ScholarWorks@숙명여자대학교

초록

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.

키워드