Comparative assessment of ESG ratings methodology and results based on XBRL

Abstract

This study provides a comparative analysis of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings methodologies and explores the potential of eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) to enhance transparency and comparability in ESG reporting. Evaluating ratings from different agencies, the research identifies significant methodological inconsistencies that lead to conflicting information for investors and stakeholders. Statistical tests and adjusted rating scales confirm substantial divergence in ESG scores, primarily due to differing data categories and indicators used by rating firms. Using a sample of 265 European companies, the study demonstrates that individual ESG agencies report markedly different ratings for the same firms, which can mislead stakeholders. It proposes that XBRL based reporting can mitigate these inconsistencies by providing a standardized framework for data collection and reporting. XBRL enables accurate and efficient data collection, reducing human error and enhancing the transparency of ESG reports. The findings advocate for integrating XBRL in ESG reporting to achieve higher levels of comparability and reliability. The study calls for greater regulatory oversight and the adoption of standardized taxonomies in ESG reporting to ensure consistent and comparable data across sectors and jurisdictions. Despite challenges like the lack of a standardized taxonomy and inconsistent adoption, the research contends that XBRL can significantly improve the reliability of ESG ratings. In conclusion, this study suggests that standardizing ESG data through XBRL could provide a viable solution to the unreliability of current ESG rating scales, supporting sustainable business practices and informed decision making by investors.