ESG Risk Ratings vs ESG Impact Ratings

With the emergence of regulations such as the EU Taxonomy, CSRD, and SFDR, the concept of impact materiality has proliferated in the market, marking an increased scrutiny on the comprehensiveness of ESG risk ratings. In this context, there has been increased interest in impact ratings leading investors to question, what really is the difference between ESG risk and ESG impact ratings?

Overview of Risk vs Impact

ESG risk ratings primarily assess how well a company manages its exposure to ESG-related risks that could potentially affect its financial performance. These ratings focus on the materiality of ESG factors to the specific industry and company, evaluating how effectively the organization mitigates these risks.

In contrast, ESG impact ratings measure the actual effect a company’s operations have on environmental and social outcomes, regardless of the financial implications for the company itself. These ratings attempt to quantify a company’s positive or negative contributions to issues such as climate change, biodiversity, human rights, or community development.

In terms used by global sustainability regulations, ESG risk ratings focus on financial materiality while impact ratings focus on impact materiality.

Methodology of Risk Ratings vs Impact Ratings

The methodology of risk ratings and impact ratings also vary significantly, with risk ratings often collecting data from publicly available disclosures, while impact ratings focus primarily on uncovering the operational impact of companies across the value chain. In the table below we compare the scope and methodology of conventional risk ratings to Inrate’s impact ratings.

Implications for Investors

The distinction between ESG risk ratings and ESG impact ratings has significant implications for investors. Impact ratings, while focused on externalities, extensively uncover reputational and regulatory risks for companies in the current landscape. The shortening time frame within which these risk manifest into factors causing value erosion has put impact at the forefront of the minds of even the sceptics.

Risk Management vs. Impact Generation

Risk-focused investors:

Those prioritizing ESG risk ratings are typically more concerned with protecting their investments from potential ESG-related downside. They aim to identify companies that are less likely to face regulatory challenges, reputational damage, or operational disruptions due to poor ESG practices. This approach may be particularly relevant for institutional investors with fiduciary responsibilities or those with a lower risk tolerance.

Impact-oriented investors:

Investors emphasizing ESG impact ratings are often looking to generate positive social or environmental outcomes or minimise negative sustainability impact alongside financial returns. This approach aligns with the growing trend of impact investing and may appeal to investors who want their capital to drive positive change.

Inrate, a Sustainability Data and Esg Ratings company, helps financial institutions view sustainable finance from an “impact” lens.