Evaluating the ESG Ratings of Global Firms: An Empirical Study

This empirical study examines differences in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings across global firms. We investigate whether ESG ratings vary across three critical dimensions: geographic location, industry type, and firm size. Using Refinitiv ESG ratings for 1982 firms across four continents over the 2015–2025 period, with cross-validation against S&P Global ESG scores for the subset of 1397 firms covered by both providers over the same period, we test three primary hypotheses and a set of pillar-specific subsidiary hypotheses through ANOVA, MANOVA, and multivariate regression. Our findings reveal significant variation in ESG ratings across continents (joint MANOVA: F = 51.73, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.074), with European firms exhibiting the highest ratings, followed by a near tie between North American and Asian firms, and Australian firms in the lowest position. Industry classification shows a significant manufacturing > services pattern in environmental and social pillar ratings but no difference in the governance rating, consistent with the pillar-specific reformulation of the industry hypothesis. Firm size has the largest effect (F = 191.74, η2 = 0.247), with larger firms receiving systematically higher ratings across all three pillars. Multi-provider validation indicates substantial agreement between Refinitiv and S&P Global (Pearson r = 0.738), with the central findings replicating across providers. These results contribute to understanding the institutional, geographic, and organizational factors associated with corporate ESG ratings and have implications for how researchers and practitioners interpret cross-provider rating differences and pillar-level versus aggregate reporting.