Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 115, Issue 3, pp 515–529 | Cite as

Selection of Socially Responsible Portfolios Using Hedonic Prices

  • Amelia Bilbao-Terol
  • Mar Arenas-Parra
  • Verónica Cañal-Fernández
  • Celia Bilbao-Terol
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a novel framework for selecting socially responsible investment (SRI) portfolios. The Hedonic Price Method (HPM) is applied to obtain an evaluation of SRI criteria that is integrated into a multi-objective mathematical programming model. The HPM breaks away from the traditional view that goods are the direct object of utility; on the contrary, it assumes that utility is derived from the properties or characteristics of the goods themselves. As far as the investment decision is concerned, we assume that socially responsible investmentmutual funds (SRI funds) constitute heterogeneous goods. Our approach allows us to obtain a portfolio, the financial performance of which is similar to that which the investor would have reached if he or she had not taken into account social, ethical, and environmental considerations when making his or her investment decisions. This is achieved by designing a two-stage multi-objective mathematical programming procedure. In the first stage, we achieve the maximum level of financial satisfaction that the investor can receive. In the second stage, the portfolio with the best financial–social behavior is built. For the purpose of this second stage, the first stage portfolio is used as a benchmark for the financial performance of a socially responsible portfolio. To apply this methodology, we use portfolios composed of socially responsible and conventional mutual funds domiciled in Spain.

Keywords

Socially responsible investment Portfolio selection Mutual funds Multi-objective programming Hedonic prices Variance Conditional value-at-risk Certainty equivalent 

References

  1. Arenas, M., Bilbao, A., & Rodríguez, M. V. (2001). A fuzzy goal programming approach to portfolio selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 133(2), 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballestero, E., & Romero, C. (1996). Portfolio selection: A compromise programming solution. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(11), 1377–1386.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, M., & Salomon, R. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1101–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barracchini, C. (2007). An ethical investments evaluation for portfolio selection. Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 9, 1239–2685.Google Scholar
  5. Barrachini, C. (2004). An ethical investments evaluation for portfolio selection. Electronic Journal of Business, Ethics and Organization Studies, 9(1). Accessed June 20, 2009, from http://ejbo.jyu.fi.
  6. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (1998). International convergence of capital measurement and capital standards. Basel: Basel Committee Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (1999). A new capital adequacy framework. Basel: Basel Committee Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2001). The new base capital accord. Basel: Basel Committee Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Basso, A., & Funari, S. (2003). Measuring the performance of ethical mutual funds: A DEA approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bilbao, A., Arenas, M., & Cañal, V. (2012). Selection of socially responsible portfolios using goal programming and fuzzy technology. Information Sciences, 189, 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bilbao, C., & Cañal, V. (2011). ‘Valoración del Mercado de los Activos Éticos en España: una Aplicación del Método de los Precios Hedónicos. FUNCAS, Documento de trabajo no. 623. Accessed October 20, 2011, from http://www.funcas.es/publicaciones/Sumario.aspx?IdRef=7-05623.
  12. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.Google Scholar
  13. Carroll, A. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: A historical perspective. In M. J. Epstein & K. O. Hanson (Eds.), The accountable corporation (Vol. 3). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  14. Collison, D. J., Cobb, G., Power, D. M., & Stevenson, L. A. (2008). The financial performance of the FTSE4 good Indices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cullis, J. G., Lewis, A., & Winnett, A. (1992). Paying to be good? U.K. Ethical investments. Kyklos, 45(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drut, B. (2009). Nice guys with cold feet: The cost of responsible investing in the bondmarkets. Working Paper 09-34, Centre Emile Bernheim, Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  17. Drut, B. (2010). Social responsibility and mean-variance portfolio selection, Centre Emile Bernheim (CEB). Working Paper 10-002.RS, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Solvay Bruxelles School of Economics and Management.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2001). Accessed June 20, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=3908&lang=es.
  19. Farmen, T., & Van Der Wijst, N. (2005). A cautionary note on the pricing of ethics. Journal of Investing, 14(3), 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glac, K. (2009). Understanding socially responsible investing: The effect of decision frames and trade-off options. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hallerbach, W., Ning, H., Soppe, A., & Spronk, J. (2004). A framework for managing a portfolio of socially responsible investments. European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2), 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hwang, C.-L., & Masud, A. S. M. (1979). Multiple objectives decision making methods and applications. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ignizio, J. P. (1982). Linear programming in single and multiple objective systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Jansson, M., & Beil, A. (2009). Psychological influences on investors intention to be socially responsible investors: A comparison what influences SRI intentions among different types of investors. Sustainable Investment and Corporate Governance. Working Paper 2009/6, Sustainable Investment Research Platform.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review, 22(3), 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaminski, B., Czupryna, M., & Szapiro, T. (2009). On conditional value-at-risk based goal programming portfolio selection procedure. In V. Barichard, M. Ehrgott, X. Gandibleux, & V. T’Kindt (Eds.), Multiobjective programming and goal programming (pp. 243–252). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kempf, A., & Osthoff, P. (2008). SRI funds: Nomen est Omen. Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting, 35(9), 1276–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krokhmal, P., Palmquist, J., & Uryasev, S. (2002). Portfolio optimization with conditional value at-risk objective and constraints. Journal of Risk, 4(2), 43–68.Google Scholar
  29. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54(1–3), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 7(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lancaster, K. J. (1971). Consumer demand: A new approach. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lancaster, K. J. (1979). Variety, equity and efficiency. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Lee, S. M., & Chesser, D. L. (1980). Goal programming for portfolio selection. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 6(3), 22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee, S. M., & Lerro, A. J. (1973). Optimizing the portfolio selection for mutual funds. The Journal of Finance, 28(5), 1087–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis, A., & Mackenzie, C. (2000a). Morals, money, ethical investing and economic psychology. Human Relations, 53(2), 179–191.Google Scholar
  36. Lewis, A., & Mackenzie, C. (2000b). Support for investor activism among U.K. ethical investors. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(3), 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mackenzie, C., & Lewis, A. (1999). Morals and markets: The case of ethical investing. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(3), 439–452.Google Scholar
  38. Markowitz, H. M. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91.Google Scholar
  39. Meucci, A. (2007). Risk and asset allocation. New York: Springer Quantitative Finance.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, A. (1991). Socially responsible investment. Business Economist, 23(1), 21–33.Google Scholar
  41. Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2000). Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. Journal of Risk, 2, 21–41.Google Scholar
  42. Romero, C. (1985). Multi-objective and goal programming approaches as a distance function model. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(3), 249–251.Google Scholar
  43. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosen, B. N., Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1991). Social issues and socially responsible investment behavior: A preliminary empirical investigation. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 25(3), 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., & Paul, K. (1998). The development of a systematic, aggregate measure of corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 24, 119–133.Google Scholar
  47. Scholtens, B. (2009). Measuring sustainability performance of investments; the case of Dutchbond funds. Paper prepared for the PRI Academic Conference 2009. Accessed April 16, 2010, from http://www.unpri.org/files/Scholtens_PRI2009.pdf.
  48. Social Investment Forum. (2006). Report on socially responsible investing trends in the United States. Washington, DC: Social Investment Forum.Google Scholar
  49. Tsai, W.-H., Chou, W.-C., & Hsu, W. (2009). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for selecting socially responsible investment: An effective MCDM model. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60, 1396–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Webley, P., Lewis, A., & Mackenzie, C. (2001). Commitment among ethical investors: An experimental approach. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wood, D. J., & Jones, E. J. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zeleny, M. (1974). Linear multiobjective programming. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amelia Bilbao-Terol
    • 1
  • Mar Arenas-Parra
    • 1
  • Verónica Cañal-Fernández
    • 2
  • Celia Bilbao-Terol
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Quantitative Economics, Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of OviedoOviedoSpain
  2. 2.Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of OviedoOviedoSpain
  3. 3.Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of OviedoOviedoSpain

Personalised recommendations