Проблема дивергенции оценок, присуждаемых лицами, оказывающими услуги по оценке устойчивого развития. Главные тренды в области законодательного регулирования института ESG-рейтингования в России и мире

Abstract

Confidence in environment, social, and governance (ESG) ratings among investors remains at a fairly low level. An Edelman Insights study [2021] reported that almost three out of four institutional investors do not trust companies to achieve their stated commitments in the fields of sustainability, ESG, or diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI). One of the reasons for this distrust is the divergence of ESG ratings – that is, the difference in ratings given by different ESG agencies to the same companies. The origins of this problem lie in the fact that there is still no developed framework to regulate the process of assessing the sustainable development of companies. However, more and more international actors are becoming involved in this issue in order to increase confidence in the assessments of ESG rating providers. For example, codes of conduct for data and ESG ratings providers have already been issued by the United Kingdom (UK), the European Union (EU), India, and Japan. The Central Bank of Russia also issued an information letter on the regulation of the activities of ESG rating providers in the summer of 2023. This article studies the problem ESG ratings’ divergence and determines ways to solve it through the development of regulatory control. It also studies the main trends in the legislative regulation of this institution in order to implement them into the Russian regulatory framework. In this regard, an analysis of work by Russian and foreign researchers devoted to the study of differences in ESG ratings was carried out; additionally, the main approaches of international organizations and legislative bodies of Russia and other countries in the sphere of regulating ESG information providers and mandatory non-financial reporting of companies were studied. The main problems affecting the reduction of ESG data correlation are identified, solutions for them are proposed, and the key trends in improving the comparability of ESG ratings by international actors are noted. The comparative legal method was used in the study. The analysis shows that international actors resolve the problem of divergence by increasing their interpretability, but not through strict regulation. They propose to develop basic recommendations regarding methodologies, evaluation criteria, and weighting factors, while at the same time consolidating the responsibility of ESG rating agencies to disclose their methodology, the terminology used, and their rating definitions. The task is to create harmonized standards for, and transparency of, the ESG assessment process.