Measuring ESG adoption in investment funds: Evidence from the Portuguese asset management sector
-
Author(s)Ricardo de Moraes e SoaresLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7840-7340
,
Alexandre Morais NunesLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6808-7769
,
Ana Catarina KaizelerLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4974-5105
,
Clara Simoes GarisoLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6873-8093
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.23(2).2026.25
-
Article InfoVolume 23 2026, Issue #2, pp. 331-350
- 12 Views
-
4 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
The article observes the evolution of ESG adoption in Portuguese investment funds during the period 2021–2024 in the context of the strengthening of the European Union’s regulatory framework. The objective was to measure the degree of adoption of the principles, the institutional asymmetries, and the temporal dynamics induced by regulation. The study focused on four fund management companies, representing a total of 259 active funds, and employed a composite indicator on a discrete scale [0.3], defined on the basis of five ESG sub-dimensions. A structured content analysis and descriptive statistics were conducted, allowing an assessment of the mean, median, absolute and relative dispersion, skewness, and kurtosis of the distributions. The results suggest a continuous growth of the average indicator, from 0.75 in 2021 to 2.20 in 2024, accompanied by an increase in the median from 0.80 to 2.70. The standard deviation increased from 0.36 to 0.93, reflecting a greater absolute heterogeneity, while the coefficient of variation decreased from 0.48 to 0.32 between 2021 and 2022 and normalized around 0.41-0.42. The distributions exhibit persistent negative skewness (between −0.27 and −0.73) and negative kurtosis (between −1.85 and −1.70), which suggests an absence of full convergence and persistence of structural asymmetries. The subdimensions showed higher average values compared to those associated with quantitative measurement and the principle of double materiality. The analysis concludes that the inclusion of the metrics has evolved significantly, but asymmetries persist, which attests to the validity of the indicator as an appropriate tool for conducting ESG analyses.
Acknowledgment
This article is financed by CINAV–Navy Research Center [CINAV–Centro de Investigação Naval].
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G11, G32, Q56, M14
-
References50
-
Tables3
-
Figures4
-
- Figure 1. Temporal evolution of the Average and Median of the Indicator (2021–2024)
- Figure 2. Temporal evolution of the Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation of the Indicator (2021–2024)
- Figure 3. Temporal evolution of average ESG values (2021–2024)
- Figure 4. Average interdimensional profile of the ESG indicator (2021–2024)
-
- Table A1. Scoring matrix for ESG principles adoption dimensions and ESG Index calculation by management company (2021–2024)
- Table A2. Statistical characterization of the distributive properties, asymmetry, and kurtosis of the ESGindex (2021–2024)
- Table A3. ESGindex assessment matrix: objective scoring criteria, justifications, and entity-level results (2021–2024)
-
- Adams, C. (2015). The International Integrated Reporting Council: A call to action. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 27, 23-28.
- Agapova, A., King, T., & Ranta, M. (2025). Navigating transparency: The interplay of ESG disclosure and voluntary earnings guidance. International Review of Financial Analysis, 97, 103813.
- Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87-103.
- Ameur, H., Ftiti, Z., Louchichi, W. & (2025). Do ESG investments improve portfolio diversification and risk management during times of uncertainty. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 103, 102199.
- Askarzadeh, A., Yung, K., & Askarzadeh, F. (2025). The effect of international diversification on investment efficiency. Research in International Business and Finance, 73(B), 102641.
- Avi, M. (2022). Materiality and relevance in financial reporting. Interpretation problems and solutions adopted internationally. International Journal of Accounting and Finance Studies, 5(2), 1-60.
- Baffo, I., Leonardi, M., Alberti, V., & Petrillo, A. (2024). Optimizing public investments: A Sustainable Economic, Environmental, and Social Investment Multi-criteria Decision Model (SEESIM). Regional Science Policy & Practice, 16(11), 100140.
- Baumüller, J., & Sopp, K. (2021). Double materiality and the shift from non-financial to European sustainability reporting: review, outlook and implications. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 23(1), 8-28.
- Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. (2008). Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337-361.
- Berg, F., Kölbel, J., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG Ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315-1344.
- Billio, M., Costola, M., Hristova, I., Latino, C., & Pelizzon, L. (2021). Inside the ESG Ratings: (Dis)Agreement and Performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(5), 1426-1445.
- Bollen, N. (2007). Mutual fund attributes and investor behavior. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42(3), 683-708.
- Bolton, P., Despres, M., Silva, L., Samama, F., & Svartzman, R. (2021). The green swan: Central banking and financial stability in the age of climate change. Banque de France.
- Chen, J., Ren, T., Wang, L., & Zhang, M. (2025). Understanding the dynamics of ESG rating divergence: A comparative perspective from social credit policy. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 28(1), 103-122-20.
- Christensen, H., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2019). Adoption of CSR and Sustainability Reporting Standards: Economic Analysis and Review (Finance Working Paper No. 623/2019).
- Cochran, I., Mackenzie, C., & Brander, M. (2025). EU’s sustainable finance disclosure regulation: does the hybrid reporting regime undermine the goal to reorient capital to climate action? Climate Policy, 25(1), 76-88.
- Cunha, I., Policarpo, R., Oliveira, P., & Abdala, E. (2025). A systematic review of ESG indicators and corporate performance: proposal for a conceptual framework. Future Business Journal, 11(1), 106.
- Dunfjäll, M. (2025). Materiality in transition: Challenges and opportunities in corporate sustainability reporting under the CSRD. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 16(3), 927-941.
- Eccles, R., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857.
- Eelager, M., Dalbanjan, S., Madihalli, M., Madar, M., Agadi, N., Korganokar, K., & Kiran, B. (2025). Pathways to a sustainable future: Exploring the synergy between sustainability and circular economy. Sustainable Futures, 10, 101208.
- Fama, E., & French, K. (1992). The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427-465.
- Fichtner, J., Schairer, S., Haufe, P., Aguila, N., Baioni, R., Urban, J., & Wullweber, J. (2025). Channels of influence in sustainable finance: A framework for conceptualizing how private actors shape the green transition. Finance and Society, 11(1), 56-80.
- Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210-233.
- Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C., & Mishra, D. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388-2406.
- Gibson, R., Krueger, P., & Schmidt, P. (2021). ESG rating disagreement and stock returns. Financial Analysts Journal, 77(4), 104-127.
- Giese, G., Lee, L., Melas, D., Nagy, Z., & Nishikawa, L. (2019). Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance. Journal of Portfolio Management, 45(5), 69-83.
- Heeb, F., Kölbel, J., Paetzold, F., & Zeisberger, S. (2022). Do investors care about impact? The Review of Financial Studies, 36(5), 1737-1787.
- Hummel, K., & Schlick, C. (2016). The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure quality hard numbers beat smooth talk. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 35(5), 455-476.
- Janik, A., & Ryszko, A. (2026). Greenwashing in sustainability reporting: A systematic literature review of strategic typologies and content-analysis-based measurement approaches. Sustainability, 18(1), 17.
- Jonsdottir, B., Sigurjonsson, T., Johannsdottir, L., & Wendt, T. (2022). Barriers to using ESG data for Investment decisions. Sustainability, 14(9), 5157.
- Jørgensen, S., Mjøs, A., & Pedersen, L. (2021). Sustainability reporting and approaches to materiality: tensions and potential resolutions. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(2), 341-361.
- Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: first evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697-1724.
- Lins, K., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785-1824.
- Louche, C., Delautre, G., & Pimentel, G. (2022). Assessing companies’ decent work practices: An analysis of ESG rating methodologies. International Labour Review, 162(1), 69-97.
- Lukács, B., & Molnár, P. (2025). Companies’ ESG performance under soft and hard regulation environment. Discover Sustainability, 6, 701.
- Macuda, M., & Kobiela-Pionnier, K. (2025). The double materiality principle and the sustainability reporting practices of Polish listed companies from the WIG30 Index. The Theoretical Journal of Accounting (ZTR), 49(2), 63-97.
- Martini, A. (2021). Socially responsible investing: from the ethical origins to the sustainable development framework of the European Union. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 16874-16890.
- McCluskey, A. (2012). ESG analysis as a predictor of quality of management in investment decision-making Investment. In I. Cherneva (Ed.), The Business Case for Sustainable Finance. Routledge.
- Menicucci, E. (2025). Double materiality and ESG for banks. In E. Menicucci (Ed.), ESG integration in the banking sector: Navigating regulatory frameworks and strategic challenges for financial institutions (pp. 85-106). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59-78.
- Münstermann, B. (Ed.). (2015). Model development and hypothesis. In Standards and standardization: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications. IGI Global.
- Panfilo, S., Scarpa, F., & Canestraro, N. (2025). Reporting for change: does the adoption of double materiality influence ESG risk management? Management Decision, 1-27.
- Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review.
- Riedl, A., & Smeets, P. (2017). Why do investors hold socially responsible mutual funds? Journal of Finance, 72(6), 2505-2550.
- Schmidt, R., & Pinar, Y. (2022). The growing importance of investment funds in capital flows. Swiss National Bank Working Paper, 13(22), 1-42.
- Shi, Y., & Yao, T. (2025). ESG rating divergence: Existence, driving factors, and impact effects. Sustainability, 17(10), 4717.
- Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937-967.
- Velte, P. (2017). Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 8(2), 169-178.
- Wang, Y. (2025). Institutional investors’ field research and corporate green innovation. International Review of Economics & Finance, 103, 104337.
- Weichao, L., Daoguang, Y., & Siyi, L. (2019). Accounting information comparability, demand differences and cross-firm information transfer. China Journal of Accounting Studies, 6(3), 321-361.
-
Selection of the right proxy market portfolio for CAPM
Rashmi Chaudhary ,
Priti Bakhshi
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.18(3).2021.02
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 18, 2021 Issue #3 pp. 16-26 Views: 5300 Downloads: 1993 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe purpose of the paper is to select the right market proxy for calculating the expected return, since critically evaluating proxies or selecting the correct proxy market portfolio is essential for portfolio management because the change in the market portfolio proxy affects returns. In this study, monthly data of equity indices are evaluated to find out the better market proxy. The indices taken are BSE 30 (Sensex), Nifty 50, BSE 100, BSE 200, and BSE 500. The macroeconomic variables used in the study are industrial production index (IIP), consumer price index (CPI), money supply (M1), and exchange rate in India. To avoid the influence of COVID-19, the research period was from January 2013 to December 2019 to critically evaluate these proxies in order to find the most appropriate market proxy. This paper reveals a noteworthy relationship between stock market returns and macroeconomic factors, while suggesting that the BSE 500 is a better choice for all equity indices, as the index also shows a significant relationship with all macroeconomic variables. BSE500 is a composite index comprising all sectors with low, mid and large cap securities, therefore it reflects the impact of macroeconomic factors most efficiently, taking it as a market proxy. This study was carried out in the context of India and can be replicated for other countries.
-
ESG-driven approach to managing insurance companies’ sustainable development
Inna Khovrak 
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ins.11(1).2020.05
Insurance Markets and Companies Volume 11, 2020 Issue #1 pp. 42-52 Views: 2991 Downloads: 1124 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯEnvironmental, social and governance criteria (ESG) are considered to be the main factors in measuring the sustainability and ethical impact of companies. This article focuses on comparing the ability of insurance companies to use an ESG-driven approach to managing their sustainable development. The study is conducted using comparative analysis, statistical analysis, and a case study method. The study compares six ESG Ratings on four main criteria (dependent variables, independent variables, scale type, sample), that allows choosing the most appropriate rating for the analysis of insurance companies. As a result, 156 insurance companies are compared by the level of ESG risk (low ESG risk – 24 companies, medium ESG risk – 111 companies, high ESG risk – 21 companies) and by geographical affiliation (26 countries) using descriptive statistics. The assessment of effectiveness of the ESG-driven approach to managing sustainable development of insurance companies is carried out on the example of 16 companies by comparing their non-financial reporting (the sample is selected based on of the annual report for 2019-2020). The study identifies the most common guidelines for report development, as well as components of the ESG-driven approach: environmental (waste and pollution, climate change, energy efficiency), social (workforce and diversity, customer engagement, communities), governance (code and values, reporting, risk management). The study systematizes the best practices of insurance companies for applying the ESG-driven approach to manage their sustainable development and highlights the need for insurance companies to improve their reporting and disclosure practices related to the development of the ESG-driven approach.
Acknowledgment
Comments from the Editor and anonymous referees have been gratefully acknowledged. -
From boardroom to CSR excellence: The role of leadership and governance in corporate sustainability of European firms
Oleh Pasko ,
Vadym Sapych ,
Viktoriia Tkachenko ,
Zhongcheng Yu ,
Tetyana Kuts
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.22(2).2025.23
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 22, 2025 Issue #2 pp. 293-311 Views: 2436 Downloads: 786 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis study investigates how board-level corporate governance affects corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance in European firms. A panel dataset of 5,760 firm-year observations from the STOXX Europe 600 index, covering 21 countries between 2010 and 2022, was analyzed using multivariate regression models. The data, sourced from Refinitiv Eikon, include firms across 22 industries, with capital goods and materials among the largest sectors, and represent major economies such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and France.
The analysis focused on board composition, CEO characteristics, and the presence of governance, audit, and CSR committees. It was found that independent and diverse boards with high attendance are associated with stronger CSR performance. Companies with active CSR committees demonstrate particularly enhanced ESG outcomes. Interestingly, CEO duality is linked to weaker CSR performance, while the presence of a former CEO as chairman improves sustainability efforts.
The study provides quantitative evidence on how governance structures shape corporate sustainability and offers practical insights for corporate leaders, policymakers, and investors seeking to improve CSR strategies across diverse European contexts.Acknowledgment
This paper is co-funded by the European Union through the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) within the project “Embracing EU corporate social responsibility: challenges and opportunities of business-society bonds transformation in Ukraine” – 101094100 – EECORE – ERASMUS-JMO-2022-HEI-TCH-RSCH-UA-IBA / ERASMUS-JMO-2022-HEI-TCHRSCH https://eecore.snau.edu.ua/
Oleh PASKO expresses sincere gratitude for the support from the Kirkland Research Program, generously provided by the Leaders of Change Foundation established by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation.
