IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i24p16872-d1300739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

esg2go: A Method to Reduce Bias, Improve Coherence, and Increase Practicality of ESG Rating and Reporting

Author

Listed:
  • Isa Cakir

    (Center for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (CCRS), School of Management Fribourg (HEG-FR), 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland)

  • Philipp Aerni

    (Center for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (CCRS), School of Management Fribourg (HEG-FR), 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
    School of Management Fribourg, Western University of Applied Sciences (HES-SO), Chemin du Musée 4, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
    Science and Public Policy Unit, Department of Plant Microbial Biology (IPMB), University of Zurich, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Manfred Max Bergman

    (Department of Social Sciences, University of Basel, 4501 Basel, Switzerland
    Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Benjamin Cakir

    (Center for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (CCRS), School of Management Fribourg (HEG-FR), 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland)

Abstract

Rating agencies that assess a company’s environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) impact have been subject to public and academic scrutiny due to divergent and often biased rating outcomes. Concurrently, an evolving regulatory environment mandates publicly listed companies to report on ESG and climate emissions, taking into account supply chain risks as well. As a result, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are increasingly asked as suppliers to present a credible sustainability certificate. The esg2go rating and reporting system aims at improving the credibility and practicality of corporate sustainability assessment. It was jointly developed with its users and relevant stakeholders and is based on a calibrated benchmarking system from verifiable data. The rating method enables the measurement and comparison of sector- and firm size-specific sustainability performance. Its underlying adaptive parametrization is derived from a coherent and pragmatic definition of SME sustainability as the ‘ability to co-exist’. Our data analyses indicate that our scoring function is able to minimize bias and deliver a fair comparability between SMEs. We conclude that esg2go represents a pragmatic and innovative approach to enhance the fairness and accuracy of corporate sustainability assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Isa Cakir & Philipp Aerni & Manfred Max Bergman & Benjamin Cakir, 2023. "esg2go: A Method to Reduce Bias, Improve Coherence, and Increase Practicality of ESG Rating and Reporting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:24:p:16872-:d:1300739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16872/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16872/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuel Drempetic & Christian Klein & Bernhard Zwergel, 2020. "The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 333-360, November.
    2. Paul Griffin & Amy Myers Jaffe, 2022. "Challenges for a climate risk disclosure mandate," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 2-4, January.
    3. Shashwat Koirala, 2019. "SMEs: Key drivers of green and inclusive growth," OECD Green Growth Papers 2019/03, OECD Publishing.
    4. Philipp Aerni, 2018. "Global Business in Local Culture," SpringerBriefs in Economics, Springer, number 978-3-030-03798-7, March.
    5. Sakis Kotsantonis & George Serafeim, 2019. "Four Things No One Will Tell You About ESG Data," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 31(2), pages 50-58, June.
    6. Oliver Lukason & María-del-Mar Camacho-Miñano, 2021. "What Best Explains Reporting Delays? A SME Population Level Study of Different Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.
    7. 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. Mathias Payer & Martin Schüder & Tanja Gemünden & Henning Zülch, 2025. "Aligning ESG ratings with cultural values: a framework for the German-speaking region," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-19, December.

    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. Cini, Federico & Ferrari, Annalisa, 2025. "Towards the estimation of ESG ratings: A machine learning approach using balance sheet ratios," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 73(PB).
    2. Ilze Zumente & Nataļja Lāce, 2021. "ESG Rating—Necessity for the Investor or the Company?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    3. Andreas Dimmelmeier, 2024. "Expanding the politics of measurement in sustainable finance: Reconceptualizing environmental, social and governance information as infrastructure," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 42(5), pages 761-781, August.
    4. Spira, Robin, 2024. "How does ESG rating disagreement influence analyst forecast dispersion?," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 9(3), pages 1769-1804.
    5. Hasmik V. Khachatryan, 2022. "Divergence of ESG Ratings: Foreign Regulatory Trends," Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal, Financial Research Institute, Moscow 125375, Russia, issue 5, pages 89-104, October.
    6. Kurbus, Barbara & Rant, Vasja, 2025. "A legal origins perspective on ESG rating disagreement," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    7. Annebeth Roor & Karen Maas, 2024. "Do impact investors live up to their promise? A systematic literature review on (im)proving investments' impacts," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 3707-3732, May.
    8. Valeria D’Amato & Rita D’Ecclesia & Susanna Levantesi, 2022. "ESG score prediction through random forest algorithm," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 347-373, June.
    9. David Teh & Tehmina Khan, 2024. "Sustainability-Focused Accounting, Management, and Governance Research: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-46, November.
    10. Konstantin Ignatov & Markus Rudolf, 2023. "Sentimental Sustainability: Does What Companies Say Tell More Than What Companies Do?," Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 221-252, November.
    11. Liu, Xiangqiang & Peng, Yuling & Li, Qinyang & Wu, Chu-Hua, 2025. "CEO pay structure and ESG rating disagreement," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    12. Monica Billio & Michele Costola & Iva Hristova & Carmelo Latino & Loriana Pelizzon, 2024. "Sustainable Finance: A Journey Toward ESG and Climate Risk," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 18(1-2), pages 1-75, January.
    13. Deli Wang & Ke Peng & Kaiye Tang & Yewei Wu, 2022. "Does Fintech Development Enhance Corporate ESG Performance? Evidence from an Emerging Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-21, December.
    14. 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).
    15. Mathias Payer & Martin Schüder & Tanja Gemünden & Henning Zülch, 2025. "Aligning ESG ratings with cultural values: a framework for the German-speaking region," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Michele Rubino & Ilaria Mastrorocco & Giovanni Maria Garegnani, 2024. "The influence of market and institutional factors on ESG rating disagreement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 3916-3926, September.
    17. Burger, Eric & Grba, Fabian & Heidorn, Thomas, 2022. "The impact of ESG ratings on implied and historical volatility," Frankfurt School - Working Paper Series 230, Frankfurt School of Finance and Management.
    18. Ting-Ting Li & Kai Wang & Toshiyuki Sueyoshi & Derek D. Wang, 2021. "ESG: Research Progress and Future Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-28, October.
    19. Gallucci, Carmen & Santulli, Rosalia & Lagasio, Valentina, 2022. "The conceptualization of environmental, social and governance risks in portfolio studies A systematic literature review," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    20. Tobias Bauckloh & Stefan Schaltegger & Sebastian Utz & Sebastian Zeile & Bernhard Zwergel, 2023. "Active First Movers vs. Late Free-Riders? An Empirical Analysis of UN PRI Signatories’ Commitment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(3), pages 747-781, January.

    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:24:p:16872-:d:1300739. 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.