{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030430220356768102, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012067156348373556, 'mean_word_length': 5.151612903225806, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Impact investments, evil investments, and something in between: Comparing social banks' investment criteria and strategies with depositors' investment preferences

Since the global financial crisis in 2007, social banks have been flooded with deposits. Previous studies have indicated that customers hold deposits with social banks due to social banks' special placement of assets. However, to date it has been far from clear how social banks select their investments, and consequently to what extent the placement of assets meets depositors' preferences. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to investigate whether the characteristics of social banks’ placement of assets are relevant to depositors’ choice of social banks. A two- stage study is conducted, using data collected via a document analysis of social banks' investment criteria, a survey of social banks, and an online survey of 609 depositors. The results imply that the characteristics of social banks' placement of assets are indeed relevant to depositors' choice of social banks, but do not explain customer behaviour entirely. Furthermore, the findings indicate that a relevant proportion of customers hold deposits with social banks to avoid “evil” rather than necessarily creating “good.” Based on the findings, a theoretical framework of depositors' choice of social banks is presented that goes far beyond previous explanations by considering various types of social depositors, banks, and borrowers. The entire model shows a moderate goodness of fit, with a Nagelkerke (pseudo- ) R 2 of .547 and a p value of the likelihood ratio test of .000 ( χ 2 = 254.313; df = 18). These results indicate that all characteristics of social banks' placement of assets are relevant to depositors' choice of social banks. However, the proportion of variance explained seems to be too small to explain depositors' choice of social banks entirely.