Throwing a Curve at Socially Responsible Investing Research

e agree with Entine’s (2003 this issue) assertion that the personalhistories of the investigators matter to academic research in general,and especially to social science. Our backgrounds influence the type of researchthat attracts our time and attention, affect the theories we draw on and the data weuse, and although we less like to admit this, inevitably shade our interpretations ofthe results. But we disagree with Entine’s assertion that this renders research oncorporate social responsibility (CSP) and its relation to financial performance, orwhat is often referred to as socially responsible investing (SRI), a worthless andeven harmful academic exercise.OfcourseSRIresearchisimperfect.Aswithallsocialscienceresearch,thesim-plifications necessary in conducting SRI research make its mapping to a complexrealityimperfect.Aswithallfinancialprojections,thepastisnotaperfectindicatorof future performance. As with all accounts of a firm’s past activities and itsintended future activities, public data may not accurately reflect reality, be it theresult of fraud or error. As with the real world in general, self-interest exists, and itinevitably if not intentionally shades our interpretations of subjective data. How -ever,theseimperfectionsdonotrenderSRIresearchuseless.Eventhoughthefind -ings of SRI research have been mixed, often incomparable, and as a result, notentirely compelling, such studies have put firms and investors in a better positionthan they would be if there were no SRI research. More important, the state of the“art” is advancing.Inthisarticle,weprimarilyfocusonEntine’s(2003)assertionthatSRIresearchis “hopelessly flawed” (p. 352).We argue that although SRI researchers have pri -marily chosen to pluck the low-hanging fruit in this line of inquiry, it is possible toobtain unbiased higher level insight. In the following, we offer what we believe tobeanagnosticapproachtoassessingSRIresearch.Wehaveobserved,throughmin -imally biased academic eyes,