Author
Listed:
- Yong Shi
(School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
Research Center on Fictitious Economy and Data Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
The Key Laboratory of Big Data Mining and Knowledge Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China)
- Tongsheng Yao
(School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
Research Center on Fictitious Economy and Data Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
The Key Laboratory of Big Data Mining and Knowledge Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China)
Abstract
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.
Suggested Citation
Yong Shi & Tongsheng Yao, 2025.
"ESG Rating Divergence: Existence, Driving Factors, and Impact Effects,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-26, May.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4717-:d:1660464
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4717-:d:1660464. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.