Systematic review uncovers contradictory outcomes and methodological divergence in corporate ESG ratings, highlighting systemic barriers to evaluating genuine sustainability.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings were developed to account for the multidimensional nature of the sustainability of firms. Research on ESG ratings suggests that working towards sustainability means engaging in a utopian effort, as in the chimera myth. We developed a conceptual framework of corporate activities that guides a systematic literature review based on 79 papers. Our analysis confirms that ESG ratings remain a black box, explored mainly from a purely monetary perspective and with contradictions on value created for companies and collective well‐being. Therefore, we deduce that research is still “chasing a chimera,” being this incomplete knowledge due to divergences in (1) theories, (2) regulations, (3) geographic and (4) corporate culture, (5) constructs/metrics, and (6) corporate attitude towards disclosure. Consequently, we identify research gaps and avenues for future research to foster corporations' responsible behaviours and socially responsible investing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lucarelli et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: