IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i16p6979-d1456494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Stacked Generalization Ensemble-Based Hybrid SGM-BRR Model for ESG Score Prediction

Author

Listed:
  • Zhie Wang

    (Management Engineering School, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Xiaoyong Wang

    (Management Engineering School, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Xuexin Liu

    (College of Business Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Jun Zhang

    (Management Engineering School, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Jingde Xu

    (Institute of Higher Education, North China Institute of Science and Technology, Langfang 065201, China)

  • Jun Ma

    (Management Engineering School, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

Abstract

Recently, financial institutions and investors have placed an increasing emphasis on ESG (environmental, social, and governance) as a principal indicator for the evaluation of companies. However, the current ESG scoring systems lack uniformity and are often subjective. It is of great importance to be able to make accurate predictions regarding the ESG scores of corporations. A Stacked Generalization Model that employs Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) as base learners, with Bayesian Ridge Regression (BRR) as the meta-model for integrating the predictions of these diverse models is proposed. The goal is to develop an ESG score prediction model for Chinese companies. The experimental data set encompasses Chinese A-share listed companies from 2012 to 2020. The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R 2 ) are employed for model evaluation and are compared with seven benchmark models. The results demonstrate that SGM-BRR reduces the RMSE by 18.4%, 17.3%, 13.7%, and 76.1%, the MAE by 15.4%, 18.4%, 15.8%, and 68.4%, and increases the R 2 by 2%, 1.4%, 2%, and 6% for ESG, E, S, and G scores, respectively. Furthermore, the model’s performance is validated across different industries, with SGM-BRR exhibiting the most optimal performance of RMSE, MAE, and R 2 in 27, 25, and 27 groups, respectively. Consequently, the model demonstrates broad applicability and stability performance in ESG score prediction.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhie Wang & Xiaoyong Wang & Xuexin Liu & Jun Zhang & Jingde Xu & Jun Ma, 2024. "A Novel Stacked Generalization Ensemble-Based Hybrid SGM-BRR Model for ESG Score Prediction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-25, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6979-:d:1456494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6979/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6979/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gunnar Friede, 2019. "Why don't we see more action? A metasynthesis of the investor impediments to integrate environmental, social, and governance factors," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1260-1282, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Fernando García & Jairo González-Bueno & Francisco Guijarro & Javier Oliver, 2020. "Forecasting the Environmental, Social, and Governance Rating of Firms by Using Corporate Financial Performance Variables: A Rough Set Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Shira Cohen & Igor Kadach & Gaizka Ormazabal & Stefan Reichelstein, 2023. "Executive Compensation Tied to ESG Performance: International Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 61(3), pages 805-853, June.
    5. Mike G. Tsionas, 2024. "Correction to: Multi-criteria optimization in regression," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 332(1), pages 1157-1157, January.
    6. Zeng, Shihong & Li, Tengfei & Wu, Shaomin & Gao, Weijun & Li, Gen, 2024. "Does green technology progress have a significant impact on carbon dioxide emissions?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    7. Apergis, Nicholas & Poufinas, Thomas & Antonopoulos, Alexandros, 2022. "ESG scores and cost of debt," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    8. Zhou, Bihua & Huang, Yun & Zhao, Yihang, 2024. "Research on the incentive effect of the policy combination of carbon-reduction pilot cities," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 456-475.
    9. Mikko Ranta & Mika Ylinen & Marko Järvenpää, 2023. "Machine Learning in Management Accounting Research: Literature Review and Pathways for the Future," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 607-636, May.
    10. 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)

    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. 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.
    3. Valeria D’Amato & Rita D’Ecclesia & Susanna Levantesi, 2021. "Fundamental ratios as predictors of ESG scores: a machine learning approach," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 44(2), pages 1087-1110, December.
    4. Kathan, Manuel C. & Utz, Sebastian & Dorfleitner, Gregor & Eckberg, Jens & Chmel, Lea, 2025. "What you see is not what you get: ESG scores and greenwashing risk," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Caterina Lucarelli & Sabrina Severini, 2024. "Anatomy of the chimera: Environmental, Social, and Governance ratings beyond the myth," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 4198-4217, July.
    6. Ann Susan Thomas & Ambili Jayachandran & Ajithakumari Vijayappan Nair Biju, 2024. "Strategic mapping of the environmental social governance landscape in finance – A bibliometric exploration through concepts and themes," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 4428-4453, September.
    7. Ren, Xiaohang & Zeng, Gudian & Zhao, Yang, 2023. "Digital finance and corporate ESG performance: Empirical evidence from listed companies in China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    8. Muck, Matthias & Schmidl, Thomas, 2024. "Comparing ESG score weighting approaches and stock performance differentiation," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 67(PB).
    9. Kurbus, Barbara & Rant, Vasja, 2025. "A legal origins perspective on ESG rating disagreement," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    10. Zeng, Yongliang & Zhao, Xiangfang & Zhu, Yiwen, 2023. "Equity incentives and ESG performance: Evidence from China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PC).
    11. David Teh & Tehmina Khan, 2024. "Sustainability-Focused Accounting, Management, and Governance Research: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-46, November.
    12. 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).
    13. Zhu, Bo & Wang, Yansen, 2024. "Does social trust affect firms' ESG performance?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. Ajay, Ranjitha & Jory, Surendranath Rakesh & Syamraj, K.P., 2024. "Advancing understanding of ESG score and executive compensation relationships in the Indian context," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    17. Ilze Zumente & Nataļja Lāce, 2021. "ESG Rating—Necessity for the Investor or the Company?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    18. Zhu, Hongtao & Rahman, Md Jahidur, 2025. "Reprint of: Ex-ante expected changes in ESG and future stock returns based on machine learning," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(1).
    19. 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.
    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:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6979-:d:1456494. 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.