A Review of Research on Methodological Conflict Deconstruction and Integration Paths for ESG Rating Heterogeneity
Abstract: This work examines the heterogeneity in ESG ratings, a critical tool for assessing corporate performance across environmental, social, and governance dimensions, which significantly influences capital market resource allocation. Despite widespread adoption, substantial discrepancies exist among major rating agencies, leading to investor confusion, strategic uncertainty for firms, and potential rating arbitrage, thereby undermining pricing efficiency and hampering the effective implementation of Sustainable Development Goals. In this work, we employ a structured framework of theoretical deconstruction, conflict analysis, and path exploration, combining systematic literature review and comparative analysis to clarify the core concept of ESG rating heterogeneity. We investigate the evolution of major ESG rating systems, quantitatively measure discrepancies, and analyze methodological differences in indicator selection, weight allocation, data processing, and rating procedures. Furthermore, a three-stage cross-institutional integration model—indicator standardization, weight aggregation, and result verification—is proposed, with tailored strategies for energy-intensive and financial sectors considering regional policy adjustments. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that the integration framework enhances cross-agency rating consistency, reduces rating deviations, and improves capital market efficiency. This work contributes both theoretically and practically by offering insights into harmonizing ESG ratings, supporting informed investment decisions, and guiding the evolution of ESG systems from diversified competition toward orderly synergy, providing valuable policy implications for regulators, enterprises, and investors.
Read More