Exploring the Evolution, Impact, and Controversies of Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact Investing
For a long time, Wall Street has disregarded social, faith-based, value-based, or sustainable investing, often viewing these approaches as sacrificing financial returns for mere moral satisfaction. However, the tide is turning, and evidence suggests that ethical investing can be just as profitable, if not more so, than traditional approaches.
This viewpoint often refers to economist Milton Friedman's influential assertion that corporations' sole responsibility is to their shareholders, not broader societal or environmental concerns. Known as shareholder theory, Friedman's perspective clashes with stakeholder theory, which argues that corporations should consider the interests of all affected parties—beyond just shareholders—and uphold social, economic, and environmental responsibilities as imperative.
Stakeholder theory asserts that businesses owe duties to shareholders and customers, suppliers, employees, and communities. This theory empowers investors guided by ethical principles, as it prioritizes their interests and the broader societal impact of their investments. Firms failing to act in their best interests face negative repercussions, like Friedman's views. Active investors who prioritize stakeholder needs can enhance firm valuation, making their influence felt in the corporate world.
Despite Wall Street's entrenched focus on shareholders, Shannon Zimmerman of Morningstar reported in August 2015 that "in roughly 60% of cases, funds incorporating Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) criteria delivered risk-adjusted returns on par with or better than their peers." The ESG trend gained momentum in 2020 amid a tumultuous US election year and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting societal reflection on values.
These factors highlight the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), a longstanding consideration in investment circles and public discourse on societal and environmental obligations. While CSR has roots dating back to Franklin Roosevelt's era in the 1930s, it gained traction in the 1970s and remains integral to contemporary investment discussions.
The debate centers on whether CSR is merely a feel-good investment trend or an essential aspect of corporate strategy. Shareholders may employ positive and negative screening to influence corporate behavior. Basic negative screens exclude "sin stocks" such as alcohol, tobacco, firearms, gambling, and pornography. The practice of divesting involves avoiding or selling such holdings.
Medium and advanced negative screens encompass issues like abortion, nuclear energy, uranium mining, violent media, fossil fuels, child labor, non-compliance with international protocols, and human rights abuses. Conversely, medium and advanced positive screens promote job security, healthcare, employee education, fair pay, diversity, environmental policies, philanthropy, board transparency, shareholder engagement, and fair-trade practices.
Known as "impact investing," this approach aims to align corporate policies with CSR goals. Today, impact investing responds to increased demand for ethical and socially inclusive capitalism, surpassing traditional philanthropy in funding community improvement initiatives. Impact investing strategies often target inequality in capital access but carry financial risks as fiduciaries balance social and economic returns.
This approach leads to hybrid organizations balancing social welfare and profit maximization. Research by Chris B. Murphy highlights how CSR empowers employees to utilize corporate resources for social good, enhancing corporate image, brand, employee morale, productivity, customer loyalty, and competitive advantage.
Research indicates that funding and dividend policies significantly influence firm value, while CSR disclosure moderates the relationship between investment policy and firm value. According to agency theory, corporate scandals and financial crises have spurred investor demand for ESG reporting despite concerns about inefficient resource allocation and loss of competitive advantage. Authentic leadership grounded in ethical values and transparent communication supports stakeholder theory and enhances CSR's impact on ethical business practices.
Conflicting evidence suggests that the effects of CSR and impact investing warrant further research and longitudinal study before conclusions can be drawn.
xxx
References:
Agrawal, A., & Hockerts, K. (2019a). Impact investing: Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 33(2), 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1551457
Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006289817941
Aristotle. (350 BCE). (1961). Causality, the four causes. In E. James (Ed. & Trans), The complete works of Aristotle (Vol. 11, pp. 3-66). Hogarth Press. http://books.google.com/books
Avetisyan, E., & Hockerts, K. (2016a). The consolidation of the ESG rating industry as an enactment of institutional retrogression. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1919
Barko, T., Cremers, M., & Renneboog, L. (2021). Shareholder engagement on environmental, social, and governance performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(2), 777–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04850-z
Berry, T. C., & Junkus, J. C. (2012). Socially responsible investing: An investor perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(4), 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1567-0
Casasnovas, G., & Jones, J. (2022). Who has a seat at the table in impact investing? addressing inequality by giving voice. Journal of Business Ethics, 179(4), 951–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05154-6
Chegut, A., Schenk, H., & Scholtens, B. (2011). Assessing Sri fund performance research: Best practices in empirical analysis. Sustainable Development, 19(2), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.509
Crifo, P., Escrig-Olmedo, E., & Mottis, N. (2018). Corporate governance as a key driver of corporate sustainability in France: The role of board members and investor relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(4), 1127-1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3866-6
Dawkins, C. E. (2016). Elevating the role of divestment in socially responsible investing. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(2), 465-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3356-7
Domini, A. L. (2001). Socially responsible investing: Making a difference in making money. Dearborn Trade.
Escrig‐Olmedo, E., Muñoz‐Torres, M. J., & Fernández‐Izquierdo, M. Á. (2012). Sustainable development and the financial system: Society’s perceptions about socially responsible investing. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(6), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1755
Filip, B. (2018). Friedman and Hayek’s converging ideas on freedom and the state. Hayek: A collaborative biography. Palgrave Macmillan, 327-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95219-2_10
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.263511
Freeman, R. E. (2015). Stakeholder theory. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, 1(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118785317.weom020179
Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-5720(90)90022-y
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholder's survival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & DeColle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511815768
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom: With the assistance of Rose D. friedman. University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 122-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). A Friedman doctrine - the social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html
Friedman, M. (1980). Free to choose. Penguin Books.
Friedman, M., & Donahue, P. (Interview). (2012, May 15). Milton friedman on Donahue 1979. YouTube. https://youtu.be/4lMvZpRXbUs?si=b5ZbQll8drhIJXub
Gifford, E. J. (2010). Effective shareholder engagement: The factors that contribute to shareholder salience. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(S1), 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0635-6
GIPS. (2011, January 1). GUIDANCE STATEMENT ON CALCULATION METHODOLOGY. Retrieved 16/6/2024, from Global Investment Performance Standards: https://www.gipsstandards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/calculation_methodology_gs_2011.pdf.
Hawn, O., Chatterji, A. K., & Mitchell, W. (2018). Do investors actually value sustainability? new evidence from investor reactions to the dow jones sustainability index (DJSI). Strategic Management Journal, 39(4), 949-976. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2752
Höchstädter, A. K., & Scheck, B. (2014). What’s In a name: An analysis of impact investing understandings by academics and practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 449–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2327-0
Kurtz, L. (1997). No effect, or no net effect? studies on socially responsible investing. The Journal of Investing, 6(4), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.3905/joi.1997.37
Kurtz, L. (2005). Answers to four questions. The Journal of Investing, 14(3), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.3905/joi.2005.580558
Kurtz, L., & diBartolomeo, D. (1996). Socially screened portfolios. The Journal of Investing, 5(3), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.3905/joi.1996.35
Kurtz, L., & diBartolomeo, D. (2005). The KLD Catholic values 400 index. The Journal of Investing, 14(3), 101–104. https://doi.org/10.3905/joi.2005.580556
Lokuwaduge, C. S., & Heenetigala, K. (2016). Integrating Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1927
Louche, C., Arenas, D., & van Cranenburgh, K. C. (2012). From preaching to investing: Attitudes of religious organisations towards responsible investment. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1155-8
Mackey, T. B., Mackey, A., Christensen, L. J., & Lepore, J. J. (2020). Inducing corporate social responsibility: Should investors reward the responsible or punish the irresponsible? Journal of Business Ethics, 175(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04669-0
Minutolo, M. C., Kristjanpoller, W. D., & Stakeley, J. (2019). Exploring environmental, social, and governance disclosure effects on the S&P 500 financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1083–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2303
Murphy, C. B. (2024, April 10). What is a prospectus? example, uses, and how to read it. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prospectus.asp
Zimmerman, S. (2015). Why values-based investing might work: characteristics inherent in ESG could give investors an edge. Morningstar Inc. , (August/September), 79–81.