Divergent ESG Ratings in China: Measurement Inconsistency and Methodological Origins

Author(s):

Wanyi Zhao

Affiliation: Department of Finance, Johns Hopkins University/United States

Page No: 1-10-

Volume issue & Publishing Year: Volume 3 Issue 2 , 2026-02-01

Journal: International Journal of Modern Engineering and Management | IJMEM

ISSN NO: 3048-8230

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18449624

Abstract:

I conduct the first systematic comparison of ESG ratings between China’s two leading providers, CSMAR and CNRDS, using a matched panel of A-share firms from 2015 to 2020. I perform a wide-ranging empirical analysis at firm, industry, and temporal levels to investigate whether the two systems capture the same latent construct associated with corporate sustainability. My findings highlight significant and persistent divergence between rating levels, correlation structures, and reliability measures. CSMAR consistently assigns significantly higher ESG scores than CNRDS, particularly in the Environmental and Social dimensions, and cross-system correlations are extremely weak and frequently negative in the Social pillar. Measures of agreement, including correlation coefficients and concordance metrics, reveal sharp divergences in firm-level rankings between the two systems. Critically, I demonstrate that standard normalization methods, including percentile ranking, min–max scaling, and industry-adjusted standardization, fail to reconcile these differences. Even after removing scale and industry effects, rank-order disagreement remains pronounced, suggesting that the divergence reflects fundamental methodological differences rather than distributional or scaling artifacts. It is especially pronounced in industries with complex, qualitative, and disclosure-intensive ESG profiles, such as Finance and Information Technology, where greater measurement discretion amplifies methodological divergence. Collectively, the evidence indicates that CSMAR and CNRDS are non-interchangeable proxies for distinct ESG constructs. These findings have important implications for empirical research design, ESG-based investment strategies, and corporate sustainability assessment in China, highlighting the necessity of treating ESG rating choice as a core methodological decision rather than a neutral data input

Keywords:

ESG ratings, Methodological divergence, Rating consistency, Sustainable finance

Reference:

• [1]    Berg, F., Koelbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033

• [2]    Christensen, D. M., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2022). Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings. The Accounting Review, 97(1), 147–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0506

• [3]    Dimson, E., Marsh, P., & Staunton, M. (2020). Divergent ESG ratings and their implications for investors. Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2020, 1–20.

• [4]    Gibson, R., Krueger, P., & Schmidt, P. S. (2021). ESG rating disagreement and stock returns. Financial Analysts Journal, 77(4), 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/0015198X.2021.1983403

• [5]    Gibson, R., Glossner, S., Krueger, P., Matos, P., & Steffen, T. (2023). Do investors care about ESG disagreement? Journal of Financial Economics, 149, 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2023.01.011

• [6]    Liu, Q., Wang, J., & Chen, X. (2023). Assessing the consistency of ESG ratings in China: An empirical analysis. Sustainability, 15(5), 3924. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053924

• [7]    Fang, Z., Lu, W., & Zhang, Y. (2021). ESG performance and corporate risk: Evidence from China. China Journal of Accounting Research, 14(3), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2021.05.002

• [8]    Zhang, L., & Liu, J. (2022). Does ESG disclosure improve firm value? Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 335, 130–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130178

• [9]    OECD (2020). ESG Data Harmonization Report. OECD.

• [10] Kendall, M. G. (1970). Rank correlation methods. Charles Griffin.

• [11] McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46.

• [12] Lin, L. I.-K. (1989). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45(1), 255–268.

Download PDF