- Original authors / creators
- Aneesh Raghunandan; Shiva Rajgopal
- Original publication
- Review of Accounting Studies · Springer Science and Business Media LLC · 2022-06-27 · Issue date 2022-09
- License & retained notices
- CC BY 4.0
© The Author(s) 2022.
Article-specific license evidence ↗Exact license notice
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . - Edition changes
- Licensed narrative text edition. Original headings, paragraphs and references are preserved with normalized whitespace and layout. Figures, tables, display equations and separately licensed third-party material are not reproduced; use the linked original full text for those elements and definitive pagination. This is an attributed republication, not newly conducted research.
- Evidence limits
- Observational study of self-labelled US ESG mutual funds investing in US equities in 2010–2018, compared with non-ESG funds from the same asset managers and years. Findings are not causal effects of ESG, current fund recommendations, or claims about all countries, private assets or family offices. Incomplete observed violations, enforcement timing, measurement choices and mandate differences constrain interpretation.
- Retraction / correction check
- Publisher-linked Crossmark reports Document is current; no correction or retraction notice found on the publisher article, and no update-to or updated-by entry in the retrieved Crossref record. Publisher full-text page, publisher-linked Crossmark dialog and Crossref work metadata retrieved on 2026-10-22. This is a bounded status check, not exhaustive independent clearance. Crossref related-version coverage may be incomplete and future notices can change status. Checked 2026-10-22.
- Preserved record
- Rights and full text checked 2026-10-22. Included in this volume on 2026-10-22. Original source dates remain unchanged.
Download the preserved source
SHA-256 (retrieved artifact): 3ad1b55561e2a0fd6cedc5a1a8577ee1757468728699eeb014808782cfe58019
SHA-256 (preserved text edition): 54b0ce9cc5d8e86f802c43dd97f5fb23e312f9f5b0a49dedb74876865a7778df