This paper analyses the role of social responsible (SR) pension funds as influential institutional shareholders in the corporate sustainability of investee firms. We study the influence of 197 UK SR pension funds on 1,253 firms with 31 environmental, social, and governance (ESG) indicators from 2002 to 2018. According to the indicator nature, we perform logit and ordinary least square (OLS) estimations with panel error correction models to control causality. Our results show that SR pension funds significantly impact on 41.93% of the ESG indicators studied. We find that larger pension-fund shareholding positively influences on ESG firm performance and encourages proactive behaviour towards environmental practices. Firms with larger pension-fund shareholding are more likely to use renewable energies and disclose environmental information, increasing the firm transparency towards stakeholders.This study contributes to understand that, besides stakeholders, institutional shareholders (SR pension funds) demand sustainable development and are able to transfer important values for the society and the environment to corporate governance.

In recent decades, pension fund investment has increased rapidly because of population aging and growing doubts about the viability of western public pension systems. As a result, pension funds have become dominant in stock markets. This paper examines the influence of the pension fund assets invested in equities on stock market development and the market efficiency of 13 European countries, from 1999 to 2014. Our results vary by country, by pension model and among the one-model countries. Nevertheless, revealing a concern about saving for retirement. Finally, our efficiency analysis reveals that the influence of pension funds varies over time and across markets, due to arbitrage opportunities that provoke adaptive managerial strategies.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

This study seeks to understand whether the mainstream SRI leads to similar investment decisions in conventional and SRI pension funds. The SRI is expanding beyond specialised SRI funds and increasingly conventional pension funds are integrating firms with certain ESG criteria, in line with legitimacy-theory premises. This phenomenon raises the questions whether SRI and conventional portfolios are converging and whether SRI funds preserve their ethical essence. Using fund holdings and ESG-stock scores, we examine the inclusion level of ESG firms by UK conventional and SRI domestic equity pension funds, taking into account the investment in controversial (socially-sensitive) firms (i.e. related to tobacco, alcohol, or gambling industries, among others). We find that conventional funds consider the firms in which SRI funds invest to integrate ESG criteria. Nonetheless, SRI funds maintain larger ESG-firm standards, preserving the ethical purpose, and larger ESG standards in SRI funds do not affect performance. Our results also show that the ESG integration into conventional funds evolves over time.

This study examines the performance of managers over time, as well as its persistence, taking into account both manager characteristics and market conditions. Applying parametric and non-parametric methodologies, we examine a sample of UK equity pension fund managers. Our results help to understand the importance of manager assignments in the industry and reveal the importance and benefits of management specialization. We find certain manager performance persistence, revealing that some managers are better than others and possess superior investment skills. Additionally, we find that managers achieve better results when they run a single fund or one investmentobjective funds, which allows managers to focus on specific tasks. Nonetheless, manager performance varies with market conditions and highlights managers' different skills. Specialist managers perform better in bullish markets, and generalists perform better in bearish periods.