This article examines the theoretical motivations underlying the conflicting beliefs in support of and against responsible investment (RI) and presents unique quantitative evidence to illustrate how such conflicting logics produce a curvilinear (inverted U-shape) relationship between screening intensity and two measures of risk. First, I argue that, whereas limiting the investable universe by using RI screening criteria increases the risk specific to the portfolio, very high screening intensity can reduce this risk. This is due to the fact that information benefits enable fund managers to be more selective, allowing them to select less risky firms. Second, by drawing on behavioral studies, I argue that this same curvilinear relationship occurs when examining the flow of money coming in and out of a fund. That is, high RI screening makes ethical investors "stickier" and less likely to pull money out of a fund because they are attracted to its ethical properties. I test my hypotheses using a data set of all known European RI screening equity mutual funds. I generally find strong support for both hypotheses. This has an important implication for investors: For high screening intensity and meaningful RI practices, RI is associated with a significant risk reduction.

PurposeThis article seeks to unravel the mechanisms through which financial actors agreed upon a sustainability accounting standard without financializing social and environmental issues, i.e. assigning a monetary value to sustainability.Design/methodology/approachThe article examines the Reporting and Assessment Framework created by the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UN-PRI), the leading reporting sustainability framework in the asset management industry. It relies on a longitudinal case study that draws upon interviews, participant observation, and archival data.FindingsThe article demonstrates that the conception of the framework was a funnelling process of sustainability valuation comprising two co-constituted mechanisms: a process of valorization – judging what is deemed of value – and a process of evaluation – agreeing on how to assess value. This valuation process was unfolded by creating the framework, thanks to two enabling conditions: the creation of non-prescriptive evaluative criteria that avoided financialization and the valuation support of an enabling organization.Originality/valueThe article helps understand how an industry can encompass the diversity of motives and practices associated with the adoption of sustainability by its economic actors while suggesting a common framework to report on and assess those practices. It uncovers alternatives to the financialization process of sustainability accounting standards. The article also offers insights into the advantages and inconveniences of such a framework. The article enriches the literature in the sociology of valuation, financialization, and sustainability accounting.