×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
Instructions for papers
For Authors Aim & Scope Contact
Original scientific article

A COMBINED PSM AND DID STUDY OF ESG RATING DIVERGENCE IN INDIA AFTER BRSR IMPLEMENTATION

By
Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad Nagaragere Orcid logo ,
Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad Nagaragere
Contact Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad Nagaragere

Research Scholar, School of Commerce and Management Studies, Dayanand Sagar University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

S. Prabakar Orcid logo
S. Prabakar

Associate Professor, School of Commerce and Management Studies (SCMS), Dayananda Sagar University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Abstract

The rising number of firms adopting ESG reporting frameworks has led to several inconsistencies in ESG ratings by various agencies, making it difficult to assess corporate sustainability performance for the benefit of the stakeholders, investors, and regulatory agencies. While the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR), which is a recent introduction by SEBI to enhance ESG reporting standards, offers an opportunity to address these gaps in the existing literature through the causal effect on ESG rating and financial sustainability performance, very few studies have been conducted to determine whether there is such a causal relationship. The current research bridges this research gap through an integration of Propensity Score Matching (PSM) and Difference-in-Differences (DiD) models to examine the impact of mandatory BRSR reporting on ESG rating improvement and financial sustainability among Indian FMCG firms. While past research has been carried out focusing mainly on voluntary ESG practices, this study analyzes the effect of regulatory sustainability reporting on addressing information asymmetry and improving ESG accountability. In this analysis, the factors considered were ESG scores, financial metrics, firm attributes, and sustainability disclosure metrics through PSM, DiD regression, linear regression, and robustness check. The outcomes show substantial gains in the effectiveness of ESG disclosures following the implementation of BRSR, as the average scores in ESG rose from 50 to 75. It was established that there is a positive correlation between ESG disclosure and financial performance (β = +0.21, R² = 0.74). DiD findings indicate the existence of a significant treatment effect of adopting BRSR in improving ESG (β = +25.00, p < 0.01). These results suggest that implementing mandatory BRSR provides higher sustainability disclosure, better stakeholder confidence, good governance, and long-term sustainability of firms, with no risks of financial loss. Overall, the analysis shows that mandatory ESG disclosure frameworks work effectively as a strategy to support responsible business operations and sustainable growth.

References

1.
Ajithakumari Vijayappan Nair B, Sasidharan A, Chandralekha A, Reddy K. Effect of ESG engagement on loan quality of banks: analysing non-performing loans in emerging economy banks. Journal of Banking Regulation. 2026;27(3).
2.
Prakhar Wadhwa, Vipin Kumar Aggarwal. Is the ESG Penalty Real? A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Indian Listed Firms. International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories. 2026;2026:1509–25.
3.
Neethu TC, Arun TC. Propensity Score Matching and a Difference in Difference Approach to Assess ESG’s Influence on Indian Acquirer Performance. Australasian Business, Accounting and Finance Journal. 2024;18(3):102–24.
4.
Li K, Qin T, Tang L, Zhou J. Rating chaos and green governance: ESG rating divergence, corporate greenwashing, and the governance effects of environmental tax reform. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2026;
5.
Liu Q, Jiang X, Ni Z. Unintended consequences of the impact of MOR on ESG performance. China Economic Journal. 2025;18(3):414–46.

Citation

This is an open access article distributed under the  Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC) License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.