Developing a Consistent and Transparent Corporate Sustainability Rating System with a Sector-Agnostic Approach-Journal of Sustainability Research-CSCIED科技核心评价数据库

推荐文章

Soil Health as a Dynamic, Plant-Specific Attribute: Redefining Its Role Beyond Traditional Soil Quality Indicators

Developing a Consistent and Transparent Corporate Sustainability Rating System with a Sector-Agnostic Approach

Developing a Consistent and Transparent Corporate Sustainability Rating System with a Sector-Agnostic Approach

ES评分0 浏览量：402 下载量：0 评价量：0

全文阅读下载引用收藏评论

DOI	10.20900/jsr20250054
刊名	Journal of Sustainability Research JSR
年，卷(期)	2025, 7(3)
作者	Bence Lukács*,Robert C. Rickards,
作者单位	Doctoral School of Regional and Economic Sciences, Széchenyi István University, Győr 9026, Hungary ; Department of Business Administration—Public Management, German Police University, Muenster 48149, Germany ;
摘要	Background: Development of objective, quantitative sustainability reporting scores for international companies has to be based on legal, regulatory, and public policy standards as well as focused exclusively on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. The key performance indicators (KPIs) developed here differ from traditional agencies’ rating schemes in that they are equally applicable across industrial sectors. They measure performance in terms of several environmental Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators. The KPIs quantify performance by systematically linking corporate revenues with sustainability metrics, thereby yielding readily comparable, numerical scores. Methods: This report illustrates their utility with data on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from leading companies within the S&P Global ESG ranking for 2023. Results: The findings reveal significant gaps in managing Scope 3 emissions, which dominate the value chain and present the greatest challenge for corporate sustainability. These disparities highlight the need for improved data transparency and harmonized reporting standards to ensure consistent and actionable sustainability assessments. Conclusions: By bridging these gaps, the KPIs enable more equitable comparisons across industries and encourage better alignment of corporate strategies with global climate objectives. The additional transparency and insights in turn afford investors, managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders’ better information for their decision making.
Abstract	Background: Development of objective, quantitative sustainability reporting scores for international companies has to be based on legal, regulatory, and public policy standards as well as focused exclusively on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. The key performance indicators (KPIs) developed here differ from traditional agencies’ rating schemes in that they are equally applicable across industrial sectors. They measure performance in terms of several environmental Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators. The KPIs quantify performance by systematically linking corporate revenues with sustainability metrics, thereby yielding readily comparable, numerical scores. Methods: This report illustrates their utility with data on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from leading companies within the S&P Global ESG ranking for 2023. Results: The findings reveal significant gaps in managing Scope 3 emissions, which dominate the value chain and present the greatest challenge for corporate sustainability. These disparities highlight the need for improved data transparency and harmonized reporting standards to ensure consistent and actionable sustainability assessments. Conclusions: By bridging these gaps, the KPIs enable more equitable comparisons across industries and encourage better alignment of corporate strategies with global climate objectives. The additional transparency and insights in turn afford investors, managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders’ better information for their decision making.
关键词	ESG ratings; ESG reporting; ESG policy; GRI indicators; sustainability balance sheet
KeyWord	ESG ratings; ESG reporting; ESG policy; GRI indicators; sustainability balance sheet
基金项目
页码	-

参考文献
相关文献

1.Lukács B, Rickards R. How the categorisation of SDG targets into ESG pillars can inform the corporate SDG report. Chem Eng Trans. 2023;107:193-98.
2.Domanović V, Bogićević J, Krstić B. Effects of enterprise sustainability on performance. Econ Sustain Dev. 2020;4(2):11-23.
3.Neri, S. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Integrated Reporting. In: Vertigans S, Idowu SO, editors. Global Challenges to CSR and Sustainable Development. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-62501-6_14.
4.Gopal PRC, Thakkar J. Development of composite sustainable supply chain performance index for the automobile industry. Int J Sustain Eng. 2014;8(6):366-85.
5.Beiragh RG, Alizadeh R, Kaleibari SS, Cavallaro F, Zolfani SH, Bausys R, et al. An integrated multi-criteria decision making model for sustainability performance assessment for insurance companies. Sustainability. 2020;12(3):789.
6.Saeed M, Kersten W. Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Identification and classification. Sustainability. 2019;11(4):1137.
7.Zheng L, Peng R, Wu L. Research on the Impact of Enterprise ESG Performance on Audit Opinions. 2024. Available from: https://eudl.eu/pdf/10.4108/eai.27-10-2023.2342027. Accessed on 1 Jun 2025.
8.Zhou W. Is ESG a novel pricing risk factor for the Chinese stock markets during COVID-19? Adv Econ Manag Polit Sci. 2023;3(1):794-802.
9.Shad MK, Lai FW, Shamim A, McShane M. The efficacy of sustainability reporting towards cost of debt and equity reduction. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020;27(18):22511-22.
10.Han J, Jo SJ. The effect of ESG activities on financial performance: The moderating effect of debt ratio. Int J Manag Sustain. 2024;13(2):151-68.
11.Yuan X. Research on the impact of ESG rating on enterprise growth. Adv Econ Manag Res. 2023;7(1):528-8.
12.Del Giudice A, Rigamonti S. Does audit improve the quality of ESG scores? Evidence from corporate misconduct. Sustainability. 2020;12(14):5670.
13.Ernst D, Woithe F. Impact of the environmental, social, and governance rating on the cost of capital: Evidence from the S&P 500. J Risk Financ Manag. 2024;17(3):91.
14.Moussa AS, Elmarzouky M. Sustainability reporting and market uncertainty: The moderating effect of carbon disclosure. Sustainability. 2024;16(13):5290.
15.Berg F, Kölbel JF, Rigobon R. Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG rating. Rev Finance. 2022;26(6):1315-44.
16.Abhayawansa S, Tyagi S. Sustainable investing: The black box of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings. J Wealth Manag. 2021;24(1):130. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3777674.
17.Neri A, Cagno E, Lepri M, Trianni A. A triple bottom line balanced set of key performance indicators to measure the sustainability performance of industrial supply chains. Sustain Prod Consum. 2021;26(1):648-91.
18.Alkaraan F, Elmarzouky M, Lopes de Sousa Jabbour AB, Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, Gulko N. Maximising sustainable performance: Integrating servitisation innovation into green sustainable supply chain management under the influence of governance and Industry 4.0. J Bus Res. 2025;186:115029.
19.Alkaraan F, Elmarzouky M, Hussainey K, Venkatesh VG, Shi Y, Gulko N. Reinforcing green business strategies with Industry 4.0 and governance towards sustainability: Natural‐resource‐based view and dynamic capability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024;33(4):3588-606.
20.Alkaraan F, Elmarzouky M, Hussainey K, Venkatesh VG. Sustainable strategic investment decision-making practices in UK companies: The influence of governance mechanisms on synergy between industry 4.0 and circular economy. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2023;187(2):122187.
21.Hristov I, Chirico A. The role of sustainability Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in implementing sustainable strategies. Sustainability. 2019;11(20):5742.
22.Alshdaifat SM, Aziz NHA, Alhasnawi MY, Alharasis EE, Qadi FA, Al Amosh H. The role of digital technologies in corporate sustainability: A bibliometric review and future research agenda. J Risk Financ Manag. 2024;17(11):509-9.
23.Suta A, Tóth Á, Borbély K. Presenting climate-related disclosures in the automotive sector: Practical possibilities and limitations of current reporting prototypes and methods. Chem Eng Trans. 2022;94:379-84.
24.Tóth Á, Suta A, Szauter F, Lukács E. Quantitative analysis of green investments in European automotive companies: A digital reporting analysis. Clean Technol Environ Policy. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10098-024-03052-1.
25.Chen Y, Wang C, Nie P, Chen Z. A clean innovation comparison between carbon tax and cap-and-trade system. Energy Strateg Rev. 2020;29:100483.
26.Krueger P, Sautner Z, Starks LT. The importance of climate risks for institutional investors. Rev Financ Stud. 2020;33(3):1067-111.
27.Huij J, Laurs D, Stork PA, Zwinkels RC. Carbon beta: A market-based measure of climate transition risk exposure. 2023. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3957900. Accessed on. 1 Jun 2025.
28.Addoum JM, Ng DT, Ortiz-Bobea A. Temperature shocks and establishment sales. Rev Financ Stud. 2020;33(3):1331-66.
29.Choi D, Gao Z, Jiang W. Attention to global warming. Rev Financ Stud. 2020;33(3):1112-45.
30.Cohen L, Gurun UG, Nguyen QH. The ESG-innovation disconnect: Evidence from green patenting (No. w27990). Cambridge (MA, US): National Bureau of Economic Research; 2020.
31.Pástor Ľ, Stambaugh RF, Taylor LA. Sustainable investing in equilibrium. J Financ Econ. 2021;142(2):550-71.
32.Pástor Ľ, Stambaugh RF, Taylor LA. Dissecting green returns. J Financ Econ. 2022;146(2):403-24.
33.Engle RF, Giglio S, Kelly B, Lee H, Stroebel J. Hedging climate change news. Rev Financ Stud. 2020;33(3):1184-216.
34.Haseeb M, Hussain HI, Kot S, Androniceanu A, Jermsittiparsert K. Role of social and technological challenges in achieving a sustainable competitive advantage and sustainable business performance. Sustainability. 2019;11(14):3811.
35.Solomon S, Plattner GK, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(6):1704-9.
36.Mendelsohn R, Emanuel K, Chonabayashi S, Bakkensen L. The impact of climate change on global tropical cyclone damage. Nat Clim Chang. 2012;2(3):205-9.
37.Seneviratne SI, Donat MG, Pitman AJ, Knutti R, Wilby RL. Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related climate targets. Nature. 2016;529(7587):477-83.
38.Baker HS, Millar RJ, Karoly DJ, Beyerle U, Guillod BP, Mitchell D, et al. Higher CO2 concentrations increase extreme event risk in a 1.5 °C world. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8(7):604-8.
39.van den Bergh JCJM, Botzen WJW. A lower bound to the social cost of CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang. 2014;4(4):253-8.
40.Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990. 2021
[Internet]. Available from: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/57.%20Social%20Cost%20of%20Carbon%202021.pdf. Accessed on 19 Oct 2023.
41.Rennert K, Errickson F, Prest BC, Rennels L, Newell RG, Pizer W, et al. Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2. Nature. 2022;610(7933):687-92.
42.Tiseo I. EU-ETS Carbon Pricing 2022
[Internet]. Statista. 2024. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1322214/carbon-prices-european-union-emission-trading-scheme/. Accessed on 1 Jun 2025.
43.The Sustainability Yearbook 2023 Rankings
[Internet]. Available from: https://www.spglobal.com/esg/csa/yearbook/2023/ranking. Accessed on 19 Oct 2023.
44.Liu M. Quantitative ESG disclosure and divergence of ESG ratings. Front Psychol. 2022;13:936798.
45.Zumente I, Lāce N. ESG Rating—Necessity for the investor or the company? Sustainability. 2021;13(16):8940.
46.Wang H, Ran H, Dang X. Location optimization of fresh agricultural products cold chain distribution center under carbon emission constraints. Sustainability. 2022;14(11):6726.
47.Stenzel A, Waichman I. Supply-chain data sharing for scope 3 emissions. NPJ Clim Action. 2023;2(1):7.
48.Pastor L, Stambaugh R, Taylor L. Carbon Burden. Cambridge (MA, US): National Bureau of Economic Research; 2024.

引用本文

Bence Lukács*,Robert C. Rickards. Developing a Consistent and Transparent Corporate Sustainability Rating System with a Sector-Agnostic Approach [J]. Journal of Sustainability Research. 2025; 7; (3). - .

文献评论

相关学者

相关机构

推荐文章