Institute of Finance and Industrial Policy, Faculty of Economics and Business, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

I. V. Petrov, Chief Researcher, Professor, Doctor of Economic Sciences, IvVPetrov@fa.ru
I. Yu. Novoselova, Chief Researcher, Associate Professor, Doctor of Economic Sciences

In recent decades, Russia has been actively developing a methodological framework for the ESG rating of companies, especially export-oriented ones. Rating agencies are developing their own approaches to evaluating ESG criteria. The analysis of the applied approaches revealed common shortcomings inherent in all rating agencies. Among such disadvantages, the most important are the lack of consideration of specific regional features in the area of responsibility of companies, as well as the use of a simplified method of evaluating the integral criterion for the subsequent formation of an ESG rating of companies. The authors have developed an algorithm for assessing the priority of the ESG criteria groups used with regard to the peculiarities of the environmental or social situation in a region using a matrix approach and Saaty’s scale. The priorities of the environmental issues in ESG ratings are evaluated as a case-study of some companies belonging to ALRO SA. The results obtained correspond to the most important tasks of improving the environmental situation in the regions of presence of the companies in question. Due to the transparency of the approach and its simplicity when implemented in Excel, these calculations can be included in existing methodological materials for the ESG scoring carried out by practitioners. Despite the fact the rating agencies use different systems of criteria, the proposed approach to the priority evaluation is applicable to all criteria alternatives. It is important that the resultant priorities of ESG criteria take into account regional peculiarities in the zones of responsibility of the test companies.
The article was prepared based on the results of research carried out at the expense of budgetary funds under the state assignment to the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.

1. Pedersen L. H., Fitzgibbons S., Pomorski L. Responsible investing: The ESG-efficient frontier. Journal of Finan cial Economics. 2021. Vol. 142, Iss. 2. pp. 572–597.
2. Huang D. Z. X. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) activity and firm performance: A review and consolidation. Accounting & Finance. 2021. Vol. 61, Iss. 1. pp. 335–360.
3. Holt T. V., Whelan T. Research frontiers in the era of embedding sustainability: Bringing social and environmental systems to the forefront. Journal of Sustainability Research. 2021. Vol. 3, Iss. 2. ID e210010.
4. Novoselov A., Potravny I., Novoselova I., Gassiy V., Sharkova A. Harmonization of interests during Arctic industrial development: The case of mining corporation and indigenous peoples in Russia. Polar Science. 2023. Vol. 35. ID 100915.

5. Kurnosova T. I. Domestic and foreign experience of using ESG-principles in designing oil and gas business development strategy. Ekonomika, predprinimatelstvo i pravo. 2022. Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 387–410.
6. Biryukova V. V., Cherepovitsyn A. E. Russian and foreign experience in forming sustainable development indices for vertically integrated oil companies. Ekonomika i upravlenie: nauchno-prakticheskiy zhurnal. 2020. No. 6(156). pp. 5–10.
7. Aleksandrov V. V. 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. Ekonomicheskie nauki. 2021. No. 11(204). pp. 44–53.
8. Khoreshok A., Kudrevatyh N., Koroleva T., Islamov D. Management of environmental and economic risks of mining enterprises. Clean Coal Technologies: Mining, Processing, Safety, and Ecology : The 10th Anniversary Russian–Chinese Symposium. 2021. E3S Web of Conferences. 2021. Vol. 303. ID 01021.
9. Gudozhnikova E. V. Analysis of development trends in foreign integrated reporting. Mezhdunarodnyi nauchno-issledovatelskiy zhurnal. 2021. No. 2-2(104). pp. 38–40.
10. Borzakov D. V. Evolution of the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines and standards for sustainable development reporting. Region: sistemy, ekonomika, upravlenie. 2022. No. 1(56). pp. 85–92.
11. Bystrov O. F. Decision-making technique in selection tasks on the set of alternatives on the set of indicators—the BOFem method. Ekonomicheskie i sotsialno-gumanitarnye issledovaniya. 2018. No. 3(19). pp. 12–18.
12. Saaty T. L. The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the Measurement of Intangible Criteria and for Decision-Making. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. 2^nd ed. New York : Springer, 2016. Vol. 233. pp. 363–419.
13. Nemery P., Lamboray C. FlowSort: A flow-based sorting method with limiting or central profiles. TOP. 2008. Vol. 16, Iss. 1. pp. 90–113.
14. Remadi F. D., Frikha H. M. The multicriteria group decision making flowsort method under uncertainty. Multiple Criteria Decision Making. 2021. Vol. 16. pp. 122–139.
15. Putivtseva N. P., Pusnaya O. P., Igrunova S. V., Zaitseva T. V., Nesterova E. V. Comparative analysis of the use multi-criteria methods. Nauchnyi rezultat. Informatsionnye tekhnologii. 2017. Vol. 2, No. 1. pp. 40–47.
16. Masanov A. Yu., Anisimova P. S., Tolstov A. V., Sheremet A. Kh., Dubovichev M. A. et al. Implementation of environmental initiatives of ALROSA (PJSC) to achieve carbon neutrality. Prirodnye resursy Arktiki i Subarktiki. 2021. Vol. 26, No. 4. pp. 54–66.