top of page
Subscribe for Free Business and Finance Resources
  • Writer's picturePeak Frameworks Team

What are ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) Scores?

ESG stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance, three broad categories that measure a company's sustainability and societal impact.

An ESG Score is a quantitative way to assess a company's performance in these areas, providing a holistic view of its operations beyond mere financial performance.

ESG score
Source: renouvo

The ESG Score plays a critical role in today's investment decisions. Consequently, professionals working in private equity, corporate finance, or investment banking should have a comprehensive understanding of ESG scoring.

A solid knowledge of ESG factors can enhance investment strategies, improve stakeholder engagement, and mitigate potential risks.

If you're interested in breaking into finance, check out our Private Equity Course and Investment Banking Course, which help thousands of candidates land top jobs every year.

Components of an ESG Score

Environmental Factors

Environmental factors assess a company's impact on the environment. Companies with eco-friendly practices tend to score higher. Key components include:

  • Climate Change and Carbon Emissions: Consider Apple, which has committed to becoming 100% carbon neutral across its entire business by 2030.

  • Air and Water Pollution: Beverage giant Coca-Cola has implemented significant water management initiatives to reduce its global water footprint.

  • Biodiversity: Google's Environmental Report highlights its efforts to design wildlife-friendly campuses.

  • Energy Efficiency: Unilever saved 1.5 million tons of CO2 from 2008-2020 through energy efficiency measures.

  • Waste Management: IKEA is striving to become a circular business by 2030, meaning no products should end up as waste.

Environmental Social Governance
Source: Mercer Investment Trust New Zealand

Social Factors

Social factors gauge how a company manages relationships with its employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where it operates. Aspects include:

  • Employee Engagement and Diversity: Microsoft's diversity and inclusion report shows its commitment to an inclusive workforce.

  • Product Safety and Liability: Johnson & Johnson faced reputational and financial damages due to product liability issues.

  • Privacy and Data Security: Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal served as a stark reminder of data security's importance.

  • Community Relations: Starbucks supports various community initiatives, from hiring refugees to youth employment programs.

  • Human Rights: Nike faced backlash for its labor practices in the 1990s but has since made significant improvements.

Governance Factors

Governance factors evaluate a company's leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls, and shareholder rights. Key points include:

  • Board Structure and Diversity: Goldman Sachs now refuses to take companies public if they don't have at least one diverse board member.

  • Executive Compensation: Tesla CEO Elon Musk's compensation plan ties his earnings to the company's market value and growth.

  • Shareholder Rights: Amazon shareholders have pushed (and resisted) for more influence over the company's practices.

  • Business Ethics: The Volkswagen emissions scandal is a textbook example of governance gone wrong.

  • Transparency and Reporting: Salesforce publishes an annual Stakeholder Impact Report, setting a high standard for transparency.

Methodologies for Assessing ESG Score

Methods of  Assessing ESG scores
Source: Azeus Convene

There's no denying the importance of ESG scores in today's financial world. However, the methods used to assess and rate these scores can sometimes be complex, and understanding them is crucial to getting the most out of this powerful tool.

Common Frameworks and Standards

Several frameworks and standards are used to compile and assess ESG data, each with its own focus and methodology.

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): As an international independent organization, the GRI provides a comprehensive set of standards for reporting on a range of sustainability metrics. It promotes transparency and enables organizations to contribute to sustainable development.

  • Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB): The SASB has a more narrow focus, providing industry-specific standards for businesses in the U.S. to disclose financially material sustainability information to investors.

  • Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD): The TCFD provides recommendations for more effective climate-related disclosures that could promote more informed investment, credit, and insurance underwriting decisions.

Each framework has its own strengths, and many companies use a combination of these and other standards to form a comprehensive picture of their ESG performance.

The Role of Third-Party Raters

In addition to these self-reporting frameworks, there are also several third-party raters who assess companies' ESG performance. These include firms like MSCI, Sustainalytics, and ISS, which analyze public and proprietary data to provide an independent ESG score.

However, these ratings can be subject to criticism. Some argue that the proprietary nature of these ratings leads to opacity about the methods used to calculate them. Others suggest that the broad scope of ESG can lead to significant discrepancies between the ratings given by different firms, making it difficult for investors to compare companies effectively.

Understanding Discrepancies Between Different Scoring Systems

Given the multiple methodologies employed by different entities, discrepancies in ESG scoring are somewhat inevitable. For instance, a company might score high on the GRI due to its comprehensive environmental initiatives, but score lower on the SASB if they fail to meet industry-specific social metrics.

Similarly, different third-party raters may weigh certain factors differently, leading to variation in scores. For example, one rater might place a higher emphasis on a company's carbon emissions, while another might prioritize board diversity.

Understanding these potential discrepancies is vital for any finance professional using ESG scores as a part of their investment strategy or risk assessment. It's essential not just to consider the scores themselves, but also the methodologies behind them. That way, you can have a more comprehensive understanding of what a given ESG score is truly reflecting and how it fits into your broader strategy.

Conclusion

In this comprehensive exploration of ESG scores, we've journeyed from understanding their core components — environmental, social, and governance factors — to diving into the methodologies behind their assessment. We examined the essential role of frameworks like GRI, SASB, and TCFD, along with the part third-party raters play.

Kommentare


bottom of page