In the Korean capital market, there are three credit rating agencies. Potential credit ratings based on credibility in the financial market are calculated independently for each rating agency. It often happens that despite the fact that the grades of the rating agencies are the same and have the same rating system, their actual ratings are different, even for the same firm. In such circumstances, investors may wonder why. In this study, we assume that the cause is the information environment in which the company operates. The credit ratings of rating agencies are mainly classified into bonds or commercial papers. The bonds are rated primarily for long-term of three years or more, and commercial papers specify ratings for less than one year. The information environment to be verified in this study was observed with a commercial paper. Under the assumption the larger the analyst following is, the more transparent is the information environment, we analyzed the influence of the number of analysts following on the degree to which ratings conflicted among credit rating agencies. The results of our analysis confirmed that opinion conflict among credit rating agencies is clearly reduced for companies with good information environments.