UCLA

Third-party sustainability measures, such as ESG scores and rankings, are central to research linking corporate sustainability and financial performance. However, these measures lack transparency and vary significantly across providers, raising reliability concerns. This systematic review of 82 business journal articles (1995–2024) assesses how scholars engage with and critically assess these measures. We distinguish two sources of uncertainty that limit confidence in these measures: the quality of underlying data (accuracy, reliability, and timeliness) and how data are combined (fungibility assumptions and weighting schemes). Our analysis reveals that discussions of measurement quality are rare, while methodological rigor is bimodal—researchers either scrutinize multiple dimensions or none at all. We observe systematic associations between attention to measurement elements, data-provider choices, and reported financial performance. We argue that choices about measure quality and aggregation are not neutral but directly shape empirical findings and their interpretation. We outline practical recommendations to advance rigor and transparency in sustainability-performance research.