Idag föreligger ett stort intresse för att placera i etiska fonder, men det råder delade meningar om vad en etisk fond innebär. Det finns ingen universell applicerbar kod utan det är upp till fondbolagen själva att definiera vad som är etiskt för dem. Det är således svårt att fastställa något entydigt begrepp för vad som kan anses vara etiskt eller inte då begreppet etik är såväl subjektivt och relativt samt varierar över tiden. Allt oftare uppdagas hur företag världen över kopplas till svåra missförhållanden eller är inblandade i oetiska verksamheter. Flera av dessa företag ägs indirekt av oss konsumenter genom våra pensionsmedel och privat sparande i fonder. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka vad som menas med etisk fond. Uppsatsen kommer att genomföras utifrån en kvalitativ ansats med intervjuer av utvalda fondbolag på den svenska fondmarknaden.  En ökad transparens är önskvärt för att se hur fondbolagen arbetar. Sammanfattningsvis har konsumenterna ett relativt stort ansvar att undersöka vad som faktiskt gömmer sig bakom respektive fondnamn om de vill ha kontroll över sina sparpengar.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the difference in performance and management fees between ethical and conventional mutual funds registered in Sweden. Our dataset consists of 49 ethical and 254 conventional funds, estimated on a 10-year period of time between January 2005 to January 2015. Jensen’s alpha is used as a measure for risk-adjusted performance and estimated through CAPM single-index model as well as by Carhart’s four-factor model. By adding back the management fees to the net returns and then estimate Jensen’s alpha by Carhart’s four-factor model once again, evidence of any differences in the impact on return between ethical and conventional funds is found. The results obtained from the study show that there is no difference in neither the risk-adjusted returns nor management fees between ethical and conventional funds. It is concluded that Swedish mutual fund investors are not paying a specific price in terms of reduced returns or higher management fees for putting social and ethical values into their financial investment decision.

Problem: Do ethical investments perform better than conventional investments? Purpose: To evaluate whether Shariah-compliant indexes and/or socially responsible indexes can improve financial performance of an investment portfolio. Sub-problem: What kind of relationship exists between socially responsible investments and faith-based investments, represented by Shariah-compliant investments? Sub-purpose: To discover how two types of ethical investments, socially-responsible and Shariah-compliant, are related. Method: Quantitative study, covering three types of investment styles of four index families during the period from 2000 until 2011. Financial performance evaluation through the Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio and Jensen’s alpha. Conclusions: Conventional, socially responsible, and Shariah-compliant indexes do not have any significant differences in financial performance on a global basis. However, Shariah-compliant indexes could slightly over-perform conventional and socially responsible indexes during financial downturns. In the same time socially responsible indexes were noticed to be the most volatile during the whole period of study, to compare with conventional and Shariah-compliant. Regarding relationships, high correlations were found between ethical indexes, as well as between ethical and conventional indexes.

An increase in globalization has led to a growing awareness of climate change, ethical values, and sustainable development. The fund industry has become more socially responsible, with fund managers developing new strategies to generate high returns and meet specific customer preferences. Therefore, changing values has contributed to an increased interest in ethical investing, resulting in a significant growth of ethically-oriented equity funds. To fill a knowledge gap, this study aims to describe whether there have been significant differences in risk-adjusted returns between conventional and ethical equity funds in the Swedish fund market. By applying Markowitz's portfolio theory and the efficient market hypothesis to three risk-adjusted performance measures, Sharpe's-, Treynor's-, and Jensen's Performance Measures, the study analyzes the return opportunities for conventional and ethical funds compared to market indices. The study showed no significant difference in risk-adjusted returns between ethical and conventional equity funds. However, both fund groups have, on average, performed worse than the market index. If the goal is to maximize returns and diversification, both ethical and conventional funds should be considered as part of the investment strategy, provided they meet the requirements for a well-diversified and efficient portfolio. The study's results are supported by previous research, and there is no reason to exclusively choose ethical or conventional funds if maximizing returns is the primary goal.