10 Companies With the Biggest Gap Between ESG Rating and Actual Conduct
Traditional ESG ratings are supposed to tell investors which companies are responsible and which are not. Major rating agencies assign scores based largely on corporate disclosures, sustainability reports, and policy commitments. Companies that publish detailed ESG reports tend to score well. Companies that do not tend to score poorly.
The problem is that what a company says about itself and what independent records show about its conduct are not always the same thing.
We scored over 5,000 public companies across 11 independent ethical dimensions using court filings, regulatory actions, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. No corporate self-assessments. No sustainability questionnaires. Just independently sourced, cited evidence processed through our scoring methodology.
For many companies, the results broadly align with their traditional ESG ratings. For others, the gap between the ESG label and the independent record is striking.
Here are 10 companies where our independent analysis tells a materially different story from the ESG rating on the label.
What We Mean by "The Gap"
Traditional ESG rating agencies -- MSCI, Sustainalytics, S&P Global, and others -- assign letter grades or numerical scores that are widely used by fund managers and index providers to construct "sustainable" portfolios. These ratings rely heavily on corporate disclosures, policy statements, and self-reported metrics.
Our methodology uses a fundamentally different data pipeline. We analyse court filings, regulatory penalty records, investigative journalism, and NGO reports -- sources that companies do not control. We then score across 11 distinct dimensions, each with specific KPIs.
When a company receives strong traditional ESG ratings but scores negatively in our analysis, that discrepancy is what we call "the gap." It does not necessarily mean the company is bad. It means the picture looks different depending on whether you read the company's own reports or the independent public record.
Learn how our methodology works ->
1. Meta Platforms (META) -- Average Score: -14.5
Meta is included in numerous ESG-labelled funds and has received investment-grade ratings from traditional ESG agencies. The company publishes extensive sustainability reports covering its data centre energy use, content moderation policies, and diversity programmes.
Our independent analysis scored Meta at -14.5 across 11 dimensions. The specific findings:
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Safe & Smart Tech | -50 |
| Honest & Fair Business | -40 |
| Fair Pay & Worker Respect | -30 |
Meta's -50 on data privacy and technology safety reflects regulatory actions and court proceedings documented in public records. Multiple jurisdictions have imposed fines and sanctions related to data handling practices. The company's -40 on governance reflects a pattern of regulatory penalties and antitrust proceedings that traditional ESG frameworks may weigh differently.
The gap here is between Meta's corporate sustainability narrative -- centred on renewable energy and responsible AI -- and the regulatory record on data privacy, which our methodology weights more heavily.
View Meta's full score breakdown ->
2. Procter & Gamble (PG) -- Average Score: -19.1
Procter & Gamble consistently receives strong ESG ratings from traditional agencies. The company is a fixture in sustainable investment portfolios and publishes detailed annual citizenship reports covering environmental impact, supply chain ethics, and diversity.
Our analysis scored P&G at -19.1 -- the most negative average of any company on this list. According to our data, the company scored -30 on Kind to Animals, reflecting documented animal testing practices identified in public records and regulatory filings. The company's overall ethical profile showed weaknesses across multiple dimensions that its sustainability reporting does not prominently address.
For investors who rely on traditional ESG ratings to screen for ethical alignment, P&G's inclusion in ESG funds may create a false sense of assurance. Our data suggests the independent record tells a more complex story.
View P&G's full score breakdown ->
3. Oracle (ORCL) -- Average Score: -13.6
Oracle receives investment-grade ESG scores from several major rating agencies. The enterprise software giant discloses environmental metrics and corporate governance policies in its sustainability reporting.
Our independent analysis scored Oracle at -13.6. The key findings:
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Safe & Smart Tech | -50 |
| Fair Pay & Worker Respect | -40 |
Oracle's -50 on data privacy reflects regulatory findings documented in public proceedings. Its -40 on worker respect is based on employment-related legal proceedings identified in court records. These are dimensions where the company's public disclosure and the independent regulatory record diverge significantly.
View Oracle's full score breakdown ->
4. Tesla (TSLA) -- Average Score: -10.5
Tesla is perhaps the most debated company in ESG investing. S&P famously removed Tesla from its ESG index in 2022, but other rating agencies continue to rate it moderately. The company's core product -- electric vehicles -- gives it a structural advantage in environmental metrics that many ESG frameworks prioritise.
Our analysis scored Tesla at -10.5. The full breakdown reveals sharp contradictions:
Tesla's +40 on waste reduction reflects concrete, verifiable metrics: 90% manufacturing waste recycled in 2023, with its Shanghai facility achieving 94%. But the company scored -50 on both governance and worker rights. According to our data, Tesla has faced 77 labour-related incidents since 2008, with 80% being OSHA citations. The company has incurred over $99 million in regulatory penalties related to financial offences, government contracting, and competition issues.
The gap with Tesla is not between "green" and "not green." It is between the environmental product narrative and the full operational record across governance, labour, and regulatory compliance.
View Tesla's full score breakdown ->
5. Amazon (AMZN) -- Average Score: -10.0
Amazon has invested heavily in its sustainability image. The Climate Pledge, 100% renewable energy matching, and over 500 wind and solar projects are frequently cited in ESG assessments. Several rating agencies give Amazon moderate-to-strong ESG scores.
Our analysis scored Amazon at -10.0. The profile reveals a company with genuine environmental strengths alongside persistent negative findings elsewhere:
Amazon's +30 on environmental performance reflects its renewable energy investments. But a -40 on ethical sourcing, driven by documented warehouse labour practices including a $5.9 million fine in California for violating warehouse quota laws, and a -30 on data privacy, including a 32 million euro GDPR fine in France for employee surveillance, show a different side. Amazon Web Services' defence contracts, including a share of the $9 billion JWCC contract, contribute to the -30 on the weapons dimension.
The gap: Amazon's environmental performance is real. But ESG ratings that weight environmental disclosure heavily may not adequately capture the company's regulatory exposure on labour, privacy, and military contracting.
View Amazon's full score breakdown ->
6. NVIDIA (NVDA) -- Average Score: -9.1
NVIDIA has received strong ESG ratings from multiple agencies, driven by its energy-efficient chip design, diversity reporting, and corporate governance disclosures. The company is a top holding in several ESG-labelled technology funds.
Our analysis scored NVIDIA at -9.1. The key negatives:
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| No War, No Weapons | -40 |
| Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | -30 |
NVIDIA's -40 on the weapons dimension reflects documented involvement in defence AI applications identified in public procurement records. Its -30 on ethical sourcing relates to supply chain concerns in the semiconductor manufacturing chain. These are areas where traditional ESG frameworks, which tend to focus on corporate disclosure quality rather than the nature of end-use applications, may assign more favourable scores.
For investors who specifically screen for military exposure or supply chain risks, the traditional ESG rating may not capture the full picture that independent records reveal.
View NVIDIA's full score breakdown ->
7. Walmart (WMT) -- Average Score: -9.1
Walmart receives moderate-to-strong ESG ratings and appears in multiple sustainability indices. The company's sustainability reporting covers supply chain responsibility, community investment, and emissions targets.
Our analysis scored Walmart at -9.1. The breakdown:
Walmart's healthcare access initiatives earned a +30 on health. But the company scored -30 on environmental performance -- according to our data, Walmart has acknowledged it may miss its 2025 and 2030 emissions reduction targets. Its operational emissions increased 3.9% in 2023. Worker rights (-30) and supply chain ethics (-30) round out a profile that is more negative than many traditional ESG ratings suggest.
The gap is most visible on environment. Walmart sets ambitious climate targets, which ESG agencies reward. But the independent record on target delivery tells a different story.
View Walmart's full score breakdown ->
8. Microsoft (MSFT) -- Average Score: +5.5
Microsoft consistently receives the highest ESG ratings from traditional agencies. MSCI rates it AAA -- the top possible grade. The company's carbon-negative pledge, extensive sustainability reporting, and corporate governance framework make it a model ESG performer in conventional analysis.
Our analysis scored Microsoft at +5.5 -- positive, but far below what a top-tier ESG rating might imply. Here is why:
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Respect for Cultures & Communities | +50 |
| Better Health for All | +30 |
| No War, No Weapons | -60 |
Microsoft's +50 on community engagement and +30 on health reflect genuine, independently verifiable positive contributions. But the company scored -60 on our No War, No Weapons dimension -- one of the most negative scores on any dimension for any company in this analysis. This reflects significant defence contract relationships documented in public procurement records.
A score of -60 on military involvement alongside an AAA ESG rating is the kind of gap that matters for investors who care about what their money supports. Traditional ESG ratings may classify defence contracts under "governance" and weight them modestly. Our methodology treats military involvement as a standalone dimension with its own KPIs.
View Microsoft's full score breakdown ->
9. Alphabet/Google (GOOGL) -- Average Score: +2.3
Google receives generally positive ESG ratings. The company's environmental programmes, including significant renewable energy investments and carbon offset initiatives, are well-documented in sustainability reports that rating agencies review.
Our analysis scored Google at +2.3. The profile:
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Planet-Friendly Business | +40 |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | +40 |
| Honest & Fair Business | -40 |
| Safe & Smart Tech | -30 |
Google's environmental scores are strong. A +40 on both environmental performance and sustainable products reflects measurable commitments verified in independent data. But the company scored -40 on governance, driven by regulatory actions and antitrust proceedings across multiple jurisdictions, and -30 on data privacy, reflecting the scale and nature of its data collection practices as documented in regulatory findings.
The gap here is between environmental performance (which traditional ESG weights heavily) and regulatory exposure on antitrust and privacy (which our methodology scores separately and directly).
View Google's full score breakdown ->
10. Intel (INTC) -- Average Score: +10.5
Intel receives strong ESG ratings and has long been considered a corporate responsibility leader. The company publishes comprehensive ESG reports and has been included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index.
Our analysis scored Intel at +10.5 -- positive overall, and the highest average on this list. But the gap shows up in specific dimensions:
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Honest & Fair Business | +60 |
| Safe & Smart Tech | +30 |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | +30 |
| Respect for Cultures & Communities | +25 |
| No War, No Weapons | -30 |
| Planet-Friendly Business | -30 |
Intel's governance score of +60 is excellent. But the company carries a -30 on both the weapons dimension and environmental performance. The weapons score reflects the dual-use nature of its semiconductor products in defence applications, according to public contract records. The environmental score, despite Intel's public sustainability commitments, reflects what independent data shows about its actual manufacturing footprint.
The gap with Intel is narrower than with other companies on this list, but it illustrates how even a company with a positive overall score can carry material risks in specific dimensions that a single blended ESG grade obscures.
View Intel's full score breakdown ->
Why the Gap Exists
The structural reasons for the discrepancy between traditional ESG ratings and independent data analysis are well-documented:
Self-reported data dominates. Traditional ESG ratings rely heavily on corporate sustainability reports. Companies with larger ESG reporting teams tend to score higher, regardless of actual conduct. A 2022 study from MIT Sloan found that ESG ratings from different agencies correlated at only about 0.54 -- meaning they frequently disagreed on the same company.
Disclosure is rewarded, silence is not. Companies that disclose more information tend to receive higher scores, even when the disclosed information reveals problems. A company that reports its emissions honestly may score higher than one that does not report at all, even if the non-reporter has lower actual emissions.
Weighting obscures trade-offs. A single ESG grade blends environmental, social, and governance factors into one number. A company can score well on environmental metrics while scoring poorly on labour practices, and the blended score may still look acceptable. Our 11 separate dimensions are designed to prevent this blending.
Regulatory actions lag. Court filings, fines, and regulatory proceedings are public record, but they take time to process into ratings. Traditional ESG agencies update scores periodically. Our pipeline continuously processes new regulatory data as it becomes available.
See all 11 dimensions we measure ->
What This Does Not Mean
This analysis does not claim that traditional ESG ratings are useless or that the companies listed here are "bad." ESG ratings serve a purpose and capture information that our methodology does not.
What we are showing is that a second dataset exists -- one built entirely from sources that companies do not control -- and that it sometimes tells a different story. The gap between these two perspectives is information. What an investor does with that information is their decision.
We are not rating agencies. We are a data company. We surface independently sourced evidence, score it consistently across 11 dimensions, and present it transparently. Every score on Mashinii is backed by cited sources that users can verify.
The Pattern
Across these 10 companies, a few patterns emerge:
-
Environmental disclosure does not equal ethical performance. Companies with strong environmental programmes (Amazon, Google, Microsoft) still score negatively overall when labour, privacy, governance, and military dimensions are included.
-
Data privacy is a blind spot. Traditional ESG frameworks often underweight data privacy. Meta (-50), Oracle (-50), Amazon (-30), and Google (-30) all carry significant negative scores on our Safe & Smart Tech dimension that may not be fully reflected in their ESG grades.
-
Military involvement is rarely visible in ESG ratings. Microsoft (-60), NVIDIA (-40), Amazon (-30), and Intel (-30) all have documented relationships with defence agencies. Traditional ESG ratings may classify this under governance or not score it as a standalone risk.
-
The biggest gaps appear in well-known names. These are not obscure companies. They are among the largest holdings in global index funds, ETFs, and ESG-labelled portfolios. If the gap matters anywhere, it matters here.
How We Score Companies
Mashinii scores companies across 11 ethical dimensions using independently sourced data -- court filings, regulatory actions, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. Scores range from -100 to +100. A score of 0 means insufficient independent evidence to assess. Every score is backed by cited sources.
We do not use corporate self-assessments or ESG questionnaires. Learn more about our methodology ->
What Should You Do?
If your portfolio includes ESG-labelled funds or individually selected stocks, the holdings may not align with what independent data shows. The gap between the ESG label and the public record is not theoretical -- it is measurable, and it affects real portfolio positions.
Check your holdings. You can see how every company in your portfolio scores across all 11 dimensions -- not a single blended grade, but 11 separate assessments built from independent data.
Search any company. Look up any of the 5,000+ companies in our database and see the full breakdown.
Explore the rankings. See which companies score highest and lowest on each dimension.