IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i6p3551-d522385.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative ESG Ratings: How Technological Innovation Is Reshaping Sustainable Investment

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur Hughes

    (School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK)

  • Michael A. Urban

    (School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK)

  • Dariusz Wójcik

    (School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK)

Abstract

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) rating agencies have been instrumental in mainstreaming sustainability in the investment industry. Traditionally, they have relied on company disclosure and human analysis to produce their ratings. More recently however, technological innovation in data scraping and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have undercut the traditional approach. Tech-driven Alternative ESG ratings are becoming increasingly influential yet remain critically underexplored in sustainable finance scholarship. Grounded within financial geography and using mixed methods, this paper fills this gap by comparing a set of Traditional ratings, sourced from MSCI ESG, with an Alternative AI-based set of ESG ratings sourced from Truvalue Labs. Our results expand upon recent research on ESG ratings by shedding new light on low commensurability between Traditional and Alternative ESG ratings. Specifically, we show that differences in ratings are driven by four main factors: differences in ESG theorisation based on key issue selection, differences in data sources analysed, differences in weighting structures for rating aggregation, and finally differences in controversy analysis. Our findings are contextualised using participatory observations collected during fieldwork at a leading asset manager in the City of London. Overall, we show that the advantages of Alternative ESG ratings include higher levels of standardisation, a transparent ‘outside-in’ perspective on ratings, a more democratic aggregation process, and rigorous real-time analytics. We argue that these characteristics reflect a geographic reconfiguration of ESG rating construction, expanding from financial agglomerations to technological and digital spaces of innovation. While Alternative ESG ratings make major promises on how technology can reform sustainable investing, we recognise that risks remain.

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur Hughes & Michael A. Urban & Dariusz Wójcik, 2021. "Alternative ESG Ratings: How Technological Innovation Is Reshaping Sustainable Investment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3551-:d:522385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3551/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3551/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Storper & Anthony J. Venables, 2004. "Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 351-370, August.
    2. Meric S. Gertler, 2003. "Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there)," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 75-99, January.
    3. Elena Escrig-Olmedo & Maria Jesus Munoz-Torres & Maria Angeles Fernandez-Izquierdo, 2010. "Socially responsible investing: sustainability indices, ESG rating and information provider agencies," International Journal of Sustainable Economy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(4), pages 442-461.
    4. Joakim Sandberg & Carmen Juravle & Ted Hedesström & Ian Hamilton, 2009. "The Heterogeneity of Socially Responsible Investment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(4), pages 519-533, July.
    5. Thomas Wanner, 2015. "The New 'Passive Revolution' of the Green Economy and Growth Discourse: Maintaining the 'Sustainable Development' of Neoliberal Capitalism," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 21-41, February.
    6. Simone Strambach & Benjamin Klement, 2011. "Cumulative and Combinatorial Micro-dynamics of Knowledge: The Role of Space and Place in Knowledge Integration," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(11), pages 1843-1866, November.
    7. Natalia Semenova & Lars Hassel, 2015. "On the Validity of Environmental Performance Metrics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 249-258, December.
    8. Robert G. Eccles & Michael P. Krzus & Jean Rogers & George Serafeim, 2012. "The Need for Sector-Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting Standards," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 24(2), pages 65-71, June.
    9. Mark Graham & Matthew Zook, 2013. "Augmented Realities and Uneven Geographies: Exploring the Geolinguistic Contours of the Web," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(1), pages 77-99, January.
    10. Steven Scalet & Thomas Kelly, 2010. "CSR Rating Agencies: What is Their Global Impact?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 69-88, June.
    11. Soh Young In & Dane Rook & Ashby Monk, 2019. "Integrating Alternative Data (Also Known as ESG Data) in Investment Decision Making," Global Economic Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 237-260, July.
    12. Revelli, Christophe, 2017. "Socially responsible investing (SRI): From mainstream to margin?," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(PB), pages 711-717.
    13. Michael A. Urban & Dariusz Wójcik, 2019. "Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, March.
    14. Aaron K. Chatterji & Rodolphe Durand & David I. Levine & Samuel Touboul, 2016. "Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1597-1614, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evgeny Burnaev & Evgeny Mironov & Aleksei Shpilman & Maxim Mironenko & Dmitry Katalevsky, 2023. "Practical AI Cases for Solving ESG Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Rendani Mavis Matakanye & Huibrecht Margaretha van der Poll & Binganidzo Muchara, 2021. "Do Companies in Different Industries Respond Differently to Stakeholders’ Pressures When Prioritising Environmental, Social and Governance Sustainability Performance?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Xiyan Gu & Yingjun Zhu & Jingxia Zhang, 2023. "Toward sustainable port development: an empirical analysis of China’s port industry using an ESG framework," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Paola Demartini & Claudia Pagliei, 2023. "Can we trust ESG Ratings? Some insights based on a bibliometric analysis of ESG data quality and rating reliability," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(2 Suppl.), pages 161-187.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sofia Brito-Ramos & Maria Céu Cortez & Florinda Silva, 2022. "Do sustainability signals diverge? An analysis of labeling schemes for socially responsible investments ," Working Papers hal-04064367, HAL.
    2. Charlie Karlsson & Börje Johansson & Kiyoshi Kobayashi & Roger R. Stough, 2014. "Knowledge, innovation and space: introduction," Chapters, in: Charlie Karlsson & Börje Johansson & Kiyoshi Kobayashi & Roger R. Stough (ed.), Knowledge, Innovation and Space, chapter 1, pages 1-26, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Céline LOUCHE & Guillaume DELAUTRE & Gabriela BALVEDI PIMENTEL, 2023. "Assessing companies' decent work practices: An analysis of ESG rating methodologies," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 162(1), pages 69-97, March.
    4. Billio, Monica & Costola, Michele & Hristova, Iva & Latino, Carmelo & Pelizzon, Loriana, 2022. "Sustainable finance: A journey toward ESG and climate risk," SAFE Working Paper Series 349, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    5. Alfonso Del Giudice & Silvia Rigamonti, 2020. "Does Audit Improve the Quality of ESG Scores? Evidence from Corporate Misconduct," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Felipe Arias Fogliano de Souza Cunha & Erick Meira & Renato J. Orsato, 2021. "Sustainable finance and investment: Review and research agenda," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 3821-3838, December.
    7. Karlsson, Charlie & Johansson, Börje & Kobayashi, Kiyoshi & Stough, Roger R., 2014. "Knowledge, innovation and space," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 367, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    8. Olivier Boiral & David Talbot & Marie‐Christine Brotherton, 2020. "Measuring sustainability risks: A rational myth?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2557-2571, September.
    9. Elena Escrig-Olmedo & María Ángeles Fernández-Izquierdo & Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero & Juana María Rivera-Lirio & María Jesús Muñoz-Torres, 2019. "Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integrate Sustainability Principles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, February.
    10. Luluk Widyawati, 2021. "Measurement concerns and agreement of environmental social governance ratings," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 1589-1623, April.
    11. Jongmoo Jay Choi & Hoje Jo & Jimi Kim & Moo Sung Kim, 2018. "Business Groups and Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 931-954, December.
    12. Andrea Coveri & Antonello Zanfei, 2023. "Who wins the race for knowledge-based competitiveness? Comparing European and North American FDI patterns," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 292-330, February.
    13. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Riccardo Crescenzi, 2008. "Mountains in a flat world: why proximity still matters for the location of economic activity," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 1(3), pages 371-388.
    14. Alice Martini, 2019. "Socially responsible investing: from the ethical origins to the sustainable development framework of the european union," Public Finance Research Papers 36, Istituto di Economia e Finanza, DSGE, Sapienza University of Rome.
    15. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Zhang, Min, 2020. "The cost of weak institutions for innovation in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    16. Laurent R. Bergé, 2017. "Network proximity in the geography of research collaboration," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96(4), pages 785-815, November.
    17. Tappeiner, Gottfried & Hauser, Christoph & Walde, Janette, 2008. "Regional knowledge spillovers: Fact or artifact?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 861-874, June.
    18. Neij, Lena & Heiskanen, Eva & Strupeit, Lars, 2017. "The deployment of new energy technologies and the need for local learning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 274-283.
    19. Trevor J Barnes, 2018. "A marginal man and his central contributions: The creative spaces of William (‘Wild Bill’) Bunge and American geography," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(8), pages 1697-1715, November.
    20. Rosina Moreno & Ernest Miguélez, 2012. "A Relational Approach To The Geography Of Innovation: A Typology Of Regions," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 492-516, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3551-:d:522385. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.