Comparison of ESG Rating Methods with AHP Methods (A Study in A State-Owned Electricity Company in Indonesia)

  • Jonatan Halomoan Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Salemba, Jakarta Pusat, 10440, Indonesia (ID)
  • Dewi Hanggraeni (1) Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Salemba, Jakarta Pusat, 10440, Indonesia; (2) Universitas Pertamina, Jakarta, 12220, Indonesia (ID)
Keywords: ESG, ESG Rating, ESG Risk, State-owned electricity companies, Sustainalytics, S&P, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Viewed = 0 time(s)


The ESG Rating measurement method from Sustainalytic & S&P is the method that is considered the most suitable for analyzing ESG risks in State-owned electricity companies. This research analyzes the ESG Rating measurement method issued by 4 ESG rating agencies, namely S&P, MSCI, Sustainalytics, and Refinitiv using the method AHP, the results of which will determine which method is most suitable for analyzing ESG risks in state-owned electricity companies. From the results of data collection, it was found that the ESG rating measurement method from Sustainalytic had the highest priority value, namely 38.9%, which was not much different from the method from S&P with a value of 34.0%. Meanwhile, the methods of the other 2 ESG rating agencies have a lower weight, namely MSCI with 14.2% and Refinitiv with 12.9%. Research provides the view that the level of correlation between rating agencies is still low, requiring companies to first analyze the rating agency. The ones they choose will determine the company's strategy in managing their ESG risks.


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.
Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., Rigobon, R., Sloan, M., King, A., Orts, E., Jay, J., Kaminski, K., Goldberg, L., Bohnsack, R., Eccles, R., Ramelli, S., Lyon, T., Busch, T., Le, Y., Hsieh, J., Gori, A., Lu, A., Duddy, E., … Dettwiler, N. (2022). Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings *.
Billio, M., Costola, M., Hristova, I., Latino, C., & Pelizzon, L. (2021). Inside the ESG ratings: (Dis)agreement and performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(5), 1426–1445.
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.
Clementino, E., & Perkins, R. (2021). How Do Companies Respond to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(2), 379–397.
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.
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores from Refinitiv - May 2022. (2022).
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.
ESG Research LLC, M. (2023). Methodology Document MSCI ESG Research LLC ESG Ratings Methodology.
ESG Risk Ratings-Methodology Abstract. (2021).
Foro Económico Mundial., Marsh & McLennan., SK Group., & Zurich Insurance Group. (2021). The global risks report 2021 insight report. World Economic Forum.
Gyönyörová, L., Stachoň, M., & Stašek, D. (2023). ESG ratings: relevant information or misleading clue? Evidence from the S&P Global 1200. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 13(2), 1075–1109.
Huarng, K. H., & Yu, T. H. K. (2024). Causal complexity analysis of ESG performance. Journal of Business Research, 170.
IDX. (2020). Panduan Indeks IDX ESG Leaders. Bursa Efek Indonesia, 1.1(November), 1–7.
Jewell, J., & Livingston, M. (1998). SPLIT RATINGS , BOND YIELDS , AND UNDERWRITER SPREADS. The Journal of Financial Researc, XXI(2), 185–204.
Jiang, P.-C., Feng, G.-F., & Yang, H.-C. (2022). New measurement of sovereign ESG index. Innovation and Green Development, 1(2), 100009.
Lee, M. T., Raschke, R. L., & Krishen, A. S. (2023). Understanding ESG scores and firm performance: Are high-performing firms E, S, and G-balanced? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 195.
Liu, P., Zhu, B., Yang, M., & Chu, X. (2022). ESG and financial performance: A qualitative comparative analysis in China’s new energy companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379.
Lu, Y., Yu, Y., & Qu, T. (2023). An ESG Assessment Approach with Multi-Agent Preference Differences: Based on Fuzzy Reasoning and Group Decision-Making. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(16).
Nguyen, P. H., Nguyen, L. A. T., Pham, H. A. T., & Pham, M. A. T. (2023). Breaking ground in ESG assessment: Integrated DEA and MCDM framework with spherical fuzzy sets for Vietnam’s wire and cable sector. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(3).
Quayson, M., Bai, C., Mahmoudi, A., Hu, W., Chen, W., & Omoruyi, O. (2023). Designing a decision support tool for integrating ESG into the natural resource extraction industry for sustainable development using the ordinal priority approach. Resources Policy, 85.
S&P Global Inc. (2023). S&P Global ESG Scores Methodology August 2023. August, 1–34.
Wang, H., Jiao, S., Ge, C., & Sun, G. (2024). Corporate ESG rating divergence and excess stock returns. Energy Economics, 129, 107276.
How to Cite
Halomoan, J., & Hanggraeni, D. (2024). Comparison of ESG Rating Methods with AHP Methods (A Study in A State-Owned Electricity Company in Indonesia). Quantitative Economics and Management Studies, 5(3), 500-514.