Raters of corporations play an important role in assessing domains ranging from sustainability to corporate governance to best workplaces. Scholars increasingly rely on these ratings to test theories about corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate governance and the influence of stakeholders. Though these raters frequently develop sophisticated methodologies, we find they often diverge in their ratings of the same firm, creating uncertainty for managers and stakeholders, and also posing challenges for researchers. We document the surprising lack of convergence of social ratings for the first time using six well-established socially responsible investing (SRI) raters, with comparisons of overlap, correlations, and regression analysis. Our results suggest that scholars should interpret empirical results with caution and at least use multiple ratings schemes in studies of CSR and governance.

Corporate sustainability has gone mainstream, and many companies have taken meaningful steps to improve their own environmental performance. But while corporate political actions such as lobbying can have a greater impact on environmental quality, they are ignored in most current sustainability metrics. It is time for these metrics to be expanded to critically assess firms based on the sustainability impacts of their public policy positions. To enable such assessments, firms must become as transparent about their corporate political responsibility (CPR) as their corporate social responsibility (CSR). For their part, rating systems must demand such information from firms and include evaluations of corporate political activity in their assessments of corporate environmental responsibility.