.png)
When ESG Methodologies Shift: How Rating Changes Sway Retail Investors
- Directors' Institute
- Oct 3
- 6 min read
ESG has become one of those buzzwords that sits at the centre of investment conversations today. Every company wants to wear the badge of being sustainable or responsible. Every investor — especially retail investors — looks at ESG ratings as a quick way to decide whether a stock or a fund is “future-proof.”
But here’s the catch: ESG ratings are not set in stone. They move. They change. Sometimes drastically. And when they do, the entire picture of how companies are perceived in the market can shift almost overnight. For a company, that could mean a sudden fall in investor confidence or even restricted access to capital. For investors, it can mean being caught off guard by risks they didn’t anticipate.
At Directors’ Institute, we believe this is one of the most under-discussed realities of modern investing. Directors, investors and especially retail participants need to know that ESG ratings are not gospel truth — they’re interpretations, based on methodologies that themselves keep evolving. And when those methodologies shift, the ripple effects can be surprisingly strong, influencing valuations, boardroom decisions, and even long-term strategy.
What ESG Ratings Really Mean (and Don’t Mean)
Let’s start with the basics — but not too basic. ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. It’s meant to capture a company’s performance and risks across three non-financial dimensions:
E (Environmental): carbon emissions, energy efficiency, pollution, water usage.
S (Social): labour practices, human rights, diversity, community impact.
G (Governance): board structures, executive pay, shareholder rights, compliance.
Agencies like MSCI, Sustainalytics, S&P Global, Moody’s and a dozen others assign ESG ratings. Each of them builds a model — a methodology — where they choose which indicators matter, how much weight to give each and how to score them.
Here’s where it gets tricky: there is no universal formula. One agency may say carbon intensity carries 30% weight, while another may put it at 10%. One may give extra points for gender diversity on boards, another may not.
So, when retail investors see an ESG rating of AA or B+ or 68/100, it feels like a single truth. In reality, it’s just the output of one model. And models are always changing.
Why Do ESG Methodologies Keep Changing?
Now you may ask — why can’t these agencies just agree on one standard and keep it stable?
Well, there are a few reasons:
Regulations keep moving. Governments introduce new disclosure requirements. The EU taxonomy, for example, reshaped how sustainability is measured in Europe. The U.S. SEC is finalising climate disclosure rules. Agencies adjust their models to align.
Data improves. Ten years ago, very few companies reported scope 3 emissions (supply chain carbon footprint). Today, many do. Agencies bring those into their models.
Market expectations shift. Social justice movements, #MeToo, diversity and inclusion — these cultural shifts push rating agencies to adjust their scoring logic.
Agencies compete. Let’s not forget ESG ratings are also a business. Agencies want to stand out, so they tweak methodologies, publish reports and highlight why their scoring model is more accurate.
The result? A company that looked “highly sustainable” last year could suddenly drop in ratings — not because it got worse, but because the methodology changed.
The Ripple Effect on Retail Investors
Institutional investors — large funds, pension boards, sovereign wealth funds — often have internal teams that understand this. They track methodology changes, run independent analysis and don’t react to every little shift.
Retail investors? That’s a different story.
Many rely on ESG ratings published on fund fact sheets, brokerage platforms, or even media reports. When a company suddenly gets downgraded, the reaction is often emotional:
“This company isn’t ESG-friendly anymore? Maybe I should sell.”
“Why did this stock drop out of the ESG index? Must be risky.”
The irony is, nothing may have changed in the company itself. Only the rating framework did. But perception drives behaviour and retail investors, without access to deep insights, often move with the crowd.
This is where psychology comes in: retail investors often interpret ESG ratings as moral judgments rather than technical scores. A downgrade feels like a red flag, even if the company’s fundamentals are strong.
Case Studies: When Methodologies Rewrite Reality
Let’s look at two examples that really opened eyes:
1. Tesla vs. S&P ESG Index
Tesla, the world’s leading EV maker, was removed from the S&P 500 ESG Index in 2022. Why? Because while it contributes to reducing emissions through its products, its governance issues and reports of discrimination in factories pulled down its social and governance scores.
Retail investors were shocked. How can an electric car company not be ESG-compliant? Meanwhile, some oil and gas companies stayed in the index because their governance and disclosure practices scored higher.
The takeaway: methodology matters more than brand perception.
2. Oil & Gas Scoring Higher Than Green Firms
In several cases, traditional extractive companies scored well on ESG because they had robust governance structures, detailed disclosures and strong community engagement programs. Meanwhile, younger “green” firms got penalised for weaker reporting or controversies.
For retail investors, this felt upside down. But again, it was methodology — not necessarily morality.
3. Tobacco and Alcohol Stocks in ESG Funds
Another surprising example: some ESG funds continue to include tobacco or alcohol companies because they score well on governance and transparency. For many retail investors, this clashes with the very idea of sustainability. But within certain methodologies, these companies still qualify.
Risks Retail Investors Face
When ESG methodologies shift, retail investors face three big risks:
Over-reliance on a single score. Looking only at one agency’s rating is like checking the weather from one app. It may be sunny, but another app says rain. Who’s right?
Herd behaviour. If an ESG ETF rebalances, retail investors often follow without asking why. This can lead to selling good companies or chasing momentum blindly.
Confusing methodology change with company change. A downgrade might not mean the company suddenly turned “bad.” It might just mean carbon data was reweighted or board diversity rules shifted.
Emotional decision-making. ESG ratings carry moral weight in the public eye. Investors may panic sell simply because a downgrade feels like a “betrayal of values.”
Opportunities: How Retail Investors Can Play Smart
It’s not all bad news. In fact, awareness of methodology shifts can become an edge. Here’s how:
Check multiple sources. Don’t rely on one rating agency. Compare MSCI, Sustainalytics and S&P.
Read disclosures. Companies publish sustainability and annual reports — they tell a deeper story than a rating.
Look at trends, not one-offs. If a company keeps improving disclosures year after year, it’s on the right path, even if one rating dips.
Stay updated. Methodology changes are often announced publicly. Knowing when one is coming helps avoid overreaction.
Understand weightings. A company might lose points for governance while excelling in environmental performance. The nuance matters.
For retail investors, this is not about becoming ESG analysts overnight. It’s about knowing that these ratings are tools — not verdicts.
The Push for Global Standardisation
Here’s the hopeful part: regulators are pushing for more consistency.For years, the biggest complaint about ESG ratings has been the “alphabet soup” of standards and the lack of comparability.
The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is working on a global baseline for ESG disclosures.
The EU taxonomy sets clear definitions of what counts as sustainable economic activity.
The SEC in the U.S. is forcing more climate-related disclosures, signaling that ESG is moving firmly into the realm of compliance.
Will this fix everything? Probably not. Rating agencies are private businesses, not regulators. They’ll still compete with their own methodologies and models. But greater transparency and convergence across regions can ease confusion and help retail investors make more informed, less reactionary decisions when scores shift.
What This Means for Directors and Professionals
Now let’s bring this back to the boardroom.
For directors, ESG ratings are no longer “soft” issues. They directly impact access to capital, investor confidence and brand value. A sudden downgrade — even if methodology-driven — can hurt stock price and trigger uncomfortable shareholder questions.
Boardroom leaders need to:
Anticipate methodology shifts and prepare investor communication.
Ensure disclosures are robust and aligned with multiple frameworks.
Build governance structures that withstand scrutiny beyond financials.
Educate stakeholders — including retail investors — on the meaning of ESG scores.
Clear communication around what those scores really mean can build resilience against market shocks. For retail investors, the key takeaway is simpler: don’t see ESG scores as absolute truth. Understand the moving pieces behind them before reacting.
Conclusion: Awareness Is the Real Edge
ESG ratings are powerful, but they are not perfect. They’re evolving tools, reflecting not just company behaviour but also shifting models, regulatory trends and cultural expectations.
Retail investors who understand this will avoid the traps of blind faith. Directors who understand this will position their companies better, communicate more effectively and build resilience in the face of shifting perceptions.
At Directors’ Institute, we believe staying ahead of ESG methodology changes isn’t just about investing smarter — it’s about governing smarter.
To stay updated on global governance and ESG insights, visit www.directors-institute.com
Our Directors’ Institute - World Council of Directors can help you accelerate your board journey by training you on your roles and responsibilities to be carried out efficiently, helping you make a significant contribution to the board and raise corporate governance standards within the organization.
Comments