Read time: 3 minutes

Over the last few years, the consideration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors have grown in importance when it comes to investment decisions, with ESG ratings serving as a critical benchmark for investors seeking sustainable and ethically sound investment opportunities. However, the reliability of these ratings has come under scrutiny due to concerns around the accuracy of data used, and challenges in comparing ESG indexes compiled by different agencies. The absence of standardised reporting requirements and independent verification processes increases the financial risk for investors who make decisions based on such ratings.

Issues also arise regarding incomplete and inconsistent data used for ESG ratings. A 2023 poll by BNP Paribas of 420 investors, covering asset owners and managers, hedge funds and private equity firms, found that 71% viewed ‘inconsistent and incomplete’ data as the biggest barrier to ESG investing. The huge variation in data sources, methodologies, and criteria utilised by ESG rating agencies contributes increased scepticism around the usefulness of such ratings attributed to companies. This, in turn, poses challenges for investors seeking to compare ESG ratings reliably. Additionally, as the majority of companies reporting ESG metrics do so voluntarily, there are increasing concerns about the pressure to disclose only positive information. Over time this can lead to the possibility of ‘greenwashing’, with investors at risk of making financial decisions based on misleading sustainability claims published by these companies.

There is a growing need for increased transparency around ESG data collection, regularised reporting systems, and third-party authentication of the evidence informing company ratings. There have been controversies that have demonstrated inconsistencies in rating criteria, as well as the risk of ESG rating agencies placing greater/lesser weight on particular elements of the ‘E’, ‘S’ and ‘G’, when deciding on ratings. This leads to not only to challenges in comparing scores, but also obscures the true rationales behind the ratings given, further inhibiting the ability to verify the data and information provided. The push towards legal standardisation would not only enhance the reliability of ESG ratings, but also establish a more solid and robust framework for comparability across companies and industries.

There is a responsibility on investors, at least from a legal standpoint, to exercise due diligence when interpreting ESG ratings. Understanding the often-complex methodologies used by different ESG rating agencies, authenticating data sources, and considering the legal context of a company’s operations are crucial steps in making well-informed and reliable investments. Seeking advice and input from experienced legal professionals is essential to making sensible financial decisions. It is also incumbent on the regulatory bodies involved in this area, such as the FCA in the UK, and ESMA in Europe, to set aside resource to help establish a solid legal framework that promotes accountability and transparency in the realm of ESG investing.

In conclusion, while ESG ratings play a vital role in the legal landscape of responsible investing, their reliability is currently marred by data inadequacies and a lack of comparability. To ensure that ESG ratings can be trusted, concerted efforts from a variety of stakeholders are required. Regulatory bodies must establish consistent frameworks and methodologies for ESG reporting; companies should be transparent and thorough in their evidence gathering and findings; and prospective investors must critically assess and seek second opinions on the ESG ratings they propose to rely on. Only through such collaborative efforts can the ESG landscape evolve into a trustworthy guide for responsible investing.