Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability2022,14,11377.https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811377www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
IamReadytoInvestinSociallyResponsibleInvestments(SRI)
OptionsOnlyIftheReturnsAreNotCompromised:Individual
Investors’IntentionstowardSRI
HeenaThanki
1
,SweetyShah
2
,HarishchandraSinghRathod
1
,AnkitD.Oza
3
and
DumitruDoruBurduhos‐Nergis
4,
*
1
DepartmentofManagement,ShriJairambhaiPatelInstituteofBusinessManagementandComputer
Applications(SJPI‐NICM),Gandhinagar382007,India
2
DepartmentofManagement,LJInstituteofManagementStudies,LJUniversity,Ahmedabad382210,India
3
DepartmentofComputerSciencesandEngineering,InstituteofAdvancedResearch,
Gandhinagar382426,India
4
FacultyofMaterialsScienceandEngineering,GheorgheAsachiTechnicalUniversityofIasi,
700050Iasi,Romania
*Correspondence:doru.burduhos@tuiasi.ro
Abstract:SRI,orsociallyresponsibleinvestment,isarelativelynewconceptusedtodescribean
investmentthatconsiderssocial,ethical,andenvironmentalconcerns.Thepurposeofthisstudyis
toinvestigateifcollectivism,concernfortheenvironment,financialperformance,andawarenessof
SRIinfluenceanindividual’spropensitytoinvestinsociallyresponsibleinvestments(SRI).Sec‐
ondly,thestudyevaluatestheinfluenceoftheTPB(TheoryofPlannedBehavior)modelconstructs,
attitude,subjectivenorms,andperceivedbehavioralcontrolontheSRIinvestmentintentionofin‐
dividualinvestors.Astructuredquestionnairewasusedtocollectdataon449individualinvestors
forthiscross‐sectionalinvestigation.Thedatawerethenanalyzedfurtherwithatwo‐stepstructural
equationmodelingtechniqueperformedinSmartPLS3.2.9.ThePLS‐SEManalysisfoundthatcol‐
lectivism,environmentalconcerns,financialperformance,andawarenessofSRIallhadsignificant
positiveeffectsonattitudestowardSRI,which,inturn,resultedinSRIinvestmentintention.Fur‐
ther,subjectivenormsandperceivedbehavioralcontrolhadasignificantimpactonindividuals’
intentionsregardingSRI.
Keywords:sociallyresponsibleinvestments(SRI);investmentintention;collectivism;environmen‐
talconcern;attitude;SRIawareness
1.Introduction
Fundamentally,sociallyresponsibleinvestments(SRI),alsoknownas“ethicalin‐
vesting”,“greeninvesting”,“values‐basedinvesting”,“sustainableinvesting”,andmore
recentlysimply“responsibleinvesting,”and“ESGinvesting”referstothenotionofin‐
vestingthatconsiderssocial,ethical,governance,andenvironmentalissues[1,2].SRIhas
piquedthecuriosityofmarketparticipantsworldwide[3–6].Everyreasonableinvestor
hasalwaysbeenconcernedwithchoosingthebestinvestmentportfoliofortheirhard‐
earnedcash.Investmentbehaviorisinfluencedbyelements,includingfundsafety,cur‐
rentandcapitalreturns,andliquidity.
Furthermore,asawarenessofsustainabilityhasexpanded,investorshavebegunto
emphasizebusinessesthathaveasocialandenvironmentalfootprintthroughtheirprod‐
uctsandservices.Therehasbeenariseininvestors’integrationofsocial,environmental,
andethicalconsiderationsintotheirinvestmentdecisions[7–9].
Citation:Thanki,H.;Shah,S.;
Rathod,H.S.;Oza,A.D.;Burduhos‐
Nergis,D.D.IamReadytoInvestin
SociallyResponsibleInvestments
(SRI)OptionsOnlyIftheReturns
AreNotCompromised:Individual
Investors’IntentiontowardSRI.Sus‐
tainability2022,14,11377.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811377
AcademicEditor:Jean‐PierreGueyie
Received:13August2022
Accepted:7September2022
Published:10September2022
Publisher’sNote:MDPIstaysneu‐
tralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitu‐
tionalaffiliations.
Copyright:©2022bytheauthors.Li‐
censeeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland.
Thisarticleisanopenaccessarticle
distributedunderthetermsandcon‐
ditionsoftheCreativeCommonsAt‐
tribution(CCBY)license(https://cre‐
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Sustainability2022,14,113772of17
SRIisaninvestingstrategythatseekstomaximizebothsocialimpactandfinancial
returnsforinvestors.SRIisatypeofinvestmentthattakesintoaccountboththevalueof
acompany’slargerinfluenceontheworldanditsprospectivemonetarygains.
ThepopularityofSRIhasincreasedsubstantially,andeightypercentofinstitutional
investorsincludeESGfactorsintheirinvestingstrategies[10].Assuming15%growth,
ESGassetsundermanagementmayaccountformorethanthepredicted$140.5trillion
globaltotalby2025[11].Additionally,theperformanceofSRIfundsduringtimesofcrisis
isbetterthanthatofconventionalfunds[12].Asdiscoveredduringthe2002technology
(ICT)bubblebustandthe2008globalfinancialcrisis,SRIfundsoutperformedconven‐
tionalfundsintheUSA.
Theeconomicandsocialeffectsofenvironmental,societal,andgovernanceconcerns
wereonceagainbroughtintosharpfocusbytheCOVID‐19catastrophe.Thecrisishas
alsoshownthatSRIadoptionisnotsomefar‐offidealbutrathersomethingthatcanbe
performedrightnowtomakecommunitiesandbusinessesmoreresilient[13].Duringthe
pandemic,investors’increasinginterestinESGelementsofcorporations,impliesthey
perceivesustainabilityasaneed[14].DuringtheCOVID‐19pandemicshutdown,ESG
stocksalsoprotectedinvestorsagainstlosses[15].
FundsthatallocateinvestormoneyaccordingtoESGissuesheld$357billionatthe
endof2021[16].InIndia,SRIfundshavebeengainingmomentuminrecentyears,and
therehasbeenariseininterestinESGinvesting.Companies,governments,marketregu‐
lators,andothershavesteppeduptoestablishESGindicesandfundsinordertoeducate
andenticethecountry’sinvestorswiththeconceptofsustainableinvesting.
Underthecategoryofsustainability,theS&PBSEexchangecomprisesthreeindices:
“S&PBSEGREENEX”,“S&PBSECARBONEX”,and“S&PBSE100ESGIndex”andthe
NSEindexincludesthe“NIFTY100ESGIndex”,“NIFTY100EnhancedESGIndex”,and
“Nifty100ESGSectorLeader”[17].TheAUMofESGFundsinIndiaisnowat$1839mil‐
lionasof31March2022,andincreasingAMCsareaimingtoadoptanESGstrategy[18].
Incorporatingsocialandenvironmentalconcernsintoinvestmentdecision‐makingpro‐
cesses,sustainableinvestingaimsatensuringthedevelopmentofagreeneconomyand
hasbecomeanincreasinglyimportantcomponentofbusinesssocialresponsibility[19].
AspertheTheoryofPlannedBehavior(TPB)[20],aperson’sattitudedetermines
theirpurposetoengageincertainbehavior.Basedontheprecedingfacts,itiseasyto
deducewhatdrivestherationalinvestor,whoconsidersbothfinancialperformanceand
ethicswhilemakinginvestmentdecisions.Oneprobableexplanationisaperson’satti‐
tude,whichistheresultofhisorhermoralandethicalbeliefsthatmayaffectinvestment
decisions[21–23].Personalvalues,suchascollectivism,andenvironmentalattitudesim‐
pactinvestors’desiresfornon‐financialoutcomes[24].
TheunderstandingofSRIgivesinformationonhowtobetterexplaintherequire‐
mentsandmotivesofinvestors.Theknowledgecanhelptheinvestorstoleadtoapositive
attitudeandhelpsindevelopingtheintentionforSRI[25,26].Astherelevanceofsustain‐
ableinvestingisgrowingwithtimeandmoresuchfundsarebecomingavailable[27,28],
socialgroupsarealsoinfluencingintentionstowardsSRI[29]withperceivedbehavioral
control[30]inadditiontoattitudinalbeliefs.
ThefocusofSRIoverthepastdecadehasbeenondetermininghowtheseinvest‐
mentsstackupagainstmoreconventionalones[31,32].Althoughresearchershavead‐
dressedinvestors’financialcircumstanceswhenmakinginvestmentdecisions,Ngaand
Yien[33]arguedthattheinclinationofinvestorstoinvestinenvironmentallyaccountable
companieshasbeenlargelyoverlookedbypreviousstudies.
Thisstudyisnovelinthesensethat,fromtheoutset,weattemptedtoinvestigateif
collectivism,environmentalconcerns,financialperformance,andawarenessaboutSRI
haveanimpactonattitudeforinvestinginSRI;andsecond,weexaminedtheimpactof
attitude,subjectivenorms,andperceivedbehavioralcontrolontheinvestmentintention
oftheinvestors.
Sustainability2022,14,113773of17
Usingstructuralequationmodeling,thisresearchattemptstoaddressthequestion
ofhowmuchvarianceinthedesiretoinvestinSRI,isexplainedbythefactorsunder
study.Thisstudy’sresearch,whichiswovenintothethreadsofTPBtheory,givesinsight
intothebehavioraltraitsofinvestorswhoareinterestedinSRI.Theaddedconstructsin
theTPBmodelcontributetothetheoryofsustainableinvestmentswiththeparadigm
shiftsintheglobalfinancialmarkets.Thiscomprehensionwillprovideinformationon
howtheneedsandgoalsofinvestorsmightbebettercommunicatedtothekeystakehold‐
ers.Withthisinformation,fundmanagersmaybeabletoprovideamorerelevantselec‐
tionoffinancialavenuesandamoreefficientmarketingstrategy,thereby,improvingtheir
abilitytoservicetheirinvestors.
Thefindingsofthestudyhavesignificantimplicationsforpolicymakersaswell,who
mightapplythisknowledgetohelppromoteacapitalmarketthatisfavorabletoSRI.The
structureofthisstudyisasdescribedbelow.Theinvestigationcommenceswithadiscus‐
sionofthetheoreticalfoundation,followedbythecreationofhypothesesandthespecifi‐
cationofamodel.Thesectionthencontinuestotheresearchmethodologyfollowedbya
discussionofthedataanalysisandstudyfindings.Thepaper’sconclusionemphasizesthe
implications,limitations,andscopeforfurtherstudy.
2.TheoreticalBackground
2.1.TheoryofPlannedBehavior(TPB)
Extensiveresearchrevealedthatavarietyofpsychologicalfactorshaveasignificant
influenceonthefieldofbehavioralfinance.Formorethantwodecades,theTPBmodel
hasbeenusedinvariousempiricalanddescriptiveresearchstudiesinvestigatingthefac‐
torsofhumanbehavioralintention[34].ThetheoryisanexpansionoftheTheoryofRea‐
sonedAction‐TRA[35],whichisbasedontheexpectancy‐valueformulation[35,36].The
TPBdescribesthreesignificantprecursorsofhumanbehavior:attitude,subjectivenorms,
andperceivedbehavioralcontrol.
Thecomponentofbehavioralintentionfurthermediatesthisassociation.According
toAjzen[14],anattitudinalbeliefisreferredtoasanATT,whereasanominalbeliefis
referredtoasSN,andacontrolbeliefisreferredtoasPBC.TheTPBmodelhasalsobeen
appliedinvariousfinancialdecisionsandtheadoptionoffinancialproducts.Thecurrent
studyadoptedtheTPBmodeltounderstandthefactorsaffectingSRIinvestmentsinIndia.
Inthepresentresearch,attitudeisdefinedastheinvestor’sevaluationoftheobjec‐
tivesofinvestmentinSRI.Investors’favorableattitudesarelikelytopromoteSRIbehav‐
iors,accordingtoacomprehensiblerationale.Attitudehaslongbeendemonstratedtoal‐
terbehavioralintention[35].Moreover,theattitudetowardSRIcanbeformedbasedon
theunderlyingaspectsthatareresponsibleforshapingtheattitudetowardSRI.Inthis
study,theitemsthatcaninfluenceone’sperspectiveonSRIaretakentobecollectivism,
concernfortheenvironment,financialperformance,andawarenessofSRI.Theassocia‐
tionhasbeenexperimentallyvalidatedbystudiesinthisfield[3,37].
AnextensionoftheTPB,subjectivenormspositthatanindividual’sbehaviorisim‐
pactedbytheirperceptionsabouttheapprovaloftheirsignificantothers.Individualsor
groupswithopinionsonhowoneshouldactinthissituationareconsidered“significant
others.”Itissupposedthatsubjectivenormscanevaluatethesocialconstraintsexerted
onpeopletoengageinorrefrainfromagivenbehavior.Inthisstudy,subjectivenorms
simulatedinvestors’perceptionsoftheextenttowhichtheirsocialnetworksendorse,sup‐
port,oradoptthepracticeofinvestinginSRI(i.e.,friends,relatives,andfinancialplan‐
ners).
Aperceivedbehaviorcontrolistheirdegreeofinfluenceoverwhetherornotaperson
performsanaction,asopposedtotheexpectationsregardingtheconsequencesofthat
conduct[32].Apersoncanonlytakeactionifhebelieveshehassomedegreeofcontrol
overthesituation(i.e.,theavailabilityofusefultoolsandoptions)[20].
Sustainability2022,14,113774of17
EarlierstudieshaveappliedtheTPBmodeltomeasuretheSRIintentionofinvestors
[25,38,39]andconcludedthatattitude,subjectivenorms,andperceivedbehavioralcontrol
haveapositiveimpactontheinvestors’intentionforSRI.Inthisstudy,keyresources
includeinvestors’opinionsofSRIandtheeasewithwhichSRIassetsmaybetraded.
2.2.HypothesesDevelopment
SomeofthestudiesontheuseoftheTPBindicatethatthetheorycanforecastthe
behaviorofinvestorsconcerningSRI[3].AccordingtotheTPBtheory,themostimportant
predictorofbehaviorisone’sintention,becauseone’sactionsarecontrolledbyone’sin‐
tentions[40,41].Behavioralintentsaremotivatingelementsthathaveasignificantimpact
onaperson’swillingnesstoperformanactivity[20].TheTPBwasutilizedasaframework
forthisstudy,togetherwithothercomponents,toanalyzethefactorsinfluencingIndian
investors’behaviortowardSRI.Akeysectionoftheresearchisdeterminingwhetherin‐
vestors’statedintentionstomakeSRIcontributetobetterexplanationsoftheirstatedat‐
titudes,subjectivenorms,andperceivedbehavioralcontrolformakingSRIdecisions.
2.3.CollectivismtoAttitude
Collectivismistheideathatthecommunityismoreimportantthantheperson,as
statedby[42].Indianculture,accordingtoHofstede[43],iscollectivisticinnature.A
broaderdefinitionofcollectivismwasdiscussedbySeo[44]andencompassesvariousfac‐
ets,includingworkgrouporientation[43,45–47],willingnesstoserveforthegreatergood
[46,48,49],andthewillingnesstoperformethicalobjectives[45,46].Thereistheexistence
ofculturalconglomeratesattheregionalandnationallevelsthatinfluencethebehavior
ofsocietiesandorganizationsasawholeandpersistforextremelylongstretchesoftime.
Collectiveculturesincludepeoplefrombirthintostrong,cohesivecommunitiesthat
givelifetimesecurityinexchangeforloyalty[50].Collectivistculturesencouragetheir
memberstodevelopinterdependence;individualsviewthemselvesasinextricablytiedto
othersaroundthem,andtheirbehaviorplacesapriorityonpreservingmutualtrustover
pursuingindividualgoals.Researchshowsthatcollectivismisavaluesystemthatmakes
peoplemoreattentivetoenvironmentalandsocialconcerns[51,52].Thisleadsustohy‐
pothesizethefollowing:
H1(a):CollectivismwillpositivelyaffecttheattitudetowardSRI.
2.4.EnvironmentalConcernsandAttitudes
Decadesago,environmentalconservationbecamemoreimportant[53].Withtime,
customershavebecomemoreknowledgeableandnowvalueenvironmentallysafeprod‐
uctsandfairdecision‐making[54].Risingenvironmentalawarenessinfluencescustomer
behavior[55]andfinancialdecisions[56,57].Itwasfoundthatenvironmentaldegradation
issues,suchaspollution,greenhousegasemissions,ozonedepletion,andclimatechange,
affectinvestmentdecisions[58]andaddingtothat,itwasfoundthatinvestinginenvi‐
ronmentallyconsciousmutualfundsshowsenvironmentalsensitivity[24].
AssetmanagementbusinesseshavecreatedESGandgreenfundsandenvironmental
mindsetsinfluencetheprocurementofenvironmentallyfriendlyproductsandSRIs
[59,60].Companieshavealsoissued“greenbonds,”whichhavebecomepopularamongst
investorsbecause,inadditiontobeingenvironmentallyfriendly,theyprovidegreater
long‐termreturns[60].
Thereisalsothepotentialforgreenfinancetoplayasignificantroleinassistingbusi‐
nesseswithenvironmentallyresponsibleinitiatives [61],resultinginindividualswhomay
actontheirenvironmentalconcernsbyinvestinginecologicallyfriendlyinvestmentop‐
tions[24].Environmentalistsalsoprioritizeethics;thus,theyinvestinsociallyresponsible
companies[29,57].Thisleadstothefollowinghypothesize:
Sustainability2022,14,113775of17
H1(b):EnvironmentalConcernswillpositivelyaffecttheattitudetowardSRI.
2.5.FinancialPerformancetoAttitude
Financialreturnandriskarecrucialdecision‐makingelementsineveryinvestment
choice.TheseconsiderationsarealsolikelytoaffectSRIgiventhattheultimategoalofany
investmentisfinancialgain[4].Inacademicresearch,someresearchershaveindicated
thatSRIperformsequallywithnormalinvestments[62].However,thefinancialperfor‐
manceofSRI‐managedfundsisseenindifferentwaysbyinvestors[63].Ethicalorsocially
consciousinvestorsdonotmakeinvestmentdecisionsbasedonpotentialfinancialgain
[64].AlthoughinvestorsconsiderSRIfundstoberiskierduetotheirearlystage,apositive
correlationwasdiscoveredbetweeninvestmentbehaviorandtheinvestor’sinclinationto
pursuenon‐financialinvestinggoals[65].Asaresult,thefollowinghypothesisisdevel‐
oped.
H1(c):FinancialperformanceofSRIwillpositivelyaffecttheattitudetowardsSRI.
2.6.SRIAwarenessofAttitude
Researchisscarceinthefinancedomainregardingtheeffectsofknowledgeandun‐
derstandingofinvestmentavenuesandtheattitudesaboutit.However,theeffectof
knowledgeandunderstandingoftheconceptonattitudeisefficientlyresearchedinother
areas,suchasagriculture,food,beverages,andmedicalscience.Forexample,theattitude
towardself‐medicationisimpactedbyawarenessofself‐medication[66],andknowledge
aidsinformingandshiftingattitudestowardgeneticallymodifiedfoods[67].
Financialawarenessistheabilitytomakesoundfinancialdecisions[68].SRI’sfinan‐
cialandnon‐financialgoalsrequireahighlevelofinformationandawareness,andpur‐
chasechoicesarehighlyinfluencedbyconsumerawareness[69].Ifaninvestorisaware
ofanSRI,theycangivethoughttoinvestinginthat,andalackofinvestorinformationor
unawarenesshindersSRIgrowth[19].SinceSRIinvolvesbothmonetaryandnon‐mone‐
tarymotivations,SRIwillneedsubstantialfinancialknowledge.
Alongwithawareness,understandingisalsoimportantascustomerunderstanding
affectstheirpropensitytobuygreen/sustainableproducts[70].Severalstudieshave
shownthattheimportanceoffinancialadvisers’expertiseinsustainablefundsaffectsthe
attitudeofinvestorstowardSRI[71–73].ItwasalsosuggestedthatSRIandethicalfund
informationinfluenceriskperception[74].Consequently,comprehensionofsocialre‐
sponsibilitymeasuresencouragessustainableinvestment.Thus,wepropose:
H1(d):SRIawarenesswillpositivelyaffecttheattitudetowardSRI.
2.7.AttitudetoSRIIntention
AccordingtoAjzenandFishbein[35],anindividual’sattitude(favorable/unfavora‐
ble)influencestheirdesiretocommitaparticularbehavior.Attitudeisthedegreeofem‐
phasispeopleplaceondoingaspecificbehavior[73].Itisthemostimportantvariables
foraninvestmentdecisionareattitudeandpersonalinterest[75].Aninvestor’sattitude
towardmoral,environmental,andsocietalconcernsdeterminesthechoiceofSRI[4,31,76].
Individualsnowareconcernedabouttheirsocialimageandareobservantofmarket
trends,whichreinforcestheirwillingnesstoparticipateinSRI[77].
Attitudeispositivelylinkedwithbehavioralintentionstoinvestinthestockex‐
change[78]andonlinetradingintentions[79].Investinginasustainablewayisanim‐
portantconsiderationforeachinvestor[80].Thereisalinkbetweengreenattitudesand
sustainableinvestingbehavior[81].Additionally,itwasfoundthatcustomers’views
aboutpurchasinggreenitemsadequatelypredictthedecisiontopurchaseecological
products[82].Asaresult,theproposedhypothesisisasfollows:
H2:AttitudetowardSRIwillpositivelyinfluenceSRIinvestmentintention.
Sustainability2022,14,113776of17
2.8.SubjectiveNormstoSRIIntention
Subjectivenormisanassessmentofothers’opinionsabouttheacceptanceofacertain
behavior[35].Subjectivenormsincludepeerorgroupperceptionsofbehavioranden‐
couragementtoconformtothesebeliefs.Subjectivenormsarethemotivatingforceand
burdenthatapersonfacesfromsocietyasaresultofthebehavior[20].Thesubjective
normsvariablesuggeststhatanindividual’sbehaviorishighlyinfluencedbytherefer‐
encegroup.
Itproposedthattheopinionsoffriendsandfamilyhaveasubstantialimpactonan
investor’sinclinationtoinvestinstocks[40].ItwasstudiedbyAdamandShauki[25]how
individualbehaviorisimpactedbysomeone’simportantviewaboutwhetheragivenbe‐
haviorshouldbeperformedornot.Peoplewhocananticipatesupportivesubjective
standardsaremorelikelytoinvestthanpeoplewhodonothavetodealwithanykindof
socialpressure[83,84].Inthesamevein,considertheproposedhypothesis:
H3:SubjectivenormswillpositivelyinfluenceSRIinvestmentintention.
2.9.PerceivedBehavioralControltoSRIIntention
Perceivedbehavioralcontroloverasubjectcomprisestheavailabilityofsuitablere‐
sourcesandopportunities[20].Behavioralcontrolislinkedtoanindividual’sconviction
intheresource’sability—theirtalentsandcapacities.Oneofthemainaspectsdetermining
intentionisperceivedbehaviorcontrol,whichreferstoanindividual’sresponsetosome‐
thingasabehavioralcontrol,whichrelatestotheeaseordifficultyofperforminganac‐
tivity.Thisaspectisconnectedtoinvestors’capacitiesandprospectsinSRI[78,85,86].In
thisvein,thefollowinghypothesisisproposed:
H4:PerceivedbehavioralcontrolwillpositivelyinfluenceSRIinvestmentintention.
3.MaterialsandMethods
Basedonthetheoreticalmodelandthehypothesesdiscussedintheabovesection,
theproposedmodelissummarizedinFigure1.Theconstructs,suchascollectivism,en‐
vironmentalconcerns,thefinancialperformanceofSRI,andSRIawareness,areproposed
tohaveapositiveimpactontheattitudetowardsSRI,whichisoneoftheconstructsof
TPB.Attitudewithsubjectivenormsandperceivedbehavioralcontrolhaveadirectposi‐
tiveimpactonSRIinvestmentintention.
Figure1.Conceptualmodel.
Sustainability2022,14,113777of17
Aquantitativeapproachtoresearchisonethatusesnumericaldataandotherquan‐
tifiablevariablestosystematicallyexploreaphenomenonanditsrelationships[87].Itis
employedtoexplain,predict,andexertcommandoveraphenomenonbyprovidingan‐
swerstoquestionsbasedoncorrelationsbetweenvariables.
3.1.MeasurementScales
Theinformationforthestudywasgatheredbytheuseofastructuredquestionnaire.
Therewerethreepartstotheinstrument,thefirstofwhichcoveredtherespondents’de‐
mographicdata,suchasage,gender,maritalstatus,educationlevel,occupation,and
yearlyincome.Inthesecondpartofthequestionnaire,respondentswerequestionedto
assesstheimpactofvariousfactorsthatmightaffecttheirintentionofmakingSRI,such
ascollectivism,environmentalconcerns,thefinancialperformanceofSRI,SRIawareness,
attitudetowardsSRI,subjectivenormsandperceivedbehavioralcontrol.Thefinalseg‐
mentincludedLikert‐scalequestionsdesignedtoassessrespondents’willingnesstoin‐
vestinSRI.ThestatementswereratedonaLikertscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5
(stronglyagree),witheachstatementreceivingascorebetween1and5.
TheTPBdevelopedbyAjzen[20]measurewasusedinthestudytoassesstheinten‐
tionofrespondentsforSRI.Thisincludes(i)itemsrelatedtotheconvenienceofSRI(three
items)tomeasuretheattitudeoftheinvestors;(ii)scalebasedonthereferentgroupand
theirconcernaboutSRItomeasurethesubjectivenorms(threeitems);and(iii)perceived
behavioralcontrol,whichstatesthecontrollingfactorsincludinginvestor’sskillstoinvest
inSRI(threeitems).
ThescaleforcollectivismadaptedfromSinghetal.[52]includesstatements(five
items)relatedtothebeliefregardingcommunitywelfare.Theenvironmentalconcerns
scale(fiveitems)wasdevelopedbySinghetal.[52]andmeasurestheenvironmentalatti‐
tudetowardsSRI.ThefinancialperformanceofSRIwasadoptedfromLuongandHa[88]
includingstatements(threeitems)ofreturnexpectationsfromSRIandawarenessofSRI
istakenfromAnsu‐Mensahetal.[89]andhasstatements(fiveitems)relatedtobasicun‐
derstandingandknowledgeofSRI.
3.2.Sample
Thiscross‐sectionaldescriptiveresearchusedaconvenientsamplingmethodto
gathertherequireddata.InvestorsinIndiaabovetheageof18participatedinthesurvey.
ToreachIndianinvestors,researchersnetworkedwithindividualsatvariousbrokerage
housesinthecountry,who,inturn,sharedthesurveylinkwiththeirclientele.Infor‐
mationwasgatheredfrom557investorsfrom15February2022,until6April2022.Fur‐
thermore,108ofthe557replieswerediscardedbecausetheywereincomplete.Asaresult,
449responseswereprocessedforadditionaldataanalysis(seeTable1).
3.3.DataAnalysisTool
SmartPLS3.2.9softwarewasusedtotestthereliability,validity,theory,andhypoth‐
esis.PLSisavariance‐basedstructuralequationmodeling(SEM)employingthepartial
leastsquarespathmodelingtechnique.Itisatwo‐stagemodel:first,itisevaluatedforthe
qualityofthemeasurements(MeasurementModel),andthenfortheinterdependenceof
thevariables(StructuralModel).PLS’abilitytotestthetheorydevelopment[90],thecom‐
plexlinearmodelswithhighreliability[91],andtheapplicabilityinnon‐normaland
small‐to‐mediumsamples[92,93]makesitappropriateforuseinthecurrentstudy.
Alllatentvariablesareconsideredreflectiveinthisstudyandareassessedusingtheir
indicators.Thetwo‐stageanalyticalprocedureproposedbyAndersonandGerbing[94],
withthemeasurementmodelisevaluatedfirst,andthenthestructuralmodelevaluated
fortheoryandhypothesistestingisemployedhere.
Themeasurementmodelwascheckedforreliabilityandvalidityusing“Cronbach’s
alpha”(CA),the“compositereliability”(CR),the“AverageVarianceExtracted”(AVE),
Sustainability2022,14,113778of17
the“Fornell–Larckercriterion”,andthe“heterotrait–monotraitratio”(HTMT)[95].Sec‐
ond,theVarianceinflatedfactors(VIF),‘coefficientofdetermination(R2)’,“Standardized
RootMeanSquareResidual”(SRMR)’,and“NormedFitIndex(NFI)”wereconsideredto
checkthevalidityandfitofthestructuralmodel.Thedetailedresultsarepresentedinthe
followingsection.
3.4.CommonMethodBias
“CommonMethodBias”(CMB)occurswhendifferencesthroughoutanswersare
causedbythetoolinsteadofduetotherealbiasoftherespondents,whichiswhatthe
instrumentisattemptingtoreveal[96].Thismightbeowingtotherespondent’ssocial
desirabilitytendencies,dispositionalmoodstates,orimpulsestosubmitorrespondina
mild,moderate,orextrememanner[97].CMBalsooccurswhendataiscollectedthrough
asingleinstrumentforbothdependentandindependentvariablesfromthesamere‐
spondent[96].ThepresenceofCMBinthedatacaninfluencethereliabilityandvalidity
oftheinstrument.
Thesemightleadtoerroneousconclusionsregardingthereliabilityandconvergent
validityofascale[98].Additionally,CMBalsoinflatesthepathcoefficientsinstructural
modeling[99].Inshort,thepresenceofCMBindatamayleadtoincorrectresearchfind‐
ings,andhence,beforestartingwiththeanalysis,itmustbeassuredthatthedataisfree
fromCMB.ToinvestigatetheCMBinPLS‐SEM,Kock[99]recommendsusingthefull
Collinearityassessment(Varianceinflatedfactors,VIF)test,andVIFvaluesbelow3.3nul‐
lifythepresenceoftheCMB.AlltheconstructssuccessfullypassedthetestastheVIF
valuesarewellbelow3.3.Hence,itcanbeconcludedthatthedataisfreefromCMB.
3.5.ResultsandDiscussion
Asthescalesusedherehavebeenpreviouslytestedfortheirreliabilityandvalidity
inpriorresearch,CFAwasperformedtoevaluatethereliabilityandvalidityofthemeas‐
ure.Attheinitialscreening,twoitemshadafactorloadingofbelow0.7(seefootnoteof
Table2);thus,theywereremovedfromtheanalysis,andthemodelwasrunagaintocheck
forreliabilityandvalidity.Internalconsistency/reliabilitywasmeasuredusingCAand
CRtests[95].TheCAandCRvaluesofallthevariablesarehigherthan0.7(seeTable2)
andsuggestgoodinternalconsistency[95].
Theconvergentvalidityofthemodelwasconfirmedusingouterloading,Average
VarianceExtracted(AVE),andCR[95].Table2indicatesthattheouterloadingofallthe
indicatorsisgreaterthan0.7(atinitialscreening,twoitemswereremoved),theAVEofall
thelatentvariablesisabovetheminimumprescribedlevelof0.5,andthecompositereli‐
abilitiesofallthelatentvariableswerehigherthan0.7[95].Hence,themeasurement
model’sconvergentvalidityisgood.
Table1.Thesamplecharacteristics.
VariablesCategoryFrequencyPercent
GenderMale26559.02
Female18440.98
Age
18–257717.15
26–3516737.19
36–4512227.17
46–555612.47
56–65276.01
MaritalstatusMarried28463.25
Unmarried16536.75
EducationQualifica‐
tion
Undergraduate286.24
Graduate16837.42
Sustainability2022,14,113779of17
Postgraduate/professional22349.67
Doctorate224.90
Other81.78
Employment
Student224.90
Salaried‐Governmentsectoremployee12327.39
Salaried‐privatesectoremployee19342.98
Self‐employed4910.91
Business6213.81
AnnualIncome
Below$3125224.90
Between$3125and$50009922.05
Between$5000and$812515835.19
Between$8125and$10,0006314.03
Between$100,000and$12,500449.80
Above$12,5006314.03
(Note:1.totalnumberofrespondentsequals449;2.INR(₹)isconvertedintoequivalentUSD($).The
rateon1September2022was₹79.67roundoffto₹80)(Source:authors’calculationusingSPSS).
Table2.Reliabilityandvalidity.
ConstructsStandardized
FactorLoadingCACRAVE
Collectivism(COLL)0.7060.8140.524
COLL_10.747
COLL_30.760
COLL_40.760
COLL_50.724
EnvironmentalConcerns(EC)0.7960.8690.627
EC_10.865
EC_20.853
EC_30.775
EC_50.756
FinancialPerformance(FP)0.7500.8560.667
FP_10.823
FP_20.887
FP_30.733
AwarenessaboutSRI(SRIA)0.8150.8720.582
SRIA_10.791
SRIA_20.883
SRIA_30.790
SRIA_40.721
SRIA_50.783
Attitude(ATT)0.8000.8840.719
ATT_10.754
ATT_20.890
ATT_30.891
PerceivedBehavioralControl(PBC)0.8270.8970.743
PBC_10.871
PBC_20.866
PBC_30.849
SubjectiveNorms(SN)0.8260.8960.741
SN_10.868
SN_20.853
Sustainability2022,14,1137710of17
SN_30.862
InvestmentIntention(II)0.8450.8970.685
II_10.869
II_20.846
II_30.853
II_40.737
(COLL_2loading0.526andEC_4loading0.321)(Source:authors’calculationusingSmartPLS3.2.9).
Threemethodshavebeensuggestedforaccessingdiscriminantvalidity;thecross‐
loadingtest,the“Fornell–Larckercriterion”,and“heterotrait–monotraitratio”(HTMT)
[95].IthasbeenadvocatedthattheHTMTratioshouldbepreferredovertheothercriteria
forconfirmingthediscriminantvalidity[95].“Fornell–Larckercriterion”,and“hetero‐
trait–monotraitratio”(HTMT)testswereusedheretoconfirmthediscriminantvalidity.
AsperFornell–Larckercriterion“thesquarerootoftheAVEofeachconstructshould
behigherthantheconstruct’shighestcorrelationwithanyotherconstructinthemodel.”
Table3showsthatthesquarerootoftheAVEofeachconstructishigherthanthecon‐
struct’shighestcorrelationwithanyotherconstruct(diagonalvaluesinbold).Asperthe
HTMTcriterion,theconstructs’HTMTvaluesshouldnotexceed0.85[95].Table4shows
thatallvaluesarewellbelow0.85;thisreconfirmsthediscriminantvalidity[100].
Table3.Fornell–Larckercriterion.
ATTCOLLECFPIIPBCSNSRIA
ATT0.848
COLL0.2750.724
EC0.4320.1570.792
FP0.4950.0180.3430.817
II0.487−0.0300.3460.4410.828
PBC0.3060.0220.2090.2350.5770.862
SN0.318−0.0350.1980.2550.6960.5550.861
SRIA0.5320.1700.5010.2910.3620.3180.3400.763
(Source:authorscalculationusingSmartPLS3.2.9).
Table4.Heterotrait–monotraitRatio(HTMT).
ATTCOLLECFPIIPBCSNSRIA
ATT
COLL0.334
EC0.5420.200
FP0.6300.0810.440
II0.5940.0670.4240.551
PBC0.3770.0800.2580.2990.690
SN0.3930.0640.2450.3280.8300.673
SRIA0.6490.2140.6080.3570.4310.3880.406
(Source:authors’calculationusingSmartPLS3.2.9).
TheassessmentofVIFistheprerequisitefortheassessmentofthestructuralmodel
[95].TheCollinearityissueintheconstructisfixedwiththeVIFvalueslessthan5.Itcan
beseenfromTable5thatalltheconstructshaveVIFvalueswellbelow5.Afterasuccessful
assessmentofCollinearity,thestructuralmodelwastestedusingthebootstrapping
methodwithasampleof5000.
Sustainability2022,14,1137711of17
Table5.Collinearityvalues.
ATTII
COLL1.040
EC1.428
FP1.162
SRIA1.382
ATT1.143
PBC1.486
SN1.498
(Source:authorscalculationusingSmartPLS3.2.9).
ThestructuralmodelofthestudyispresentedinFigure2.
Figure2.StructuralModel.
The‘modelfit’wasconfirmedbyevaluating‘coefficientofdetermination(R2)’,
StandardizedRootMeanSquareResidual(SRMR)’,and‘NormedFitIndex(NFI)’.Q2was
checkedforthemodel’spredictiverelevance.ThesubstantialsignificanceofSEMisin
examiningthelevelofvariancetheunderlyingindependentvariableexplainsforthede‐
pendentvariable[90].Thevaluesofthecoefficientofdetermination(R2)areusedforthis
purpose(R2).
Inthiscurrentstudy,investmentintentiontowardsSRIistheprimedependentvari‐
able,andtheR2foritis0.598,whichindicatesthat59.8percentofchangeintheinvestment
intentiontowardsSRIcanbeexplainedbycollectivism,environmentalconcerns,financial
performance,SRIawareness,attitude,subjectivenorms,andperceivedbehavioralcontrol.
ThepredictiverelevanceofthemodelwasaccessedbyderivingQ2valuesbyper‐
formingablindfoldingprocedure.Q2valuesgreaterthan0suggestthatthemodelhas
predictiverelevanceforthe[101]andvaluesgreaterthan0.02,0.15,and0.35indicatethe
small,medium,andlargepredictiverelevanceofanindependentvariabletoadependent
variable.ThecurrentmodelhasQ2valuesof0.400(seeTable6)indicatingthatthemodel
hasalargepredictiverelevance.
Sustainability2022,14,1137712of17
Table6.Modelfitestimate.
SaturatedModel
Rsquare(R2)0.598
SRMR0.072
NFI0.833
QSquare(Q2)0.400
(Source:authors’calculationusingSmartPLS3.2.9).
TheSRMRvalueis0.072,whichislessthan0.08[95].TheNFIvalueis0.83,whichis
closerto1[102].Overall,the‘modelfit’indicesshowthatthemodelisa‘goodfit’(see
Table6).
4.ResultsandDiscussion
PathcoefficientswerecalculatedusingthebootstrapruninPLS‐SEM.Thisstudy
foundapositiveeffectofcollectivismonattitudetowardsSRI(β=0.193,p<0.05),and
thesefindingsareinlinewith[51,52].Therefore,weconcludethatSRIisbasedonthe
valuesystemspecificallyinthecountries,suchasIndia,withhighculturalvaluesand
beliefs.ThereisapositiveimpactofenvironmentconcernsonattitudetowardsSRI(β=
0.109,p<0.05),whichissupportedbythestudies[29,57,58,103].Thisconfirmsthateco‐
nomicaspirationsarealsoadrivingforceforleadingtoSRIintention.
Thus,arationalandculturedsocietyislikelytostrengthenitseffortstoensuresus‐
tainablehumanwell‐beingasindividualsbecomemoreconsciousoftheimportanceof
theenvironmentanditslong‐termimpactonsociety.ThefinancialperformanceofSRI
alsohasapositiveimpactonattitudetowardsSRI(β=0.354,p<0.05),andtheresultsare
similarto[4,29].AlthoughSRIcarriesnon‐monetarygoals,iftheygeneratelucrativefi‐
nancialreturns,eveninvestorswithweakerSRIvalueswouldalsobecomeattractedto
suchfunds.
TheawarenessofSRIpositivelyaffectedtheattitudetowardsSRI(β=0.342,p<0.05),
andtheresultsaresupportedby[71–73].Thefinancialproductsarecomplextounder‐
standsoliteracyandawarenessofsuchfinancialproductswillenhancetheirinvestments
specificallyinemergingcountries,suchasIndia.TheconstructoftheTPBmodel—aswith
attitude—hasapositiveimpactontheSRIinvestmentintention(β=0.263,p<0.05)and
supportsthestudies[81,82].Asaresult,itisenvisagedthatinvestorswhohaveafavorable
attitudetowardSRIwouldhaveastrongdesiretoinvestinSRI.
PerceivedbehavioralcontrolonSRIinvestmentintentionhasapositiveimpacton
SRIinvestmentintention(β=0.487,p<0.05),whichissimilarto[78,85,86].Thisdepicts
thatperceivedbehavioralcontrolisafactorininvestingethically.Thefinalhypothesis
wastoanalyzetheimpactofsubjectivenormspositivelyaffectingtheSRIinvestmentin‐
tention(β=0.227,p<0.05),similartothestudies[25,84,104].Itdepictsthat,intermsof
sustainableinvestment,peer‐groupexpectationsandbehaviorhadasubstantialinfluence
ondecision‐making.
FinancialperformancewasthemostsignificantvariablefollowedbySRIawareness,
whichinfluencesinvestors’attitudesregardingSRI.Perceivedbehavioralcontrolwasthe
mostsignificantvariableinfluencingtheinvestmentintentioninSRIfollowedbyattitude
andsubjectivenorms(seeTable7Standardizedregressionweight(β)values).
Table7.Structuralmodelestimates.
HypothesisImpactStandardized
RegressionWeigh(β)p‐ValueConclusion
H1(a)COLL‐>ATT+ve0.1930.000supported
H1(b)EC‐>ATT+ve0.1090.017supported
H1(c)FP‐>ATT+ve0.3540.000supported
Sustainability2022,14,1137713of17
H1(d)SRIA‐>ATT+ve0.3420.000supported
H2ATT‐>II+ve0.2630.000supported
H3PBC‐>II+ve0.2270.000supported
H4SN‐>II+ve0.4870.000Supported
(Source:authors’calculationusingSmartPLS3.2.9).
Thestudy’sfindingsproposevaluablecontributionstowardpolicydevelopmentfor
variousstakeholders,suchasthegovernment,regulatoryauthorities,andfundmanagers.
Thefindingsofthestudyaresignificant,ascollectivismandenvironmentalconcernsnot
onlyaffecttheattitudesofinvestorsbutalsotheinvestmentintentionsofinvestors.A
balancedapproachshouldbeadoptedfordesigningandofferingthesefunds.Thestudy
hassignificantresultsshowingthatinvestmentintentionsarehighlyinfluencedbysub‐
jectivenormsi.e.,peer‐groupinfluence.Theseresultsreaffirmthatinvestorsarelesscon‐
fidentintheirinvestmentdecisionsandmorelikelytofollowtheadviceoftheirfriends,
family,co‐workers,andacquaintances.
Financecompaniesandfinancialadvisorscanutilizetheresultstoincreasethepen‐
etrationofSRI.Werecommendthatfinancialadviserstakeamoreprogressiveandprac‐
ticalperspectivebylookingatmorethansimplydemographicsandinsteadpayingatten‐
tiontocharacteristics,suchasattitude,subjectivenorms,andperceivedbehavioralcontrol
beliefs.Regulatoryauthorities,fundmanagers,andtheMFcompaniesdealingwithSRI
fundscanmarkettheseinvestmentproductsbyconsideringthefindingsofthestudy.
TheycandevelopseminarstoeducateandenlighteninvestorsaboutSRIinvestments.To
preservetheinvestors’individualbeliefsonthetopicofsustainability,businessescanfo‐
cusonmakingtheappropriatesocialandenvironmentaldisclosuresintheirreporting
methods,whichmayalsohelptheinvestorstomakeinformedinvestmentdecisions.
5.Conclusions
Investmentshavealwaysbeencenteredonmakingaprofit,andthishasbeentrue
forcenturies.Thefocusoftraditionalinvestmentdecisionshasbeenalmostexclusivelyon
thisonefactor,attheexpenseofsocialandenvironmentalconsiderations.However,the
COVID‐19predicamenthighlightedonceagainhowgovernance,social,andenvironmen‐
talproblemsmayhavesignificanteffectsontheeconomyandsociety.Thecrisisalsoin‐
dicatedthatadoptingSRIisnotsomehazylong‐termidealbutsomethingthatcanquickly
boosttheagilityofoursocietyandenterprises.Inthisvein,itisimportanttostudythe
factorsthatcanfurtheracceleratethegrowthofSRIinvestments.
Inthepresentstudy,weconcludedthatcollectivism,environmentalconcerns,finan‐
cialperformance,andawarenessaboutSRIhavesignificantpositiveeffectsonattitudes
towardSRI,which,inturn,resultedinSRIinvestmentintention.IntentiontowardSRI
investmentwasalsohighlyinfluencedbysubjectivenormsandperceivedbehavioralcon‐
trol.Accordingtothefindings,thesubjectivenormwasthemostsignificantpredictorof
SRIinvestmentintention,andpeerrelatives’perspectiveswereimportantindirectingsus‐
tainableinvestments.
ThisindirectlyemphasizesthatthereisalackofliteracyaboutSRIproductsamongst
investors,andhenceinvestorsattempttomimicthebehavioroftheirfriendsandpeers.
Inresponsetothisneed,financialinstitutionsandmutualfundcompaniesmaylaunch
educationalinitiativestohelpsaversandprospectiveinvestorslearnmoreaboutsocially
responsibleinvesting(SRI).Inaddition,theymayprovidein‐depthtrainingonSRIin‐
vestingtofinancialplannersandadvisers,whocanthenserveasadvocatesforthecause.
Thereareafewcaveatstothestudy’sfindings.First,itwasdoneatacertainperiod
intime(across‐sectionalstudy).Extendingthetimeframeoftheinvestigationisaneces‐
sarynextstepinthisfield’sstudy.Changesininvestors’intentionsmaybetrackedover
timebycollecting(andevaluating)dataatregularintervals.Second,althoughthisstudy’s
samplesizeissufficientfordoingstructuralequationmodeling[105],futureresearch
shouldexplorealargersampletoaccountforsamplingmistakes.
Sustainability2022,14,1137714of17
Third,thisresearchfocusedonSRIandfoundthattheattitudeandintentiontoward
theseinvestmentsareinfluencedbycollectivism,whichisinfluencedbyeachculture,and
thusthefindingcannotbeextendedtoallcultures.Fourth,thestudywasconducted
adoptingtheTPBmodel.Inthefuture,otherstudieswillincludetheStimulus–Organism–
Response(SOR)modelforadoptionintention.Lastly,thecurrentstudyfocusedonfour
factors:collectivism,environmentalconcerns,financialperformance,andSRIawareness
towardsattitudetowardSRI,whereastherearemanyotherfactorsrelatedtotheinvestor
personalityormoralvaluesthatwerenotconsideredandcanbeincludedinfuturere‐
search.
AuthorContributions:conceptualization,H.T.andS.S.;methodology,H.T.andH.S.R.;formalanal‐
ysis,S.S.andA.D.O.;writing—originaldraftpreparation,H.T.,H.S.R.,andS.S.;writing—review
andediting,D.D.B.‐N.andA.D.O.;resources,D.D.B.‐N.Allauthorshavereadandagreedtothe
publishedversionofthemanuscript.
Funding:ThisworkwassupportedbyGheorgheAsachiTechnicalUniversityofIaşi—TUIASI‐Ro‐
mania,ScientificResearchFunds,FCSU‐2022.
InstitutionalReviewBoardStatement:Ethicalreviewandapprovalwerewaivedforthisstudy.
Thestudyhasfollowedthesurveymethodandincludestheresponsesfromthesurveyparticipants
fromIndia.Hence,itfallsunderthe‘SocialScienceStudies’.AsguidedbyIndianCouncilofSocial
ScienceResearch(ICSSR),suchstudiesneednottofollowtheethicalguidelines.Forthecurrent
study,alltheparticipantswerefullyinformedabouttheaimofthestudyandwereassuredthe
anonymityoftheresponses.Theywerealsoinformedtheusageofthedatatheyagreedtoprovide.
Thereisnoprivateinformationcollectedfortheresearchcontext.Noobservationdataorrecordings
hadtakenplace,whichcanbemadepublic.Alltheethicalstandardshavebeenfollowedforreport‐
ingthecollecteddatawithnomisrepresentationofinformationanddata.Fromtheresearchers’side
theauthorswerenotbiasedregardingprocessingofthedata.
InformedConsentStatement:Informedconsentwasobtainedfromallsubjectsinvolvedinthe
study.
DataAvailabilityStatement:Notapplicable.
ConflictsofInterest:Theauthorsdeclarethattheyhavenoconflictofinterest.
References
1. Simon,J.G.;Powers,C.W.;Gunnemann,J.P.TheEthicalInvestor:UniversitiesandCorporateResponsibility;TheUniversityofChi‐
cagoPress:Chicago,IL,USA,1972.
2. Domini,A.L.;Kinder,P.D.EthicalInvesting;Addison‐Wesley:Boston,MA,USA,1984.
3. Hofmann,E.;Hoelzl,E.;Kirchler,E.Acomparisonofmodelsdescribingtheimpactofmoraldecisionmakingoninvestment
decisions.J.Bus.Ethics2008,82,171–187.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐007‐9570‐6.
4. Nilsson,J.InvestmentwithaConscience:ExaminingtheImpactofpro‐SocialAttitudesandPerceivedFinancialPerformance
onSociallyResponsibleInvestmentBehavior.J.Bus.Ethics2008,83,307–325.
5. Díaz,A.;Esparcia,C.;López,R.ThediversifyingroleofsociallyresponsibleinvestmentsduringtheCOVID‐19crisis:arisk
managementandportfolioperformanceanalysis.Econ.Anal.Policy2022,75,39–60.
6. Brunen,A.‐C.;Laubach,O.Dosustainableconsumersprefersociallyresponsibleinvestments?astudyamongtheusersofrobo
advisors.J.Bank.Financ.2022,136,106314.
7. Renneboog,L.;TerHorst,J.;Zhang,C.Sociallyresponsibleinvestments:institutionalaspects,performance,andinvestorbe‐
havior.J.Bank.Financ.2008,32,1723–1742.
8. Raghunandan,A.;Rajgopal,S.DoESGfundsmakestakeholder‐friendlyinvestments?Rev.Account.Stud.2022,27,1–42.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142‐022‐09693‐1.
9. Sarangi,G.K.ResurgenceofESGInvestmentsinIndia:TowardaSustainableEconomy;AsianDevelopmentBankInstitute:Tokyo,
Japan,2021.Availableonline:http://hdl.handle.net/11540/14230(accessedon27January,2022)
10. PWCSustainabilityReport.Availableonline:https://www.pwc.com/sg/en/publications/sustainability‐report‐2019.html(ac‐
cessedon31July2022).
11. Intelligence,B.ESGAssetsMayHit$53Trillionby2025,aThirdofGlobalAUM.Availableonline:https://www.bloom‐
berg.com/professional/blog/esg‐assets‐may‐hit‐53‐trillion‐by‐2025‐a‐third‐of‐global‐aum/(accessedon20June2022).
12. Nofsinger,J.;Varma,A.SociallyResponsibleFundsandMarketCrises.J.Bank.Financ.2014,48,180–193.
13. J.P.Morgan.COVID‐19ShowsESGMattersMorethanEver.Availableonline:https://am.jpmorgan.com/sg/en/asset‐manage‐
ment/per/insights/market‐insights/on‐the‐minds‐of‐investors/covid‐19‐esg‐matters/(accessedon30August2022).
Sustainability2022,14,1137715of17
14. Pozzoli,M.;Pagani,A.;Paolone,F.TheImpactofAuditCommitteeCharacteristicsonESGPerformanceintheEuropeanUnion
MemberStates:EmpiricalEvidencebeforeandduringtheCOVID‐19Pandemic.J.Clean.Prod.2022,371,133411.
15. Broadstock,D.C.;Chan,K.;Cheng,L.T.W.;Wang,X.TheRoleofESGPerformanceduringTimesofFinancialCrisis:Evidence
fromCOVID‐19inChina.Financ.Res.Lett.2021,38,101716.
16. MorningstarSustainabilityMATTERS.Availableonline:https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1076648/sustainable‐fund‐
flows‐dip‐for‐the‐quarter‐but‐peak‐for‐the‐year(accessedon24June2022).
17. CNBCSociallyResponsibleFunds:TheRiseandImportanceofESGInvestinginIndia.Availableonline:
https://www.cnbctv18.com/views/socially‐responsible‐funds‐the‐rise‐and‐importance‐of‐esg‐investing‐in‐india‐8317551.htm
(accessedon30June2022).
18. AMFIESGFunds.Availableonline:https://www.amfiindia.com/(accessedon6July2022).
19. Tripathi,V.;Bhandari,V.SociallyResponsibleInvesting‐anEmergingConceptinInvestmentManagement.FIIBBus.Rev.2014,
3,16–30.
20. Ajzen,I.TheTheoryofPlannedBehavior.Organ.Behav.Hum.Decis.Process.1991,50,179–211.
21. Pasewark,W.R.;Riley,M.E.It’saMatterofPrinciple:TheRoleofPersonalValuesinInvestmentDecisions.J.Bus.Ethics2010,
93,237–253.
22. Agyemang,O.S.;Ansong,A.RoleofPersonalValuesinInvestmentDecisions:PerspectivesofIndividualGhanaianSharehold‐
ers.Manag.Res.Rev.2016,39,940–964.
23. Auer,B.R.;Schuhmacher,F.DoSocially(Ir)ResponsibleInvestmentsPay?NewEvidencefromInternationalESGData.Q.Rev.
Econ.Financ.2016,59,51–62.
24. Nair,A.S.;Ladha,R.DeterminantsofNon‐EconomicInvestmentGoalsamongIndianInvestors.Gov.Int.J.Bus.Soc.2014,14,
714–727.
25. Adam,A.A.;Shauki,E.R.SociallyResponsibleInvestmentinMalaysia:BehavioralFrameworkinEvaluatingInvestors’Deci‐
sionMakingProcess.J.Clean.Prod.2014,80,224–240.
26. Thoradeniya,P.;Lee,J.;Tan,R.;Ferreira,A.SustainabilityReportingandtheTheoryofPlannedBehaviour.Account.Audit.
Account.J.2015,28,1099–1137.
27. Benson,K.L.;Brailsford,T.J.;Humphrey,J.E.DoSociallyResponsibleFundManagersReallyInvestDifferently?J.Bus.Ethics
2006,65,337–357.
28. Rubaltelli,E.;Scrimin,S.;Moscardino,U.;Priolo,G.;Buodo,G.MediaExposuretoTerrorismandPeople’sRiskPerception:The
RoleofEnvironmentalSensitivityandPsychophysiologicalResponsetoStress.Br.J.Psychol.2018,109,656–673.
29. Raut,R.K.;Kumar,R.;Das,N.IndividualInvestors’IntentiontowardsSRIinIndia:AnImplementationoftheTheoryofRea‐
sonedAction.Soc.Responsib.J.2020,17,877–896
30. Lai,C.‐P.PersonalityTraitsandStockInvestmentofIndividuals.Sustainability2019,11,5474.
31. Bollen,N.P.B.MutualFundAttributesandInvestorBehavior.J.Financ.Quant.Anal.2007,42,683–708.
32. Revelli,C.;Viviani,J.‐L.TheLinkbetweenSRIandFinancialPerformance:EffectsandModerators.Manag.Int.Manag.Int.2013,
17,105–122.
33. Nga,J.K.H.;Yien,L.K.TheInfluenceofPersonalityTraitandDemographicsonFinancialDecisionMakingamongGeneration
Y.YoungConsum.2013,14,230–243.
34. Armitage,C.J.;Conner,M.EfficacyoftheTheoryofPlannedBehaviour:AMeta‐analyticReview.Br.J.Soc.Psychol.2001,40,
471–499.
35. Ajzen,I.;Fishbein,M.UnderstandingAttitudesandPredictingBehavior;Prentice‐HallInc.:EnglewoodCliffs,NJ,USA,1980.
36. Fishbein,M.;Ajzen,I.Belief,Attitude,Intention,andBehavior:AnIntroductiontoTheoryandResearch;PennStateUniversityPress:
UniversityPark,PN,USA,1975.
37. Williams,G.SomeDeterminantsoftheSociallyResponsibleInvestmentDecision:ACross‐CountryStudy.J.Behav.Financ.2007,
8,43–57.
38. Mehta,P.;Singh,M.;Mittal,M.;Singla,H.IsKnowledgeAloneEnoughforSociallyResponsibleInvesting?AModerationof
ReligiosityandSerialMediationAnalysis.Qual.Res.Financ.Mark.2021,14,413–432.
39. Apostolakis,G.;VanDijk,G.;Blomme,R.J.;Kraanen,F.;Papadopoulos,A.P.PredictingPensionBeneficiaries’BehaviourWhen
OfferedaSociallyResponsibleandImpactInvestmentPortfolio.J.Sustain.Financ.Invest.2018,8,213–241.
40. East,R.InvestmentDecisionsandtheTheoryofPlannedBehaviour.J.Econ.Psychol.1993,14,337–375.
41. Rivis,A.;Sheeran,P.;Armitage,C.J.ExpandingtheAffectiveandNormativeComponentsoftheTheoryofPlannedBehavior:
AMeta‐analysisofAnticipatedAffectandMoralNorms.J.Appl.Soc.Psychol.2009,39,2985–3019.
42. Lukwago,S.N.MeasurementandHealth‐RelatedCorrelatesofCollectivism,Spirituality,RacialPrideandTimeOrientationinUrban
BlackWomen;SaintLouisUniversity:St.Louis,MO,USA,2001;ISBN0493245804.
43. Hofstede,G.CultureandOrganizations.Int.Stud.Manag.Organ.1980,10,15–41.
44. Seo,Y.S.Individualism,Collectivism,ClientExpression,andCounselorEffectivenessamongSouthKoreanInternationalStu‐
dents.Couns.Psychol.2010,38,824–847.
45. Kim,U.E.;Triandis,H.C.;Kâğitçibaşi,Ç.E.;Choi,S.C.E.;Yoon,G.E.IndividualismandCollectivism:Theory,Method,andApplica‐
tions;SagePublications,Inc.:ThousandOaks,CA,USA,1994.
46. Markus,H.R.;Kitayama,S.ACollectiveFearoftheCollective:ImplicationsforSelvesandTheoriesofSelves.Pers.Soc.Psychol.
Bull.1994,20,568–579.
Sustainability2022,14,1137716of17
47. Oyserman,D.;Coon,H.M.;Kemmelmeier,M.RethinkingIndividualismandCollectivism:EvaluationofTheoreticalAssump‐
tionsandMeta‐Analyses.Psychol.Bull.2002,128,3.
48. Oyserman,D.TheLensofPersonhood:ViewingtheSelfandOthersinaMulticulturalSociety.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.1993,65,993.
49. Triandis,H.C.ThePsychologicalMeasurementofCulturalSyndromes.Am.Psychol.1996,51,407.
50. Hofstede,G.Culture’sConsequences:ComparingValues,Behaviors,InstitutionsandOrganizationsacrossNations;SagePublications:
ThousandOaks,CA,USA,2001;ISBN1452207933.
51. Janik,B.;Maruszewska,K.SustainableInvestmentsinWesternEuropeanCountries:AMultidimensionalApproach.Lusophone
ScientificRepository.Availableonline:http://hdl.handle.net/10437/11586.2019.(accessedon22June2022)
52. Singh,M.;Mittal,M.;Mehta,P.;Singla,H.PersonalValuesasDriversofSociallyResponsibleInvestments:AModerationAnal‐
ysis.Rev.Behav.Financ.2020.
53. Carson,R.SilentSpring(1962).GettyPublications,LosAngeles,CA,California..2009.
54. Polonsky,M.J.AStakeholderTheoryApproachtoDesigningEnvironmentalMarketingStrategy.J.Bus.Ind.Mark.1995,10,29–
46.
55. Kashyap,R.K.;Iyer,E.S.;Banerjee,S.B.RelationshipbetweenCorporateandIndividualEnvironmentalResponsibility.Consum.
Behav.2009,1–26.Availableon:http://ezproxy.uws.edu.au/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/sydney/reader.action?do‐
cID=10680963&ppg=1(accessedon8April,2022).
56. Boulatoff,C.;Boyer,C.M.GreenRecovery:HowAreEnvironmentalStocksDoing?J.WealthManag.2009,12,9–20.
57. Vyvyan,V.;Ng,C.;Brimble,M.SociallyResponsibleInvesting:TheGreenAttitudesandGreyChoicesofAustralianInvestors.
Corp.Gov.AnInt.Rev.2007,15,370–381.
58. Sultana,S.;Zulkifli,N.;Zainal,D.Environmental,SocialandGovernance(ESG)andInvestmentDecisioninBangladesh.Sus‐
tainability2018,10,1–19.
59. Iyer,E.S.;Kashyap,R.K.NoneconomicGoalsofInvestors.J.Consum.Behav.AnInt.Res.Rev.2009,8,225–237.
60. Muganyi,T.;Yan,L.;Sun,H.GreenFinance,FintechandEnvironmentalProtection:EvidencefromChina.Environ.Sci.Ecotech‐
nology2021,7,100107.
61. Falcone,P.M.EnvironmentalRegulationandGreenInvestments:TheRoleofGreenFinance.Int.J.GreenEcon.2020,14,159–
173.
62. Rivoli,P.MakingaDifferenceorMakingaStatement?FinanceResearchandSociallyResponsibleInvestment.Bus.EthicsQ.
2003,13,271–187.
63. Lewis,A.;Mackenzie,C.Morals,Money,EthicalInvestingandEconomicPsychology.Hum.Relat.2000,53,179–191.
64. Owen,A.L.;Qian,Y.DeterminantsofSociallyResponsibleInvestmentDecisions.Empir.Econ.Lett.Hamilt.Collleg.2008,1–10.
Availableon:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ann‐Owen/publication/241677762(accessedon:29January,2022).
65. Michelson,G.;Wailes,N.;VanDerLaan,S.;Frost,G.EthicalInvestmentProcessesandOutcomes.J.Bus.Ethics2004,52,1–10.
66. James,H.;Handu,S.;Khaja,K.A.;Otoom,S.;Sequeira,R.EvaluationoftheKnowledge,AttitudeandPracticeofSelf‐Medication
amongFirst‐YearMedicalStudents.Med.Princ.Pract.2006,15,270–275.https://doi.org/10.1159/000092989.
67. Zhu,X.;Xie,X.EffectsofKnowledgeonAttitudeFormationandChangetowardGeneticallyModifiedFoods.RiskAnal.2015,
35,790–810.
68. Mandell,L.FinancialLiteracy:IfIt’ssoImportant,WhyIsn’tItImproving?Netw.Financ.Inst.PolicyBr.2006,7,80–92.
69. Getzner,M.;Grabner‐Kräuter,S.ConsumerPreferencesandMarketingStrategiesfor“GreenShares”:SpecificsoftheAustrian
Market.Int.J.BankMark.2004,22,260–278.
70. Khoiriyah,S.;Toro,M.J.S.TheAntecedentsofAttitudetowardGreenProductandItsEffectonWillingnesstoPayandIntention
toPurchase.InProceedingsoftheASEAN/AsianAcademicSocietyInternationalConferenceProceedingSeries;Permitha:Indonesia
Thailand.2013.
71. Schrader,U.IgnorantAdvice–CustomerAdvisoryServiceforEthicalInvestmentFunds.Bus.Strateg.Environ.2006,15,200–214.
72. Hummels,H.;Timmer,D.InvestorsinNeedofSocial,Ethical,andEnvironmentalInformation.J.Bus.Ethics2004,52,73–84.
73. Paetzold,F.;Busch,T.UnleashingthePowerfulFew:SustainableInvestingBehaviourofWealthyPrivateInvestors.Organ.
Environ.2014,27,347–367.
74. Pavlou,P.A.ConsumerAcceptanceofElectronicCommerce:IntegratingTrustandRiskwiththeTechnologyAcceptanceModel.
Int.J.Electron.Commer.2003,7,101–134.
75. Hemingway,C.A.;Maclagan,P.W.Managers’PersonalValuesasDriversofCorporateSocialResponsibility.J.Bus.Ethics2004,
50,33–44.
76. Glac,K.UnderstandingSociallyResponsibleInvesting:TheEffectofDecisionFramesandTrade‐offOptions.J.Bus.Ethics2009,
87,41–55.
77. KoeHweeNga,J.;Shamuganathan,G.TheInfluenceofPersonalityTraitsandDemographicFactorsonSocialEntrepreneurship
StartupIntentions.J.Bus.Ethics2010,95,259–282.
78. Pascual‐Ezama,D.;Scandroglio,B.;Gil‐GomezdeLiaño,B.CanWePredictIndividualInvestors’BehaviorinStockMarkets?
APsychologicalApproach.Univ.Psychol.2014,13,25–35.
79. Lee,K.GenderDifferencesinHongKongAdolescentConsumers’GreenPurchasingBehavior.J.Consum.Mark.2009,26,87–96
80. Agyapong,D.;Ewusi,M.PerceptionsaboutSocialResponsibleInvestingamongAcademicStaff:EvidencefromtheUniversity
ofCapeCoast,Ghana.Adv.Res.2017,10,1–17.
Sustainability2022,14,1137717of17
81. Lewis,A.;Webley,P.SocialandEthicalInvesting:Beliefs,PreferencesandtheWillingnesstoSacrificeFinancialReturn.In
EthicsandEconomicAffairs;Routledge:Abingdon,UK.2002;pp.194–205.ISBN0203029372.
82. Gamel,J.;Menrad,K.;Decker,T.WhichFactorsInfluenceRetailInvestors’AttitudestowardsInvestmentsinRenewableEner‐
gies?Sustain.Prod.Consum.2017,12,90–103.
83. Phan,C.K.;Zhou,J.VietnameseIndividualInvestors’BehaviorintheStockMarket:AnExploratoryStudy.Res.J.Soc.Sci.Manag.
2014,3,46–54.
84. Gutsche,G.;KöbrichLeón,A.;Ziegler,A.OntheRelevanceofContextualFactorsforSociallyResponsibleInvestments:An
EconometricAnalysis.Oxf.Econ.Pap.2019,71,756–776.
85. Hofmann,E.;Penz,E.;Kirchler,E.The‘Whys’and‘Hows’ofEthicalInvestment:UnderstandinganEarly‐StageMarketthrough
anExplorativeApproach.J.Financ.Serv.Mark.2009,14,102–117.
86. Osman,I.;Maâ,M.;Muda,R.;Husni,N.S.A.;Alwi,S.F.S.;Hassan,F.DeterminantsofBehaviouralIntentionTowardsGreen
Investments:ThePerspectivesofMuslims.Int.J.Islam.Bus.2019,4,16–38.
87. Leedy,P.PracticalResearch:PlanningandDesign;Prenticehall:UpperSaddleRiver,NJ,USA,1993.
88. LeLuong,P.;ThiThuHa,D.BehavioralFactorsInfluencingIndividualInvestors´Decision‐MakingandPerformance.:ASurvey
attheHoChiMinhStockExchange.2011.Availableonline:https://www.diva‐portal.org/smash/get/diva2:423263/fulltext02.pdf
(accessedon:27April2022)
89. Ansu‐Mensah,P.;Marfo,E.O.;Awuah,L.S.;Amoako,K.O.CorporateSocialResponsibilityandStakeholderEngagementin
Ghana’sMiningSector:ACaseStudyofNewmontAhafoMines.Int.J.Corp.Soc.Responsib.2021,6,1–22.
90. Hair,J.F.,Jr.;Hult,G.T.M.;Ringle,C.;Sarstedt,M.APrimeronPartialLeastSquaresStructuralEquationModeling(PLS‐SEM);Sage
publications:ThousandOaks,CA.2016;ISBN1483377431.
91. Le‐Anh,T.;Nguyen‐To,T.ConsumerPurchasingBehaviourofOrganicFoodinanEmergingMarket.Int.J.Consum.Stud.2020,
44,563–573.https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12588.
92. Bagozzi,R.P.;Yi,Y.AdvancedTopicsinStructuralEquationModels.Adv.MethodsMark.Res.1994,151,1‐52.
93. Chin,W.W.HowtoWriteupandReportPLSAnalyses.InHandbookofPartialLeastSquares;Springer:SwitzerlandAG.2010;pp.
655–690.
94. Anderson,J.C.;Gerbing,D.W.StructuralEquationModelinginPractice:AReviewandRecommendedTwo‐StepApproach.
Psychol.Bull.1988,103,411.
95. Hair,J.,Jr.;Hult,G.T.;Ringle,C.;Sarstedt,M.APrimeronPartialLeastSquaresStructuralEquationModeling(PLS‐SEM),2nded.;
SagePublications:LosAngeles,CA,USA,2017;ISBN9781483377445.
96. Podsakoff,P.M.;MacKenzie,S.B.;Lee,J.‐Y.;Podsakoff,N.P.CommonMethodBiasesinBehavioralResearch:ACriticalReview
oftheLiteratureandRecommendedRemedies.J.Appl.Psychol.2003,88,879.
97. MacKenzie,S.B.;Podsakoff,P.M.CommonMethodBiasinMarketing:Causes,Mechanisms,andProceduralRemedies.J.Retail.
2012,88,542–555.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001.
98. Jordan,P.J.;Troth,A.C.CommonMethodBiasinAppliedSettings:TheDilemmaofResearchinginOrganizations.Aust.J.
Manag.2020,45,3–14.
99. Kock,N.CommonMethodBiasinPLS‐SEM:AFullCollinearityAssessmentApproach.Int.J.e‐Collab.2015,11,1–10.
100. Henseler,J.;Ringle,C.M.;Sarstedt,M.ANewCriterionforAssessingDiscriminantValidityinVariance‐BasedStructuralEqua‐
tionModeling.J.Acad.Mark.Sci.2015,43,115–135.
101. Cha,J.PartialLeastSquares.Adv.MethodsMark.Res.1994,407,52–78.
102. Sultan,P.;Tarafder,T.;Pearson,D.;Henryks,J.Intention‐BehaviourGap