Skip to main content

Identifying the Determinants of the Decision to Create Socially Responsible Funds: An Empirical Investigation

Journal of Business Ethics volume 136, pages 101–117 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper proposes an empirical assessment of the main factors behind the decision of a corporate sponsor to launch a socially responsible (SR) fund. Our analysis is performed on a database that encompasses 414 SR fund creations by 46 corporate sponsors between 1990 and 2012. We provide evidence that economic and human resources slack, leverage, low media coverage and high extra-financial performance of the corporate sponsor contribute to an increase of the probability to propose SR funds. These results lead us to argue that the introduction of such funds goes beyond the economic objective of enlarging the market share of the corporate sponsor. It may thus be seen as a particular strategy in terms of communication and signaling, due to the specific characteristics of SR funds.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. A slight change in the characteristics of the financial product allows their differentiation; as such, legal protection is very difficult to set up. By consequent, patents are very limited in the financial industry.

  2. ISO 14001 requires firms to establish an Environment Management System (EMS) that allows handling environmental issues within the organization.

  3. Launching a new SR fund may require hiring or designating a specific team devoted to define the SR screens, rate the different financial securities, pick up those that correspond to the pre-defined SR screens and then compose the final portfolio of the fund. If the corporate promoter uses extra-financial ratings provided by external rating agencies, these ratings may become extremely expensive. Finally, the corporate promoter must communicate and promote the new financial product.

  4. We do not have information regarding the number of dead funds over the period under study. This may potentially induce a survivorship bias. However, following previous empirical evidence such as Gregory and Whittaker (2007), Kempf and Osthoff (2008) or Renneboog et al. (2008) suggesting that SR funds have low attrition rates when compared with conventional funds, we expect the impact of survivorship bias on our results to be limited.

  5. If we accept the idea that the number of employees is positively correlated with the total assets of a company, then the matching should decrease the impact of the size on the decision to create SR funds.

  6. We thus capture their values the year before the fund was introduced. As such, we are able to control the direction of causality, i.e., from the different explanatory variables, e.g., financial and extra-financial, to the decision to create a new SR fund.

  7. The number of observations is given by the number of funds and not by the number of corporate promoters. As such, the variables characterizing the firms that introduced several funds as well as their matched counterparts are over-weighted.

  8. One should notice that in this modeling, the number of dependent variables equal to 1 is the same as the number of dependent variables equal to 0.

  9. All the estimations were performed with STATA.

  10. We were supposed to perform our estimations on 828 observations (414 funds × 2 including our control sample); however, due to the lack of observations for several explanatory variables we were forced to work on 766 row vectors which correspond to 383 SR fund introductions.

  11. The results remain unchanged when we perform our estimations using a probit model. The results are available upon request from the authors.

  12. Nishitani (2009) for example concludes that the number of employees is positively correlated with the probability to adopt the ISO 14001 certification.

  13. We cross-check our results with OLS regressions and the results remain unchanged. The results are available upon request from the authors.

Abbreviations

CSR:

Corporate social responsibility

DJSI:

Dow Jones Sustainability Index

ESG:

Environmental, social and governance

PRI:

Principles for responsible investment

RBP:

Resource-based perspectives

SR:

Socially responsible

References

  • Arjaliès, D.-L. (2010). A social movement perspective on finance: How socially responsible investment mattered. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Firm profitability, growth, and innovation. Review of Industrial Organization, 10, 579–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autore, D. M., & Kovacs, T. (2010). Equity issues and temporal variation in information asymmetry. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(1), 12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Hunter, T. (2003). Strategic explanations for the early adoption of ISO 14001. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battacharya, M., & Bloch, H. (2004). Determinants of innovation. Small Business Economics, 22, 155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharath, S. T., Pasquariello, P., & Wu, G. (2009). Does asymmetric information drive capital structure decisions? Review of Financial Studies, 22(8), 3211–3243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2008). Social responsibility disclosure: A study of proxies for the public visibility of Portuguese banks. The British Accounting Review, 40(2), 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunnermeier, S. B., & Cohen, M. A. (2003). Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 278–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D. J., & Macintosh, J. G. (2000). The Determinants of R&D expenditures: A study of the canadian biotechnology industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 17, 357–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran, M., & Moran, D. (2006). Impact of the FTSE4 good index on firm price: An event study. Journal of Environmental Management, 82(4), 529–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. Y., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital ? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frambach, R. T., Barkema, H. G., Nooteboom, B., & Wedel, M. (1998). Adoption of a service innovation in the business market: An empirical test of supply-side variables. Journal of Business Research, 41, 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2005). Which resources matter the most to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory. Technovation, 25(9), 979–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauvin, S., & Sinha, R. K. (1993). Innovativeness in industrial organizations: A two-stage model of adoption. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(2), 165–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girerd-Potin, I., Garcès-Jimenez, S., & Louvet, P. (2011). The link between social rating and financial capital structure. Finance, 32(2), 9–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, A., & Whittaker, J. (2007). Performance and performance persistence of ethical unit trusts in the UK. Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting, 34(7–8), 1327–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinkel, R., Kraus, A., & Zechner, J. (2001). The effect of green investment on corporate behaviour. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 36(4), 431–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeucken, M. H. A., & Bouma, J. J. (1999). The changing environment of banks. Greener Management International, 27, 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandampully, J. (2002). Innovation as the core competency of a service organization: The role of technology, knowledge and networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(1), 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempf, A., & Osthoff, P. (2008). SRI funds: Nomen Est Omen. Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting, 35(9–10), 1276–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, A. M. (1983). The adoption and diffusion of new industrial products: A literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 17(3), 31–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khorana, A., & Servaes, H. (1999). The determinants of mutual fund starts. The Review of Financial Studies, 12(5), 1043–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, A., & MacKenzie, C. (2000). Morals, money, ethical investing and economic psychology. Human Relations, 53, 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification. Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2), 187–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, M., Takahashi, T., & Vertinsky, I. (2001). Why Japanese firms choose to certify: A study of managerial responses to environmental issues. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 42(1), 23–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijssen, E. J., & Frambach, R. T. (2000). Determinants of the adoption of new product development tools by industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 121–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, J. (2009). Segmenting socially responsible mutual fund investors. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishitani, K. (2009). An empirical study of the initial adoption of ISO 14001 in Japanese manufacturing firms. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 669–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renneboog, L., Horst, J. T., & Zhang, C. (2008). The price of ethics and stakeholder governance: The performance of socially responsible mutual funds. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3), 302–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New-York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandor, R., & Flatz, A. (2002). The DJSI—A story of financial innovation. Environmental Finance, December 2011–January 2012, 21–22.

  • Social Investment Forum (SIF). (2012). Report on sustainable and responsible investing trends in the United States. London: Social Investment Forum (SIF).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullmann, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigéo. (2012). Green, social and ethical funds in Europe. 2012 Review, December 2012.

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance—Financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webley, P., Lewis, A., & MacKenzie, C. (2001). Commitment among ethical investors: An experimental approach. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, E. W., Mori, Y., & Aoyagi-Usui, M. (2002). Voluntary adoption of ISO 14001 in Japan: Mechanisms, stages and effects. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S. Y., Chu, P. Y., & Liu, T. Y. (2007). Determinants of a firm’s ISO 14001 certification: An empirical study of Taiwan. Pacific Economic Review, 12(4), 467–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, E. J., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (1991). New organizational forms for enhancing innovation: The case of internal corporate joint ventures. Management Science, 37(2), 170–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, A., & Schröder, M. (2010). What determines the inclusion in a sustainability stock index? A panel data analysis for European firms. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 848–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CRIISEA, University of Picardie Jules Verne, 10, Placette Lafleur, BP 2716, 80027, Amiens Cedex 1, France

    Jonathan Peillex & Loredana Ureche-Rangau

Authors
  1. Jonathan Peillex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Loredana Ureche-Rangau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loredana Ureche-Rangau.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 8 The corporate sponsors having launched SR funds and the control sample
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peillex, J., Ureche-Rangau, L. Identifying the Determinants of the Decision to Create Socially Responsible Funds: An Empirical Investigation. J Bus Ethics 136, 101–117 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2507-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2507-y

Keywords

  • Corporate sponsor
  • Ethical finance
  • SR funds
  • Slack resources theory
  • Resource-based perspectives