Correction to: J Bus Ethics (2017) 140:193–208 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2684-3

Table 3 of Trinks, P. J., Scholtens, B., 2017. The Opportunity Cost of Negative Screening in Socially Responsible Investing. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(2), 193–208 reports the four-factor return performance of long–short sin stock portfolios and sin stock-free portfolios.

Unfortunately, an error has occurred with the construction of long–short portfolio returns as R long–short portfolio = (R long portfolio − R f) − (R short portfolio − R f) − R f, which involves an incorrect subtraction of the risk-free rate, resulting in an underestimation of the alphas.

We redid the analysis in the appropriate manner. This yields that the performance of sin stock portfolios is unaffected and included in Table 4 of the manuscript. Therefore, Table 3 is considerably shortened and is to be rectified as reported below.

Table 3 Return performance of portfolios excluding sin stocks, 01/1991–12/2012
Full size table

This rectification implies that there is a negative but insignificant effect of screening on risk-adjusted return performance. Results for sin stock portfolios (Table 4 in the manuscript) are unaffected. Hence, opportunity costs of negative screening consist in the foregone investments in various sin stock categories that outperform other stocks on a risk-adjusted basis.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused.