Research of the Efficiency of Mining and Metallurgical Enterprises Based on the Environmental, Social, and Governance Risk Rating in the Context of Digital Transformation
Corresponding email: eskelinen.ilona@gmail.com
Published at : 27 Dec 2022
Volume : IJtech
Vol 13, No 7 (2022)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v13i7.6181
Pishchalkina, I., Pishchalkin, D., Suloeva, S., 2022. Research of the Efficiency of Mining and Metallurgical Enterprises Based on the Environmental, Social, and Governance Risk Rating in the Context of Digital Transformation. International Journal of Technology. Volume 13(7), pp. 1442-1451
| Ilona Pishchalkina | Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Polytechnicheskaya, 29, 194064, Russia |
| Denis Pishchalkin | Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Polytechnicheskaya, 29, 194064, Russia |
| Svetlana Suloeva | Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Polytechnicheskaya, 29, 194064, Russia |
In
recent years, there has been a significant increase in interest in the
low-carbon, “greener” economies from investors and the public sector. To assess
companies' compliance in terms of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)
criteria, Rating Agencies have developed ESG risk ratings, which allow for
determining the effectiveness of enterprises in terms of ESG. The article is
intended to research the efficiency of mining and metallurgical enterprises
based on compilations of ESG risk ratings of leading international Rating
Agencies. The authors briefly described the most recognized global ESG rating
methodologies and compared the top 5 ESG ratings. The results of the
qualitative assessment of ESG ratings formed this top-5 list. The current
situation in the formation of rating ratings was described. In accordance to
open data sources, the ratings of mining and metallurgical enterprises were
collected, then ranged (based on an expert assessment) and highlighted the
divergence of ESG ratings with explanations of these discrepancies. This study
revealed a significant correlation between ESG ratings of leading Rating
Agencies and assessed the efficiency of mining and metallurgical enterprises
based on compilations of these ratings. Based on the graphical analysis, there
is a correlation between the ESG ratings of the different Rating Agencies since
when the enterprises are ranked from the best to the worst, the graph has a
distinct direction of values from the lower left corner to the upper right
corner.
Ecological risk; ESG rating; Mining and metallurgical enterprise; Sustainability; Vertical integration
In modern conditions, digital transformation
impacts the activities on the activities of mining and metallurgical
enterprises. It helps to identify previously unnoticed relationships, which
increases the efficiency of comparing parameters. The main advantage of
companies that actively use modern technologies is the efficiency and
reasonableness of their business decisions, considering risks. Thanks to the
development of digital technologies, it has become possible to analyze big data
in real-time, produce machine learning and apply the potential of Artificial
Intelligence (Pishchalkina et al., 2021; Segura-Salazar & Tavares,
2018). Moreover, data collection from
industrial sensors and controls, more accurate accounting of resource
consumption, and big-data creation allow enterprises
Due to the
growing interest in responsible investments in line with sustainable development,
there is an exceptionally active process of creating and calculating
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings (Danilov
et al., 2021). ESG investing has also recently garnered interest
from the public sector, which has expressed support for ways to help transition
financial systems toward low-carbon, "greener" economies (OECD, 2020). The development of the ESG criteria
system has contributed to the creation of ESG-
Related investment products
formed the public perception of companies and the ways of annual reports and
ESG disclosure. ESG standards allow an investor and other stakeholders to
consider non-financial factors and more accurately determine which companies
need to be financed in the long term (Giese et al.,
2021; Hübel & Scholz, 2020; IMF,
2019).
The ESG
rating refers to non-credit ratings and represents the opinion of rating
Companies regarding the compliance of the current practice and strategy of the
rated Entity with the goals of sustainable development, including environmental
protection and restoration, social responsibility, and the development of
corporate governance to achieve these goals. In the process of assigning an ESG
rating, the rating Agency takes into account the assessment of the risks of the
rated Entity in the fields of ecology, social development, and corporate
governance, takes into account compliance with international standards and the
specifics of national regulation (NCR, 2022).
The works (Ovechkin, 2021; Friede et al., 2015) assess the positive impact of
ESG on the financial success of companies, which is stable over a long period.
Other studies (Filbeck et al., 2019; Brogi & Lagasio, 2018; Forcadell & Aracil, 2017; Dellaportas
et al., 2012) describe
that firms should disclose information about their activities in the field of
sustainability, as this can increase their reputation and, as a result, the
value of such firms. In addition, some researchers (Sassen
et al., 2016; Salama et al., 2011) claim that firms with a high level of ESG
are characterized by less financial risk. In this paradigm, the presence of an
ESG-related risk premium is due to the fact that a high risk of performance
characterizes companies with low ESG levels.
The mining and
metallurgical industry are key sectors of the modern global economy (Korneeva, 2016). It incorporates enterprises
engaged in the extraction, enrichment, and processing of ferrous and
non-ferrous ores and is a type of heavy industry that poses a negative impact
on the environment. Such impact may cause reputational damage to this type of
enterprise if their management does not take swift and preventive
counter-actions (Blinova et al., 2022; Rybak et al., 2021). In addition, the metallurgical
industry is now influenced by some downward trends, including high depreciation
of fixed assets, strict environmental requirements for products, an
insufficient supply of the domestic market, and high production costs of
metals.
And metal products, a high level of concentration
in production, and underdevelopment of the system of small and medium-sized
enterprises (Pishchalkina, 2021). For
example, such companies as Anglo American (Anglo
American, 2021), Glencore Plc (Glencore,
2021), Vale S.A. (Vale, 2021), China
Hongqiao (China Hongqiao, 2021), Norilsk
Nickel (Nornickel, 2021),
RUSAL (RUSAL, 2021), EVRAZ (EVRAZ, 2021), Severstal (Severstal,
2021) are largely diversified. And vertically integrated enterprises
that sell commodities and precious metals on the world markets. Companies that
occupy the best positions at the industry-specific ESG ratings have competitive
advantages due to compliance with international environmental, social and
corporate governance requirements. Therefore, metallurgical enterprises are
presented in international ESG ratings, and these values can be found in such
Rating Agencies as Sustainalytics (Morningstar), Vigeo-Eiris (Moody's),
RobecoSAM (S&P Global), CDP (CDP Worldwide), MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital
International), ISS (Institutional Shareholder Services Inc.) and etc. Since
2018 and until currently, there have been more than 600 ESG ratings and
rankings existing globally, and the number of ESG frameworks and standards,
rankings, and ratings continues to grow (SustainAbility,
2020).
The study aims to research the efficiency of mining and metallurgical
enterprises based on compilations of ESG risk ratings of leading international
Rating Agencies. To
achieve this goal the following objectives are attained in the article:
(1) describe the essence and relevance of ESG risk rating; (2) determine
and characterize the most reliable and in-demand ESG rating methodologies
recognized by the international community; (3) make an expert assessment and
range ESG ratings of the enterprises under consideration; (4) highlight the divergence
of ESG ratings and explain the reasons for the discrepancies.
This article focuses
on the importance of ESG ratings, analysis of methodologies recognized by the
international community, and their divergences. In addition, we considered the
ability of mining and metallurgical companies to use an ESG-driven approach to
managing their sustainable development.
Data were
collected through Rating Agencies databases, sustainability reports, and
non-financial statements (CDP, 2022; MSCI, 2022; S&P Global,
2020; OECD, 2020; Sustainalytics, 2018) of 8 mining and
metallurgical companies. The authors conducted research using comparative
analysis (identifying the features of the existing ESG ratings and identifying
the most reliable) and an expert analytical method for comparing ratings of
mining and metallurgical enterprises of different Rating Agencies. The expert
analytical technique applied in this study complies with the three-step
analysis: (1) form the scale of normalization ratings; (2) range of the
companies' ESG
ratings; (3) illustrate the extent of divergence between the different Rating
Agencies.
The scale
of normalization ratings is necessary to bring the assessments of various
Rating Agencies to a single assessment (Table 1). Normalization allows hiding
the inversion of the rating scale such as Sustainalytics to exclude incorrect
interpretation of meaning ESG ratings.
Table 1 Normalized numerical scale for dependent variable
|
Scoring |
S&P |
CDP |
Sustainalytics |
MSCI |
|
5 |
100-80 |
A:A- |
0-10 |
AAA:AA |
|
4 |
80-60 |
B:B- |
10-20 |
A |
|
3 |
60-40 |
C:C- |
20-30 |
BBB |
|
2 |
40-20 |
D:D- |
30-40 |
BB |
|
1 |
20-0 |
F |
40+ |
B:CCC |
After normalization
of the numerical scales of ESG ratings, a graph was constructed reflecting the
discrepancy between the ratings of different Rating Agencies, allowing
visualization deviations of values.
3.1. Overview of international
ESG risk ratings
Events
and problems are significant for the ESG assessment in cases where they may
have a significant negative impact on the organization's operating activities,
cash flows, legal or regulatory responsibilities. Its access to capital,
reputation, or relationships with key stakeholders and society as a
whole–directly or through the value chain. As a rule, to assess ESG risks, the
materiality of events or problems related to ESG factors is analyzed,
considering their likely impact on the financial activities of the
organization, including the potential impact of external environmental and
social factors (Koroleva et al., 2020).
There are
several reasons for using ESG ratings: provide information or data material to
investment performance; supplement the organization's other research on
corporate ESG risk or performance; provide credible and quality source of
information on corporate ESG performance; Entity derives reputational benefit
from using ESG ratings; growing demand by key stakeholders to use ESG ratings;
required by organization to integrate ESG ratings into investment analysis and
decision-making (SustainAbility, 2020).
Factors
determining ESG rating quality include several criteria: quality of
methodology; disclosure of methodology; experience or competence of the
research team; credibility of data sources; corporate and stakeholder
involvement in the evaluation process; common usage by investors and
stakeholders; focus on relevant or material issues (S&P Global, 2020).
According to the results of the qualitative assessment of existing ESG ratings by the agency Rate the Raters 2020 Report (SustainAbility, 2020), the number of respondents from experts and investors who rated the quality of ratings as high or very high in percentage proportion is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Qualitative assessment of ESG ratings, %
The ratings presented in Figure 1 have one
thing in common–they are all based on three issues: Environmental, Social and
Governance Indicators.
The main difference between the ratings is that each Agency independently
determines the methodology of ESG risk ratings. Moreover, the work (Berg et al., 2019)
describes that decision-makers receive «noisy» information from Rating
Agencies. The ambiguity around ESG ratings represents a challenge for
decision-makers trying to contribute to an environmentally sustainable and
socially just economy. On the other hand, using and subscribing to more than
one ESG rating has tangible benefits for investors (SustainAbility, 2020).
Subscribing to multiple can help stakeholders and investors to fill the gaps if
one rating provides more data on a given sector or geographic region or if one
rating has a smaller coverage than another.
The authors selected
the top-5 ESG ratings for further consideration and comparison of features (see
Figure 1). The analysis of these ratings is based on the wide literature
sources, such as the original sources of the methodologies presented by the
Rating Agencies themselves (MSCI, 2022; CDP, 2022; Framework ESG, 2021; S&P
Global, 2020; Sustainalytics, 2018; Dorfleitner, 2015) and the detailed
information was presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Comparison of the top-5 ESG ratings
|
Name |
Short description |
Scoring |
Companies scored |
|
RobecoSAM
(S&P Global) |
The Agency has its own methodology for Corporate
Sustainability Assessment (CSA), which is the strictest and most prestigious
rating. It is the longest-running sustainability
benchmark, assessing the largest global companies on ESG performance |
0-100, with 100 – best performance |
7 500 |
|
CDP
Climate, Water & Forest Scores |
The Agency is based only on companies' questionnaires and
runs a global disclosure system comprised of the world's most comprehensive
collection of self-reported environmental data |
A to D– (F, if a company is invited and chooses not to
respond) |
> 9 600 |
|
Sustainalytics'
ESG Risk Ratings |
The Agency is one of the most useful and highest-quality ratings. The rating measures a company's exposure
to how well a company manages those risks versus industry-specific ESG risks |
0 (negligible) – 100 (severe) |
12 000 |
|
MSCI
ESG Ratings |
The Agency uses the leveraging machine learning,
Artificial Intelligence (AI), and natural language processing augmented with
analysts, MSCI researches and rates companies on a ‘scale according to their
exposure to industry-material ESG risks and their ability to manage those
risks relative to peers |
AAA (leader) to CCC (laggard) |
9 800 |
|
ISS
Quality Score |
The Agency is an authoritative source of ESG information
for corporate investors and measures the scope and depth disclosure. Sector allocation and factor selection reflect leading
disclosure frameworks and standards, such as the Sustainability Accounting
Standards Board (SASB) standards, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and
the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) |
1 to 10 (decile). which 1 – is low risk, 10 – is high risk |
4 700 |
The
conducted comparison of ESG ratings showed that the ratings are based on
different methodologies in structuring ratings and divergence between scoring
approaches. In this regard, the analysis of ESG ratings and related results
highlights the difficulties investors face and how these ratings may differ
(fundamentally) depending on the rating source. As a result of the analysis,
common trends and significant differences in the methodologies for assigning
the ESG rating of companies were identified.
3.2. Ranking of mining and metallurgical companies' ESG ratings
Substantially
different results from major ESG rating providers (as opposed to credit rating
performance) could create market uncertainty among institutional investors,
fund managers, and non-qualified investors as to what constitutes a high ESG
rated company (Pyykkö
et al., 2021). Suppose the approach to unification of ratings is not changed. In that
case, the existing subjectivity in assessments may undermine investor
confidence in ESG assessments, the main ESG indices, and portfolios created
based on these products. It is necessary to clarify how the factors and
indicators of subcategories E, S, and G, their weight and subjective assessment
affect the total ESG scores. This will allow users and issuers to understand
and compare methodologies and results. Such transparency is especially
justified if rating Agencies' assessments continue to differ widely (Alexandrov, 2021; Egorova
et al., 2021).
In this
study, the authors analyzed and compared the methods and methodologies of
calculating ESG ratings that are most relevant and significant for companies
providing non-financial reporting on the sustainable development of companies.
Based on open sources of information and data from Rating Agencies such as
S&P, CDP (Climate change ratings), Sustainalytics and MSCI have collected
the values of mining and metallurgical companies' ESG ratings. ISS Quality
Score was excluded due to the lack of sufficient data from the selected
companies. To compile the final results of ranking ESG ratings for 8
international mining and metallurgical enterprises (Anglo
American, 2021; Vale, 2021; Glencore, 2021; Severstal, 2021; EVRAZ, 2021; RUSAL,
2021; Nornickel, 2021; China Hongqiao, 2021), Table 3 was formed.
Companies based on
their ratings were grouped into five subgroups, according to those scores,
indexes, ratings, and places that they received from Rating Agencies. For each
company, a place in the 4 main ESG rating suppliers was determined. Then, a set
of occupied places in each rating was determined for each company. According to this set of places, the final
position was determined according to the methodology, where the ranking took
place from 1st to 8th place. The method involved
selecting the number of times the company occupied a certain place in the
relevant ratings. The more often a company has ranked higher in the ratings,
its final rank will be higher. If the companies scored the same score, the number
of the best ratings from such companies was considered.
Table 3 Ranged ratings of mining and metallurgical enterprises
for 2021Y
|
Range |
Name |
S&P |
CDP |
Sustainalytics |
MSCI |
|
1 |
Anglo American |
78 |
A- |
23 |
AA |
|
2 |
Severstal |
48 |
B |
31.4 |
B |
|
3 |
Vale
S.A. |
63 |
A- |
39.1 |
CCC |
|
4 |
EVRAZ |
52 |
C |
38.9 |
B |
|
5 |
RUSAL |
n/a |
A- |
30.3 |
B |
|
6 |
Glencore
Plc. |
42 |
F |
36 |
BBB |
|
7 |
Norilsk
Nickel |
44 |
D |
43.9 |
?? |
|
8 |
China
Hongqiao |
19 |
F |
50 |
B |
Thus, the analysis showed that, in
general, mining and metallurgical companies do not occupy the highest positions
in the ESG ratings as it possible. Increasingly, this is due to the technology
of production of metallurgical products, which has a strong impact on the
environment and social capital. In addition, the spread of Rating Agencies'
values indicates insufficient consistency of assigned ratings. According to the
Agency's research (S&P Global, 2021), the mining and
metallurgical industry has the most influential ESG factors: waste and
pollution (70% of companies affected); climate transition risks (50% of
companies affected); social capital (40% of companies affected) and health and
safety (40% of companies affected). At the same time, no meaningful concentration
of factors emerges for the governance of metals and mining companies. However,
governance structures indicate some financial sponsorship, mostly in more
stable downstream metals processing and distributing.
Next, we normalize the ratings of different Agencies received by companies to form the distribution of these values. The scale of normalization is given in Table 1. Normalized ratings for the 8 companies are sorted by average ratings and presented in Figure 2. Each of the 4 rating Agencies is plotted in a different color.
Figure 2 Distribution of normalized ratings
The resulting distribution of normalized
value indicates that it is difficult to interpret the assigned ratings due to
data outliers, but there is a correlation. Mining and metallurgical companies
should carry out work on interaction with rating agencies for more detailed
disclosure of information and bringing the assigned ratings to the smallest
spread of values. Also, the ratings may differ due to the different risk levels
taken into account per the developed methodology of each rating Agency. All
these factors testify to the lack of reliability of the ESG ratings (Danilov et al.,
2021): (1) discrepancy in measurements (most significant for hard-to-quantify
factors such as human rights and product safety); (2) differences in the
set of factors taken into account when compiling ratings; (3) “rater effect”,
when Rating Agencies tend to give high ratings to a company that already has
high ratings in other categories. The results obtained to expand the scope of research on the
efficiency of mining and metallurgical enterprises based on ESG risk ratings.
In general,
mining and metallurgical companies negatively impact the environment and the
health of people living in industrial areas. However, increasing investor
interest in "green" companies leads to strengthening environmental
programs and improving the quality of people's lives. The conducted research is based
on compilations of ESG risk ratings of leading international Rating Agencies,
allowing a more objective assessment of the global vertically integrated mining
and metallurgical enterprises. The proposed approach eliminates methodological
differences by normalizing the ratings and bringing the ratings under
consideration to a single scoring scale. In any case, there is a correlation
between all ratings despite the differences in ratings. In addition, the ranged
ratings of mining and metallurgical enterprises made it possible to identify
the industry leaders in terms of ESG parameters. The results obtained can be used
for further research on the study of the efficiency of mining and metallurgical
enterprises based on compilations of ESG risk ratings. Further
research is to analyze the specificities of ESG evaluation methodologies of leading
international Rating Agencies and determine the most influencing factors on the
summary ESG ratings of these companies.
The
research is partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of
the Russian Federation under the strategic academic leadership program
'Priority 2030' (Agreement 075-15-2021-1333 dated 30.09.2021).
Alexandrov, A.V., 2021.
Analysis of Foreign and
Domestic Sustainable Development Ratings (ESG) of the World’s Leading Oil and
Gas Companies. Assessment of the Impact of the ESG Rating on the Capitalization
of the Company. Economic sciences, Volume 204, pp.
44–53
Anglo American, 2021.
Annual report 2021 Anglo American. Available Online at https://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American Group/PLC/investors/annual-reporting/2021/aa-annual-report-full-2020.pdf,
Accessed on August 23, 2022
Berg, F., Koelbel,
J.F., Rigobon, R., 2019. Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. Forthcoming Review of Finance, pp. 1–48
Blinova, E.,
Ponomarenko, T., Knysh, V., 2022. Analyzing the Concept of Corporate
Sustainability in the Context of Sustainable Business Development in the Mining
Sector with Elements of Circular Economy. Sustainability.
Volume 14(13), pp. 1–30
Brogi, M., Lagasio, V.,
2018. Environmental, Social, and Governance and Company Profitability: Are Financial
Intermediaries Different. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Volume 26(3), pp. 576–587
CDP, 2022. CDP Scoring
Methodologies 2022. Available Online at https://www.cdp.net/en/guidance/guidance-for-companies,
Accessed on August 10, 2022
China Hongqiao, 2021. Annual
report 2021 China Hongqiao Group. Available Online at:
http://en.hongqiaochina.com/Uploads/File/2022/04/13/E1378-AR.20220413163757.pdf,
Accessed on August 23, 2022
Danilov, Yu.A.,
Pivovarov, D.A., Davydov, I.S., 2021. Sustainable Finance Ratings. Russian Economic Development, Volume 28
(4), pp. 25–33
Dellaportas, S.,
Langton, J., West, B., 2012. Governance and account-ability in Australian
charitable organisations: Perceptions from CFOs. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management,
Volume 20(3), pp. 238–254
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, Volume 16, pp.
450–466
Egorova, S., Kistaeva,
N., Kulachinskaya, A., Nikolaenko, A., Zueva, S., 2021. Development of Methods
for Assessing the Impact of Environmental Regulation on Competitiveness. International Journal of Technology.
Volume 12(7), pp. 1349–1358
EVRAZ, 2021. Annual Report
2021 EVRAZ. Available online at https://ar2021.evraz.com/en, Accessed on August
23, 2022
Filbeck,
A., Filbeck, G., Zhao, X., 2019. Performance Assessment of Firms
Following Sustainalytics ESG Principles. The Journal of Investing, Volume 28(2),
pp. 7–20
Forcadell, F.J.,
Aracil, E., 2017. European Banks' Reputation for Corporate Social
Responsibility. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Volume 24(1), pp. 1–14
Framework ESG, 2021.
Making sense of ESG ratings and rankings. Available Online at https://frameworkesg.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/10/FWESG_RatingsRankings2021.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0qJtvQicWXA1KDZoWdOq808Od3CZ6MpC5dogk2RlUeBDdVzp1JzHwjj6E,
Accessed on August 23, 2022
Friede, G., Busch, T.,
Bassen, A., 2015. ESG and Financial Performance: Aggregated Evidence From More
Than 2000 Empirical Studies. Journal of
Sustainable Finance & Investment, Volume 5(4), pp. 210–233
Giese, G., Nagy, Z.,
Lee, L.-E., 2021. Deconstructing ESG Ratings Performance: Risk and Return for
E, S, and G by Time Horizon, Sector, and Weighting. The Journal of Portfolio Management, Volume 47 (3), pp. 94–111
Glencore, 2021. Annual report 2021 Glencore. Available
Online at:
https://www.glencore.com/.rest/api/v1/documents/ce4fec31fc81d6049d076b15db35d45d/GLEN-2021-annual-report-.pdf
Accessed on August 23, 2022
Hübel, B., Scholz, H.,
2020. Integrating Sustainability Risks in Asset Management: The Role of ESG Exposures and ESG Ratings. Journal
of Asset Management, Volume 21(1), pp. 52–69
International Monetary
Fund (IMF), 2019. Global Financial Stability Report: Lower for
Longer. Available Online at
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2019/10/01/global-financial-stability-report-october-2019,
Accessed on August 25, 2022
Korneeva, D.V., 2016.
Tasks and Tools of Competition Policy in the Russian Metallurgy Over the Past
Quarter Century. Bulletin of the Moscow
University, Series 6. Economics. Volume 3, pp. 35–67
Koroleva, E., Baggieri,
M., Nalwanga, S., 2020. Company Performance: Are Environmental, Social, and
Governance Factors Important? International
Journal of Technology. Volume 11(8), pp. 1468–1477
MSCI, 2022. MSCI ESG
Ratings Methodology. Available Online at
https://www.msci.com/documents/1296102/21901542/ESG-Ratings-Methodology-Exec-Summary.pdf,
Accessed on August 10, 2022
National Credit Ratings
(NCR), 2022. Methods for Determining Financial Instruments Conformity to
Sustainable Finance Criteria. Available Online at
https://ratings.ru/upload/iblock/8ad/ESG_methodology_170322.pdf, Accessed on
August 25, 2022
Nornickel, 2021. Annual
Report 2021 Nornickel.
Available Online at https://ar2021.nornickel.ru/, Accessed on August 23, 2022
OECD, 2020. ESG
Investing: Practices, Progress and Challenges. Available Online at
https://www.oecd.org/finance/ESG-Investing-Practices-Progress-Challenges.pdf,
Accessed on August 25, 2022
Ovechkin, D.V., 2021.
Responsible Investment: Impact of ESG Rating on Firms' Profitability and Expected Return on
the Stock Market. Scientific Journal of NIU ITMO. The
series "Economics and Environmental Management", Volume 1, pp.
43–53
Pishchalkina, I., 2021.
Development of a Reference Model of a Modern Mining and Metallurgical Enterprise. Organizer of production, Volume 29(4), pp. 25–34
Pishchalkina, I.., Tereshko,
E.K., Suloeva, S.B., 2021. Quantitative Risk Assessment of
Investment Projects Using Digital Technologies. Economics, Volume 14
(3), pp. 125–137
Pyykkö, H., Hinkka, V.,
Uotila, T., Palmgren, R., 2021. Foresight-driven Approach to Support the Proactive
Adaptation of Future Sustainability Related Regulatory Frameworks: European
Port Cluster Study. International Journal
of Technology. Volume 12(5), pp. 914–924
RUSAL, 2021. Annual Report 2021 RUSAL.
Available Online at https://rusal.ru/upload/iblock/91c/9bfpx677dtz6sv6x38r7to0zh37pv5cy.pdf,
Accessed on August 23, 2022
Rybak, J., Gorbatyuk,
S.M., Bujanovna-Syuryun, K.C., Khairutdinov, A.M., Tyulyaeva, Y.S., Makarov,
P.S., 2021. Utilization of Mineral Waste: A Method for Expanding the Mineral
Resource Base of a Mining and Smelting Company. Metallurgist, Volume 64, pp. 851–861
S&P Global, 2020.
Methodology for the Analysis of Environmental, Social and Management Risks.
Available Online at
https://www.spglobal.com/_assets/documents/ratings/ru/pdf/esg_evaluation_analytical_approach_russian.pdf,
Accessed on August 10, 2022
S&P Global, 2021.
ESG Credit Indicator Report Card: Metals and Mining. Available Online at
https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-rating/vale-sa/1008752471?, Accessed on
August 10, 2022
Salama, A., Anderson,
K., Toms, J.S., 2011. Does Community and Environmental Responsibility Affect
Firm Risk: Evidence from UK Panel Data 1994–2006. Business Ethics: A European Review, Volume 20 (2), pp. 192–204
Sassen, R., Hinze, A.,
Hardek, I., 2016. Impact of ESG Factors on Firm Risk in Europe. Journal of Business Economics, Volume
86(8), pp. 867–904
Segura-Salazar, J.,
Tavares, L.M., 2018. Sustainability in the Minerals Industry: Seeking a
Consensus on Its Meaning. Sustainability, Volume 10, 38 pp.
Severstal, 2021. Annual
Report 2021 Severstal.
Available Online at
https://severstal.com/upload/iblock/190/Annual_Report_2021_RUS.pdf, Accessed on
August 23, 2022
SustainAbility, 2020.
Rate the Raters 2020: Investor Survey and Interview Results. Available Online
at https://www.sustainability.com/thinking/rate-the-raters-2020/, Accessed on
August 23, 2022
Sustainalytics, 2018.
The ESG Risk Ratings Moving up the Innovation Curve. Available Online at https://connect.sustainalytics.com/hubfs/INV%20-%20Reports%20and%
20Brochure/Thought%20Leadership/SustainalyticsESGRiskRatings_WhitePaperVolumeOne_October%202018.pdf,
Accessed on August 09, 2022
Vale S.A., 2021. Annual
report 2021 Vale S.A. Available Online at http://www.vale.com/EN/investors/information-market/annual-reports/20f/Pages/default.aspx,
Accessed on August 23, 2022