Search results

This study evaluates risk‐adjusted performance of socially responsible mutual funds during the period 1991‐2000, using objective statistical measures grounded in modern portfolio theory. A socially responsible mutual fund is defined as one which employs “social screens” in stock selection, such as whether a fi rm manufactures tobacco products, whether it is in the gambling business, whether it heeds environmental safety, its human rights records, etc. The main objective of this study is to provide empirical documentation on the risk‐adjusted returns of these mutual funds, for the benefit of investors. To our knowledge, this is one of the first, if not the first, academic study to utilize a relatively new risk‐adjusted performance measure, posited by Nobel Laureate Franco Modigliani and Leah Modigliani in 1997 (hereafter referred to as M Squared), to evaluate socially responsible mutual funds. The idea that underlies their methodology is to adjust the investment risk of a mutual fund to the level of risk in an unmanaged benchmark stock‐market index and then measure the returns on the risk‐matched fund. The M Squared measure not only relates the level of risk to the level of reward, but also enables risk‐adjusted returns to be reported on a percentage basis, rather than on an absolute basis, which makes them more easily understood by the average investor. The results of this study can be used in decision making by investors who seek objective criteria to select a socially responsible mutual fund from among a menu of several funds.

Do socially responsible funds, as a whole, perform as well as the average of all mutual funds in their respective categories? This paper examines fund characteristics as well as risk and performance measures of all available socially responsible funds (SRFs) in the U.S. mutual fund industry over the last fifteen years. The contribution of this paper is two unique findings. First, although SRFs have had a relative advantage in terms of lower expense ratios, lower annual turnover rates, lower tax cost ratios, and lower risk, SRFs also exhibit lower returns, and two risk‐adjusted return measures indicate SRFs have inferior reward‐to‐risk performance. In particular, domestic stock SRFs have not generated competitive returns relative to conventional funds in the same categories over the past ten to fifteen years. These results contrast those found in the extant SRI literature which suggest socially responsible investing has little or no cost. Second, a finer partitioning by fund type reveals not all SRFs have similar relative performance. SRFs in balanced fund and fixed‐income fund categories, especially during the past three years, have performed better than the category averages with lower risk, higher returns, and higher risk‐adjusted returns. This suggests the costs of socially responsible investing are not homogenous.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the performance of socially responsible funds by closely examining funds' investment styles.

The authors apply William Sharpe's method of style analysis to evaluate the performance of 94 US socially responsible mutual funds. By using the fund style as a benchmark, the authors are able to separate the performance attributed to style and selection.

The authors observe that underperformance of socially responsible funds is more pronounced and common than identified in the previous literature. Proponents of socially responsible investing argue that screening process provides an opportunity to fund managers to identify best companies in terms of future financial performance. The paper finds that active management of mutual funds is an important determinant of their performance in socially responsible investing industry. This paper provides evidence supporting that active management of socially responsible funds add value.

This study will help investors in allocating their portfolios among many of the available SR funds. The result – actively managed SR funds outperform their passive counterparts – will be valuable for those investors who are willing to invest in socially responsible funds but are concerned about the financial performance.

The purpose of this paper is to address reasons for consumer investment in socially responsible investment (SRI) profiled mutual funds. Specifically, the paper deals with the relative influence of financial return and social responsibility on the decision to invest in SRI profiled mutual funds.

A cluster analytic approach was used where 563 SR‐investors were classified into different segments based on their perception of importance of financial return and social responsibility. Furthermore, discriminant analysis and chi² tests were used to profile the segments.

Three segments of SR‐investors were formed. The “primarily concerned about profit” SR‐investors value financial return over social responsibility. The “primarily concerned about social responsibility” value social responsibility over financial return. The “socially responsible and return driven” SR‐investors value both return and social responsibility when deciding to invest in SRI. The segments displayed distinct differences with regard to various profiling variables.

As respondents were generated from one SRI provider, it is possible that the respondents are not fully representative of all SR‐investors.

Since there are segments of SR‐investors that invest in SRI because of different reasons, there is an opportunity for SRI providers to target and adapt communication to certain segments.

For both academia and the SRI industry this study provides useful knowledge on how private SR‐investors handle the issue of financial return and social responsibility when investing in SRI. This understanding of the differing motivations of the SR‐investor also holds practical importance for developing appropriate marketing strategies within the SRI industry.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze investor reactions to ethical screening by pension plan managers.

The author presents a sample consisting of data corresponding to 573 pension plans in relation to such aspects as financial performance, inception date, asset size, number of participants, custodial and management fees, and whether their managers adopt ethical screening or give part of their profits to social projects. On this data the author implements the fixed effects panel data model proposed by Vogelsang (2012).

The results obtained indicate that investors/consumers prefer traditional or solidarity pension plans to ethical pension plans. Furthermore, the findings show that ethical investors/consumers are more (less) sensitive to positive (negative) lagged returns than caring and traditional consumers, causing traditional consumers to contribute to pension plans that they already own.

The author does not know what types of environmental, social and corporate governance criteria have been adopted by ethical pension plan managers and the weight given to each of these criteria for selecting the stock of the firms in their portfolios that could influence in the investors’ behaviour.

The results obtained in the current paper show that investors invest less money in ethical pension plans than in traditional and solidarity pension plans; this could be due to the lack of information for their part. To solve this, management companies could increase the transparency about their corporate social responsibility (CSR) investments to encourage investors to invest in ethical products so these lead to raising CSR standards in companies, and therefore, sustainable development.

The Spanish socially responsible investment retail market is still at an early phase of development, and regulators should promote it in order to encourage firms to adopt business activities that take into account societal concerns.

This paper provides new evidence in a field little analysed. This paper contributes to the existing literature by focusing on examining the behaviour of pension funds investors whose investment time horizon is in the long-term while previous literature focus on analysing behaviour of mutual fund investors whose investment time horizon is in the short/medium term what could cause different investors’ behaviour.

Purpose: Ethical investing is considered to be the pinnacle of embedding environmental considerations in investing. Environmental considerations form a major part of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and CSR is considered to have a positive effect on investment returns. The purpose of this chapter is to assess the degree of environmental considerations embedded in faith-based funds investment criteria. The comparative analysis between principles and practice through faith-based investing is undertaken.

Design/Methodology: Prospectuses of selected faith-based mutual funds and other information around investment strategies provided on the Funds’ websites have been analyzed in detail. Content analysis has been undertaken in order to evaluate the existence and types of environmental related criteria demonstrated by the Funds. The criteria are compared to the faith principles on environmental responsibility.

Findings: It is generally assumed that CSR requirements form the premise of socially responsible investing. The authors find that faith-based investing criteria are narrowly defined and that they represent biases which do not promote environmentally responsible investing.

Implications: The major implication is that inspite of the availability of faith-based environmental responsibility principles, faith-based funds represent a case of economic returns prioritization over environmental considerations. Environment accountability principles that exist need to be promoted regularly so that they become an essential element of every day decision-making including faith-based economic decision-making.

Originality: This study contributes to the debate on ethical investing from the perspective of faith-based mutual funds.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the operating characteristics as well as risk and performance measures of all available self-proclaimed socially responsible funds (hereafter SRFs) in the USA over the ten-year (2007–2016) period. The first research question addressed is: Do SRFs perform as well as the average of all mutual funds in their respective categories? The second research question addressed is: Are SRF expense ratios correlated with fund performance?

This study analyzes all socially responsible equity mutual funds, as self-reported to Morningstar. This paper empirically compares operating characteristics and performance measures of SRFs relative to category averages in the US mutual fund industry. Operating characteristics include expense ratios and annual turnover rates. Performance measures include conventional return, risk and risk-adjusted return measures.

Although prior research suggests that socially responsible investing (SRI) indexes and SRI-friendly stocks have favorable returns, this study finds that these self-proclaimed SRFs underperform the average of all mutual funds in matched equity categories. However, this study demonstrates that a simple filter based on expense ratios can identify those SRFs that will enable investors to do quite well while doing good.

The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, the authors report that self-proclaimed SRFs, as a whole, have not generated competitive returns relative to other mutual funds in the same categories over the past ten years. This result contradicts the notion that socially responsible investors do not give up return performance when investing with their conscience. Second, the authors find that those SRFs with expense ratios in the lowest quartile of their respective category have significantly higher risk-adjusted returns and significantly lower turnover than category averages. Thus, by focusing on SRFs with low-expense ratios, socially responsible investors can do quite well while doing good.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the performance of socially responsible stocks portfolio vis-à-vis portfolios of general companies in the Indian stock market.

The study has used absolute rate of return as well as various risk adjusted measures like Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio, Jensen’s α, Information ratio, Fama’s decomposition measure and dummy regression model to evaluate the performance of various portfolios.

Socially responsible stocks portfolios are found to have lower relative risk despite having higher systematic risk. Further the authors find that during crisis and post-crisis period, socially responsible stocks portfolio generated significantly higher return as compared to other portfolios in the Indian stock market. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) Index and GREENEX Index provided positive net selectivity returns in all the three sub periods, especially during crisis period. GREENEX and ESG outperformed NIFTY and SENSEX even on net selectivity basis. This indicates that the compromise made with respect to diversification by investing in socially responsible stocks portfolios was well rewarded in terms of higher returns in Indian context.

The findings lend support to the case of socially responsible investing (SRI) in India and are relevant for companies, regulators, policy makers and investors at large. Mutual funds and other investment funds should launch schemes which invest in socially responsible stocks so as to provide the benefits of SRI even to small investors in India.

The study contributes to the related literature by analysing the performance of socially responsible stocks portfolios in Indian stock market which is one of the emerging markets.