Abstract This paper investigates the divergence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings based on data from six prominent ESG rating agencies: Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini (KLD), Sustainalytics, Moody’s ESG (Vigeo-Eiris), S&P Global (RobecoSAM), Refinitiv (Asset4), and MSCI. We document the rating divergence and map the different methodologies onto a common taxonomy of categories. Using this taxonomy, we decompose the divergence into contributions of scope, measurement, and weight. Measurement contributes 56% of the divergence, scope 38%, and weight 6%. Further analyzing the reasons for measurement divergence, we detect a rater effect where a rater’s overall view of a firm influences the measurement of specific categories. The results call for greater attention to how the data underlying ESG ratings are generated.
Identifying species is challenging in the case of organisms for which primarily molecular data are available. Even if morphological features are available, molecular taxonomy is...
importance of divergence of opinion the functioning of capital markets was recognized by early economic writers. In the prevailing models of capital markets, however, differenc...
Species composition reflects a combination of environmental and historical events at a site; hence, changes in species composition can provide a sensitive measure of ecologicall...
Abstract We present the fifth edition of the TimeTree of Life resource (TToL5), a product of the timetree of life project that aims to synthesize published molecular timetrees a...
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions