IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/finlet/v83y2025ics1544612325009377.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Has the divergence in ESG ratings affected institutional shareholding?

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Lei
  • Wang, Hanlei
  • Chen, Si
  • Chen, Zhi

Abstract

The performance of companies in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) plays a pivotal role in attracting investments. Nevertheless, ESG rating disagreement can undermine their effectiveness as a guiding tool, ultimately influencing the investment strategies of institutional investors. This study investigates the ESG rating disagreement that companies encounter and explores how these discrepancies influence institutional ownership. Drawing on data from Chinese A-share listed firms spanning from 2015 to 2022, along with ESG rating assessments from six prominent rating agencies, our findings reveal that inconsistencies in ESG ratings tend to decrease the proportion of institutional investment. This trend is largely due to the fact that discrepancies in ESG ratings lower the human capital and ROA of firms, thereby diminishing their attractiveness to institutional investors. External supervision can mitigate the detrimental effects of ESG rating disagreement on institutional holdings. Further, the impact of ESG rating disagreement on the proportion of institutional investors also varies according to the nature of corporate property rights and asset size.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Lei & Wang, Hanlei & Chen, Si & Chen, Zhi, 2025. "Has the divergence in ESG ratings affected institutional shareholding?," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:finlet:v:83:y:2025:i:c:s1544612325009377
    DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2025.107678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612325009377
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.frl.2025.107678?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:finlet:v:83:y:2025:i:c:s1544612325009377. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/frl .

    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.