ESG investor scrutiny and the impact on corporates: Limits of ESG ratings

In our first article in this series we gave an overview of ESG investing and discussed the challenge in evaluating whether or not an investment really belongs in a ‘sustainable’ investment fund.

Little visibility behind the scenes

Increasingly, many asset managers (and index-based passive funds) use ESG ratings or ‘ESG scores’ as a basis for an investment decision or as a tool to evaluate the legitimacy of including an issuer in a sustainable fund. ESG ratings may also be the starting point for broader analysis, to identify the areas of ESG performance where an issuer may be lagging or leading, or as the basis for questions during road shows. There are also sustainable funds that restrict the universe of investible issuers based on scoring (e.g. absolute cut-off for scores, or no issuers in the bottom quartile). By using ESG ratings, investors are able to quantifiably show their portfolios’ sustainability performance, and, therefore, issuers should expect greater usage of such ratings as part of the ESG analysis.

There are several providers of ESG ratings, each using different methodologies to determine scores, but generally based solely on a company’s publicly stated information, both quantitative and qualitative. While the specific methodologies are something of a ‘black box’, most claim to only consider the material issues for a given sector. Which data is used, how it’s weighted and how the eventual score is communicated varies, and is usually kept private to protect commercial aspirations.

A complaint from some investors is that ESG ratings are not comparable or consistently calculated by rating providers, restricting how that data is used to support investment decisions. In the same way that credit ratings provide a view on an issuer’s credit risk, ESG scores attempt to provide a view on issuer ESG performance. However, while there is some consistency in credit ratings, ESG ratings can vary greatly between providers. Academic studies have concluded with the same findings. For example, a study* by the MIT Sloan School of Management in August 2019, updated in May 2020, showed that scores by different providers of sustainability-related ratings had a low correlation among the main providers.

Engagement with ESG rating agencies is essential

For issuers, ESG ratings can be an efficient means to communicate to investors and other stakeholders their ability to identify and manage ESG-related risks and opportunities. To ensure an accurate assessment of their ESG performance, issuers can also take a proactive approach to managing their ESG ratings to demonstrate improvement (e.g. change in ratings over the years) or to identify areas to focus on via peer benchmarking. Regardless of the use of ESG ratings, evaluating corporate performance on sustainability issues and then distilling that performance into a score or rating is an important part of the sustainability movement. These ESG ratings allow an accessible understanding of which companies are leading and which are lagging in a particular sector, and more generally.

The current lack of uniformity and opacity of ESG rating methodologies can lead to confusion for issuers when explaining their sustainability performance to their investors. It may also be difficult for issuers to explain why areas rated as strengths or weaknesses are perceived to be so by a particular ESG rating agency. Therefore, it is important for issuers to engage with a set of key rating agencies that are most relevant to their investor base, to be able to understand ‘why’ they received the rating they did, how to improve it – and crucially – to explain it.

Getting direct feedback from stakeholders can help inform which agencies issuers should engage. Issuers can use these discussions to make sure that information that they do want to be public is easily accessible and clearly labeled, with a strong rationale for why non-public ESG data is private or why it is not material to their business. That said, robust, reliable and regular disclosure – best published as part of annual reporting cycles – is the optimal method of ensuring strategic initiatives filter into ESG ratings. Of course, this disclosure should be material to the issuers and underpinned by action.

Efforts to gain a strong ESG rating should not be seen as a substitute to any efforts to improve sustainability performance, but rather as a way to describe current performance progress in managing material ESG-related risks and opportunities. Similarly, ESG ratings should also not be seen as a proxy for developing (and implementing) a credible sustainability strategy.

An ESG rating is a dynamic indictor, which can change over time based on evolving methodologies, and as a result it’s common for ratings to rise and fall. This is particularly true for a sector coming under transformative ESG pressures. With this in mind, in the same way issuers should engage with the ESG rating agencies to understand the ratings, they should also maintain a constructive dialogue with those relevant agencies to highlight strategic developments which could drive an improved assessment and help them to understand the intricacies of a particular business. A constructive dialogue can also aid issuers in understanding broader sectoral views held by investors.

NatWest can support meaningful engagements

ESG ratings are a useful indicator but should not be the core driver for change. At NatWest, we are experienced in brokering meaningful relationships between issuers and rating agencies, helping to develop the right approach for communicating ESG strategies, while improving scores, and diversifying investor bases.

One benefit for proactive engagement, is that if an issuer solicits an ESG score from an ESG ratings provider, the issuer can provide and the ESG rating agency can consider private/ confidential information. Ratings are an important aspect of communicating sustainability, but issuers should not solely be driven to action by their ESG score.

We encourage issuers to have confidence in their disclosures and policies, and use opportunities during marketing of a transaction, for example, to continue their dialogue with investors on what issues are material and rationale for disclosures. This may become more important even for labelled debt issuances, as potential investors will want to better understand how specific projects (for use of proceeds bonds) or KPIs (for Sustainability-linked) align to the overall sustainability strategy of an issuer.

Key takeaways

Source: NatWest

This article has been prepared for information purposes only, does not constitute an analysis of all potentially material issues and is subject to change at any time without prior notice. NatWest Markets does not undertake to update you of such changes.  It is indicative only and is not binding. Other than as indicated, this article has been prepared on the basis of publicly available information believed to be reliable but no representation, warranty, undertaking or assurance of any kind, express or implied, is made as to the adequacy, accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of the information contained in this article, nor does NatWest Markets accept any obligation to any recipient to update or correct any information contained herein. Views expressed herein are not intended to be and should not be viewed as advice or as a personal recommendation. The views expressed herein may not be objective or independent of the interests of the authors or other NatWest Markets trading desks, who may be active participants in the markets, investments or strategies referred to in this article. NatWest Markets will not act and has not acted as your legal, tax, regulatory, accounting or investment adviser; nor does NatWest Markets owe any fiduciary duties to you in connection with this, and/or any related transaction and no reliance may be placed on NatWest Markets for investment advice or recommendations of any sort. You should make your own independent evaluation of the relevance and adequacy of the information contained in this article and any issues that are of concern to you.

This article does not constitute an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any investment, nor does it constitute an offer to provide any products or services that are capable of acceptance to form a contract. NatWest Markets and each of its respective affiliates accepts no liability whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential losses (in contract, tort or otherwise) arising from the use of this material or reliance on the information contained herein. However this shall not restrict, exclude or limit any duty or liability to any person under any applicable laws or regulations of any jurisdiction which may not be lawfully disclaimed.

NatWest Markets Plc. Incorporated and registered in Scotland No. 90312 with limited liability. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB. Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority. NatWest Markets N.V. is incorporated with limited liability in the Netherlands, authorised and regulated by De Nederlandsche Bank and the Autoriteit Financiële Markten. It has its seat at Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and is registered in the Commercial Register under number 33002587. Registered Office: Claude Debussylaan 94, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Branch Reg No. in England BR001029. NatWest Markets Plc is, in certain jurisdictions, an authorised agent of NatWest Markets N.V. and NatWest Markets N.V. is, in certain jurisdictions, an authorised agent of NatWest Markets Plc. NatWest Markets Securities Japan Limited [Kanto Financial Bureau (Kin-sho) No. 202] is authorised and regulated by the Japan Financial Services Agency. Securities business in the United States is conducted through NatWest Markets Securities Inc., a FINRA registered broker-dealer (, a SIPC member ( and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of NatWest Markets Plc.

Copyright 2022 © NatWest Markets Plc. All rights reserved.

scroll to top