Abstract
A better overlap between the exclusion set used by socially responsible investments (SRI) managers and individual preferences could lead to higher adoption of SRI, which is in turn expected to promote a more sustainable development. In the first study, we find an essential mismatch: both the US (n=472) and the UK (n=560) respondents did not adhere to the classification of some of the most commonly excluded sin industries as being sinful. In the second study on US investors (n=1020), we show that two-thirds of respondents are willing to pay 2.1% of their initial investment to choose which industries should be excluded. In comparison, the rest of the sample is willing to pay 2.5% to have a panel of experts decide for them. These results suggest the need to refine the exclusion strategies used by funds and update the list of industries typically excluded to promote SRI.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
