MSCI under fire for 'monetary conflicts of interest' over ESG ratings
In the paper, the authors said the results «raised concerns about the credibility of ESG ratings and underscores the need to understand the incentives that shape the production of ESG ratings».
In a Substack blog post yesterday (13 November), investment strategist Joachim Klement cited a study from Columbia and Emory University published in September titled 'ESG Ratings of ESG Index Providers', which found that ESG ratings from MSCI may be biased.
In the paper, the authors said the results «raised concerns about the credibility of ESG ratings and underscores the need to understand the incentives that shape the production of ESG ratings».
UK to outline regulatory rules for ESG ratings industry as early as January 2024
Comparing MSCI ESG Research, which receives most of its revenue from selling index licences, and Refinitiv, which gains the majority of its revenue from selling data, the paper found that ESG ratings from MSCI were systematically higher than Refinitiv, even after accounting for rating methodology differences.
Liberum's Klement said the study indicates «there may be even monetary conflicts of interest at play in some case», as companies with better performance «seem more likely to be upgraded by MSCI ESG and then included in the MSCI ESG indices».
«Companies with poor share price performance seem more likely to be downgraded and then dropped from the MSCI ESG indices. No such effect is visible in Refinitiv ESG ratings,» he said.
Industry bodies agree standardised responsible investment definitions
«It seems that MSCI ESG ratings change if the share price performance of a company changes. This happens despite the lack of change in ESG data and the fact that both MSCI ESG and Refinitiv use the same publicly
Read more on investmentweek.co.uk
