Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) means different things to different people, but essentially is investing in firms that treat their employees well, care for the environment, and make products or perform services that are aligned with the goals and desires of the investors (for example, many investors may refuse to buy tobacco stocks). For as long as I can remember there has been a debate as to whether investors give up pecuniary returns when they choose to invest in a socially responsible fashion (SRI). Theoretically limiting the choice of firms you can invest must reduce the efficient frontier. Dupre, Girerd-Potin, and Kassoua investigate the actual cost of socially responsible investing from a different angle. Using the ARESE ratings (a rating based on firms’ social responsibility) for 173 European firms from 1999-200, they construct efficient frontiers with and without social concerns. Predictably, the social concerns push the efficient frontier down (lower return) and to the right (more risk). This is NOT to say do not invest ethically, merely it points out that utility maximization (and not merely maximization of financial returns), is the reason for the increased popularity of socially responsible investing. [FinanceProfessor.com Annotation]
See related articles
“Critics Find Study of SRI Underperformance Fundamentally Flawed”
Denis Dupre, Isabelle Girerd-Potin, Raghid Kassoua
Source: Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
Subjects: Finance, Industry Specific
Industry: Investment Banking
