You're one step closer to unlocking our suite of comprehensive and robust tools.
Fill out the form so we can connect you to the right person.
One of our representatives will be in touch soon to help get you started with your demo.
Essential Intelligence: General Purpose
ESG in Credit Ratings
"When risks are unknown or ill-defined, the market cannot allocate resources in an efficient and profitable manner." Mark Carney, Governor of The Bank of England
"Environmental, Social, and Governance risks and opportunities have the potential to affect creditworthiness. At S&P Global Ratings our analysts work to ensure that we provide essential insights into ESG factors as they relate to the financial markets." John Berisford, President, S&P Global Ratings
S&P Global Ratings has long considered Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors in its credit ratings, and we capture ESG factors in many areas of our methodology.
ESG factors are most often considered in our assessment of the issuer’s Business risk (specifically, its competitive position); Financial risk (through our cash flow/leverage assessment and financial forecasts); and Management and governance.
The management and governance assessment includes consideration of environmental and social risk management, as relevant. At the industry level, we also consider industry-specific key credit factors, which may include the effectiveness of ESG risk management.
For corporate and insurance ratings, we employ our Management And Governance Credit Factors For Corporate Entities And Insurers November 13, 2012. This criteria is the basis of the evaluation and scoring of the range of oversight and direction of an issuer by its owners, board representatives, executives, and functional managers. The criteria is based on the proposition that if the issuer’s management can manage successfully the issuers strategic and operating risks, its credit profile may improve. Alternatively, weak management with a flawed operating strategy or an inability to execute its business plan effectively is likely to substantially weaken the issuer's credit profile. Management and governance is scored as (1) strong, (2) satisfactory, (3) fair, or (4) weak.
ESG factors are most often considered in our assessment of the sovereign’s institutional quality and governance effectiveness (typically accounting for roughly a quarter of the indicative sovereign rating). Although climate change, on average, poses a negligible direct risk to sovereign ratings on advanced economies, ratings on many emerging sovereigns (specifically those in the Caribbean or Southeast Asia) would likely come under significant additional pressure over time. Of course, in an integrated world such as today's, what happens in emerging and developing countries can have indirect repercussions for advanced economies as well, for example, through trade and migratory flows.
Our financial institutions analysis typically considers ESG factors in the context of the Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment (BICRA), risk position, and governance assessments. Our analysis of ESG risks and strengths permeates our bank rating methodology. ESG factors are also included in our assessment of a bank's risk position which incorporates risks that are not captured directly in our capital model.
Our insurance methodology typically considers ESG factors in our (i) industry and country risk analysis, (ii) competitive position analysis, (iii) capital analysis, and (iv) management and governance and enterprise risk management (ERM) analysis.
Our insurance methodology takes a similar approach to our corporate and bank criteria frameworks (including our Management And Governance Credit Factors For Corporate Entities And Insurers criteria (November 13, 2012) referred to in the Corporates section above) weaving analysis of ESG risks and opportunities into several aspects of the rating process.
Under our project finance methodology, ESG factors are most often analyzed in the context of a project's construction and operations phases. On the construction side, we assess the likelihood that, among other things, project construction will have no materially adverse social or cultural consequences, so that it can be completed on time and within budget; and that the project will be capable of operating as expected. If ESG factors materially affect funding adequacy, timing of completion, or the budget required to complete construction on time, we could modify the construction stand-alone credit profile (SACP). Similarly, ESG factors may also affect our operations phase SACP and forecasting of revenues, operating and maintenance costs, and capital costs.
Structured finance vehicles typically comprise a pool of financial assets that generate cash flow over time. Our analytics focus on the following factors: the credit quality of the securitized assets; legal and regulatory risks; payment structure and cash flow mechanics; operational and administrative risks; and counterparty risks. Though ESG is typically not a factor directly considered in our structured finance analytics, it may have a negative indirect impact due to ESG factors that may be reflected in the credit rating on a key transaction party, such as the servicer of the pool, or the ratings on specific corporate obligors in a collateralized loan obligation pool.
Learn more about the critical role played by ESG factors in our rating process:
S&P Global Ratings has published a series of studies describing how it incorporates ESG factors into its corporate ratings. Please find a few examples below.
“E” - Environmental
In How Environmental And Climate Risks And Opportunities Factor Into Global Corporate Ratings - An Update, Nov. 9, 2017, we looked at E&C factors again, and how they affected corporate ratings between July 16, 2015, and Aug. 29. 2017. For that period, we've found 717 cases where E&C concerns were relevant to the rating, and 106 cases where E&C factors--both event-driven and those occurring over a longer time horizon--resulted in a rating action. As in our previous review of E&C factors, most affected ratings were in the oil refining and marketing industry, among regulated utilities, and in the unregulated power and gas subsector.
We then took definitions of climate-related risk and opportunity set out by the Financial Stability Board's Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) in June 2017 and looked at how the 106 cases where E&C risks and opportunities have had a material impact on credit quality fit into the TCFD's definitions. We give examples of this mapping exercise to provide further insight into our review.
In How Environmental And Climate Risks Factor Into Global Corporate Ratings, October 21, 2015, we reviewed 38 corporate subsectors and identified 299 cases in which environmental and climate (E&C) risks resulted in or contributed to a corporate rating revision or have been a significant factor in our rating analysis. In 56 of these cases, E&C risks have had a direct and material impact on credit quality, resulting in a rating action (outlook change, or CreditWatch action, or notching of the rating)--nearly 80% of which were negative. Most of these ratings were in the oil refining and marketing, regulated utilities, and unregulated power and gas subsectors.
“S” - Social
In How Social Risks And Opportunities Factor Into Global Corporate Ratings, April 11, 2018 we reviewed how social factors were incorporated into our analyses and how factors may have affected our corporate and infrastructure ratings between July 2015 and August 2017. We found 346 cases where social factors were explicitly identified as relevant to the rating, and 42 cases where social factors--both event-driven and those occurring over a longer time period--resulted in a rating action. The cases were spread across various sectors, with retail and restaurants, leisure and sports, and regulated utilities being most frequently affected.
“G” - Governance
Our issuer credit ratings aggregate assessments of many different variables including our analyses of management and governance, as described in our Corporate Methodology. The assessments, which range from strong, through satisfactory, fair and weak, evaluate the broad range of oversight and direction conducted by an enterprises owners, board representatives, executives and functional managers. Those assessments are a direct input into our corporate issuer credit ratings and can either contribute to a higher or lower entity issuer credit rating depending on the assessment and the entities’ other credit characteristics.