Behavioural drivers and interventions of socially responsible investment : a literature review.
Date: 2024-04-22
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: consumer behaviour, environmental protection, innovation, investment, report, social impact, sustainable development

ISSN 1831-9424 

Behavioural drivers and interventions of 
socially responsible investment 

A literature review 

Bruns, H., Marandola, G., Pantazi, M., Van Bavel, R. 

2024 

 EUR 31915 EN 

 
 
  
  
 
This document is a publication by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this 
publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European 
Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this 
publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the 
source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations 
employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the 
part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or 
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information 
Name: Hendrik Bruns 
Address: Rue du Champ de Mars 21, 1050 Brussels, Belgium 
Email: hendrik.bruns@ec.europa.eu  
Tel.: +32 229-58350 

EU Science Hub 
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu 

JRC137160 

EUR 31915 EN 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-15192-1   ISSN 1831-9424   doi:10.2760/92927  

KJ-NA-31-915-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024  

© European Union, 2024  

The reuse policy of the European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 
on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised 
under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that 
reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.  

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the European Union permission must be sought directly from 
the copyright holders. 

Cover page illustration, © Micheile Henderson / unsplash.com 

How to cite this report: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Bruns, H., Marandola, G., Pantazi, M. and Van Bavel, R., Behavioural 
drivers and interventions of socially responsible investment, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/92927, JRC137160. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 

1  Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

2  Methods and Materials ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 

3  Attitudinal factors .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

4  Social factors ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 

5  Cognitive factors ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

6  Interventions .................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 

6.1  Disclosure .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15 

6.2  Framing .................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 

6.3  Labels ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 

6.4  Defaults .................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 

7  Discussion........................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 

8  Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 

8.1  Behavioural factors associated with SRI ............................................................................................................. 20 

8.2  Behavioural interventions to affect SRI ............................................................................................................... 20 

8.3  Implications for research and policy ...................................................................................................................... 21 

References ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 

List of abbreviations and definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 32 

List of figures ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 

List of tables ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 

Annexes ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 

Annex 1. Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................ 35 

i 

 
 
 
Abstract 

Based  on  a  literature  review  incorporating  papers  written  before  July  2021,  this  report  presents 
behavioural  factors  affecting  peoples’  decision  to  invest  in  socially  responsible  investment  (SRI) 
products. It groups behavioural factors into three clusters: (i) attitudinal factors, (ii) social factors, and 
(iii) cognitive factors. Besides, it presents evidence on the behavioural interventions that can influence 
SRI  decisions.  Four  types  of  interventions  are  identified:  (i)  information  disclosure,  (ii)  information 
framing, (iii) labels, and (iv) defaults. Based on this review, we propose that scientists investigate the 
impact of social information on SRI, and  policymakers take into account behavioural factors when 
designing policy interventions to make them more effective. 

1 

 
Acknowledgements 

This  report  is  based  on  exploratory  work  conducted  at  the  JRC.  We  thank  colleagues  from  the 
Competence Centre on Behavioural Insights for their comments on previous drafts on this report. We 
particularly thank Gunnar Gutsche, Alexia Gaudeul and Emanuele Ciriolo. 

Authors 

Hendrik Bruns, JRC 

Ginevra Marandola, Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance 

Myrto Pantazi, Université Libre de Bruxelles 

René van Bavel, JRC 

2 

 
1 

Introduction 

Socially responsible investments (SRI) are growing in importance, especially among retail investors. 
SRI takes into account concerns that go beyond the strictly financial. They will generally integrate 
ecological, social, and governance (ESG) factors with a view to contributing to an environmental or 
social objective (Eurosif, 2018; Official Journal of the European Union, 2019).1  

This report focusses on the behavioural factors that affect investors’ decision to invest in SRI. It is 
part of the literature looking at psychological variables on financial decisions, or behavioural finance 
(Barreda-Tarrazona, Matallín-Sáez, and Balaguer-Franch, 2011; Hirshleifer, 2015). Besides identifying 
the relevant drivers and barriers of SRI, it looks at policy interventions  that can influence sustainable 
investment decisions (Pilaj, 2017). 

To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to review the behavioural factors explaining SRI. A report 
by Faulstich-Hon et al. (2020) has explored why people choose sustainable bank deposit accounts but 
does not look at sustainable investment choices more generally. There are several reviews on the role 
of behavioural factors for financial decision making, but they do not focus on sustainable investment 
(Kumar and Goyal, 2015; Shah et al., 2021; Zahera and Bansal, 2018). This review of the behavioural 
factors of SRI will support a future research agenda and related policy-making. 

The following main findings emerge from our review of the literature: First, while there is evidence in 
line with profit-and-risk-driven decisions to invest in SRI, there is also a clear role of attitudinal, social, 
and  cognitive  factors,  which  are  not  directly  related  to  financial  expectations.  Ethical  and  moral 
considerations, pro-environmental attitudes, peer pressure, or financial knowledge are some of the 
relevant factors. Second, there is evidence suggesting that interventions beyond economic incentives 
and information provision can affect SRI. Notably, labels, framing, and default options can effectively 
increase SRI. These insights have clear implications for policymaking and offer fruitful future avenues 
for research. 

1  

Sustainable investment (SI) and SRI are often used interchangeably (see e.g. Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, 
2018). In this report we will generally use the term SRI and only refer to SI if it we need to distinguish between the 
two. 

3 

 
                                                 
 
2  Methods and Materials 

In our review of the literature on the behavioural factors that lead people to invest in SRI we included 
research on the impact of behavioural interventions designed to affect such choices. We break down 
behavioural factors into attitudinal, social, and cognitive factors and structure the review accordingly. 

The categories are inspired by Dessart et al. (2019), who use them to classify the behavioural factors 
affecting sustainable farming practices. However, we use a simplified and slightly adapted version. 
Specifically,  we  adapted  the  terminology  and  replace  the  "dispositional"  category  by  one  named 
"attitudinal". We opted for this as the former is usually understood in juxtaposition with "situational" 
in the psychological literature (Fiske and Taylor, 2013).  

We  performed  a  structured  search  of  the  relevant  literature  using  systematically  selected  search 
queries.  The  queries  that  were  used  consisted  of  three  elements  specifying  the  (1)  settings,  (2) 
behavioural factors and interventions, and (3) evidence types, i.e., methodological approaches that 
we  were  interested  in  (see  Table  1).  For  the  setting,  we  focused  on  sustainable  and  related 
investments, as opposed to investment more generally. Concerning the interventions, we included a 
wide array of keywords describing behavioural factors and interventions in both general and specific 
terms.  The  specific  terms  were  identified  based  on  prior  knowledge  of  the  literature.  Regarding 
evidence  types,  we  were  interested  in  empirical  evidence,  specifically  experiments,  surveys  and 
randomized controlled trials. The full list of keywords is in the Appendix. The search was concluded in 
July 2021. 

We  searched  titles  and  abstracts  on  Scopus  and  Web  of  Science  using  the  three  categories  of 
keywords  connected  with  “AND”  operators,  and  connecting  the  different  keywords  within  each 
category  via  “OR”  operators.  Keywords  used  wildcards  accounting  for  plural  forms  and  language-
specific variations of some terms (British and US American English). We also included references that 
we identified in a manual search on Google Scholar. 

After excluding duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts using ASReview, an active, supervised 
learning algorithm for systematic reviews (van de Schoot et al., 2021). The trained classifier can be 
used in the future to extend this literature review to include new articles in a seamless way.2 

We then screened articles’ full-texts. We excluded articles based on pre-set criteria, i.e., if the topic 
was  not  on  SRI  or  related  concepts  (e.g.,  if  it  was  on  investment  in  general),  if  it  was  not  about 
behavioural factors associated with SRI, or if it was not focused on individuals as the level of analysis 
(cf., countries), if there was no empirical (experimental, data-driven) method involved (e.g., literature 
reviews, perspectives), or if the focus was not on retail investors. We also excluded two references 
due  to  quality  concerns,  as  well  as  four  references  that  were  written  before  the  year  2000.  The 
flowchart  in  Figure  1  shows  the  numbers  of  included  and  excluded  records  associated  with  the 
different  steps  of  the  literature  search.  This left  us with  71  articles  included in  the  review.  These 
articles were then categorized by two reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved via 
discussion. 

2  

For replication in ASReview, the following parameters were used: (1) Classifier: Naïve Bayes (default); (2) Feature 
extraction: TF-IDF (Default); (3) Query strategy: Certainty-based sampling (default); (4) Balance strategy: Dynamic 
resampling (double = default) (van de Schoot et al., 2021). 

4 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 1. Flowchart of identification of included articles. 

5 

                                   Articles identified from databases: Scopus (n = 225) Web of Science (n = 113) GoogleScholar (n = 177) Articles removed before screening: Duplicate records removed  (n = 211) Articles screened (n = 304) Articles excluded (n = 181) Articles sought for retrieval (n = 123) Articles not retrieved (n = 0) Articles assessed for eligibility (n = 123)  Articles excluded: Non-topical (n = 7) Non-BI (n = 26) Non-empirical (n = 9) Non-retail (n = 4) Quality concerns (n = 2) Pre-2000 (n = 4)  Articles included in review (n = 71) Identification of articles via databases and registers Identification Screening  Included  
 
 
3  Attitudinal factors 

We borrow Stern (2000)'s definition of attitudinal factors and refer to values, beliefs and attitudes 
that influence investors’ predisposition towards SRI. In this sub-section we describe various attitudinal 
factors  identified  in  the  literature.  Table  2  summarises  the  included  studies  that  investigated  the 
association between attitudinal factors and SRI. 

Social  preferences broadly refer to the tendency not to care exclusively about one's own material 
payoff, but about the well-being of others as well. They incorporate non-material motives such as 
altruism, reciprocity, aversion to inequity and ethical commitments leading to pro-social behaviour 
(Bowles and Polanía-Reyes, 2012). Social preferences underlie many apparently altruistic decisions 
and have been linked to SRI in many studies (Bauer, Ruof, and Smeets, 2021; Diouf, Hebb, and Touré, 
2016;  Jansson  et  al.,  2014;  Jansson  and  Biel,  2011;  Krause  and  Battenfeld,  2019;  Pérez-Gladish, 
Benson, and Faff, 2012; Riedl and Smeets, 2017; Wins and Zwergel, 2015; Wins and Zwergel, 2016). 

For example, in a large-scale field experiment with pension fund holders, strong social preferences 
were  positively  related to  the  choice to  invest  sustainably  (Bauer,  Ruof,  and  Smeets,  2021).3  This 
implies that pension fund members were willing to forego financial returns to invest their pension 
sustainably. In other words, utility generated through investing consisted partly in financial gains, and 
partly in utility derived from the well-being of others. In line with this, pension beneficiaries valuing 
self-transcendent over self-enhancement have been found to not only express more social, ethical 
and  environmental  concerns,  but  to  also  have  stronger  preferences  for  SRI  (Jansson  et  al.,  2014; 
Jansson and Biel, 2011). There is similar evidence for the positive association of post-material values 
with  willingness  to  pay  for  sustainable  investments  in  pension  funds  (Delsen  and  Lehr,  2019). 
Similarly, the preference for SRI funds has been found to depend on personal sustainability concerns 
and to correlate with investors' willingness to waive returns for sustainability (Hafenstein and Bassen, 
2016). Indian investors scoring higher on collectivism, i.e., putting more value on the group instead of 
the self, are more likely to pursue non-economic goals with their investments (Sreekumar Nair and 
Ladha,  2014).  Investors  with  high  degrees  of  pro-social  attitudes  also  tend  to  have  a  higher 
percentage of ethical funds in their portfolio (Nilsson, 2008; Wins & Zwergel, 2015; 2016).  

Overall, most identified studies suggest that investors’ preference for SRI is partly explained by their 
social preferences. While we also identified two studies that are not consistent with this idea, since 
one did not detect a link between valuing materialism and non-economic goal pursuit (Sreekumar 
Nair and Ladha, 2014), and another did not find a link between social concerns and preferences for 
SRI  (Apostolakis,  Kraanen,  and  van  Dijk,  2016),  these  appear  to  be  exceptions  compared  to  the 
otherwise consistent evidence. 

Altruism comprises acts that are costly for oneself but beneficial for others (Fehr and Fischbacher, 
2003). Altruism correlates with the relative importance placed on social responsibility in investment 
decisions  (Brodback,  Guenster,  and  Mezger,  2019). Along  these  lines,  altruistic  investors  are more 
likely to be SRI investors than less altruistic ones (Nakai et al., 2018; Nilsson, 2009; Sreekumar Nair 
and Ladha, 2014). 

Importantly,  extrinsic  motivations  like  financial  payoffs  can  crowd  out  altruistic  motives  (Bowles, 
2008;  Bowles  and  Polanía-Reyes,  2012).  When  SRI  returns  were  perceived  as  higher  than  for 

3  

Social preferences were measured by asking respondents “How willing are you to give to good causes without 
expecting anything in return?” (Falk et al., 2016). 

6 

 
                                                 
 
conventional investments, altruism was linked to lower preferences for SRI (Brodback, Guenster, and 
Mezger,  2019).  Lastly,  Japanese  investors  indicating  that  they  are  rather  or  very  generous  had  a 
higher tendency to hold SRIs, but not a higher willingness to invest in SRIs if they did not already do 
so (Gutsche, Nakai, and Arimura, 2021). 

Warm-glow feelings are positive feelings that arise from, in this case, investing in environmentally 
and socially responsible companies (Andreoni, 1990). They have been shown to positively predict SRI 
in  a  number  of  studies  (Gutsche,  Köbrich  León,  and  Ziegler,  2019;  Gutsche  and  Ziegler,  2019; 
Hafenstein and Bassen, 2016). 

Ethical  and  moral  considerations  are  relevant  because  investment  decisions  can  be  perceived  as 
morally  "good"  or  "evil"  (Hofmann,  Hoelzl,  and  Kirchler,  2008).  Investment  products  may  concern 
companies in areas like arms export, gambling, nuclear weapons, or tobacco – areas which are usually 
seen as morally "evil". A survey of current and former social investors indicates that being convinced 
that SRI is a good thing and that it leads to a sense of fulfilment, underlies investor attraction to 
these funds (Haigh, 2007). Similarly, moral intensity at the time of investment decisions – describing 
the extent to which morality is imperative for an investor, in an investment situation – has been shown 
to increase sustainable actions and investment decisions by increasing the recognition of moral issues 
and leading to more intense moral judgments (Hofmann, Meier-Pesti, and Kirchler, 2007; Hofmann, 
Hoelzl, and Kirchler, 2008). Consistent with that, socially responsible investors have been found to 
rate  ethical  aspects  as more  important  and  to perceive  greater moral  intensity  than  conventional 
investors  (McLachlan  and  Gardner,  2004).  A  similar  effect  has  been  found  with  respect  to  moral 
norms (i.e., a feeling of obligation towards protecting the environment), such as personal standards 
of conduct towards SRI. They positively predicted SRI intentions and behaviour (Adam and Shauki, 
2014; Raut, Kumar, and Das, 2020). Lastly, focus groups indicated that people indicate their moral 
requirement to make money as a barrier to SRI (Lewis, 2001). 

One survey suggested that investors who are more interested in non-financial goals (including ethical 
and social goals) are less likely to invest sustainably and are willing to pay a smaller trade-off to 
invest in SRIs, arguably because they are not satisfied with the available SRI options (Dorfleitner and 
Utz, 2014). 

Pro-environmental  beliefs,  values  and  attitudes  reflect  a  person's  relation  towards  their  natural 
environment (Dunlap et al., 2000). Unsurprisingly, investors with a high concern for environmental 
issues  place  great  importance  on  SRI  criteria  (Vyvyan,  Ng,  and  Brimble,  2007).  Likewise,  pro-
environmental  attitudes  are  linked  to  higher  pursuit  of  non-economic  goals  (Sreekumar  Nair  and 
Ladha,  2014),  higher  intentions  to  invest  in  SRI  and  higher  awareness  of  SRIs  among  Japanese 
investors – however, this is not linked to higher probability to already hold SRIs but rather the opposite 
(Gutsche, Nakai, and Arimura, 2021). Anderson & Robinson (2021) show that environmental concerns 
become more salient and, therefore relevant for investment decisions after environmental  shocks 
(here,  a  heat  wave  in  Sweden  in  2014).  Respondents  concerned  about  future  environmental 
catastrophes were more likely to think that green investments outperform non-green investments, 
and they were more willing to pay for environmentally sustainable products. 

People  with  strong  environmental  awareness  have  been  shown  to  have  a  higher  willingness  to 
sacrifice returns for sustainable investments (Gutsche, Wetzel, and Ziegler, 2020; Gutsche and Ziegler, 
2019) and to place more importance on environmental over financial considerations (Bassen et al., 
2019). Pro-environmental values influence investment choices especially when their environmental 
benefits constitute a salient product characteristic (Gutsche, Wetzel, and Ziegler, 2020; Gutsche and 
Ziegler,  2019;  Vyvyan,  Ng,  and  Brimble,  2007). However,  limited  studies have  found  no impact  of 
environmental concerns on SRI investment (Pérez-Gladish et al., 2012). 

7 

 
According  to  some  studies,  attitudes  towards  SRI  specifically  predict  behavioural  intentions  and 
behaviour regarding SRI as well (Adam and Shauki, 2014; Apostolakis, Van Dijk, et al., 2018; Borgers 
and Pownall, 2014; Hofmann, Penz, and Kirchler, 2009). Attitudes towards a certain behaviour are 
one element of the theory of planned behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010). Consequently, studies 
using this model also assess people’s attitudes towards SRI. However, one study suggests that when 
asked to actually make investment decisions (e.g., in a discrete choice task) financial performance 
appears  to  be  the  most  important  factor  for  investors  (Vyvyan,  Ng,  and  Brimble,  2007).  The 
importance  SRI investors said they  placed  on  SRI  criteria in  fact  appeared inconsequential.  In  one 
case,  positive  attitudes  towards  impact  investment  did  negatively  predict  preferences  for  an  SRI 
portfolio (Apostolakis, Kraanen, and van Dijk, 2016).4 Affective self-affinity also plays a role here. 
Here, it is understood as an investor’s perception of affective alignment between their own identity 
and the company (Usul, Özdemir, and Kiessling, 2017). If supporting SRI is part of a person’s self-
identity, they will have an affinity for a company that supports or engages in SRI. The more SRI is 
part of their self-identity, the greater their affinity with such a company will be (Usul, Özdemir, and 
Kiessling, 2017). 

Political  preferences are correlated  with investors’ preferences for SRI. People who vote for green 
parties (Bauer, Ruof, and Smeets, 2021), have an affinity to left-wing parties (Gutsche and Ziegler, 
2019), or have a preference for social policy (Gutsche, Nakai, and Arimura, 2021) are more likely to 
support SRI – but do not necessarily hold more SRIs (Gutsche, Nakai, and Arimura, 2021). In the US, 
investment managers who made campaign donations to Democrats in the past held a larger share 
of SRI companies in their portfolio compared to Republicans or non-donors (Hong and Kostovetsky, 
2012).  In  a  Spanish  sample,  people  with  a  left  political  ideology  were  found  to  express  higher 
intentions to invest in SRI (Palacios-González and Chamorro-Mera, 2020). 

Time preferences in the investment context frequently refer to the preference for immediate utility 
over delayed utility (Frederick, Loewenstein, and O’donoghue, 2002). Logically, socially responsible 
investors should appreciate the advantages of long-term investment, and should demonstrate a lower 
time discount rate (i.e., be happy to wait for payoffs occurring in the future). Some evidence supports 
this.  Investors  who  hold  funds  longer  are  more  likely  to  be  socially  responsible  investors  (Riedl & 
Smeets (2017). 

However, other studies challenge this positive relationship between long-term time preferences and 
SRI preferences by finding an opposite or no link (Holm and Rikhardsson, 2008; Rikhardsson and Holm, 
2008).  Rikhardsson  &  Holm,  2008  find  that  supplementary  environmental  information  about 
investment  products  positively  affects  short  term  investment  rather  than  long  term  decisions. 
Moreover,  a  conjoint  analysis  showed  that  investors  with  a  preference  for  long-term  investment 
horizons place more importance on financial than environmental considerations (Bassen et al., 2019). 
Lastly, Japanese undergraduate students with a higher time discount rate appeared more likely to 
invest in SRI (Nakai et al., 2018).5  

Risk preferences describe people’s appetite for risk and their proneness to engage in risky behaviours 
(Mata et al., 2018). They have been shown to influence SRI behaviour (Lewis and Mackenzie, 2000; 
Wins and Zwergel, 2015; Wins and Zwergel, 2016). However, the evidence is inconsistent. If SRIs are 

4  

5  

Another study looks at the relationship between psychological distance and preferences for SRI. However, we were 
unclear about the direction of the association and therefore did not include it here (Apostolakis, van Dijk, et al., 2018). 

This unexpected finding is based on a rather small sample of 46 participants. 

8 

 
                                                 
 
perceived as safer than traditional investments (Jansson et al., 2014), they should be preferred by 
risk-averse investors. One choice experiment finds that risk-tolerant investors place less importance 
on a funds’ climate performance, compared to its financial performance (Bassen et al., 2019). Another 
survey  shows  Dutch  investors  that  are  more  risk  averse  to  have  higher  preferences  for  SRI 
(Apostolakis, Kraanen, and van Dijk, 2016). However, multiple investigations have failed to detect a 
significant relationship between risk preferences or risk aversion and SRI (Apostolakis, Van Dijk, et al., 
2018; Delsen and Lehr, 2019; Hafenstein and Bassen, 2016; Méndez-Rodrı́guez et al., 2015; Nakai 
et al., 2018; Nilsson, 2008; Pérez-Gladish, Benson, and Faff, 2012; Riedl and Smeets, 2017). A survey 
with Indian investors even finds that more risk tolerant investors have higher non-economic goals 
pursuit (Sreekumar Nair and Ladha, 2014). Relatedly, a survey on Japanese investors indicates that 
risk-seeking  investors  are  more  likely  to  invest  in  SRI  and  more  willing  to  start  investing  in  SRI 
(Gutsche, Nakai, and Arimura, 2021)." 

Personality is an important individual factor and it could be expected that SRI investors have certain 
personality characteristics. However, there appears to be only one study investigating the relationship 
between  personality  and  SRI  preferences.  The  study  showed  that  investors  with  more  proactive 
personalities  were  more  responsive  (i.e.,  prefer  SRI  more)  to  positive  images  of  the  environment 
compared to negative, doom images (Vanwalleghem and Mirowska, 2020). 

Lastly, the evidence on religiosity is not straightforward. One survey found that religiosity positively 
predicted  pursuit  of  non-economic  investment  goals  (Sreekumar  Nair  and  Ladha,  2014).  Other 
surveys  found  no  evidence  that  perceiving  oneself  as  religious  (Pérez-Gladish,  Benson,  and  Faff, 
2012) or being willing to pay for sustainable pension funds (Delsen & Lehr, 2019) were linked to SRI 
investment. One study found a negative relationship between SRI and religiosity (Williams, 2007). 

9 

 
4  Social factors 

Social image, signalling, and reputation considerations affect behaviour  (Ariely, Bracha, and Meier, 
2009; Bénabou and Tirole, 2006; Ellingsen and Johannesson, 2008). The relationship of investors with 
others and their role as members of a social group is also expected to affect whether and how to 
invest in SRI. Social signalling refers to the impact of social norms and describes the act of signalling 
one’s (pro-social) values to others (Bénabou and Tirole, 2006).  Such signals build reputation, and 
guide many pro-social decisions (Milinski, Semmann, and Krambeck, 2002). Social norms define the 
behavioural  expectations  within  a  social  group,  and  are  sustained  by  social  feedback  and  signals 
(Axelrod, 1986; Nyborg et al., 2016). 

Pro-environmental  behaviour  signals  one’s  pro-social  or  pro-environmental  preferences  to  others 
(Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van den Bergh, 2010). While investment decisions are mostly invisible to 
others, social norms may play a role if investments are discernible, such as for “sin” stocks. In fact, 
social  norms  have  been  shown  to  have  consequences  for  the  pricing  of  such  stocks:  Because  sin 
stocks are less likely to be held by norm-constrained institutions such as pension plans, their prices 
are lower than their fundamental values. This consequently leads to higher expected returns for actors 
without this norm constraint (Durand, Koh, and Limkriangkrai, 2013; Hong and Kacperczyk, 2009). In 
addition, social norms also put pressure on institutions, which makes them more likely to invest in 
SRI, to which analysts respond with increasing coverage, leading to higher valuation compared to sin 
stocks (Durand, Koh, and Limkriangkrai, 2013).  

In this sub-section we describe various social factors identified in the literature. Table 3 summarises 
the included studies that investigated the association between social factors and SRI. 

There is ample evidence that subjective norms (i.e., the realization that “my colleagues and friends 
are investing in SRI stocks”) can influence one's SRI attitudes and behaviour (Adam and Shauki, 2014; 
Apostolakis,  Van  Dijk,  et  al.,  2018;  Gamel,  Menrad,  and  Decker,  2017;  Gutsche,  Köbrich  León,  and 
Ziegler, 2019; Raut, Kumar, and Das, 2020). 

Other studies suggest that the effects of reputation and social signalling on SRIs are not unequivocal. 
One  study  fails  to  detect  an  association  between  social  investors’  (clients  of  socially  responsible 
banks) motives to talk about SRI (an instance for SRI signalling) and their SRI allocations (Bauer and 
Smeets,  2015).  This  might  be  because  social  investors  at  social  banks  differ  systematically  from 
socially responsible investors at mainstream providers.6 Another study provides consistent evidence, 
not finding a relation between talking about and investing in SRI (Bauer, Ruof, and Smeets, 2021).  
Participants  in  an  incentivized  framed  field  experiment  who  reported  that  they  often  talk  about 
investments with their peers invested on average €22.99 less into an experimental sustainable fund 
(Gutsche, Wetzel, and Ziegler, 2020). Meyer et al. (2019) suggests that any amount of sustainable 
assets in one's portfolio is sufficient for signalling one’s pro-social motives. The amount of money 
invested in a socially responsible manner apparently did not matter. Yet, in some cases, investors who 
talk more often about their investments are also more likely to hold SRIs (Gutsche, Nakai, and Arimura, 
2021), on top of what is predicted by their social preferences (Riedl and Smeets, 2017) and are more 
willing to invest in SRIs if they have not done so already (Gutsche, Nakai, and Arimura, 2021).  

6  

The authors also mention the possibility that marginal differences in measuring this motive may be the reason that 
findings from both studies are different. 

10 

 
                                                 
 
Social identity describes one’s self-image of belonging to one or more social groups (Tajfel, 1974). 
Investors who hold SRIs can vary widely in the extent to which they identify with SRI. Investors that 
express a stronger identification with socially responsible practices allocate more of their wealth to 
socially  responsible  banks  (Bauer  and  Smeets,  2015).  These  authors  also  argue  that  social 
identification, i.e., an investor's tendency to identify with SRI, also mediates the effect of expected 
returns and risk perceptions on the absolute and relative share invested responsibly. More specifically, 
high return expectations from SRI are associated with increased social identification, whereas higher 
risk perceptions correlate with lower social identification, ultimately  leading to higher or lower SRI 
respectively (Bauer and Smeets, 2015). 

11 

 
5  Cognitive factors 

Whether  investors  invest  responsibly  depends  on  how  they  learn,  understand  and  perceive  their 
investments,  particularly  their  costs,  potential  gains,  and  risks.  While  cognitive  factors  are  often 
aspects specific to the individual, they can also depend on contexts that affect cognitive factors. In 
this last section, we review the evidence on the relation between a list of cognitive factors and SRI. 
Table 4 summarises the included studies that investigated the association between cognitive factors 
and SRI. 

Financial  literacy  does  not  appear  to  be  a  straightforward  predictor  of  investment  decisions  and 
financial  behaviour  more  generally  (Fernandes,  Lynch,  and  Netemeyer,  2014).  The  same  can  be 
largely said about financial literacy and SRI more specifically. 

There is some evidence that financial literacy positively predicts the intention to invest responsibly 
(Palacios-González and Chamorro-Mera, 2020; Raut, Kumar, and Das, 2020). Good knowledge of the 
emerging concept of Land Degradation Neutrality, for example, was correlated with intention to invest 
in  it  (Reyhanloo  et  al.,  2018).  A  survey  of  Swedish  households  provides  modest  evidence  that 
financially  literate  individuals  with  strong  environmental  attitudes  make  larger  allocations  to 
environmentally sustainable mutual pension funds (Anderson and Robinson, 2020). A framed field 
experiment in Germany also provides supporting evidence: one additional correct answer in a test for 
financial literacy led to an average increase of the  amount invested sustainably by about 17€ of a 
500€  endowment  (Gutsche,  Wetzel,  and  Ziegler,  2020).  Data  from  a  large  sample  of  Dutch 
households suggests that low financial sophistication is partly responsible for the difficulties investors 
have in making financial investment decisions in line with their non-financial preferences (Borgers 
and Pownall, 2014). Similarly, Spanish survey data shows that investors with a higher intentions to 
invest  in  SRI  have  a  more  diverse  investment  portfolio,  greater  financial  literacy,  and  greater 
knowledge of what SRI is and how it works (Palacios-González and Chamorro-Mera, 2020). Finally, a 
Japanese  survey  suggested  that  financial  literacy  positively  predicted  awareness  of  SRI,  the 
probability to invest in SRI, and the intention to do so if not having done so already (Gutsche, Nakai, 
and Arimura, 2021). 

However, despite the findings presented above, there is evidence challenging the idea that  higher 
financial literacy predicts more  investment in sustainable assets. Bauer and Smeets (2015) find no 
significant  relationship  between  self-reported  financial  knowledge  and  the  amount  invested  in  a 
sustainable bank. Rossi et al. (2019) report a negative relation between self-reported financial literacy 
and  interest  in  SRI  products,  even  when  controlling for  general  education.  Riedl  &  Smeets  (2017) 
provide suggestive evidence for a negative effect of higher self-rated investment knowledge on the 
share of SRI held (with no apparent effect on the likelihood to hold SRI funds in the first place). In a 
similar vein, Bassen et al. (2019), who measured actual financial literacy scores, suggest that more 
literate  investors  place  less  relative  weight  on  products’  climate  performance  compared  to  their 
financial performance. The literature surrounding this issue is therefore inconclusive. 

Cognitive overload could be a barrier to responsible investing. Investors can perceive the amount of 
relevant information available on SRI as overly complex and potentially paralyzing. This, in turn, can 
limit  their  ability  and  motivation  to  identify  and  use  this  information.  However,  higher  perceived 
information  overload  regarding  investment  activities  in  general  has  been  associated  with  higher 
sustainable  investments  (Hafenstein  and  Bassen,  2016).  A  proposed  explanation  for  this  is  that 
investing sustainably could be a means to simplify the decision – presumably serving as a fast and 
frugal  decision  heuristic  (Gigerenzer  and  Todd,  2001).  However,  more  data  is  needed  in  order  to 
substantiate this hypothesis. 

12 

 
With respect to the availability of information, a lack thereof, or the perceived costliness of accessing 
it, the evidence paints a clearer picture. While there is no indication that people invest responsibly 
when they lack information (Bauer, Ruof, and Smeets, 2021), too high information costs can be a 
barrier for SRI (Gutsche and Zwergel, 2020). Consequently, private investors that are inclined to invest 
in SRI may not do so if advisors withhold relevant information (Paetzold and Busch, 2014). 

Cognitive biases describe the systematic divergence of people’s  choices from the optimal choices 
assumed in rational-agent models (Kahneman, 2003). A lack of information or capacity to process 
available information, due to, for example, time pressure, can lead people to experience biases and 
to depend on heuristics, and consequently make mistakes.7 

Contextual factors like time pressure, as well as peoples' tendency to reflect more or less on a decision 
can  affect  their  proneness  to  make  a  biased  decision.  Relatedly,  one  study  tested  whether  the 
importance  of  climate  vs.  financial  attributes  of  investment  products  was  affected  by  investors' 
individual-level  thinking  style,  as  assessed  through  the  “cognitive-reflection  task”  (Bassen  et  al., 
2019). This test categorizes people as either intuitive or reflective decision makers (Frederick, 2005). 
Data suggest that more reflective investors weighed financial considerations more, whereas more 
intuitive investors weighed environmental considerations more. This was especially the case if they 
had never invested (or had never considered investing) in environmental funds. 

Some biases have been studied in the context of SRI. For example, the disposition effect refers to an 
investor’s tendency to hold on to underperforming and selling overperforming assets, both in terms 
of financial and SRI criteria. Data from a large retail bank suggest that socially responsible investors 
exhibit  a  greater  disposition  effect  than  conventional  investors  (van  Dooren  and  Galema,  2018). 
Likewise,  Webley  et  al.  (2001)  reveal  that  ethical  investors  are  generally  committed  to  ethical 
investment, even if these investments perform badly or are attested a lack of positive impact by an 
expert. Meyer et al. (2019) on the other hand, find no evidence of a disposition effect explaining the 
share or amount invested in SRI assets.  

Inertia refers to the human tendency to stick with the status quo (Madrian and Shea, 2001; Samuelson 
and Zeckhauser, 1988). Financial, and specifically investment, decisions are quite complex for many 
people, which can ultimately make them stick with the status-quo – which often means either not 
investing at all, or investing in non-SRI (Marandola et al., 2020; Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988). 
Investors might also exhibit inertia to the extent that they invest in SRI with risk/return profiles similar 
to non-SRI investments they are already holding (Auger et al., 2016). Investors themselves sometimes 
cite inertia to explain why they do not exclusively invest in ethical funds, but also in ordinary ones 
(Lewis, 2001). 

Perceived behavioural control is an element of the theory of planned behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 
2010). The perception of having the necessary capabilities of bringing about change has been shown 
to positively predict intentions to invest in SRI in several studies  (Apostolakis, Van Dijk, et al., 2018; 
Hofmann, Penz, and Kirchler, 2009), although it was not a significant predictor in one study (Adam 
and Shauki, 2014). A similar concept, the belief that one’s actions can bring about a change in society, 
has  been  shown  to  positively  predict  pursuit  of  non-economic  goals  (Sreekumar  Nair  and  Ladha, 

7   Decision heuristics do not necessarily result in mistakes. In fact, heuristics can be fast ways of making good decisions 

(Gigerenzer and Todd, 2001). 

13 

 
                                                 
 
2014). Qualitative evidence also suggests that various dimensions of perceived behavioural control 
are important supporting factors for SRI (Hofmann, Penz, and Kirchler, 2009). 

14 

 
6 

Interventions 

Effective  interventions  aiming  to  promote  SRI  will  target  the  behavioural  factors  underlying  SRI 
investments.  Table  5  summarises  the  studies  that  investigated  the  impact  of  behavioural 
interventions on SRI. 

We differentiate between four types of interventions: information disclosure, framing of information, 
labels, and default values. None of these limit investors’ choice options, or use financial incentives in 
order to influence investment choices. 

6.1  Disclosure 

Providing various types of information is a common practice in the retail financial market. Information 
commonly communicated in CSR reports has been found to positively impact on socially responsible 
investment  decisions  (Khemir,  Baccouche,  and  Ayadi,  2019).  Simply  speaking,  providing  SRI 
information  makes  people  invest  more  in  SRI  (Barreda-Tarrazona,  Matallín-Sáez,  and  Balaguer-
Franch, 2011). Trust and assurance both appear to play an important role in the impact of information. 
SRI reports that appear assured by an external body are perceived as more reliable than non-assured 
SRI reports (Hodge, Subramaniam, and Stewart, 2009). Conversely, negative SRI information reduced 
investor estimates when it was provided by an NGO, but not when it was provided by the company 
itself (Reimsbach and Hahn, 2015). 

However, the relationship between information and behaviour is not straightforward. Much depends 
on  the  characteristics  of  the  investor.  For  example,  the  effect  of  SRI  information  on  investments 
appears  stronger  for  risk  averse  investors  and  for  those  who  are  already  interested  in  social 
responsibility. Additionally, such information makes people less likely to invest in non-SRI investments 
–  an  effect  that  might  not  always  be  desirable  (Barreda-Tarrazona,  Matallín-Sáez,  and  Balaguer-
Franch,  2011).  Other  findings  suggest  that  information  will  have  an  effect  depending  on  how 
investors process it. For example, they may increase their valuation of the company if they learn that 
it  is  particularly  good  in  terms  of  social  responsibility.  This  suggests  a  positive  effect  of  SRI 
information on SRI behaviour (Elliott et al., 2014). But this only happened when participants were not 
instructed to pay explicit attention to the information. If told to assess the company’s impact, the 
positive effect of information provision effect vanished. These findings are consistent with “affect-
as-information”  theory  (Schwarz  and  Clore,  2003),  since  investors  who  do  not  reflect  upon 
information may rely on their affective reaction to it. 

Other research showed that information disclosure will be more effective when it fits aspects of the 
decision-making styles of investors (Elliott, Grant, and Rennekamp, 2017). Such a fit can be especially 
beneficial for less numerate investors, who were more willing to invest in a firm when its CSR strategy 
was  presented  in  a  format  compatible  to  their  decision-making  style.  This  may  occur  due  to  less 
numerate investors experiencing feelings of processing fluency – the information is made easier for 
them to digest.  

6.2  Framing 

The effect of information disclosure also depends on contextual characteristics, such as the framing 
of  SRI  information.  Framing  can  be  defined  as  "the  process  by  which  a  communication  source 
constructs and defines a social or political issue for its audience" (Nelson, Oxley, and Clawson, 1997, 
p.221). It can affect the likelihood to engage in SRI and how much investors are willing to sacrifice 
when choosing SRI over traditional non-SRI investments (Glac, 2009). For example, SRI can be framed 

15 

 
so  as  to  highlight  the  pro-social  personal  values  underlying  them,  or  to  highlight  the  financial 
opportunities arising from them. The latter framing increases SRI (Døskeland and Pedersen, 2016). 
Interestingly, the effect of such framings depends on the wealth of investors: financial arguments 
have been found to be more effective than moral arguments for wealthy investors (Døskeland and 
Pedersen, 2016; Døskeland and Pedersen, 2019). 

In contexts where investors consider an investment to be reflective and adequate to express their 
values,  principles  and  social  beliefs  (i.e.,  an  integrated  decision  frame,  as  opposed  to  a  financial 
decision frame that is more functional in nature), they are likely to put a larger share of their portfolio 
in SRI (Glac, 2012). 

The framing of numerical data, especially using images (e.g., in CSR reports) is of special importance. 
In some situations, the CSR performance of a company can appear more impressive to investors when 
framed as a big contribution to a narrow cause than when framed as a small contribution to a larger 
cause – labelled the big fish effect (Moreno and Zhang, 2021). 

There is also evidence that supporting qualitative SRI information with quantitative results does not 
result in higher SRI allocation (Rikhardsson and Holm, 2008). Also, of relevance is whether images 
supporting SRI are framed positively or negatively with respect to the environment. SRI investments 
appear to be more likely in the presence of images showing the positive consequences of investing 
responsibly,  as  opposed  to  images  highlighting  the negative  consequences  of  not  investing in  SRI 
(Vanwalleghem and Mirowska, 2020). There is also evidence that prompting investors to think about 
investment  options  in categorical  terms (e.g.,  by  differentiating between  for-profit  companies  and 
charities), can lead to less efficient investment choices, both financially and socially (Lee, Adbi, and 
Singh, 2020). This could limit the effectiveness of labels. 

6.3  Labels 

Financial labels disclose information in a concise and often framed way, enabling people to make 
financial decisions in line with their preferences. They can help overcome cognitive barriers by closing 
information  gaps  and  providing  seamless  access  to  understandable,  credible,  and  accurate 
information on SRI products, especially for retail investors (Gutsche and Zwergel, 2020; Shiller, 2010). 
Thus, their appeal builds on some of the previously identified cognitive barriers to financial decisions, 
such as information overload, low financial literacy or cognitive abilities.  

Specifically, providing information about the performance of an SRI product either as a climate award 
(highlighting positive climate performance), a star rating (marking neutral or positive funds), or an 
impact  scale  (marking  funds’  climate  performance  as  negative,  neutral,  or  positive)  can  provide 
valuable information for investors in a simple and salient way. Findings suggest that a star rating 
label puts the highest emphasis on SRI information (Bassen et al., 2019), although common financial 
market  information  pertaining  to  risks,  costs  and  financial  performance  appear  more  important 
factors for decision makers. In addition, the observation that intuitive decision makers place more 
importance on climate- than on financial performance suggests that the effectiveness of SRI labels 
might be more effective for intuitive decision makers (Bassen et al., 2019).  

The  Morningstar  sustainability  ranking  labels  evaluate  funds  according  to  their  sustainability 
performance,  from  one  to  five  globes  (Morningstar,  2019).  About  nine  months  after  their 
implementation, investments in mutual funds with a high Morningstar sustainability rating increased 
by roughly 4%, while investments in funds with low sustainability ranking decreased by around 6% 
(Hartzmark  and  Sussman,  2019).  About  12-15 billion  dollars  were  taken  out  of  low-sustainability 
funds while 24-32 billion dollars were additionally invested in high-sustainability assets. The labels 

16 

 
work  mainly  through  providing  simplified,  salient  sustainability information  communicated  via  the 
globes. Underlying information on the percentile ranks of the funds’ sustainability appeared to have 
minimal  impact  on  investments.  The  globe  ratings  also  led  investors  to  expect  positive  future 
performance  with  less  risk.  Since  lower  risk  and  higher  performance  are  unlikely  to  manifest  in 
parallel, this reaction is more likely to result from emotions rather than rational deliberation. 

Additionally,  the  effect  of  assurance  labels  on  SRI  information  is  particularly  impactful  when 
sustainability  is  part  of  the  company’s  strategy  – potentially because  of  higher  credibility  (Cheng, 
Green, and Ko, 2015). 

6.4  Defaults 

Defaults  have  been  shown  to  exert  powerful  influence  on  financial  decisions  (Choi  et  al.,  2003; 
Madrian  and  Shea,  2001)  and  on  a  wide  variety  of  choices  in  other  domains,  including  pro-
environmental ones (Jachimowicz et al., 2018). In fact, there is evidence that when the default is set 
to non-SRI options, only a minority of people choose to invest socially responsibly (Hoffmann, Cam, 
and  Camilleri,  2019).  In  an  experimental  study  on  nudges,  Gajewski  et  al.  (2021)  concluded  that 
making SRI investment the default is the most powerful  way to increase SRI investment. It had a 
twofold effect: first, around half of investors did not opt out of the default SRI allocation. And even 
then, the other half, which did opt out, ended investing more in SRI than the control group (probably 
due to an anchoring effect). 

However,  other  evidence  suggests  that  choice  for  sustainable  pension  funds  is  not  influenced  by 
defaults on alternative, non-SRI, options (Bauer, Ruof, and Smeets, 2021). The authors interpret this 
as a sign of strong investor preferences for sustainable investment options that counteract the “pull” 
of the non-SRI default. This chimes in with arguments proposing that defaults are less effective in 
situations where decision makers have strong preferences that contradict the default or situations 
where decisions are perceived as being of high importance by the decision maker (Jachimowicz et al., 
2018). 

17 

 
 
7  Discussion 

SRI decisions depend on people’s valuations of their natural and social environment, their cognitive 
capacities, and various other factors that are supposedly irrelevant according to traditional models 
of  financial  behaviour  (Thaler,  2016).  The  literature  yields  several  policy-relevant  insights  in  this 
regard.  First,  financial  considerations  are  not  sufficient  to  motivate  people  to  invest  responsibly. 
Second, being motivated to invest in SRI might not be sufficient to get people to invest accordingly – 
investors  might  not  have  the  necessary  information,  abilities,  or  opportunities  to  do  so.  Third, 
interventions to foster SRI must not just focus on motivating people by providing financial incentives 
or by reducing information asymmetries. Effective interventions might have to provide people with 
the  necessary  abilities  and  opportunities  to  act  on  their  motivations  (cf.  Ölander  and  Thøgersen, 
1995). 

We structured the evidence differentiating between attitudinal, social, and cognitive factors. First, this 
categorization itself can be criticized and alternative categorizations can be proposed. Second, it is 
not always unambiguous which category a finding belongs to. While always two researchers made 
the decision to categorize a specific piece of evidence, there is a significant level of subjectivity to 
this  categorization.  However,  the  primary  reason  for  this  categorization  is  the  structuring  of  the 
review. We do not propose a behavioural model of SRI decision making. 

Four limitations relating to the scope of this review are worth mentioning: First, we do not consider 
socio-economic variables such as age, gender and education, to be behavioural factors and therefore 
we do not include related evidence in this review. Second, the review is not exhaustive but should 
provide  a  good  overview  of  the  available  evidence  published  until  July  2021.  Third,  we  exclude 
research  on  whether  SRI  is  effective  in  reaching  its  societal  impact  goals  (see,  e.g.,  Wagemans, 
Koppen, and Mol, 2013) and on the financial merits of SRI (see, e.g., Badía, Ferruz, and Cortez, 2020). 
Fourth, we exclude theoretical research. 

Figure 2 outlines the identified and discussed behavioural factors underlying SRI according to their 
“proximity” or “distance” to the SRI decision. According to this conceptual categorisation of behavioural 
factors applied by Dessart et al. (2019) to the domain of sustainable farming practices, “behavioural 
factors are considered distal when they are higher-order, general ‘macro’ principles, relatively remote 
from  specific  decision-making  situations”  and  proximal  “when  they  consist  in  lower-order,  ‘micro’ 
variables directly or almost directly related to the focus of the decision-making”. We use this model 
solely to structure and visualize the findings presented in this report, not to propose a positive model 
of SRI decision-making.  

18 

 
Figure 2. Behavioural factors associated with socially responsible investment 

Source: Based on Dessart et al. (2019) 

19 

 
 
8  Conclusions 

This review categorises and outlines the behavioural factors affecting the decision to invest in SRI. It 
provides a structured account of the literature, a first step towards a more structured approach to 
understanding and promoting SRI. It focusses on non-financial considerations – supposedly irrelevant 
factors (Thaler, 2016) – attitudinal, social, and cognitive, which play a role. It is the first review to 
provide such an integrated and broad overview of the behavioural science literature surrounding SRI. 

8.1  Behavioural factors associated with SRI 

Attitudinal  factors  play  a role in  the decision to invest  in  SRI.  These include investors’  ethical  and 
environmental  considerations,  their  moral  and  personal  values,  and  general  social  preferences. 
Specifically, investors with stronger pro-environmental preferences and orientations, stronger moral 
values,  particular personal  values  (such  as  self-transcendence)  and more  altruistic tendencies  are 
more likely to invest in SRI products. Moreover, the relationship between altruistic preferences and 
SRI can at least partly be explained by positive feelings of investors who choose SRI products. This 
suggests that socially responsible investors reap psychological benefits both at a personal and at a 
social level. Political preferences played out as expected, with green and left party support correlating 
with more SRI.8 

While  investors  clearly  gain  benefits  from  the  positive  impact  that  their  socially  responsible 
investments have on others, they also take into account what they see others do and how they think 
they  are  seen  by  others.  These  social  factors  indicate  that  while  investments  are  largely  private 
activities  and  are  thus  invisible  to  others,  they  have  a  social  component.  As  for  other  pro-
environmental behaviours (Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van den Bergh, 2010), social norms, expectations 
of society or of the social environment, appear to play a role. Notably, the importance of signalling in 
SRI  can  have  important  implications  for  policies,  as  they  affect  the  effectiveness  of  incentives 
(Bénabou and Tirole, 2006). Whether or not SRI can build up reputation for investors that frequently 
talk about their investments is less clear. The same is the case for the role of SRI in building up a 
social identity. Research here is lacking. 

Regarding cognitive factors, while some findings suggest a relationship between financial literacy and 
SRI investment, it remains unclear whether this relation is negative or positive. Interestingly, it appears 
to depend, to a considerable degree, on how financial literacy is measured  – in self-reports or via 
more  objective means.  Relatedly,  the  amount  of  available  information  about investment  products 
also  seems  to  play  a  role:  information is  necessary,  and more  information,  especially  information 
overload, could apparently lead to more SRI choices by engaging decision heuristics. The role of a few 
cognitive biases identified in the financial decision-making literature has been tested for SRI, too. The 
disposition effect and inertia seem to affect socially responsible investments.  

8.2  Behavioural interventions to affect SRI 

There is evidence that behavioural interventions could nudge investors to invest in SRI, without forcing 
them to, without giving them financial incentives, and without making it more difficult (or impossible) 

8  

For more on the role of values and identities in policymaking, see Scharfbillig et al. (2021). 

20 

 
                                                 
 
for them to choose non-SRI options. Our review identifies four types of behavioural interventions: 
information disclosure, information framing, labels, and default options.  

Overall, the evidence suggests that disclosing the SRI characteristics of financial products increases 
SRI. Furthermore, however, the way information is presented to investors is relevant as well. Several 
authors have experimentally manipulated the frames and labels provided to investors at the time 
they make their investment decisions. Whether investment situations are framed as either reflecting 
investors’ values or their financial interests appears to affect SRI decisions. Notably, the direction of 
this effect is conditional on the wealth of investors, as wealthy investors appear to be more responsive 
to information framed in wealth terms. Labels have largely been shown to affect SRI, mirroring their 
effectiveness in other pro-environmental domains, as well as their frequent use as policy instruments 
in  the  SRI  context.  Naturally,  labels  can  come  in  many  forms,  highlighting  different  aspects  of 
investment  options  with  respect  to  their  SRI  performance.  The  star  rating  has  been  found  to  be 
effective,  specifically  for  intuitive  decision  makers.  There  is  also  evidence  that  the  Morningstar 
sustainability ranking label has had quite some impact on the amount of money invested in low- and 
high-sustainability funds. Notably, the fact that this label communicates information in a simple and 
reduced way appeared to play a big role for its impact. Trust in labels and the issuers of labels is of 
central importance to their effectiveness as well. 

Lastly,  when  the  default  option  in  an  investment  setting  is  a  conventional  investment  product, 
participants  will  mostly  opt  for  the  non-SRI  default  option.  This  is  the  case  at  least  when  initial 
preferences for SRI are not too strong. 

8.3  Implications for research and policy 

In terms of future research implications, our review suggests that more research on the effects of 
social  information  on  SRI  is  needed.  SRI  decisions  partly  depend  on  social  norms  and  signalling 
motives  of  investors.  Yet,  we  are  not  aware  of  any  experiments  testing  the  effectiveness  of 
interventions making use of these factors. Such interventions are effective in motivating pro-social 
and pro-environmental behaviours, for example with respect to energy conservation (Allcott, 2011). 

In terms of policy implications, acknowledging the role of behavioural factors opens avenues for more 
effective interventions. Some interventions work better for certain subsets of the population (Chetty, 
2015).  Consequently,  scientists  increasingly  turn  to  the  potential  of  personalizing,  targeting,  or 
tailoring  behavioural  interventions  to  characteristics  of  the  target  group  (Mills,  2020;  Peer  et  al., 
2020). In some research domains, this is not new. For example, there is a plethora of evidence on 
tailored health messaging (Noar, Benac, and Harris, 2007) and persuasion research (Joyal‐Desmarais, 
Rothman, and Snyder, 2020; Luong, Garrett, and Slater, 2019; Matz et al., 2017; Teeny et al., 2021). In 
the future, policy interventions could be tailored and tested to find out which interventions work best 
for which group of people in guiding SRI.  

To conclude, the decision to invest in SRI can only be explained by including behavioural factors in the 
equation of investment decision-making. As this review shows, there is a vast number of different 
categories  of  such  factors  and  their  relationship  with  SRI  is  not  always  clear.  Nevertheless,  their 
inclusion improves the extent to which we can predict, understand, and guide sustainable investment 
decisions. This knowledge is of specific importance for policymakers and financial intermediaries that 
strive to set-up an environment in which investors can make investment decisions that are in line 
with their preferences. 

21 

 
References 

Adam, A.A., and E.R. Shauki, ‘Socially Responsible Investment in Malaysia: Behavioral Framework in 
Evaluating Investors’ Decision Making Process’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 80, October 
2014, pp. 224–240. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.075. 

Allcott, H., ‘Social Norms and Energy Conservation’, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 95, No. 9–10, 

2011, pp. 1082–1095. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003. 

Anderson, A., and D.T. Robinson, ‘Climate Fears and the Demand for Green Investment’, Swedish House 

of Finance Research Paper, Vol. 19–14, 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3490730. 

———, ‘Financial Literacy in the Age of Green Investment’, 2020. 

Andreoni,  J.,  ‘Impure  Altruism  and  Donations  to  Public  Goods:  A  Theory  of  Warm-Glow  Giving’, 

Economic Journal, Vol. 100, No. 401, 1990, p. 464. http://www.doi.org/10.2307/2234133. 

Apostolakis, G., G. van Dijk, F. Kraanen, and R.J. Blomme, ‘Examining Socially Responsible Investment 
Preferences: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment’, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental 
Finance, Vol. 17, March 2018, pp. 83–96. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.01.001. 

Apostolakis, G., F. Kraanen, and G. van Dijk, ‘Examining Pension Beneficiaries’ Willingness to Pay for a 
Socially Responsible and Impact Investment Portfolio: A Case Study in the Dutch Healthcare 
Sector’, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Vol. 11, September 2016, pp. 27–
43. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2016.06.001. 

Apostolakis,  G.,  G.  Van  Dijk,  R.J.  Blomme,  F.  Kraanen,  and  A.P.  Papadopoulos,  ‘Predicting  Pension 
Beneficiaries’  Behaviour  When  Offered  a  Socially  Responsible  and  Impact  Investment 
Portfolio’, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 3, 2018, pp. 213–
241. http://www.doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2018.1429148. 

Ariely,  D.,  A.  Bracha,  and  S.  Meier,  ‘Doing  Good  or  Doing  Well?  Image  Motivation  and  Monetary 
Incentives in Behaving Prosocially’, American Economic Review, Vol. 99, No. 1, 2009, pp. 544–
555. http://www.doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.1.544. 

Auger, P., T. Devinney, G. Dowling, and C. Eckert, ‘Inertia and Discounting in the Selection of Socially 
Responsible Investments: An Experimental Investigation’, Annals in Social Responsibility, Vol. 
2, No. 1, May 3, 2016, pp. 29–47. http://www.doi.org/10.1108/ASR-07-2016-0006. 

Axelrod, R., ‘An Evolutionary Approach to Norms’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 04, 

1986, pp. 1095–1111. http://www.doi.org/10.2307/1960858. 

Badía, G., L. Ferruz,  and M.C. Cortez, ‘The Performance of Social  Responsible Investing from Retail 
Investors’ Perspective: International Evidence’, International Journal of Finance & Economics, 
September 2020, p. ijfe.2109. http://www.doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2109. 

Barreda-Tarrazona,  I.,  J.C.  Matallín-Sáez,  and  M.R.  Balaguer-Franch,  ‘Measuring  Investors’  Socially 
Responsible Preferences in Mutual Funds’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 103, No. 2, October 
2011, pp. 305–330. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0868-z. 

Bassen, A., K. Gödker, F. Lüdeke-Freund, and J. Oll, ‘Climate Information in Retail Investors’ Decision-
Making:  Evidence  From  a  Choice  Experiment’,  Organization  &  Environment,  Vol.  32,  No.  1, 
2019, pp. 62–82. http://www.doi.org/10.1177/1086026618771669. 

22 

 
Bauer, R., T. Ruof, and P.  Smeets, ‘Get Real! Individuals Prefer More Sustainable Investments’, The 
pp.  3976–4043. 

Studies,  Vol.  34,  No.  8,  2021, 

Review 
Financial 
http://www.doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhab037. 

of 

Bauer,  R.,  and  P.  Smeets,  ‘Social  Identification  and  Investment  Decisions’,  Journal  of  Economic 
121–134. 

Organization, 

2015, 

117, 

pp. 

Behavior 
http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.06.006. 

Vol. 

& 

Bénabou, R., and J. Tirole, ‘Incentives and Prosocial Behavior.’, American Economic Review, Vol. 96, No. 

5, 2006, pp. 1652–1678. http://www.doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.5.1652. 

Borgers,  A.C.T.,  and  R.A.J.  Pownall,  ‘Attitudes  towards  Socially  and  Environmentally  Responsible 
Investment’, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Vol. 1, March 2014, pp. 27–44. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2014.01.005. 

Bowles,  S.,  ‘Policies  Designed  for  Self-Interested  Citizens  May  Undermine  \textquotedblThe  Moral 
Sentiments\textquotedbl: Evidence from Economic Experiments’, Science, Vol. 320, No. 5883, 
2008, pp. 1605–1609. http://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.1152110. 

Bowles,  S.,  and  S.  Polanía-Reyes,  ‘Economic  Incentives  and  Social  Preferences:  Substitutes  or 
Complements?’,  Journal  of  Economic  Literature,  Vol.  50,  No.  2,  2012,  pp.  368–425. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.2.368. 

Brodback, D., N. Guenster, and D. Mezger, ‘Altruism and Egoism in Investment Decisions’, Review of 
118–148. 

January 

2019, 

No. 

pp. 

1, 

37, 
Economics, 
Financial 
http://www.doi.org/10.1002/rfe.1053. 

Vol. 

Cheng,  M.M.,  W.J.  Green,  and  J.C.W.  Ko,  ‘The  Impact  of  Strategic  Relevance  and  Assurance  of 
Sustainability Indicators on Investors’ Decisions’, AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 
Vol. 34, No. 1, February 1, 2015, pp. 131–162. http://www.doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50738. 

Chetty,  R.,  ‘Behavioral  Economics  and  Public  Policy:  A  Pragmatic  Perspective’,  American  Economic 
Review, Vol. 105, No. 5, 2015, pp. 1–33. http://www.doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151108. 

Choi, J.J., D. Laibson, B.C. Madrian, and A. Metrick, ‘Optimal Defaults’, American Economic Review, Vol. 
93, No. 2, 2003, pp. 180–185. http://www.doi.org/10.1257/000282803321947010. 

Delsen, L., and A. Lehr, ‘Value Matters or Values Matter? An Analysis of Heterogeneity in Preferences 
for Sustainable Investments’, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Vol. 9, No. 3, July 
3, 2019, pp. 240–261. http://www.doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2019.1608709. 

Dessart,  F.J.,  J.  Barreiro-Hurlé,  and  R.  van  Bavel,  ‘Behavioural  Factors  Affecting  the  Adoption  of 
Sustainable  Farming  Practices:  A  Policy-Oriented  Review’,  European  Review  of  Agricultural 
Economics, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2019, pp. 417–471. http://www.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019. 

Diouf, D., T. Hebb, and E.H. Touré, ‘Exploring Factors That Influence Social Retail Investors’ Decisions: 
Evidence from Desjardins Fund’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 134, No. 1, March 2016, pp. 
45–67. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2307-4. 

van Dooren, B., and R. Galema, ‘Socially Responsible Investors and the Disposition Effect’, Journal of 
pp.  42–52. 

Finance,  Vol.  17,  March  2018, 

Behavioral  and 
http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.006. 

Experimental 

23 

 
Dorfleitner,  G.,  and  S.  Utz,  ‘Profiling  German-Speaking  Socially  Responsible  Investors’,  Qualitative 
in  Financial  Markets,  Vol.  6,  No.  2,  July  29,  2014,  pp.  118–156. 

Research 
http://www.doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-07-2012-0024. 

Døskeland,  T.,  and  L.J.T.  Pedersen,  ‘Does  Wealth  Matter  for  Responsible  Investment?  Experimental 
Evidence on the Weighing of Financial and Moral Arguments’, Business & Society, Vol. 60, No. 
3, 2019, pp. 650–683. http://www.doi.org/10.1177/0007650319826231. 

———, ‘Investing with Brain or Heart? A Field Experiment on Responsible Investment’, Management 
Science, Vol. 62, No. 6, 2016, pp. 1632–1644. http://www.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2208. 

Dunlap,  R.E.,  K.D.  van  Liere,  A.G.  Mertig,  and  R.E.  Jones,  ‘New  Trends  in  Measuring  Environmental 
Issues,  Vol.  56,  No.  3,  2000,  pp.  425–442. 

Journal  of  Social 
Attitudes’, 
http://www.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176. 

Durand, R.B., S. Koh, and M. Limkriangkrai, ‘Saints versus Sinners. Does Morality Matter?’, Journal of 
International  Financial  Markets,  Institutions  and  Money,  Vol.  24,  April  2013,  pp.  166–183. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2012.12.002. 

Ellingsen, T., and M. Johannesson, ‘Pride and Prejudice: The Human Side of Incentive Theory’, American 
990–1008. 

2008, 

Vol. 

No. 

pp. 

3, 

98, 
Economic 
http://www.doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.3.990. 

Review, 

Elliott,  W.B.,  S.M.  Grant,  and  K.M.  Rennekamp,  ‘How  Disclosure  Features  of  Corporate  Social 
Responsibility  Reports  Interact  with  Investor  Numeracy  to  Influence  Investor  Judgments’, 
Contemporary  Accounting  Research,  Vol.  34,  No.  3,  September  2017,  pp.  1596–1621. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12302. 

Elliott, W.B., K.E.  Jackson, M.E.  Peecher,  and  B.J. White,  ‘The  Unintended  Effect  of  Corporate  Social 
Responsibility Performance on Investors’ Estimates of Fundamental Value’, The Accounting 
Review,  Vol.  89,  No.  1,  January  1,  2014,  pp.  275–302.  http://www.doi.org/10.2308/accr-
50577. 

Eurosif, European SRI Study 2018, 2018. 

Falk, A., A. Becker, T.J. Dohmen, D. Huffman, and U. Sunde, ‘The Preference Survey Module: A Validated 

Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences’, 2016. 

Faulstich-Hon, M., R. Oran, E. Sherman, G. Smith, and S. Welch, Bank on What You Believe: Behavioral 
Insights to Accelerate Adoption of Sustainable Bank Deposit Accounts, ideas42, 2020. 

Fehr, E., and U. Fischbacher, ‘The Nature of Human Altruism’, Nature, Vol. 425, No. 6960, 2003, pp. 

785–791. http://www.doi.org/10.1038/nature02043. 

Fernandes,  D.,  J.G.  Lynch,  and  R.G.  Netemeyer,  ‘Financial  Literacy,  Financial  Education,  and 
Downstream  Financial  Behaviors’,  Management  Science,  Vol.  60,  No.  8,  August  2014,  pp. 
1861–1883. http://www.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1849. 

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen, Predicting and Changing Behavior, Routledge, New York, NY; London, 2010. 

Fiske, S.T., and S.E. Taylor, Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture, 2nd edition., SAGE, Los Angeles, 

2013. 

Frederick, S., ‘Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 

19, No. 4, 2005, pp. 25–42. http://www.doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732. 

24 

 
Frederick, S., G. Loewenstein, and T. O’donoghue, ‘Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical 
Review’,  Journal  of  Economic  Literature,  Vol.  40,  No.  2,  2002,  pp.  351–401. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1257/002205102320161311. 

Gajewski, J.-F., M. Heimann, and L. Meunier, ‘Nudges in SRI: The Power of the Default Option’, Journal 

of Business Ethics, February 4, 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04731-x. 

Gamel,  J.,  K.  Menrad,  and  T.  Decker,  ‘Which  Factors  Influence  Retail  Investors’  Attitudes  towards 
Investments  in  Renewable  Energies?’,  Sustainable  Production  and  Consumption,  Vol.  12, 
October 2017, pp. 90–103. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.06.001. 

Gigerenzer, G., and P.M. Todd, ‘Fast and Frugal Heuristics: The Adaptive Toolbox’, in G. Gigerenzer and 
P.M.  Todd  (eds.),  Simple  Heuristics  That  Make  Us  Smart,  Evolution  and  Cognition,  Oxford 
University Press, New York and Oxford, 2001, pp. 3–34. 

Glac,  K.,  ‘The  Impact  and  Source  of  Mental  Frames  in  Socially  Responsible  Investing’,  Journal  of 
184–198. 

Finance, 

2012, 

July 

pp. 

3, 
Behavioral 
http://www.doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2012.707716. 

Vol. 

No. 

13, 

———, ‘Understanding Socially Responsible Investing: The Effect of Decision Frames and Trade-off 
Options’,  Journal  of  Business  Ethics,  Vol.  87,  No.  S1,  April  2009,  pp.  41–55. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9800-6. 

Griskevicius, V., J.M. Tybur, and B. Van den Bergh, ‘Going Green to Be Seen: Status, Reputation, and 
Conspicuous Conservation.’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 98, No. 3, 2010, 
pp. 392–404. http://www.doi.org/10.1037/a0017346. 

Gutsche,  G.,  A.  Köbrich  León,  and  A.  Ziegler,  ‘On  the  Relevance  of  Contextual  Factors  for  Socially 
Responsible Investments: An Econometric Analysis’, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 71, No. 3, 
2019, pp. 756–776. http://www.doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpy051. 

Gutsche,  G.,  M.  Nakai,  and  T.H.  Arimura,  ‘Revisiting  the  Determinants  of  Individual  Sustainable 
Investment—The  Case  of Japan’,  Journal  of  Behavioral  and  Experimental  Finance,  Vol.  30, 
June 2021, p. 100497. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2021.100497. 

Gutsche, G., H. Wetzel, and A. Ziegler, ‘Determinants of Individual Sustainable Investment Behavior - 

A Framed Field Experiment’, 2020. 

Gutsche, G., and A. Ziegler, ‘Which Private Investors Are Willing to Pay for Sustainable Investments? 
Empirical Evidence from Stated Choice Experiments’, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 102, 
May 2019, pp. 193–214. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.03.007. 

Gutsche,  G.,  and  B.  Zwergel,  ‘Investment  Barriers  and  Labeling  Schemes  for  Socially  Responsible 
Investments’,  Schmalenbach  Business  Review,  Vol.  17,  No.  3,  2020,  p.  262. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s41464-020-00085-z. 

Hafenstein,  A.,  and  A.  Bassen,  ‘Influences  for  Using  Sustainability  Information  in  the  Investment 
Decision-Making of Non-Professional Investors’, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 
Vol. 
186–210. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2016.1203598. 

2016, 

July 

No. 

pp. 

2, 

6, 

3, 

Haigh,  M.,  ‘What  Counts  in  Social  Managed  Investments:  Evidence  from  an  International  Survey’, 
Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 13, Emerald (MCB UP ), Bingley, 2007, pp. 35–62. 

25 

 
Hartzmark,  S.M.,  and  A.B.  Sussman,  ‘Do  Investors  Value  Sustainability?  A  Natural  Experiment 
Examining  Ranking  and  Fund  Flows’,  The  Journal  of  Finance,  Vol.  74,  No.  6,  2019,  p.  49. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12841. 

Hirshleifer, D., ‘Behavioral Finance’, Annual Review of Financial Economics, Vol. 7, No. 1, December 7, 
2015, pp. 133–159. http://www.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-092214-043752. 

Hodge, K., N. Subramaniam, and J. Stewart, ‘Assurance of Sustainability Reports: Impact on Report 
Users’ Confidence and Perceptions of Information Credibility’, Australian Accounting Review, 
Vol.  19,  No.  3,  September  2009,  pp.  178–194.  http://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-
2561.2009.00056.x. 

Hoffmann, R., M.-A. Cam, and A.R. Camilleri, ‘Deciding to Invest Responsibly: Choice Architecture and 
Demographics in an Incentivised Retirement Savings Experiment’, Journal of Behavioral and 
Experimental 
219–230. 
80, 
Economics, 
http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.04.005. 

2019, 

June 

Vol. 

pp. 

Hofmann,  E.,  E.  Hoelzl,  and  E.  Kirchler,  ‘A  Comparison  of  Models  Describing  the  Impact  of  Moral 
Decision  Making  on  Investment  Decisions’,  Journal  of  Business  Ethics,  Vol.  82,  No.  1, 
September 2008, pp. 171–187. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9570-6. 

Hofmann, E., K. Meier-Pesti, and E. Kirchler, ‘The Decision Process for Ethical Investment’, Journal of 
pp.  4–16. 

Financial  Services  Marketing,  Vol.  12,  No.  1,  August  2007, 
http://www.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fsm.4760057. 

Hofmann, E., E. Penz, and E. Kirchler, ‘The ‘Whys’ and ‘Hows’ of Ethical Investment: Understanding an 
Early-Stage Market through an Explorative Approach’, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 
Vol. 14, No. 2, September 2009, pp. 102–117. http://www.doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2009.7. 

Holm,  C.,  and  P.  Rikhardsson,  ‘Experienced  and  Novice  Investors:  Does  Environmental  Information 
Influence  Investment  Allocation  Decisions?’,  European  Accounting  Review,  Vol.  17,  No.  3, 
September 2008, pp. 537–557. http://www.doi.org/10.1080/09638180802016627. 

Hong, H., and M. Kacperczyk, ‘The Price of Sin: The Effects of Social Norms on Markets’, Journal of 
15–36. 

Economics, 

2009, 

July 

No. 

93, 

pp. 

1, 

Financial 
http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.09.001. 

Vol. 

Hong,  H.,  and  L.  Kostovetsky,  ‘Red  and  Blue  Investing:  Values  and  Finance’,  Journal  of  Financial 
1–19. 
1, 

January 

2012, 

No. 

pp. 

1, 

Economics, 
http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.01.006. 

103, 

Vol. 

Jachimowicz,  J.M.,  S.  Duncan,  E.U.  Weber,  and  E.J.  Johnson,  ‘When  and  Why  Defaults  Influence 
Decisions:  A  Meta-Analysis  of  Default  Effects’,  Behavioural  Public  Policy,  2018,  pp.  1–28. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.43. 

Jansson,  M.,  and  A.  Biel,  ‘Motives  to  Engage  in  Sustainable  Investment:  A  Comparison  between 
Institutional and Private Investors’, Sustainable Development, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2011, pp. 135–
142. http://www.doi.org/10.1002/sd.512. 

Jansson, M., J. Sandberg, A. Biel, and T. Gärling, ‘Should Pension Funds’ Fiduciary Duty Be Extended to 
Include Social, Ethical  and Environmental  Concerns? A Study  of Beneficiaries’ Preferences’, 
Journal  of  Sustainable  Finance  &  Investment,  Vol.  4,  No.  3,  July  3,  2014,  pp.  213–229. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2014.928997. 

26 

 
Joyal‐Desmarais,  K.,  A.J.  Rothman,  and  M.  Snyder,  ‘How  Do  We  Optimize  Message  Matching 
Interventions?  Identifying  Matching  Thresholds,  and  Simultaneously  Matching  to  Multiple 
Characteristics’, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 3, 2020, pp. 701–720. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2645. 

Kahneman,  D.,  ‘Maps  of  Bounded  Rationality:  Psychology  for  Behavioral  Economics’,  American 
1449–1475. 

Review, 

2003, 

pp. 

5, 

Economic 
http://www.doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392. 

Vol. 

No. 

93, 

Khemir, S., C. Baccouche, and S.D. Ayadi, ‘The Influence of ESG Information on Investment Allocation 
Decisions:  An  Experimental  Study  in  an  Emerging  Country’,  Journal  of  Applied  Accounting 
Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 9, 2019, pp. 458–480. http://www.doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-
12-2017-0141. 

Krause, K.,  and  D.  Battenfeld,  ‘Coming  Out  of  the Niche?  Social  Banking in  Germany:  An  Empirical 
Analysis of Consumer Characteristics and Market Size’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 155, 
No. 3, March 2019, pp. 889–911. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3491-9. 

Kumar, S., and N. Goyal, ‘Behavioural Biases in Investment Decision Making – a Systematic Literature 
Review’, Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 2, 2015, pp. 88–
108. http://www.doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-07-2014-0022. 

Lee,  M.,  A.  Adbi,  and  J.  Singh,  ‘Categorical  Cognition  and  Outcome  Efficiency  in  Impact  Investing 
Decisions’,  Strategic  Management  Journal,  Vol.  41,  No.  1,  January  2020,  pp.  86–107. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1002/smj.3096. 

Lewis, A., ‘A Focus Group Study of the Motivation to Invest: ‘Ethical/Green’ and ‘Ordinary’ Investors 
Compared’,  The  Journal  of  Socio-Economics,  Vol.  30,  No.  4,  July  2001,  pp.  331–341. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00103-2. 

Lewis,  A.,  and  C.  Mackenzie,  ‘Morals,  Money,  Ethical  Investing  and  Economic  Psychology’,  Human 
179–191. 

February 

2000, 

No. 

53, 

pp. 

2, 

1, 

Relations, 
http://www.doi.org/10.1177/a010699. 

Vol. 

Luong, K.T., R.K. Garrett, and M.D. Slater, ‘Promoting Persuasion With Ideologically Tailored Science 
Messages: A Novel Approach to Research on Emphasis Framing’, Science Communication, Vol. 
41, No. 4, 2019, pp. 488–515. http://www.doi.org/10.1177/1075547019862559. 

Madrian, B.C., and D.F. Shea, ‘The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401 (k) Participation and Savings 
Behavior’,  The  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  Vol.  116,  No.  4,  2001,  pp.  1149–1187. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1162/003355301753265543. 

Marandola, G., A. Proestakis, J.S. Lourenço, and R. van Bavel, Applying Behavioural Insight to Encourage 

Consumer Switching of Financial Products., Publications Office, LU, 2020. 

Mata,  R.,  R.  Frey,  D.  Richter,  J.  Schupp,  and  R.  Hertwig,  ‘Risk  Preference:  A  View  from  Psychology’, 
Journal  of  Economic  Perspectives,  Vol.  32,  No.  2,  May  1,  2018,  pp.  155–172. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.2.155. 

Matz, S.C., M. Kosinski, G. Nave, and D.J. Stillwell, ‘Psychological Targeting as an Effective Approach to 
Digital Mass Persuasion’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 114, No. 48, 
2017, pp. 12714–12719. http://www.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710966114. 

27 

 
McLachlan,  J.,  and  J.  Gardner,  ‘A  Comparison  of  Socially  Responsible  and  Conventional  Investors’, 
Journal 
pp.  11–25. 
Ethics,  Vol.  52,  No.  1, 
http://www.doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000033104.28219.92. 

of  Business 

June  2004, 

Méndez-Rodrı́guez, P., L. Galguera, M. Bravo, K. Benson, R. Faff, and B. Pérez-Gladish, ‘Profiling Ethical 
Investors’,  in  E.  Ballestero,  B.  Pérez-Gladish,  and  A.  Garcia-Bernabeu  (eds.),  Socially 
Responsible Investment, Vol. 219, International Series in Operations Research & Management 
Science, 
23–52. 
Publishing, 
http://www.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11836-9_2. 

International 

Springer 

Cham, 

2015, 

pp. 

Meyer, J., A. Krauss, and K. Bachmann, ‘Drivers of Investor Motivations for Impact Investments: The 
2019. 

Microfinance’, 

Electronic 

Journal, 

SSRN 

Case 
http://www.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3395275. 

of 

Milinski, M., D. Semmann, and H.-J. Krambeck, ‘Reputation Helps Solve the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’’, 
Nature, Vol. 415, No. 6870, 2002, pp. 424–426. http://www.doi.org/10.1038/415424a. 

Mills, 

S., 
‘Personalized  Nudging’, 
http://www.doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.7. 

Behavioural 

Public 

Policy, 

2020, 

pp. 

1–10. 

Moreno, K.K., and Y. (May) Zhang, ‘The Impact of the Big Fish Effect on Investor Reactions to Financial 
and Nonfinancial Disclosure’, Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 22, No. 2, April 3, 2021, pp. 
113–125. http://www.doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2020.1771716. 

Morningstar, ‘Morningstar Sustainability Rating. Methodology’, October 31, 2019. 

Nakai,  M.,  T.  Honda,  N.  Nishino,  and  K.  Takeuchi,  ‘Psychological  Characteristics  of  Potential  SRI 
Investors  and  Its  Motivation  in  Japan:  An  Experimental  Approach’,  Journal  of  Sustainable 
Investment,  Vol.  8,  No.  4,  October  2,  2018,  pp.  349–367. 
Finance  & 
http://www.doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2018.1490556. 

Nelson, T.E., Z.M. Oxley, and R.A. Clawson, ‘Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects’, Political Behavior, 
Vol. 19, No. 3, 1997, pp. 221–246. http://www.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024834831093. 

Nilsson, J., ‘Investment with a Conscience: Examining the Impact of Pro-Social Attitudes and Perceived 
Financial  Performance  on  Socially  Responsible  Investment  Behavior’,  Journal  of  Business 
Ethics,  Vol.  83,  No.  2,  December  2008,  pp.  307–325.  http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
007-9621-z. 

———, ‘Segmenting Socially Responsible Mutual Fund Investors: The Influence of Financial Return and 
Social  Responsibility’,  International  Journal  of  Bank  Marketing,  Vol.  27,  No.  1,  January  30, 
2009, pp. 5–31. http://www.doi.org/10.1108/02652320910928218. 

Noar, S.M., C.N. Benac, and M.S. Harris, ‘Does Tailoring Matter? Meta-Analytic Review of Tailored Print 
Health Behavior Change Interventions’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 133, No. 4, 2007, pp. 673–
693. http://www.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673. 

Nyborg, K., J.M. Anderies, A. Dannenberg, T. Lindahl, C. Schill, M. Schlüter, W.N. Adger, et al., ‘Social 
pp.  42–43. 

Science,  Vol.  354,  No.  6308,  2016, 

Norms 
http://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8317. 

Solutions’, 

as 

Official Journal of the European Union, REGULATION (EU) 2019/2088 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  27  November  2019  on  Sustainability‐related  Disclosures  in  the 
Financial Services Sector, September 12, 2019. 

28 

 
Ölander,  F.,  and  J.  Thøgersen,  ‘Understanding  of  Consumer  Behaviour  as  a  Prerequisite  for 
Environmental Protection’, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 18, No. 4, December 1995, pp. 
345–385. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/BF01024160. 

Paetzold, F., and T. Busch, ‘Unleashing the Powerful Few: Sustainable Investing Behaviour of Wealthy 
Private Investors’, Organization & Environment, Vol. 27, No. 4, December 2014, pp. 347–367. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1177/1086026614555991. 

Palacios-González,  M.M.,  and  A.  Chamorro-Mera,  ‘Analysis  of  the  Intention  to  Invest  in  a  Socially 
Responsible Manner: A Segmentation of the Spanish Investor’, Spanish Journal of Finance and 
Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, Vol. 49, No. 2, April 2, 2020, pp. 
127–142. http://www.doi.org/10.1080/02102412.2019.1598700. 

Peer,  E.,  S.  Egelman, M.  Harbach,  N.  Malkin,  A.  Mathur,  and  A.  Frik,  ‘Nudge Me  Right:  Personalizing 
Online Nudges to People’s Decision-Making Styles’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 109, 
2020, p. 106347. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106347. 

Pérez-Gladish, B., K. Benson, and R. Faff, ‘Profiling Socially Responsible Investors: Australian Evidence’, 
Australian  Journal  of  Management,  Vol.  37,  No.  2,  August  2012,  pp.  189–209. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1177/0312896211429158. 

Pilaj,  H.,  ‘The  Choice  Architecture  of  Sustainable  and  Responsible  Investment:  Nudging  Investors 
Toward Ethical Decision-Making’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140, No. 4, 2017, pp. 743–
753. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2877-9. 

Raut,  R.K.,  R.  Kumar,  and  N.  Das,  ‘Individual  Investors’  Intention  towards  SRI  in  India:  An 
Implementation of the Theory of Reasoned Action’, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. ahead-
of-print, No. ahead-of-print, July 29, 2020. http://www.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-02-2018-0052. 

Reimsbach, D., and R. Hahn, ‘The Effects of Negative Incidents in Sustainability Reporting on Investors’ 
Judgments-an  Experimental  Study  of  Third-Party  Versus  Self-Disclosure  in  the  Realm  of 
Sustainable  Development:  The  Effects  of  Negative  Incidents  in  Sustainability  Reporting’, 
Business  Strategy  and  the  Environment,  Vol.  24,  No.  4,  May  2015,  pp.  217–235. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1816. 

Reyhanloo,  T.,  S.  Baumgärtner,  M.  Haeni,  S.  Quatrini,  P.  Saner,  and  E.  von  Lindern,  ‘Private-Sector 
Investor’s Intention and Motivation to Invest in Land Degradation Neutrality’, Edited by J.P. 
van  Wouwe,  PLOS  ONE,  Vol.  13,  No.  12,  December  13,  2018,  p.  e0208813. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208813. 

Riedl, A., and P. Smeets, ‘Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds?: Why Do Investors 
Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds?’, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 72, No. 6, December 
2017, pp. 2505–2550. http://www.doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12547. 

Rikhardsson,  P.,  and  C.  Holm,  ‘The  Effect  of  Environmental  Information  on  Investment  Allocation 
Decisions - an Experimental Study’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17, No. 6, 
September 2008, pp. 382–397. http://www.doi.org/10.1002/bse.536. 

Rossi, M., D. Sansone, A. van Soest, and C. Torricelli, ‘Household Preferences for Socially Responsible 
Investments’,  Journal  of  Banking  &  Finance,  Vol.  105,  August  2019,  pp.  107–120. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.05.018. 

Samuelson,  W.,  and  R.  Zeckhauser,  ‘Status  Quo  Bias  in  Decision  Making’,  Journal  of  Risk  and 
Uncertainty, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1988, pp. 7–59. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564. 

29 

 
van de Schoot, R., J. de Bruin, R. Schram, P. Zahedi, J. de Boer, F. Weijdema, B. Kramer, et al., ‘An Open 
Source  Machine  Learning  Framework  for  Efficient  and  Transparent  Systematic  Reviews’, 
Nature  Machine 
Intelligence,  Vol.  3,  No.  2,  February  2021,  pp.  125–133. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1038/s42256-020-00287-7. 

Scharfbillig, M., L. Smillie, D. Mair, M. Sienkiewicz, J. Keimer, R. Pinho Dos Santos, H. Vinagreiro Alves, 
E. Vecchione, and L. Scheunemann, Values and Identities: A Policymaker’s Guide., Publications 
Office, Luxembourg, 2021. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/349527  

Schwarz, N., and G.L. Clore, ‘Mood as Information: 20 Years Later’, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 14, No. 

3–4, October 2003, pp. 296–303. http://www.doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2003.9682896. 

Shah,  S.F.,  M.  Alshurideh,  B.A.  Kurdi,  and  S.A.  Salloum,  ‘The  Impact  of  the  Behavioral  Factors  on 
Investment Decision-Making: A Systemic Review on Financial Institutions’, in A.E. Hassanien, 
A.  Slowik,  V.  Snášel,  H.  El-Deeb,  and  F.M.  Tolba  (eds.),  Proceedings  of  the  International 
Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics 2020, Vol. 1261, Advances in 
Intelligent Systems and Computing, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021, pp. 100–
112. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58669-0_9. 

Shiller, R.J., ‘How Nutritious Are Your Investments?’, March 13, 2010. 

Sreekumar Nair, A., and R. Ladha, ‘Determinants of Non-Economic Investment Goals among Indian 
Investors’, Edited by G. Lenssen, A. Nijhof, L. Roger, and H. Kievit, Corporate Governance, Vol. 
14, No. 5, September 30, 2014, pp. 714–727. http://www.doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2014-0102. 

Stern, P.C., ‘New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant 
Behavior’,  Journal  of  Social  Issues,  Vol.  56,  No.  3,  January  2000,  pp.  407–424. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175. 

Tajfel, H., ‘Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour’, Social Science Information, Vol. 13, No. 2, April 

1974, pp. 65–93. http://www.doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204. 

Teeny, J.D., J.J. Siev, P. Briñol, and R.E. Petty, ‘A Review and Conceptual Framework for Understanding 
Personalized Matching Effects in Persuasion’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 2, 
2021, pp. 382–414. http://www.doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1198. 

Thaler, R., ‘Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, and Future’, American Economic Review, Vol. 106, No. 

7, 2016, pp. 1577–1600. http://www.doi.org/10.1257/aer.106.7.1577. 

Usul, N., Ö. Özdemir, and T. Kiessling, ‘Affect-Based Stock Investment Decision: The Role of Affective 
Self-Affinity’, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Vol. 68, June 2017, pp. 97–
109. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.04.004. 

Vanwalleghem,  D.,  and  A.  Mirowska,  ‘The  Investor  That  Could  and  Would:  The  Effect  of  Proactive 
Personality  on  Sustainable  Investment  Choice’,  Journal  of  Behavioral  and  Experimental 
Finance, Vol. 26, June 2020, p. 100313. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100313. 

Vyvyan, V., C. Ng, and M. Brimble, ‘Socially Responsible Investing: The Green Attitudes and Grey Choices 
of Australian Investors’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, March 
2007, pp. 370–381. http://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00567.x. 

Wagemans, F.A.J., C.S.A. (Kris) van Koppen, and A.P.J. Mol, ‘The Effectiveness of Socially Responsible 
Investment:  A  Review’,  Journal  of  Integrative  Environmental  Sciences,  Vol.  10,  No.  3–4, 
December 2013, pp. 235–252. http://www.doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2013.844169. 

30 

 
Webley,  P.,  A.  Lewis,  and  C.  Mackenzie,  ‘Commitment  among  Ethical  Investors:  An  Experimental 
Approach’,  Journal  of  Economic  Psychology,  Vol.  22,  No.  1,  February  2001,  pp.  27–42. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(00)00035-0. 

Williams, G., ‘Some Determinants of the Socially Responsible Investment Decision: A Cross-Country 
Study’,  Journal  of  Behavioral  Finance,  Vol.  8,  No.  1,  April  2007,  pp.  43–57. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1080/15427560709337016. 

Wins, A., and B. Zwergel, ‘Comparing Those Who Do, Might and Will Not Invest in Sustainable Funds: 
A Survey among German Retail Fund Investors’, Business Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, April 2016, 
pp. 51–99. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s40685-016-0031-x. 

———, ‘Private Ethical Fund Investors across Countries and Time: A Survey-Based Review’, Qualitative 
Research  in  Financial  Markets,  Vol.  7,  No.  4,  November  2,  2015,  pp.  379–411. 
http://www.doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-10-2014-0030. 

Zahera, S.A., and R. Bansal, ‘Do Investors Exhibit Behavioral Biases in Investment Decision Making? A 
Systematic Review’, Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Vol. 10, No. 2, May 8, 2018, 
pp. 210–251. http://www.doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-04-2017-0028. 

31 

 
 
List of abbreviations and definitions 

Abbreviations 

Definitions 

ESG 

SI 

SRI 

Ecological, social, and governance 

Sustainable investment 

Socially responsible investments 

32 

 
List of figures 

Figure 1. Flowchart of identification of included articles. ............................................................................................... 5 

Figure 2. Behavioural factors associated with socially responsible investment............................................. 19 

33 

 
List of tables 

Table 1. Search queries used for the literature search. ................................................................................................ 35 

Table 2. Literature on the role of attitudinal factors for SRI. .................................................................................... 37 

Table 3. Literature on the role of social factors for SRI. .............................................................................................. 46 

Table 4. Literature on the role of cognitive factors for SRI. ....................................................................................... 49 

Table 5. Literature on the role of interventions for SRI. ............................................................................................... 53 

34 

 
Annexes 

Annex 1. Tables 

Table 1. Search queries used for the literature search. 

Setting 

Behavioural factors and 

Evidence type 

interventions 

"sustainable invest*" 

"choice architect*" 

experiment* 

"social* responsible 

"behavioural intervention*" 

evidence 

invest*" 

"ethical invest*" 

"behavioral intervention*" 

empirical 

"impact invest*" 

nudg* 

"randomized control* 

trial" 

survey* 

"ESG" 

motiv* 

incentiv* 

"context* factor*" 

determinant* 

"behavioural factor*" 

"behavioral factor*" 

"social preference*" 

altruis* 

emotion* 

attitude* 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"social norm*" 

"social identity" 

"financial literacy" 

"social image" 

"image concern*" 

"information overload" 

bias* 

"political preference*" 

"political ideolog*" 

"time preference*" 

"risk preference*" 

"personality trait*" 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Literature on the role of attitudinal factors for SRI. 

Behavioural factor 

Specific behavioural factor 

Reference 

SRI outcome 

Direction of 

Evidence 

Country 

Social preferences 

Social preferences 

Bauer et al. (2021) 

Preference for SRI 

Social values 

Diouf et al. (2016) 

Investment in SRI 

Self-transcendent values 

Jansson & Biel (2011) 

Intention to invest in SRI 

Self-transcendent values 

Jansson et al. (2014) 

Preference for SRI 

Preference for social return 

Krause & Battenfeld (2019)  Purchasing social banking products 

Intrinsic social preferences 

Riedl & Smeets (2017) 

SRI equity fund holdings 

Pro-social attitudes 

Wins & Zwergel (2015) 

Percentage of ethical funds in portfolio 

Pro-social attitudes 

Wins & Zwergel (2016) 

Purchasing social banking products 

effect9 

type10 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

FE 

S 

S 

S 

S 

NE 

CA 

SE 

SE 

DE 

AD, E 

NE 

S 

S 

SE, DE 

DE 

9 - = negative association, 0 = no (statistically significant) association, + = positive association) 
10 E = Experiment (Lab/Online), FE = Field Experiment, S = Survey, AD = Administrative Data, FG = Focus Groups, I = Interview 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Personal sustainability 

Hafenstein & Bassen 

Investment in sustainable company 

orientation 

(2016) 

Pro-social attitudes 

Nilsson (2008) 

Share of total investments invested in SRI 

Collectivism 

Sreekumar Nair & Ladha 

Non-economic goal pursuit 

(2014) 

Materialism 

Sreekumar Nair & Ladha 

Non-economic goal pursuit 

(2014) 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

Post-material value orientations 

Delsen & Lehr (2019) 

WTP for sustainable investments in pension 

+ 

funds 

Social concerns 

Apostolakis et al. (2016) 

Preference for SRI portfolio 

Social concerns 

Pérez-Gladish et al. (2012) 

Investment in SRI 

0 

+ 

Altruism 

Altruism 

Brodback et al. (2019) 

Relative importance of SRI investments 

+/- 

Collectivism 

Sreekumar Nair & Ladha 

Non-economic goal pursuit 

(2014) 

Altruism 

Nakai et al. (2018) 

Investment in CSR company stock 

+ 

+ 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

E 

DE 

SE 

IN 

IN 

NE 

NE 

AU 

DE 

IN 

JP 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Generosity 

Gutsche et al. (2021) 

Awareness of/ Probability to invest in/ intention 

0/+/0 

to invest if not already in SRIs 

Altruism 

Nilsson (2009) 

Type of SR investor 

Warm-glow feelings 

Gutsche & Ziegler (2019) 

Stated preferences for SRI 

Hafenstein & Bassen 

Investment in sustainable company 

(2016) 

Gutsche et al. (2019) 

Frequencies of SRI shares among all 

investments 

Ethical and moral 

considerations 

Conviction that SRI is a good 

Haigh (2007) 

Investment in SRI 

thing 

Moral intensity 

Hofmann et al. (2007) 

Investment in shares of moral company 

Moral intensity 

Hofmann et al. (2008) 

View of ethical investment 

Moral intensity/Belief of 

McLachlan & Gardner 

Investment in SRI 

importance of ethical issues 

(2004) 

39 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

S 

S 

S/E 

S 

S 

S 

JP 

SE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

Australasi

a, North 

America, 

Europe 

E 

FG, I 

S 

DE 

AT 

AU 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Moral norms 

Adam & Shauki (2014) 

SRI intention and behaviour 

Moral norms 

Raut et al. (2020) 

Intention to invest in SRI 

Moral requirement to make 

Lewis (2001) 

Preference for SRI 

money 

Interest in non-financial goals 

Dorfleitner & Utz (2014) 

Investment in SRI 

Pro-environmental 

values and attitudes 

Vyvyan et al. (2007) 

Preferences for SRI 

Environmental attitudes 

Sreekumar Nair & Ladha 

Non-economic goal pursuit 

(2014) 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

+/0 

+ 

NEP 

NEP 

Gutsche et al. (2021) 

Awareness of/ Propability to invest in/ intention 

0/-/+ 

to invest if not already in SRIs 

Gutsche et al. (2020) 

Preferences for SRI 

Environmental awareness 

Gutsche & Ziegler (2019) 

Willingness to pay for SRI 

Environmental preference 

Bassen et al. (2019) 

Importance of climate vs. financial attributes of 

+ 

investment product 

40 

+ 

+ 

S 

S 

FG 

MY 

IN 

UK 

S 

DE 

S/E 

S 

S 

E 

E 

E 

AU 

IN 

JP 

DE 

DE 

DE, FR, 

UK, IT, SE, 

CH 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental concern 

Anderson & Robinson 

Invested in green fund 

(2021) 

Environmental concern 

Pérez-Gladish et al. (2012) 

Investment in SRI 

Attitudes towards SRI 

Adam & Shauki (2014) 

Intention to invest in SRI 

Apostolakis et al. (2018) 

Intention to invest in SRI 

Borgers & Pownall (2014) 

Preferences for SRI 

Hofmann et al. (2009) 

Investment in SRI 

Apostolakis et al. (2016) 

Preference for SRI portfolio 

SRI as self-identity 

Usul et al. (2017) 

Attitudes towards investments in specific 

companies 

Psychological distance 

Apostolakis, van Dijk, et al. 

Preference for SRI 

(2018) 

Political preferences 

Party with strong sustainability 

Bauer et al. (2021) 

Preference for SRI 

agenda 

Affinity with left-wing parties 

Gutsche & Ziegler (2019) 

Willingness to pay for SRI 

41 

+ 

0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

- 

+ 

? 

+ 

+ 

S, AD 

SE 

S 

S 

S 

S 

I, FG 

S 

S 

AU 

MY 

NE 

NE 

AT 

NE 

TR 

FG, E 

NE 

FE 

NE 

E 

DE 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Campaign donations to 

Hong & Kostovetsky (2012) 

Investment in SRI 

+ 

AD 

US 

Democrats 

Preference for social or 

Gutsche et al. (2021) 

Awareness of/ Propability to invest in/ intention 

+/0/+ 

ecological policy 

to invest if not already in SRIs 

Left political ideology 

Palacios-González & 

Intention to invest in SRI 

Chamorro-Mera (2020) 

Time preferences 

Time discount rate 

Nakai et al. (2018) 

Investment in CSR company stock 

Time of holding funds 

Riedl & Smeets (2017) 

SRI equity fund holdings 

Long-term investment horizon 

Holm & Rikhardsson (2008) 

Investment in SRI 

Long-term investment horizon 

Rikhardsson & Holm (2008) 

Investment in SRI 

+ 

+ 

+ 

- 

0 

Long-term investment horizon 

Bassen et al. (2019) 

Importance of climate vs. financial attributes of 

- 

investment product 

Risk preferences 

Perception of financial risk 

Nilsson (2008) 

Share of total investments invested in SRI 

Risk preferences 

Wins & Zwergel (2015) 

Percentage of ethical funds in portfolio 

0 

0 

S 

S 

E 

JP 

ES 

JP 

AD, E 

NE 

E 

E 

E 

S 

S 

DK 

DK 

DE, FR, 

UK, IT, SE, 

CH 

SE 

SE, DE 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Risk perception 

Wins & Zwergel (2016) 

Purchasing social banking products 

Risk tolerance 

Méndez-Rodrı́guez et al. 

Investment in SRI 

(2015) 

Attitudes towards financial risk/ 

Jansson et al. (2014) 

Preference for SRI 

Risk attitudes 

- 

0 

-/- 

Risk tolerance 

Bassen et al. (2019) 

Importance of climate vs. financial attributes of 

- 

investment product 

Risk aversion 

Hafenstein & Bassen 

Using SRI information/ Investment in sustainable 

0/0 

(2016) 

company 

Risk aversion 

Nakai et al. (2018) 

Investment in CSR company stock 

Risk tolerance 

Pérez-Gladish et al. (2012) 

Investment in SRI 

Risk perceptions 

Riedl & Smeets (2017) 

SRI equity fund holdings 

Risk tolerance 

Sreekumar Nair & Ladha 

Non-economic goal pursuit 

(2014) 

Risk taking 

Gutsche et al. (2021) 

Tendency to hold SRIs 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

+ 

S 

S 

S 

E 

S 

E 

S 

DE 

S, AU 

SE 

DE, FR, 

UK, IT, SE, 

CH 

DE 

JP 

AU 

AD, E 

NE 

S 

S 

IN 

JP 

43 

 
Risk appetite 

Delsen & Lehr (2019) 

WTP for sustainable investments in pension 

0 

funds 

Personality 

Religiosity 

Risk aversion 

Apostolakis et al. (2016) 

Preference for SRI portfolio 

Risk aversion 

Apostolakis et al. (2018) 

Intention to invest in SRI 

Proactive personality 

Vanwalleghem & Mirowska 

Preference for SRI 

(2020)  

Sreekumar Nair & Ladha 

Non-economic goal pursuit 

(2014) 

Religious affiliation 

Williams (2007) 

Investment in SRI 

Pérez-Gladish et al. (2012) 

Investment in SRI 

Delsen & Lehr (2019) 

WTP for sustainable investments in pension 

funds 

+ 

0 

- 

+ 

- 

0 

0 

S 

S 

S 

E 

S 

S 

S 

S 

NE 

NE 

NE 

FR 

IN 

AU, CA, 

DE, UK, 

US 

AU 

NE 

Notes: Behavioural factor: General behavioural factor category according to which the evidence is structured. Specific behavioural factor: The specific behavioural factor addressed in each 
study. If empty, there is either no information provided in the article, or it corresponds to the behavioural factor. SRI outcome refers to the specific dependent variable that is used in 
the study. Direction of the effect describes whether there is a negative (-), positive (+) or no (0) statistically significant association between the behavioural factor and the SRI outcome. 
A “?” indicates that the effect is unclear. Evidence describes the methodology used in the reference. Country describes the country of origin of the observations in the reference. ISO 
3166-1 Alpha-2 country codes are used to indicate the latter. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45 

 
 
 
Table 3. Literature on the role of social factors for SRI. 

Behavioural factor 

Specific behavioural factor 

Reference 

SRI outcome 

Direction of 

Evidence 

Country 

effect11 

type12 

Subjective norms 

Adam & Shauki (2014) 

SRI intention and behaviour 

Social norms 

Apostolakis et al. 

Intention to invest in SRI 

(2018) 

+ 

+ 

Social norms 

Gamel et al. (2017) 

Attitudes towards investments in renewable 

+ 

energies 

Raut et al. (2020) 

Intention to invest in SRI 

Expectation of society 

Gutsche et al. (2019) 

Investment in SRI 

Expectation of social 

Gutsche et al. (2019) 

Investment in SRI 

environment 

+ 

+ 

+ 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

MY 

NE 

DE 

IN 

DE 

DE 

11 - = negative association, 0 = no (statistically significant) association, + = positive association) 
12 E = Experiment (Lab/Online), FE = Field Experiment, S = Survey, AD = Administrative Data, FG = Focus Groups, I = Interview 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
No perceived contribution of 

Gutsche et al. (2019) 

Investment in SRI 

social environment 

Hofmann et al. (2009) 

Ethical investment 

Reyhanloo et al. (2018) 

Intention to invest in measures to combat land 

degradation 

Reputation and social 

signalling 

Talking about SRI 

Bauer & Smeets (2015) 

Investment in SRI 

Talking about SRI 

Gutsche et al. (2019) 

Investment in SRI 

- 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

Meyer et al. (2019) 

Investment in SRI (decision to invest/amount) 

0/- 

Talking about SRI 

Gutsche et al. (2021) 

Awareness of/ Probability to invest in/ intention to 

+ 

invest if not already in SRIs 

S 

DE 

I, FG 

AT 

S 

CH, 

others 

S 

S 

S 

S 

NE 

DE 

CH 

JP 

Talking about SRI 

Riedl & Smeets (2017) 

SRI equity fund holdings (has SRI/ percentage of 

+/0 

AD, E 

NE 

Talking about SRI 

Bauer et al. (2021) 

Preference for SRI 

SRI) 

Social identity 

Social identification 

Bauer & Smeets (2015) 

Investment in SRI 

0 

+ 

FE 

NE 

S 

NE 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notes: Behavioural factor: General behavioural factor category according to which the evidence is structured. Specific behavioural factor: The specific behavioural factor addressed in each 
study. If empty, there is either no information provided in the article, or it corresponds to the behavioural factor. SRI outcome refers to the specific dependent variable that is used in 
the study. Direction of the effect describes whether there is a negative (-), positive (+) or no (0) statistically significant association between the behavioural factor and the SRI outcome. 
A “?” indicates that the effect is unclear. Evidence describes the methodology used in the reference. Country describes the country of origin of the observations in the reference. ISO 
3166-1 Alpha-2 country codes are used to indicate the latter. 

48 

 
 
 
Table 4. Literature on the role of cognitive factors for SRI. 

Behavioural factor 

Specific Behavioural 

Reference 

SRI outcome 

Direction of 

Evidence 

Country 

Factor 

effect13 

type14 

Financial literacy 

Palacios-González & 

Intention to invest in SRI 

Chamorro-Mera (2020) 

Objective financial literacy 

Raut et al. (2020) 

Intention to invest in SRI 

Knowledge of land 

Reyhanloo et al. (2018) 

Intention to invest in measures to combat land 

degradation concept 

degradation 

Objective financial literacy 

Anderson & Robinson 

Investment in SRI 

(2020) 

Objective financial literacy 

Gutsche et al. (2020) 

Preferences for SRI 

Objective financial literacy 

Borgers & Pownall 

Making investment decisions in line with 

(2014) 

preferences 

0 

+ 

+ 

(+) 

+ 

+ 

S 

S 

S 

S 

E 

S 

ES 

IN 

CH, 

others 

SE 

DE 

NE 

13 - = negative association, 0 = no (statistically significant) association, + = positive association) 
14 E = Experiment (Lab/Online), FE = Field Experiment, S = Survey, AD = Administrative Data, FG = Focus Groups, I = Interview 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Objective financial literacy 

Gutsche et al. (2021) 

Awareness of/ Propability to invest in/ intention to 

+/+/+ 

invest if not already in SRIs 

Subjective investment 

Bauer & Smeets (2015) 

Investment in SRI 

knowledge 

Subjective financial literacy 

Rossi et al. (2019) 

Investment/ interest in SRI 

0 

0/- 

S 

S 

JP 

NE 

NE 

Subjective investment 

Riedl & Smeets (2017) 

SRI equity fund holdings (has SRI/ percentage of 

0/- 

AD, E 

NE 

knowledge 

SRI) 

Objective financial literacy 

Bassen et al. (2019) 

Importance of climate vs. financial attributes of 

- 

E 

DE, FR, 

investment product 

UK, IT, SE, 

CH 

Cognitive load 

Information overload 

Hafenstein & Bassen 

Using SRI information/ Investment in sustainable 

0/+ 

S 

DE 

(2016) 

company 

Lack of information 

Bauer et al. (2021) 

Preference for SRI 

Perceived high information 

Gutsche & Zwergel 

Preference for SRI 

and search costs 

(2020) 

0 

- 

FE 

S 

NE 

DE 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Biases 

Cognitive reflection 

Bassen et al. (2019) 

Importance of climate vs. financial attributes of 

- 

E 

DE, FR, 

investment product 

UK, IT, SE, 

Display of disposition effect 

van Dooren & Galema 

Investment in SRI 

(2018) 

Disposition effect 

Webley et al. (2001) 

Investment in SRI 

Disposition effect 

Meyer et al. (2019) 

Investment in SRI (decision to invest/amount) 

Inertia 

Perceived behavioural 

control 

Auger et al. (2016) 

Preference for SRI 

Lewis (2001) 

Preference for SRI 

Social investing efficacy 

Sreekumar Nair & 

Non-economic goal pursuit 

Ladha (2014) 

Perceived behavioural control  Hofmann et al. (2009) 

Investment in SRI 

Perceived behavioural control 

Apostolakis et al. 

Intention to invest in SRI 

(2018) 

Perceived behavioural control 

Adam & Shauki (2014) 

Intention to invest in SRI 

51 

CH 

NE 

UK 

CH 

AU 

UK 

AD 

E,FG 

S 

E 

FG 

S 

IN 

I, FG 

S 

S 

AT 

NE 

MY 

+ 

+ 

0 

+ 

- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notes: Behavioural factor: General behavioural factor category according to which the evidence is structured. Specific behavioural factor: The specific behavioural factor addressed in each 
study. If empty, there is either no information provided in the article, or it corresponds to the behavioural factor. SRI outcome refers to the specific dependent variable that is used in 
the study. Direction of the effect describes whether there is a negative (-), positive (+) or no (0) statistically significant association between the behavioural factor and the SRI outcome. 
A “?” indicates that the effect is unclear. Evidence describes the methodology used in the reference. Country describes the country of origin of the observations in the reference. ISO 
3166-1 Alpha-2 country codes are used to indicate the latter. 

52 

 
 
 
Table 5. Literature on the role of interventions for SRI. 

Intervention 

Specific intervention 

Reference 

SRI outcome 

Direction of 

Evidence 

Country 

Disclosure 

ESG information disclosure 

Khemir et al. (2019) 

Investment in SRI 

Providing information about SR nature of 

Barreda-Tarrazona et 

Investment in SRI 

fund 

al. (2011) 

CSR performance disclosure 

Elliott et al. (2014) 

Estimates of company's fundamental value 

CSR performance disclosure characteristics 

Elliott et al. (2017) 

Willingness to invest in SRI 

Environmental performance disclosure 

Holm & Rikhardsson 

Investment in SRI 

(2008) 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Hodge et al. (2009) 

Perceived reliability of the environmental and 

+ 

social information 

effect15 

type16 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

S 

TN 

ES 

US 

US 

? 

AU 

15 - = negative association, 0 = no (statistically significant) association, + = positive association) 
16 E = Experiment (Lab/Online), FE = Field Experiment, S = Survey, AD = Administrative Data, FG = Focus Groups, I = Interview 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Reimsbach & Hahn 

Investment-related judgements 

+ 

E 

DE  

(2015) 

Framing 

Moral vs. financial framing 

Døskeland & Pedersen 

Information search and (real) investment in SRI 

- 

FE  

NO 

(2016) 

Moral vs. financial framing 

Døskeland & Pedersen 

Information search and (real) investment in SRI 

(-) 

FE 

NO 

(2019) 

Framing percentage achievements in CSR 

Moreno & Zhang 

Investors’ ratings of CSR performance 

+ 

(big fish effect) and visuals 

(2021) 

Qualitative only vs qualitative and 

Rikhardsson & Holm 

Short term and long term investment 

+/- 

quantitative enviromental info 

(2008) 

Exposure to positive/negative environmental 

Vanwalleghem & 

Forego financial returns to invest in SRI 

pictures 

Mirowska (2020) 

Expressive (instead of financial) framing 

Glac (2009) 

Investment in SRI 

Integrated framing 

Glac (2012) 

Investment in SRI 

Lee et al. (2020) 

Portfolio allocations 

+ 

+ 

+ 

- 

E 

E 

E 

E 

S 

E 

USA 

DK 

FR 

USA 

USA   

USA, 

others 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Labels 

Bassen et al. (2019) 

Importance of climate vs. financial attributes of 

+ 

E 

DE, FR, 

investment product 

UK, IT, SE, 

CH 

Hartzmark & Sussman 

Demand for mutual funds (sustainbility is an 

+ 

E (natural)  US  

(2019) 

attribute, i.e. an independent variable) 

Cheng et al. (2015) 

Nonprofessional investors’ investment decisions 

Gutsche & Zwergel 

Preference for SRI 

(2020) 

+ 

+ 

E 

S 

AU 

DE 

Defaults 

Hoffmann et al. (2019) 

Socially aware retirement investment decisions 

+ 

FE 

AU 

Gajewski et al. (2021) 

Percentage of endowment allocated to SRI in an 

+ 

experiment 

('framed' 

FE) 

E  

USA 

Bauer et al. (2021) 

Preference for SRI 

+ 

S 

NL 

Notes: Intervention: General intervention type according to which the table is structured. Specific intervention: The specific intervention addressed in each study. If empty, there is either no 

information provided in the article, or it corresponds to the intervention. SRI outcome provides some more detail on the specific dependent variable that was targeted in each study. 
Direction of the effect describes whether there is a negative (-), positive (+) or no (0) statistically significant effect of the intervention on the SRI outcome. Evidence describes the 
methodology used in the reference. Country describes the country of origin of the observations in the reference. ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 country codes are used to indicate the latter. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Getting in touch with the EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can 
contact this service: 

— by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

— at the following standard number: +32 22999696, 

— via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. 

Finding information about the EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the 
Europa website (european-union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 

You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free 
publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre 
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu). 

EU open data 

The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies 
and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European