Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incorporating environmental and social considerations into the portfolio optimization process

  • S.I.: CLAIO 2018
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the last years, more and more companies face increased pressure by the public to provide information on how they perform on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. However, so far a very small number of studies have investigated optimal ways to construct socially responsible portfolios, either in the sense of the screening criteria used to narrow the investment universe, or the optimization process employed to determine the asset proportions. This study covers this gap by introducing an algorithm that first performs a screening to eliminate stocks from the investment universe that do not respect the imposed ESG constraint and then on the ESG compliant universe the portfolio optimization is performed. The novelty of the proposed approach lies in the fact that all underlying functionality of the algorithm, including the screening procedure and the imposed constraints, is facilitated seamlessly through a novel solution representation. Three multiobjective evolutionary algorithms have been adapted to work well with the proposed solution representation and the imposed constraints. The study by utilizing data from the FTSE-100 corporate social responsibility index finds that investors that are concerned about the environmental and social impact of their investments that must be ready to sacrifice a part of their welfare by selecting combinations of assets that provide subordinate return and risk combinations, compared to the available investment opportunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarez, S., Larkin, S. L., & Ropicki, A. (2017). Optimizing provision of ecosystem services using modern portfolio theory. Ecosystem Services, 27(Part A), 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulos, K. P., & Mamanis, G. (2011). The mean-variance cardinality constrained portfolio optimization problem: An experimental evaluation of five multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(2011), 14208–14217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriosopoulos, K., Doumpos, M., Papapostolou, N. C., & Pouliasis, P. K. (2013). Portfolio optimization and index tracking for the shipping stock and freight markets using evolutionary algorithms. Transportation Research Part E, 52(Part E), 16–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auer, B. R., & Schuhmacher, F. (2016). Do socially (ir)responsible investments pay? New evidence from international ESG data, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 59(2016), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, Ε., Bravo, Μ., Pérez-Gladish, Β., Arenas-Parra, Μ., & Plà-Santamaria, D. (2012). Socially responsible investment: A multicriteria approach to portfolio selection combining ethical and financial objectives. European Journal of Operational Research, 216(2012), 487–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beasley, J. E., Meade, N., & Chang, T. J. (2003). An evolutionary heuristic for the index tracking problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 148(2003), 621–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becchetti, L., Ciciretti, R., & Dalò, A. (2018). Fishing the Corporate Social Responsibility risk factors. Journal of Financial Stability, 37(2018), 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, P., & Lapointe, V. (2018). Risk-based strategies: the social responsibility of investment universes does matter. Annals of Operations Research, 262, 413–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bienstock, D. (1996). Computational study of a family of mixed-integer quadratic programming problems. Mathematical Programming, 74(1996), 121–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., Cañal-Fernández, V., & Bilbao-Terol, C. (2016). Multi-criteria decision making for choosing socially responsible investment within a behavioral portfolio theory framework: a new way of investing into a crisis environment. Annals of Operations Research, 247, 549–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, R., & Tippett, M. (1986). Naive diversification and portfolio risk–A note. Management Science, 32(2), 244–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35(3), 97–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brands, S., & Gallagher, D. R. (2005). Portfolio selection, diversification and fund-of-funds: A note. Accounting & Finance, 45(2), 185–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branke, J., Scheckenbach, B., Stein, M., Deb, K., & Schmeck, H. (2009). Portfolio optimization with an envelope-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(3), 684–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, R., Cesarone, F., Scozzari, A., & Tardella, F. (2016). Real-world datasets for portfolio selection and solutions of some stochastic dominance portfolio models. Data in Brief, 8, 858–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo, C., Ivorra, C., & Liern, V. (2015). Finding socially responsible portfolios close to conventional ones. International Review of Financial Analysis, 40, 52–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo, C., Ivorra, C., & Liern, V. (2016). Fuzzy portfolio selection with non-financial goals: exploring the efficient frontier. Annals of Operations Research, 245, 31–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cesarone, F., Scozzari, A., & Tardella, F. (2008). Efficient algorithms formean-variance portfolio optimization with hard real-world constraints. In The 18th AFIR colloquium: Financial risk in a changing world, Rome, September 30–October 3, 2008.

  • Charfeddine, L., Najah, A., & Teulon, F. (2016). Socially responsible investing and Islamic funds: New perspectives for portfolio allocation. Research in International Business and Finance, 36(2016), 351–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haan, M., Dam, L., & Scholtens, B. (2012). The drivers of the relationship between corporate environmental performance and stock market returns. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 2(3–4), 338–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Long, J., Bradford, Andrei Shleifer, Summers, Lawrence H., & Waldmann, Robert J. (1990). Noise trader risk in financial markets. Journal of Political Economy, 98(4), 703–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb, K., Pratab, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6, 182–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb, K., & Tiwari, S. (2008). Omni-Optimizer: A Generic Evolutionary Algorithm for Single and Multi-Objective Optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 185, 1062–1087.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, G. F., & Lin, W. T. (2010). Ant colony optimization for markowitz mean-variance portfolio model, swarm, evolutionary, and memetic computing. In First international conference on swarm, evolutionary, and memetic computing, SEMCCO 2010, Chennai, India, December 16–18, 2010, Volume 6466 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 238–245). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Derrac, J., García, S., Molina, D., & Herrera, F. (2011). A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D., Zhen Li, O., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The roles of stakeholder orientation and financial transparency. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 33(2014), 328–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giuli, A., & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(2014), 158–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorfleitner, G., & Utz, S. (2012). Safety first portfolio choice based on financial and sustainability returns. European Journal of Operational Research, 221(2012), 155–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyck, A., Lins, K. V., Roth, L., & Wagner, H. F. (2018) Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence. Journal of Financial Economics (in press), accepted manuscript, Available online 4 September 2018.

  • El Ghoul, S., & Karoui, A. (2017). Does corporate social responsibility affect mutual fund performance and flows? Journal of Banking & Finance, 77(2017), 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrada, J. (2008). Mean-semivariance optimization: A heuristic approach. The Journal of Applied Finance, 18(1), 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. L., & Archer, S. H. (1968). Diversification and the reduction of dispersion: An empirical analysis. The Journal of Finance, 23(5), 761–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielitz, B. D. (1974). Indirect versus direct diversification. Financial Management, 3(4), 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • For additional information, the interested reader is directed at Retrieved August 2, from, 2018. https://www.trucost.com/publication/the-carbon-scorecard/.

  • For additional information, the interested reader is directed. Retrieved August 2, from, 2018. http://www.gtrus.com/doc/public/surveys/2014/gti_ibr2014_9.pdf.

  • For additional information, the interested reader is directed. Retrieved August 2, from, 2018. https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/reports/2014/Nielsen-Global-Corporate-Social-Responsibility-Report-June-2014.pdf

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13, 32–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangi, F., & Varrone, N. (2018). Screening activities by socially responsible funds: A matter of agency? Journal of Cleaner Production, 197(Part 1), 842–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasser, S. M., Rammerstorfer, M., & Weinmayer, K. (2017). Markowitz revisited: Social portfolio engineering. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(3), 1181–1190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallerbach, W., Ning, H., Soppe, A., & Spronk, J. (2004). A framework for managing a portfolio of socially responsible investments. European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2004), 517–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henke, H. M. (2016). The effect of social screening on bond mutual fund performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 67, 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hou, C. E., Lu, W. M., & Hung, S. W. (2019). Does CSR matter? Influence of corporate social responsibility on corporate performance in the creative industry. Annals of Operations Research, 278, 255–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, E. H. (1971). An empirical analysis of some aspects of common stock diversification. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 6(02), 797–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jobst, N. J., Horniman, M. D., Lucas, C. A., & Mitra, G. (2001). Computational aspects of alternative portfolio selection models in the presence of discrete asset choice constraints. Quantitative Finance, 1(2001), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. H., & Shannon, D. S. (1974). A note on diversification and the reduction of dispersion. Journal of Financial Economics, 1(4), 365–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamata, M. T., Liern, V., & Pérez-Gladish, B. (2018). Doing good by doing well: a MCDM framework for evaluating corporate social responsibility attractiveness. Annals of Operations Research, 267, 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapanan, N. (2018). The investment behavior of socially responsible individual investors. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 70(C), 214–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras, K. (2019). A new three-dimensional encoding multiobjective evolutionary algorithm with application to the portfolio optimization problem. Knowledge-Based Systems, 163(2019), 186–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras, K., & Metaxiotis, K. (2014). A new probe guided mutation operator and its application for solving the cardinality constrained portfolio optimization problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(14), 6274–6290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras, K., & Metaxiotis, K. (2015). Efficient portfolio construction with the use of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Best practices and performance metrics. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 14(03), 535–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras, K., & Metaxiotis, K. (2018a). A new efficiently encoded multiobjective algorithm for the solution of the cardinality constrained portfolio optimization problem. Annals of Operations Research, Springer, 267(1–2), 281–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras, K., & Metaxiotis, K. (2018b). Examining the effect of different configuration issues of the multiobjective evolutionary algorithms on the efficient frontier formulation for the constrained portfolio optimization problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 69(3), 416–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras, K., & Metaxiotis, K. (2018c). Handling the complexities of the multi-constrained portfolio optimization problem with the support of a novel MOEA. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 69(10), 1609–1627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras, K., & Metaxiotis, K. (2018d). Multi-period mean–variance fuzzy portfolio optimization model with transaction costs. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 67, 260–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras, K., & Metaxiotis, K. (2019). Improving the performance of evolutionary algorithms: a new approach utilizing information from the evolutionary process and its application to the fuzzy portfolio optimization problem. Annals of Operations Research, 272(1–2), 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, K. C., & Dong, X. (2018). Corporate social responsibility engagement of financially distressed firms and their bankruptcy likelihood. Advances in Accounting, 43(C), 32–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S. K., Panda, G., & Majhi, R. (2014). A comparative performance assessment of a set of multiobjective algorithms for constrained portfolio assets selection. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 16(2014), 38–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaca, S. L., Assereto, M., & Byrne, J. (2018). Clean energy investing in public capital markets: Portfolio benefits of yieldcos. Energy Policy, 121, 383–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nofsinger, J., & Varma, A. (2014). Socially responsible funds and market crises. Journal of Banking & Finance, 48, 180–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oikonomou, I., Platanakis, E., & Sutcliffe, C. (2018). Socially responsible investment portfolios: Does the optimization process matter? The British Accounting Review, 50(4), 379–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortas, E., Moneva, J. M., & Salvador, M. (2014). Do social and environmental screens influence ethical portfolio performance? Evidence from Europe, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 17, 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Odeh, R., Watts, D., & Flores, Y. (2018). Planning in a changing environment: Applications of portfolio optimisation to deal with risk in the electricity sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82(Part 3), 3808–3823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi, Y. (2018). On outperforming social-screening-indexing by multiple-objective portfolio selection. Annals of Operations Research, 267, 493–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2008). Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(2008), 1723–1742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, F., Pellegrini, C., & Battaglia, M. (2018). The structuring of social finance: Emerging approaches for supporting environmentally and socially impactful projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 805–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shawa, D. X., Liub, S., & Kopmanb, L. (2008). Lagrangian relaxation procedure for cardinality-constrained portfolio optimization. Optimization Methods and Software, 23(3), 411–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solnik, B. H. (1974). Why not diversify internationally rather than domestically? Financial Analysts Journal, 30(4), 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, G. Y. (2004). How efficient is naive portfolio diversification? An educational note. Omega, 32(2), 155–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utz, S., Wimmer, M., Hirschberger, M., & Steuer, R. E. (2014). Tri-criterion inverse portfolio optimization with application to socially responsible mutual funds. European Journal of Operational Research, 234(2014), 491–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utz, S., Wimmer, M., & Steuer, R. E. (2015). Tri-criterion modeling for constructing more-sustainable mutual funds. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(2015), 331–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xidonas, P., Doukas, H., Mavrotas, G., & Pechak, O. (2016). Environmental corporate responsibility for investments evaluation: an alternative multi-objective programming model. Annals of Operations Research, 247, 395–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler, E., & Kunzli, S. (2004) Indicator-based selection in mul-tiobjective search. In Parallel problem solving from nature—PPSN VIII, 8th international conference, Birmingham, UK, September 18–22, 2004, proceedings (pp. 832–842).

  • Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., & Thiele, L. (2001). SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm. Zurich: Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), Department of Electrical Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, University of Piraeus, 80, Karaoli & Dimitriou Str., 18534, Piraeus, Greece

    K. Liagkouras, K. Metaxiotis & G. Tsihrintzis

Authors
  1. K. Liagkouras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Metaxiotis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Tsihrintzis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Liagkouras.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liagkouras, K., Metaxiotis, K. & Tsihrintzis, G. Incorporating environmental and social considerations into the portfolio optimization process. Ann Oper Res 316, 1493–1518 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03554-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03554-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation