ABSTRACT Despite rapid growth in gender lens investing (GLI), substantial variation remains in how gender lens equity funds (GLEFs) integrate gender equality criteria into investment strategies. We map a universe of 43 GLEFs and develop a framework capturing gender equality screening breadth and accountability depth (fund‐level disclosure and stewardship practices) to classify fund methodologies. We then examine a 14‐fund subsample, with ≥ 5 years' history, to provide descriptive comparisons of portfolio composition and performance. Portfolios show limited holdings overlap, even amongst funds in the same region. Most GLEFs exhibited market‐level risk exposure (beta ~1), and actively managed funds more often underperformed their benchmarks. Overall, the findings suggest that the ‘gender lens’ label is an unreliable indicator of fund design, accountability or performance. More consistent disclosure and clearer guidance on gender‐related criteria and stewardship expectations are needed to enable meaningful evaluation of gender‐labelled equity funds and enhance investor protection and market integrity.
Þórarinsdóttir et al. (2026) studied this question.