Menu Expand
  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung
  4. Vol. 90, Issue 4
  5. pp. 43–69

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Varmaz, A., Riebe, K., Hegner, S. Sustainable Financial Literacy and Preferences for Sustainable Investments among Young Adults. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 90(4), 43-69. https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.90.4.43
Varmaz, Armin; Riebe, Katharina and Hegner, Sabrina "Sustainable Financial Literacy and Preferences for Sustainable Investments among Young Adults" Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 90.4, 2021, 43-69. https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.90.4.43
Varmaz, Armin/Riebe, Katharina/Hegner, Sabrina (2021): Sustainable Financial Literacy and Preferences for Sustainable Investments among Young Adults, in: Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, vol. 90, iss. 4, 43-69, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.90.4.43
Format
Download

Sustainable Financial Literacy and Preferences for Sustainable Investments among Young Adults

Varmaz, Armin | Riebe, Katharina | Hegner, Sabrina

Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. 90 (2021), Iss. 4 : pp. 43–69

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.90.4.43
Language
English
Pages
27
Keywords

Author Details

Armin Varmaz, School of International Business Bremen

  • Armin Varmaz is Professor for International Finance at the School of International Business Bremen. Previously, he was a Research Assistant at the University of Bremen, a Visiting Researcher at Brown University, NKU, Harvard University and a Professor of Finance at the University of Freiburg. He earned the doctorate (2006) and habilitation (2017) at the University of Bremen. His research and work interests include asset pricing, sustainable finance, portfolio management and asset allocation, empirical capital market research and computational finance. He is author of numerous articles in well-recognized international journals and of the books “Equity Valuation: Models from Leading Investment Banks”, “Computational Finance” and “Matlab for students and professionals”.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

Katharina Riebe, City University of Applied Sciences Bremen

  • Katharina Riebe graduated in Economics at the University of Bremen. She is a Research Associate at the Media Competence Center (MMCC) of the City University of Applied Sciences Bremen. She is responsible for digitization in the teaching-learning context and electronic assessments. Her research focuses on determinants of learning success, literacy, economics of education and gender-specific aspects.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

Sabrina Hegner, School of International Business Bremen

  • Sabrina Hegner is Professor for International Management at the School of International Business of the Hochschule Bremen. She holds a Master degree in Psychology from the University of Mannheim (Germany) as well as a Master degree in Business from the University of Western Sydney (Australia) and a Ph.D. in Brand Management from the University of Bremen. Her major research interest is in consumer psychology and cross-cultural research.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (2011): The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995, 26(9), 1113 – 1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995.  Google Scholar
  2. Amel-Zadeh, A. and G. Serafeim (2017): Why and How Investors Use ESG Information: Evidence from a Global Survey. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2925310.  Google Scholar
  3. Apostolakis, G., F. Kraanen, and G. van Dijk (2016): 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, 11, 27 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBEF.2016.06.001.  Google Scholar
  4. Apostolakis, G., G. van Dijk, F. Kraanen, and R. J. Blomme (2018): Examining socially responsible investment preferences: A discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 83 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBEF.2018.01.001.  Google Scholar
  5. Auer, B. R. and F. Schuhmacher (2016): Do socially (ir)responsible investments pay? New evidence from international ESG data. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 59, 51 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.QREF.2015.07.002.  Google Scholar
  6. Benabou, R. and J. Tirole (2010): Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-0335.2009.00843.X.  Google Scholar
  7. Bollen, N. P. B. (2007): Mutual Fund Attributes and Investor Behavior. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42(3), 683 – 708. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109000004142.  Google Scholar
  8. Borgers, A., J. Derwall, K. Koedijk, and J. ter Horst (2013): Stakeholder relations and stock returns: On errors in investors’ expectations and learning. Journal of Empirical Finance, 22, 159 – 175. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEMPFIN.2013.04.003.  Google Scholar
  9. Brimble, M., V. Vyvyan, and C. Ng (2013): Belief and Investing: Preferences and Attitudes of the Faithful. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 7(1), 23 – 41. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v7i1.3.  Google Scholar
  10. Bucher-Koenen, T., A. Lusardi, R. Alessie, and M. van Rooij (2017): How Financially Literate Are Women? An Overview and New Insights. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 51(2), 255 – 283. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12121.  Google Scholar
  11. Budovska, V., A. Torres Delgado, and T. Øgaard (2019): Pro-environmental behaviour of hotel guests: Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and social norms to towel reuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358419831431, 20(1), 105 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358419831431.  Google Scholar
  12. Busch, T., R. Bauer, and M. Orlitzky (2015): Sustainable Development and Financial Markets: Old Paths and New Avenues. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650315570701, 55(3), 303 – 329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315570701.  Google Scholar
  13. CFA Institute (2015): Environmental, Social, and Governance Issues in Investing: A Guide for Investment Professionals. https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/article/position-paper/esg-issues-in-investing-a-guide-for-investment-professionals.ashx.  Google Scholar
  14. Chao, Y. L. (2012): Predicting people’s environmental behaviour: theory of planned behaviour and model of responsible environmental behaviour. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.634970, 18(4), 437 – 461. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.634970.  Google Scholar
  15. Chen, H. and R. P. Volpe (1998): An analysis of personal financial literacy among college students. Financial Services Review, 7(2), 107 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-0810(99)80006-7.  Google Scholar
  16. Coval, J. D. and T. J. Moskowitz (1999): Home Bias at Home: Local Equity Preference in Domestic Portfolios. The Journal of Finance, 54(6), 2045 – 2073. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00181.  Google Scholar
  17. DeShazo, J. R. and G. Fermo (2002). Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(1), 123 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1006/JEEM.2001.1199.  Google Scholar
  18. Durand, R., R. Newby, K. Tant, and S. Trepongkaruna (2013): Overconfidence, overreaction and personality. Review of Behavioral Finance, 5(2), 104 – 133. https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-07-2012-0011/FULL/PDF.  Google Scholar
  19. Edmans, A. (2011): Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and equity prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(3), 621 – 640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.03.021.  Google Scholar
  20. Epstein, S. (1996): Individual Differences in Intuitive-Experiential and Analytical-Rational Thinking Styles. Article in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390.  Google Scholar
  21. Eurosif and K. Sakuma-Keck (2021): Fostering Investor Impact Placing it at the heart of sustainable finance. https://www.eurosif.org/news/eurosif-report-2021/.  Google Scholar
  22. Eysenck, H. J. (n.d.): Crime and personality. 225. https://books.google.com/books/about/Crime_and_Personality.html?id=dihzoAEACAAJ.  Google Scholar
  23. Feist, G. J. (2012): Predicting interest in and attitudes toward science from personality and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(7), 771 – 775. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2012.01.005.  Google Scholar
  24. Fifer, S., J. Rose, and S. Greaves (2014): Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 61, 164 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2013.12.010.  Google Scholar
  25. Fishbein, M. (2008): A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Medical Decision Making, 28(6), 834 – 844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08326092.  Google Scholar
  26. Folqué, M., E. Escrig-Olmedo, and T. Corzo Santamaría (2021): Sustainable development and financial system: Integrating ESG risks through sustainable investment strategies in a climate change context. Sustainable Development, 2021, 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2181.  Google Scholar
  27. Friede, G., T. Busch, and A. Bassen (2015): ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 5(4), 210 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917.  Google Scholar
  28. Gasser, S. M., M. Rammerstorfer, and K. Weinmayer (2017): Markowitz revisited: Social portfolio engineering. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(3), 1181 – 1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.10.043.  Google Scholar
  29. GIIN (2019): Core characteristics of impact investing. Global Impact Investing Network. https://thegiin.org/assets/Core%20Characteristics_webfile.pdf.  Google Scholar
  30. Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA) (2021): Global Sustainable Investment Review 2020. http://www.gsi-alliance.org/trends-report-2020/.  Google Scholar
  31. Gopinath, D. A. (1995): Modeling heterogeneity in discrete choice processes : application to travel demand.  Google Scholar
  32. Greaves, M., L. D. Zibarras, and C. Stride (2013): Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 109 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2013.02.003.  Google Scholar
  33. Hill, R. C., W. E. Griffiths, and G. C. Lim (2018): Principles of econometrics (5th ed.). Wiley. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Principles+of+Econometrics%2C+5th+Edition-p-9781119320944.  Google Scholar
  34. Hoepner, A. G. F. and D. G. McMillan (2009): Research on “Responsible Investment”: An Influential Literature Analysis Comprising a Rating, Characterisation, Categorisation and Investigation. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1454793.  Google Scholar
  35. Hoepner, A. G. F., I. Oikonomou, Z. Sautner, L. T. Starks, and X. Zhou (2020): ESG Shareholder Engagement and Downside Risk. In SSRN Electronic Journal. European Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Working Paper No. 671/2020. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2874252.  Google Scholar
  36. Hübel, B. and H. Scholz (2020): Integrating sustainability risks in asset management: the role of ESG exposures and ESG ratings. Journal of Asset Management, 21(1), 52 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-019-00139-z.  Google Scholar
  37. Hung, A., A. M. Parker, and J. Yoong (2009): Defining and Measuring Financial Literacy. SSRN Electronic Journal, 708, 28 pp. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1498674.  Google Scholar
  38. Hurst, M., H. Dittmar, R. Bond, and T. Kasser (2013): The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 257 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2013.09.003.  Google Scholar
  39. Husnain, B., S. Zulfiqar, A. Shah, and T. Fatima (2019): Effect of Neuroticism, Conscientiousness on Investment Decisions. Mediation Analysis of Financial Self-Efficacy 1 2 3. CURJ, 09, 15 – 26.  Google Scholar
  40. Jansson, M. and A. Biel (2011): Motives to engage in sustainable investment: a comparison between institutional and private investors. Sustainable Development, 19(2), 135 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1002/SD.512.  Google Scholar
  41. Joliet, R. and Y. Titova (2018): Equity SRI funds vacillate between ethics and money: An analysis of the funds’ stock holding decisions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 97, 70 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBANKFIN.2018.09.011.  Google Scholar
  42. Kapteyn, A. and F. Teppa (2011): Subjective measures of risk aversion, fixed costs, and portfolio choice. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(4), 564 – 580. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOEP.2011.04.002.  Google Scholar
  43. Keller, J., G. Bohner, and H. P. Erb (2000): Intuitive and Heuristic Judgment – Different Processes? Presentation of a German Version of the Rational-Experiential Inventory and of New Self-Report Scales of Heuristic Use. Zeitschrift Fur Sozialpsychologie, 31(2), 87 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1024//0044-3514.31.2.87.  Google Scholar
  44. Körner, A., M. Geyer, M. Roth, M. Drapeau, G. Schmutzer, C. Albani, S. Schumann, and E. Brähler (2008): Personality assessment with the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory: The 30-item-short-version (NEO-FFI-30). PPmP Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie, 58(6), 238 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-2007-986199/ID/22.  Google Scholar
  45. Kovaleva, A., C. Beierlein, C. J. Kemper, and B. Rammstedt (2012): Eine Kurzskala zur Messung von Impulsivität nach dem UPPS-Ansatz : Die Skala Impulsives-Verhalten-8 (I-8) (No. 20). GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. https://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/forschung/publikationen/gesis_reihen/gesis_arbeitsberichte/WorkingPapers_2012-20.pdf.  Google Scholar
  46. Kumar, A., C. Smith, L. Badis, N. Wang, P. Ambrosy, and R. Tavares (2016): ESG factors and risk-adjusted performance: a new quantitative model. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 6(4), 292 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2016.1234909.  Google Scholar
  47. Lagerkvist, C. J., A. K. Edenbrandt, I. Tibbelin, and Y. Wahlstedt (2020): Preferences for sustainable and responsible equity funds – A choice experiment with Swedish private investors. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 28, 100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBEF.2020.100406.  Google Scholar
  48. Letkiewicz, J. C. and J. J. Fox (2014): Conscientiousness, Financial Literacy, and Asset Accumulation of Young Adults. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 48(2), 274 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOCA.12040.  Google Scholar
  49. Lewis, K. K. (1999): Trying to Explain Home Bias in Equities and Consumption. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(2), 571 – 608. https://doi.org/10.1257/JEL.37.2.571.  Google Scholar
  50. Liobikiene, G. and R. Juknys (2016): The role of values, environmental risk perception, awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for environmentally-friendly behaviour: the Lithuanian case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 3413 – 3422. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.10.049.  Google Scholar
  51. Louche, C., T. Busch, P. Crifo, and A. Marcus (2019): Financial Markets and the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy: Challenging the Dominant Logics. Organization and Environment, 32(1), 3 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619831516.  Google Scholar
  52. Louviere, J. J. and T. Islam (2008): A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 903 – 911. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2006.11.010.  Google Scholar
  53. Lusardi, A. and O. S. Mitchell (2007): Financial Literacy and Retirement Planning: New Evidence from the Rand American Life Panel. SSRN Electronic Journal, 23(4), 234 – 262. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1095869.  Google Scholar
  54. Lusardi, A. and O. S. Mitchell (2008): Planning and financial literacy: How do women fare? American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.2.413.  Google Scholar
  55. Lusardi, A. and O. S. Mitchell (2014): The Economic Importance of Financial Literacy: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(1), 5 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1257/JEL.52.1.5.  Google Scholar
  56. Mancha, R. M. and C. Y. Yoder (2015): Cultural antecedents of green behavioral intent: An environmental theory of planned behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 145 – 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2015.06.005.  Google Scholar
  57. Matos, P. (2020): ESG and Responsible Institutional Investing Around the World: A Critical Review. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3668998.  Google Scholar
  58. Mayfield, C., G. Perdue, and K. Wooten (2008): Investment management and personality type.  Google Scholar
  59. McFadden, D. (1974): The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 3(4), 303 – 328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(74)90003-6.  Google Scholar
  60. Michelson, G., N. Wailes, S. van der Laan, and G. Frost (2004): Ethical Investment Processes and Outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics 2004 52:1, 52(1), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000033103.12560.BE.  Google Scholar
  61. Milfont, T. L. and C. G. Sibley (2012): The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2), 187 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2011.12.006.  Google Scholar
  62. Morgenstern, K. (2020): Wie halten es die Anleger mit der Nachhaltigkeit? Deutsches Institut Für Altersvorsorge, o. V., 1 – 72. https://www.dia-vorsorge.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/DIA-Studie_Wie_halten_es_die_Anleger_mit_der_Nachhaltigkeit.pdf.  Google Scholar
  63. Nigbur, D., E. Lyons, and D. Uzzell (2010): Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental behaviour: Using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict participation in a kerbside recycling programme. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 259 – 284. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X449395.  Google Scholar
  64. Nilsson, J. (2007): Investment with a Conscience: Examining the Impact of Pro-Social Attitudes and Perceived Financial Performance on Socially Responsible Investment Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 307 – 325. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-007-9621-Z.  Google Scholar
  65. OECD (2017a): PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving. Pisa 2015. https://doi.org/10.1596/28293.  Google Scholar
  66. OECD (2017b): PISA 2015 Results (Volume IV). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270282-en.  Google Scholar
  67. Orlitzky, M. (2011): Institutional Logics in the Study of Organizations: The Social Construction of the Relationship between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(3), 409 – 444. https://doi.org/10.5840/BEQ201121325.  Google Scholar
  68. Orlitzky, M. (2013): Corporate Social Responsibility, Noise, and Stock Market Volatility. https://doi.org/10.5465/Amp.2012.0097, 27(3), 238 – 254. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2012.0097.  Google Scholar
  69. Penn, J. and W. Hu (2019): Cheap talk efficacy under potential and actual Hypothetical Bias: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 96, 22 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEEM.2019.02.005.  Google Scholar
  70. Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, A. J. Strathman, and J. R. Priester (2005): To Think or Not to Think: Exploring Two Routes to Persuasion. In Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives, 2nd ed. (pp. 81 – 116). Sage Publications, Inc.  Google Scholar
  71. Renneboog, L., J. ter Horst, and C. Zhang (2008): The price of ethics and stakeholder governance: The performance of socially responsible mutual funds. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3), 302 – 322. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCORPFIN.2008.03.009.  Google Scholar
  72. Revelli, C. and J. L. Viviani (2015): Financial performance of socially responsible investing (SRI): what have we learned? A meta-analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), 158 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1111/BEER.12076.  Google Scholar
  73. Riebe, K. (2021): Determinants of Financial Literacy Among German Students – An Empirical Analysis. Vierteljahrshefte Zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 89(4), 39 – 54. https://doi.org/10.3790/VJH.89.4.39.  Google Scholar
  74. Roberts, B. W., C. Lejuez, R. F. Krueger, J. M. Richards, and P. L. Hill (2014): What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1315 – 1330. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0031109.  Google Scholar
  75. Röstel, D. (2019): Wie sicher ist nachhaltig? BaFin Journal, Juni, 25 – 30. https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Fachartikel/2019/fa_bj_1906_nachhaltige_Geldanlage.html.  Google Scholar
  76. Simmons, D. and R. Widmar (2010): Motivations and Barriers to Recycling: Toward a Strategy for Public Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.9943041, 22(1), 13 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.9943041.  Google Scholar
  77. Steg, L., J. W. Bolderdijk, K. Keizer, and G. Perlaviciute (2014): An Integrated Framework for Encouraging Pro-environmental Behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104 – 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2014.01.002.  Google Scholar
  78. Tauni, M. Z., H. X. Fang, and A. Iqbal (2017): The role of financial advice and word-of-mouth communication on the association between investor personality and stock trading behavior: Evidence from Chinese stock market. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 55 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2016.11.048.  Google Scholar
  79. Tesar, L. L. and I. M. Werner (1995): Home bias and high turnover. Journal of International Money and Finance, 14(4), 467 – 492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5606(95)00023-8.  Google Scholar
  80. Tsfati, Y. and J. N. Cappella (2010): Why Do People Watch News They Do Not Trust? The Need for Cognition as a Moderator in the Association Between News Media Skepticism and Exposure. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_2, 7(3), 251 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_2.  Google Scholar
  81. UNPRI (2021): What are the Principles for Responsible Investment? | PRI Web Page | PRI. https://www.unpri.org/pri/what-are-the-principles-for-responsible-investment.  Google Scholar
  82. Vainio, A. (2019): How consumers of meat-based and plant-based diets attend to scientific and commercial information sources: Eating motives, the need for cognition and ability to evaluate information. Appetite, 138, 72 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPET.2019.03.017.  Google Scholar
  83. van Beurden, P. and T. Gössling (2008): The Worth of Values – A Literature Review on the Relation Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 407 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-008-9894-X.  Google Scholar
  84. Varmaz, A., C. Fieberg, and T. Poddig (2021): Portfolio optimization for sustainable investments. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3859616.  Google Scholar
  85. Vyvyan, V., C. Ng, and M. Brimble (2007): Socially Responsible Investing: the green attitudes and grey choices of Australian investors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2), 370 – 381. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8683.2007.00567.X.  Google Scholar
  86. Wachholz, S., N. Artz, and D. Chene (2014): Warming to the idea: University students’ knowledge and attitudes about climate change. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(2), 128 – 141. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2012-0025/FULL/PDF.  Google Scholar
  87. Wechsler, D. (1958): The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence. In The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence (4th ed.). Williams & Wilkins Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/11167-000.  Google Scholar
  88. Wilkens, M. and C. Klein (2021): Welche transformativen Wirkungen können nachhaltige Geldanlagen durch Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher haben? (Gutachten für den Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände).  Google Scholar
  89. Winter, S. and N. C. Krämer (2012): Selecting Science Information in Web 2.0: How Source Cues, Message Sidedness, and Need for Cognition Influence Users’ Exposure to Blog Posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 80 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1083-6101.2012.01596.X.  Google Scholar
  90. Wood, D. J. (2010): Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-2370.2009.00274.X.  Google Scholar
  91. Yu, T. Y. and T. K. Yu, (2017): The Moderating Effects of Students’ Personality Traits on Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions in Response to Climate Change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1472. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH14121472.  Google Scholar
  92. Zafar, A. U., J. Shen, M. Shahzad, and T. Islam (2021): Relation of impulsive urges and sustainable purchase decisions in the personalized environment of social media. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 25, 591 – 603. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPC.2020.11.020.  Google Scholar
  93. Zaleskiewicz, T. (2001): Beyond risk seeking and risk aversion: personality and the dual nature of economic risk taking. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1), S105–S122. https://doi.org/10.1002/PER.426.  Google Scholar
  94. Apostolakis, G., F. Kraanen, and G. van Dijk (2016): 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, 11, 27 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBEF.2016.06.001.  Google Scholar
  95. Brunen, A. C. and O. Laubach (2021): Do sustainable consumers prefer socially responsible investments? A study among the users of robo advisors. Journal of Banking & Finance, 106314. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBANKFIN.2021.106314.  Google Scholar
  96. Keller, J., G. Bohner, and H. P. Erb (2000): Intuitive and Heuristic Judgment – Different Processes? Presentation of a German Version of the Rational-Experiential Inventory and of New Self-Report Scales of Heuristic Use. Zeitschrift Fur Sozialpsychologie, 31(2), 87 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1024//0044-3514.31.2.87.  Google Scholar
  97. Körner, A., M. Geyer, M. Roth, M. Drapeau, G. Schmutzer, C. Albani, S. Schumann, and E. Brähler (2008): Personality assessment with the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory: The 30-item-short-version (NEO-FFI-30). PPmP Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie, 58(6), 238 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-2007-986199/ID/22.  Google Scholar
  98. Kovaleva, A., C. Beierlein, C. J. Kemper, and B. Rammstedt (2012): Eine Kurzskala zur Messung von Impulsivität nach dem UPPS-Ansatz : Die Skala Impulsives-Verhalten-8 (I-8) (No. 20). GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. https://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/forschung/publikationen/gesis_reihen/gesis_arbeitsberichte/WorkingPapers_2012-20.pdf.  Google Scholar
  99. Lagerkvist, C. J., A. K. Edenbrandt, I. Tibbelin, and Y. Wahlstedt (2020): Preferences for sustainable and responsible equity funds – A choice experiment with Swedish private investors. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 28, 100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBEF.2020.100406.  Google Scholar
  100. Lusardi, A. and O. S. Mitchell (2014): The Economic Importance of Financial Literacy: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(1), 5 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1257/JEL.52.1.5.  Google Scholar
  101. Riebe, K. (2021): Determinants of Financial Literacy Among German Students – An Empirical Analysis. Vierteljahrshefte Zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 89(4), 39 – 54. https://doi.org/10.3790/VJH.89.4.39.  Google Scholar
  102. Siemroth, C. and L. Hornuf (2021): Do Retail Investors Value Environmental Impact? A Lab-in-the-Field Experiment with Crowdfunders. www.RePEc.org.  Google Scholar
  103. Wechsler, D. (1958). The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence. In The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence (4th ed.). Williams & Wilkins Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/11167-000.  Google Scholar

Abstract

We use a choice experiment on equity fund investments to estimate the preferences of young adults for sustainable investments relative to conventional investment funds. Our results suggest that the traditional trade-off between investment fund risk and return is still valid in the selection of sustainable investment funds. The environment focus is more important for the choice of sustainable investment then social or governance aspects. Latent behavioural characteristics (conscientiousness, importance of the impact of direct investments on sustainability, risk aversion, financial literacy) are also important to explain the choice for sustainable funds.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Armin Varmaz / Katharina Riebe / Sabrina Hegner: Sustainable Financial Literacy and Preferences for Sustainable Investments among Young Adults 1
Introduction 2
Literature Review 4
The Concept of Sustainable Financial Literacy 4
Sustainable Investment Strategies 5
Personal Traits 6
Conscientiousness 6
Impulsivity: Urgency & Intention 6
Faith in Intuition & Need for Cognition 7
Attitude and ESG Beliefs 7
Data and Estimation Method 7
Data and Descriptive Statistics 7
Choice Experiment 9
Measures of Heterogeneity in Choice Tasks 1
Estimation Method 1
Results and Discussion 1
Summary 1
References 1
Appendix 2
Translation of the German Questionnaire 2

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.