ESG benchmarking has to be based on comparable sustainability data that reflects impacts as well as risks
What is the function of the ESG ratings’ industry, do they actually establish whether companies are sustainable or not – and how will international forthcoming modifications in sustainability reporting affect them?
In the latest copy of The GRI Perspective: The ABC of ESG ratings – an invitation for common ground, some of the issues have been studied. Uncovering a collection of organizations whose role in sustainability disclosure is often confused, it presents the types and functions of the ratings firms out there – and why enquiries about the consistency and transparency of the ESG rankings they produce continue.
Bronte Klein, Senior Manager – Executive Affairs, GRI, said:
“ESG ratings have an important role in benchmarking sustainability information, which can help investors to assess and contrast the performance of companies against ESG metrics. Yet, when it comes to what these agencies actually rate, the overwhelming focus is on sustainability risk and not impact.
Getting to grips with whether a business is taking accountability for its socio-economic and environmental impacts on the world, and thereby contributing to sustainable development, cannot be achieved using a financial lens alone. ESG ranking firms are starting to realize this, which is reflected by increased attention on impact materiality, as enabled by reporting using the GRI Standards.
Achieving a global baseline for corporate sustainability information is currently being progressed through a cooperation agreement between GRI and the IFRS’ International Sustainability Standards Board. Signposting the way to an improved reporting system that delivers consistent data on both sustainability impacts and risks, this collaboration is good news for stakeholders and information users, including ESG rankers.”