ESG Fund Ratings—The Confusion of Aggregates?

Based on 11,000 UCITS funds, this article investigates the extent and drivers of (dis)agreement among ESG fund ratings from three well-known providers: MSCI, Morningstar, and LSEG Lipper. Utilizing inter-rater agreement measures (IRAs), we identify 1) the existence of an explicit ESG fund mandate, 2) the size of companies included in a fund, 3) the development of markets into which the fund invests, 4) the share of securities for which ESG ratings are available, 5) the fund’s asset class, and 6) the fund’s management style (index vs. active) as substantial drivers of ratings (dis)agreement. With 34% for equity funds and 41% for fixed income funds, we find the average of the share of funds for which any two rating providers assign the same (adjusted) rating to be quite low. Funds without an explicit ESG mandate, small cap funds, emerging market funds, funds with high coverage ratios, fixed income funds, and index funds show lower ESG rating agreement than their respective counterparts. Our results help investors make more informed decisions when they use ESG ratings in their investment decisions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing
Published
2025-08-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3905/jesg.2025.6.1.096
Primary Topic
Economic, financial, and policy analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

ESG Fund Ratings—The Confusion of Aggregates?

Jan‐Carl Plagge, Daniel Gilcher
1 links
The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing
Economic, financial, and policy analysis
article

ESG Fund Ratings—The Confusion of Aggregates?

Jan‐Carl Plagge, Daniel Gilcher
article en

Abstract

Based on 11,000 UCITS funds, this article investigates the extent and drivers of (dis)agreement among ESG fund ratings from three well-known providers: MSCI, Morningstar, and LSEG Lipper. Utilizing inter-rater agreement measures (IRAs), we identify 1) the existence of an explicit ESG fund mandate, 2) the size of companies included in a fund, 3) the development of markets into which the fund invests, 4) the share of securities for which ESG ratings are available, 5) the fund’s asset class, and 6) the fund’s management style (index vs. active) as substantial drivers of ratings (dis)agreement. With 34% for equity funds and 41% for fixed income funds, we find the average of the share of funds for which any two rating providers assign the same (adjusted) rating to be quite low. Funds without an explicit ESG mandate, small cap funds, emerging market funds, funds with high coverage ratios, fixed income funds, and index funds show lower ESG rating agreement than their respective counterparts. Our results help investors make more informed decisions when they use ESG ratings in their investment decisions.

The Journal of Impact and ESG InvestingVol. 6(1)
Vanguard Foundry (United Kingdom) (GB), EBS University of Business and Law (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Economic, financial, and policy analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

ESG Fund Ratings—The Confusion of Aggregates? — Jan‐Carl Plagge, Daniel Gilcher · The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS