Large language models systematically favor ESG: they rate ESG as more financially relevant and prefer ESG improvements even at cost to returns, and when sell-side analysts adopt these models they become significantly more optimistic about high-ESG firms—suggesting AI can shift market judgments.

Main Finding

Large language models (LLMs) systematically embed a pronounced, highly consistent pro‑ESG orientation that differs materially from human investors’ beliefs. Compared with professional and retail investors, LLMs (i) assign greater financial materiality to ESG factors, (ii) expect larger long‑run return premia for high‑ESG firms and deeper underperformance for low‑ESG firms, and (iii) are more willing to accept modest financial sacrifices for ESG improvements. These model-embedded beliefs appear to shape human judgments: sell‑side analyst reports that incorporate LLM output devote more attention to ESG and become relatively more optimistic about high‑ESG firms after adopting LLM tools.

Key Points

• LLMs vs. professional portfolio managers (Edmans et al. 2025):

  • Relative importance of ES for long‑term firm value: LLMs rank ES much higher (on average fifth of six drivers), whereas human managers rank it near the bottom.
  • Materiality ratings (0–4 scale): human average = 2.29; AI average = 2.84. Largest AI–human gaps on environmental items (e.g., emissions: AI 3.41 vs human 2.50; ecological impacts: AI 3.16 vs human 2.23).
  • Return expectations (–2 to +2 scale): humans expect modest differentials (good ES +0.57; poor ES −0.70). LLMs predict larger, symmetric differentials (good ES +1.19; poor ES −1.22) with low cross‑model dispersion.
  • Trade‑offs: many human managers resist any return sacrifice (≈1/3 unwilling); LLMs never choose “no sacrifice”—47% accept 1–10 bps, 17% accept 11–50 bps annual return reduction for ESG gains.

• LLMs vs. retail investors (Giglio et al. 2025):

  • Long‑run return expectations: retail investors expect broad market 7.13% vs ESG portfolios 5.20% (10‑yr). LLMs’ average market expectation ≈6.80% and ESG ≈6.60% — closing the human implied underperformance gap to ~20 bps.
  • Dispersion: AI responses are tightly clustered (SD ≈ 0.7–0.9 pp) vs retail investors (SD ≈ 4–5 pp).
  • Motives & climate concern: LLMs overwhelmingly cite ethical motive (“it is the right thing to do”) and classify themselves as “very” or “extremely” concerned about climate risk; humans show more heterogeneous motives and concerns.

• Impact on sell‑side analysts:

  • Data: >36,000 analyst reports (2023–24) linked to analysts’ recommendation histories and firms’ ESG scores; AI‑involvement identified with an AI detection model.
  • Findings: AI‑involved reports emphasize ESG more; after LLM adoption, analysts issue more positive recommendations for high‑ESG firms (including upgrades and buy/strong‑buy rates) and slightly reduced optimism for low‑ESG firms. The change is concentrated on firms with better sustainability profiles.

• Consistency across models and geographies:

  • Ten frontier LLMs (major providers and generations) produce homogenized, pro‑ESG responses with little developer‑ or country‑of‑origin variation.

Data & Methods

• Belief elicitation:

  • Survey instruments: adapted established, directly comparable questionnaires from Edmans et al. (2025) (professional equity portfolio managers) and Giglio et al. (2025) (U.S. retail investors).
  • Role‑definition prompting: each LLM primed to adopt a realistic professional/retail investor identity and informational frame (e.g., active equity PM between Nov 2023–Feb 2024).
  • Models: panel of ten frontier LLMs from major providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, Mistral, etc.), multiple generations included (examples: GPT‑4, GPT‑5, Claude‑3/4, Gemini 2.0/2.5).
  • Sampling: for each model‑question pair, 100 independent responses generated under low‑randomness settings; reported stance = average across draws (reduces stochastic noise and yields stable representative responses).

• Analyst impact analysis:

  • Corpus: >36,000 sell‑side analyst reports (2023–2024).
  • AI involvement: a state‑of‑the‑art AI detection classifier used to measure degree of AI content per report.
  • Linking: reports linked to analysts’ historical recommendation records and firms’ ESG performance metrics.
  • Identification strategy: compare analyst behavior and report content before vs after adopting LLMs (and across AI vs non‑AI reports); control for observable covariates and use analyst‑ and firm‑level links to isolate within‑analyst changes associated with adoption. (Paper reports consistent patterns supporting influence but notes possible selection and mechanism considerations.)

• Robustness and cross‑checks:

  • Cross‑model and cross‑generation consistency examined.
  • Geographic origin of model developer shown not to drive major differences.
  • Multiple survey items (materiality, returns, motives, climate attitudes, trade‑offs) analyzed to establish coherent preference patterns.

Implications for AI Economics

• New form of market priors: LLMs internalize and output coherent, highly uniform ESG priors that differ from the heterogeneous beliefs of humans. As LLMs are integrated into analyst workflows and investor tools, these priors constitute a novel, machine‑borne input into the belief formation process in financial markets.

• Amplification and homogenization of beliefs:

  • Widespread LLM use could reduce cross‑agent heterogeneity in ESG perceptions and expectations, increasing consensus about ESG payoffs. That may alter price discovery dynamics, return dispersion, and cross‑sectional asset demand.
  • Homogenized pro‑ESG signals may raise valuations or analyst optimism for high‑ESG firms and depress prospects for low‑ESG firms, irrespective of fundamentals, potentially creating allocation shifts, feedback loops, and liquidity/flow effects.

• Channels of influence:

  • Direct: LLMs generate report text/analyses that increase ESG salience in analyst output.
  • Indirect: LLMs may prime human users toward values‑driven motives (ethical framing) and climate concern, changing how humans interpret the same data.
  • Complementarity: human–AI collaboration could strengthen or attenuate these effects depending on user incentives, prompts, and editorial controls.

• Policy and market‑structure considerations:

  • Transparency and disclosure: markets may benefit from disclosures about LLM use in research and the extent of AI‑generated content, so investors can judge potential model priors.
  • Monitoring model biases: pro‑ESG tilt may reflect training data, developer objectives, or default value priors; regulators and firms should consider evaluating whether model priors create systematic market distortions or conflicts with fiduciary duties.
  • Incentives and selection: adoption is endogenous—firms/analysts predisposed to ESG emphasis may adopt earlier—so causal effects need careful monitoring and governance.

• Open research questions:

  • Asset‑pricing effects: do LLM‑induced shifts in analyst recommendations translate into measurable changes in returns, spreads, or cross‑sectional pricing of ESG characteristics?
  • Mechanisms: disentangle whether changes reflect explicit AI content in reports, editorial adoption of AI language, or longer‑term shifts in analysts’ beliefs via repeated exposure.
  • Dynamics and persistence: how do model updates, prompt engineering, or divergence across model providers alter the ESG tilt over time?
  • Welfare and social trade‑offs: assess whether LLM influence improves incorporation of true climate risk or instead amplifies noise/overpricing of ESG attributes.

Overall, the paper documents that LLMs carry consistent, pro‑ESG beliefs that differ from human investors and can influence financial intermediaries’ judgments. This creates a new channel—model‑embedded priors—through which AI adoption may reshape capital allocation, market beliefs, and potentially asset prices, warranting further empirical and policy attention.