Socially Responsible Investment: A Comparison between the Performance of Sustainable and Traditional Stock Indexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The doubt about whether socially responsible investment is a viable strategy for investors seeking to maximize both social and financial returns is the central question of this paper. This is addressed by investigating whether portfolio selection based on sustainability criteria harms investor's returns, or in contrast it can be a driver of superior financial benefits. With this purpose, daily prices and returns of 4 traditional and 10 sustainable stock indexes are analyzed from 2001 to 2011 and in the peaks and downs of both bull and bear markets. One of the major results of this study is that sustainable indexes outperform traditional stock indexes in all the periods under analysis; however the differences on average returns are not statistically significant. Through unit root tests we acknowledge that returns are stationary and levels are nonstationary. The short-run relationship analysis based on Granger causality test reveals a feedback effect between traditional and sustainable stock indexes returns. In contrast, long-run relationship, based on cointegration analysis, points that most of the stock indexes are not cointegrated, suggesting that sustainable and traditional stock indexes do not have a long-run linkage and thus can diverge without bound.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".