Search results

Purpose – This chapter investigates the role of enabling organizations in the processes whereby institutional investors collectively influence corporate managers on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues. We develop a framework combining stakeholder and collective action theory to explain how institutional investors influence corporations through collective engagement and to specify how enabling organizations influence this process.

Methodology/approach – To evaluate our framework, we investigate the role of the organizational platform provided by the United Nations-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) initiative in supporting institutional investors’ collaborative engagement with corporations on ESG issues.

Findings – Our findings clarify how investors enhance their sources of power, legitimacy and urgency and attract managers’ attention through collaborative engagement, and show how they manage these attributes to reshape the legitimacy and urgency of their claims in the eyes of managers. Our results also show how enabling organizations such as the PRI initiative facilitate the emergence of collective action by lowering barriers to entry and providing a mobilizing structure, support collaborative efforts by adding their own legitimacy, normative power and persistence to the collaborative engagement, and create conditions for a lasting dialogue between investors and managers by providing a hybrid organizational space.

Social implications – In explaining how to enhance institutional investors’ collective action on ESG issues, this paper shows how we could reorient financial market forces toward sustainability.

Originality/value of paper – The paper benefited from a unique access to confidential and internal data from the UN-PRI initiative and provides a new framework.

This article seeks to unravel the mechanisms through which financial actors agreed upon a sustainability accounting standard without financializing social and environmental issues, i.e. assigning a monetary value to sustainability.

The article examines the Reporting and Assessment Framework created by the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UN-PRI), the leading reporting sustainability framework in the asset management industry. It relies on a longitudinal case study that draws upon interviews, participant observation, and archival data.

The article demonstrates that the conception of the framework was a funnelling process of sustainability valuation comprising two co-constituted mechanisms: a process of valorization – judging what is deemed of value – and a process of evaluation – agreeing on how to assess value. This valuation process was unfolded by creating the framework, thanks to two enabling conditions: the creation of non-prescriptive evaluative criteria that avoided financialization and the valuation support of an enabling organization.

The article helps understand how an industry can encompass the diversity of motives and practices associated with the adoption of sustainability by its economic actors while suggesting a common framework to report on and assess those practices. It uncovers alternatives to the financialization process of sustainability accounting standards. The article also offers insights into the advantages and inconveniences of such a framework. The article enriches the literature in the sociology of valuation, financialization, and sustainability accounting.

The global biofuels sector has expanded rapidly in the past decade, with feedstock expansion penetrating many tropical areas. While the emerging demand for biofuels represents an opportunity for developing countries, it also poses a host of social and environmental risks. Large investments are needed to finance expansion of biofuel and feedstock production, suggesting that the financial sector may have a crucial role to play in mitigating these risks. This paper seeks to explore the role of financiers in expanding biofuel feedstock production and refining in tropical forest‐rich countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America to better understand the role and future potential of responsible finance in the biofuel sector.

The analysis draws on published data and reports from academia, industry, governments, civil society and the press, to quantify the magnitude and source of investments made from 2000‐2010 in 16 countries sampled from “ecoregions” subject to high rates of forest conversion, weak land tenure institutions, and vulnerable communities.

It is found that the case study countries received USD 5.3‐7.3 billion for feedstock production and USD 5.7‐6.7 billion for biofuel refining between 2000 and 2009. This was financed by a mix of entrepreneurs, private banks, investors, governments and multilateral banks. While no clear patterns emerge, foreign banks and institutional investors rank as “important” for most feedstocks and regions. Multilateral banks and domestic institutional investors seem to be the least important. Few financiers have criteria in place in order to ensure sustainable investing practices, and those who do tend to have policies of limited quality.

While much has been written on biofuel sustainability and governance, there is little research that delineates the nature of investment and finance in the sector.

This study seeks to measure the level of responsible investment (RI) disclosure of the world's largest pension funds.

The public disclosure of environmental, social and governance factors by the world's largest pension funds reflect their genuine commitment to this new investment paradigm. The UNPRI criterion is employed to measure the level of public disclosure. One hour was allocated to every asset owner's web site to search and collect public information.

Overall, the level of public disclosure of RI activities is not prolific. The study is negatively influenced by North American pension funds who dominate this sample. Public disclosure practices are positive for European funds. The size of funds under management positively influences the public disclosure and reflects their leadership role in the industry.

Limitations include: the largest pension funds are dominated by North American funds and reflect the impact of fund size. The results are from the largest pension funds and may not be representative of the entire industry; the positive findings from European funds reflect a material subset of the global asset owners; and, we do not engage directly with the funds in question. Measurements are sourced from public disclosure.

The lack of public disclosure of RI by North American funds suggests that these institutions do not believe that it is important to investors. It suggests that these asset owners have not yet been exposed to the same influences as European funds. Given that North American funds together own substantial interests in listed corporations, they are much more important to influence than corporations.

The 2008/2009 World Financial Crisis underlined the importance of social responsibility for the sustainable functioning of economic markets. Heralding an age of novel heterodox economic thinking, the call for integrating social facets into mainstream economic models has reached unprecedented momentum. Financial Social Responsibility bridges the finance world with society in socially conscientious investments. Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) integrates corporate social responsibility in investment choices. In the aftermath of the 2008/2009 World Financial Crisis, SRI is an idea whose time has come. Socially conscientious asset allocation styles add to expected yield and volatility of securities social, environmental, and institutional considerations. In screenings, shareholder advocacy, community investing, social venture capital funding and political divestiture, socially conscientious investors hone their interest to align financial profit maximization strategies with social concerns. In a long history of classic finance theory having blacked out moral and ethical considerations of investment decision making, our knowledge of socio-economic motives for SRI is limited. Apart from economic profitability calculus and strategic leadership advantages, this paper sheds light on socio-psychological motives underlying SRI. Altruism, need for innovation and entrepreneurial zest alongside utility derived from social status enhancement prospects and transparency may steer investors’ social conscientiousness. Self-enhancement and social expression of future-oriented SRI options may supplement profit maximization goals. Theoretically introducing potential SRI motives serves as a first step toward an empirical validation of Financial Social Responsibility to improve the interplay of financial markets and the real economy. The pursuit of crisis-robust and sustainable financial markets through strengthened Financial Social Responsibility targets at creating lasting societal value for this generation and the following.

This chapter sketches a new development in responsible investing, namely impact investing. Impact investing, which we define as the entire spectrum of investments deliberately aiming to create shared value, can be seen as an integrative approach to wealth creation through investments. The case of microfinance is used to illustrate this new development.

The chapter combines a viewpoint and a case study that serves to illustrate the practical relevance of the viewpoint.

The chapter starts with a brief overview of the origin and rise of responsible investments, followed by a description of mission-related investments and impact investing as its latest development. Microfinance is presented as a special case, thereby focusing on the investors, the asset allocation and the meaning – and application – of the notion of impact.

The chapter shows that a focus on social and financial returns can be combined without having to make serious financial sacrifices. It also demonstrates that investments can come from investors as diverse as pension funds, foundations or high net-worth individuals.

If impact investing really takes off – particularly supported by institutional money – there will be much more opportunity to tackle social and environmental innovation than without those investments.

The chapter challenges (institutional) investors to evaluate their responsible investment strategy and to rethink their asset allocation. Impact investing can become an important addition to the responsible investment landscape.

The anti-apartheid movement represented a cornerstone for socially responsible investors in the 1970s and 1980s driven by the willingness to promote lasting social change. What happened next in terms of socially responsible investing (SRI) in the free South Africa? This chapter explores the local development of SRI in South Africa post-apartheid.

An in-depth literature review combined with a content analysis 73 SRI funds’ investment mandates were undertaken to investigate the local development of SRI in South Africa over the period 1992–2012.

Mechanisms of local divergence and global convergence have both shaped the phenomenon of SRI in South Africa. SRI in South Africa represents a melting-pot of societal values anchored in a local developmental and transformative political vision, some local and global Islamic religious values, and worldwide SRI and CSR homogenisation trends.

This chapter is the first attempt to outline the mechanisms of local divergence and global convergence that have moulded SRI in a democratic South Africa.

The purpose of this study is to explore the necessity for developing Islamic sustainable and responsible investment (i-SRI) criteria based on environmental, social and governance issues.

To address the above objective, this study adopted a qualitative method via content document analysis and interviews with experts.

Based on the analysis, this study discovered five primary aspects that lead to the necessity for developing i-SRI criteria. First, Malaysia has yet to develop i-SRI criteria. Second, the absence of i-SRI criteria will eventually lead to Shariah issues. Third, any Islamic financial instrument is bound to encounter numerous issues and challenges, thereby making it difficult to be marketed globally if it does not have a proper and standardized framework. Fourth, the establishment of i-SRI criteria can serve as a key reference point for the players in the industry, including investors, policymakers and other parties. Finally, the development of i-SRI criteria can play a vital role in enhancing the current Islamic capital market products offering in Malaysia.

There are several implications identified in this study. First, continuous research on the i-SRI criteria can offer numerous benefits to the regulatory bodies and policymakers who can use the findings in their decision-making process. Second, in terms of investors, the results can help them to make better investment choices by referring to the i-SRI criteria. Third, this study will be valuable to the academicians in terms of opportunity to explore a new research area, i.e. the i-SRI criteria, besides adding to the extant literature on this topic which is still scant currently.

This study discovered five primary aspects that lead to the necessity for developing i-SRI criteria.

Responsible investors have been the precursor in using ESG information in investment decisions. The growing attention to ESG issues across the more traditional investment community is considered as the mainstreaming of RI. However, it is important to note that the integration of ESG information by mainstream investment companies is a fundamentally different approach than RI. While RI derives from moral and ethical concerns, the new trend of integration of ESG information by mainstream investors is business driven.