IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i16p12235-d1214589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An ESG Assessment Approach with Multi-Agent Preference Differences: Based on Fuzzy Reasoning and Group Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Yihe Lu

    (School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China)

  • Yinyun Yu

    (School of Economics and Management, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400074, China)

  • Ting Qu

    (School of Intelligent Systems Science and Engineering, Jinan University, Zhuhai 519000, China)

Abstract

The adoption of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) to measure the green development, social responsibility, and public interest of companies is a commonly accepted theme and approach in the industry and academia at present. As ESG assessment is characterized by heterogeneity of subjects, complexity of contents, diversity of scales, and uncertainty of weights, it has led to the variability of ESG assessment results given by different assessment organizations in the same company, which has attracted a lot of criticism. This paper proposes a group decision-making method based on the preferences of multiple subjects to solve the problem of heterogeneity of subjects in ESG assessment. Specifically, for the given ESG evaluation data, the first step is to identify the preferences of subjects and structure the initial group matrix; secondly, the fuzzy inference system is employed to mine the hidden preference information; further, the initial group matrix is revised using the preference information; and finally, the TOPSIS method is applied to aggregate the information and obtain the final ESG score and ranking of each company. This study was tested using statistics from 30 companies released by Harvest Fund in May 2021, which verified the validity and advantages of the method proposed in this paper. The proposed method integrates the preferences of heterogeneous subjects and mines the possible hidden preference information, which increases the interpretation of the information contained in the original ESG data and facilitates the achievement of group consensus.

Suggested Citation

  • Yihe Lu & Yinyun Yu & Ting Qu, 2023. "An ESG Assessment Approach with Multi-Agent Preference Differences: Based on Fuzzy Reasoning and Group Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12235-:d:1214589
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12235/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12235/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Monica Billio & Michele Costola & Iva Hristova & Carmelo Latino & Loriana Pelizzon, 2021. "Inside the ESG ratings: (Dis)agreement and performance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1426-1445, September.
    2. Song, Lianlian & Fu, Yelin & Zhou, Peng & Lai, Kin Keung, 2017. "Measuring national energy performance via Energy Trilemma Index: A Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 313-319.
    3. Shan Wu & Ying Li, 2023. "A Study on the Impact of Digital Transformation on Corporate ESG Performance: The Mediating Role of Green Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Cheng, Louis T.W. & Lee, Shu Kam & Li, Sung Ko & Tsang, Chun Kei, 2023. "Understanding resource deployment efficiency for ESG and financial performance: A DEA approach," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    5. Muttanachai Suttipun, 2023. "ESG Performance and Corporate Financial Risk of the Alternative Capital Market in Thailand," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 2168290-216, December.
    6. Khalfaoui Hamdi & Hassan Guenich & Moufida Ben Saada, 2022. "Does corporate financial performance promote ESG: Evidence from US firms," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 2154053-215, December.
    7. Guochao Wan & Ahmad Yahya Dawod, 2022. "ESG Rating and Northbound Capital Shareholding Preferences: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    8. Nisar Ahmad & Asma Mobarek & Moodhi Raid, 2023. "Impact of global financial crisis on firm performance in UK: Moderating role of ESG, corporate governance and firm size," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 2167548-216, December.
    9. Jody Grewal & Edward J. Riedl & George Serafeim, 2019. "Market Reaction to Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3061-3084, July.
    10. Ishizaka, Alessio & Lokman, Banu & Tasiou, Menelaos, 2021. "A Stochastic Multi-criteria divisive hierarchical clustering algorithm," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cheng, Louis T.W. & Cheong, Tsun Se & Wojewodzki, Michal & Chui, David, 2025. "The effect of ESG divergence on the financial performance of Hong Kong-listed firms: An artificial neural network approach," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 73(PA).
    2. Angilella, Silvia & Doumpos, Michalis & Pappalardo, Maria Rosaria & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2024. "Assessing the performance of banks through an improved sigma-mu multicriteria analysis approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Wei Jiang & Xin Wang & Liping Liang & Mingming Leng & Xin Fang, 2025. "ESG Ratings as a Strategic Imperative: Unraveling Their Influence on Corporate Financial Performance in China," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 16(2), pages 9313-9337, June.
    4. Wan, Guochao & Zhang, Weike & Li, Chao, 2024. "How does low-carbon city pilot policy catalyze companies toward ESG practices? Evidence from China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1593-1607.
    5. Su, Yueying & Li, Jialong & Li, Zhicheng & Wu, Cathy, 2025. "CEO inside debt holdings and climate risk concerns in corporate acquisition," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    6. Bingler, Julia Anna & Kraus, Mathias & Leippold, Markus & Webersinke, Nicolas, 2024. "How cheap talk in climate disclosures relates to climate initiatives, corporate emissions, and reputation risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    7. Liu, Xiangqiang & Yang, Qingqing & Wei, Kai & Dai, Peng-Fei, 2024. "ESG rating disagreement and idiosyncratic return volatility: Evidence from China," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(PB).
    8. Müller, Raphael & Spengel, Christoph & Weck, Stefan, 2021. "How do investors value the publication of tax information? Evidence from the European public country-by-country reporting," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-077, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Liu, Yang & Dong, Kangyin & Nepal, Rabindra & Afi, Hatem, 2025. "How do climate risks affect corporate ESG performance? Micro evidence from China," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    10. Berenike Wiener & Georg von Schnurbein, 2023. "Foundation Investment Funds for Grant-Making Foundations in Germany: Do They Facilitate Sustainable Investing?," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    11. Krivogorsky, Victoria, 2024. "Sustainability reporting with two different voices: The European Union and the International Sustainability Standards Board," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. Alessi, Lucia & Battiston, Stefano, 2022. "Two sides of the same coin: Green Taxonomy alignment versus transition risk in financial portfolios," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    13. Muck, Matthias & Schmidl, Thomas, 2024. "Comparing ESG score weighting approaches and stock performance differentiation," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 67(PB).
    14. Iulia Lupu & Gheorghe Hurduzeu & Radu Lupu, 2022. "How Is the ESG Reflected in European Financial Stability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-14, August.
    15. Marius Banke & Stephanie Lenger & Christiane Pott, 2022. "ESG Ratings in the Corporate Reporting of DAX40 Companies in Germany: Effects on Market Participants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-21, August.
    16. Fereydooni, Ali & Barak, Sasan & Asaad Sajadi, Seyed Mehrzad, 2024. "A novel online portfolio selection approach based on pattern matching and ESG factors," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    17. Basu, Debarati & Sen, Kaustav, 2022. "Organizational form and access to capital: The role of regulatory interventions," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    18. Kurbus, Barbara & Rant, Vasja, 2025. "A legal origins perspective on ESG rating disagreement," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    19. Dongheng Han & Zhihui Li & Xun Cui & Lin Liang, 2025. "How Can We Improve the ESG Performance of Manufacturing Enterprises?—The Carbon Resilience Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-26, March.
    20. Kevin Birk & Stefan Jacob & Marco Wilkens, 2025. "What attracts sustainable fund flows? Prospectus versus ratings," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(2), pages 216-237, March.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12235-:d:1214589. 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.