Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Business Ethics
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics 3/2014

01.03.2014

Performance of Portfolios Composed of British SRI Stocks

verfasst von: Janusz Brzeszczyński, Graham McIntosh

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 3/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study investigates performance of portfolios composed of British socially responsible investments (SRI) stocks. Using the ‘Global-100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World’ list (known also as ‘Global-100’) to select the SRI companies, we found that, in the period 2000–2010, the returns of the SRI portfolios were on average higher compared with the corresponding returns of the market indexes. The annual average difference in returns of the SRI portfolios (with dividends) was 5.26 % and 5.69 % relative to the FTSE100 and FTSE4GOOD indexes (the total return versions), respectively, but the differences in returns in the whole period, in individual years and in other sub-periods were in most cases not statistically significant. Positive performance of SRI stocks in the whole sample is, however, evidenced by risk-adjusted measures such as the modified Sharpe ratio (MSR) and certainty equivalent (CEQ) returns, as well as by incorporating various levels of transaction costs. Furthermore, a simple trading strategy relying on selection of SRI stocks from the Global-100 list would beat the market indexes in the whole period 2000–2010, even after inclusion of various levels of transaction costs. We also estimated the Fama–French and Carhart multi-factor models and found that the returns of the SRI portfolios cannot be consistently explained by conventional factors other than the market factor.
Vorheriger Artikel Corporate Humanistic Responsibility: Social Performance Through Managerial Discretion of the HRM
Nächster Artikel Gender Differences in Leadership Role Occupancy: The Mediating Role of Power Motivation

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
The first ethical unit trust in the UK was the Friends Provident Stewardship Fund launched in 1984 (Cowton 1993). This and similar funds have used ‘the investment process as a means to change and improve the behaviour of specific corporations on social and environmental issues’ (Louche and Lydenberg 2012, p. 6).
 
2
When constituents of the list are analysed by country, it is apparent that the country allocation was being updated over time. For example, at the time of the list being announced in 2005, Royal Dutch Shell was considered to be Dutch, however after the updates it is later listed as the UK firm. The same effect has occurred for several other companies. When this was the case, we have edited the countries to best reflect the Global-100 list at the time of data collection.
 
3
The motivation of this study is the analysis of performance of portfolios that can be constructed by private investors based on the freely available information from the Global-100 list and because it is unlikely that such investors would engage in detailed investigations of stock size and their capitalisation, etc., this is also the reason why we assume that they would usually construct simple equally-weighted portfolios.
 
4
The source of risk-free rate data in the Xfi database is the return of the 3-month UK T-Bill.
 
5
Certainty equivalent (CEQ) returns are used in our study as an additional risk-adjusted measure to differentiate between risk-adjusted returns for various possible groups of investors and for their respective risk aversion levels, which naturally always vary among stock market participants (depending on many factors, such as level of wealth, aim of the investment in stocks, personal circumstances, etc., among other things). Hence, the CEQ measure is very useful as an additional method of evaluation of investment results in comparison with more traditional measures, such as Sharpe ratio or Treynor index, which by definition do not offer any possibility to take into account risk aversion of investors in an analysis of stock market returns. Given that the motivation of this study is the investigation of performance of SRI stocks portfolios that can be constructed by private, individual, investors (based on the freely available information in the form of the Global-100 list), the analysis of the CEQ returns is particularly important because of the fact that individual investors have a very broad range of risk aversion levels (much broader than institutional investors) which extends far to both sides of risk aversion interval (from very risk-averse people who make investments of their private funds for, e.g., retirement to very highly speculative individuals).
 
6
The average annual geometric returns were calculated using the definition: ((1 + r 1) × (1 + r 2) × (1 + r 3) × ··· (1 + r n ))(1/n) − 1, where r 1, r 2, r 3,…, r n are annual returns. For example, in Table 2a, the average annual geometric return for the 5-year period 2000–2005 for the SRI portfolio is equal to 10.20 % and it was computed as: ((1 + 0.2422) × (1 − 0.0245) × (1 − 0.2081) × (1 + 0.3665) × (1 + 0.2393))(1/5) − 1 = 0.1020 (i.e. 10.20 %).
 
7
We also calculated MSR for the two other variants of comparisons related to results in Tables 2b and 2c. These results are not reported here because of space constraints, but are available on request. When the SRI portfolios (with dividends) are compared against the price version of the indexes, they performed better than both FTSE100 and FTSE4GOOD also in seven out of ten single-year periods and, in addition, in all 5-year multiple-year periods and most other sub-periods. The advantage of SRI slightly declines on the like-to-like comparison basis for variants of SRI portfolios and indexes without dividends, but the overall pattern is similar to the results in Table 3. In any case, the modified Sharpe ratio (MSR) for the entire period is always higher and remains positive for SRI portfolios in all three cases of comparisons (0.0627 and 0.0082 for the variants of the SRI portfolios with and without dividends, respectively), while for both indexes FTSE100 and FTSE4GOOD, it has only negative values of −0.0001 and −0.0002 (for the total return and price index versions, respectively). The comparison of SRI portfolios results with price index versions of the indexes may be relevant whenever they are used as commonly accepted market benchmarks (rather than their total return versions).
 
8
Similar pattern of results for the CEQ measure was found for the two other variants of comparisons related to results in Tables 2b and 2c. It shows higher values of CEQ for SRI portfolios in most single-year and multiple-year sub-periods with a declining advantage over the indexes for higher risk aversion levels of the investors. These results are not reported here due to space constraints, but are available on request.
 
9
Alternative possibility to deal with time variation of beta is to estimate conditional CAPM versions of the Fama–French and Carhart models; however, this methodology has been criticised because of various shortcomings (see, e.g., Lewellen and Nagel 2006; Lewellen et al. 2010) and, therefore, we opted for a more straightforward analysis of beta estimates in sub-samples.
 
10
The parameters of all models in shorter sub-periods for individual years (or other shorter length periods) were estimated using: 12 monthly observations for the shortest annual periods, 60 monthly observations for the 5-year multiple periods and 61, 59, 41 and 79 monthly observations for the bull market, bear market, economic growth and recession periods, respectively.
 
11
Similar conclusions are reached when instead of estimation of models in shorter sub-samples, we used dummy variables for the analysed sub-periods.
 
12
These results are not reported here in details due to space constraints, but are available on request.
 
13
The pattern of betas is also very similar to the results from both Fama–French and Carhart models when beta is estimated using a simple single-factor model (estimation results are not reported but are available on request).
 
14
Although the small stocks effect is unlikely to be strong and materially change the overall picture which emerges from our results, we did more analysis of the small versus large stock returns and we found that when the portfolios beat the market the smaller stocks (i.e. those which are included in the Global-100 list but not in the FTSE100 index) have on average greater than the portfolio returns and when the portfolio is underperforming the market these smaller stocks are further underperforming. This means that the size effect would manifest itself, if the portfolios were capitalisation-weighted, in weaker outperformance of the SRI portfolios relative to the indexes in the periods of the SRI portfolios overperformance but also weaker underperformance in the periods when the SRI portfolios underperformed. As mentioned earlier, those effects are not likely, however, to be very strong because of the selection criteria of the Global-100 list, which is composed of mainly large stocks.
 
15
For example, the Global-100 has a 75 % weighting to a company’s USD sales to Gigajoules of total energy consumed ratio (3-year average) under the energy productivity area (Global-100 2011). Similar use of ratios is made within the other areas listed above. The FTSE4GOOD, for example, requires a high impact company under the environmental area to have in place a ‘policy [that] must cover the whole group and either: meet all five core indicators plus one desirable indicator, or meet four core plus two desirable indicators’ (FTSE International Limited 2010).
 
16
These calculations are based on monthly figures from the whole period of portfolio’s duration (i.e. 1 year between February and January in the following year). Because of space constraints, they are not reported here, but are available on request.
 
17
We used the definition of independent variables as a ratio of DY indicators rather than a simple difference because of larger percentage variation of data in case of the ratio relative to the difference. However, we estimated also variants with differentials of DY ratios and the conclusions were quite similar, i.e. the estimates had positive signs but they were on the borderline of statistical significance (of 10 % level).
 
Literatur
Abbott, W., & Monsen, J. (1979). On the measure of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosure as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515.
Adam, C. S., & Cobham, D. (2009). Using real-time output gaps to examine past and future policy choices. National Institute Economic Review, 210(October), 98–110.
Alexander, G., & Buchholz, R. (1978). Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21(3), 479–486.
Ali, S., & Szyszka, A. (2006). Ethical factors in capital market: Socially responsible versus unscrupulous investment. Argumenta Oeconomica, 18(1–2), 63–87.
Ambachtsheer, J. (2005). SRI: What do investment managers think? Mercer Investment Consulting. Retrieved from www.​merceric.​com. Accessed 5 May 2010
Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2008). Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(4), 45–62.
Anderson, J., & Frankle, W. (1980). Voluntary social reporting: An iso-beta portfolio analysis. Accounting Review, 55(3), 467–479.
Asongu, J. J. (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibility in practice. Greenview, IL: Greenview.
Bauer, R., Derwall, J., & Otten, R. (2007). The ethical mutual fund performance debate: New evidence from Cananda. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), 111–124.
Bauer, R., Koedijk, K., & Otten, R. (2005). International evidence on ethical mutual fund performance and investment style. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(7), 1751–1767.
Bauer, R., Otten, R., & Rad, A. (2006). Ethical investing in Australia: Is there a financial penalty? Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 14(1), 33–48.
Bello, Z. (2005). Socially responsible investing and portfolio diversification. Journal of Financial Research, 28(1), 41–57.
Blackburn, V., Doran, M., & Shrader, C. (1994). Investigating the dimensions of social responsibility and the consequences for corporate financial performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 6(2), 195–212.
Bragdon, J. H., & Marlin, J. T. (1972). Is pollution profitable? Risk Management, 19(2), 9–18.
Brown, B. (1997). Stock market valuation of reputation for corporate social performance. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1), 76–80.
Brzeszczynski, J., & Gajdka, J. (2008). Performance of high dividend yield investment strategy on the Polish stock market 1997–2007. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 5(1), 87–93.
Brzeszczynski, J., Gajdka, J., & Schabek, T. (2009). Sustainable investing. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 18(5b), 56–62.
Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57–83.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston, MA: Hougton Mifflin.
Chegut, A., Schenk, H., & Scholtens, B. (2011). Assessing SRI fund performance research: Best practices in empirical analysis. Sustainable Development, 19(2), 77–94.
Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.
Climent, F., & Soriano, P. (2011). Green and good? The investment performance of US environmental mutual funds. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(2), 275–287.
Collison, D., Cobb, G., Power, D., & Stevenson, L. (2009). FTSE4Good: Exploring its implications for corporate conduct. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(1), 35–58.
Consolandi, C., Jaiswal-Dale, A., Poggiani, E., & Vercelli, A. (2008). Global standards and ethical stock indexes: The case of the Dow Jones sustainability Stoxx index. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 185–197.
Cortez, M. C., Silva, F., & Areal, N. (2009). The performance of European socially responsible funds. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(4), 573–588.
Cowton, C. (1993). Peace dividends: The exclusion of military contractors from investment portfolios. Journal of Peace Research, 30(1), 21–28.
Cowton, C. (1994). The development of ethical investment products. In A. Prindl & B. Prodhan (Eds.), Ethical conflicts in finance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cowton, C. (1998). Socially responsible investment. In R. Chadwick (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of applied ethics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cummings, L. (2000). The financial performance of ethical investment trusts: An Australian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(1), 79–92.
Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 312–322.
DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., & Uppal, R. (2009). Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? Review of Financial Studies, 22(5), 1915–1953.
Derwall, J., Guenster, N., Bauer, R., & Koedijk, K. (2005). The eco-efficiency premium puzzle. Financial Analysts Journal, 61(2), 51–63.
Edmans, A. (2011). Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and equity prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(3), 621–640.
Elton, E., & Gruber, M. (1995). Efficient markets. In E. Elton & M. Gruber (Eds.), Modern portfolio theory and investment analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987–1007.
Epstein, M., & Schnietz, K. (2002). Measuring the cost of environmental and labour protests to globalisation: An event study of the failed 1999 Seattle WTO talks. International Trade Journal, 16(2), 129–160.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross-section of expected returns. Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427–465.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.
Ferson, W. E., & Schadt, R. W. (1996). Measuring fund strategy and performance in changing economic conditions. Journal of Finance, 51(1), 425–461.
Ferson, W. E., & Warther, V. A. (1996). Evaluating fund performance in a dynamic market. Financial Analysts Journal, 52(6), 20–28.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). ‘What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate governance strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.
Freeman, E., & Evan, E. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337–359.
Galema, R., Scholtens, B., & Plantinga, A. (2012) The cost of socially responsible portfolios: Testing for mean–variance spanning. Working paper, University of Groningen. Retrieved from http://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​1086560.
Gil-Bazo, J., Ruiz-Verdu, P., & Santos, A. A. P. (2010). The performance of socially responsible mutual funds: The role of fees and management companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 243–263.
Glausiusz, J. (2007, November). Better planet: Can a maligned pesticide save lives?’ Discover Magazine, pp. 34.
Goldreyer, E., & Diltz, J. (1999). The performance of socially responsible mutual funds: Incorporating sociopolitical information in portfolio selection. Managerial Finance, 25(1), 23–36.
Gooding, A. E., & O’Malley, T. P. (1977). Market phase and the stationarity of beta. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 12(5), 833–857.
Gregory, A., Matatko, J., & Luther, R. (1997). Ethical unit trust financial performance: Small company effects and fund size effects. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 24(5), 705–725.
Gregory, A., Tharyan, R., & Christidis, A. (2013). Constructing and testing alternative versions of the Fama-French and Carhart Models in the UK. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting (forthcoming).
Gregory, A., & Whittaker, J. (2007). Performance and performance persistence of ‘ethical unit trusts in the UK’. Journal of Business, Finance, and Accounting, 34(7), 1327–1344.
Guerard, J. (1997). Is there a cost to being socially responsible in investing? Journal of Investing, 6(2), 11–19.
Halberstam, D. (2003). Defining a nation: Our America and the sources of its strengths. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.
Hamilton, S., Jo, H., & Statman, M. (1993). Doing well while doing good? The investment performance of socially responsible funds. Financial Analysts Journal, 49(6), 62–66.
Heinkel, R., Kraus, A., & Zechner, J. (2001). The effect of green investment on corporate behavior. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 36(4), 431–449.
Hill, R., Ainscough, T., Shank, T., & Manullang, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investing: A global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), 165–174.
Hill, C., & Jones, T. (1992). Stakeholder–agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.
Hoepner, A. G. F., & McMillan, D. G. (2012). Research on “responsible investment”: An influential literature analysis comprising a rating, characterisation, categorisation and investigation. Working paper, University of St. Andrews. Retrieved from http://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​1454793.
Humphrey, J. E., & Lee, D. D. (2011). Australian socially responsible funds: Performance, risk and screening intensity. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), 519–535.
Humphrey, J. E., Lee, D. D., & Shen, Y. (2012). Does it cost to be sustainable? Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(3), 626–639.
Israelsen, C. L. (2005). A refinement to the Sharpe ratio and information ratio. Journal of Asset Management, 5(6), 423–427.
Jagannathan, R., & Wang, Z. (1996). The conditional CAPM and the cross-section of expected returns. Journal of Finance, 51(1), 3–53.
Jensen, M. C. (1968). The performance of mutual funds in the period 1945–64. Journal of Finance, 23(2), 389–449.
Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.
Jones, S., van der Laan, S., Frost, S., & Loftus, J. (2008). The investment performance of socially responsible investment funds in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 181–203.
Kacperczyk, M., Sialm, C., & Zheng, L. (2005). On the industry concentration of actively managed equity mutual funds. Journal of Finance, 60(4), 1983–2011.
Keane, S. (1983). Stock market efficiency. Oxford: Philip Allan.
Kempf, A., & Osthoff, P. (2007). The effect of socially responsible investing on portfolio performance. European Financial Management, 13(5), 908–922.
Kinder, P., Lydenberg, S., & Domini, A. (1994). Investing for good, making money while being socially responsible. New York: Happer Business.
Kreander, N., McPhail, K., & Molyneaux, D. (2004). An immanent critique of UK church ethical investment. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 17(3), 408–441.
Kurtz, L., & Di Bartolomeo, D. (1996). Socially screened portfolios: An attribution analysis of relative performance. Journal of Investing, 5(3), 35–41.
Lenssen, G., Gasparski, W., Rok, B., & Lacy, P. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and competitiveness. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 1–9.
Lewellen, J., & Nagel, S. (2006). The conditional CAPM does not explain asset-pricing anomalies. Journal of Financial Economics, 82(2), 289–314.
Lewellen, J., Nagel, S., & Shanken, J. (2010). A Skeptical appraisal of asset pricing tests. Journal of Financial Economics, 96(2), 175–194.
Lowry, R. (1991). Good money. A guide to profitable investing in the ‘90s. New York: W.W. Norton.
Luck, C., & Pilotte, N. (1993). Domini social index performance. Journal of Investing, 2(3), 60–62.
Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817–835.
Malkiel, B. (2003). The efficient markets hypothesis and its critics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 59–82.
Mallin, C., Saadouni, B., & Briston, R. (1995). The financial performance of ethical investment funds. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 22(4), 483–496.
Managi, S., Okimoto, T., & Matsuda, A. (2012). Do socially responsible investment indexes outperform conventional indexes? Applied Financial Economics, 22(18), 1511–1527.
Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
McGuire, J., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.
Mill, G. (2006). The financial performance of a socially responsible investment over time and a possible link with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(2), 131–148.
Minor, D. (2007). Finding the [Financial] cost of socially responsible investing. Journal of Investing, 16(3), 54–70.
Moskowitz, M. (1972). Choosing socially responsible stocks. Business and Society Review, 1(1), 71–75.
Mueller, S. (1991). The opportunity cost of discipleship: Ethical mutual funds and their returns. Sociological Analysis, 52(1), 111–124.
Nanda, V., Wang, Z., & Zheng, L. (2004). Family values and the star phenomenon. Review of Financial Studies, 17(3), 667–698.
Neal, R., & Cochran, P. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, corporate governance and financial performance: Lessons from finance. Business Horizons, 51(6), 535–540.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F., & Rynes, S. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.
Patten, D. (1990). The market reaction to social responsibility disclosures: The case of the Sullivan principles signings. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 15(6), 575–587.
Renneboog, L., Horst, J. T., & Zhang, C. (2008). The price of ethics and stakeholder governance: The performance of socially responsible mutual funds. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3), 302–322.
Sauer, D. (1997). The impact of social-responsibility screens on investment performance: Evidence from the Domini 400 social index and Domini equity fund. Review of Financial Economics, 6(2), 23–35.
Schaltegger, S., & Figge, F. (2001). Sustainable development funds: Progress since the 1970s. In J. Bouma, M. Jeucken, & L. Klinkers (Eds.), Sustainable banking: The greening of finance. Greenleaf: Sheffield.
Scholtens, B. (2005). Style and performance of Dutch socially responsible investment funds. Journal of Investing, 14(1), 63–72.
Schroder, M. (2007). Is there a difference? The performance characteristics of SRI equity indices. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 34(1), 331–348.
Schueth, S. (2003). Socially responsible investing in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 189–194.
Shane, P., & Spicer, B. (1983). Market response to environmental information produced outside the firm. Accounting Review, 58(3), 521–538.
Sharpe, W. (1966). Mutual fund performance. Journal of Business, 39(1), 119–138.
Sharpe, W. (1994). The Sharpe ratio. Journal of Portfolio Management, 21(1), 49–58.
Shiller, R. (2005). Irrational exuberance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Social Investment Forum. (2007). 2007 Report on socially responsible investing trends in the United States, executive summary. Social Investment Forum. Retrieved from www.​socialinvest.​org.
Sparkes, R. (1995). The ethical investor. London: Harper Collins.
Sparkes, R. (2001). Ethical investment: Whose ethics, which investment? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(3), 194–205.
Sparkes, R., & Cowton, C. (2004). The maturing of socially responsible investment: A review of the developing link with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 45–57.
Spicer, B. (1978). Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: An empirical study. Accounting Review, 53(1), 94–111.
Statman, M. (2000). Socially responsible mutual funds. Financial Analysts Journal, 56(3), 30–39.
Statman, M. (2005). The religions of social responsibility. Journal of Investing, 14(3), 14–22.
Statman, M. (2008). Quiet conversations: The expressive nature of socially responsible investors. Journal of Financial Planning, 21(2), 40–46.
Ullmann, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of U.S. firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(1–2), 540–557.
United Kingdom Social Investment Forum (UKSIF). (2000). Response of UK pension fund to the SRI disclosure regulation. London: UK Social Investment Forum.
Vance, S. (1975). Are socially responsible corporations good investment risks? Management Review, 64(8), 18–24.
Visscher, S., & Filbeck, G. (2003). Dividend-yield strategies in the Canadian stock market. Financial Analysts Journal, 59(1), 99–106.
Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.
Weber, M. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26(4), 247–261.
Woodward, G., & Anderson, H. (2009). Does beta react to market conditions? Estimates of ‘bull’ and ‘bear’ betas using a nonlinear market model with an endogenous threshold parameter. Quantitative Finance, 9(8), 913–924.
Metadaten
Titel
Performance of Portfolios Composed of British SRI Stocks
verfasst von
Janusz Brzeszczyński
Graham McIntosh
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2014
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 3/2014
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1541-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2014

Journal of Business Ethics 3/2014 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Moral Degradation, Business Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility in a Transitional Economy

OriginalPaper

Ethical Leadership and Followers’ Moral Judgment: The Role of Followers’ Perceived Accountability and Self-leadership

OriginalPaper

Management Wisdom in Perspective: Are You Virtuous Enough to Succeed in Volatile Times?

OriginalPaper

Corporate Humanistic Responsibility: Social Performance Through Managerial Discretion of the HRM

OriginalPaper

Gender Differences in Leadership Role Occupancy: The Mediating Role of Power Motivation

OriginalPaper

Culture Corrupts! A Qualitative Study of Organizational Culture in Corrupt Organizations