No description available.

L’investissement éthique est un investissement fondé sur des critères extra-financiers : l’investisseur cherche un enrichissement tout en poursuivant une fin non matérielle tirée du respect de certaines valeurs La coloration éthique a vocation à rejaillir sur le régime de cet investissement. Elle dicte le contenu de la politique d’investissement, oblige les intermédiaires financiers à informer les investisseurs de manière adéquate, et les contraint à veiller à la conformité éthique de l’investissement jusqu’à son dénouement.L’investissement éthique ne saurait toutefois se limiter à cela. Adoptant une démarche conséquentialiste, les investisseurs peuvent s’engager auprès des émetteurs pour y défendre leurs valeurs. D’un point de vue théorique, cet activisme actionnarial met en lumière l’échec des thèses traditionnelles à définir la finalité des sociétés. Plutôt que de raisonner en termes d’intérêt social, il conviendrait à présent de recourir à la Stakeholder Theory. / Ethical investment is based on non-financial criteria: the investor expects a return on the investment while pursuing a non-material objective, based on the respect of certain values. Ethics bring a nuance, which impacts the set of rules for this type of investment. It establishes the content of the investment policy and requires financial intermediaries to inform investors adequately. It also forces them to ensure ethical compliance of the investment to its ending. Ethical investment, however, is not limited to this. By adopting a consequentialist approach, investors can engage with issuers to defend their values. From a theoretical point of view, this shareholder activism highlights the failure of traditional theories to define the purpose of companies. Because the concept of “intérêt social”, which the French doctrine struggles to define, leads to a deadlock, a cross-disciplinary approach, the Stakeholder Theory, should be preferred.

Background: There has been an increase in savings and investment in recent years along with an increased interest in responsible investments. Ethical mutual funds has developed and gained increasingly popularity. Aim: The aim of the study is to examine if ethical mutual funds are an equivalent alternative to traditional mutual funds in terms of return, risk and risk-adjusted return on the Swedish stock market. Theory: Beta, Jensen's Alpha, Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio, and Modern Portfolio Theory. Method: Quantitative survey method, a statistical study. Conclusion:The study concludes that there is no significant difference between ethical and conventional mutual funds in terms of return, risk and risk-adjusted return. The small differences that exist between the two fund groups are in favor of the ethical fund group, indicating that funds is a comparable investment option compared to traditional mutual funds.

During the last few decades, "regular people" have become increasingly involved with investing in the stock market. One way of doing this, which has become more and more popular, is to invest in mutual funds. The mutual fund industry has, due to its explosive growth, been described as a success story of the 20th century. These days, sources report that over 70% of the Swedish population actively invests in mutual funds. This thesis is an investigation into consumer decision making regarding one specific type of mutual fund: Socially Responsible Investment (SRI). SRI profiled mutual funds are different from "regular" mutual funds in that they incorporate social, ethical, and environmental (SEE) criteria. In this manner, SRI profiled mutual funds could be said to have two separate dimensions. The regular financial dimension has the purpose of generating a high level of financial return while managing risk. The socially responsible dimension, on the other hand, focuses on incorporating SEE issues into the investment process. However, consumers that desire to choose mutual funds that will both perform well financially and have a good socially responsible dimension face a more difficult decision than consumers who choose to invest in "regular" mutual funds. As each of the dimensions come with its own set of challenges which the consumer must overcome, choosing an appropriate combination of these is a difficult task. In this manner, consumers of SRI profiled mutual funds have to navigate through a complex decision making environment to arrive at a good choice. Based in this notion of decision making in complex environments, this thesis investigates how consumers combine their "traditional" financial objectives with their "additional" SEE consideration and examines the impact of personal factors related to these two areas on consumer investment in SRI profiled mutual funds. Four separate essays on these topics, each investigating a specific stage in the Engel-Kollat-Blackwell (1968) consumer decision making process, are presented. Moreover, in order to understand how complexity impacts consumer decision making in the area, the results of each study are analyzed against a conceptual framework focusing on the complexity of the market. The results show that consumers of SRI profiled mutual funds care about both financial and SEE issues. However, how consumers combine these in their decision making differs. Factors, such as the stage of the purchase decision making process, personal abilities, preferences, and perceptions are found to impact consumer decision making.  Against this background, this thesis generates an increased understanding of consumer decision making in complex decision making environments in general and of SRI profiled mutual funds in particular.

This study explores the contemporary practice of Ethical and Socially Responsible Investment and concludes that it is based on an ad hoc construct of empirically derived principles, driven mainly by the commercial self-interest of large financial institutions and fund managers. It explores the relationship between investment and morality, to posit a background theory of investment ethics. The study then proposes a move away from the narrow focus of ethical investment to a broader concern for investment ethics. The study introduces the discipline of investment ethics and examines the criteria that form the basis of morality in investment decisions. The resultant theory is intended to be of practical significance in the business and investment domains and to assist potential investors to evaluate investment opportunities in the context of a consistent set of substantive normative ethical principles.

Over the past five years, Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) have become a prominent phenomenon in contemporary capitalism. Described as government investment vehicles that invest state wealth in financial markets, the majority of the world's 60-plus funds have been established since the year 2000. Despite extensive treatments of SWFs' geopolitical and international significance, ethical and domestic level analyses are sparse. In response, this thesis interrogates three key normative questions raised by the funds for the domestic citizen-state relationship: (1) How (and by whom) should sovereign funds be managed? (2) How should sovereign wealth be invested? (3) How should the earnings of sovereign fund investment be distributed? In answering these questions, this thesis aims to dispel ambiguity over the ownership status of sovereign funds, evident in popular and academic discourse and within communities that establish these entities. For this task, it draws on recently revived fiduciary theory of the citizen-state relationship to argue that the rightful owner of these funds is the citizenry - not states or governments who enjoy physical and legal possession of SWFs. It goes on to examine the implications of this fiduciary state conception of SWF ownership, asking how citizen-owners should enjoy control over and benefit from the distinct constituent parts of their SWF property: the institution of the fund, the underlying sovereign wealth and the financial returns earned on the investment of its assets. The model of citizen ownership defended demands substantially increased popular control over SWF management and the investment of sovereign wealth, as well as direct benefit rights for citizen-owners to fund income through individualised distribution of investment returns. Examination of existing practice among SWFs demonstrates that this normative ideal is far, although not impossibly distant from current institutional practice.

The EU Taxonomy Regulation[1] (“EU Taxonomy”) is a relatively new classification system for determining what economic activities are considered sustainable. By creating a common language between investors, issuers, and policymakers, the regulation aims to increase transparency and help investors assess whether investments meet robust environmental standards. This thesis aims to investigate how the EU Taxonomy, as a legal instrument, aims to serve its legislative objective and secondly identify potential challenges of the regulation.  Findings indicate that the regulation can create an adequate commonly held classification system as long as the technical criteria for each sector keep up with new scientific discoveries and technological advancements. A regulation to develop uniform understanding across the EU and delegated acts to amend the legislation seems like the most appropriate legal instrument. Areas for improvement concern revising the scope of whom it applies, and this process has begun with the proposal of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Other areas for improvement concerns the political nature of what sectors should be included in the taxonomy, for instance, whether nuclear energy and gas should be deemed sustainable or not. The taxonomy may strive to be a neutral classification system; however, member states’ economic incentives affect what is included.  Finally, this thesis concludes that it is too early to predict the taxonomy’s breakthrough. In theory, it is a significant idea. Still, we can only know with time whether we have reached a more common understanding, transparency and eventually have facilitated a transition through this regulation.  [1] Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment and amending regulation (EU) 2019/288.

In March 2018 the European Commission published the Action Plan on Financing Sustainable Growth. One of the main objectives with the actions presented in the action plan is to reorient capital flows towards sustainable investments, i.e. to influence more investors to invest sustainably. The action plan was followed by three proposals for transparency regulation regarding an EU taxonomy on sustainability, sustainability benchmarks and sustainability disclosures. Furthermore, the action plan included actions regarding two other transparency measures – sustainability labels and sustainability ratings. The first purpose of the thesis is to investigate if transparency regulation in the EU can be used as a tool to influence investors to choose sustainable investment funds. One of the main aims of the actions presented in the Action Plan on Financing Sustainable Growth, as well as the accompanying regulation proposals, is to reorient capital flows towards sustainable investments, i.e. to influence more investors to invest sustainably. In light of this, the Commission’s three proposed transparency regulations, as well as the concept of sustainability labels and ratings, are used as a basis for the investigation. The second purpose of the thesis is therefore to critically review the three regulation proposals and the concept of sustainability labels and ratings in order to gain an understanding of how different transparency measures can influence investors to choose sustainable investment funds. The transparency regulations and measures are analysed and critically reviewed in light of their objective to influence more investors to invest sustainably. A behavioural economics perspective, as well as consumer behaviour theories and decision-making models, are applied in order to analyse the transparency regulations and measures from an external perspective. Based on the analysis there are many indicators that transparency regulation can be used as a tool to influence investors to choose sustainable investment funds. However, to what extent transparency regulation can influence investor behaviour varies depending on which transparency measures are used and how they are designed. Sustainability benchmarks seem to have the least potential to influence investor behaviour, while the EU taxonomy on sustainability and sustainability labels seem to have the best potential to influence investor behaviour.