Beyond ESG Ratings: Strategic Approach to Sustainability

The landscape of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics continues to evolve rapidly, creating both opportunities and challenges for businesses worldwide. With over two decades of experience in ESG strategy and disclosure, we at Ksapa have observed the growing influence of ESG rating agencies in shaping corporate sustainability practices. While these agencies provide valuable benchmarking and assessment frameworks, the recent OECD report “Behind ESG Ratings” offers a refreshing perspective on both the strengths and limitations of current ESG rating methodologies. This insight presents a timely opportunity for companies to reevaluate their approach to ESG strategy development and implementation.

The OECD’s Revealing Findings on ESG Rating Products

The OECD report highlights significant variations in how ESG performance is measured across rating products. Notably, 68% of metrics used are input-based (focusing on policies and activities) rather than outcome-based, with qualitative metrics accounting for 72% of assessments. This tendency to measure “effort” rather than “effect” can lead to checkbox approaches that may not translate to meaningful sustainability progress.

Additionally, the report reveals substantial divergence in topic coverage. For instance, one rating product uses 28 times more metrics to measure Corporate Governance than another, while the number of metrics for GHG Emissions ranges from 1 to 47 across products. Such inconsistencies create complexity for companies attempting to allocate resources effectively across ESG initiatives.

Developing a Strategic Response to ESG Ratings

With an understanding of these limitations, companies can develop more effective approaches to ESG strategy:

1. Apply double materiality principles to identify issues most relevant to both your business performance and stakeholder impacts, rather than simply responding to the diverse metrics of rating agencies.
2. Establish meaningful targets that focus on substantial sustainability progress rather than just improving ratings scores. This approach ensures resources are directed toward initiatives with genuine environmental and social impact.
3. Balance input and output metrics in your internal performance measurement framework, ensuring you’re tracking both your sustainability efforts and their tangible outcomes.

Cost-Effective Engagement with Rating Agencies

Working with numerous clients across sectors, we’ve developed efficient approaches to manage ESG ratings while maintaining focus on strategic sustainability priorities:

1. Prioritize rating agencies based on their relevance to your investor base and stakeholder community, focusing engagement efforts where they matter most.
2. Standardize disclosure processes to efficiently respond to multiple ratings requests, reducing the administrative burden while ensuring consistent communication.
3. Leverage rating feedback constructively to identify blind spots in your sustainability approach, without allowing ratings to dictate your overall strategy.

Conclusion

The insights from the OECD report confirm what we’ve observed in our practice: ESG ratings provide valuable external perspectives but should inform—not dictate—sustainability strategy. By adopting a more strategic approach to ESG ratings, companies can ensure their sustainability efforts drive genuine business resilience and competitive advantage while meeting the information needs of rating agencies and investors. At Ksapa, we continue to help clients navigate this complex landscape, turning the challenges of ESG ratings into opportunities for more robust and authentic sustainability leadership.

Image by Freepik