EESF/
Articles/
2610005371
  • Open Access
  • Article

ESG Rating Regulation in Sustainable Finance: Methodological Pluralism, Process-Based Supervision, and Global Regulatory Coordination

  • Meng Xu 1,   
  • Min Xu  2,*

Received: 23 Aug 2026 | Revised: 16 Sep 2026 | Accepted: 09 Oct 2026 | Published: 16 Oct 2026

Abstract

Financial markets have taken climate and sustainability more seriously since the 2015 Paris Agreement. ESG ratings have emerged as a key mechanism for translating corporate sustainability information into assessments that inform investors, asset managers, index providers, and product design. But greater influence has also meant greater scrutiny, revealing problems such as rating divergence, opacity, poor data, conflicts, and market concentration. Drawing on the European Union’s ESG Rating Regulation (EU 2024/3005), Japan’s Code of Conduct for ESG Evaluation and Data Providers, and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) principles, this paper argues that global ESG rating regulation should adopt a process-based approach rather than mandating uniform rating outcomes. This argument is grounded in reflexive law theory and the principle of proportionality, which emphasize that regulation should shape the organizational environment and decision-making processes of rating agencies without dictating substantive rating conclusions. The paper demonstrates that methodological pluralism is both inevitable and desirable, provided that rating processes are transparent, data sources are traceable, conflicts of interest are managed, and rating limitations are clearly communicated.The paper makes three contributions. First, it identifies a composite legitimacy framework for ESG rating regulation, comprising investor protection, market integrity, and—as an indirect but necessary dimension—the governance of environmental and social externalities. Second, it systematically articulates the institutional pathway through which process-based regulation can address market failures while preserving methodological diversity. Third, it operationalizes the principles of transparency, interpretability, traceability, and accountability into concrete regulatory mechanisms, including disclosure formats, data-version control, conflict-management rules, and complaint-handling procedures. The paper concludes that effective global coordination requires a common procedural foundation rather than substantive harmonization of rating methodologies. Jurisdictions should calibrate regulatory intensity to local market conditions, institutional capacity, and the developmental stage of their ESG ratings markets, while adhering to minimum standards on anti-fraud, conflict prevention, methodological transparency, and data governance.

References 

  • 1.

    United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1, 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 14 September 2026).

  • 2.

    European Commission. Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth. COM (2018) 97 final, Brussels, 2018. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0097 (accessed on 14 September 2026).

  • 3.

    Eccles, R.G.; Klimenko, S. The Investor Revolution. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2019, 97, 106–116.

  • 4.

    Berg, F.; Kölbel, J.F.; Rigobon, R. Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. Rev. Financ. 2022, 26, 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033.

  • 5.

    Christensen, D.M.; Serafeim, G.; Sikochi, A. Why is Corporate Virtue in the Eye of The Beholder? The Case of ESG Ratings. Account. Rev. 2022, 97, 147–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2019-0506.

  • 6.

    Diemont, D.; Moore, K.; Soppe, A. The Downside of Being Responsible: Corporate Social Responsibility and Tail Risk. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 137, 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2549-9.

  • 7.

    Gibson Brandon, R.; Krueger, P.; Schmidt, P.S. ESG Rating Disagreement and Stock Returns. Financ. Anal. J. 2021, 77, 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/0015198x.2021.1963186.

  • 8.

    International Organization of Securities Commissions. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Ratings and Data Products Providers: Final Report. IOSCO FR01/2021, Madrid, 2021. Available online: https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD690.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 9.

    Coffee, J.C. Gatekeeper Failure and Reform: The Challenge of Fashioning Relevant Reforms. In Corporate Governance in ContextCorporations, States, and Markets in Europe, Japan, and the US; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; Volume 84, pp. 599–662. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290703.003.0030.

  • 10.

    Kotsantonis, S.; Pinney, C.; Serafeim, G. ESG Integration in Investment Management: Myths and Realities. J. Appl. Corp. Financ. 2016, 28, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12169.

  • 11.

    Financial Conduct Authority. ‘Enhancing Trust and Transparency in the ESG Ratings and Data Products Market’ (Consultation Paper CP25/34, December 2025). Available online: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/consultation/cp25-34.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 12.

    Khan, M.; Serafeim, G.; Yoon, A. Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence on Materiality. Account. Rev. 2016, 91, 1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383.

  • 13.

    Drempetic, S.; Klein, C.; Zwergel, B. The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 167, 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1.

  • 14.

    Stellner, C.; Klein, C.; Zwergel, B. Corporate social responsibility and Eurozone corporate bonds: The moderating role of country sustainability. J. Bank. Financ. 2015, 59, 538–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.04.032.

  • 15.

    Bolton, P.; Kacperczyk, M. Do investors care about carbon risk? J. Financ. Econ. 2021, 142, 517–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008.

  • 16.

    Pástor, Ľ.; Stambaugh, R.F.; Taylor, L.A. Sustainable investing in equilibrium. J. Financ. Econ. 2021, 142, 550–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.12.011.

  • 17.

    Krueger, P.; Sautner, Z.; Starks, L.T. The Importance of Climate Risks for Institutional Investors. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2020, 33, 1067–1111. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz137.

  • 18.

    Ferrell, A.; Liang, H.; Renneboog, L. Socially responsible firms. J. Financ. Econ. 2016, 122, 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2015.12.003.

  • 19.

    Serafeim, G.; Yoon, A. Stock price reactions to ESG news: The role of ESG ratings and disagreement. Rev. Account. Stud. 2023, 28, 1500–1530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09675-3.

  • 20.

    European Securities and Markets Authority. ESMA Strategy on Sustainable Finance. ESMA22-105-1052, Paris, France, 2021. Available online: https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma22-105-1052_sustainable_finance_strategy.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2026).

  • 21.

    European Union. Regulation (EU) 2024/3005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2024 on the Transparency and Integrity of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Rating Activities. Official Journal of the European Union 2024, L 2024/3005. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R3005 (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 22.

    Teubner, G. Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law. Law Soc. Rev. 1983, 17, 239–285. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053348.

  • 23.

    Chatterji, A.K.; Durand, R.; Levine, D.I.; et al. Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 1597–1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2407.

  • 24.

    Christensen, H.B.; Hail, L.; Leuz, C. Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Rev. Account. Stud. 2021, 26, 1176–1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5.

  • 25.

    Gillan, S.L.; Koch, A.; Starks, L.T. Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. J. Corp. Financ. 2021, 66, 101889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101889.

  • 26.

    Principles for Responsible Investment. PRI Annual Report 2020. PRI Association, London, UK, 2020. Available online: https://www.unpri.org/download?ac=10948 (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 27.

    European Union. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 Amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as Regards Corporate Sustainability Reporting (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive). Official Journal of the European Union 2022, L 322/15. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464 (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 28.

    Kotsantonis, S.; Serafeim, G. Four Things No One Will Tell You About ESG Data. J. Appl. Corp. Financ. 2019, 31, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12346.

  • 29.

    Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. Global Sustainable Investment Review 2020. GSIA Report, 2021. Available online: http://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/GSIR-20201.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2026).

  • 30.

    Amel-Zadeh, A.; Serafeim, G. Why and How Investors Use ESG Information: Evidence from a Global Survey. Financ. Anal. J. 2018, 74, 87–103. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v74.n3.2.

  • 31.

    Delmas, M.A.; Burbano, V.C. The Drivers of Greenwashing. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2011, 54, 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64.

  • 32.

    Lyon, T.P.; Montgomery, A.W. The Means and End of Greenwash. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575332.

  • 33.

    Flammer, C. Corporate green bonds. J. Financ. Econ. 2021, 142, 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010.

  • 34.

    European Union. Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on Sustainability-Related Disclosures in the Financial Services Sector. Official Journal of the European Union 2019, L 317/1. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019R2088 (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 35.

    Dimson, E.; Karakaş, O.; Li, X. Active Ownership. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2015, 28, 3225–3268. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhv044.

  • 36.

    Escrig-Olmedo, E.; Muñoz-Torres, M.J.; Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á.; et al. Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: A Methodology for Sustainable Development. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1904.

  • 37.

    Windolph, S.E. Assessing Corporate Sustainability Through Ratings: Challenges and Their Causes. J. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 1, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14448/jes.01.0005.

  • 38.

    Busch, T.; Bruce-Clark, P.; Derwall, J.; et al. Impact investments: A call for (re)orientation. SN Bus. Econ. 2021, 1, 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-020-00033-6.

  • 39.

    Grewal, J.; Hauptmann, C.; Serafeim, G. Material Sustainability Information and Stock Price Informativeness. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 171, 513–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04451-2.

  • 40.

    Black, J. Paradoxes and Failures: ‘New Governance’ Techniques and the Financial Crisis. Mod. Law Rev. 2012, 75, 1037–1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00936.x.

  • 41.

    European Union. Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the Annual Financial Statements, Consolidated Financial Statements and Related Reports of Certain Types of Undertakings (Accounting Directive). Official Journal of the European Union 2013, L 182/19. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013L0034 (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 42.

    European Commission. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 of 31 July 2023 Supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as Regards Sustainability Reporting Standards. Official Journal of the European Union 2023, L 2023/2772. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R2772 (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 43.

    Djankov, S.; La Porta, R.; Lopez-de-Silanes, F.; et al. The Law and Economics of Self-Dealing. J. Financ. Econ. 2008, 88, 430–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.02.007.

  • 44.

    Financial Services Agency of Japan. Code of Conduct for ESG Evaluation and Data Providers. FSA Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance, Tokyo, December 2022. Available online: https://www.fsa.go.jp/news/r4/singi/20221215/20221215.html (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 45.

    U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Risk Alert: The Division of Examinations’ Review of ESG Investing. SEC Division of Examinations, Washington, DC, USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.sec.gov/files/esg-risk-alert.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 46.

    U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Enhanced Disclosures by Certain Investment Advisers and Investment Companies about Environmental, Social, and Governance Investment Practices. Release No. IA-5904, Washington, DC, USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2022/33-11042.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 47.

    Partnoy, F. What’s (Still) Wrong with Credit Ratings. Wash. Law Rev. 2017, 92, 1407–1472. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2969086.

  • 48.

    U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Exemptions from the Proxy Rules for Proxy Voting Advice. Release No. 34-89372, Washington, DC, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2020/34-89372.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 49.

    Coates, J.C. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation: Case Studies and Implications. Yale Law J. 2015, 124, 882–1011.

  • 50.

    Bauer, R.; Ruof, T.; Smeets, P. Get Real! Individuals Prefer More Sustainable Investments. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2021, 34, 3976–4043. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhab037.

  • 51.

    Hartzmark, S.M.; Sussman, A.B. Do Investors Value Sustainability? A Natural Experiment Examining Ranking and Fund Flows. J. Financ. 2019, 74, 2789–2837. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12841.

  • 52.

    Monetary Authority of Singapore. Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management for Asset Managers. MAS Notice 1011, Singapore, 2020. Available online: https://www.mas.gov.sg/regulation/guidelines/guidelines-on-environmental-risk-management-for-asset-managers (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 53.

    Pedersen, L.H.; Fitzgibbons, S.; Pomorski, L. Responsible investing: The ESG-efficient frontier. J. Financ. Econ. 2021, 142, 572–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.11.001.

  • 54.

    International Capital Market Association. Code of Conduct for ESG Ratings and Data Products Providers. ICMA Code of Conduct, Hong Kong, 2024. Available online: https://www.icmagroup.org/sustainable-finance/icma-and-other-sustainable-finance-initiatives/code-of-conduct-for-esg-ratings-and-data-products-providers-2 (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 55.

    Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong. Circular to Management Companies of SFC-Authorized ESG Funds. SFC Circular, Hong Kong, 2021. Available online: https://apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/circular/openFile?refNo=21EC27 (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 56.

    International Capital Market Association (ICMA). Green Bond Principles: Voluntary Process Guidelines for Issuing Green Bonds. ICMA, Zurich, June 2021. Available online: https://www.icmagroup.org/sustainable-finance/the-principles-guidelines-and-handbooks/green-bond-principles-gbp/ (accessed on 15 September 2026).

  • 57.

    Spamann, H. The “Antidirector Rights Index” Revisited. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2010, 23, 467–486. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhp067.

  • 58.

    La Porta, R.; Lopez-de-Silanes, F.; Shleifer, A.; et al. Law and Finance. J. Political Econ. 1998, 106, 1113–1155. https://doi.org/10.1086/250042.

Share this article:
Download PDF
Issue
Volume 1, Issue 1
How to Cite
Xu, M.; Xu , M. ESG Rating Regulation in Sustainable Finance: Methodological Pluralism, Process-Based Supervision, and Global Regulatory Coordination. Energy Economics and Sustainable Finance 2026, 1 (1), 7.
RIS
BibTex
Copyright & License
article copyright Image
Copyright (c) 2026 by the authors.
Article Metrics
6
Article Views
0
Citations