The United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) is the largest global environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiative in the asset-management industry to date. We analyze what happens after active U.S. mutual funds sign the PRI to assess whether they exhibit ESG implementation. We find that PRI signatories attract a large fund inflow, but we do not observe improvements in fund-level ESG scores or fund returns. We consider a battery of ways to proxy for funds’ ESG incorporation (e.g., entry/exit, screening, engagement, voting for pro-ESG proposals), but fail to observe evidence of meaningful on average follow-through. Next, we explore cross-sectional fund characteristics and find that only quant funds exhibit small improvements in ESG performance versus other funds, mainly through buying high-ESG-performing stocks. Furthermore, we note that signatories are not superior performers in ESG issues prior to joining the PRI relative to non-PRI funds, but PRI affiliation tends to be widely advertised on company websites, marketing materials, and fund documents. Overall, a reasonable reader may perceive our findings as consistent with PRI funds’ greenwashing. We note, however, that what we uncover is based only on outcome-based measures and may miss some actual efforts of signatories. This paper was accepted by Brian Bushee, accounting. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4394 .

Abstract Using proprietary data from a major fund data provider, we analyze the screening activity of investment consultants (ICs). We find that ICs frequently shortlist funds using threshold screens clustered at $500MMforAUM,0$500MM AUM threshold get 14%–18% more page views and 5–9 pp greater flows over the next year compared to similar funds just below the threshold. Our results are consistent with ICs using a two-stage consider-then-choose decision-making process and cognitive reference numbers in selecting screening thresholds. (JEL G41, G11, G14, G29) Received January 8, 2021; editorial decision September 3, 2021. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.