As 2025 kicks off, we stopped to take a look at the significant environmental, social, and governance (ESG) controversies of 2024, as we do every year. In this article, we dive into the three public companies with the most controversies for each pillar: environmental, social, and governance, analyzing the companies and the wider impact of the controversies themselves. Join us as we analyze these key moments that have not only influenced public opinion but also shaped the future of responsible business practices.

ESG Risks: Focus 2024

Starting with environmental risks, biodiversity and ecosystems, climate change, waste management, and atmospheric pollution emerged as the most scrutinized sub-risks in 2024. These issues were primarily tied to greenwashing, such as the Mercer Super case and energy companies' expansions at the expense of climate change.

Meanwhile, for social controversies, working conditions and fundamental human rights took center stage. Notably, some companies were linked to forced labor, while coffee supply chains were linked to child labor. Boycotts over the war on Gaza have also been a major highlight of 2024.

Finally, for governance, fraud and legal investigations have been a big driver of controversies, mainly linked to financial fraud cases. This was followed by terrorism financing linked to the war on Gaza, as well as corruption and bribery charges.

Environmental Controversies: Top 3 Public Companies

Shell

In 2024, Shell faced a host of environmental controversies, particularly through its Nigerian subsidiary, Nigeria Delta, which was implicated in serious water pollution due to oil spills. The company dealt with several other notable controversies, including a €15 million compensation related to the spills, a New York City lawsuit over climate change, and a landmark emissions ruling from a Dutch court. Additionally, the company faced condemnation from U.S. lawmakers for alleged greenwashing practices, a carbon credit scandal, and a water contamination lawsuit resolved with a  $230 million settlement.

ExxonMobil

2024 was a challenging year for ExxonMobil. First, its Hammerhead project was hit by an FDA-required Environmental Impact Assessment to evaluate the potential ecological risks. Then, conflicts with Venezuela arose over environmental concerns, followed by several U.S. lawsuits. California, Kansas, and Puerto Rico all sued the company for issues ranging from global plastic pollution and greenwashing to trade law violations. Additionally, ExxonMobil was targeted in a climate lawsuit and faced ongoing fallout from the 1989 oil spill. Protests from groups like CalPERS and student activists highlighted dissatisfaction with ExxonMobil’s environmental practices, emphasizing the company's broad regulatory and public relations challenges.

TotalEnergies

Coming in at number three, TotalEnergies dealt with several environmental controversies, notbably protests related to its East African crude oil pipeline project in Tanzania and Uganda. The company has also been accused of greenwashing and misleading sustainability claims while struggling with oil leaks at its Donges refinery and Egina field. On top of these environmental controversies, TotalEngeries faced key governance and social controversies, including a $48 million fine by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for attempting to manipulate the European gasoline market in March 2018. There are also ongoing investigations into an attack in Mozambique.

Social Controversies: Top 3 Public Companies

Boeing

In 2024, Boeing faced significant challenges due to safety concerns and production controversies, which have fueled employee unrest and public skepticism. Recent incidents, including a missing door plug attachment on a Boeing 737 Max and investigations into quality control lapses at Boeing and its supplier Spirit AeroSystems, have eroded trust among small businesses reliant on the manufacturer. Whistleblower testimonies and increasing scrutiny from Congress and the FAA highlight systemic safety failures. These developments suggest a difficult path ahead for Boeing as it works to regain credibility amid ongoing struggles.

Pfizer

In 2024, Pfizer faced scrutiny after EU documents revealed over 4.9 million adverse events and 3,280 deaths linked to its COVID-19 vaccine, especially among women and individuals aged 31-50. Critics allege Pfizer continued distribution despite knowing the risks, questioning the EMA's approval. Additionally, DNA contaminants, including carcinogenic SV40 sequences, have been reported in the vaccines. A whistleblower disclosed that Pfizer employees were offered a "separate" COVID vaccine, raising concerns about access inequality. Kansas has filed a lawsuit accusing Pfizer of misleading the public about vaccine safety; meanwhile, the company faces fines in the UK for excessive pricing of an anti-epileptic drug.

Meta

In 2024, Meta faced intense scrutiny and legal challenges due to multiple controversies, including a significant data breach, allegations of failing to protect children, and privacy concerns. The company settled a $1.4 billion lawsuit related to facial recognition practices and was fined $220 million by Nigeria for violating data laws. Additional lawsuits from school districts and the Consumer Protection Association highlighted issues related to social media addiction and mental health impacts on teenagers.

Governance Controversies: Top 3 Public Companies

Alphabet

2024 was a legally challenging year for Alphabet, facing numerous antitrust issues globally. For instance, Allegro sued Alphabet for $568 million over anti-competitive practices, and the U.S. Justice Department accused Google of monopolies in the search engine and Android app markets. It has also faced an antitrust ruling, which it plans to appeal. In Europe, Google was scrutinized under the Digital Markets Act and fined 71 million euros in Turkey for anti-competitive behavior. Additionally, France imposed a $271 million fine on Google for using news content without publisher consent, and India began investigating Google's gaming app policies. These incidents highlight Alphabet’s ongoing regulatory battles across multiple continents.

Meta

2024 was not only full of social controversies for Meta. The company also encountered governance challenges across multiple jurisdictions. In Europe, Meta faced hefty fines totaling over €1 billion for a data breach and violating EU antitrust rules, alongside investigations for non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act. The company was also involved in a lawsuit from the AMI media association over advertising practices and investor lawsuits linked to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. In South Korea, Meta was fined $15 million for collecting personal information illegally, and in Ireland, a €91 million GDPR compliance fine was imposed. In addition, further complications arose from EU investigations into potential election interference and foreign disinformation. On top of that, Meta faced new lawsuits in Japan over fake advertisements, illustrating the global extent of its legal and regulatory challenges.

Apple

2024 saw Apple wrestling with significant legal and regulatory issues worldwide. The Democratic Republic of Congo accused Apple of using conflict minerals, raising ethical sourcing concerns. In Europe, Apple settled for $14.4 billion over illegal tax benefits and faced a $2 billion EU antitrust fine related to Spotify. Additional investigations included non-compliance under the EU's Digital Markets Act, anti-competitive probes in Spain, and a UK class action over monopolistic data storage practices. In Brazil, Apple was required to remove restrictions on in-app payments. The company also settled a lawsuit involving an iTunes gift card scam and contended with a patent infringement lawsuit in China from Shanghai Xiao-I, highlighting Apple's extensive legal challenges in its global operations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the controversies surrounding environmental, social, and governance issues in 2024 have underscored the urgent need for accountability and transparency within corporations. As these companies grapple with significant backlash and legal challenges, it is clear that stakeholder expectations are evolving. The demand for responsible practices is louder than ever, and the consequences of neglecting these issues can be severe, impacting not just public perception but also financial stability and sustainability.

SESAMm’s AI Technology Reveals ESG Insights

Discover unparalleled insights into ESG controversies, risks, and opportunities across industries. Learn more about how SESAMm can help you analyze millions of private and public companies using AI-powered text analysis tools.

In a landmark move for sustainable finance, the UK government has announced plans to regulate ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) ratings providers. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will soon be tasked with overseeing these firms, marking a major shift from the current hands-off approach. This development comes amid growing concerns about the inconsistency, opacity, and influence of ESG ratings on investment decisions.

Why Regulate ESG Ratings Providers?

The regulatory gap in ESG ratings is clear when compared to traditional credit ratings. Credit rating agencies (like S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch) operate under strict regulatory oversight and well-defined methodologies, which is one reason their assessments tend to be closely aligned. In fact, one study found the top credit agencies’ ratings are 99% correlated, whereas ESG ratings from different providers showed only about 60% correlation. In practice, that means two ESG raters might disagree as wildly as “AAA” vs “BBB” for the same firm in the same period. By contrast, it’s rare to see such divergence in credit ratings because that industry has long been supervised and standardized.

Absent regulation, ESG ratings have been opaque and inconsistent. Regulators and market watchdogs have likened the ESG ratings arena to a “Wild West” in need of a sheriff. An environment “unregulated and opaque” where even companies with poor environmental track records can sometimes score surprisingly well. The lack of transparency in how ratings are determined makes it hard for investors to trust what an ESG score truly reflects. This opacity not only fuels skepticism but also raises the risk of greenwashing, where unsustainable companies might hide behind inflated ESG scores.

New oversight aims to bring transparency, consistency, and trust to ESG ratings. Authorities around the world are now stepping in. For instance, the UK government has introduced legislation to bring ESG rating providers under the Financial Conduct Authority’s remit. Similarly, European regulators (ESMA in the EU) and others in Japan and India are moving toward tighter standards. The consensus is that ESG ratings need basic guardrails, much like credit ratings, to ensure they are rigorous, reliable, and free of conflicts of interest. As one analysis noted, if a credit rating agency were to suddenly downgrade scores at the scale we’ve seen with ESG re-ratings, regulators would have intervened immediately. Treating ESG ratings “similarly” to credit ratings in terms of oversight is increasingly seen as necessary to prevent nasty surprises (read: unexpected discrepancies) and to maintain market stability.

Regulation can address several issues: it can mandate clearer methodological transparency, require disclosure of rating drivers, and enforce governance standards (for example, to manage conflicts of interest if a rater also offers paid consulting). All of these steps would help investors and companies finally peek behind an ESG rating. In other words, examine the underlying factors, rather than taking scores at face value. Ultimately, effective regulation should turn ESG ratings from a black box into a more consistent, credible tool for decision-making.

What the UK Plans to Do

Under the new legislation, any ESG ratings provider serving UK clients will be required to obtain authorization from the FCA. These firms will need to disclose their methodologies, manage conflicts of interest, and maintain proper governance controls. The regulation is designed to align with international recommendations, such as those from IOSCO, and mirrors similar efforts already underway in the EU.

The goal is to bring greater transparency, comparability, and accountability to a market expected to grow significantly in the years ahead. The FCA plans to consult on specific rules later this year, with implementation expected to phase in over time.

Why This Matters

Bringing ESG ratings under regulatory oversight could be a turning point for sustainable investing. With consistent standards and greater clarity on how scores are determined, investors can better understand the rationale behind ratings and compare them more effectively. It could also reduce the risk of greenwashing by forcing providers to show their work.

Of course, some concerns remain. Smaller ESG ratings firms may struggle with the cost of compliance. Others worry that regulation could stifle innovation or lead to market consolidation. But broadly, the move has been welcomed by investors and industry groups as a necessary step toward improving trust in ESG data.

As global regulators push for greater alignment, the UK's framework could help shape a more transparent and robust ESG ratings ecosystem - one that better serves both capital markets and long-term sustainability goals.

SESAMm’s AI Technology Reveals ESG Insights

Discover unparalleled insights into ESG controversies, risks, and opportunities across industries. Learn more about how SESAMm can help you analyze millions of private and public companies using AI-powered text analysis tools.

In our newest research, "ESG Controversies: A Comparative Study of Public vs Private Sectors," our ESG and Research & Analytics teams present an exhaustive study on the nuances of ESG controversies across public and private sectors. We combined artificial intelligence with our extensive dataset of over 25 billion documents to extract ESG controversies in both sectors. This research highlights the increased visibility and scrutiny of public companies compared to the more discretion in private companies. A case study on IKEA uncovers challenges in product safety and human capital, underlining the importance of proactive sustainability practices. The study examines these sectors' alignment with major ESG frameworks, including the UN Global Compact and Sustainable Development Goals, offering invaluable insights for enhancing corporate ESG strategies.

‍Key takeaways:

• Public companies are under constant observation, leading to higher exposure to ESG risks such as pollution, labor disputes, and governance failures. This visibility is partly due to regulatory requirements for transparency, making every aspect of their operations subject to public and investor scrutiny.

• Private companies, while benefiting from less regulatory oversight, encounter substantial repercussions from ESG controversies. These can manifest as sudden shifts in investor confidence, challenges in securing financing, or damage to reputation, underscoring the critical need for comprehensive risk management approaches that encompass environmental, social, and governance factors.

• The case study on IKEA provides an in-depth look at specific issues like product recalls due to safety concerns and the complexities of managing a global workforce. It highlights IKEA's efforts to implement forward-thinking sustainability initiatives and human capital management practices as key components of its corporate strategy, demonstrating the tangible benefits of such measures in mitigating ESG risks.

ESG controversies and breaches of SDG goals vary notably between public and private sectors. Public companies frequently encounter more visible and consistent ESG risks, while private companies, although subject to less scrutiny, experience significant impacts when controversies occur.

Dive deeper into ESG controversies and uncover strategies for navigating these challenges effectively. Download "ESG Controversies: A Comparative Study of Public vs Private Sectors" and equip your organization with the insights needed to enhance your ESG practices for a sustainable future. Fill out the form below to access your copy and lead the way in corporate sustainability.

Fill out the form to download the ebook.