Based on secondary and primary evidence of their practices, this paper analyses the similarities and differences in the methodologies adopted by CSR rating agencies to assess a firm’s CSR performance. Evidence of similarities (e.g. the use of environment, social and governance themes, exclusion criteria, adoption of positive criteria, client/’customised’ input, quantification), but also several elements of differences emerge, namely in terms of the thresholds for exclusion, transparent vs. confidential approach, industry-specific ratings, and weights for each dimension. Drawing from Sandberg et al.’s (2009) conceptualisations, we tentatively argue that this mixed picture may reflect competing organisational pressures to adopt a differentiation approach at the strategic and practical levels whilst recognising, and incorporating, the ‘globalising’ tendencies of the CSR business at the terminological levels.
