본 연구는 피평가기업에 대한 정보비대칭이 심할수록 신용평가기관 간 평가결과의 차이가 커진다는 Harjoto and Jo(2015)의 연구에 착안하여, 본 연구에서는 피평가기업에 대한 정보불확실성 정도가 ESG 평가기관간 평가 차이에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 한국거래소의 ESG 포털에 공시된 6개 국내 ESG 평가기관의 2020년부터 2023년까지 상장기업들의 ESG 평가 자료를 활용하고, 피평가 기업의 ESG 활동관련 정보의 불확실성은 기업규모, 지속가능성보고서 발간여부, 신용등급, 수출비중, 및 증권사의 리포트 수 등을 이용하였다. 실증분석 결과, 정보비대칭 관련 주요 변수들 중 지속가능성보고서를 발간한 기업의 경우 여러 평가기관들 간의 ESG 평가결과 차이 정도가 가장 낮아진다는 사실을 확인하였으며, 여타 정보불확실성 관련 변수들도 ESG 평가 간 차이를 의미있게 줄여주는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 여러 ESG 평가기관들 간 평가결과의 차이를 줄여 일관되고 공신력 있는 ESG 평가정보를 기대하기 위해서는, 평가기관의 지속적인 평가체계의 개선과 더불어 지속가능성보고서 발간 등 ESG 정보공시를 위한 피평가기업의 노력 등도 병행되어야 할 필요가 있음을 시사한다.
This study investigates the determinants of disparities in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings, with a particular focus on the role of corporate disclosure in mitigating information asymmetry. Despite the growing importance of ESG in financial markets and policymaking, substantial differences persist across rating agencies, raising concerns about the reliability and comparability of ESG assessments. Such discrepancies may not only confuse investors relying on ESG ratings but also undermine the credibility of rating agencies and the evaluated firms.
Based on prior research suggesting that information uncertainty drives rating differences(Harjoto and Jo, 2015), we hypothesize that variation in the quantity and quality of corporate disclosures contributes to rating divergence. In situations where firm-level ESG information is unclear, rating agencies face greater uncertainty, which amplifies differences in ESG ratings.
To test this, we employ a panel dataset from the KRX ESG Portal covering 2020-2023, including six domestic and international agencies: KCGS, KRESG, SUSTINVEST, Moody’s, MSCI, and S&P. Analyses are conducted on the full sample as well as on subsamples categorized by agency characteristics, including domestic versus foreign agencies and score-based versus grade-based methodologies. Rating disparities, the dependent variable, are measured using the standard deviation (STD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of agency-specific scores or grades (Yin and Li, 2023). Firm-level factors used as proxies for information asymmetry include firm size, sustainability report issuance, number of analyst reports, credit rating, and export ratio. Larger firms, highly rated firms, or those with frequent analyst coverage generally provide more complete and higher-quality information, reducing uncertainty. Sustainability reports communicate ESG activities directly, while firms with a high export ratio often face stricter reporting requirements in global markets.
The results show that, across most samples, variables associated with lower information asymmetry are significantly negatively related to ESG rating disparities. The issuance of sustainability reports consistently emerges as the most significant factor, suggesting that direct disclosure of ESG performance facilitates greater alignment among agency assessments. Analyst report frequency also exhibits some effect, though sustainability reports provide more targeted ESG information. Firm size, credit rating, and export ratio similarly reduce rating differences, with varying significance depending on the sample.
These findings emphasize that consistent and transparent corporate disclosure is as crucial as methodological standardization for minimizing rating differences. Policymakers and regulators can enhance ESG rating credibility by encouraging sustainability reporting and improving disclosure standards to better satisfy market information requirements.
