Here (in chronological order), are seventeen studies that every practitioner of SRI should know about. Consult the Bibliography for more detailed comments on each study:

• Hamilton,  Jo, and Statman (1993) analyze the risk-adjusted returns of socially screened mutual funds and find that they are statistically indistinguishable from those of unscreened funds.
• Dibartolomeo (1999) analyzes the Domini Index using a multifactor attribution model and and arbitrage pricing theory model.  While agreeing with earlier attribution studies that style effects are generally a wash and that industry effects are important, Dibartolomeo does not agree that there might be an SRI effect at work. His model finds no unexplained performance.  Click here for a copy of the study
• Guerard (1996)* finds that social screens have no detrimental impact on his quantitative active management strategy. Click here for a copy of the study
• Angel and Rivoli (1997) use CAPM-based analysis by Merton to show that the impact of a shareholder boycott on a company's cost of capital is likely to be small.
• Waddock and Graves (1997)* show a strong relationship between corporation reputation (as defined by the Fortune most-admired list) and ratings of corporate social responsibility. Click here for a copy of the study
• McWilliams and Siegel (1999) find that many event studies of socially responsible investing have been marred by statistical errors. Their analysis forced a reassessment of many studies reporting returns to social variables, and put authors of  future event studies on notice that considerable care must be exercised in the use of this methodology.
• Russo and Fouts (1998)* find that, after adjusting for everything imaginable, companies with better environmental records appear to have better-than-average returns on assets. Click here for a copy of the study
• Teoh, Welch, and Wazzan (1999)* find that the South Africa boycott, the largest shareholder boycott to date, had minimal impact on South African securities and securities of  U.S. companies doing business in South Africa. Click here for SSRN abstract
• Repetto  and Austin (2000)* use discounted cash flow models and scenario analysis to show that the financial impact of future environmental regulation may be quite material  (up to 11% of market value) for U.S. pulp and paper companies in coming  years. Click here for Social Investment Forum abstract
• Dowell,  Hart, Yeung (2000)* show that between 1994 and 1997, U.S. multinational corporations with  high global environmental standards tended to have higher price/book ratios than companies adopting local environmental standards, even after adjusting  for factors such as industry membership, R&D intensity, and advertising intensity. Click here for Social Investment Forum abstract
• Gompers, Ishii, and Metrick (2001) demonstrate that firms with corporate governance  practices favoring management tend to have lower price/book ratios, and that firms in the bottom quartile of their corporate governance ratings  had significantly below-average risk-adjusted returns over the 1990-1999  time period.  Click here for a copy of the study
• Stone, Guerard, Gultekin, and Adams (2001) show that the returns of a stock selection model were not harmed by the implementation of social screens for the 1984-1997 time period.  Click here for a copy of the study
• Bauer, Koedijk, and Otten (2002)* measure the risk-adjusted performance  of 103 German, U.S., and U.K. screened mutual funds for the 1990-2001 time period,  and find no significant differences betwen their returns and those of unscreened funds. Click here for SSRN abstract
• Lee and Ng (2002)* find that Transparency International's ratings of national corruption are a powerful explainer of variation in price/book  ratios for the 1995-1998 time period. Click here for Social Investment Forum abstract
• Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes (2003)* perform a meta-analysis of past studies of corporate social performance, and find a statistically significant positive association with corporate financial performance. Click here for a copy of the study
• Guenster, Derwall, Bauer, and Koedijk (2005)* find that Innovest environmental ratings have a significant relationship with both firm valuation and operating results.
• Barber (2006)* finds that CalPERS' corporate governance initiatives created over $3 bn in shareholder wealth from 1992-2004. Click here for SSRN abstract.

     * Denotes Moskowitz  Prize winner.