IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ4/2472526.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A fuzzy data envelopment analysis model for evaluating the efficiency of socially responsible and conventional mutual funds

Author

Listed:
  • I. Baeza-Sampere
  • V. Coll-Serrano
  • B. M’Zali
  • P. Méndez-Rodríguez

Abstract

ABSTRACT Although several data envelopment analysis (DEA) models have been proposed in the literature for mutual funds' performance evaluation, few of them incorporate nonfinancial criteria. In this paper a fuzzy DEA model is used, allowing mutual funds relative performance evaluation in a more realistic and flexible way. We examine the efficiency of forty US large cap equity mutual funds based not only on financial variables but also on nonfinancial ones. To achieve this aim, we extend Basso and Funari's mutual funds' ethical level proposing a more reliable fuzzy measure of the social environmental responsibility degree of equity mutual funds. It relies on the corporate social performance of the companies invested in by the mutual funds and on the quality of the management in terms of the transparency and credibility degree of the nonfinancial information provided by the mutual funds. We can conclude that socially responsible mutual funds show better behavior in terms of efficiency than conventional funds.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:2472526
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/import/protected/digital_assets/10430/The_efficiency_of_socially_responsible_and_conventional_mutual_funds.pdf
Download Restriction: no
---><---

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:rsk:journ4:2472526. 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: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk .

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.