The heterogeneity of ESG rating outcomes, due to different methodologies adopted by ESG rating providers and an unclear distinction between ratings, scores, and opinions, leads to multidimensionality of information. This study aims to analyse the state of the art of the scientific literature on ESG ratings, scores, and opinions. The analysis was conducted using both bibliometric and systematic reviews of the literature, using data visualisation techniques. Our main research question is: what are the main trends analysed in the literature on ESG ratings, scores, and opinions? Our initial hypothesis is that the existing literature tends to focus on specific issues and leaves other areas of inquiry uncovered, e.g., by not drawing appropriate distinctions in terms of methodologies, definitions, and relationships to ESG risks, while also placing less focus on the specific implications of the ESG topic for banks and financial intermediaries. Our results indicate, first, a lack of clear demarcation between the different methodologies and definitions used to assign ESG ratings and scores; implications relate to disclosure profiles and investors’ use of information. Secondly, our analysis shows that—although ESG issues play an essential and growing role in the financial sector—there are still rather few studies that explicitly focus on the effects of ESG profiles from a purely banking and finance perspective.