Advertisement

Why Self-Commitment Is Not Enough: On a Regulated Minimum Standard for Ecologically and Socially Responsible Financial Products and Services

  • Andreas Oehler
  • Matthias Horn
  • Stefan Wendt
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business In Association with Future Earth book series (PSSBAFE)

Abstract

A broad variety of financial products and services is advertised as being ecologically and socially responsible. The market for these products and services, however, is characterized by a number of shortcomings. First, financial service providers largely make their own very general definitions of what is ecologically and socially responsible. Therefore, it is largely impossible to fully understand these products and services and to compare among them and with “traditional” products and services. Second, there is no level playing field for providers of responsible financial products and services, which hampers competition in the market. To tackle these problems, we suggest a regulated minimum standard for ecologically and socially responsible financial products and services which addresses clear and unambiguous criteria and how information about their fulfillment should be presented. This standard would allow consumers to understand and compare financial products and services, and it would provide a level playing field for intermediaries and strengthen competition.

References

  1. Albuquerque, R., Durnev, A., & Koskinen, Y. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Working Paper, Boston.Google Scholar
  2. Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2010). Redefining sustainability. In G. Aras & D. Crowther (Eds.), A handbook of corporate governance and social responsibility (pp. 51–68). Farnham: Gower.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bassen, A., & Senkl, D. (2011). Environment, social, governance (ESG). Die Betriebswirtschaft (DBW), 71, 506–509.Google Scholar
  5. Bateman, H., Eckert, C., Geweke, J., Louviere, J., Satchell, S., & Thorp, S. (2014). Financial competence, risk presentation and retirement portfolio preferences. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 13, 27–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bettzieche, J. (2012). Von ethischen Maschinenpistolen und ökologischem Uranabbau. Berlin: Bundestagsfraktion von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen.Google Scholar
  7. Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. (2013). Salience and consumer choice. Journal of Political Economy, 121, 803–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dheeriya, P. (2017). On evaluating socially responsible investment projects-creation of an index of “goodness”. Journal of Business Inquiry, 16, 4–11.Google Scholar
  9. Elkington, J. (1994). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line, does it all add up?: Assessing the sustainability of business and CSR (pp. 1–16). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  10. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2001). Green paper. Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, COM(2001) 366 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 5(4), 210–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton, S., Hoje, J., & Statman, M. (1993). Doing well while doing good? The investment performance of socially responsible mutual funds. Financial Analysts Journal, 49(6), 62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Humphrey, J., & Tan, D. (2014). Does it really hurt to be responsible? Journal of Business Ethics, 122(3), 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgement and choice. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malhotra, N. K. (1984). Reflections on the information overload paradigm in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 436–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Micklitz, H.-W. (2003). The necessity of a new concept for the further development of the consumer law in the EU. German Law Journal, 4, 1043–1064.Google Scholar
  19. Micklitz, H.-W. (2004). The principles of European contract law and the protection of the weaker party. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27, 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Micklitz, H.-W. (2013). Jenseits des Informationsparadigmas – ein Plädoyer für ein soziales Verbraucherrecht. Friedrichshafen: Invited Talk.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits to our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of the “triple bottom line”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oehler, A. (2011). Behavioral Economics und Verbraucherpolitik: Grundsätzliche Überlegungen und Praxisbeispiele aus dem Bereich Verbraucherfinanzen. Journal of Banking and Financial Research/BankArchiv. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Bank- und Börsenwesen, 59, 707–727.Google Scholar
  24. Oehler, A. (2013). Mindeststandard für sozial-ökologische Geldanlagen (SÖG) Studie zur Erarbeitung eines Anforderungskatalogs.Google Scholar
  25. Oehler, A. (2014). Testen der Tester?: Grundsätze ordnungsgemäßen Testens!, Generally Accepted Testing Principles. Wirtschaftsdienst. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, 94, 444–447.Google Scholar
  26. Oehler, A. (2017). Verbraucherinformation und Verbraucherbildung. In P. Kenning, A. Oehler, L. Reisch, & C. Grugel (Eds.), Verbraucherwissenschaften – Rahmenbedingungen, Forschungsfelder und Institutionen (pp. 279–293). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Oehler, A., & Reisch, L. (2008). Behavioral Economics – eine neue Grundlage für die Verbraucherpolitik? A study for vzbv Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband, Berlin.Google Scholar
  28. Oehler, A., & Wendt, S. (2017). Good consumer information: The information paradigm at its (dead) end? Journal of Consumer Policy, 40(2), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oehler, A., Kohlert, D., & Jungermann, H. (2009). The quality of financial investment advice for private investors: Problems in the advice process and potential solutions. Statement by the Scientific Advisory Council on Consumer and Food Policy at the Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), Berlin.Google Scholar
  30. Oehler, A., Höfer, A., & Wendt, S. (2014). Do key investor information documents enhance retail investors’ understanding of financial products? Empirical evidence. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 22, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgement and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2008). Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32, 1723–1742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schäfer, H., Beer, J., Zenker, J., & Fernandes, P. (2006). Who is who in corporate social responsibility rating? Gütersloh/Stuttgart: Bertelsmann Foundation.Google Scholar
  34. Selten, R. (1990). Bounded rationality. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 146, 649–658.Google Scholar
  35. Sheehy, B. (2015). Defining CSR: Problems and solutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. USSIF. (2014). Global Sustainable Investment Review.Google Scholar
  38. Weber, O. (2010). Social banking: Products and services. Working Paper, Waterloo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Oehler
    • 1
  • Matthias Horn
    • 2
  • Stefan Wendt
    • 3
  1. 1.Chair of FinanceBamberg UniversityBambergGermany
  2. 2.Department of FinanceBamberg UniversityBambergGermany
  3. 3.School of BusinessReykjavik UniversityReykjavikIceland

Personalised recommendations