About a-team Marketing Services
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

ESG Ratings Providers See Calls for Regulation Snowball

Subscribe to our newsletter

The knives are out for ESG rating firms.

Often criticised for their lack of consistency in assessing companies’ sustainability and ESG performances, ratings providers are now the subject of regulatory scrutiny with UK officials last week saying such companies were failing green markets.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said the opacity of the methodologies of behind aggregated data-based scores and ratings is eroding trust in the markets they seek to serve. The London-based overseer said it is “carefully considering” 240 responses to a consultation it launched last year into whether it should regulate the sector.

The FCA was prompted to act by complaints that if left unbridled, ESG ratings could be used to mislead investors and promote greenwashing. Responsible investing charity ShareAction said regulation was needed to help tackle “the real and significant problem of greenwashing, which undermines not only client and public trust but also the potential of responsible investment to have any meaningful climate and social impact”.

In its most recent declaration, the FCA said it would issue a response before the end of September. The decision to consider bringing the firms within its gaze was largely welcomed by the UK’s investors, even though the Investment Association said the FCA’s proposals needed some work. The European Union has also begun a process of weighing the pros and cons of regulating the firms.

Ratings providers, including MSCI and S&P Global said they were studying the proposals.

Damning Survey

The perception that ESG ratings firms need to be monitored was hammered home by the most recent Rate the Raters survey conducted annually by sustainability consultancy ERM and the SustainAbility think tank.

Released at the end of March, the study of the views of 450 investment professionals and 1,400 corporate sustainability professionals across 29 countries, found a general dissatisfaction with ESG ratings providers.

While ratings are regarded as an essential part of investors’ due diligence processes, they were far from fully supported by their users. Among investors, more than half said they saw “greater consistency and comparability across ratings methodologies” and “improved quality and disclosure of methodology” as problems that needed most urgent solutions.

Nevertheless, more than half of respondents’ said ratings were the most important data sources used in their decision-making processes. Only in-house data ranked just a highly; third-party data was the most common source of ESG information for just two-fifths of investors.

In the survey, ISS ESG and CDP consistently achieved high scores across a range of quality and usefulness measures, followed closely by Morningstar’s Sustainalytics and S&P Global.

Higher profile

The profile of ESG ratings providers has been raised by the growing focus on sustainability investing as demand for green assets has surged in recent years. Conservative politicians’ attacks on sustainability markets, particularly in the US, have often focused on the raters, branding them as “black boxes” for their often closely guarded assessment methodologies.

While it looks likely that there will be some oversight of ratings providers, the stringency of any regulations is unclear. The IA, for instance has said the FCA’s proposals, unless properly calibrated, could place undue burdens on its members.

There are others who argue that the very inconsistency of the ratings is what gives them their value. GoldenSource vice-president of product management and regulatory affairs Volker Lainer has long argued that it is important to have specific ratings methodologies to reflect the multiple factors assessed within ESG.

“Having those different processes makes sense,” Lainer told ESG Insight last month. “You absolutely benefit from the fact that they have differing approaches.”

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Upcoming Webinar: Best practices for compliance with EU Market Abuse Regulation

Date: 18 June 2024 Time: 10:00am ET / 3:00pm London / 4:00pm CET Duration: 50 minutes EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) came into force in July 2016, rescinding the previous Market Abuse Directive and replacing it with a significantly extended scope of regulatory obligations. Eight years later, and amid constant change in capital markets regulation,...

BLOG

Banks Must Strengthen Data Management to Meet ESG Regulations

Europe’s banks must get their data management structures in place if they are to meet anticipated rules for identifying and mitigating ESG risks. ESG cannot be a mere afterthought in lenders’ risk management protocols if they are to meet anticipated new regulations, and that can be best achieved through careful data management, said Volker Lainer,...

EVENT

TradingTech Summit London

Now in its 13th year the TradingTech Summit London brings together the European trading technology capital markets industry and examines the latest changes and innovations in trading technology and explores how technology is being deployed to create an edge in sell side and buy side capital markets financial institutions.

GUIDE

Evaluated Pricing

Valuations and pricing teams are facing a much higher degree of scrutiny from both the regulatory community and the investor community in the glare of the post-crisis data transparency spotlight. Fair value price transparency requirements and the gradual move towards a more harmonised accounting standards environment is set within the context of the whole debate...