Domini Social Index Performance

Luck, Christopher G.; Pilotte, Nancy S.

doi:10.3905/joi.2.3.60

Cited by 38 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results suggest that social responsibility did not burnish firms' reputation in a time of crises, as proponents of social responsibility claim (Grow et al, 2005). Our results are also inconsistent with prior research finding a positive association between social responsibility and market value (Litvak, 1992;Luck and Pilotte, 1993;Diltz et al, 1999;Schueth, 2003). Instead, our results are more consistent with the critics argument that expenditures on social responsibility are not consistent with maximizing shareholder value (Vance, 1975;Aupperle et al, 1985;Atkins, 2006), and with prior research finding no association between social responsibility and market value (e.g., Hamilton et al, 1993;Diltz, 1995a,b;Guerard, 1996;Kurtz and diBartolomeo, 1996;Reyes and Grieb, 1998;Statman, 2000;Bauer et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

Social responsibility and corporate reputation: The case of the Arthur Andersen Enron audit failure

Linthicum

Reitenga

Sánchez

2010

Journal of Accounting and Public Policy

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

Social responsibility and corporate reputation: The case of the Arthur Andersen Enron audit failure

Linthicum

Reitenga

Sánchez

2010

Journal of Accounting and Public Policy

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the Domini 400 Social Index and the FTSE4 Good Index, widely used in research (Arms, 1999;Kinder et al, 1996;Luck and Pilotte, 1993;Vermeir and Corten, 2001). Another relevant factor has been the appearance of data showing that SRI mutual funds do not imply lower profits (Brooks, 1997;Guerard, 1997;Hamilton et al, 1993;Lydenberg, 2000;Mallin et al, 1995;Russo and Fouts, 1997;Simpson and Kohers, 2002).…”

Section: The Development Of Socially Responsible Investmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

Socially Responsible Investment in the Spanish financial market

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the development of socially responsible investment (SRI) in the Spanish financial market. The year, 1997 saw the appearance in Spain of the first SRI mutual fund, but it was not until late 1999, that major Spanish fund managers offered SRI mutual funds on the retail market. The development of SRI in the Spanish financial market has not experienced the high levels of development seen in other European countries, such as France or Italy, where interest in SRI began during the same period. This paper presents an analysis of the impact of SRI mutual funds managed by Spanish fund managers comparing the evolution of managed assets and number of investors. We also analyse the investment strategies adopted by these funds, which mainly use negative screening criteria and the participation of non-governmental organisations as institutional investors. An analysis of the take up of socially responsible investment in the Spanish financial market shows majors deficits in this process. This is due to Spanish investors having limited sensitivity to social issues and knowledge of SRI, and a lack of development of SRI investment strategies, such as engagement or shareholder activism by fund managers. Furthermore, the take-up of SRI mutual funds in the Spanish financial market coincided with a fall in the stock market at the beginning of the 21st Century. We conclude with an analysis of the relationship between SRI and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), engagement, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), financial Performance,

show abstract

“…While there are some studies that report upon a superior nancial performance of certain SRI criteria (Moskowitz, 1972;Luck and Pilotte, 1993;Derwall et al, 2005;Edmans, 2011), others nd empirical evidence of a nancial underperformance (Brammer et al, 2006;Renneboog et al, 2008a;Hong and Kacperczyk, 2009;Mǎnescu, 2011). There is also a bulk of studies which sees no signi cant differences between the nancial performance of SRI and conventional investments (Hamilton et al, 1993;Kurtz and DiBartolomeo, 1996;Guerard, 1997;Bauer et al, 2005;Schröder, 2007;Statman and Glushkov, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are they any good at all? A financial and ethical analysis of socially responsible mutual funds

Utz¹,

Wimmer

2014

J Asset Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we examine a broad sample of socially responsible (SR) and conventional mutual funds with respect to nancial and ethical parameters. We cannot document profound differences in their nancial performance. With regard to ethical performance, we indeed nd that an investor who seeks to avoid the least ethical of all available funds can do so by purchasing SR mutual funds. Still, we also demonstrate that SR mutual funds are not holding considerably more ethical assets on average. Moreover, the label 'SR mutual fund' does not in any way guarantee the exclusion of clearly unethical rms, which contrasts to the common perception of screening out poor assets.

show abstract

Domini Social Index Performance

Cited by 38 publications

References 0 publications

Social responsibility and corporate reputation: The case of the Arthur Andersen Enron audit failure

Social responsibility and corporate reputation: The case of the Arthur Andersen Enron audit failure

Socially Responsible Investment in the Spanish financial market

Are they any good at all? A financial and ethical analysis of socially responsible mutual funds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About