IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v35y2026i1p475-490.html

“Sustainable” Versus “Traditional” Mutual Funds: Is There Really a Difference? A Comparative Analysis Within the EU SFDR Classification Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Odille Bosio
  • Giancarlo Giudici
  • Jonathan Taglialatela

Abstract

This study analyzes the performance and sectoral allocation of “sustainable” versus “traditional” funds. Using a unique panel dataset of 9620 mutual funds distributed in Europe between October 2018 and January 2025, we examine the three types of ESG funds identified by the EU SFDR (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation), namely, Art. 6 (“traditional”) and Art. 8 and 9 (“sustainable”). Our findings show that Art. 9 funds significantly underperformed Art. 6 and Art. 8 funds; Art. 8 portfolios overperformed Art. 6 funds, but the difference becomes insignificant when controlling for size and liquidity. Analysis of a subsample reveals no sectoral allocation differences between Art. 6 and Art. 8 funds, while Art. 9 funds display greater sectoral concentration. This article contributes to the literature on ESG investing with a detailed analysis of the correlation between the SFDR classification, the mutual funds’ performance and the sectoral investment distribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Odille Bosio & Giancarlo Giudici & Jonathan Taglialatela, 2026. "“Sustainable” Versus “Traditional” Mutual Funds: Is There Really a Difference? A Comparative Analysis Within the EU SFDR Classification Framework," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 475-490, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:35:y:2026:i:1:p:475-490
    DOI: 10.1002/bse.70083
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70083
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/bse.70083?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:35:y:2026:i:1:p:475-490. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.