Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Competing Logics in the Islamic Funds Industry: A Market Logic Versus a Religious Logic

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In contrast to the conventional fund management industry with a profit-oriented logic based on risk and return, ethical and faith-based funds should follow the religious principles of their investment-style philosophy. Islamic funds should obey the theological teachings of the primary sources of Islam, the Quran and Sunnah, as stakeholders expect these religious teachings to influence the investment decisions of fund managers. In practice, Islamic fund managers use Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI)’s screening criteria, based on secondary sources of Islam, which allow investments that are only partially halal (allowable) to be included in their portfolios. This study finds that a more religious logic in screening practices, although impairing diversification, does not necessarily harm performance. Thus, Islamic investment funds, and the wider ethical fund management industry, should, and could, adopt stricter screening criteria that match their investment mandates and bring more ethical business practices to the industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Syed and Van Buren III (2014) on global business and Islamic views regarding the treatment of women within Islam.

  2. These are outlined in more detail in Fig. 2.

  3. See also Pache and Santos (2013) for an examination of competing logics.

  4. For example the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the Domini 400 Social Index, and the FTSE4Good index.

  5. Riba is unethical to Muslims as usury is a form of exploitation where income is received by lenders, who take little or no risk, against borrowers who bear all the risk (Beekun and Badawi 2005).

  6. See Al-Quradaqi (2002).

  7. Some years earlier the SSB of Al-Rajhi, the largest Islamic bank in the world, had discussed the legitimacy of investing in these stocks (Fatwa no. 4850) and approved them out of necessity; AAOIFI does not link its screening to necessity (Al-Tunaji 2009).

  8. However, since the 1998 Fatwa there has been an enormous growth in the number of pure Halal listed company stocks and this Fatwa may no longer be needed on a practical level.

  9. Arguably allowing more investments to be included in funds.

  10. The 5% threshold has no foundation in the Quran or Sunnah (Derigs and Marzban 2008). Further, any non-Halal income should be donated to charity as a form of “income cleansing”, but this may not happen.

  11. This is based on a Hadith as translated by Derigs and Marzban (2008, p. 292): “The Prophet advised Abu Bakr [one of his closest companions] not to donate more than one-third of his wealth and commented that ‘One third is too much’”.

  12. Sukuk are commonly referred to as the Islamic equivalent of bonds. See AAOIFI (2017, p. 468) that defines Sukuk.

  13. This is based on the fiqh principle: “The majority deserves to be treated as the whole thing”.

  14. The Securities Commission Shariah Advisory Council (2007) in Malaysia does not apply a liquidity screen either. Indeed, 17% of listed companies on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange Shariah Index have a liquidity ratio of more than 50%, and 44% of listed companies depend heavily on debt (Abdul Rahman et al. 2010).

  15. The most hotly debated interpretation is over the proportion of illiquid to liquid assets.

  16. Amiri Capital is a Shariah service provider and fund manager (see: https://www.amiricapital.com).

  17. DJIM, S&P, and Azzad Islamic funds do not eliminate companies with interest-bearing debts and/or Haram earnings.

  18. Other Shariah scholars have gone further and have demanded that Islamic funds invest only in pure Islamic companies (Al-Nashmi 1998; Al-Qurdi 2001). Khatkhatay and Nisar (2007) suggest that non-pure Halal companies are unacceptable, even if their Haram activities are comparatively minor. This modification of screening practices is also supported by Al-Tunaji (2009) and other scholars, who believe that the inclusion of these stocks should be banned.

  19. The KSE recently changed its name to the Boursa Kuwait but we refer to the stock exchange as the KSE in this paper.

  20. Portfolio screening for the years 2011–2015 (portfolios for 2012–2016) was conducted by IdealRatings. IdealRatings is a Shariah screening and index management services provider that specializes in Shariah-compliant equity screening (see: https://www.idealratings.com/). IdealRatings has been used by other studies such as Derigs and Marzban (2008). The authors acknowledge the support given by IdealRatings for this research in providing some of the screening information required.

  21. Most annual reports were available in English, but some were only available in Arabic, which were read by an Arabic-speaking author.

  22. No items are classified as halal or sin in the annual reports, so they need to be read thoroughly to establish if there are items such as revenue from pork, alcohol, or tobacco or any conventional bonds on the balance sheet or any financial derivatives.

  23. Wednesdays were used as Fridays are a religious day in Kuwait and the markets are closed. We also wished to avoid the Monday effect and end-of-week effect so Wednesday was selected as the day-of-the-week to use.

  24. Only three dummy variables appear in the model, while there are 8 variables in total. Sector and size diversification variables are indexes which have continuous values ranging from 0 to 1 (see Table 7); they are calculated using the formulae in Eqs. 4 and 5, respectively.

  25. The fixed and random effects models were also estimated using the panel generalized least square regression, but the tests show that the fixed effects are redundant and there are no random effects. Initially, the effects of halving thresholds and restricting investment in pure stocks only and the effect of using AAOIFI 2006 instead of AAOIFI 2004 were investigated by including three dummy variables, but the results illustrate insignificant effects or difference in portfolio performance.

  26. The information criterion should normally be used in identifying the number of lags in a time-series model which is to forecast the value of dependent variables. However, in the panel model with just 10 years data, the information criterion that is contingent on the number of periods is not very powerful; normally, GMM estimations do not provide information criterion values as they lack power.

  27. Instrumental variables include the total risk and systemic risk exposures of the portfolios (SD and beta), the first lags of portfolio size, SDI and SeDI, the previous-year spread between maximum and minimum returns on stocks included in the portfolio, the previous-year spread of firm size which is proxied by the difference between the maximum and minimum sizes of investee firms, the ratio of size diversification to sector diversification, and the change in the number of stocks invested (the first difference of NOS).

References

  • AAOIFI. (2004). Sharia Standard No. 21. Sharia’a Standards for Islamic Financial Institutions 1425H-2004. Manama, Bahrain: Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions.

  • AAOIFI. (2006). Sharia Standard No. 21. Sharia’a standards for Islamic Financial Institutions 1427H-2006. Manama, Bahrain: Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions.

  • AAOIFI. (2017). Sharia standard no. 21. Manama, Bahrain: Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions. https://aaoifi.com/shariaa-standards/?lang=en. Accessed June 2020.

  • Abdul Rahman, A., Yahya, M., & Nasir, M. (2010). Islamic norms for stock screening: A comparison between the Kuala Lumpur stock exchange Islamic index and the Dow Jones Islamic market index. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 3(3), 228–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdullah, F., Hassan, T., & Mohamad, S. (2007). Investigation of performance of Malaysian Islamic unit trust funds: Comparison with conventional unit trust funds. Managerial Finance, 33(2), 142–153.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashraf, D. (2013). Performance evaluation of Islamic mutual funds relative to conventional funds: Empirical evidence from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 6(2), 105–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government. (2019). Royal commission into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry. https://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed June 2020.

  • Bay, D., McKeage, K., & McKeage, J. (2008). An historical perspective on the interplay of Christian thought and business ethics. Business & Society, 49(4), 652–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beekun, R., & Badawi, J. (2005). Balancing ethical responsibility among multiple organizational stakeholders: The Islamic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belal, A. R., Abdelsalam, O., & Nizamee, S. S. (2014). Ethical reporting in Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited (1983–2010). Journal of Business Ethics, 129(4), 769–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, R. H., & Yeung, F. (2013). Are investors willing to sacrifice cash for morality? Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3), 477–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bin Mahfouz, S., & Hassan, M. K. (2012). A comparative study between the investment characteristics of islamic and conventional equity mutual funds in Saudi Arabia. The Journal of Investing, 21(4), 128–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capelle-Blancard, G., & Monjon, S. (2014). The performance of socially responsible funds: Does the screening process matter? European Financial Management, 20(3), 494–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. L., Feiner, A. & Viehs, M. (2015). From the stockholder to the stakeholder: How sustainability can drive financial outperformance. www.arabesque.com. Accessed June 2020.

  • Clegg, S. R., & Gordon, R. D. (2012). Accounting for ethics in action: Problems with localized constructions of legitimacy. Financial Accounting and Management, 28(4), 417–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derigs, U., & Marzban, S. (2008). Review and analysis of current Shariah-compliant equity screening practices. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 1(4), 285–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derigs, U., & Marzban, S. (2009). New strategies and a new paradigm for Shariah-compliant portfolio optimization. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(6), 1166–1176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derwall, J., Guenster, N., Bauer, R., & Koedijk, K. (2005). The eco-efficiency premium puzzle. Financial Analysts Journal, 61(2), 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diltz, D. J. (1995). Does social screening affect portfolio performance? The Journal of Investing, 4(1), 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmelki, A., & Mounira, B. A. (2009). Ethical investment and the social responsibilities of the Islamic banks. International Business Research, 2(2), 123–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E. S., & Foucart, R. (2014). Western financial agents and Islamic ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 475–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fathallah, R., Sidani, Y., & Khalil, S. (2020). How religion shapes family business ethical behaviors: An institutional logics perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 163, 647–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferruz, L., Munoz, F., & Vargas, M. (2012). Managerial abilities: Evidence from religious mutual fund managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4), 503–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutional-ism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–267). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A., & Waddock, S. (2011). Accountability in a global economy: the emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 23–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P., & Piani, V. (2012). Enabling institutional investors’ collective action: The role of the principles for responsible investment initiative. Business & Society, 52(1), 64–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Meyer, R. E., et al. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood (Ed.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 1–46). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumusay, A. A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. (2020). “God at work”: engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 124–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R., & Hudaib, R. (2007). Exploring the ethical identity of islamic banks via communication in annual reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 97–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayat, R., & Kräussl, R. (2011). Risk and return characteristics of Islamic equity funds. Emerging Markets Review, 12(2), 189–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayat, R., Butter, F. D., & Kock, U. (2013). Halal certification for financial products: A transaction cost perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 601–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidayah, N. N., Lowe, A., & De Loo, I. (2020). Identity drift: the multivocality of ethical identity in Islamic financial institution. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04448-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussein, K., & Omran, M. (2005). Ethical investment revisited: Evidence from Dow Jones Islamic Indexes. The Journal of Investing, 14(3), 105–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, M. C., Mulcahy, M., & O’Brien, J. (2018). What is the cost of faith? An empirical investigation of Islamic purification. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 52, 134–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, C. (2015). International comparison of Shari’ah compliance screening standards. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 8(2), 222–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, C., Masood, O., Abdul Rehman, A., & Bellalah, M. (2012). Syariah accounting and compliant screening practices. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 4(2), 240–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holder-Webb, L., & Cohen, J. (2012). The cut and paste society: Isomorphism in codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), 485–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (1968). The performance of mutual funds in the period 1945–1964. The Journal of Finance, 23(2), 389–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • KFH Research. (2011). Islamic funds industry. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: KFH Research Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khatkhatay, M. H., & Nisar, S. (2007). Shari’ah compliant equity investments: An assessment of current screening norms. Islamic Economic Studies, 15(1), 47–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., Mathur, I., & Nam, J. (2006). Is operational hedging a substitute for or a complement to financial hedging? Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(4), 834–853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laldin, M. A. (2008). Fundamentals and practices in Islamic finance. Kuala Lumpur: International Shari’ah Research Academy for Islamic Finance (ISRA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepoutre, J., & Valente, M. (2012). Fools breaking out: The role of symbolic and material immunity in explaining institutional non-conformity. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 285–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobe, S., Rößle, F., & Walkshäusl, C. (2012). The price of faith: Performance, bull and Bear markets, and screening effects of Islamic investing around the globe. The Journal of Investing, 21(4), 153–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louche, C., Arenas, D., & Van Cranenburgh, K. C. (2012). From preaching to investing attitudes of religious organizations towards responsible investment. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(3), 301–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansour, W., Khoutem, B. J., & Jihed, M. (2015). How ethical is Islamic banking in the light of the objectives of Islamic law? Journal of Religious Ethics, 43(1), 51–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, L. (2007). Structural innovators and core-framing tasks: How socially responsible mutual fund companies build identity among investors. Sociological Perspectives, 50(1), 131–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, L., Cobb, D., & Hedley, M. (2012). Framing ambiguity: Insider/outsiders and the successful legitimation project of the socially responsible mutual fund industry. Organization Studies, 19(1), 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzban, S., & Asutay, M. (2012). The impact of asset-based versus market capitalization-based Shari’ah screening on US and Japanese equities: An empirical analysis. Asian and African Area Studies, 11(2), 151–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merdad, H., Hassan, M., & Alhenawi, Y. (2010). Islamic versus conventional mutual funds’ performance in Saudi Arabia: A case study. JKAU Islamic Economics, 23(2), 157–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naqvi, S. N. H. (1981). Ethics and economics—An Islamic synthesis. Leicester: The Islamic Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2010). The institutionalization of social investment: The interplay of investment logics and investor rationalities. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 70–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parboteeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. (2008). Ethics and religion: An empirical test of a multidimensional model. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 387–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peifer, J. (2014). Fund loyalty among socially responsible investors: The importance of the economic and ethical domains. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(4), 635–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pok, W. C. (2012). Analysis of Syariah quantitative screening norms among Malaysia Syariah-compliant stocks. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 9(2), 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., Waddock, S., & McIntosh, M. (2012). The United Nations Global Compact: retrospect and prospect. Business & Society, 52(1), 6–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30, 629–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, G. (1999). Islamic ethics and the implications for business. Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 345–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, B. J. (2009). Keeping ethical investment ethical: Regulatory issues for investing for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(4), 555–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roulet, T. (2015). “What good is Wall Street?” Institutional contradiction and the diffusion of the stigma over the finance industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2), 389–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S. (2003). The “Ethics” of Ethical Investing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 195–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission, S. (2007). Resolutions of the securities commission Shariah advisory council (2nd ed.). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Securities Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, W. F. (1966). Mutual fund performance. The Journal of Business, 39(1), 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddiqui, R. (2007). Shari’ah compliance, performance and conversion: The case of the Dow Jones Islamic Market Index. Chicago Journal of International Law, 7(2), 495–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slager, R. (2015). SRI indices and responsible corporate behavior: A study of the FTSE4Good Index. Business & Society, 54(3), 386–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, E. (1994). Just business: Business ethics. London: Warner Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong, N. (1992). Modelling abnormal returns: A review article. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 19(4), 533–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syed, J., & Metcalfe, B. D. (2015). In pursuit of Islamic Akhlaq of Business and Development. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(4), 763–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syed, J., & Van Buren, I. I. I. H. J. (2014). Global business norms and Islamic views of women’s employment. Business Ethics Quarterly., 24(2), 251–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tantisantiwong, N., Halari, A., Helliar, C. V., & Power, D. M. (2018). East meets west: When the Islamic and Gregorian calendars coincide. British Accounting Review, 50(4), 402–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Institutional Logics, Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treynor, J. L. (1965). How to rate management of investment funds. Harvard Business Review, 43, 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Buren, H. J., Syed, J., & Mir, R. (2020). Religion as a macro social force affecting business: Concepts, questions and future research. Business & Society, 59(5), 799–822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J. (2009). The role of religiosity in business and consumer ethics: A review of the literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 155–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. (2004). Screening criteria for Islamic equity funds. In S. Jaffer (Ed.), Islamic asset management (pp. 35–45). London: Euromoney Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakariyah, L. (2015). Harmonising legality with morality in Islamic banking and finance: A quest for Maqāṣid alSharī’ah paradigm. Intellectual Discourse, 23(2), 355–376.

    Google Scholar 

Arabic References

  • Al-Khalel, A. M. (2005). The rulings of stocks and bonds according to Islamic Jurisprudence (2nd ed.). Dar Ibn Al-jawzi, Saudi Arabia.

  • Al-Manea, S. (1998). Trading in stocks of companies based on Islamic Foundations and Principles, the Fifth Jurisprudence Conference, Kuwait Finance House, 2–4 November, 1998, 33–71.

  • Al-Nifasa, Abdul Rahman, A. (2010). Investment Funds: The Shariah Guidelines and Governance Rulings, Empirical Comparison Study, First Edition, Dar Al-Nafaes, Jordon.

  • Al-Nashmi, A. J. )1998(. Trading and participating in stocks of companies whose business is permissible but sometimes deals with haram. In The fifth Jurisprudence conference, Kuwait Finance House, 2–4 November, 1998 (pp. 139–172).

  • Al-Quradaqi, Ali, M. A. (2002). The rulings and types of stocks in light of islamic jurisprudence (pp. 169–220). In Research in Islamic Economics, (1st ed.). Dar Al-Bashaer, Lebanon.

  • Al-Qurdi. (2001) Trading in stocks of companies whose business and purpose is permissible but borrow and lend on interest basis. Journal of Shariah and Islamic Studies, 44(16), 16.

  • Al-Salaami, M. M. (1998). Trading in stocks of companies whose business is permissible but borrow and lend on interest basis. In The fifth jurisprudence conference, Kuwait Finance House, 2–4 November, 1998 (pp. 9–30).

  • Al-Tunaji, Ibraheem, A. (2009). Governance for buying mixed stocks in Islamic jurisprudence. Journal of Shariah and Islamic Studies, 77(24), 459–485.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Studies, The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training, Al Ardiya, Kuwait

    Khaled O. Alotaibi

  2. University of South Australia Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

    Christine Helliar

  3. Global Business Development and Strategy Group, Krungthai Bank, Bangkok, Thailand

    Nongnuch Tantisantiwong

Authors
  1. Khaled O. Alotaibi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Helliar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nongnuch Tantisantiwong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Helliar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, data, authorship, or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

There were no humans or animals involved in this research and the authors have complied with ethical standards of research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the public authority for applied education and training.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alotaibi, K.O., Helliar, C. & Tantisantiwong, N. Competing Logics in the Islamic Funds Industry: A Market Logic Versus a Religious Logic. J Bus Ethics 175, 207–230 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04653-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04653-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation