Over the past three decades, a multi-faceted industry has evolved to offer reporting services on ESG factors to investors and other stakeholders. Investors should be able to rely on the ESG industry to provide data that helps them identify strong performers and assess risk. When it comes to evaluating companies on their toxic waste emissions (“E”) or vulnerability to fraud and corruption (“G”), investors now have tools to assist them. But our analysis of 12 leading ESG frameworks shows that the ESG industry is still falling short of this objective when it comes to “S”. We conclude that there are four fundamental gaps: 1. Social measurement evaluates what is most convenient, not what is most meaningful. 2. Current approaches to disclosure are not likely to yield the information needed to identify social leaders.3. The lack of consistent standards underpinning social measurement increases costs and creates confusing “noisiness” across the ESG industry. 4. Existing measurement does not equip investors to respond to rising demand for socially responsible investing strategies and products.