Background: In today's society, there is more pressure to be sustainable and not least in the financial world. Several agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, have been created to steer countries towards more sustainability. When it comes to the economy, several SRI strategies have been developed to serve the same purpose. However, the problem that emerges is that investors who invest sustainably and use these strategies can lose returns and thus depart from their main goal of maximizing profits.   Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine how SRI strategies are used by investors when constructing their portfolios in terms of profit maximization. The paper will thus conclude if the underlying motivation behind the choice of strategy is affected by maximizing profit.   Method and implementation: By conducting a qualitative study and interviewing several fund managers at the largest banks and fund companies in Sweden, the authors aim to answer the research question. The answers provided by the respondents are presented and analyzed in the empirical section and linked to the study's theory.   Conclusion: In this study, there is clearly shown that by investing, according to SRI, a professional investor is still able to profit maximize. The authors, therefore, see that the new way of being rational as an investor is to include SRI strategies. The relationship with being both sustainable and profit-maximizing can be seen as a significant motivating factor. The same can be said about reduced ESG risk and creating legitimacy towards customers. Furthermore, a combination of strategies can be seen as a way to create an optimal portfolio by the investors. This further proves that sustainable investing is the most rational way of investing and a way to achieve an investors main goal to profit maximize.

This thesis investigates the current sustainable investment strategy of Swedish institutional investors that are not covered by the EU Taxonomy and how the Taxonomy will affect their work with sustainable investments. As a basis, 7 semi-structured interviews have been conducted. The respondent group consists of three institutional asset owners and four Swedish public pension funds. The former group, not having asset management as their core business, mainly use negative and norms-based screening whereas the latter are professional investors and they combine several other SRI strategies. The difference in SRI strategies between the investor groups is mainly explained by the professional investors having a more extensive ESG risk awareness and a greater organizational capacity. Except the screening strategies, the following SRI strategies are commonly used; corporate engagement and shareholder action, sustainability themed investing and ESG integration which is in line with the literature. Though, the institutional investors in this study are employing positive/best-in-class screening to a much less extent than the literature states. The investors agree with the literature and have a general positive view of the implementation of the Taxonomy and that there is a need of a consistent, global reporting standard. However, the investors raise criticism of the EU Taxonomy only including certain sectors, European countries and the exclusive climate focus which decreases the utility and is in line with the current literature. None of the interviewed investors has implemented the EU Taxonomy in their work with sustainable investments yet and do not believe that the EU Taxonomy will affect their investment strategies. This contradicts the current literature where private investors see the EU Taxonomy as a long awaited common framework with standardized KPI:s which will improve comparability on the market. However, a majority of the investors believe that the EU Taxonomy will- or probably will affect their work with sustainable investments in the future as an additional reporting tool where the professional investors show a greater belief than the asset owners. This study shows that Swedish institutional investors will probably use the EU Taxonomy as a reporting framework in the future but the implementation will not change the investor's SRI strategies. Professional investors are more likely to report according to the EU Taxonomy than institutional asset owners. Furthermore, the Taxonomy's level of impact depends on the investor’s Taxonomy knowledge; a more extensive knowledge increases the possibility to start reporting according to the Taxonomy. / Denna studie undersöker svenska institutionella investerares nuvarande hållbara investeringsstrategier, som inte omfattas av EU-taxonomin, samt hur taxonomin kommer att påverka deras arbete med hållbara investeringar. Som underlag har 7 semistrukturerade intervjuer genomförts. Respondentgruppen består av tre institutionella kapitalägare och fyra svenska publika pensionsfonder. Den förstnämnda gruppen, som inte har kapitalförvaltning som sin kärnverksamhet, använder främst negativ- och normbaserad screening medan de professionella investerarna kombinerar flera olika SRI-strategier. Skillnaden i SRI-strategier mellan investerargrupperna kan främst förklaras av att de professionella investerarna har en mer omfattande ESG-riskmedvetenhet och en större organisatorisk kapacitet. Förutom screeningstrategierna är följande SRI-strategier populära bland investerarna; aktivt ägande, hållbarhetstematiska investeringar och ESG-integration, detta i linje med litteraturen. De institutionella investerarna i denna studie använder sig dock av positiv/bäst-i-klassen-screening i mycket mindre utsträckning än vad litteraturen säger.  Investerarna är samstämmiga med litteraturen och har en generellt positiv syn på genomförandet av taxonomin och är eniga om att det finns ett behov av en konsekvent, global rapporteringsstandard. Däremot väcker investerarna kritik mot att EU-taxonomin endast inkluderar vissa sektorer, europeiska länder och det snäva klimatfokuset, vilket är i linje med befintlig litteratur. Ingen av de intervjuade investerarna har ännu implementerat EU-taxonomin i sitt arbete med hållbara investeringar och tror inte att EU-taxonomin kommer att påverka deras investeringsstrategier. Detta går emot den nuvarande litteraturen som menar att privata investerare ser EU-taxonomin som ett efterlängtat ramverk med standardiserade KPI:er som kommer att förbättra jämförbarheten på marknaden. En majoritet av investerarna tror att EU-taxonomin kommer att påverka deras arbete med hållbara investeringar i framtiden som ett ytterligare rapporteringsverktyg. De professionella investerarna har en betydligt större tro på EU-taxonomins genomslagskraft än kapitalägarna. Denna studie visar att svenska institutionella investerare med hög sannolikhet kommer att börja rapportera enligt EU-taxonomin i framtiden, men att taxonomin inte kommer att påverka investerarnas investeringsstrategier. Professionella investerare kommer med större sannolikhet börja rapportera enligt EU-taxonomin än instutionella kapitalägare. Taxonomins genomslagskraft beror på investerarnas taxonomikunskap; en mer omfattande kunskap ökar sannorlikheten att börja rapportera enligt taxonomin.