ANALYSIS OF ESG RATING AGENCY METHODOLOGIES AS A STANDARDIZATION TOOL

Abstract

ESG ratings have become the de facto standard for assessing corporate sustainability. However, the multiplicity of methodologies and the lack of unified approaches give rise to the problem of rating divergence, which undermines investor confidence and creates risks for investment decision-making. This paper is devoted to a comparative analysis of ESG rating methodologies in the context of standardization. Using three conceptually distinct approaches as examples — the disclosure-based approach of Bloomberg, the controversies-based approach of Refinitiv, and the risk management-based approach of RAEX — the key parameters of divergence are identified: data sources, aggregation logic, treatment of missing data and controversial situations, and rating scales. It is shown that rating divergence is not a random phenomenon but a systemic one, driven by fundamental differences in defining what should be measured, how data should be collected, and how imperfect information should be interpreted. Recommendations are formulated for standardizing key parameters of non-financial disclosure for regulators, investors, and companies.