Download pdf
A Risk-Return Comparison Study of ESG Portfolios and Traditional Portfolios
- 1 Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University, Toronto, M1W 2H2, Canada
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Through a systematic literature review and empirical analysis, this study explores the differences and linkages between ESG portfolios and traditional portfolios in terms of risk-return dimensions from the perspectives of different market environments, industry characteristics and risk measures. First, the study reviews the Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) and the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and analyzes their limitations in extreme market environments and the neglect of non-financial factors. Second, the study examines the role of ESG factors in corporate value creation and risk management, showing that ESG practices can enhance corporate reputation, reduce financial risk, and increase portfolio stability. In addition, the study compares the construction logic, risk characteristics and financial performance of ESG portfolios with those of traditional portfolios, and finds that ESG investments generally exhibit greater risk resistance during periods of market turbulence, although inconsistencies in ESG rating standards remain a challenge for investors. The findings suggest that ESG investments should focus more on data transparency and standardization, and combine ESG factors with quantitative investment strategies. At the same time, adherence to a long-term investment strategy is critical to realizing the sustainable value of ESG investing.
Keywords
ESG, Efficient Frontier, Capital Asset Pricing Model, Sustainable Investing, Portfolio Diversification
[1]. Beijing Macro & Green Finance Lab. (n.d.). ESG funds’ primary advantage: Investing in high ESG-rated companies to mitigate risks. Retrieved from https://mgflab.nsd.pku.edu.cn/en/InsightsUpdates/MGFInsights/822158f211b34fb09af0e7537858744e.htm
[2]. The Times. (2024). Ethical funds underperform market trackers. Retrieved from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/esg-ethical-funds-underperform-market-trackers-zc7hdtw3p
[3]. Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/2975974
[4]. Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. The Journal of Finance, 19(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.2307/2977928
[5]. Sharpe, W. F. (1966). Mutual fund performance. The Journal of Business, 39(1), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1086/294846
[6]. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross-section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04398.x
[7]. Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable.
[8]. Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
[9]. Giese, G., Lee, L.-E., Melas, D., Nagy, Z., & Nishikawa, L. (2019). Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 45(5), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.2019.45.5.069
[10]. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
[11]. Goss, A., & Roberts, G. S. (2011). The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(7), 1794–1810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.12.002
[12]. Krüger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.09.008
[13]. Nofsinger, J., & Varma, A. (2014). Socially responsible funds and market crises. Journal of Banking & Finance, 48, 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.12.016
[14]. Gompers, P. A., Ishii, J. L., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107–156. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535162
[15]. Bebchuk, L. A., Cohen, A., & Ferrell, A. (2009). What matters in corporate governance? The Review of Financial Studies, 22(2), 783–827. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhn099 15
[16]. Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383
[17]. ]Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
[18]. Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing. (2020). Sustainable investing: Reshaping investment in the COVID-19 era. Morgan Stanley. Retrieved from https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/sustainable-investing-sentiment-covid-19
[19]. Halbritter, G., & Dorfleitner, G. (2015). The wages of social responsibility—Where are they? A critical review of ESG investing. Review of Financial Economics, 26, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2015.03.004
[20]. Riedl, A., & Smeets, P. (2017). Why do investors hold socially responsible mutual funds? The Journal of Finance, 72(6), 2505–2550. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12547
Cite this article
Wang,H. (2025). A Risk-Return Comparison Study of ESG Portfolios and Traditional Portfolios. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences,174,14-19.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Management Research and Economic Development
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).