The ESG Rating Conundrum: A Bibliometric Analysis

In the current economic climate, ESG ratings are becoming an increasingly crucial consideration for investors. However, it is notable that the scores assigned by different agencies to the same company can vary significantly. This divergence in ratings is attributable to the disparate methodologies. In particular, ESG rating agencies employ different degrees of weight assigned to each criterion in their calculations. In this regard, the divergences observed in ESG ratings raise questions about their reliability. The existing literature indicates that these divergences result from a lack of standardisation. Moreover, subjectivity also influences how ESG rating agencies conduct ESG ratings. One of the principal consequences is the dissemination of misleading information and the occurrence of information asymmetry among stakeholders and investors. In light of this, the present study employs a bibliometric analysis to examine academic research on ESG rating, focusing on topics encompassing ESG rating divergences and disagreements. The analysis demonstrates a growing interest in ESG rating research, particularly concerning the divergences observed among ESG rating agencies. This indicates an increasing awareness of the challenges associated with ESG ratings, metrics, and final evaluations. Overall, this work highlights the increasing importance of ESG ratings while acknowledging the need to address standardisation. This study provides valuable insights for future research in this evolving field by exploring existing academic publications and identifying key trends.