A framework for comparing socially responsible investment markets: an analysis of the Dutch and Belgian retail markets

Abstract

The increasing popularity of socially responsible investment among individual investors throughout Europe reveals the need for a framework that allows the comparison of socially responsible retail markets in different European countries. This article proposes such a framework, containing 16 different characteristics of socially responsible retail markets describing the size, institutionalization and nature of this market and correcting for differences in the size of countries and financial markets. When this framework was applied to the Dutch and Belgian socially responsible retail markets, differences were found with respect to the nature of both markets (specifically the use of non‐financial criteria, the asset allocation, the number of solidarity funds and investors' preferences for socially responsible savings products). Similarities were found with respect to the (absolute and relative) size and the degree of institutionalization of the socially responsible retail markets.

Sustainable Development and the Financial System: Society's Perceptions About Socially Responsible Investing

“…Various references were used in designing the questionnaire – such as those issued by Balaguer et al . () to managers, Benijts (), the previously cited Bigné et al . (), Economistas sin Fronteras (ESF) and UNED (), or Valor et al .…”

Is Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) in Stocks a Competitive Capital Investment? A Comparative Analysis Based on the Performance of Sustainable Stocks

“…SRI should at least consider one nonfinancial criterion, namely ethical, ecological or society-related (Benijts, 2010;van Liedekerke et al, 2007;Barnett and Salomon, 2003;Lewis and Mackenzie, 2000). (EuroSif, 2016;Bacher and Bacher, 2015).…”

When Social Enterprises Engage in Finance: Agents of Change in Lending Relationships, a Belgian Typology

“…This classification system is based on the enterprises’ goals, practices, and history rather than on their legal status. This is only one typology, and there may be other relevant ones (Benijts, ). The large diversity of organizations and their overlapping goals make any classification subject to discussion.…”