 “Sustainable” Versus “Traditional” Mutual Funds: Is There Really a Difference? A Comparative Analysis Within the EU SFDR Classification FrameworkAndrea Odille Bosio, Giancarlo Giudici and Jonathan Taglialatela Business Strategy and the Environment, 2026, vol. 35, issue 1, 475-490 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. Date: 2026 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:35:y:2026:i:1:p:475-490 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from Access Statistics for this article Business Strategy and the Environment is currently edited by Richard Welford More articles in Business Strategy and the Environment from Wiley Blackwell |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.