Main differences in ESG metrics and its impacts on ratings of Brazilian banks
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23925/2446-9513.2023v10id58663Keywords:
ESG, Ratings, Environmental, Social, Governance, Indicators, BanksAbstract
The objective of this article was to demonstrate the main divergences between the ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) metrics used by rating agencies and the impacts of these divergences on the ESG indicators of Brazilian banks. From the comparison of differences in methodology, scope and weights used by two of the largest international rating companies (Refinitiv and S&P) it was possible to observe differences in the result of the indicators. These divergences can make it difficult for institutions to assess ESG aspects related to the interests of all stakeholders in an organization, as provided for in the Stakeholder Theory. The ESG indicators of the four largest Brazilian banks were analyzed and divergences were verified in the weights adopted by the rating agencies for the indicators related to the Social (32% and 49.6%) and Governance (55% and 36%) factors, in addition to divergences criteria in all components. Finally, it was possible to demonstrate that these divergences influenced the scores attributed by rating agencies to the banks, which can make it difficult for users of the information to perform an accurate analysis, whether they large investors or even society that expects to receive returns in exchange for the status of legitimacy conferred to the organization.
References
ALAKENT, E.; OZER, M. Can companies buy legitimacy? Using corporate political strategies to offset negative corporate social responsibility records. Journal of Strategy and Management, v. 7, n. 4, 2014.
ALEXANDRINO, T. C. Análise da relação entre os indicadores de desempenho sustentável (ESG) e desempenho econômico-financeiro de empresas listadas na B3. 2020.
ASSAF NETO, A. Mercado Financeiro. 11ª. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2012.
BANCO DO BRASIL, Perfil Corporativo. 2010. https://www.bb.com.br.
BANCO DO BRASIL. Compromisso Sustentável. 2021. https://www.bb.com.br.
BANCO ITAÚ. Avaliação ESG. 2022. https://www.itau.com.br/sustentabilidade/show.
BANNERJEE, S. B. Managerial Perceptions of Corporate Environmentalism: Interpretations from Industry and Strategic Implications for Organizations’. Journal of Management Studies, v. 38, p. 489-513, 2001.
BASTOS, D. D. ET AL. A relação entre o retorno das ações e as métricas de desempenho: evidências empíricas para as companhias abertas no Brasil. REGE, v. 16, 2009.
BERG, F.; KOELBEL, J. F.; RIGOBON, R. Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Sloan School of Management, 2019.
BEUREN, I. M. Como elaborar trabalhos monográficos em Contabilidade: teoria e prática. 3ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2014.
BORBA, J. A. ET AL.: Teoria da Contabilidade: Análise da disciplina nos Programas de Mestrado Brasileiros. Revista Sociedade, Contabilidade e Gestão, v. 6, n. 2, 2011.
BRIGHI, P.; VENTURELLI, V. How do income diversification, firm size and capital ratio affect performance? Evidence for bank holding companies. Applied Financial Economics, v. 24, n. 21, p. 1375-1392, 2014.
BROCKET, A. & REZAEE, Z. Corporate sustainability: Integrating performance and reporting. NJ. USA: John Wiley and Sans Hoboken, 2012.
BUGG-LEVINE, A., EMERSON, J. Impact investing transforming how we make money while making a difference. Innov. 6 (3), 9 e18, 2011.
CHATTERJI, A. K. ET AL. Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, v. 37, n. 8, 2016.
CHRISTENSEN, D. M.; SERAFEIM, G.; SIKOCHI, A. Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings. The Accounting Review, v. 97, n. 1, p. 147-175, 2022.
DAMODARAN, A.; CORNELL, B. Valuing ESG: Doing Good or Sounding Good? SSRN. p. 1-29. 2020.
DEDONATTO, O. & BEUREN, Ilse Maria. Análise dos impactos para a contabilidade no processo de implantação da governança corporativa em uma empresa. Revista de Contabilidade e Controladoria, ISSN 1984-6266. Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, v. 2, n.3. 2010.
DONALDSON, T.; PRESTON, L. E. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, v. 20, n. 1, p. 65-91, 1995.
ESCRIG-OLMEDO, E. ET AL. Rating the raters: Evaluating how ESG rating agencies integrate sustainability principles. Sustainability, v. 11, n. 3, p. 915, 2019.
ESCRIG-OLMEDO, E.; MUÑOZ-TORRES, M. J.; FERNANDEZ-IZQUIERDO, M. A. Socially responsible investing: sustainability indices, ESG rating and information provider agencies. International journal of sustainable economy, v. 2, n. 4, 2010.
FREEMAN, R. E. Strategic Management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
FREEMAN, R. E. & MCVEA J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. Darden Business School Working Paper, (01-02).
FRIEDMAN, M. A Friedman doctrine ‐ The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times. 1970.
GALBREATH, J. ESG em foco: A evidência australiana. J. Ônibus. Ética. 2013, 118.
GÓES, H. A. A., REIS, G. G. & ABIB, G. Quando a teoria dos stakeholders encontra a teoria da justificação: uma proposta de interseção. Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 19, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, 2021.
GRUPO REPORT. Os caminhos do Relatório ESG: Um panorama sobre os frameworks e standards mais utilizados. 2021.
INTERNACIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION. Who Cares Wins - Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World. jun/2004. https://www.ifc.org.
LAKATOS, E. M.; MARCONI, M. A. Fundamentos de metodologia científica. 8ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2019.
MEYER, J. W.; SCOTT, W. R. Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In: MEYER, J. W.; SCOTT, W. R. (Ed.). Organizational environments: ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, p. 199-215. 1983.
MITCHELL, R. K.; AGLE, B. R.; WOOD, D. J. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, v. 22, n. 4, p. 853-886, 1997.
OLMEDO-ESCRIG ET AL. Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integrate Sustainability Principles, Sustainability, 11, 915, 2019
PACTO GLOBAL & BANCO MUNDIAL. Who Cares Wins – Conecting Financial Markets to a Changing World. 2004.
PHILLIPS, R. Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 1, 2003.
RIBEIRO, H. C. M. Teoria dos Stakeholders: um estudo bibliométrico de sua produção acadêmica divulgada nos periódicos nacionais de 1999 a 2013. CONTEXTUS Revista Contemporânea de Economia e Gestão. Vol 14 – Nº 1. 2016.
ROBERTS, R. W.; MAHONEY, L. Stakeholder Conceptions of the corporation: their meaning and influence in accounting research. Business Ethics Quarterly. v. 14, n. 3, 2004.
SANTANA, A. Three Elements of Stakeholder Legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, [S.l.], v. 105, n. 2, 2012.
SERAFEIM, G.; YOON, A. Stock price reactions to esg news: The role of esg ratings and disagreement. Forthcoming, Review of Accounting Studies, 2021.
SONPAR, K.; PAZZAGLIA, F.; KORNIJENKO; J. The paradox and constraints of legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics. v. 95, p. 1-21, 2010.
SUCHMAN, M. C. Managing Legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review. v. 20, n. 3, p. 571-610, 1995.
TEIXEIRA NETO, J. M. F. (2019). Uma revisão da Teoria dos Stakeholders e principais pontos de controvérsias. Revista Brasileira de Administração Científica, v.10, n.2, p.1-16.
WIDYAWATI, L. A systematic literature review of socially responsible investment and environmental social governance metrics. Business Strategy and the Environment, v. 29, n. 2, 2020.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Antonio Martiningo Filho, Agatha Kovalek de Lima, Vinicius Alves dos Santos Pereira, Ducineli Regis Botelho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
