Academic and practitioner studies find that socially responsible investors pay no performance "penalty".  In fact, over certain periods, SRI portfolios have performed better than the market averages.

     Any differences between SRI and non-SRI performance benchmarks can usually be attributed to standard finance variables, such as growth vs. value, asset allocation, sector allocation, small vs. large capitalization, etc.  In other words, it has been proven that SRI by itself, at the very least, does nothing to hurt a portfolio's investment performance.

     According to the standards of fiduciary duty that obligate trustees and investment managers to act in the best interests of their clients and beneficiaries, investment considerations must be regarded as equal to or higher than ethical considerations.   However, both considerations are also permitted to be evaluated together and, more importantly, to complement one another.  After all, one would question the investment manager who did not evaluate the ethical aspects of their investments — risks that might otherwise be overlooked come into focus if examined from an ethical standpoint.

     Nevertheless, critics dismiss socially responsible investing as too constraining, inhibiting the important role of the marketplace in allocating investment capital efficiently and holding back investment managers from achieving their best performance results.  There is a point to be made here: one of maintaining diversification in a portfolio.  One way to maintain an appropriately wide menu of investment possibilities is to identify certain principles as critical prior to beginning an investment program.