2025年评级机构评级：ESG评级的演变——企业调查结果

ESG ratingsin evolution Corporate survey results Introduction3Key findings7Corporate survey results11Section 1: Leaders on quality and usefulness13Section 2: Trust and engagement23Section 3: The future of ESG ratings29Recommendations35Appendices37 Contents CHAPTER 1Introduction research is part of a multi-year initiative that usesmultiple methods to understand how companies ESG raters have been under multifacetedpressure since the ERM SustainabilityInstitute’s last Rate the Raters reportin2023. New regulations and codes ofand investors perceive and engage with ESGrating providers. The findings presented in this report draw on acorporate survey fielded between May and July2025, with 386 respondents from 39 countries anda wide range of industries. The survey insights At the same time, ratings have been indirectlyimpacted by the early implementation of theEU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive(CSRD) and the widespread adoption of theClimate Week NYC in September 2025.The report provides readers with an in-depth look into which ESG ratings are trusted most bycompanies, how corporates rate their usefulnessand quality, what drives companies to engage global backlash against ESG and the broadersustainability agenda, which has furtherheightened scrutiny of ratings and theirmethodologies. Raters have felt the effects ofpreferences differ across regions.As part of the Rate the Raters series, the ERMSustainability Institute will conduct a global survey of investors and publish its results in 2026. and takeaways, which is followed by detaileddata charts and analysis. In the second half ofthe report, we have included an overview of the agencies have proven responsive and adaptable.Many have restructured their organizations,refined methodologies, and recalibratedstrategic priorities to maintain relevance inmost important legislation developments thatimpact ESG ratings and brief recommendationsfor companies on how they can act on the findings WHAT IS AN ESG RATING? For this report series, we use the following broad definitions: sustainability performance, oftennumerical scores or letter grades,derived by analyzing ESG data. WhileESG ratings can exist for nations,in which companies are not assessedon an absolute scale but instead areranked “best to worst” relative toother companies. of ESG ratings. Most ESG ratingsfirms produce more than one ratingproduct to serve different ESG ratings, developed by both for-profit and nonprofit entities, aimto measure how well a company’sstrategy, operations, and structure Organization of SecuritiesCommissions(IOSCO),“ESG ratingsand data products providers areentities that offer ESG ratings and/or others are passive, collecting public information and inviting corporate review. Most prominent rating agencies cater tothe investment community, serving as intermediaries that measure how well companies perform on sustainability metricsand manage sustainability risks. While they remain an essential resource for investors evaluating corporate performanceand shaping market outcomes, they are equally relevant to other audiences, including prospective employees, partners, Solutions business. In July 2024, Moody’s announced astrategic partnership with MSCI. Under this agreement,Moody’s will use MSCI’s ESG ratings and sustainability Trends in the ESG Improving transparency Raters have responded to criticism (and regulation)about opacity and inconsistency in ESG ratings byimproving transparency. Since the adoption of their Codeof Conduct, the Japanese Financial Services Agency hascontent, while MSCI gets access to Moody’s Orbis database.•Adjusting scoring visibility and public data access.In ESG regulations have expanded and changedrapidly in recent years. Direct regulationaimed at rating agencies and regional codesof conduct for raters have emerged acrossseveral geographies. Simultaneously, regulatoryframeworks requiring corporate disclosure onreportedsignificant improvementsin internal processesand transparency among ESG ratings providers. Manyrating agencies now also have dedicated contact pointsfor raising concerns and verifying data sources. 2025, raters such as MSCI and Sustainalytics eliminatedtheir public score databases. In contrast, other ratershave maintained or increased score visibility. For To stay relevant, many raters are recalibrating their methodologies and datasets to integrate standardized,regulator-mandated information, enabling theirratings to remain a meaningful complement to formalExiting some marketsIn India, the new SEBI requirements for Enterprise Ratings Providers has been deemed cumbersome bysome raters, prompting companies like S&P Global,Sustainalytics, and LSEG to withdraw their services from or products on specific topics, such as climate risk,biodiversity, and human rights.standardization and local customization. reorganizing internal structures, refining theirmethodologies, and shifting strategic priorities. ratings landscape