This paper critically examines the methodological inconsistencies of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings and their impact on financial decision-making. While ESG scores are intended to guide investors and policymakers toward responsible business practices, discrepancies in rating methodologies raise concerns about their reliability and strategic value. Using a conceptual and theoretical framework, this paper integrates perceptions from institutional theory, signaling theory, and the sociology of valuation to explore how ESG ratings shape corporate sustainability narratives. It also draws on empirical studies to demonstrate inconsistencies in ESG scores and their consequences for financial markets. The study identifies three primary flaws in ESG ratings: (1) Divergent methodologies lead to inconsistent scores across rating agencies; (2) Firms prioritize ESG disclosure over actual sustainability improvements, fostering greenwashing; and (3) The lack of transparency in ESG rating methodologies distorts investment signals, leading to mispricing risks and misaligned sustainability incentives. Additionally, the absence of strong social indicators within ESG frameworks may contribute to the ineffectiveness of these ratings in truly capturing corporate sustainability. This paper does not provide primary empirical analysis but synthesizes existing literature to propose a refined understanding of ESG ratings. It highlights the need for future research on regulatory standardization, AI-driven ESG assessments, and independent verification mechanisms. The findings suggest that investors should not rely solely on ESG ratings when making financial decisions. Instead, they should combine multiple sustainability metrics and qualitative assessments to avoid misleading investment choices. A lack of ESG rating standardization risks undermining public trust in sustainable finance and corporate responsibility efforts. Furthermore, the insufficient emphasis on social indicators within ESG ratings may hinder their ability to promote genuine corporate accountability and social progress. This paper contributes to the growing critique of ESG rating methodologies by arguing that without regulatory intervention, ESG scores will continue to serve as unreliable indicators of corporate sustainability

Arslan, Aykut; Yener, Serdar; Akturan, AbdÃ¼lkadir

This paper critically examines the methodological inconsistencies of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings and their impact on financial decision-making. While ESG scores are intended to guide investors and policymakers toward responsible business practices, discrepancies in rating methodologies raise concerns about their reliability and strategic value. Using a conceptual and theoretical framework, this paper integrates perceptions from institutional theory, signaling theory, and the sociology of valuation to explore how ESG ratings shape corporate sustainability narratives. It also draws on empirical studies to demonstrate inconsistencies in ESG scores and their consequences for financial markets. The study identifies three primary flaws in ESG ratings: (1) Divergent methodologies lead to inconsistent scores across rating agencies; (2) Firms prioritize ESG disclosure over actual sustainability improvements, fostering greenwashing; and (3) The lack of transparency in ESG rating methodologies distorts investment signals, leading to mispricing risks and misaligned sustainability incentives. Additionally, the absence of strong social indicators within ESG frameworks may contribute to the ineffectiveness of these ratings in truly capturing corporate sustainability. This paper does not provide primary empirical analysis but synthesizes existing literature to propose a refined understanding of ESG ratings. It highlights the need for future research on regulatory standardization, AI-driven ESG assessments, and independent verification mechanisms. The findings suggest that investors should not rely solely on ESG ratings when making financial decisions. Instead, they should combine multiple sustainability metrics and qualitative assessments to avoid misleading investment choices. A lack of ESG rating standardization risks undermining public trust in sustainable finance and corporate responsibility efforts. Furthermore, the insufficient emphasis on social indicators within ESG ratings may hinder their ability to promote genuine corporate accountability and social progress. This paper contributes to the growing critique of ESG rating methodologies by arguing that without regulatory intervention, ESG scores will continue to serve as unreliable indicators of corporate sustainability

Aykut Arslan (), Serdar Yener () and AbdÃ¼lkadir Akturan ()
Additional contact information
Aykut Arslan: Piri Reis University
Serdar Yener: Sinop University
AbdÃ¼lkadir Akturan: Piri Reis University

Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), 2025, vol. 19, issue 3, 78-85

Keywords: ESG Ratings; sustainable finance; corporate governance; greenwashing; investment risk; standardization; financial markets; institutional theory; signaling theory; sustainability metrics (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: G30 G38 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/article/view/26712
https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/article/view/26712/23051 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hig:fsight:v:19:y:2025:i:3:p:78-85

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015) from National Research University Higher School of Economics
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Nataliya Gavrilicheva () and Mikhail Salazkin ().