Educational

How ESG Scores Work

ESG scores from major providers can disagree by 50% or more on the same company. Understanding why helps you use them more effectively, or find better alternatives.

Last reviewed: March 2026

The Disagreement Problem

Academic research has consistently shown that correlations between major ESG rating providers range from 0.38 to 0.71, far below what you'd expect for ratings supposedly measuring the same thing. For comparison, credit rating agencies correlate at 0.99. (Berg, Koelbel & Rigobon, MIT Sloan, 2022)

This means the same company can be rated as an ESG leader by one provider and a laggard by another. The implications for investors and companies are significant.

Major ESG Rating Providers

Each provider has a different methodology, scale, and focus.

MSCI

AAA to CCC (7 ratings)

Industry-relative scoring based on exposure to ESG risks and management of those risks

Strengths
  • Wide coverage (8,500+ companies)
  • Long track record
  • Industry-relative benchmarking
Limitations
  • Disclosure-heavy methodology
  • Annual updates lag events
  • Correlation between providers is low

Sustainalytics

0-100 (lower is better)

Measures unmanaged ESG risk exposure after accounting for company management

Strengths
  • Risk-focused framing
  • Controversy research integration
  • Clear risk categories
Limitations
  • Still relies heavily on disclosures
  • Subjectivity in risk assessment
  • Update frequency

LSEG (formerly Refinitiv)

0-100 (higher is better)

Quantitative scoring based on publicly available ESG data points

Strengths
  • Highly transparent methodology
  • Large data point coverage
  • Regular updates
Limitations
  • Mechanistic approach
  • Rewards disclosure volume
  • Less qualitative judgment

S&P Global

0-100 (higher is better)

Annual Corporate Sustainability Assessment with company engagement

Strengths
  • Deep company engagement
  • Detailed questionnaires
  • Sector-specific criteria
Limitations
  • Self-reported data
  • Resource-intensive for companies
  • Update frequency

Why ESG Scores Disagree

The disagreement isn't a bug-it's a feature of how these systems are built.

Different definitions of ESG

There is no universal standard for what 'ESG' means. Providers weight environmental, social, and governance factors differently, and define sub-categories differently.

Different data sources

Some providers rely heavily on company disclosures, others incorporate third-party data. The same company can look very different depending on which data is used.

Different materiality frameworks

What's 'material' for a tech company differs from an oil company. Providers use different industry classifications and materiality maps.

Disclosure vs. performance

Some methodologies reward companies for having policies and making disclosures. Others try to measure actual outcomes. These can diverge significantly.

Timing and frequency

Scores updated annually can miss major events. A company with a recent scandal might still show a high score until the next update cycle.

The Evolution of ESG Assessment

ESG assessment is evolving from simple screens to sophisticated verification.

1.0

Exclusionary Screening

1990s-2000s

Simple negative screens: exclude tobacco, weapons, gambling. Binary decisions based on product involvement.

Misses nuance. A tobacco company with excellent governance is excluded while a tech company with poor labor practices is included.
2.0

Disclosure-Based Scoring

2010s

Score companies on ESG policies, reporting, and commitments. More pages in sustainability report often means higher score.

Rewards disclosure over action. Companies can optimize reports without changing behavior. Scores from different providers often disagree by 50%+.
3.0

Action-Based Verification

2020s+

Compare commitments to evidence. Verify claims against third-party data. Monitor real-time signals that contradict stated positions.

More complex to implement. Requires diverse data sources and sophisticated verification. This is where Walk-The-Talk Score™ operates.

What Does This Mean for You?

For Investors

  • Don't rely on a single ESG score
  • Understand each provider's methodology
  • Look for verification, not just disclosure
  • Consider action-based approaches like Walk-The-Talk Score

For Companies

  • Focus on execution, not just reporting
  • Be specific about commitments and timelines
  • Prepare for third-party verification
  • Monitor your own controversy signals

For Analysts

  • Use multiple data sources
  • Dig into methodology documentation
  • Weight recent controversies appropriately
  • Look for evidence of follow-through

Ready for Action-Based ESG?

Walk-The-Talk Score™ represents the next evolution in ESG assessment. We verify commitments against evidence, not just disclosures.