A Model of ESG-Transparency Index in Corporate Reporting

The increasing importance of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) assessments in advancing the international sustainable development agenda necessitates the disclosure of ESG reporting information by public companies. Such disclosure plays a crucial role in facilitating effective global business communication with stakeholders and enhancing the credibility of ESG transparency measurements. The primary objective of this study is to develop and validate a robust model for a business transparency index. By leveraging mathematical tools, this model quantitatively measures the level of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) transparency, taking into account the requirements of stakeholders and evaluating a public company's ability to disclose comprehensive information.

The research hypothesis posits that assessing ESG transparency in public company reporting based solely on the "quantity" of estimated values, while neglecting the critical factors of "quality" and "reliability," undermines the accuracy and reliability of the results. By utilizing existing mathematical tools, a business value management model is constructed, incorporating a balanced system of "quantity," "quality," and "reliability" factors present in the ESG information disclosed in public company reports.

The research methodology adopts a comprehensive approach, combining logical and structural analysis, mathematical modeling, and content analysis methods. A thorough examination of the regulatory framework, international and Russian practices, and scientific research in ESG disclosure reveals the emergence of authoritative professional standards and frameworks between 2000 and 2023. These standards and frameworks play a pivotal role in shaping the disclosure of financial and non-financial information related to sustainable development in corporate reporting. However, a significant gap exists in established practices for determining ESG transparency levels. Current "transparency indices" fall short in incorporating these factors, leading to methodological incomparability and gaps in assessing the "quality" and "reliability" of estimated values.

To address this gap, the authors propose a novel mathematical model for the ESG transparency index in corporate reporting. This model effectively integrates the factors of "quantity," "quality," and "reliability" within the disclosed information of public companies. Through a comparative analysis of disclosure and verification practices across various types of activities within Russian public joint-stock companies (PJSCs), the established model enables the creation of an industry rating gradation. This rating gradation assists in determining the level of information disclosure about public companies' activities, fulfilling societal (state) requirements and optimizing business objectives.

1. Auer B.R. 2016. Do Socially Responsible Investment Policies Add or Destroy European Stock Portfolio Value? Journal of Business Ethics. 135(2). Р. 381–397. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2454-7

2. Aghamolla C., An B.-J. 2021. Mandatory vs. Voluntary ESG Disclosure, Efficiency, and Real Effects. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3975948

3. Brunelli M.A. 2018. A Survey of Inconsistency Indices for Pairwise Comparisons. International Journal of General Systems. 47(2). Р. 751–771. DOI: 10.1080/03081079.2018.1523156

4. Canco I., Kruja D., Iancu T. 2021. AHP, a Reliable Method for Quality Decision Making: A Case Study in Business. Sustainability. 13(24). С. 13932. DOI: 10.3390/su132413932.

5. De Bakker F.G.A., Groenewegen P., Den Hond F. 2005. A Bibliometric Analysis of 30 Years of Research and Theory on Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Performance. Business and Society. 44(3). Р. 283–317. DOI: 10.1177/0007650305278086.

6. Escrig-Olmedo E., Muñoz-Torres M.J., Fernández-Izquierdo M.Á. 2013. Sustainable Development and the Financial System: Society's Perceptions about Socially Responsible Investing. Business Strategy and the Environment. 22(6). Р. 410–428. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1755.

7. Fiechter P., Hitz J.-M., Lehmann N. 2022. Real Effects of a Widespread CSR Reporting Mandate: Evidence from the European Union's CSR Directive. Journal of Accounting Research. 60(4). URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4246052. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3725603

8. Friede G., Busch T., Bassen A. 2015. ESG and Financial Performance: Aggregated Evidence from More than 2000 Empirical Studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. 5(4). Р. 210–233. DOI: 10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917.

9. Hill R.P., Ainscough T., Shank T., Manullang D. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility and Socially Responsible Investing: A Global Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. 70(2). Р.165174. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9103-8

10. Hummel K., Jobst D. 2022. The Current State and Future of Corporate Sustainability Reporting Regulations in the European Union. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ ssrn.3978478.

11. Ishikawa T. 2022. The Effects of Mandatory Disclosure on Investment Efficiency. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4068082.

12. Margolis J.D., Walsh J.P. 2003. Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly. 48(2). Р. 268–305. DOI: 10.2307/3556659.

13. Micale J., Cheng M. 2022. ESG Risks and the Value Relevance of Current and Historical Earnings. Financial Markets Institutions & Instruments. DOI: 10.1111/fmii.12162

14. Richardson B.J. 2009. Keeping Ethical Investment Ethical: Regulatory Issues for Investing for Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics. 87(4). Р. 555–572. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-0089958-y.

15. Ruf B.M., Muralidhar K., Paul K. 1998. The Development of a Systematic, Aggregate Measure of Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Management. 24(1). Р. 119–133. DOI: 10.1177/014920639802400101

16. Saaty T.L. 2013. On the Measurement of Intengibles. A Principal Eigenvector Approach to Relative Measurement Derived from Paired Comparisons. Notices of the American Mathematical Society. 60(2). С. 192–208. DOI: 10.1090/noti944

17. Temesi J. 2019. An Interactive Approach to Determine the Elements of a Pairwise Comparison Matrix. Central European Journal of Operations Research. 27(2). Р. 533–549. DOI: 10.1007/s10100-018-0539-6

18. Vitolla F., Salvi A., Raimo N., Petruzzella F., Rubino M. 2020. The Impact on the Cost of Equity Capital in the Effects of Integrated Reporting Quality. Business Strategy and the Environment. 29(2). Р. 519–529. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2384.

19. Bulyga R.P. Safonova I.V. 2022. Standarty nefinansovoj otchyotnosti dlya publichnyh kompanij: trendy razvitiya [Non-Financial Reporting Standards for Public Companies: Trends of Evolution]. Samoupravlenie. 3(131). P. 31-34. (In Russian)

20. Efimova O.V., Volkov M.A., Korolyova D.A. 2021. Analiz vliyaniya principov ESG na dohodnost' aktivov: empiricheskoe issledovanie [The Impact of ESG Factors on Asset Returns: Empirical Research]. Finansy: teoriya i praktika. 25(4). P. 82-97. DOI: 10.26794/2587-56712021-25-4-82-97. (In Russian)

21. Volokobinskij M.YU., Pekarskaya O.A., Razi D.A. 2016. Prinyatie reshenij na osnove metoda analiza ierarhij [Decision-Making Based on The Hierarchy Analysis Method]. Finansy: teoriya i praktika. 2(92). P. 33-42. (In Russian)

22. Saati T.L. 2015. Prinyatie reshenij pri zavisimostyah i obratnyh svyazyah: analiticheskie seti [Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process]. Moscow: URSS LENAND. 357 p. (In Russian)

23. Fedorova E.A., Hrustova L.E., Demin I.S. 2020. Vliyanie kachestva raskrytiya nefinansovoj informacii rossijskimi kompaniyami na ih investicionnuyu privlekatel'nost' [Completeness of Non-Financial Disclosure by Russian Companies: The Influence on Investment Attractiveness]. Rossijskij zhurnal menedzhmenta. 18(1). P. 51-72. DOI: 10.21638/spbu18.2020.103. (In Russian)