IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i16p6979-d1456494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Stacked Generalization Ensemble-Based Hybrid SGM-BRR Model for ESG Score Prediction

Author

Listed:
  • Zhie Wang

    (Management Engineering School, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Xiaoyong Wang

    (Management Engineering School, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Xuexin Liu

    (College of Business Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Jun Zhang

    (Management Engineering School, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Jingde Xu

    (Institute of Higher Education, North China Institute of Science and Technology, Langfang 065201, China)

  • Jun Ma

    (Management Engineering School, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

Abstract

Recently, financial institutions and investors have placed an increasing emphasis on ESG (environmental, social, and governance) as a principal indicator for the evaluation of companies. However, the current ESG scoring systems lack uniformity and are often subjective. It is of great importance to be able to make accurate predictions regarding the ESG scores of corporations. A Stacked Generalization Model that employs Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) as base learners, with Bayesian Ridge Regression (BRR) as the meta-model for integrating the predictions of these diverse models is proposed. The goal is to develop an ESG score prediction model for Chinese companies. The experimental data set encompasses Chinese A-share listed companies from 2012 to 2020. The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R 2 ) are employed for model evaluation and are compared with seven benchmark models. The results demonstrate that SGM-BRR reduces the RMSE by 18.4%, 17.3%, 13.7%, and 76.1%, the MAE by 15.4%, 18.4%, 15.8%, and 68.4%, and increases the R 2 by 2%, 1.4%, 2%, and 6% for ESG, E, S, and G scores, respectively. Furthermore, the model’s performance is validated across different industries, with SGM-BRR exhibiting the most optimal performance of RMSE, MAE, and R 2 in 27, 25, and 27 groups, respectively. Consequently, the model demonstrates broad applicability and stability performance in ESG score prediction.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhie Wang & Xiaoyong Wang & Xuexin Liu & Jun Zhang & Jingde Xu & Jun Ma, 2024. "A Novel Stacked Generalization Ensemble-Based Hybrid SGM-BRR Model for ESG Score Prediction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-25, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6979-:d:1456494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6979/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6979/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mike G. Tsionas, 2021. "Multi-criteria optimization in regression," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 306(1), pages 7-25, November.
    2. Gunnar Friede, 2019. "Why don't we see more action? A metasynthesis of the investor impediments to integrate environmental, social, and governance factors," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1260-1282, September.
    3. Mikko Ranta & Mika Ylinen & Marko Järvenpää, 2023. "Machine Learning in Management Accounting Research: Literature Review and Pathways for the Future," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 607-636, May.
    4. Samuel Drempetic & Christian Klein & Bernhard Zwergel, 2020. "The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 333-360, November.
    5. Fernando García & Jairo González-Bueno & Francisco Guijarro & Javier Oliver, 2020. "Forecasting the Environmental, Social, and Governance Rating of Firms by Using Corporate Financial Performance Variables: A Rough Set Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Zhou, Bihua & Huang, Yun & Zhao, Yihang, 2024. "Research on the incentive effect of the policy combination of carbon-reduction pilot cities," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 456-475.
    7. Aaron K. Chatterji & Rodolphe Durand & David I. Levine & Samuel Touboul, 2016. "Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1597-1614, August.
    8. Shira Cohen & Igor Kadach & Gaizka Ormazabal & Stefan Reichelstein, 2023. "Executive Compensation Tied to ESG Performance: International Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 805-853, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valeria D’Amato & Rita D’Ecclesia & Susanna Levantesi, 2021. "Fundamental ratios as predictors of ESG scores: a machine learning approach," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 44(2), pages 1087-1110, December.
    2. Valeria D’Amato & Rita D’Ecclesia & Susanna Levantesi, 2022. "ESG score prediction through random forest algorithm," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 347-373, June.
    3. Ariana Chang & Tian‐Shyug Lee & Hsiu‐Mei Lee, 2024. "Applying sustainable development goals in financial forecasting using machine learning techniques," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 2277-2289, May.
    4. Bauckloh, Michael Tobias & Beyer, Victor & Klein, Christian, 2022. "Does it pay to invest in dirty industries? New insights on the shunned-stock hypothesis," CFR Working Papers 22-07, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    5. Sofia Brito-Ramos & Maria Céu Cortez & Florinda Silva, 2022. "Do sustainability signals diverge? An analysis of labeling schemes for socially responsible investments ," Working Papers hal-04064367, HAL.
    6. Isa Cakir & Philipp Aerni & Manfred Max Bergman & Benjamin Cakir, 2023. "esg2go: A Method to Reduce Bias, Improve Coherence, and Increase Practicality of ESG Rating and Reporting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Zhang, Yanan & Zhang, Xiaoyu, 2024. "Top management team functional diversity and ESG performance," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    8. Fiordelisi, Franco & Ricci, Ornella & Santilli, Gianluca, 2023. "Environmental engagement and stock price crash risk: Evidence from the European banking industry," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Xiaoyan Xu & Hong Zhao, 2024. "An Empirical Study on ESG Evaluation of Chinese Energy Enterprises Based on High-Quality Development Goals—A Case Study of Listed Company Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-22, August.
    10. Louis Maximilian Ronalter & Merce Bernardo & Javier Manuel Romaní, 2023. "Quality and environmental management systems as business tools to enhance ESG performance: a cross-regional empirical study," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 9067-9109, September.
    11. Zeng, Yongliang & Zhao, Xiangfang & Zhu, Yiwen, 2023. "Equity incentives and ESG performance: Evidence from China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PC).
    12. Deli Wang & Ke Peng & Kaiye Tang & Yewei Wu, 2022. "Does Fintech Development Enhance Corporate ESG Performance? Evidence from an Emerging Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-21, December.
    13. Caterina Lucarelli & Sabrina Severini, 2024. "Anatomy of the chimera: Environmental, Social, and Governance ratings beyond the myth," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 4198-4217, July.
    14. Ilze Zumente & Nataļja Lāce, 2021. "ESG Rating—Necessity for the Investor or the Company?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    15. Ting-Ting Li & Kai Wang & Toshiyuki Sueyoshi & Derek D. Wang, 2021. "ESG: Research Progress and Future Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-28, October.
    16. Tobias Bauckloh & Stefan Schaltegger & Sebastian Utz & Sebastian Zeile & Bernhard Zwergel, 2023. "Active First Movers vs. Late Free-Riders? An Empirical Analysis of UN PRI Signatories’ Commitment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(3), pages 747-781, January.
    17. Alfonso Del Giudice & Silvia Rigamonti, 2020. "Does Audit Improve the Quality of ESG Scores? Evidence from Corporate Misconduct," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-16, July.
    18. Dumrose, Maurice & Rink, Sebastian & Eckert, Julia, 2022. "Disaggregating confusion? The EU Taxonomy and its relation to ESG rating," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    19. Charl de Villiers & Jing Jia & Zhongtian Li, 2022. "Corporate social responsibility: A review of empirical research using Thomson Reuters Asset4 data," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(4), pages 4523-4568, December.
    20. Staněk Gyönyör, Lucie & Horváth, Matúš, 2024. "Does ESG affect stock market dependence? An empirical exploration of S&P 1200 companies shows the divergent nature of E–S–G pillars," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6979-:d:1456494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.