Content uploaded by Olivier Boiral
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Olivier Boiral on Apr 08, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Boiral, O., Brotherton, M. C., & Talbot, D. (2020). Building trust in the fabric of
sustainability ratings: An impression management perspective. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 120942.
BUILDING TRUST IN THE FABRIC OF SUSTAINABILITY RATINGS: AN
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
Olivier Boiral (Ph.D)
Professeur titulaire
Titulaire de la Chaire de recherche du Canada sur
l’internalisation du développement durable et la
responsabilisation des organisations
Département de management,
Faculté des sciences de l'administration
Université Laval, Pavillon Palasis-Prince,
Bureau 1638
Québec (Québec) Canada G1V
0A6
Marie-Christine Brotherton (Ph.D)
Département de management,
Faculté des sciences de l'administration
Université Laval, Pavillon Palasis-Prince,
Bureau 1638
Québec (Québec) Canada G1V 0A6
David Talbot (Ph.D)
Professeur adjoint
Directeur du Centre de recherche sur la gouvernance
(CERGO) École nationale d'administration publique
555 boulevard Charest Est,
Québec (Québec) Canada G1K 9E5
2
ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to analyze the impression management strategies that
practitioners in the sustainability rating industry use to build confidence in the reliability of
ratings and explain these ratings’ lack of convergence. Based on semi-structured
interviews with 36 practitioners, this study sheds more light on the socially constructed
nature of sustainability ratings and the rhetoric used to defend the reliability and
materiality of measurements. This rhetoric revolves around seven impression management
strategies. These include four assertive strategies that highlight the distinctive
competences, commercial capabilities, access to privileged information, and
methodology used, and three defensive strategies that rely on lack of standardization in
sustainability measurements, difficulties in finding reliable data, and elastic interpretations of
materiality. This study offers contributions to the critical literature on sustainability rating agencies,
performance measurement, and impression management strategies. Managerial implications and
avenues for future research are also described.
Keywords: Sustainability ratings, reporting, reliability, materiality, impression management
strategies.
1. INTRODUCTION
Sustainability rating agencies (SRAs) now play a key role in the measurement and comparison of
environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance (Chelli and Gendron, 2013; Escrig-
Olmedo et al., 2010; Escrig-Olmedo et al., 2014; Kotsantonis et al., 2016; Scalet and Kelly,
2010; Van Den Brink and van Der Woerd, 2004). The field of SRAs is relatively heterogeneous;
SRAs differ in particular in the type of services offered and in their coverage. First, SRAs focus on
different positioning and services. Some SRAs position themselves primarily as research and
information dissemination centers. For example, data from KLD Research & Analytics are very
often used in research on corporate sustainability performance (Avetisyan and Gond, 2013; Shahzad
and Sharfman, 2017; Waddock, 2003). Other SRAs specialize in specific aspects and niche
markets. This is the case, for example, with RepRisk, which focuses on risk analysis
related to social and environmental issues (Avetisyan and Gond, 2013; Novethic
Research, 2014). The activities of SRAs are far from monolithic and are based on more or less
specific services. The institutional role of SRAs features five complementary aspects that explain, to
a large extent, the agencies’ raison d'être and their growing influence, but also the challenges
3
they face: 1) the collection of complex, uncertain and often dispersed data (e.g., Boiral, 2007; Cho
et al., 2015); 2) the quantification of ESG data (e.g., Busch et al., 2016; Global Sustainable
Investment Alliance, 2014); 3) the legitimization of actors and practices in the SRI field
(Arjalies et al., 2015; Busch et al., 2016); 4) the centralization and “commoditization” of
data (Chatterji et al., 2009; Rutledge, 2015); and 5) the regulation of actors and the
promotion of leaders’ accountability (e.g., Avetisyan and Gond, 2013; Searcy and Elkhawas,
2012).
Various stakeholders, particularly in the area of socially responsible investments (SRIs),
increasingly use the sustainability ratings (SRs), also known as ESG ratings, produced by these
agencies. SRI relies on identifying the most sustainable companies in specific sectors of activity and
excluding organizations that have been involved in controversial activities or crises which are
likely to tarnish the organization’s reputation and affect its market value (Diouf and Boiral,
2017; Dorfleitner et al., 2015; Kotsantonis et al., 2016; Lackmann et al., 2012; Rahdari and
Rostamy, 2015; SustainAbility, 2018). Such decisions assume the existence of reliable data,
defined as data that “can be subject to examination and that establishes the quality and
materiality of the information” (Global Reporting Initiative, 2013, p. 18).
Nevertheless, the internal practices of SRAs remain opaque, confidential, and understudied
(Bessire and Onnée, 2010; Déjean et al., 2004; Delmas and Blass, 2010). In the absence of
information on the methods of SRAs, the reliability of their SRs is questionable and difficult to
demonstrate. Indeed, a few studies have shown that there is a lack of convergence between
competing SRs (Chatterji et al., 2016; Dorfleitner et al., 2015; Hedesström et al., 2011; Mooij, 2017;
Rekker et al., 2019; Semenova and Hassel, 2015), and stakeholders interested in SRs may therefore
be puzzled by the existence of various and divergent SRs. To reassure stakeholders and address
possible criticism, SRAs may use various impression management (IM) strategies to legitimize
and influence perceptions of SRs. The main objective of this paper is to analyze the IM
strategies SR practitioners use to build confidence in the reliability of SRs and to explain their lack
of convergence.
This study has important implications for research and practice in the emerging field of SR. First,
although financial markets and decision-makers increasingly scrutinize SRs, the challenges of
developing SRs and the legitimization strategies used by SRAs are clearly under-researched.
With few exceptions (Déjean et al., 2004; Diouf and Boiral, 2017; Saadaoui and
Soobaroyen, 2018), most studies in this area rely on secondary and publicly available data
rather than interviews with practitioners who develop or use SRs. The perceptions of these
4
practitioners are essential to better understanding the fabric of SRs, their reliability
issues, and the reasons underlying their lack of convergence. Second, many quantitative studies
that rely on SRA ratings tend to take for granted the measurement and comparability of
sustainability performance (Searcy and Elkhawas, 2012; Semenova and Hassel, 2015;
Windolph, 2011), although the critical literature on sustainability measurement has questioned the
reliability of the information disclosed (Boiral and Henri, 2017; Capelle-Blancard and Petit, 2017;
Escrig‐Olmedo et al., 2017; Gray and Milne, 2004; Hubbard, 2009; Talbot and Boiral, 2015).
This essential debate seems above all confined to the academic arena, and the literature has
overlooked the perspectives of SR practitioners. Third, investigating the IM strategies used in the
SRA industry should shed more light on the main arguments employed to differentiate one SR from
another and to explain compromising issues, such as the lack of convergence of SRs.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, the literature on SRA activities and IM
strategies around sustainability issues is summarized. Second, the study’s semi-structured interview-
based method is described. Third, the main findings on the IM strategies used to build trust in
SRs and justify convergence issues are analyzed. Fourth, the discussion section details this
article’s main contributions and practical implications as well as avenues for future research.
2. THE BUSINESS OF SUSTAINABILITY RATING AGENCIES
2.1 MEASURING AND COMPARING SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE
Disclosing sustainability performance information is a strategic choice for an increasing
number of companies (Boiral and Henri, 2017; Chatterji et al., 2009; Mattingly and
Berman, 2006; Parguel et al., 2011; Searcy and Elkhawas, 2012) for at least two reasons. First,
financial markets are exerting increasing pressure on companies to produce reliable and comparable
information about their sustainability performance, particularly given the development of SRI
(Avetisyan and Hockerts, 2017; Escrig-Olmedo et al., 2019; Escrig- Olmedo et al., 2010; Rekker et
al., 2019). Second, various stakeholders (i.e. customers, employees, NGOs, researchers,
public organizations) are interested in and request information on sustainability performance
(Bessire and Onnée, 2010; Chatterji et al., 2016; Gauthier and Wooldridge, 2018; Gianfelici et al.,
2018; Parguel et al., 2011). To address these external pressures, companies must demonstrate not
only good financial performance, but also good performance in the area of
sustainability. The tendency to integrate sustainability and financial reporting reflects these
institutional pressures for regular disclosure of information beyond the purview of traditional
accounting (Dilling and Harris, 2018; Frias‐Aceituno et al., 2014; Gianfelici et al., 2018).
5
However, unlike accounting information, sustainability data is often fuzzy, poorly standardized, and
based on very different indicators (Boiral and Henri, 2017; Capelle-Blancard and Petit, 2017;
Escrig‐Olmedo et al., 2017; Graafland et al., 2004; Hubbard, 2009; Windolph, 2011). In
addition, despite the increasing use of reporting standards—notably, the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI)—and verification of these reports by external auditors, the materiality and reliability
of the information disclosed is uncertain at best (Boiral and Henri, 2017; Cho et al., 2015;
Hahn and Lülfs, 2014; Hubbard, 2009). In this context, it is difficult to accurately and
reliably compare the sustainability performance of different companies (Boiral and Henri, 2017;
Capelle-Blancard and Petit, 2017; Escrig‐Olmedo et al., 2017; Graafland et al., 2004;Hubbard, 2009).
Measuring and comparing sustainability performance is the main activity of SRAs. Originally
founded by religious congregations and NGOs seeking mainly, through negative screening, to avoid
funding illegitimate or immoral economic activities, SRAs have considerably developed and
diversified their services over the past two decades (Bessire and Onnée, 2010; Déjean et
al., 2013; Entine, 2003). On the one hand, some SRAs (e.g., MSCI, Vigeo Eiris, Trucost)
have deepened their core activity by setting up offices in various regions of the world in
order to expand the number of companies covered, improve knowledge of these organizations,
and offer services better tailored to the needs of their customers. On the other hand, SRA
activities include increasingly diversified services such as customized audits of sustainability
policy, controversy analysis for specific sectors or organizations, compliance with international
conventions and standards, assessment of climate change performance, sustainability ratings of
portfolios, and analysis of ESG performance of countries, local governments, and international
organizations (Avetisyan and Hockerts, 2017; Bessire and Onnée, 2010; Novethic Research,
2014). Although these services may seem different, they are essentially based on
inclusive analyses of sustainability commitments and performance. These analyses generally
take the form of ratings that compare and rank organizations according to an aggregate score
based on their calculations and criteria; the degree of clarity with which these scores are defined
varies (Capelle-Blancard and Petit, 2017; Delmas and Blass, 2010; Delmas et al., 2013; Koellner
et al., 2005).
Although the literature on SRAs is still in its infancy, various studies have analyzed SRAs’
activities, methodologies, and outcomes. Here, we summarize the literature on these three
aspects of SRAs. First, various studies highlight the growth of SRAs and their
increasingly important role, particularly in financial markets and the development of SRIs
(Bessire and Onnée, 2010; Koellner et al., 2005; Márquez and Fombrun, 2005). SRAs appear to
6
be essential intermediaries between companies and investors who wish to better integrate
sustainability issues into their decisions (Escrig-Olmedo et al., 2014; Kotsantonis et al., 2016;
Rahdari and Rostamy, 2015; Windolph, 2011). The increasing importance of these issues for
company reputation and stock market value partly explains the growth of SRAs, which
offer various services to reduce the financial risks of ESG controversies (Novethic Research, 2014;
Semenova and Hassel, 2015; Sodjahin et al., 2017). Studies also highlight a trend towards
consolidating SRAs; these studies consider the possible implications of this consolidation on SRA
practices (Avetisyan and Hockerts, 2017; Eccles and Stroehle, 2018; Novethic Research, 2014).
Second, a few studies explore the rating methods and models of SRAs (Delmas and Blass, 2010;
Graafland et al., 2004; Koellner et al., 2005; Saadaoui and Soobaroyen, 2018; Schäfer, 2005). These
studies discuss the similarities and differences in rating methods, particularly in terms of criteria,
screening practices, and varying emphasis on specific ESG issues (Benijts, 2008; Delmas and
Blass, 2010; Saadaoui and Soobaroyen, 2018; SustainAbility, 2018). However, most empirical
research on this issue highlights SRAs’ lack of transparency surrounding their rating
methods (e.g., Chelli and Gendron, 2013; Delmas and Blass, 2010; Schäfer, 2005;
Windolph, 2011). This lack of transparency can be partly explained by competitive
pressures and a reluctance to share information or know-how critical to the survival of
SRAs (Bessire and Onnée, 2010; Delmas and Blass, 2010; Graafland et al., 2004; Windolph,
2011). As a result, empirical studies on SRAs are limited and mainly focus on secondary data. Some
studies also mention the difficulties of aggregating data of very different natures and
undetermined reliability (Boiral and Henri, 2017; Capelle-Blancard and Petit, 2017; Windolph,
2011). While various approaches have been proposed to overcome these difficulties, in particular
the use of fuzzy logic methods (Escrig-Olmedo et al., 2014; Escrig‐Olmedo et al., 2017; Liu, 2007;
Rajak and Vinodh, 2015), the actual rating practices of SRAs remain poorly investigated for the
reasons just described.
Third, some studies critical of the reliability of SRs examine SRAs’ output and the
implications of this output. Some of these studies analyze the degree of correspondence between
different SRs and highlight significant differences in ratings for the same companies
(Chatterji et al., 2016; Dorfleitner et al., 2015; Mooij, 2017; Semenova and Hassel, 2015).
For example, in their study based on extensive data from six indices (KLD, Calvert, Innovest,
FTSE4Good, DJSI, and Asset4) for three consecutive years, Chatterji et al. (2016) found a very
low convergence rate (19 to 60%) between the ranking of companies according to their
sustainability performance. This study also questions studies and decisions based on SRA
7
rankings: “The low convergent validity we report implies most or all of the metrics used in
previous studies have low validity” (Chatterji et al., 2016, p. 1608). The convergence study
conducted by Semenova and Hassel (2015) with three suppliers (MSCI, Thomson Reuters and
GES) yielded fairly similar results. While the assessment of one of the aspects studied—
“environmental forces”—seems to converge, the study shows that overall “the ratings have
common dimensions, but on aggregate, they do not converge” (Semenova and Hassel,
2015, p. 249). This lack of convergence raises questions about the meaning of SRs and their use
by a growing number of stakeholders, particularly in the context of SRIs. The validity of
SRs is also questioned in several studies that criticize the arbitrary and simplifying nature of
ratings, which cannot fully reflect the complexity, diversity, and qualitative aspects of sustainability
issues (Capelle-Blancard and Petit, 2017; Chelli and Gendron, 2013; Windolph, 2011). However,
these criticisms are mainly theoretical or based on secondary data that does not include the
perspectives of SR practitioners. To our knowledge, there has been no in- depth empirical
study of SR practitioners’ perceptions of SR validity and convergence issues. IM can
contribute to a better understanding of these perceptions and of the justification strategies
the SR industry employs to respond to these challenges.
2.2 MANAGING IMPRESSIONS OF RELIABILITY AND CONSISTENCY
IM theory was initially used in the fields of psychology and individual behavior to describe how
people influence the perceptions of others and create a favorable image of themselves. This
theory is now being applied in a large number of disciplines, including management (Bolino et
al., 2008; Bolino and Turnley, 2003; Klotz et al., 2018; Merkl-Davies et al., 2011). Various
studies have shown how organizational behavior is shaped by IM tactics including self-
enhancement, exemplification, and justification (Bolino et al., 2008; Hooghiemstra, 2000;
McDonnell and King, 2013; Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2007). The theory has also been applied in
a large number of studies on corporate sustainability performance disclosures (e.g., Bansal and
Kistruck, 2006; Boiral, 2016; Cho et al., 2015; Hahn and Lülfs, 2014). Most of these studies
have highlighted strategies that accentuate sustainability achievements and obfuscate negative
information on environmental impacts, controversies, and incidents that could affect corporate
image. Neo-institutional theory has also been used to explain behaviors intended to respond to
external pressures and improve corporate legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders (Hahn and
Kühnen, 2013; Hahn and Lülfs, 2014; Schaltegger and Hörisch, 2017; Shabana and Ravlin,
2016). The literature in this area has revealed greenwashing tendencies in sustainability
8
disclosures (i.e., promoting misleading information on corporate sustainability), particularly
from polluting organizations that are facing strong external pressures (Boiral, 2013; Cho et al.,
2015; Delmas and Burbano, 2011; Talbot and Boiral, 2015). Some studies have also investigated a
subset of defensive IM techniques referred to as neutralization techniques (Boiral, 2016; Hahn and
Lülfs, 2014; Talbot and Boiral, 2018). Neutralization techniques are defined as “the release of
information aimed at rationalizing and legitimizing, through different types of socially
acceptable arguments, the occurrence of unethical behaviors, negative impacts or issues that
could undermine the image of the organizations, managers, or employees” (Boiral, 2016, p. 754).
In recent years, several studies have attempted to identify and better understand the strategies
used by companies. However, the majority of these studies were limited to one type of strategy
(i.e. defensive IM). As a result, only few articles have attempted to integrate defensive and
assertive IM strategies into the same framework (e.g., Talbot and Boiral, 2015; Van Halderen et
al., 2016). In addition, the majority of these studies were conducted using secondary data. In this
context, it is difficult for these studies to explain the origin of these strategies as well as the
rationale for their use. Appendix A summarizes the main CSR research on IM strategies used in
organizations. SRA statements on SRs may be shaped by IM strategies for at least three
interrelated reasons.
First, SR is a relatively new practice and can have significant impacts on SRIs and rated
companies (Escrig‐Olmedo et al., 2013; Parguel et al., 2011; Rekker et al., 2019; Windolph, 011).
SRAs therefore need to establish their credibility among stakeholders, particularly socially
responsible investors who require actionable information on corporate sustainability performance
(Bessire and Onnée, 2010; Windolph, 2011). The proliferation of rating systems and
subscribers in this area (Bessire and Onnée, 2010) is likely to only increase competitive
pressures between SR providers, who must demonstrate their legitimacy and value added.
According to Bessire and Onnée (2010), such legitimization tends to be embedded in two
contrasting ideologies: activism and conservatism. Activist ideology is focused on ethical
arguments and moral imperatives. It advocates that SRAs should promote the common good and
corporate sustainability even if it conflicts with short-term economic objectives. In contrast,
conservative ideology focuses on risk management, the maximization of shareholder values, and win-
win situations for economic and environmental issues. While Bessire and Onnée’s study (2010) sheds
more light on how SRAs defend their own legitimacy, the practical matter of defending and
legitimizing their specific ratings has yet to be explored—as does whether and how these two
ideologies impact the justifications provided for ratings.
9
Second, the measurement of corporate sustainability performance and the disclosure of reliable
information in this area have become increasingly controversial topics in the literature (Cho et al.,
2015; Diouf and Boiral, 2017; Kolk, 2004; Perrini and Tencati, 2006). Various studies have
demonstrated the managerial capture of sustainability disclosures and their lack of reliability
(e.g., Gray and Milne, 2004; O'Dwyer and Owen, 2005; Smith et al., 2011). Beyond possible
misrepresentations in corporate disclosures, the measurement and comparison of sustainability
performance raise serious challenges due to the multifaceted and fuzzy nature of the concept of
sustainability (Boiral, 2013; Devinney, 2009; Escrig-Olmedo et al., 2014; Escrig‐Olmedo et al., 2017;
Moneva et al., 2006; Rajak and Vinodh, 2015). It is also worth questioning whether it is possible to
aggregate such very different ESG indicators into a global, comparable sustainability score, as SRAs
purport to do (Boiral and Henri, 2017; Capelle-Blancard and Petit, 2017; Delmas and Blass, 2010;
Escrig‐Olmedo et al., 2017). How SRAs address and legitimize these issues is unclear, though they
may use various IM strategies to promote the reliability of their own rating systems.
Third, although various studies have demonstrated the lack of convergence of SRA ratings
(Chatterji et al., 2016; Dorfleitner et al., 2015; Hedesström et al., 2011; Mooij, 2017; Semenova and
Hassel, 2015), the ways managers and analysts involved in SRs justify such divergences has not
been fully investigated, to the best of our knowledge. Such investigation is essential, because the
current lack of convergence raises questions about the raison d’être of SRAs, which are
supposed to provide meaningful and consistent information on global sustainability performance.
While the lack of agreement between SRs may be explained by methodological differences,
some unprofessional SRAs, and the impossibility of developing reliable, comprehensive SRs,
SRAs must also explain and justify these differences. IM strategies are likely to play a role in
their justifications.
3 METHODS
The objective of this paper is to analyze the IM strategies used by practitioners in the SR
industry to build confidence in the reliability of ratings. A qualitative approached was deemed
most appropriate, as this study is exploratory and focuses on the meanings of complex and
under-researched issues (Gephart, 2004). More specifically, the grounded theory approach was
used, as this study explores the perceptions of SR practitioners rather than testing pre-defined
hypotheses (Martin and Turner, 1986; Strauss and Corbin, 1994; Suddaby, 2006). Grounded
theory has several advantages, including the ability to reduce the distance between data
collection and analysis since these research activities are conducted simultaneously (Charmaz
10
and Belgrave, 2007; Strauss and Corbin, 1994). Theorization emerges from the data rather than
based on the validation of an existing theory. The literature is used to compare the results of the
conceptual analysis of the data with other works in the field of study. In this perspective, the
framework of analysis does not depend on an exhaustive literature review (Charmaz and
Belgrave, 2007), and the people interviewed are considered to be the experts on the subject. As
Suddaby (2006, p. 634) writes, this approach is particularly suitable “to understand the process
by which actors construct meaning out of intersubjective experience.” Grounded theory is
relevant for this study because the objective is to better understand the processes by which
confidence in non-financial rating is built. Few studies have addressed this issue, and the
grounded theory approach is well suited to exploring emerging phenomena.
3.1 DATA COLLECTION
The data collection was performed in two stages. The first step of this study involved consulting
and analyzing the websites and internal documents of the main SRAs for information on their SR
process and method. It also included six semi-structured interviews with SRA analysts and
practitioners to garner a better understanding of the inherent issues and challenges in the
industry. The use of semi-structured interviews as an information-gathering strategy allows the
researcher and the interviewee to address new or emerging issues (Gill et al., 2008), and was
appropriate for this study as the emphasis is on exploring a new phenomenon. A second round of
interviews was conducted to further explore SR practices and interesting topics raised in the
first stage. The snowball method (Miles et al., 2018) was used to recruit these participants. A
former SRA employee with contacts in the industry was a valuable asset to our research team.
Overall, 300 people were contacted either by email (87) or via professional websites (213)
such as SRI-Connect and LinkedIn. Among them, 30 people agreed to participate in our study,
bringing the total number of interviews to 36. The low positive response rate (10%) for this study
can be partly explained by the very sensitive nature of SRs. The anonymity of all the participants
was guaranteed by a confidentiality agreement signed prior to the interviews in accordance with
the XXX ethics committee. Interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes, and were conducted
between November 2015 and June 2018. Only a small proportion of the interviews (four)
were conducted face-to-face, and the majority of the interviews were conducted over Skype.
Previous studies have shown that there is no significant difference between in-person and
telephone interviews (e.g., Holt, 2010; Stephens, 2007; Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004). Appendix B
presents the general profile of the participants.
11
The semi-structured interview guide addressed seven main themes: the training and educational
background of the participants, the rating process itself, the relationships between SRAs and
rated companies, the reliability of rating methods and information collected, determining
materiality, the various standards and certifications, and shareholder engagement and proxy
voting. This interview guide was expanded following the first stage of the study to cover topics
of interest that emerged from the initial six interviews. This evolution of the interview guide is
an essential element in studies that use grounded theory (Charmaz and Belgrave, 2007). The
interviews mainly focused on the perceptions of SR practitioners, as SRAs consider their specific
rating methodologies to be trade secrets. All interviews were transcribed using Microsoft Word to
facilitate data analysis.
3.2 DATA ANALYSIS
The grounded theory approach is an inductive and iterative process involving the coding and
grouping of passages into different themes. First, all interview transcripts were transferred to the
qualitative analysis software QDA Miner (v.4.1.21). This software facilitates the sorting,
analyzing, and retrieving of relevant codes. Second, coding was carried out using the approach
proposed by Thomas (2006). Initially, segments of the text were identified in relation to the
objectives of the research project. Subsequently, preliminary categories were created. Third, to
enhance the reliability of the coding process, some transcripts were categorized independently by
two different coders (Miles et al., 2018; Thomas, 2006). This parallel coding makes it possible
to compare the coding choices made by two independent researchers to ensure a certain
convergence in the identified categories (Thomas, 2006). Following this step, both coders
discussed the categories and some were created, deleted, split, or merged. All categories were
also precisely defined to enhance the reliability of the categorization process. Fourth, all remaining
transcripts were categorized. At the end of this process, no significant differences were found
between the work of the two coders, and the categorization was deemed reliable. By the end of the
coding process, 1,252 relevant passages were coded into 48 different codes. These codes fell under
nine sub-categories: the challenges of SRs, information about the SRA, the barriers to
collaboration between agencies, contact with rated companies, starting requirements and skills of
analysts, expertise of analysts, training of analysts, the ethics of the SR process, and the
defensive IM strategies used. These sub-categories were subsequently grouped into three main
categories: the promotion of SRs, impressions of the trustworthiness and reliability of SRs,
and defensive IM strategies used to explain the lack of convergence between SRs. Appendix C
12
presents an overview of the main codes used in this study. In the context of this study, it is also
relevant to note that data saturation was reached after the first 24 interviews were coded. This
concept, in the context of a study using grounded theory, is defined by (Urquhart, 2012, p. 194)
as “the point in coding when you find that no new codes occur in the data. There are mounting
instances of the same codes, but no new ones.” All identifying information was deleted from the
passages included in this paper to guarantee the confidentiality of participants and their
organizations and to comply with ethical requirements.
4 PROMOTING SUSTAINABILITY RATINGS IN A COMPETITIVE AND
RAPIDLY CHANGING MARKET
According to most respondents, the SR market has undergone profound changes in recent years.
These transformations are linked to the rapid evolution of the institutional context of
sustainability issues, the increasing complexity of SRs, and the expansion of the activities and sectors
covered by SRAs. The increasing importance of some concerns (e.g., climate change, biodiversity
conservation, preventing discrimination, and promoting equality and diversity), the emergence of new
standards in these areas, and the risks and controversies that may affect certain companies all require
that SRAs conduct regular monitoring and reconsider traditional rating systems. SRAs must integrate
these multiplying concerns into their work as much as possible. In addition, SRAs cover an
increasing number of business sectors and organizations that use different metrics to report on
specific sustainability issues. SRAs are affected by two opposing trends: one that’s conducive to
concentrating activities and opportunities for cooperation and another that generates more
competition and differentiation. The increasing complexity of SRs requires ever-increasing resources
that cannot necessarily be supported by all SRAs, especially smaller ones. The increasingly
complex requests for company information from various SRAs have also led to survey fatigue. The
proliferation of competing SRs can lead to confusion, and highlights the need for sustainability
performance to be assessed through similar standards and criteria. Lastly, the international nature of
sustainability issues and the emergence of large SRAs have encouraged the consolidation and
concentration of research and analysis activities. These recent mergers and acquisitions are partly due
to the need to pool the resources needed to develop complex SRs, the search for economies of scale,
and the internationalization of activities in this field; however, most SRAs are reluctant to share their
methods and know-how with other agencies. Although some respondents stressed the relevance of
collaborating with other agencies, most recognized that collaborative initiatives could be much
deeper and that current collaborations are mainly limited to specific partnerships to promote
13
products or expand the geographical coverage of SRAs. For example, Sustainalytics and Glass Lewis
have developed an alliance to help investors gain access to corporate governance information on
20,000 companies. Likewise, Vigeo Eiris—the result of a merger between a French agency
(Vigeo) and a British agency (Eiris)—has set up partnerships with agencies from six different
regions to facilitate the company’s geographic diversification and expand its business
portfolio. These agencies are located in Australia (CAER), Brazil (SITAWI), Germany (IMUG),
Israel (Greeneye), Japan (Quick), and Spain (ECODES). Yet according to respondents, competition
predominates over collaboration and alliance, particularly in terms of access to privileged
information on corporate sustainability and rating methodologies, which are considered
confidential. Respondents brought up commercial issues, the specific history of each agency, and
the need to differentiate from other companies, among other issues:
The agencies are competing, so they don’t collaborate. I don’t know what the future
holds, but, in my opinion, some rating agencies will disappear. One day, there will be
perhaps two or three at most, the ones that will last. They’ll be the only ones, similarly to
what happened in the financial sector. (Respondent 8)
Each agency wants to be the one that has access to privileged information and they don’t
necessarily want to share this information. (Respondent 4)
I think we all live in a world where we promote collaboration as much as we can,
especially in the area of responsible investment! However, in reality, that is another story.
Personally, I think there is still a commercial or economic reality and, therefore, how far can
we really work together? If we cooperate fully, at 100%, how will we get paid? (Respondent
28).
Competitive pressures and the existence of various SRAs offering fairly similar services can
create confusion for stakeholders, particularly SRI practitioners who must choose a credible
rating system to assess and compare corporate sustainability performance. The proliferation of
competing SR systems that have similar objectives but that are based on relatively opaque
methodologies raises questions about these systems’ reliability and about which SRA to trust. As
Respondent 32 states, “it’s very difficult to determine the reputation of these agencies. They have
really different metrics, really different indicators that they consider. But there’s a real challenge in
how to say this analysis is more valuable than that analysis.” In this context, SRAs use
different strategies to build impressions of trustworthiness in the reliability and rigor of their
rating systems, without disclosing specific information on their methodologies.
14
5 BUILDING TRUST IN SUSTAINABILITY RATINGS
This section presents the seven strategies used by respondents to promote trust in the system.
They are grouped into two main categories: assertive (n=4) and defensive (n=3) IM strategies.
5.1 ASSERTIVE IM STRATEGIES
The interviews showed that SRAs use four main interrelated enhancement strategies to give an
impression of trustworthiness and reliability in their SRs: highlighting organizational
specificities, differentiating themselves on commercial aspects, highlighting the superior quality
of the information obtained, and promoting the agency’s specific methodology.
Highlighting organizational specificities and internal competencies
First, some respondents legitimized the reliability of their SRs through arguments related to their
organizations and their distinctive competencies. Respondents also mentioned the specific skills
of their SRAs. These skills notably depend on the recruitment of experienced and well-trained
analysts. The diversity of analysts and their knowledge of several languages, specific markets, or
sustainability issues (e.g., climate change, governance, anti-corruption practices, compliance
with certain standards) were also cited. Some participants discussed the organizational
characteristics of SRAs in terms of age, size, origin, or founding values. For example,
respondents working in relatively old SRAs brought up the importance of experience, history,
and external recognition to give stakeholders confidence in their SRA and strengthen the
legitimacy of their SRs. The size of the organization was also mentioned, particularly by
respondents from large SRAs, who cited their greater resources for obtaining information from
more diversified or reliable sources and their wider coverage of companies. Respondents from
smaller SRAs highlighted the benefits of a more flexible structure that allows them to adapt to
the needs of specific categories of clients and specialize in a niche market (e.g., companies in a
given region, proxy voting, green bonds, human rights). A few respondents also cited the
European origins of some SRAs, arguing that European SRAs are more sensitive to social and
environmental aspects than other agencies, which are embedded in a more “traditional” financial
culture. Lastly, some respondents noted that some SRAs have established scientific committees
made up of researchers and specialists to improve internal practices. Other SRAs collaborate on a
more ad hoc basis with universities or research institutes. Despite this discussion of their
organizations’ established practices, most respondents also recognized that the quality of SRs
does not depend on the formal application of predefined methods, standards, and criteria. The
15
complexity and qualitative nature of many ESG issues require internal arbitrations and decisions
that rely on internal skills above all, and these are difficult to formalize in written procedures:
A strong argument in favor of our agency is the quality of our research, but in fact it’s
part of a whole, because it depends on the initial training of our analysts, their
recruitment, and the continuous training that we provide them. [...] Our analysts are more
skilled compared to those of other agencies. [...] All this creates a whole that makes the
quality of our ratings one of the best available in the non-financial rating market.
(Respondent 12)
Differences between agencies in terms of rating quality have a lot to do with having a
team of analysts who can write, speak several languages, have a diverse background, and
can have discussions with people who specialize in different issues. (Respondent 16)
Our analysts have been working with a similar approach for a long time, which means we
will be able to stand out from other agencies. (Respondent 28)
Promoting reputation and commercial adaptation
Second, according the several respondents, commercial aspects can be an important
differentiation factor between SRAs and to justify using one SR over another. A few respondents
mentioned their agencies’ reputation and prizes or contests they have won. Adapting to customer
needs is also essential to the survival of agencies. Such adaptations can take the form of
customized assessments of sustainability performance, modifying the presentation of rankings
according to customer requests, or adjusting the price of services. Listening to customer needs is
all the more essential as the demands on SRAs tend to evolve rapidly in response to current
events and institutional pressures around sustainability issues. Due to the similarities in SR
services on the market, clients can quickly switch from one SRA to another or compare the
quality of their ratings. In this context, SRAs must justify their specificities, offer new services, or
prospect for new customers to ensure their survival and development in an increasingly
saturated market. However, this business logic can have negative effects on SR quality. A few
respondents criticized some SRAs’ lack of independence and the indulgence of their ratings due to
commercial pressures. Other SRAs aim to reduce the impacts of a tendency to cater to
corporate desires by positioning themselves as more critical agencies in evaluating corporate
sustainability performance:
16
Our rating agency is very demanding compared to others. In general, companies have
lower ratings with us than other agencies. And that’s something that can make a
difference. (Respondent 12)
There’s the methodology but there is also the entrepreneurial activities of finding
customers, guiding them, keeping them, and making money with them! I think that it
plays a major role for rating agencies. (Respondent 20)
We’re considered the leader in ESG rating by the number of clients. […] We won the
best ESG research provider last year. And it wasn’t just best ESG provider, it was best
governance job, best emerging markets, best fixed income, there were a number of categories
that we won. […] We’re really the biggest innovators in the industry. We launched a couple
of very interesting products just last month. (Respondent 11)
Enhancing the quality of data collection and access to inside information
Third, some respondents stressed the importance of the quality and specificity of the information
obtained as being key to stakeholders’ confidence in the resulting SR. Respondents tended to
minimize the use of public information, particularly sustainability reports, which are easily
accessible by other agencies. These respondents often cited company greenwashing practices as a
reason not to overly rely on public information. Respondents instead emphasized the
importance of obtaining information that is specific, privileged, and not necessarily accessible
toother SRAs. However, respondents were evasive about their specific approaches to collecting
this information. They cited the general importance of contacts with the business community, the
need for fieldwork (not just office work), and access to various databases, among other things.
For some respondents who had worked in several agencies, the main difference between SRAs
lies in the quality and seriousness of their information collection process. Other respondents insisted
that their SRAs do not limit themselves to data disclosed by companies, their questionnaires, or
official databases, but also obtain information from various stakeholders (NGOs, government
agencies, employees), a process that involves significantly more research. However, respondents
remained evasive about the scope of this data and how it can be consistently incorporated
into SRs. Respondents also frequently said that the information obtained was relevant to the
specificities of each sector or customer needs. In general, SRAs must determine what
information is useful and relevant without compromising their ability to evaluate a wide range of
sustainability issues by making an overly restrictive choice of indicators. In addition, the
17
data collected should still be verified—even when it does not come from companies. Further,
the rapid evolution of certain issues (e.g., incidents, controversies, legal proceedings,
emergence of new standards) means that practitioners must keep informed about current events
and regularly update their data, which can quickly become obsolete. According to respondents, the
quality of this monitoring, verification and updating work may vary significantly between SRAs,
although they all defend the legitimacy of their approach:
Where we really stand out, and how we sell ourselves, is by our credibility in terms of
taking into account the issues our investors consider important. (Respondent 28)
We need to see information from third parties, including the media and NGOs. Some
organizations take on the role of “truth seekers.” In my experience, this is very important.
That’s where I can get the best results, because I can get both the company’s version and that
of a stakeholder who can tell their own story. (Respondent 19)
This is a very dynamic field where there are new regulations every day or two. So you
need to keep up. […] If a sector or a country sets a target of a 15% reduction in
emissions, you need to know. You need to be on top of all this news, all these parameters.
(Respondent 31)
Advocating for the superior methodology used by the agency
Fourth, according to several respondents, the credibility of the rating methodology is essential to
inspiring investor and stakeholder confidence in the reliability of the SR. Unsurprisingly,
respondents were vague about their SRA’s specific methodology and its advantages. Most
comments on this subject were essentially based on the SRA’s self-proclaimed excellence in
terms of its seriousness, uniqueness, precision, or impartiality. These comments generally
reflected SRAs’ official communications, which are elusive about their methodologies. For
example, according to the Vigeo Eiris website, “Vigeo Eiris’ exclusive methodology guarantees
the impartiality of our analyses and ratings, equal treatment for all companies under review and
the traceability of collected information” (Vigeo Eiris, 2019). When asked more specifically
about what distinguishes the methodology of one SRA from another and what arguments the
SRAs make to convince their stakeholders, some respondents cited their in-depth data, the level of
detail in their analyses, or a deeper understanding of the sustainability issues specific to
different sectors. Others pointed out that the “best in class” approach (i.e. the identification of the
best companies in a sector on the basis of specific criteria) of some SRAs is outdated, that
18
broader criteria should be taken into account, or that particularly polluting companies or sectors
should be eliminated from the outset. The criteria used to calculate SRs were also discussed. For
example, one respondent indicated that their agency’s SRs are based on six main types of criteria
and are thus not limited to the three dimensions covered by most other agencies (environmental,
social, and governance). The weighting of criteria—including how to rate a company’s lack of
transparency or lack of disclosure on key indicators—may also vary from one SRA to another.
Lastly, the extent to which an SRA adapts their criteria and calculations to the sector they are
analyzing can be an important differentiating factor. Whatever the criteria, each agency claims to
use rigorous, professional rating methods tailored to the realities of companies:
Just by looking at the differences between what [name of a competing agency] provides
and what [name of the respondent’s SRA] provides, we have a more effective and
detailed tool. We’re also more pragmatic and sophisticated. (Respondent 22).
Every company’s rating is based on at least 100 different indicators, which is more in-
depth than the other rating agencies. We strive to get feedback from companies every two
years and let them incorporate that. I would say the major difference is just the amount of
detail that goes into it. (Respondent 3)
With our sectorial approach and our monitoring, we really have a very high quality of
analysis that is appreciated by our clients and the companies we rate. We very often get
the feedback that our methodology best reflects the reality of companies. (Respondent 12)
5.2 DEFENSIVE IM STRATEGIES
Although the differences between SRAs may a priori explain the lack of convergence between
SRs, this problem, which was systematically addressed in our interviews, clearly makes respondents
uncomfortable. Some respondents questioned on this subject were hesitant to
respond and were confused about the reasons for the divergence in SRs. After expressing confusion,
respondents generally offered several justifications. Most of these justifications protected SRAs
from direct challenges to their rigor and quality. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of
respondents who justified convergence problems noted methodological differences between SRAs.
Respondent 15’s response is highly representative:
I’m sorry, I’m really not sure how to answer that question, because we’re looking at such a
broad range of topics, and every asset manager will have a different approach. Here, we look
at ESG as used by a sector, but different firms operate in different ways.
19
However, some of the respondents’ justifications for the lack of agreement between SRs raise
more fundamental questions regarding the entire SR industry, in particular the lack of
standardization of the SR field, the possibility of obtaining reliable and comparable information,
and subjective interpretations of materiality.
Lack of standardization of sustainability information and SR practices
First, to justify the lack of convergence of SRs, many respondents pointed out problems in the
standardization of sustainability indicators and the SR process in general. Despite the increasing use
of reporting standards, particularly the GRI, corporate sustainability disclosure is still
perceived as relatively unstandardized. The multitude of different indicators and metrics to
measure similar issues makes it very difficult to compare corporate sustainability performance
and SRs in general. Some respondents said that their SRA generally endeavors to align with the GRI
indicators to better standardize information collection and analysis. However, other respondents
said that they were not familiar with this reporting framework, that they found it not very useful,
or that the information disclosed in these reports did not meet their needs. To compensate for
the lack of standardization of available data, most SRAs send questionnaires to the companies
they rate or contact these companies in order to go beyond the information they can publicly
access. Nevertheless, these questionnaires differ from one SRA to another, and contact with
companies does not always make it possible to obtain all the information necessary for the SR
process. Overall, unstandardized input data is not conducive to convergent SRA outputs.
Several respondents also pointed out that SR activities are recent, particularly as
compared to the accounting field, which is based on much more established, standardized, and
comparable indicators and practices. In this perspective, the problem of lack of convergence is
not related to the SRAs themselves but to the area of sustainability disclosure in general:
It involves more than agencies. […] The problem here is really that the information is not yet
standardized by the company beforehand. There are so many flavors and colors that it is
difficult to fairly compare information and have a way to reach out to them as well.
(Respondent 34)
I guess this comes back to company disclosures and lack of standardization. Even on
climate, there’s a lot of information available, but everyone might be using slightly
different metrics, looking at carbon intensity versus absolute metrics or metric per
product. And that lack of standardization makes it more difficult. (Respondent 15)
20
Difficulties in obtaining reliable and comparable information
Second, some respondents cited the difficulties in obtaining truly reliable and comparable
information and the inherent complexity of the rating process as reasons for SRs’ lack of
convergence. Some respondents acknowledged that, despite their efforts to obtain privileged and
reliable information, a large part of the data comes from companies and thus tends to be biased
by greenwashing tendencies (Lyon and Montgomery, 2015). Although respondents often mentioned
the importance of diversifying information sources, several noted that non-company
sources (NGOs, newspapers, statements from stakeholders) are not necessarily more reliable,
contrary to popular belief. Moreover, verifying the quality of information requires time and
money and is not always possible. In addition to reliability issues, ESG data are often qualitative in
nature (e.g., biodiversity impacts, diversity management practices, stakeholder involvement).
Ignoring these qualitative aspects paints a restrictive picture of sustainability issues, but taking
them into account raises challenges in quantifying and integrating qualitative issues into each
company’s aggregate rating. In addition, the information analysts seek is not always available,
and detailed sustainability disclosures do not necessarily correspond to actual performance.
While all SRAs face the same challenges regarding the reliability of available sustainability data,
the SRA’s approach to addressing these challenges varies from one agency to another, or even
from one analyst to another. In this context, the value of SRs depends on qualitative aspects and
complex trade-offs that do not ultimately ensure good convergence between SRAs:
It [the lack of convergence] is not very surprising because the equation to assess
sustainable development performance can be very complicated, no matter how many
variables we add to it to make it accurate. (Respondent 35)
In fact, it’s a qualitative analysis, so you should have good judgement. If you’re rating a
company for ESG parameters, for example, you should know about the industry, what
their peers are doing. (Respondent 31)
The information that rating agencies use perhaps relies too much on public information.
[…] Maybe there needs to be more transparency or more requirements in terms of what
companies report on, like really be transparent about their areas of weakness in sustainability
reports, which doesn’t necessarily really happen right now. (Respondent 18)
Subjective interpretations, particularly in terms of materiality
Third, several respondents justified the lack of convergence of SRs by noting that analysts differ in their
interpretations of sustainability issues, particularly in terms of materiality—i.e. what information they
21
perceive as important and relevant given the organization’s activities, stakeholder expectations,
and context. Thus, the rapid increase in information available on corporate sustainability raises
challenges in determining not only the reliability of the data, but also its materiality. Indeed, materiality
may depend on many contextual and interrelated factors (e.g., the regulatory and social context of a
particular region, stakeholder pressures, what issues SR users consider important) that are difficult if not
impossible to formalize in SR methodology. As a result, analysts sometimes have to make subjective
trade-offs in terms of the data to include and its weighting, and this may vary greatly from one SRA
to another. Some respondents also mentioned that analysts tend to give priority to the most visible and
easy-to-use information, though such information is not necessarily the most material. The inherent
subjectivity in determining what information is material and how to take it into account makes it
structurally impossible for SRs to be convergent:
One of the big problems in the industry, particularly on the governance side, is that we’ll
try to interpret the most visible information to the greatest extent possible, though it’s not
necessarily the most important. (Respondent 19)
There’s still a certain amount of subjectivity. Do we consider all the issues, such as
gender discrimination, health and safety, CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and so on?
But there are so many! Are they all considered equal, regardless of the sector, or are there
issues that are more important in some sectors than others? (Respondent 8)
Even if we all had the same methodology, there’s still a certain degree of interpretation
by the analyst. (Respondent 33)
6 DISCUSSION
The objective of this study was to investigate, through interviews with SR practitioners, the IM
strategies used to build confidence in the reliability of SRs and explain SRs’ lack of
convergence. The findings show that competitive pressures and SRAs’ search to differentiate
themselves are conducive to IM aimed at building trust in specific SRs without
releasing information on the fabric of those ratings. The lack of transparency on the specific
methods and information used in SRs (or the “black box syndrome”) typical of the SRA
industry (Delmas and Blass, 2010; Rutledge, 2015; Saadaoui and Soobaroyen, 2018; Stubbs and
Rogers, 2013; SustainAbility, 2018; Windolph, 2011) and growing criticism of this lack of
transparency have led to an increasing use of IM strategies (see Figure 1). These strategies are
based on rhetorical devices intended to build confidence in the rigor and reliability of rating
22
processes in the absence of demonstrable, publicly available evidence. The assertive IM
strategies observed in our interviews were based on four main approaches: highlighting
organizational specificities and internal competences, promoting reputation and commercial
adaptation, emphasizing the SRA’s higher quality of data collection and access to privileged
information, and highlighting the agency’s superior methodology. Defensive IM strategies are
also used to legitimize the lack of convergence between SRs, as these discrepancies raise
questions about the credibility of the SRA industry as a whole (Chatterji et al., 2016; Dorfleitner
et al., 2015; Mooij, 2017; Semenova and Hassel, 2015). Although the methodological differences
between SRAs are a legitimate and predictable explanation for convergence issues, other
justifications—or defensive IM strategies— from respondents question the very possibility of
obtaining consistent SRs. The lack of standardization of the SR field in general, the difficulty of
finding reliable and comparable information, and the trade-offs in the SRAs’ interpretations and
assessment of materiality hardly allow SRAs to produce consistent and comparable ratings.
Overall, none of the IM strategies concerning the reliability of SRs or justifying convergence
issues were substantiated by clear evidence or demonstrable arguments. These IM strategies were
discursive and reflected their SRA’s official communications intended to positively influence
stakeholder perceptions.
Fig. 1. Impression management strategies
23
6.1 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LITERATURE AND MANAGERIAL
IMPLICATIONS
First, this paper contributes to the critical literature on sustainability performance measurement (e.g.,
Boiral and Henri, 2017; Capelle-Blancard and Petit, 2017; Escrig‐Olmedo et al., 2017; Gray and
Milne, 2004). Although some studies have questioned whether it is possible to consistently
measure or compare sustainability information (Boiral and Henri, 2017; Capelle- Blancard and Petit,
2017; Hubbard, 2009), the critical literature has mainly focused on theoretical approaches or
content analysis of corporate disclosures. With a few exceptions (Déjean et al., 2004; Diouf and
Boiral, 2017; Saadaoui and Soobaroyen, 2018), there has been a lack of investigation of the
perceptions of practitioners, who presumably have expertise in this area. Interestingly, the perceptions
of these practitioners are consistent with the main findings of the critical literature, including
greenwashing tendencies in sustainability disclosures, qualitative aspects of ESG performance, lack of
standardization, and methodological challenges (Boiral, 2013; Boiral and Henri, 2017;
Capelle-Blancard and Petit, 2017; Cho et al., 2015; Escrig‐Olmedo et al., 2017; Hahn and
Lülfs, 2014; Milne et al., 2006; Moneva et al., 2006). Generally speaking, the findings reveal the
interpretative nature of sustainability performance: it is not an unambiguous and clearly measurable
concept but a fuzzy phenomenon, and its rational appearance—particularly in SRs—should be
seriously questioned. The defensive IM strategies justifying the lack of convergence among SRs
show that the outcomes of SRAs are not based on rigorous, rational and objective measurements but
rather on subjective interpretations that largely depend on perceptions and information whose
reliability and comparability appear, at best, uncertain. Furthermore, the lack of standardization of
sustainability information, the heterogeneity of SR practices, and the differences in the
methodology used raise doubts on the reproducibility and comparability of the rankings. From this
perspective, SRs and their rigorous appearance are in fact a socially constructed reality (Berger and
Luckmann, 1991), meaning that they are not based on objective facts but rather on subjective
constructions and statements that tend to be mistaken for reality (Astley, 1985; Chia, 2000; Haslam
et al., 2017). This paper shows how IM strategies shape the building of trust in the existence of
reliable and rigorous SRs despite the growing criticism of their opacity and lack of convergence.
Second, this paper contributes to the emerging literature on SRAs (Chelli and Gendron, 2013;
Escrig-Olmedo et al., 2010; Escrig-Olmedo et al., 2014; Kotsantonis et al., 2016; Rahdari and
Rostamy, 2015; Sauder and Espeland, 2009; Windolph, 2011). Although the reliability of SRs
has been challenged by a few studies (Chatterji et al., 2016; Chelli and Gendron, 2013;
24
Dorfleitner et al., 2015; Semenova and Hassel, 2015), these studies have not fully investigated
practitioners’ perspectives on the issue of reliability or on the lack of convergence between SRs.
This paper sheds more light on the reasons for the inconsistencies in SR outcomes from the
perspective of the analysts involved in their creation. Although respondents’ reasons and their
critical distance from SRAs can be questioned, the findings show that the majority of
practitioners interviewed demonstrate reflexivity. This paper thus aligns with the literature on the
sense-making abilities of professionals (Diouf and Boiral, 2017; Kouakou et al., 2013; Weick,
2012), whose viewpoints tend to be neglected, including in empirical studies focused on their
activities. Overall, the paper helps open the black box of SRs and begins to address the need for
more empirical studies in this area (Bessire and Onnée, 2010; Delmas and Blass, 2010;
Windolph, 2011).
Third, this paper contributes to the literature on IM strategies and sustainability performance.
This literature essentially focuses on corporate disclosure, specifically sustainability reporting
and corporate enhancement of the appearance of their commitment to sustainability (Boiral,
2016; Cho et al., 2015; Hahn and Lülfs, 2014; Shabana and Ravlin, 2016; Talbot and Boiral,
2015). Documents beyond sustainability reports remain understudied (Talbot and Boiral, 2018).
Although sustainability reports are an important aspect of corporate sustainability, the findings of
this study suggest that they do not play an essential part in the fabric of the SRs used by SRI
practitioners and other stakeholders. As a result, this study provides a different perspective on the
use of IM strategies, which are not limited to companies embellishing their sustainability
performance; IM strategies are also employed to influence impressions of the reliability and
credibility of SR practices. This paper also contributes to the emerging literature on the use of
techniques of neutralization as defensive IM tactics in rationalizing issues that may compromise
organizational image (Chassé and Boiral, 2017; Fooks et al., 2013; Hahn and Lülfs, 2014;
Kvalnes and Nordal, 2019). The analysis of these techniques (lack of standardization, (un)reliability
of available information, interpretations of materiality) cast more light on the limitations and
avenues for improvement of the SRA industry as a whole. One of the strengths of this study is that
it combines defensive and assertive strategies in a single framework (e.g., Van Halderen et al.,
2016). This addition provides a more complete picture of the range of strategies mobilized by the
respondents. Few studies have attempted to combine these elements. Some taxonomies have been
proposed in the literature for studying IM tactics at the organizational level (e.g., Bolino et al.,
2008; Mohamed et al., 1999). However, the majority of them remain theoretical and have not
been empirically validated. One of the specificities of this study is that, using a grounded theory
25
approach, its observations emerge from the reality of the professionals working in the field and are
tailored to the field under study. Such approach grounded in the experience of practitioners is
particularly important since the neutralization techniques and IM strategies identified are new and
provide a better understanding of what is happening in organizational frontstage versus backstage
communication (Cho et al., 2015).
Fourth, the results have important managerial implications. Knowledge of the IM strategies of
SRAs can help those who use their services to better understand the challenges in producing SRs
and may facilitate deciding between one agency and another. The increasing number of SR users
should be aware of the specificities of SRAs, the lack of convergence between their outcomes,
and the reasons that may explain these discrepancies. Indeed, whether a company is considered
sustainable or not may vary greatly depending on the SRA and its methodologies. Given the
multifaceted nature of sustainable development, the multiple indicators used, and the difficulty of
producing an aggregate score, SRA clients should have more specific demands regarding the
information they are seeking and SR calculations. More specific rankings on particular ESG
aspects (e.g., respect for human rights, climate change, international governance standards) could be
used to offset the simplifying nature of a global aggregate score that includes a large number of
non-commensurable variables. These more specific rankings could facilitate the development of a
form of SRI that is more focused on specific and measurable issues. Companies that rank well in
one specific field will not necessarily rank well in another. In this context, SRAs should be more
explicit about the meaning of their SRs, the difficulties in developing them, and how they
respond to these difficulties in practical terms. Although commercial issues tend to conceal these
difficulties and favor a rhetoric of success (see Figure 1), it is likely that more transparent
communication on SRAs’ sources of information, methods, and internal skills could improve the
credibility of SRs in the eyes of stakeholders who are relatively well informed on these issues.
SRAs should also encourage more collaboration with independent researchers rather than
considering them as a potential threat to the confidentiality of their practices. Lastly, SRAs
would benefit from greater collaboration amongst themselves to improve the standardization of
their practices and the use of common sustainability indicators.
6.2 LIMITATIONS AND AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The limitations of this study provide avenues for future research. First, this paper is focused on
the production of SRs and the IM strategies used by SR practitioners. The implications of these
strategies and the ways SRs are used by stakeholders in practical terms need further
26
investigation. Future studies could investigate the main criteria that stakeholders, particularly
SRI practitioners, consider in selecting an SR and how stakeholders perceive SRAs’ arguments
related to SRs’ reliability and lack of convergence. Likewise, the ways different stakeholders use
SRs could be analyzed. For example, some SRI decision-makers may use competing SRs
depending on the circumstances or to limit the perceived bias associated with specific rating
systems.
Second, this paper is based on a qualitative study with a limited sample of respondents. Although
the anonymity of participants of this study was guaranteed by a research protocol approved by an
ethics committee, various agencies and potential respondents categorically refused to participate,
particularly for confidentiality reasons. As a result, the conclusions cannot be extrapolated to the
entire population of SRA practitioners. Moreover, qualitative approaches are not suitable for
measuring trends and relationships between variables. Future studies with quantitative
approaches and larger samples could analyze the IM strategies deployed by SRAs and measure
their relationships with contextual variables (e.g., firm size, geographical location, resources,
internal competences, coverage of companies, methodological aspects). The ways various
stakeholders perceive SRs—in terms of reputation, credibility, and convergence issues—also
needs further investigation through large-scale studies. Nevertheless, whatever the
methodologies employed, the commercial pressures influencing relationships between SRAs and
the veil of secrecy surrounding SRAs’ internal practices raise serious challenges for researchers
interested in delving deeper into this sensitive and relatively unexplored topic.
27
7 REFERENCES
Arjalies, D.-L., Kodeih, F., Raynard, M., 2015. Professional role identity as a filter for
institutional complexity, Academy of Management Proceedings. Academy of Management
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510, p. 12126.
Astley, W.G., 1985. Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science
Quarterly 30(4), 497-513.
Avetisyan, E., Gond, J.-P., 2013. Institutional dynamics of CSR standardization: A multilevel
perspective in the field of ESG rating. Academy of Management Proceedings 2013(1), 15122.
Avetisyan, E., Hockerts, K., 2017. The consolidation of the ESG rating industry as an enactment
of institutional retrogression. Business Strategy and the Environment 26(3), 316-330.
Bansal, P., Kistruck, G., 2006. Seeing is (not) believing: Managing the impressions of the firm’s
commitment to the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics 67(2), 165-180.
Benijts, T., 2008. Measuring corporate sustainability: an analysis of the research practices used
by two Belgian asset management firms in the field of socially responsible investing. Journal of
Corporate Citizenship (32), 29-42.
Berger, P.L., Luckmann, T., 1991. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology
of knowledge. Penguin UK.
Bessire, D., Onnée, S., 2010. Assessing corporate social performance: Strategies of legitimation
and conflicting ideologies. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21(6), 445-467.
Boiral, O., 2007. Corporate greening through ISO 14001: a rational myth? Organization Science
18(1), 127-146.
Boiral, O., 2013. Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI
reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26(7), 1036-1071.
Boiral, O., 2016. Accounting for the unaccountable: Biodiversity reporting and impression
management. Journal of Business Ethics 135(4), 751-768.
29
Boiral, O., Henri, J.-F., 2017. Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports
of mining organizations. Business & Society 56(2), 283-317.
Bolino, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., Turnley, W.H., Gilstrap, J.B., 2008. A multi-level review of
impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management 34(6), 1080-1109.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., 2003. More than one way to make an impression: Exploring
profiles of impression management. Journal of Management 29(2), 141-160.
Busch, T., Bauer, R., Orlitzky, M., 2016. Sustainable development and financial markets: Old
paths and new avenues. Business & Society 55(3), 303-329.
Capelle-Blancard, G., Petit, A., 2017. The weighting of CSR dimensions: One size does not fit
all. Business & Society 56(6), 919-943.
Charmaz, K., Belgrave, L.L., 2007. Grounded Theory, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of
Sociology.
Chassé, S., Boiral, O., 2017. Legitimizing corporate (un) sustainability: A case study of passive
SMEs. Organization & Environment 30(4), 324-345.
Chatterji, A.K., Durand, R., Levine, D.I., Touboul, S., 2016. Do ratings of firms converge?
Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal
37(8), 1597-1614.
Chatterji, A.K., Levine, D.I., Toffel, M.W., 2009. How well do social ratings actually measure
corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 18(1), 125-169.
Chelli, M., Gendron, Y., 2013. Sustainability ratings and the disciplinary power of the ideology
of numbers. Journal of Business Ethics 112(2), 187-203.
Chia, R., 2000. Discourse analysis organizational analysis. Organization 7(3), 513-518.
Cho, C.H., Laine, M., Roberts, R.W., Rodrigue, M., 2015. Organized hypocrisy, organizational
façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 40, 78-94.
Déjean, F., Giamporcaro, S., Gond, J.-P., Leca, B., Penalva-Icher, E., 2013. Mistaking an
30
emerging market for a social movement? A comment on Arjaliès’ social-movement perspective
on socially responsible investment in France. Journal of Business Ethics 112(2), 205-212.
Déjean, F., Gond, J.-P., Leca, B., 2004. Measuring the unmeasured: An institutional entrepreneur
strategy in an emerging industry. Human Relations 57(6), 741-764.
Delmas, M., Blass, V.D., 2010. Measuring corporate environmental performance: the trade‐offs
of sustainability ratings. Business Strategy and the Environment 19(4), 245-260.
Delmas, M.A., Burbano, V.C., 2011. The drivers of greenwashing. California Management
Review 54(1), 64-87.
Delmas, M.A., Etzion, D., Nairn-Birch, N., 2013. Triangulating environmental performance:
What do corporate social responsibility ratings really capture? Academy of Management
Perspectives 27(3), 255-267.
Devinney, T.M., 2009. Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the
ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives 23(2), 44-56.
Dilling, P.F.A., Harris, P., 2018. Reporting on long-term value creation by Canadian companies: A
longitudinal assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 191, 350-360.
Diouf, D., Boiral, O., 2017. The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A
stakeholder perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30(3), 643-667.
Dorfleitner, G., Halbritter, G., Nguyen, M., 2015. Measuring the level and risk of corporate
responsibility–An empirical comparison of different ESG rating approaches. Journal of Asset
Management 16(7), 450-466.
Eccles, R.G., Stroehle, J.C., 2018. Exploring social origins in the construction of ESG measures.
SSRN doi:10.2139/ssrn.3212685.
Entine, J., 2003. The myth of social investing: A critique of its practice and consequences for
corporate social performance research. Organization & Environment 16(3), 352-368.
31
Escrig-Olmedo, E., Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á., Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Rivera-Lirio, J.M., Muñoz-
Torres, M.J., 2019. Rating the raters: Evaluating how ESG rating agencies integrate
sustainability principles. Sustainability 11(3), 915.
Escrig-Olmedo, E., Muñoz-Torres, M.J., Fernandez-Izquierdo, M.A., 2010. Socially responsible
investing: sustainability indices, ESG rating and information provider agencies. International
Journal of Sustainable Economy 2(4), 442-461.
Escrig-Olmedo, E., Muñoz-Torres, M.J., Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á., Rivera-Lirio, J.M., 2014.
Lights and shadows on sustainability rating scoring. Review of Managerial Science 8(4), 559-
574.
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), 410-428.
Escrig‐Olmedo, E., Muñoz‐Torres, M.J., Fernández‐Izquierdo, M.Á., Rivera‐Lirio, J.M., 2017.
Measuring corporate environmental performance: A methodology for sustainable development.
Business Strategy and the Environment 26(2), 142-162.
Fooks, G., Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C., Lee, K., 2013. The limits of corporate social
responsibility: techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political CSR. Journal
of Business Ethics 112(2), 283-299.
Frias‐Aceituno, J.V., Rodríguez‐Ariza, L., Garcia‐Sánchez, I.M., 2014. Explanatory factors of
integrated sustainability and financial reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment 23(1), 56-72.
Gauthier, J., Wooldridge, B., 2018. Sustainability ratings and organizational legitimacy: The role
of compensating tactics, in: Gal, G., Akisik, O., Wooldridge, W. (Eds.), Sustainability and Social
Responsibility: Regulation and Reporting. Springer, Singapore, pp. 141-157.
Gephart, R.P., 2004. Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of
Management Journal 47(4), 454-462.
32
Gianfelici, C., Casadei, A., Cembali, F., 2018. The relevance of nationality and industry for
stakeholder salience: An investigation through integrated reports. Journal of Business Ethics
150(2), 541-558.
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., Chadwick, B., 2008. Methods of data collection in qualitative
research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal 204(6), 291-295.
Global Reporting Initiative, 2013. The G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: Reporting
Principles and Standard Disclosure. GRI, Amsterdam.
Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, 2014. 2014 Global Sustainable Investment Review.
GSIA. http://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GSIA_Review_download.pdf.
Graafland, J.J., Eijffinger, S.C., SmidJohan, H., 2004. Benchmarking of corporate social
responsibility: Methodological problems and robustness. Journal of Business Ethics 53(1-2),
137-152.
Gray, R., Milne, M., 2004. Towards reporting on the triple bottom line: mirages, methods and
myths, in: Henriques, A., Richardson, J. (Eds.), The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up.
Earthscan, London, pp. 70-80.
Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., 2013. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends,
theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production 59, 5-
21.
Hahn, R., Lülfs, R., 2014. Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A
qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics 123(3), 401-
420.
Haslam, S.A., Cornelissen, J.P., Werner, M.D., 2017. Metatheories and metaphors of
organizational identity: Integrating social constructionist, social identity, and social actor
perspectives within a social interactionist model. International Journal of Management Reviews
19(3), 318-336.
33
Hedesström, M., Lundqvist, U., Biel, A., 2011. Investigating consistency of judgement across
sustainability analyst organizations. Sustainable Development 19(2), 119-134.
Holt, A., 2010. Using the telephone for narrative interviewing: a research note. Qualitative
Research 10(1), 113-121.
Hooghiemstra, R., 2000. Corporate communication and impression management–new
perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics
27(1-2), 55-68.
Hubbard, G., 2009. Measuring organizational performance: beyond the triple bottom line.
Business Strategy and the Environment 18(3), 177-191.
Karidio, I., Talbot, D., 2020. Controversy in mining development: a study of the defensive
strategies of a mining company. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 10(1), 18-43.
Klotz, A.C., He, W., Yam, K.C., Bolino, M.C., Wei, W., Houston III, L., 2018. Good actors but
bad apples: Deviant consequences of daily impression management at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology 103(10), 1145-1154.
Koellner, T., Weber, O., Fenchel, M., Scholz, R., 2005. Principles for sustainability rating of
investment funds. Business Strategy and the Environment 14(1), 54-70.
Kolk, A., 2004. A decade of sustainability reporting: developments and significance.
International Journal of Environmental and Sustainable Development 3(1), 51-64.
Kotsantonis, S., Pinney, C., Serafeim, G., 2016. ESG integration in investment management:
Myths and realities. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 28(2), 10-16.
Kouakou, D., Boiral, O., Gendron, Y., 2013. ISO auditing and the construction of trust in auditor
independence. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26(8), 1279-1305.
Kvalnes, Ø., Nordal, S., 2019. Normalization of questionable behavior: An ethical root of the
financial crisis in Iceland. Journal of Business Ethics 159(3), 761-775.
Lackmann, J., Ernstberger, J., Stich, M., 2012. Market reactions to increased reliability of
34
sustainability information. Journal of Business Ethics 107(2), 111-128.
Lins, E., Fietkiewicz, K.J., Lutz, E., 2018. Effects of impression management tactics on
crowdfunding success. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 10(5), 534-557.
Liu, K.F.R., 2007. Evaluating environmental sustainability: an integration of multiple-criteria
decision-making and fuzzy logic. Environmental Management 39(5), 721-736.
Lyon, T.P., Montgomery, A.W., 2015. The means and end of greenwash. Organization &
Environment 28(2), 223-249.
Márquez, A., Fombrun, C.J., 2005. Measuring corporate social responsibility. Corporate
Reputation Review 7(4), 304-308.
Martin, P.Y., Turner, B.A., 1986. Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 22(2), 141-157.
Mattingly, J.E., Berman, S.L., 2006. Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering
taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business & Society 45(1), 20-46.
McDonnell, M.-H., King, B., 2013. Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression
management after social movement boycotts. Administrative Science Quarterly 58(3), 387-419.
Meesters, M.E., Behagel, J.H., 2017. The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and the
neutralization of harm in Mongolia. Resources Policy 53, 274-282.
Merkl-Davies, D.M., Brennan, N.M., 2007. Discretionary disclosure strategies in corporate
narratives: incremental information or impression management? Journal of Accounting
Literature 27, 116-196.
Merkl-Davies, D.M., Brennan, N.M., McLeay, S.J., 2011. Impression management and
retrospective sense-making in corporate narratives: A social psychology perspective.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 24(3), 315-344.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldana, J., 2018. Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
35
Milne, M.J., Kearins, K., Walton, S., 2006. Creating adventures in wonderland: The journey
metaphor and environmental sustainability. Organization 13(6), 801-839.
Mohamed, A.A., Gardner, W.L., Paolillo, J.G., 1999. A taxonomy of organizational impression
management tactics. Journal of Competitiveness Studies 7(1), 108-130.
Moneva, J.M., Archel, P., Correa, C., 2006. GRI and the camouflaging of corporate
unsustainability. Accounting Forum 30(2), 121-137.
Mooij, S., 2017. The ESG rating and ranking industry; Vice or virtue in the adoption of
responsible investment? SSRN doi:10.2139/ssrn.2960869.
Morales-Raya, M., Martín-Tapia, I., Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., 2019. To be or to seem: The role of
environmental practices in corporate environmental reputation. Organization & Environment
32(3), 309-330.
Novethic Research, 2014. Overview of ESG Rating Agencies. Novethic, Paris, France.
https://www.novethic.com/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_ausynovethicetudes/pdf_complets/2014_Ov
erview-of-ESG-rating-agencies.pdf.
O'Dwyer, B., Owen, D.L., 2005. Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and
sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review 37(2), 205-229.
Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., Larceneux, F., 2011. How sustainability ratings might deter
‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics
102(1), 15-28.
Perrini, F., Tencati, A., 2006. Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new
corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Business Strategy and the Environment
15(5), 296-308.
Rahdari, A.H., Rostamy, A.A.A., 2015. Designing a general set of sustainability indicators at the
corporate level. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 757-771.
Rajak, S., Vinodh, S., 2015. Application of fuzzy logic for social sustainability performance
36
evaluation: a case study of an Indian automotive component manufacturing organization. Journal
of Cleaner Production 108, 1184-1192.
Rekker, S.A., Humphrey, J.E., O’Brien, K.R., 2019. Do sustainability rating schemes capture
climate goals? Business & Society doi:10.1177/0007650319825764.
Rutledge, E.L., 2015. How do CSR rating schemes influence corporate behavior?: lessons from
the utility industry. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Saadaoui, K., Soobaroyen, T., 2018. An analysis of the methodologies adopted by CSR rating
agencies. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 9(1), 43-62.
Sauder, M., Espeland, W.N., 2009. The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational
change. American Sociological Review 74(1), 63-82.
Scalet, S., Kelly, T.F., 2010. CSR rating agencies: What is their global impact? Journal of
Business Ethics 94(1), 69-88.
Schäfer, H., 2005. International corporate social responsibility rating systems: Conceptual
outline and empirical results. Journal of Corporate Citizenship (20), 107-120.
Schaltegger, S., Hörisch, J., 2017. In search of the dominant rationale in sustainability
management: legitimacy-or profit-seeking? Journal of Business Ethics 145(2), 259-276.
Searcy, C., Elkhawas, D., 2012. Corporate sustainability ratings: an investigation into how
corporations use the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Cleaner Production 35, 79-92.
Semenova, N., Hassel, L.G., 2015. On the validity of environmental performance metrics.
Journal of Business Ethics 132(2), 249-258.
Shabana, K.M., Ravlin, E.C., 2016. Corporate social responsibility reporting as substantive and
symbolic behavior: a multilevel theoretical analysis. Business and Society Review 121(2), 297-
327.
Shahzad, A.M., Sharfman, M.P., 2017. Corporate social performance and financial performance:
Sample-selection issues. Business & Society 56(6), 889-918.
37
Smith, J., Haniffa, R., Fairbrass, J., 2011. A conceptual framework for investigating ‘capture’ in
corporate sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics 99(3), 425-439.
Sodjahin, A., Champagne, C., Coggins, F., Gillet, R., 2017. Leading or lagging indicators of
risk? The informational content of extra-financial performance scores. Journal of Asset
Management 18(5), 347-370.
Stephens, N., 2007. Collecting data from elites and ultra elites: telephone and face-to-face
interviews with macroeconomists. Qualitative Research 7(2), 203-216.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1994. Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of Qualitative Research
17, 273-285.
Stubbs, W., Rogers, P., 2013. Lifting the veil on environment-social-governance rating methods.
Social Responsibility Journal 9(4), 622-640.
Sturges, J.E., Hanrahan, K.J., 2004. Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative
interviewing: a research note. Qualitative Research 4(1), 107-118.
Suddaby, R., 2006. From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management
Journal 49(4), 633-642.
SustainAbility, 2018. Rate the Raters 2018: Ratings Revisited. SustainAbility, London, New
York, San Francisco.
Talbot, D., Boiral, O., 2015. Strategies for climate change and impression management: A case
study among Canada’s large industrial emitters. Journal of Business Ethics 132(2), 329-346. Talbot,
D., Boiral, O., 2018. GHG reporting and impression management: An assessment of
sustainability reports from the energy sector. Journal of Business Ethics 147(2), 367-383.
Thomas, D.R., 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.
American Journal of Evaluation 27(2), 237-246.
Urquhart, C., 2012. Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. Sage, London. Van
Den Brink, T.W., van Der Woerd, F., 2004. Industry specific sustainability benchmarks: An ECSF
38
pilot bridging corporate sustainability with social responsible investments. Journal of Business
Ethics 55(2), 187-203.
Van Halderen, M.D., Bhatt, M., Berens, G.A., Brown, T.J., Van Riel, C.B., 2016. Managing
impressions in the face of rising stakeholder pressures: Examining oil companies’ shifting
stances in the climate change debate. Journal of Business Ethics 133(3), 567-582.
Vigeo Eiris, 2019. Established approach and processes that ensure the relevance of our analyses and
opinion. http://www.vigeo-eiris.com/about-us/methodology-quality-assurance/. (Accessed April 30,
2019).
Waddock, S., 2003. Myths and realities of social investing. Organization & Environment 16(3),
369-380.
Weick, K.E., 2012. Organized sensemaking: A commentary on processes of interpretive work.
Human Relations 65(1), 141-153.
Windolph, S.E., 2011. Assessing corporate sustainability through ratings: challenges and their
causes. Journal of Environmental Sustainability 1(1), 5.
