IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/sustdv/v19y2011i2p119-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating consistency of judgement across sustainability analyst organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Hedesström
  • Ulrika Lundqvist
  • Anders Biel

Abstract

We compare seven major European and North American sustainability analyst organizations on how they rank-order the same set of companies with regards to environmental performance. We also compare the analyst organizations' environmental rating schemes with regards to which evaluation criteria they include. Two industries are investigated: automobile and paper/forestry. Although there is fairly broad consensus on which automobile companies have the worst environmental performance, there is considerable disagreement about best‐performers. The pattern is less clear for paper/forestry companies. With some notable exceptions, and for both industries, all rating schemes contain evaluation criteria targeting those aspects of company performance associated, according to life‐cycle assessments, with the largest potential environmental impact. There are, however, significant divergences as to how many, and which, criteria of medium to low relevance are applied. Sustainability analyst organizations should make explicit to investors and evaluated companies on which theoretical and empirical grounds environmental evaluation criteria are selected. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Hedesström & Ulrika Lundqvist & Anders Biel, 2011. "Investigating consistency of judgement across sustainability analyst organizations," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 119-134, March/Apr.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:19:y:2011:i:2:p:119-134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/sd.511
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olivier Boiral & David Talbot & Marie‐Christine Brotherton, 2020. "Measuring sustainability risks: A rational myth?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2557-2571, September.
    2. Hedesström, Martin & Andersson, Maria & Gärling, Tommy & Biel, Anders, 2012. "Stock investors’ preference for short-term vs. long-term bonuses," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 137-142.
    3. Luluk Widyawati, 2021. "Measurement concerns and agreement of environmental social governance ratings," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 1589-1623, April.
    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. Natalia Semenova & Lars Hassel, 2015. "On the Validity of Environmental Performance Metrics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 249-258, December.
    6. Frederic Läger & Yassin Denis Bouzzine & Rainer Lueg, 2022. "The relationship between firm complexity and corporate social responsibility: International evidence from 2010–2019," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 549-560, May.
    7. Soh Young In & Young Joon Lee & Robert G. Eccles, 2024. "Looking back and looking forward: A scientometric analysis of the evolution of corporate sustainability research over 47 years," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 2225-2259, May.

    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:wly:sustdv:v:19:y:2011:i:2:p:119-134. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1719 .

    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.