This paper undertakes a critical examination of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings, focusing on their application within the agri-food and textile, apparel, and fashion industries. As the demand for sustainable practices grows, so does the need for reliable ESG ratings that stakeholders can trust for investment and policy-making decisions. The core of our study involves a comparative analysis of ESG ratings provided by five leading agencies: Morgan Stanley Capital Investment (MSCI), London Stock Exchange Group Plc (LSEG), Sustainalytics, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS), and S&P Global Ratings. These agencies employ different methodologies that often yield divergent results that can confuse stakeholders and obscure true company performance. This variance underscores the lack of standardization and potential conflicts of interest inherent in current ESG rating systems. In order to assess the rating provided by the selected agencies, we will consider a sample of companies from the agri-food industry. Our analysis highlights significant inconsistencies in ratings within the agri-food industry, pointing to the influence of different evaluation frameworks and qualitative criteria that lead to subjective interpretations of ESG performance. Similarly, we extended our examination to the textile, apparel, and fashion industry to determine if discrepancies in ESG ratings also pervade this industry. Our findings indicate similar inconsistencies, reinforcing the notion that current ESG rating practices may not reliably reflect companies’ actual sustainability efforts. This investigation reveals a critical need for enhanced standardization and uniformity in ESG ratings to improve their reliability and usefulness for stakeholders. By advocating for a more harmonized approach, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on refining ESG metrics to better support the global transition towards sustainable economic activities.