Subscribers Only)
  • PDF (Subscribers Only)

Similar Articles

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar
LONDON
One London Wall, London, EC2Y 5EA
United Kingdom
+44 207 139 1600
 
NEW YORK
41 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010
USA
+1 646 931 9045
pm-research@pageantmedia.com
 

Stay Connected

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

MORE FROM PMR

  • Home
  • Awards
  • Investment Guides
  • Videos
  • About PMR

INFORMATION FOR

  • Academics
  • Agents
  • Authors
  • Content Usage Terms

GET INVOLVED

  • Advertise
  • Publish
  • Article Licensing
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe Now
  • Log In
  • Update your profile
  • Give us your feedback

© 2021 Pageant Media Ltd | All Rights Reserved | ISSN: 1534-7524 | E-ISSN: 2374-1368

  • Site Map
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Cookies
  • Privacy Policy