Search results

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.

Impact investing, a type of values-based investing that combines financial investment with philanthropic goals, is receiving heightened scholarly and practitioner attention. The geography of impact investing, however, is largely unexamined, and it is not clear why some regional impact-investing communities are more vibrant than other communities. Regional differences in entrepreneurial activities are increasingly explained by differences in the vitality of entrepreneurial ecosystems, the set of interconnected forces that promote and sustain regional entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to leverage insights from entrepreneurial ecosystems studies to understand the dynamics of communities that encourage and support impact investing.

To explain inter-regional differences in the prevalence and intensity of impact investing, this conceptual paper draws from research on entrepreneurial ecosystems and impact investment to theorize about the ecosystem attributes and components that drive vibrant impact investing communities.

It is theorized that vibrant impact investing ecosystems have three system-level attributes – diversity, cohesion and coordination – that are influenced by the core components of the ecosystems, including the characteristics of investors, the presence of social impact support organizations and cultural values that promote blending logics.

The theoretical model contributes to research on impact investing and hybrid organizing, produces concrete implications for ecosystem builders and sets an agenda for future research.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the risk and return characteristics of dividend investing compared to a passive “market” approach and provide probable explanations for any differences in return and risk.

The research design is a standard time series analysis of two different data sets containing information about return for “dividend portfolios” and the “market portfolio”.

Investing in high dividend‐paying firms earns abnormal returns in a long short‐strategy in the USA and in world indices, confirming earlier studies. Different overlapping strategies and agency theory are used to provide explanations for the dividend strategy's persistence.

While the US findings were significant at conventional levels, the results using the world indices had significance levels that were slightly below the usual academic cut off but may be acceptable to practitioners.

Seemingly anomalous findings should disappear once reported, yet the high dividend‐paying strategy continues to persist and this article provides some explanations relating to the value strategy, beta puzzle and agency theory.

Paying dividends may be socially responsible since it is explained as a way of deploying free cash flow in an efficient manner rather than wasting money through overpriced acquisitions or buybacks of overpriced shares.

By using different databases, earlier research is confirmed and also found to be robust across different time periods. The contribution of this paper is to link the value premium, the beta puzzle and agency issues of free cash flows together to explain the outperformance and persistence of dividend investing from a practitioner viewpoint.

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 aim of this chapter is to propose a critical analysis of socially responsible investing (SRI) through debate and reconstruction. Our goal is therefore to try to understand how the definition of ethics in finance has steered SRI towards a financial approach where ethics is guided by finance.

This chapter proposes a two-point approach consisting of a meta-debate and development perspectives. Each approach is divided into three debates (ideological and philosophical, scientific and practical), which are interconnected.

The chapter concludes that the debate on mainstream SRI is necessary but should be re-discussed, as it is preventing in its current form the concept from developing and being grounded in real ethical values, sacrificing the individual ethics that should be driving investing decisions.

The chapter proposes to rethink the paradigm around SRI through a conceptual framework that re-inserts finance within ethics, where non-financial performance and impact investment should be at the centre of the scientific debates, leading to an SRI based on exclusion, the consideration of controversies and social impact measurement.

Much of the current literature on category construction and maintenance has focused primarily on the disciplining effect of audiences that evaluate for conformity. This literature often characterizes categories as benign organizing devices that bring order to social life. However, categories are also contentious political and cultural productions. This is especially so, when the categories are hybrid. Employing a qualitative case study of an impact investing organization operating in Sub-Saharan Africa, we illustrate how the construction and maintenance of hybrid categories can have potentially advantageous effects for certain actors by shaping the architecture of knowledge and transferring legitimacy to otherwise illegitimate actors or nascent practices. The findings of this study highlight how some hybrid categories can be used to create and maintain unequal relations of power.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how investors’ valuation of cash holdings is related to firm-level investment.

As prior studies note that holding excess cash serve as a driver to would be over-investing, and that over-investment imposes substantial agency costs on shareholders, the authors focus on the value implications of holding cash in the presence of over-investment from the perspective of shareholders.

By examining the publicly traded companies on Taiwan stock market, the authors uncover that cash is valued less in firms with over-investment than in those with under-investment and the magnitude of over-investment is negatively related to the marginal value of cash holdings (MVCH). It reveals that investment activities impact the value that shareholders place on cash holdings. Moreover, further tests indicate that higher block holdings and the presence of independent directors on boards can effectively mitigate the negative impact of over-investment on the MVCH.

This paper enhances the understanding of the valuation implications of cash reserves held by firms with over-investment and the effectiveness of governance structures in containing the detrimental effect of investment-related agency costs on the value of holding cash.

This paper provides pioneering evidence that outside investors discount cash assets in over-investing firms to reflect their expectations that they will not receive the full benefit of these assets; and this paper extends the literature on corporate governance by assessing the role of governance mechanisms in reversing the negative relation between over-investment and the MVCH.

This study aims to investigate whether the zero-investment portfolio strategy generates higher excess returns for all listed companies in the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) or ESG100 stocks. The study period is from January 2016 to December 2020, a total of 60 months. The dividend yield is employed for categorizing the stock into value and growth stocks. The strategy of buying value stocks and short-selling growth stocks is then applied. The results show that investing using the zero-investment portfolio strategy can generate higher returns in an investment portfolio that consists of ESG100 stocks than in an investment portfolio that consists of all stocks in the SET. The optimal holding periods for investing in portfolios that consist of stocks in the SET are 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months, and the optimal holding periods for a portfolio that consists of ESG100 stocks is 6 months. To explain excess returns of stocks in the SET, the Fama and French (2015) five-factor model is employed. There is no relation between risk factors and excess returns for the holding period of 6 months and 12 months. However, excess return is found to have a negative relation with the market risk premium factor for a 9-month holding period. The excess returns of ESG100 stocks are also inversely correlated with investment factors for a holding period of 6 months.