Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Empirical Examination of Institutional Investor Preferences for Corporate Social Performance

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

Abstract

This study investigates the pattern of institutional shareholding in the U.K. and its relationship with socially responsible behavior by companies within a sample of over 500 UK companies. We estimate a set of ownership models that distinguish between long- and short-term investors and their largest components and which incorporate both aggregated and disaggregated measures of corporate social performance (CSP). The results suggest that long-term institutional investment is positively related to CSP providing further support for earlier studies by Johnson and Greening (1999, Academy of Management Journal 42, 564–576) and Graves and Waddock (1994, Academy of Management Journal 37, 1034–1046). Disaggregation of CSP into its constituent components suggests that the pattern of institutional investment is also related to the form which CSP takes. Investigation of the impact of investment screens on the selection of stocks suggests that long-term institutional investors select primarily through exclusion, rejecting those firms which have the worst CSP.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, G. J. and R. A. Buchholz: 1978, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Market Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 21(3), 479–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of British Insurers: 2001, ‘Investing in Social Responsibility. Risks and Opportunities’, Association of British Insurers.

  • Barnett, M. L. and R. M. Salomon: 2002, ‘Unpacking Social Responsibility: The Curvilinear Relationship between Social and Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Proceedings 2002 SIM, B1.

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1979, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance’, Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 2000, ‘A Commentary and an Overview of Key Questions on Corporate Social Performance Measurement’, Business and Society 39(4), 466–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaganti, R. and F. Damanpour: 1991, ‘Institutional Ownership, Capital Structure, and Firm Performance’, Strategic Management Journal 12, 479–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, P. L. and R. A. Wood: 1984, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 27(1), 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cofey, B. S. and G. E. Fryxell: 1991, ‘Institutional Ownership of Stock and Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Empirical Examination’, Journal of Business Ethics 10, 437–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commerzbank: 2002, ‘Green with Envy. SRI Investors Face additional, more Complex, Risks than their Conventional Counterparts’, Commerzbank.

  • Copeland, T. and F. Weston: 1988, Financial Theory and Corporate Policy, 3rd Edition (Addison-Wesley).

  • Courtenay, A.: 2001, ‘Schemes Failing to put Money on their Morals’, Financial Times.

  • Davis, P. E. and B. Steil: 2001, Institutional Investors (MIT Press).

  • Dickinson, G. M.: 1998, ‘Issues in the Eective Regulation of the Asset Allocation of Life Insurance Companies’, in H. Blommestein and N. Funke (eds.), Institutional Investors in the New Financial Landscape (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 10 June).

  • Droms, W. G. and D. A. Walker: 1996, ‘Mutual Fund Investment Performance’, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 36(3), 347–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, J. and H. Hunt: 1990, ‘An Empirical Examination of Debt Covenant Restrictions and Accounting-Related Debt Proxies’, Journal of Accounting and Economics 12(1-3), 45–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EIRIS: 2001/2002, ‘Charities and Ethical Investment’, supplement to The Ethical Investor, Winter.

  • EIRIS: 2003, Historic Fund Size Data from 1989 (available at: http://www.eiris.org/Pages/MediaInfo/MarSta.htm).

  • Eng, L. L.: 1999, ‘Comparing Changes in Stockholdings of Dierent Institutional Investors’, Journal of Investing 1, 46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F.: 1970, ‘Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work’, Journal of Finance 25, 383–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, G.: 1986, Financial Statement Analysis (Prentice-Hall International).

  • FTSE: 2003a, Ground Rules for the Management of the UK Series of the FTSE Actuaries Share Indices (available at: http://www.ftse.com/indices_marketdata/ground_rules/ uk-series-ground-rules.pdf).

  • marketdata/Free_Float_Adjusted.jsp).

  • Graves, S. B. and S. A. Waddock: 1994, ‘Institutional Owners and Social Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 37, 1034–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J. and J. F. Mahon: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate’, Business and Society 36(1), 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guptara, P.: 2001, ‘A Hard Look at SRI’, Environmental Finance.

  • Hamon, J. and B. Jacquillat: 1999, ‘Is there Value-Added Information in Liquidity and Risk Premiums?’, European Financial Management 5(3), 369–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L.: 1995, ‘A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm’, Academy of Management Review 20(4), 986–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J. and G. D. Keim: 2001, ‘Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What's the Bottom Line?’, Strategic Management Journal 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Investment Management Association: 2003 (available at http: //www.investmentuk.org/ about_ima/glossary/ G-I.htm).

  • Johnson, R. D. and D. W. Greening: 1999, ‘The Effects of Corporate Governance and Institutional Ownership Types on Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 42, 564–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Local Authority Pension Fund Forum: 2002, Lapfforum.org. (available at http: //www. lapfforum.org).

  • Lofthouse, S.: 2001, Investment Management, 2nd Edition (Wiley, Chichester)

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 31(4), 854–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H.: 1952, ‘Portfolio Selection’, Journal of Finance 7(1), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, M.: 1972, ‘Choosing Socially Responsible Stocks’, Business and Society 1, 71–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S.: 1984, ‘The Capital Structure Puzzle’, Journal of Finance 39(3), 575–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Pension Funds: 2002, Napf. co.uk. (available at: http: //www.napf. co.uk).

  • National Statistics: 2002, Share Ownership. A Report on Ownership of Shares as at 31 December 2001: Office for UK National Statistics.

  • Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment) Regulations 1996 (Regulation 11A). 1999. The Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment, and Assignment, Forfeiture, Bankruptcy etc.) Amendment Regulations 1999. Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 1849 (available at: http: // www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991849.htm).

  • Responsibilities of Charity Trustees CC3: 2002 (avail-able at: http: //www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ publications/pdfs/cc3text.pdf).

  • Responsibilities of Charity Trustees: A Summary CC3: 2002 (available at: http: //www. charity-commission. gov.uk/publications/pdfs/cc3(a)text.pdf).

  • Richardson, A. J., M. Welker and I. R. Hutchinson: 1999, ‘Managing Capital Market Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility’, International Journal of Management Reviews 1(1), 17–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruf, B. M., K. Muralidhar, R. M. Brown, J. J. Janney and K. Paul: 2001, ‘An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Change in Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: A Stakeholder Theory Perspective’, Journal of Business Ethics 32, 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V. and P. A. Fouts: 1997, ‘A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental Performance and Profitability’, Academy of Management Journal 40(3), 534–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, L. V. and M. Schneider: 2002, ‘The Antecedents of Institutional Investor Activism’, Academy of Management Review 27(4), 554–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, P. B. and B. H. Spicer: 1983, ‘Market Response to Environmental Information Produced Outside the Firm’, The Accounting Review 58(3), 521–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Investment Forum: 2002a, 2001 Trends Report, 2001 Report on Socially Responsible Investing in the United States (available at: http://www.socialinvest.org).

  • Social Investment Forum: 2002b, On the SEC Mutual Fund/Investment Advisor Proxy Vote Rule, (available at:http://www.shareholderaction.org/files/sif_letter_to_sec.pdf).

  • Sparkes, R.: 2000, ‘Socially Responsible Investment Comes of Age’, Professional Investor, June.

  • Spicer, B. H.: 1978, ‘Investors, Corporate Social Performance, and Information Disclosure: An Empirical Study’, The Accounting Review 53, 94–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • SustainAbility: 2000, ‘A Responsible Investment? An Overview of the Socially Responsible Investment Community’, London, U.K., SustainAbility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Targett, S.: 3 July 2000, “Pension Industry Faces Closer Scrutiny.” Financial Times.

  • The Ethical Investor: 1999, Find out what your Pension's Funding July/August, 1–4 (available at: http:// www.eiris.org).

  • Turban, D. B. and D. W. Greening: 1997, ‘Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees’, Academy of Management Journal 40, 658–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • UBS Warburg: 2001, Sustainability Investment. The Merits of Socially Responsible Investing, UBS Warburg.

  • U.K. Social Investment Forum: 2003 (available at: http:// www.uksif.org/library/welcome /frameset.shtml).

  • Ullmann, A. A.: 1985, ‘Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms’, Academy of Management Journal 10(3), 540–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Useem, M.: 1996, ‘Shareholders as a Strategic Asset’, California Management Review 39(1), 8–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weston, J. F., J. A. Siu, and B. A. Johnson: 2001, Takeovers, Restructuring, and Corporate Governance, 3rd Edition (Prentice Hall).

  • WM Company: 1999, Is There a Cost to Ethical Investing? (available at: http://www. wmcompany.com).

  • Zera, S. P. and J. Madura: 2001, ‘The Empirical Rela-tionship between Mutual Fund Size and Operational Eciency’, Applied Financial Economics 11, 243–251.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Finance and Investment, Universiy of Exeter, Rennes Drive, Exeter, EX 4 4PU, United Kingdom

    Paul Cox, Stephen Brammer & Andrew Millington

Authors
  1. Paul Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen Brammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew Millington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cox, P., Brammer, S. & Millington, A. An Empirical Examination of Institutional Investor Preferences for Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics 52, 27–43 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000033105.77051.9d

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000033105.77051.9d

Search

Navigation