This article uses the study of two environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data vendors—KLD and Innovest—to exemplify the “social origins of ESG issues” argument made by Eccles and Stroehle in their 2018 working paper “Exploring Social Origins in the Construction of ESG Measures.” Based on in-depth interviews with the organizations’ founders and historical document analysis, we recap the history of the cases and show how different origins, philosophies, and “purposes” of ESG issues shaped the methods and data characteristics of two of the most important data vendors of their time. We discuss why MSCI chose to continue with the financial value–oriented methodology of Innovest while discontinuing the values-driven KLD methodology. Through an in-depth literature analysis, we further show that not only the creation but also the use of “nonfinancial performance” concepts rely on processes of social construction. We also show that investors use different ESG data from those used by academics, potentially leading to misaligned narratives. Finally, with this article we join the call for more explicit contextualization of ESG data, highlighting that both practitioners and academics need to better understand the social construction that underlies analyses that use different concepts of ESG.
AcitoA. A.BurksJ. J.JohnsonW. B. (2009). Materiality decisions and the correction of accounting errors. Accounting Review, 84, 659–688.
2.
Amel-ZadehA. (2018). Social responsibility in capital markets: A review and framework of theory and empirical evidence (Working paper). Said Business School, Oxford, England.
3.
BealD.EcclesR.HansellG.LesserR.UnnikrishnanS.WoodsW.YoungD. (2017). BCG total societal impact study. A new lens for strategy. Boston, MA: Boston Consulting.
4.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday.
5.
BeunzaD.FerraroF. (2018). Performative work: Bridging performativity and institutional theory in the responsible investment field. Organization Studies, 40, 515–543.
6.
BowenF. (2014). After greenwashing: Symbolic corporate environmentalism and society: Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
BurchellS.ClubbC.HopwoodA.HughesJ.NahapietJ. (1980). The roles of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5, 5–21.
9.
CallonM. (Ed.). (1998). The laws of the markets. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
10.
CallonM. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In MacKenzieD. A.MuniesaF.SiuL. (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 311–356). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ChatterjiA.DurandR.LevineD.TouboulS. (2016). Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1597–1614.
13.
ChatterjiA.LevineD. I.ToffelM. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility?Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18, 125–169.
14.
ChenC.-J.GuoR.-S.HsiaoY.-C.ChenK. L. (2018). How business strategy in non-financial firms moderates the curvilinear effects of CSR and irresponsibility on corporate financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 92, 154–167.
15.
CFA Institute. (2015). Environmental, social and governance issues in investing: A guide for investment professionals. London, England: Center for Financial Analysis.
16.
DelmasM.EtzionD.Nairn-BirchN. (2013). Triangulating environmental performance: What do corporate social responsibility ratings really capture?Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 255–267.
17.
DeutchC. (1998, July19). For Wall Street, increasing evidence that green begets green. New York Times, p. 7.
18.
DohJ. P.HowtonS. D.HowtonS. W.SiegelD. S. (2010). Does the market respond to an endorsement of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information, and legitimacy. Journal of Management, 36, 1461–1485.
19.
EcclesR. G.IoannouI.SerafeimG. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organisational processes and performance. Management Science, 60, 2835–2857.
EdgleyC. (2014). A genealogy of accounting materiality. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25, 255–271.
22.
EspelandW. N.SauderM. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1–40.
23.
FriedmanM. (1970, September13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf
GondJ.-P.CraneA. (2010). Corporate social performance disoriented: Saving the lost paradigm?Business & Society, 49, 677–703.
27.
GondJ.-P.VigneauL.Johnson-CramerM. (2018). How do measures become academically acceptable? A case study of the Kinder Lydenberg and Domini (KLD) database. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1). Retrieved from https://journals.aom.org/doi/pdf/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.237
28.
GravesS. B.WaddockS. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034–1046.
29.
GriffinJ.MahonJ. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36, 5–31.
LinsK. V.ServaesH.TamayoA. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785–1824.
36.
LydenbergS.WhiteA. (2015). Responsible investment indexes: Origins, nature and purpose. In HebbT.HawleyJ. P.HoepnerA. G. F.NeherA. L.WoodD. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of responsible investment (pp. 527–535). New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
MahoneyL.RobertsR. W. (2007). Corporate social performance, financial performance and institutional ownership in Canadian firms. Accounting Forum, 31, 233–253.
38.
MattinglyJ. E.BermanS. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenberg Domini ratings data. Business & Society, 45, 20–46.
39.
MooijS. (2017). The ESG rating and ranking industry: Vice or virtue in the adoption of responsible investment?Journal of Environmental Investing, 8(1), 331–351.
40.
MSCI ESG Research. (2017, March). MSCI ESG KLD STATS: 1991–2016 Data sets methodology. New York, NY: Author.
41.
OrlitzkyM. (2011). Institutional logics in the study of organizations: The social construction of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 409–444.
42.
PorterT. M. (1994). Making things quantitative. Science in Context, 7, 389–407.
RichardsonA. J. (1987). Accounting as a legitimating institution. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 341–355.
45.
RowleyT.BermanS. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39, 397–418.
46.
RufB.MuralidharK.BrownR. M.JanneyJ. J.PaulK. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 143–156.
47.
SharfmanM. (1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 287–296.
United Nations Environment Programme, Finance Initiative. (2005, October). A legal framework for incorporating environmental, social and governance issues into institutional investment. London, England: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. Retrieved from http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/freshfields_legal_resp_20051123.pdf
WoodD. J.JonesR. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267.
