Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In recent years, corporate ESG performance has been widely incorporated into investment decisions and capital allocation considerations, becoming a focal point and hot topic for research by governments and organizations worldwide. However, due to various reasons, significant discrepancies have emerged in ESG ratings for the same company across different institutions, and this growing divergence in ESG ratings has increasingly drawn the attention of scholars. Studying the differences in ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) ratings is of great significance. This not only helps to understand the root causes of differences, improve the objectivity, consistency, and comparability of ratings, but also helps users better understand the meaning and limitations of rating results. It is beneficial for investors to understand the focus of different ratings and develop more effective investment strategies. It can promote rated companies to improve the quality and transparency of ESG-related information disclosure. It can also provide a reference for regulatory agencies and policymakers, identify market failures and potential risks, and promote the development of more unified standards and frameworks. At the same time, this study can also promote the in-depth development of relevant academic research and theories. Based on this, this study systematically reviews the relevant literature on ESG rating divergence, focusing on its existence, causes, influencing factors, and impacts. The study finds that, in addition to the widespread existence of rating divergence in corporate ESG performance, scholars also disagree on the measurement and methods of this divergence. The reasons for rating divergence are mainly that ESG is a qualitative indicator; top-level design, intermediate calculations, and bottom-level data collection across multiple stages exacerbate divergence; and controversies in practice further deepen divergence, among others. The influencing factors and impact effects of ESG rating divergence are diverse. Given the existence of ESG rating divergence, all parties should treat ESG ratings with caution. This paper offers corresponding recommendations and looks forward to the future, providing a foundation for subsequent research.
Shi et al. (Wed,) studied this question.