"For me, the biggest critique is the fractured nature of the market for ESG information—from investors to governments to consumers and customers—and the number of reporting frameworks, which makes it difficult to decide where to start the sustainability reporting process," Antoncic said. "When one considers the overall universe of sustainability information that could be relevant for all corporate stakeholders, it can seem overwhelming. What excites me about the SASB is the opportunity to help clearly articulate the SASB’s role as providing financially material information to investors around the globe. By being more precise in circumscribing which information and which stakeholder group to consider, we can make it much easier for companies."

International Accounting Standards Board Chair Hans Hoogervorst, in a recent speech, made a similar point, saying that there are just too many competing frameworks out there today, which makes consistency and comparability difficult. He said that there are at least 230 corporate sustainability standards initiatives across more than 80 sectors. 

"To give one example, Tesla is ranked highest in terms of the sustainability index of MSCI, while FTSE ranks it as the worst carmaker globally on ESG issues," he said. "Yet another agency puts it somewhere in the middle. People may be forgiven for not making heads or tails of it. Moreover, with so many standards, the potential for disclosure overload is enormous. Consolidation is clearly needed." 

At the same time, the objections are more on the matter of implementation than of concept. Bloomberg said that investors are growing more aware of the importance of ESG factors not only in public relations but in product demand and how the company itself operates.