Throwing a Curve at Socially Responsible Investing Research

This paper primarily focuses on Entine's assertion that SRI research is hopelessly flawed. Although SRI researchers have primarily chosen to pluck the low-hanging fruit in this line of inquiry, it is possible to obtain unbiased higher level insight. SRI research best functions as a means of helping firms and investors identify what the market wants. As Entine points out, the definition of what is and is not moral behavior for a firm is a quagmire, and the ability to measure whether socially responsible investors have forced firms to become moral is suspect. The paper also agrees with Waddock that socially responsible investors have caused firms to take certain actions that, without such pressure, they would have taken much later or not at all. However, whether these actions have made firms moral is not a debate that SRI researchers should enter. Certainly, events of late would suggest that although firms, by and large, are now more responsive to a variety of social issues, they are not moral entities, and should not be viewed as such.

[1]  J. O. N. Entine,et al.  The Myth of Social Investing , 2003 .

[2]  Sandra Waddock,et al.  Myths and Realities of Social Investing , 2003 .

[3]  Michael L. Barnett,et al.  Unpacking Social Responsibility: The Curvilinear Relationship between Social and Financial Performance , 2002 .

[4]  J. D. Margolis,et al.  People and profits? : the search for a link between a company's social and financial performance , 2001 .

[5]  D. Turban,et al.  Corporate Social Performance As a Competitive Advantage in Attracting a Quality Workforce , 2000 .

[6]  C. Fombrun,et al.  Opportunity Platforms and Safety Nets: Corporate Citizenship and Reputational Risk , 2024, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[7]  Shawn L. Berman,et al.  Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship Between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance , 1999 .

[8]  Shawn L. Berman,et al.  The Structure of Optimal Trust: Moral and Strategic Implications , 1999 .

[9]  Samuel B. Graves,et al.  The corporate social performance-financial performance link , 1997 .

[10]  J. Mahon,et al.  The corporate social performance and corporate The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research , 1997 .

[11]  T. Jones.  INSTRUMENTAL STAKEHOLDER THEORY: A SYNTHESIS OF ETHICS AND ECONOMICS , 1995 .

[12]  L. Preston,et al.  The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications , 1995 .

[13]  Alice Tepper Marlin.  Shopping for a better world : a quick and easy guide to socially responsible supermarket shopping , 1992 .

[14]  Ben Corson.  Shopping for a better world : a quick and easy guide to socially responsible supermarket shopping , 1990 .

[15]  J. McGuire,et al.  Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance , 1988 .

[16]  J. Hooley.  Data in Search of a Theory. , 1986 .

[17]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[18]  Arieh A. Ullmann.  Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships Among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms , 1985 .

[19]  Kenneth E. Aupperle,et al.  An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate so#al responsibility and profitabilit , 1985 .

[20]  R. Freeman.  Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , 2010 .

[21]  Peter E. Kennedy,et al.  A Guide to Econometrics , 1980 .

[22]  F. Glen.  The social psychology of organizations , 1976 .

[23]  W. Bennis,et al.  The Social Psychology of Organizations , 1966 .