論ESG評等機構的迷思與對策

The Myths and Countermeasures of ESG Rating Agencies

隨著ESG浪潮蔓延全球，我國金管會於2023年提出上市櫃公司永續發展行動方案，並擴大永續資訊揭露範圍與研議推動ISSB永續揭露準則。此外，為使各公司永續報告之內容有可比性及避免企業假ESG之名，行漂綠之實，ESG評等機構如雨後春筍般相繼誕生，作為ESG投資人決定是否投資該企業之參考因素，以助投資人評估企業永續發展與環境風險之應對能力。於2023年12月金管會並責成集保結算所，訂定7項原則與31項指引，作為規範我國ESG評等機構之行為準則。其並有建置「公司投資人關係整合平臺（ESG IR Platform）」，提供全球指標性六大ESG評等機構對各企業之評等，使我國上市櫃公司及投資人認識我國企業目前之ESG可能評價。
然而，因目前各ESG評等機構之評等標準不透明，且尚有評等機構之評等獨立性不足、評等標準歧異等問題存在，除讓投資人眼花撩亂、無所適從，更可能有誤導投資人之疑慮。此些問題將導致ESG評等機構雖原係欲設立以解決ESG揭露可比性與漂綠問題，然而，實際上卻不僅無法解決上述問題，反有擴大問題嚴重性之虞。若讓投資人過度盲從評等結果，誤認獲得高評等分數者即屬ESG優等生，ESG評等機構即有可能淪為漂綠之幫助犯或教唆犯。因此，本文以下將深入探討ESG評等機構應否設立？設立後應如何規範？又我國集保結算所發布之「ESG評等機構行為準則」是否足以防範上開疑慮？若ESG評等機構之評等失準，可否以證券詐欺相繩？等問題。

As the ESG trend spreads around the world, Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission proposed an action plan for the sustainable development of public companies in 2023, expanding the scope of sustainable information disclosure, and discussed to promote the ISSB sustainable disclosure standards. In addition, in order to make the content of sustainability reports of various companies comparable and to avoid companies using the name of ESG to do greenwashing, ESG rating agencies have sprung up one after another as a reference factor for ESG investors to decide whether to invest in a given company, to help investors to evaluate the company’s sustainable development and environmental risk response capabilities. In December 2023, the Financial Supervisory Commission also instructed TDCC to promulgate 7 principles and 31 guidelines as a code of conduct for Taiwan's ESG rating agencies. TDCC has also established an ESG IR Platform to provide ratings of each listing company reported by the six major global ESG rating agencies, allowing Taiwan’s public companies and investors to understand the current possible ESG evaluations of Taiwan’s companies. However, because the current rating standards of various ESG rating agencies are not transparent, and there are still problems such as insufficient independence of ratings and differences in rating standards among rating agencies, it not only leaves investors confused and disoriented, but may also raise concerns of misleading investors. These problems will lead to the fact that although the ESG rating agencies were originally established to solve the problems of ESG disclosure comparability and greenwashing, in fact, it not only fails to solve the above problems, but also risks exacerbating the seriousness of the problem. If investors are left unattended to blindly follow the rating results and mistakenly believe that those with high ratings are ESG top shots, ESG rating agencies may become aiders or abettors of greenwashing. Therefore, this article will discuss issues such as: Whether an ESG rating agency should be established? How should it be regulated after establishment? If the ratings of an ESG rating agency are inaccurate, can it be prosecuted for committing a securities fraud?