IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/corgov/v15y2007i3p467-477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Universal Investors and Socially Responsible Investors: a tale of emerging affinities

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Lydenberg

Abstract

This paper posits three types of investors in today’s financial markets: Universal Investors, Social Investors and Rational Investors. It argues that the Universal and Social Investor are theoretically inclined to seek returns that benefit society and the environment as a whole, while the tenets of modern portfolio theory lead the Rational Investor to seek returns based primarily on market price. Because of the dominance of modern portfolio theory, the actual practices of the Universal and Social Investor reproduce those of the Rational Investor in most regards today. However, Universal and Social Investors are now pioneering at least three investment practices that promote returns to the economy and society. These are engagement with corporate management, investments that benefit underserved communities, and the setting of social and environmental standards in selecting investments. These practices differ from those of the mainstream in that they deliberately take into account more than market price in seeking returns on investments. This paper argues that measuring the value of corporations to society solely on their stock price and their ability to raise that price is not only a narrow expression of the value of corporations to society, but a potentially dangerous one. It views Universal and Social Investors as having the potential to build on and improve upon the practices of Rational Investors by developing an expanded and more complete conception of investment returns and of corporations’ role in providing those returns. This paper hypothesises that universal investors and socially responsible investors – two classes of investors whose investment practices are increasingly gaining recognition around the world – share a basic affinity for the promotion of a just and sustainable society. Although the two currently differ in certain regards, together they constitute a theoretically coherent model of investment that builds and improves upon the dominant investment theory and practice of rational investors, which focus primarily on market‐based returns. Part One of this paper explores the theoretical affinities between universal and socially responsible investors and highlights their points of departure from certain aspects of modern portfolio theory. Part Two examines the emerging investment practices that characterise these investors and that distinguish them from their mainstream colleagues.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Lydenberg, 2007. "Universal Investors and Socially Responsible Investors: a tale of emerging affinities," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 467-477, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:15:y:2007:i:3:p:467-477
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00579.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00579.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00579.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andreas G. F. Hoepner & Arleta A. A. Majoch & Xiao Y. Zhou, 2021. "Does an Asset Owner’s Institutional Setting Influence Its Decision to Sign the Principles for Responsible Investment?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 168(2), pages 389-414, January.
    2. Sunita Upendra Sharma, 2016. "A Study of Small Shareholders’ Attitude towards Small-shareholder Activism," Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, , vol. 9(1), pages 67-82, June.
    3. Jennifer Goodman & Céline Louche & Katinka Cranenburgh & Daniel Arenas, 2014. "Social Shareholder Engagement: The Dynamics of Voice and Exit," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 193-210, December.
    4. Andreas Hoepner & Arleta Majoch, 2016. "Pension Funds and the Principles for Responsible Investment: Multiplying Stakeholder Salience?," ICMA Centre Discussion Papers in Finance icma-dp2016-07, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
    5. Zhao, Hongyan & Zhang, Fenghua & Kwon, Jongwook, 2018. "Corporate social responsibility research in international business journals: An author co-citation analysis," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 389-400.
    6. Alfredo M. Bobillo & J.A. Rodríguez‐Sanz & F. Tejerina‐Gaite, 2018. "Corporate governance drivers of firm innovation capacity," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 721-741, August.
    7. Katinka C. van Cranenburgh & Daniel Arenas & Jennifer Goodman & Céline Louche, 2014. "Religious organisations as investors: a Christian perspective on shareholder engagement," Post-Print hal-01067933, HAL.
    8. Alda, Mercedes, 2017. "The abilities of managers in UK pension funds. Are socially responsible managers superior?," Cuadernos de Gestión, Universidad del País Vasco - Instituto de Economía Aplicada a la Empresa (IEAE).
    9. Andreas G. F. Hoepner & Lisa Schopohl, 2020. "State Pension Funds and Corporate Social Responsibility: Do Beneficiaries’ Political Values Influence Funds’ Investment Decisions?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 489-516, September.
    10. Céline Louche & Timo Busch & Patricia Crifo & Alfred Marcus, 2019. "Financial Markets and the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy: Challenging the Dominant Logics," Post-Print hal-02016756, HAL.
    11. Schuler Douglas A., 2012. "A club theory approach to voluntary social programs: Multinational companies and the extractive industries transparency initiative," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, October.
    12. Christian M. Faller & Dodo zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2018. "Does Equity Ownership Matter for Corporate Social Responsibility? A Literature Review of Theories and Recent Empirical Findings," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 15-40, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:15:y:2007:i:3:p:467-477. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0964-8410&site=1 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.