Subject background and discussion: In recent decades, issues of human rights, labor and environmental change has been hot topics world wide, which also has influenced the financial market. More and more investors use socially responsible investing (SRI) screens when constructing their portfolios. One form of SRI screen is to choose companies that have satisfied employees. Existing theory says that employee satisfaction is an intangible asset to the firm that will positively affect a firm’s performance in the future. Intangible assets are often unrecognized by the market and thereby not incorporated in the stock price. The efficient market hypothesis has been studied and debated for several decades. Proponents of the EMH argue that all available information is incorporated in the stock price, thus it is not possible to systematically beat the market. However, EMH is controversial, since research has shown different results regarding the possibility to make abnormal return from various investing strategy. Research question: Is it possible to make abnormal returns by investing in a portfolio of worldwide firms with top scores on the SRI screen employee satisfaction? Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to examine investor’s possibility to make abnormal return with controls for multiple risk factors by investing in worldwide firms with top scores in employee satisfaction. One sub-purpose is to examine how the market values intangibles depending on the degree of market efficiency. Another sub-purpose of the study is to test two different portfolio weighting methodologies, equally- and value weighted, and observe the differences between them. Theory: This study deals with the efficient market hypothesis and the concepts of SRI, employee satisfaction, intangible assets and several risk-adjusted measurements. Method: We have chosen to perform a quantitative study with a deductive approach to answer our research question. We used a sample size of 696 firms based on “Great Place to Works”- lists of companies with high employee satisfaction to construct sex portfolios with different holding periods and strategies. These portfolios have been explored and tested significantly with both equally and value weighted methods. Result/Analysis: The study finds significant evidence of an average annual abnormal return of 3,66% and 2,43% for our main portfolio over the market for equally- and value weighted, respectively, using the three-factor model. When adjusting for momentum, thus employing the four-factor model, all the predictive variables still identify strong persistence in the abnormal return, with statistical significance. Conclusion: The results show that it is possible to make abnormal returns, during the observed time period, regardless of the weighing methodology, although the equally weighted received higher abnormal returns. Thus, the market efficiency appears to be in weak form and does not fully value intangibles.

En prenant l’exemple des entreprises pétrolières multinationales, cette thèse tente de clarifier l’état actuel du concept de responsabilité sociale des entreprises, qui, d’un point de vue juridique, relève du « soft law», et à dessiner la frontière entre le « hard law » et le « soft law», dans le but de mettre en lumière la différence entre les fonctions de ces deux types de droit et de dissiper les attentes irréalistes envers le concept de responsabilité sociale des entreprises. S’alignant avec cette logique, les contextes de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises ont d’abord été explorés, y compris l’évolution et les controverses autour de ce concept, ainsi que les instruments qui le sous-tendent et le mettent sur un pied solide, lesquels représentent certaines caractéristiques communes (diversité, flexibilité, inclusion des valeurs pionnières, etc.) pour être acceptés et engagés par les entreprises. Par ailleurs, a aussi été analysée la tendance au durcissement des règles nationales en cette matière, qui peut être constatée dans les pays développés et dans certains pays en développement. Puis, trois sujets, à savoir l’environnement, les droits de l’Homme et la lutte contre la corruption, ont été choisis et traités, pour, d’une part, exposer comment le « hard law » agit sur eux, ses faiblesses tant dans les pays en développement que dans les pays développés, et ses effets sur les performances réelles des entreprises pétrolières multinationales, et, d’autre part, déployer la contribution de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises sur ces thèmes. Enfin, les dynamiques de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises ont été recherchées. Certaines parties prenantes, comme les gouvernements, les investisseurs socialement responsables, les concurrents ou les ONG, ont un potentiel conséquent pour pousser les entreprises pétrolières multinationales à adopter une approche socialement responsable, tandis que certaines parties prenantes, comme les consommateurs responsables, restent un facteur faible pour la prise de décision de ces entreprises. / Examining the example of multinational oil companies, this article tries to make clear the actual situation of the concept of corporate social responsibility, which from legal perspective belongs to soft law, and to draw a line between hard law and soft law, aiming to highlight the difference in functions of these two laws and to dispel unrealistic expectations of corporate social responsibility. Along these lines, this article firstly explores the context of corporate social responsibility, including its evolution, controversies around it, and the underpinning instruments that put it on a solid footing. These instruments represent a couple of common characteristics (diversity, flexibility, inclusion of pioneer values, etc.) that make them accepted by companies as commitment. Furthermore, both developed countries and some developing countries have seen a trend to strengthen national-level rules in this area. Secondly, three subjects, i.e., environment, human rights and anti-corruption, are selected and analyzed to show how hard law functions, its weaknesses in both developing countries and developed ones, and its effects on the actual performance of multinational oil companies, and also to explore what contribution the corporate social responsibility can make. Finally, the dynamics of corporate social responsibility is discussed. Some stakeholders, such as government, socially responsible investors, competitors and NGOs, have great potential to push multinational oil companies to adopt a socially responsible approach, while some other stakeholders, such as responsible consumers, remain a weak factor in the decision-making of these companies.

D’essence interétatique, le droit international public semble fermer ses frontières à toute responsabilité des entreprises transnationales. Cette imperméabilité à la reconnaissance d’une responsabilité juridique per se des pouvoirs économiques globaux n’a cependant pas empêché l’ordre international d’être réactif et d’évoluer en douceur. Face à l’apparition de plusieurs scandales liés à de graves violations des droits de l’homme, notamment dans le cadre des chaînes d’approvisionnement globales, il n’était plus concevable pour l’opinion publique de laisser les entreprises transnationales profiter du vide juridique existant. D’un cafouillis normatif émerge une régulation globale fortement imprégnée par le mouvement de responsabilité sociale des entreprises (RSE). Cette institutionnalisation de la RSE s’appuie sur plusieurs instruments normatifs parmi lesquels les principes directeurs des organisations internationales occupent une place centrale. Ces principes ont vocation à guider les actions des entreprises indépendamment de leur localisation géographique par le biais d’une sorte de toile normative uniforme pour tout le globe. En revanche, la mise en œuvre de cette régulation globale de la RSE n’est possible que par les pressions des acteurs sociaux (société civile et marché) qui tendent à promouvoir la responsabilité des entreprises et facilitent ainsi la transformation de la nature de ses normes. Des normes d’origine privée tendent progressivement à devenir une valeur incontournable dans la gouvernance des chaînes d’approvisionnement globales. En intronisant la RSE dans les relations contractuelles, cette gouvernance signerait l’avènement de nouvelles formulations de la RSE. Cette normativité nouvelle et innovante entend dès lors combler l’espace normatif inoccupé par les États. / Destined, in essence, to regulate interstate relations, public international law seems closed to the idea of recognizing liability of transnational corporations. However, this imperviousness to recognizing legal responsibility per se of global economic powers has not prevented a soft evolution of the international order. Following several scandals related to violations of human rights, some in the context of global supply chains, civil society could no longer allow transnational companies to take advantage of the existing legal vacuum. As a result, a global regulation strongly influenced by the trend of corporate social responsibility (CSR) emerged from a normative muddle. This institutionalization of CSR is based on several instruments, including guiding principles on Business and Human Rights which occupy a central position in this regulatory trend. It is intended that these principles will apply as a uniform, global normative canvas. Therefore, they should guide actions of companies regardless of their geographic location. The implementation of this CSR global framework is possible due to substantial pressure exerted by non-governmental actors, such as civil society and the market. These actors seek to promote CSR and facilitate the transformation of this regulation. Particularly, private standards are playing an increasingly important role in the governance of global supply chains. By establishing CSR in contractual relations, this governance would mark the advent of new regulatory tools which seek to fill in the public law gaps.

Since their creation in Europe in the seventeenth century, pension funds have grown to become one of the main sources of capital in the world. A number of role players ultimately manage the pension money of members on their behalf. Accordingly, the focus of this study is on the role players involved in the actual investment of pension fund money. For the purposes of the study, the key role players in the pension fund investment chain are identified as pension fund trustees, asset managers and asset consultants. These role players have a specific responsibility in terms of the service that they ought to provide. One of the key aspects of this dissertation is therefore determining whether their responsibility is a fiduciary responsibility. The main purpose of the study is, however, to answer one overarching research question: Does fiduciary responsibility create barriers to the implementation of responsible investment in the South African pension fund investment chain? Clearly, there are two key terms in this research question, fiduciary responsibility and responsible investment. It is suggested that responsible investment takes at least two forms: a “business case” form1 in which environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues are considered only in so far as they are financially material; and a social form in which ESG issues are considered over maximising risk adjusted financial returns. Three key questions were asked in order to find qualitative descriptions and interpretations of fiduciary responsibility: Question 1: Are the key role players in the pension fund investment chain fiduciaries? Question 2: If so, to whom do the key role players owe their fiduciary duty? Question 3: What are the fiduciary duties of the key role players in the pension fund investment chain? It is also suggested that the duty to act in the best interests of beneficiaries could be described as the all-encompassing fiduciary duty. Two main interpretations of the / Private Law / LL.M.

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.