ESG 평가기관의 평가방법론 비교 및 신뢰성에 대한 구조적 분석

This study discusses the legitimacy of ESG rating agencies amid concerns about the transparency and reliability of their assessments. ESG rating agencies have become key players in the investment community that assess whether companies comply with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. The ratings of ESG rating agencies influence investors’ investment methods and investment destination selection, and in the process, shape corporate behavior. However, the rise of ESG rating agencies has sparked debates about the legitimacy of ESG rating agencies. Questions are being raised about the objectivity of the evaluation, the clarity of the evaluation criteria, and the overall reliability. In a situation where ESG evaluation is linked to significant costs, the ethics of ESG evaluation agencies are being verified more strictly than ever. This study suggests consistency, transparency, impartiality, reliability, global compatibility, and stakeholder communication as the core principles that ESG evaluations must adhere to in order to strengthen the legitimacy of ESG evaluation agencies. In addition, I analyze the strategic choices that companies adopt to respond to ESG evaluations and their limitations, and suggest institutional and methodological improvements to enhance the reliability of ESG evaluation systems and their compliance with global standards. Currently, evaluating the environmental, social, and governance performance of companies is an increasingly common investment practice. I question how this practice operates, why it plays an important role at this moment, and what problems it may have. The use of ESG ratings and scores in the investment industry has grown rapidly over the past decade as scrutiny of companies’ environmental, social, and governance performance and sustainability claims has intensified. As such, the ESG ratings sector is gaining influence, with global assets under management expected to reach $33.9 trillion by 2026. As the sources and volume of ESG data increase and its reliability becomes more important, regulators are creating rules to improve transparency in this area. This study discusses the purpose of ESG scores and ratings, who uses them, who calculates them (and how), the challenges they present, and how investors and other stakeholders are addressing them. I analyzed ESG rating criteria used by global institutions and found a lack of commonality in the definitions of criteria defining ESG (i) characteristics, (ii) attributes, and (iii) E, S, and G components. They provide evidence that the heterogeneity of rating criteria can lead institutions to have conflicting opinions about the same rating agency, and that agreement between providers is quite low. These alternative definitions of ESG also have implications for sustainable investing, identifying different investment universes and, consequently, creating different benchmarks. This means that in the asset management industry, it is very difficult to measure the performance of fund managers when financial performance is strongly conditioned by the chosen ESG benchmark. Finally, I find that the impact of ESG investor preferences on asset prices is dispersed due to the inconsistency in the scores provided by rating agencies, so that even if there is consensus, it does not affect financial performance.