Abstract

Context The Environment, Social, and Governance [ESG^Ó]-platform offered by Bloomberg^Ô Professional Services [https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/] is a leading source of relevant, reliable, and timely information on the context within which market trading firms operate. The ESG-platform of the Bloomberg Terminals [BBT] includes more than 2,000 data fields that provide intel to aid in better understanding the “Stakeholder-impact” of the firm’s activities. One of the sub-platforms therein is the Institutional Shareholder Services [ISS] which offers Governance QualityScores: (GQS^Ô). The BBT[ISS[GQS]]-platform is a data-driven approach to scoring & screening designed to help investors monitor a company’s control of governance risk. Previous studies have provided vetting information of the BBT[ISS[GQS]]-platform. As an enhancement to these vetting-studies, we offer the following. Study Design In the ESG-Platform, there are Disclosure Scores for: The General [ESG], Environment, Social & Governance categories. The vetting question of interest is: Does the ISS score those firms that provide more Disclosure information as ISS[1] and those firms that provide less as ISS[10]? If so, this would cast doubt on the relevance and reliability of the ISS-assignment taxonomy. Results We discuss the critical role of vetting. Then, the Dul: Necessity & Sufficiency Screen is offered as the organizing logic of the Inferential vetting platform. Finally, using the Gold Standard test: Linear Discriminant Analysis for the vetting inference, it is clear that the ISS-assignment is not aligned with the degree of provision of disclosure information for any of the four ESG-Disclosure Score variables. Thus, these vetting results are not inconsistent with a functioning taxonomic-allocation platform. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.