Evaluating ESG Measurement Approaches: Systematic Review and Methodological Implications for Empirical Research in Emerging Economies
Abstract
Purpose: Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure has become a central construct in accounting, finance and management research, but empirical findings remain surprisingly inconsistent. This inconsistency is often due to the contextual or theoretical differences, while the fundamental role of ESG measurement has received relatively limited scholarly attention.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol were used to study 352 peer-reviewed empirical articles published in 2010-2024. And analyze how ESG measurement approaches vary across different contexts’
Findings: The results show that there are strong and systematic measurement asymmetries in economic settings. The dominating ESG rating agencies are found in developed economies, By contrast, ESG measures based on content analysis are dominant in emerging economies, where ESG disclosure is more voluntary and less standardized. Proxy-based measures are consistent in all contexts, but they are linked with high levels of measurement error and lower reliability.
Implications/Originality/Value: This study contributes to ESG scholarship by promoting methodological sensitivity, providing context-sensitive measurement guidelines, and outlining a future research agenda focused on measurement alignment and transparency. These insights have important implications for researchers, editors and policy makers seeking to strengthen the credibility and cumulative growth of ESG research, particularly in emerging markets.
Downloads
Article Analytics Summary
References
Abdul Rahman, R., & Alsayegh, M. F. (2021). Determinants of corporate environment, social and governance (ESG) reporting among Asian firms. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(4), 167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040167
Ali, W., Frynas, J. G., & Mahmood, Z. (2017). Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in developed and developing countries: A literature review. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 24(4), 273-294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1410
Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v74.n3.2
Bani-Khaled, S., Azevedo, G., & Oliveira, J. (2025). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors and firm value: A systematic literature review of theories and empirical evidence. AMS Review, 1-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-025-00303-2
Belal, A. R., Cooper, S. M., & Khan, N. A. (2015). Corporate environmental responsibility and accountability: What chance in vulnerable Bangladesh? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 44-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.01.005
Berg, F., Kolbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315-1344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2012-00998
Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2131
Christensen, H. B., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2022). Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings. The Accounting Review, 97(1), 147–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0506
Clement, A., Robinot, E, & Trespeuch, L. (2025). The use of ESG scores in academic literature: A systematic literature review. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 19(1), 92-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-10-2022-0147
Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2020). The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 333–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
Huang, D. Z. (2021). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) activity and firm performance: A review and consolidation. Accounting & finance, 61(1), 335-360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12569
Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2019). The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3312191
Javeed, S. A., & Lefen, L. (2019). An analysis of corporate social responsibility and firm performance with moderating effects of CEO power and ownership structure: A case study of the manufacturing sector of Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(1), 248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010248
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113–1155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/250042
Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2016). On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(5), 767–801. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939
Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Bmj, 339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
Widyawati, L. (2021). Measurement concerns and agreement of environmental social governance ratings. Accounting & Finance, 61, 1589-1623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12638
Copyright (c) 2025 Attique Ur Rehman, Athar Iqbal, Hafiza Ghosia Awan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
CSRC Publishing and JAFEE adhere to Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License. The authors, submitting and publishing in the Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies published by CSRC Publishing, retain the copyright of their work and give the journal right to publish their work agreeing to the licensing policy under Creative Common Attribution-Non Commercial (NC-BY-NC 4.0) International. Under this license, the published authors let others remix, tweak, and build upon their work non-commercially. Yet all the other authors using the content of CSRC Publishing are required to cite author(s), journal name and publisher in their work. CSRC Publishing and JAFEE follow an Open Access Policy for copyright and licensing.
