COMPARING ESG RATING APPLICATIONS IN THE CHINESE AND KAZAKHSTANI BANKING SECTORS

R. Yin, Gulnar Nurgalieva

2026

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.48081/btouecon3.2026/267-282
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to contrast ESG rating practices in Chinese and Kazakhstani banking industries, representing countries at different levels of ESG institutionalization. The methodology used in the research is a multi-method qualitative and descriptive study involving comparative approach, descriptive analysis, and case study methods. The Chinese sample consists of five largest banks operating in China – ICBC, CCB, ABC, CMB, and CITIC. They were evaluated according to Huazheng ESG index during 2020-2025. For Kazakh sample, there are five banks involved – Bank CenterCredit, Jusan Bank, Otbasy Bank, Development Bank of Kazakhstan, and Halyk Bank, which were evaluated according to the external ratings offered by S&P Global CSA, Sustainable Fitch, and MSCI/Sustainalytics. Overall, there are thirteen sources analyzed, out of which twelve represent peer-reviewed articles found within the Scopus database and academic journals of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The last source represents an official normative act of Astana Financial Services Authority (AFSA). In general, China has created a full-fledged dual-system of ESG rating including domestic providers (Huazheng ESG), along with international agencies under strong regulations and regular data updating. On the other hand, the Kazakhstan banking industry is still at the beginning of its ESG evolution path. It is completely based on internationally recognized rating methodologies. There are no domestic rating systems in place; there is an immature regulatory system, and poor data availability, with the first ratings disclosed in 2022–2024 years, except for Halyk Bank that obtained its first MSCI rating in 2020. This work adds to the literature on comparative ESG studies by providing a well-developed institution-based bilateral analysis of a less studied country pair. Keywords: ESG rating, banking sector, sustainable finance, China, Kazakhstan.