Fenion’s EET Analysis: ESG Divergence in ETFs
ETFs tracking the same index are often considered almost interchangeable in the market – but the European ESG Template (EET) frequently reveals a different picture. Despite identical portfolio holdings and nearly identical reporting dates, ESG and climate metrics can vary significantly depending on the ETF provider.
Fenion’s analysis clearly confirms this – both for the MSCI World ETFs and the Euro Stoxx 50 ETFs examined.
For example, across MSCI World ETFs, EET indicators such as 30260 (Carbon Footprint) or 30340 (GHG Intensity) diverged by multiples between providers, even though the underlying index holdings were identical.
A similar pattern appears in the Euro Stoxx 50 ETFs: standardised indicators like 30340 (GHG Intensity) or 30940 (Hazardous Waste Ratio) differ widely between providers. As these indicators are not related to fund volume, they directly reveal methodological discrepancies – such as variations in data sources, definitions, scope boundaries, or estimation methods used for missing data.
The root cause therefore does not lie in the portfolios themselves, but in the underlying data and modelling approaches.
Differences in ESG data vendors, estimation models, and conventions for handling missing information lead to substantial variation in results. The discrepancies also reflect how broadly certain sustainability definitions (e.g., fossil fuel involvement, hazardous waste) are applied and how strong or weak data coverage is. Some ETF providers report extremely low coverage for specific EET indicators (below 1%), pointing to an almost nonexistent data foundation.
Comparing EET data without scrutiny can lead to misinterpretations in advisory processes, reporting, and product selection.
Robust conclusions require systematic quality checks at the EET level – including consistent interpretation of metrics (e.g., intensities vs. absolute values), cross-provider comparisons, validation of significant outliers, and correct evaluation of coverage indicators as well as checks of field mapping and data logic.
These findings will become even more important in the future:
with the revision of the SFDR (“SFDR 2.0”), the EU is introducing clearer product categories, binding minimum standards, and a more streamlined yet more precise disclosure system. Expectations for data quality will rise sharply – particularly regarding consistency between EET data, product classification, and actual ESG methodology. Providers will need to demonstrate more transparently how their sustainability metrics are calculated and explain differences in data sources, coverage, and modelling. For the market, this means one thing: the era of superficial comparisons is over – EET data must be interpreted professionally and assessed with methodological care.
The EET is a powerful reporting standard – but without high-quality data and methodological transparency, its perceived comparability can quickly become misleading and only partially meaningful in practice. This is where Fenion steps in.
