JCARM Journal of Contemporary Academic Research and Methodologies JCARM 3139-7247 Ivory and Finch Publishers 10.5281/zenodo.22683898 JCARM_AUG_26_034 Original Research Article Comparing SVR, Random Forest, and XGBoost in ESG-Integrated Credit Risk Modeling: Evidence from Kenyan Banks Darick Olal Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Actuarial Sciences, Maseno University, Kenya. olaldarick@gmail.com Rangita Apaka Dr. Snr. Lecturer: Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Actuarial Sciences 10 09 2026 1 7

This research paper presents a comprehensive comparison of three machine learning algorithms for credit risk assessment when integrated with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors. The study uses real-world data from Kenyan banks over a decade (2015-2024) to determine which algorithm provides the most accurate predictions and which ESG factors are most influential in credit risk assessment. Purpose: This study compares the predictive performance of three machine learning algorithms--Support Vector Regression (SVR), Random Forest (RF), and XGBoost--for credit risk assessment incorporating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors. Design/Methodology/Approach: Using a balanced panel dataset of 15 Kenyan commercial banks from 2015-2024 (150 observations), we evaluate model performance using Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R-squared), and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE). Findings: XGBoost significantly outperforms both Random Forest and SVR, achieving near-perfect predictive accuracy (R-squared = 0.998, RMSE = 0.0013, MAPE = 1.05%). Random Forest ranks second (R-squared = 0.946), while SVR exhibits the lowest performance (R-squared = 0.912). Environmental factors demonstrate the strongest inverse relationship with default probability (r = -0.647). Practical Implications: Financial institutions should prioritize gradient boosting methods for ESG-integrated credit risk models. Environmental performance metrics warrant greater weight in credit assessment frameworks. Originality/Value: This study provides the first comprehensive comparison of SVR, Random Forest, and XGBoost specifically for ESG-integrated credit risk modeling in an emerging market banking context.

 ESG Credit Risk Machine Learning XGBoost Random Forest Support Vector Regression Probability of Default Banking 13 08 2026 25 08 2026 Copyright © 2026 by the authors This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. References Albuquerque, R., Koski, J., and Yang, S. (2019). ESG and corporate credit spreads. Journal of Banking and Finance, 105, 225-244. Atilgan, Y., Demirtas, K. O., Kersyte, A., and Mehdiyev, M. (2021). ESG scores and corporate credit spreads. Sustainability, 13(9), 5223. Baesens, B., Van Gestel, T., Viaene, S., Stepanova, M., Suykens, J., and Vanthienen, J. (2003). Benchmarking state-of-the-art classification algorithms for credit scoring. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(6), 627-635. Berg, F., Koelbel, J. F., and Rigobon, R. (2019). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. MIT Sloan Working Paper. Bharath, S. T., and Shumway, T. (2008). Forecasting default with the Merton distance to default model. Review of Financial Studies, 21(3), 1339-1369. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5-32. Brooks, C., and Oikonomou, M. (2018). The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosures and performance on firm value: A review of the literature in accounting and finance. British Journal of Management, 29(2), 167-195. Carbo, S., Cuadros-Solas, P., and Rodriguez-Fernandez, F. (2019). ESG scores and bank risk: A global analysis. Banking and Finance Review, 11(2), 1-18. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 785-794). Devalle, A., Fiandrino, S., and Cantino, V. (2021). ESG corporate ratings and credit risk: Main drivers in the consumer discretionary sector. Sustainability, 13(17), 9921. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., and Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857. European Commission. (2016). Action Plan on Sustainable Finance. Brussels: European Commission. Friede, G., Busch, T., and Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 5(4), 210-233. Hoepner, A. G., Oikonomou, I., Scholtens, B., and Schroders, M. (2019). ESG and financial risk: A panel analysis. Working Paper. Huang, Z., Chen, H., Hsu, C. J., Chen, W. H., and Wu, S. (2004). Credit rating analysis with support vector machines and neural networks: A market comparative study. Decision Support Systems, 37(4), 543-558. Khandani, A. E., Kim, A. J., and Lo, A. W. (2010). Consumer credit-risk models via machine learning algorithms. Journal of Banking and Finance, 34(11), 2767-2787. Lessmann, S., Baesens, B., Seow, H. V., and Thomas, L. C. (2015). Benchmarking state-of-the-art classification algorithms for credit scoring: An update of research. European Journal of Operational Research, 247(1), 124-136. Nguyen, T. T., Ngo, N. T., and Dang, T. T. (2022). Environmental, social and governance factors and corporate risk: Evidence from emerging markets. Emerging Markets Review, 51, 100893. Plumlee, M., Brown, D., Hayes, R. M., and Marshall, R. S. (2015). Voluntary environmental disclosure quality and firm value: Further evidence. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34(4), 336-361. Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., and Liu, Y. (2022). EzSG and credit risk prediction: A machine learning approach. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102711. Xia, Y., Liu, C., and Li, Y. (2017). A boosted decision tree approach using Bayesian hyperparameter optimization for credit scoring. Expert Systems with Applications, 78, 225-241. Zerbib, O. D. (2019). The effect of pro-environmental preferences on bond prices: Evidence from green bonds. Journal of Banking and Finance, 98, 39-60.