Notation ESG: beaucoup de travail à faire

L’investissement ESG a connu une croissance spectaculaire au cours des dernières années. Pour soutenir les décisions d’investissement et la construction de portefeuille, il est toutefois crucial qu’une information fiable soit disponible sur les facteurs ESG. Or, comme en faisait état un reportage du Report on Business samedi dernier intitulé Why the booming business of ESG ratings may be giving investors a false sense of sustainability, il est temps de s’intéresser sérieusement au travail des agences de notation ESG.

But a Globe and Mail investigation shows the methods these ratings providers use vary to the point where the same company can be judged as both an ESG leader and a laggard, depending on who’s doing the measuring. It’s sowing skepticism not just among investors but among some of the companies being scored, too.

Ce constat ne devrait pas surprendre quiconque s’intéresse à l’investissement ESG. Déjà, en 2018, un article du Wall Street Journal soulevait des interrogations quant au rôle de la notation ESG dans un article au titre évocateur: Is Tesla or Exxon More Sustainable? It Depends Whom You Ask.

Au-delà de ces enquêtes journalistiques, l’Organisation international des commissions de valeurs (OICV) publiait l’automne dernier un document de consultation qui abordait précisément cet enjeu. Le document constatait notamment le flou entourant la signification de la notation, l’opacité de la méthodologie employée et l’hétérogénéité de la notation. À la lumière de ces constats, l’OICV formulait les recommandations suivantes pour fins de commentaires:

• Recommendation 1: Regulators may wish to consider focusing more attention on the use
  of ESG ratings and data products and ESG ratings and data products providers in their
  jurisdictions.
• Recommendation 2: ESG ratings and data products providers could consider issuing high
  quality ESG ratings and data products based on publicly disclosed data sources where
  possible and other information sources where necessary, using transparent and defined
  methodologies.
• Recommendation 3: ESG ratings and data products providers could consider ensuring their
  decisions are, to the best of their knowledge, independent and free from political or economic
  pressures and from conflicts of interest arising due to the ESG ratings and data products
  providers’ organizational structure, business or financial activities, or the financial interests
  of the ESG ratings and ESG data products providers’ employees.
• Recommendation 4: ESG ratings and data products providers could consider, on a best
  efforts basis, avoiding activities, procedures or relationships that may compromise or appear
  to compromise the independence and objectivity of the ESG rating and ESG data products
  provider’s operations or identifying, managing and mitigating the activities that may lead to
  those compromises.
• Recommendation 5: ESG ratings and data products providers could consider making high
  levels of public disclosure and transparency an objective in their ESG ratings and data
  products, including their methodologies and processes.
• Recommendation 6: ESG ratings and data products providers could consider maintaining
  in confidence all non-public information communicated to them by any company, or its
  agents, related to their ESG ratings and data products, in a manner appropriate in the
  circumstances.
• Recommendation 7: Financial market participants could consider conducting due diligence
  on the ESG ratings and data products that they use in their internal processes. This due
  diligence could include an understanding of what is being rated or assessed by the product,
  how it is being rated or assessed and, limitations and the purposes for which the product is
  being used.
• Recommendation 8: ESG ratings and data products providers could consider improving
  information gathering processes with entities covered by their products in a manner that is
  efficient and leads to more effective outcomes for both the providers and these entities.
• Recommendation 9: ESG ratings and data products providers could consider responding to
  and addressing issues flagged by entities covered by their ESG ratings and data products
  while maintaining the objectivity of these products.
• Recommendation 10: Entities subject to assessment by ESG ratings and data products
  providers could consider streamlining their disclosure processes for sustainability related
  information to the extent possible, bearing in mind regulatory and other legal requirements
  in their jurisdictions.

Toute personne qui s’est intéressée au rôle des agences de notation de crédit verra des thèmes familiers dans cette liste de recommandation qui visent à assurer la qualité et l’intégrité de la notation ESG. Un vaste chantier dont il faudra suivre l’évolution.