In 2024, Shell was at the epicentre of multiple environmental controversies, particularly through its Nigerian subsidiary in the Niger Delta, which was linked to severe water pollution caused by oil spills. The company faced various high-profile legal and regulatory challenges, including a €15 million settlement related to the spills, a climate change lawsuit filed by New York City, and a significant emissions ruling handed down by the Dutch court. Additionally, the US lawmakers criticized Shell for alleged greenwashing, while the company became embroiled in a carbon credit controversy. Shell also settled a water contamination lawsuit for $230 million, further adding to its mounting ESG-related challenges.

This case underscores a critical truth: ESG controversies are not just ethical failures; they are financial risks. Businesses facing multiple ESG controversies underperform their peers by 2–5% annually, impacting shareholder value and investor confidence.

Sustainable investing relies on detecting ESG controversies, as ethical and regulatory missteps can significantly impact a company’s reputation and financial performance. However, many investors face difficulties in effectively monitoring and analyzing these controversies. This article examines how ESG controversies influence investment decisions and how to overcome challenges associated with tracking them.

An ESG controversy arises when a company faces significant risks from violations of environmental, social, or governance (ESG) standards, which can harm its reputation, operations, or financial performance. While ESG ratings provide a long-term, structured assessment of a company’s sustainability performance, ESG controversies capture disruptive short-term incidents that expose weaknesses in corporate practices.

These ESG controversies act as a critical adjustment factor, discounting ESG rating scores based on the severity and impact of incidents. High-intensity controversies can significantly lower a company’s ESG rating, signaling heightened risks to investors and stakeholders.

Research reveals that businesses operating within the lowest ESG performance groups experience 2.4 times more stock market uncertainty than organizations that have higher ESG scores. In 2023, Marathon Petroleum suffered a chemical leak at Garyville. This triggered massive fires, while adversely impacting their stock prices. On the other hand, Nestlé encountered criticism because of its water extraction operations during times of extreme drought in France. As a result, the Environment Advocacy groups demanded that the company to stop this water extraction practice immediately. Additionally, the company received significant public opposition, harming its reputation.

Similarly, in one of the facilities of Coca-Cola, a hydrochloric acid leak was detected in 2023. This again not only contributed to environmental damage but also came under public scrutiny. These incidences underscore the importance of considering ESG factors by the investors when evaluating risks.

Read more: Screening Based on Investor Priorities

Environmental controversies occur when a company’s operations harm ecosystems, contribute to climate change, or violate environmental regulations. For example, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill resulted in $65 billion in fines and settlements, severely impacting its market value and investor trust.

Social controversies stem from labor rights violations, discrimination, or unethical business practices, affecting employees and communities. For instance, industries reliant on forced labor, such as garment manufacturers, have faced import bans and investor divestment, damaging their financial stability. For instance, in April 2023, McDonald’s decided to lay off a major portion of their corporate staff. This resulted in the criticism of their employee policies and the company’s stability.

Governance controversies arise from corporate misconduct, including fraud, corruption, and conflicts of interest. Poor governance weakens investor trust, increases regulatory scrutiny, and can lead to financial losses. Enron’s accounting scandal, which led to its bankruptcy, resulted in massive shareholder losses and a crisis in corporate governance standards. For example, Meta has time and again been involved in governance controversies. In Europe, it was fined over €1 billion for a data breach and breaking EU antitrust rules. In South Korea, a fine of $15 million was imposed on Meta for selling personal information illegally, and a €91 million fine was issued for non-compliance with GDPR in Ireland.

ESG controversies can weaken a company’s financial performance and market standing and significantly lower investor trust. For investors integrating ESG factors into portfolio management, understanding the varied impacts of these controversies is essential.

A company’s reputation influences investor sentiment, customer loyalty, and overall brand value. Negative ESG events often attract intense media scrutiny, leading to consumer backlash and, in some cases, boycotts. A damaged reputation can lower stock prices while eroding investor confidence.

The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica issues exposed Facebook’s mishandling of user data, sparking global outrage and regulatory investigations. Within weeks, the company’s market capitalization dropped by over $100 billion. This brought forward Facebook’s inability to protect user data, thereby exposing privacy violations and unethical data practices. As a result, public trust declined, and stringent regulations were imposed on the company.

Investing in companies with ESG controversies exposes investors to significant legal and regulatory risks, as these businesses often face regulatory scrutiny and hefty penalties. With global ESG regulations becoming increasingly stringent, non-compliant organizations have to face fines, operational disruptions, and even market bans.

Volkswagen’s Dieselgate scandal, in which the company was accused of manipulating emissions tests, led to over $30 billion in fines and settlements.13 Beyond immediate financial losses, the scandal severely damaged Volkswagen’s reputation, resulting in long-term declines in market performance.

Read more: Global Standards Screening: Multidimensional Assessment of UNGC Compliance

ESG controversies can significantly impact a company’s financial stability by reducing revenue, increasing legal and operational costs, and driving stock price volatility. Investors exposed to such companies may face declining market value and reputational risks that affect long-term returns.

A primary example is Active Super, earlier known as Local Government Super, which was fined $10.5 million by the Federal Court for greenwashing i.e. misleading customers about its environmental credentials. The financial strain, coupled with investor backlash, highlighted the severe risks associated with environmental negligence.

Tracking controversies related to ESG remains a formidable challenge for investors. The dynamic nature of these controversies, along with media bias and the constant evolution of events, complicates the process of gathering, analyzing, and contextualizing information. Investors must navigate not only a flood of media coverage but also rapidly changing circumstances that can alter the perceived severity of a controversy over time.

Media coverage of ESG issues can be high in volume, making it difficult to sift through to understand which issues are material. This imbalance creates a distorted view of controversy intensity, leading investors to react to noise rather than substantive risk. The focus on public attention, without considering factors such as a company’s actual level of involvement, the persistence of the issue, or the effectiveness of corrective actions, results in risk assessments that are skewed and potentially misleading.

ESG controversies are inherently fluid. A scandal may initially appear severe, only to diminish in impact as a company implements effective remediation measures such as policy reforms or regulatory compliance initiatives. Conversely, an incident that seems minor at first glance can escalate if further underlying issues come to light. This constant evolution means that controversies cannot be viewed as isolated events; rather, their historical context and the ongoing responses by the company are critical for a complete assessment. Without real-time, verified ESG metrics, investors struggle to differentiate between temporary market volatility and issues that pose enduring business risks.

Read more: ESG Screening: A Dynamic Tool for Modern Sustainable Investing

For investors looking to integrate ESG factors into their risk evaluation systems, dependable, real-time data is essential. Inrate meets this requirement by continuously collecting ESG controversy data in real time and applying an impact-oriented assessment to every datapoint. This approach generates a logically structured framework that delivers a clear picture of material ESG risks within a portfolio.

Inrate’s methodology involves the evaluation of each controversial event to generate an ‘Event Score’ which measures the direct impact of the incident. It further assigns an ‘Indicator Score’ to assess the relevance of controversies to specific sustainability topics, and a ‘Company Score’ to quantify the overall severity of controversies that affect a company. By leveraging these comprehensive, real-time insights, investors are better equipped to differentiate between transient media hype and substantive, long-term risks—enabling more responsible and informed decision-making.

Investors who rely on robust, data-driven strategies rather than reactive narratives can mitigate risks and safeguard their portfolios. Explore Inrate’s controversy solutions today to elevate your risk assessment approach and gain a deeper, more accurate understanding of ESG risks.