Rankings (RKS) and Hexun are the two most widely used corporate social responsibility (CSR) ratings in research on CSR in China’s capital market. These scores are used as a proxy for CSR performance and disclosure quality. However, research is lacking on the validity of measuring CSR performance and disclosure quality, as well as the convergent validity between these scores. In this paper, a comparative and quantitative analysis was performed for the period 2010–2017, and the following results were obtained: (1) Based on a comparison of the rating methods, information sources, and other factors, RKS is more suitable for measuring the CSR disclosure quality, while Hexun is more suitable for measuring the CSR performance; (2) based on a Spearman correlation analysis, the convergent validity between these two scores is very low, particularly after 2013; and (3) the sub-indicator weights of the RKS system always maintain a high stability, whereas those of the Hexun system suffer from severe fluctuations starting in 2013.

Since the Chinese economy has transitioned to a sustainable model, the Chinese socially responsible investment (SRI) market has expanded rapidly, which has deeply stimulated the development of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings for Chinese firms. Domestic agencies, such as SynTao, Rankins (RKS), Sino-Securities (SSII), and China Alliance of Social Value Investment (CASVI), and international agencies, such as Bloomberg, FTSE Russell (FTSE), and Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI), have launched their own ESG rating systems. These emerging ratings may provide users of information with more diverse references; however, if their results are too divergent, they may also confuse users. To what extent do these ESG rating results in the Chinese market converge or diverge? Aiming to answer this question, we used Hushen 300 index firms in 2019 as the initial sample, and selected 195 firms covered by the above seven ratings for the analysis. Firstly, by comparing the overlap in the top 100 lists of these sample firms, we found that the list overlap rate between each pair of ratings was between 66.36% and 82.35%; however, only 35% of the firms were listed in the top 100 of all seven ratings. Furthermore, the Pearson correlation analysis showed that the correlation coefficients between each pair of ratings ranged from 0.057 to 0.736, and the average was only 0.411. These results suggest a wide divergence in the ESG rating results for Chinese firms. We suggest that information users need to consider a more diverse and comprehensive perspective when utilizing these ratings.

This paper investigates the influence of board network centrality on corporate social responsibility (CSR) decoupling. CSR decoupling refers to the gap between corporate internal and external actions in CSR practices. Specifically, we measure CSR decoupling as the difference between corporate social disclosure (CSD) and corporate social performance (CSP). This paper uses a sample of Chinese A-share listed firms during 2009–2018, takes the technical dimension score (T-score) and content dimension score (C-score) of RKS ratings as proxies of CSD and CSP, and obtains CSR decoupling as the difference between CSD and CSP. Our results show that (1) board network centrality is positively related to over-decoupling in the pre-adoption period (2009–2014) of the new environmental law but negatively related to over-decoupling in the post-adoption period (2015–2018) and (2) centrality is not related to under-decoupling in the pre-adoption period but a significantly positive related in the post-adoption period. Our finding reveals a complex role of the board network in CSR practices in China.