Corporate GovernanceDeterminants of non-economic investment goals among Indian investorsAbhilash Sreekumar Nair Rani Ladha

Article information:To cite this document:Abhilash Sreekumar Nair Rani Ladha , (2014),"Determinants of non-economic investment goals among Indian investors",Corporate Governance, Vol. 14 Iss 5 pp. 714 - 727Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2014-0102

Downloaded on: 18 December 2014, At: 01:16 (PT)References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 30 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Gilbert Lenssen, André Nijhof, Ludwig Roger, Henk Kievit, Nikolai Mouraviev, Nada Kakabadse, (2014),"Impact ofexternalities on sustainable development: evidence from public-private partnerships in Kazakhstan and Russia",Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 14 Iss 5 pp. 653-669 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2014-0037Gilbert Lenssen, André Nijhof, Ludwig Roger, Henk Kievit, Fabien Martinez, (2014),"Corporate strategy and the environment:towards a four-dimensional compatibility model for fostering green management decisions", Corporate Governance: Theinternational journal of business in society, Vol. 14 Iss 5 pp. 607-636 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-02-2014-0030Gilbert Lenssen, André Nijhof, Ludwig Roger, Henk Kievit, Pinky Dutta, Debabrata Das, (2014),"Indian MFI at crossroads:sustainability perspective", Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 14 Iss 5 pp. 728-748http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2014-0112

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 172635 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Determinants of non-economicinvestment goals among Indian investors

Abhilash Sreekumar Nair and Rani Ladha

Abhilash Sreekumar Nairis an Associate Professorbased at the Departmentof Finance Accounts andControl, Indian Institute ofManagement, Kozhikode,India. Rani Ladha isbased at the Departmentof Finance Accounts andControl, Indian Institute ofManagement Kozhikode,Kozhikode, India.

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify underlying characteristics of Indian investors thatinfluence them to achieve their non-economic investment goals.Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual model posits that investors’ choice ofnon-economic goal (NEG) is determined by their values and beliefs which are measured through surveydata collected from 342 respondents with prior experience of investing in the stock market. A structuralequation model is specified to estimate the measurement model. Further, the study analyses themediating effect of social investment efficacy on the impact of investors’ values and beliefs and theirpursuit of non-economic investment goals.Findings – Religiosity and the belief that one’s actions can bring about a change in the society are thetwo important determinants of Indian investors’ pursuit of non-economic investment goal.Research limitations/implications – The model ignores aspects of an investor’s financial stability thatmay influence the urge to pursue non-economic investment goals.Practical implications – Socially responsible (SR) funds with investment filters designed to propagatereligious values of Indian investors can be designed. As a result, it should be possible to channelize apart of the more than $15 billion available in different religious institutions across the country into thecapital market.Social implications – Availability of SRI funds would provide investors with yet another avenue investin companies that conform to their protected values.Originality/value – This is the first study that attempts to study investor characteristics (values andbeliefs) and its impact on investor’s NEG in the Indian context.

Keywords Behavioral portfolio theory, Non-economic investment goals,Socially responsible investing

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Behavioral Portfolio Theory (BPT) was in existence even before the more famous ModernPortfolio Theory (MPT) was developed (Weisenberger, 1952; Markowitz, 1999; Shefrin andStatman, 2000). According to BPT, investment choices are affected by the investor’scognitive biases and emotions. Unlike MPT, in BPT, investors seek both “utilitarian”(maximizing return and minimizing risk) and “expressive” benefits (investment as a meansof expressing personal values) from their investments. Thus, the investment choiceachieves the goal of accommodating the individual’s financial (utilitarian) and psychic(expressive) benefits. In the period between 1960 and 1980, investors expressed theirpersonal values and catered to their psychic benefits by opting for alternate investments inthe financial markets. It is in this backdrop that Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) fundsemerged as an avenue for investors to integrate personal values and investment decision.

Over the years, with growing ethical consciousness among individuals, there seems to beno one accepted definition of SRI. It encompasses concern for environment, for community,for the under privileged sections of society, etc. (Herringer et al., 2009). Broadly, SRI tries

Received 2 September 2014Revised 2 September 2014Accepted 26 September 2014

PAGE 714 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 14 NO. 5, 2014, pp. 714-727, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701 DOI 10.1108/CG-09-2014-0102

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

to blend Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) dimensions to business with itsinherent profit orientation. Investors in SRI funds, while making their choice of portfolio, usetheir own filters[1] to choose assets based on their performance on ESG dimensions[2].

Presently, there are more than 300 SRI funds, managing assets worth $3.7 trillion, mostly inUSA and Europe (Garmhausen, 2014). However, SRI funds have not been able to make asignificant mark in emerging markets. Some plausible reasons for the lack of growth of SRIfunds in emerging markets are:

� extent to which schemes in emerging markets promote the protected values of investors;

� growth imperatives of emerging markets that are in direct trade-off with social andenvironmental concerns; and

� lack of ESG-related disclosures, as well as a corporate culture that values ESG, plausibly,hamper the growth of SRI funds in emerging markets (EIRIS and EMDP, 2009).

However, with increased globalization, the ESG-related disclosure practices are changing,though slowly, toward internationally accepted standards. Hence, this paper is aimed ataddressing the first two concerns listed above in the context of Indian investors.

In India, till recently, there was only one SRI mutual fund, the ABN Amro SustainableDevelopment Fund, launched in 2007 and even this fund is not doing well (judged by its netasset value [NAV] and liquidity). However, in the past two years, the Indian markets haveseen emergence of two shariah-based ethical investment funds – Tata Ethical Fund andTaurus Ethical fund. These two funds, especially the former, are doing well. During the pastdecade, efforts have been made to develop the regulatory and institutional infrastructure tomandate and reward ethical corporate behavior[3] among corporations. However, toencourage an investor culture that rewards ethical behavior, the mutual funds industrywould have to engineer products that cater to the protected values of Indian investors. Atthis juncture, more than ever before, it is necessary to understand the drivers of SRIbehavior among Indian investors. Most prior studies, analyzing the definition of SRI, thefilters used, type of SRI investors, the motives for SRI etc., are set in context of Western anddeveloped nations (Beal et al., 2005). We have not found similar papers in the Indiancontext[4]. This paper attempts to fill this gap in literature with an objective to understandthe relevance and relative importance of drivers of SRI behavior Indian investors. Theoutcome of the study would support the design of and marketing strategy for SRI fundsaddressing issues specific to Indian investors.

Background to the study

Based on prior research in the USA, five major attributes that define an investor’s pursuit ofnon-economic goals (NEGs) are collectivism, religiosity, materialism, environmentalattitude (EA) and risk tolerance (RT). Among other things, the relevance and significanceof all these attributes, is affected by culture[5], as well as the development imperativesfaced by the society. Findings of previous studies show that culture in the East affects theattitude of individuals toward collectivism (Nisbett, 2003), religiosity (Sasaki and Kim,2011), environmentalism (Yencken, 2000) and risk (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982).Evidence in these studies suggests that the Western culture tends to be individualistic;religiosity in Western culture tends to promote secondary control[6]. Ger and Belk (1996)in a cross-cultural study of materialism found that events like dramatic cultural or socialchange lead to higher levels of materialism. Further, they found that even thoughmaterialism exists across cultures, in developing and developed economies, the extent ofmaterialism was different. Furthermore, attitude to environment, in Western culture, isshaped by developments in science[7] and, finally, Western culture due to its emphasis onindividual freedom promotes risk-taking among individuals[8]. In addition to culture, thedevelopment imperatives[9] of an emerging economy may also influence investors’ attitudetoward environment.

VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 715

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Specifically, in the Indian context, families being large and multigenerational, there isgreater emphasis on collectivist behavior. Further, with more than eight major religions,thousands of castes and sub-castes and 22 official languages, unlike most societies, theIndian society is very heterogeneous. This heterogeneity not only leads to a diverse set ofprotected values but also leads to multiple drivers of collectivist behavior. Further, theextent and form of influence[10] that religiosity would have in shaping the protected valuesof an investor would differ across religions depending on the degree of organized settingsand practices associated with different religions. Further, in India, it is quite common toattempt to reduce the unpredictability of future events. Chhokar et al. (2007) note that evensocial customs and norms for major events in life such as birth, marriage and death arestructured with a list of specific procedures and actions influenced by culture, thus loweringthe degree of randomness in the case of potential occurrences.

To reiterate, the influence of culture and the development priorities on the investors’ pursuitof non-economic investment goals, we believe, would affect the relevance and relativeimportance of the behavioral attributes determining disposition to SRI funds.

This study

The main objective of this paper is to understand the drivers of Indian investors’ in theirinvesting decisions. To this end, we draw on the work of Iyer and Kashyap (2009) who, basedon 15 in-depth interviews, identify six attributes that influence an investor’s pursuit of NEGs:collectivism, religiosity, materialism, EA, RT and social investing efficacy (SIE). As discussed inthe previous section, the relevance and level of influence of these drivers may differ acrosscultures and in context of emerging economies, given their development imperatives.

Further, following Iyer and Kashyap (2009), the paper posits that the effect of investorcharacteristics on the pursuit of individual non-economic investment goals would bemediated by SIE, defined as the investor’s belief that the investment choice would influencethe corporation to adhere to the investors’ protected values.

Determinants of non-economic investment goals

There is generally no disagreement in defining economic goals of investors, however, NEG,as stated above, can be influenced by “culture” and the stage of economic development.This section elaborates key characteristics that drive individual investors’ pursuit of NEGsin the context of Indian investors.

Key investor characteristics

Collectivism

Collectivism is the disposition of an individual toward collective rights and goals. Suchindividuals tend to demonstrate greater interdependence, look for affiliation with largerbody and demonstrate greater tendency to co operate.

Earlier studies viewed Individualism and Collectivism (IC) as a one-dimensional construct.However, later studies demonstrated IC as a multidimensional construct (Triandis, 1995).For example, Hofstede (1980) had classified Indian culture to be collectivistic. However,recent studies (Ramamoorthy et al., 2007) have shown Indian culture to be moreindividualistic on competitiveness dimension but more collectivist on preference for groupwork or supremacy of group goals. This may happen because of the differential importanceof egalitarianism and hierarchy in a culture. Thus, Triandis (1995, 2001) suggested that ICmay be horizontal where equality is emphasized or vertical where hierarchy is emphasized.In the context of this paper, as investments are a zero-sum game and capital markets areknown to suffer from asymmetric information, we infer that participants in the capitalmarkets are far from being equal. Hence, the study posits that the Indian investordemonstrates vertical collectivism. In other words, investors’ value social relation with thosethey perceive to have superior information. Because collectivists emphasize on group

PAGE 716 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

welfare, pro social behavior is accorded high priority in such cultures (Schwartz and Bilsky,1987). They are, thus, not just rational investors, as defined in conventional investmenttheory. Their investment strategies would also aim to attain certain NEGs. Thus, allowingthese investors to “mix money with morality” in their decision-making (Diltz, 1995).

Collectivism in India has been attributed to the Indian culture’s emphasis on family, senseof kinship and community (Kulkarni et al., 2010). Hence, in the present study, collectivismis defined at a community level rather than the society as a whole. We postulate thatcollectivism will influence an investor’s attainment of non-economic investment goals andbe positively correlated to it:

H1. Collectivism will be positively related to investors’ NEG.

Materialism

Materialism reflects the importance attached by an individual to worldly possessions (Belk,1984). An individual’s material possessions positively influence one’s perception ofsubjective well-being (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2000). Possessions are interpreted differentlyby individuals with low and high materialism (Richins and Rudmin, 1994). Those individualswith high materialism tend to value a possession not just for its utilitarian value but for thestatus it grants. They are more influenced by how they appear in the public eye, and whatpeople think of them. They indulge in conspicuous consumption and often conform tosocial expectations (Chatterjee et al., 2000). Individuals with low materialism tend to valuetheir possessions more symbolically, i.e. who gave it, what does it mean to me, etc.(Richins, 1994). They do not own things to impress anyone or to be accepted socially.

Though prior research reveals that pursuit of materialistic lifestyle and happiness in life arenegatively correlated (Belk, 1983; Kasser and Ryan, 1993; Richins and Dawson, 1992), itdoes not exclude such people from possessing spiritual or humanistic ways of looking atlife. The degree of materialism will reveal the relative importance that an individual placeson spiritual or humanistic way of looking at life.

Accordingly, assuming that pursuit of non-economic investment goals would result inredistribution of economic resources, we hypothesize that materialism will be negativelyrelated to an investor’s pursuit of NEGs:

H2. Materialism will be negatively related to investors’ NEG.

Religiosity

Religiosity or religious commitment is “the extent to which an individual is committed to thereligion she professes and its teachings [. . .] ” (Johnson et al., 2001). Religion being highlypersonal in nature has an effect on an individual’s values and attitudes. Hence, thebehavior of an individual in a given circumstance is influenced by level of religiosity and theimportance one places on religion itself. In fact, it is well-established that religiosity affectsthe purchasing behavior of individuals (McDaniel and Burnett, 1990; Sood and Nasu, 1995and Essoo and Dibb, 2004). Earlier, religion and economic decision-making wereconsidered to be mutually exclusive (Zerubavel, 1991), but more recently, the two are seenas influencing each other (Lindsay, 2007). Religion affects the choice of investment byapplying religious tenets to avoid certain types of industries. Emergence of religious mutualfunds have been instrumental in bridging the gap between religion and investment vizsome catholic funds do not invest in companies involved in production of contraceptives,Mennonite funds screen weapon manufacturing companies and Islamic funds screen outcompanies involved in products that deal with pork or alcohol. Accordingly, empiricalresearch notes a strong positive relationship between religiosity and business ethics(Mokhlis, 2006; Vitell et al., 2005). Further, people who practiced their religion also tendedto consider themselves to be more ethical than others (Phau and Kea, 2007).

VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 717

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

The present study posits that religiosity would positively influence a person’s pursuit ofNEGs. Specifically, a highly religious person would not only try to invest in sociallyresponsible (SR) firms but also avoid investing in “sin stocks”:

H3. Religiosity will be positively related to investors’ NEG.

Environmental attitude

“Environmental attitude” is broadly defined as awareness, behavior and actions taken byindividuals that pertain to the environment (Heberlein, 1981). Consumers now increasinglyseek products that are environmentally safe and produced by fair means. This can beachieved through more efforts in “green marketing” (Poloinsky et al., 1995).

Another avenue for individuals to exercise their environmental consciousness is byinvesting in mutual funds that invest in environmentally conscious corporations. This hasled to the growth of several “green funds” in the world, green climate fund, virgin greenfund, green mutual fund, green and ethical funds, etc.

In India, IFCI Venture Capital’s Green India Venture Fund (GIVF) has the objective ofinvesting in companies setting up Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects toeliminate negative ecological impact, enhance responsible use of natural resources,promote development and utilization of sustainable alternate energy sources and ensureoverall environmental balance.

The present study posits that individuals displaying high level of EA are more likely topursue their non-economic investment goals:

H4. EA will be positively related to investors’ NEG.

Risk tolerance

Most individuals undertake investments expecting future rewards. The rewards areuncertain both in terms of the size of the reward and in terms of the variability in the reward.Rational investors would attempt to maximize their investment returns and minimize risk oftheir portfolio. An investor’s tolerance of risk is a function of the way one perceives theuncertainty in a given situation.

Broadly, well-known events are considered less risky; it is when an individual dreadssomething, that the risk seems amplified. This perception of risk is influenced by socialnorms and community culture. In the present study, we measure the impact of individualtraits and environmental conditions in a person’s perception of risk in general and financialrisk in particular. The study measures RT in terms of the individuals’:

� propensity or tendency to take risk; and

� affinity or preference for ambiguous situations.

Prior research shows that Indian investors are less risk-taking as compared to others in theAsia Pacific region (Baxi, 2011).

SRI funds are in a nascent stage in India and, hence, there would be a lot of uncertainty interms of the products not being understood clearly, the information being new with nobenchmark and also ambiguous measurement techniques. As a result, SRI funds may beperceived by investors as more risky. An investor or individual who seeks new experiencesmight be open to investing in such funds and could be said to be more tolerant toward theperceived risk of investing in SRI funds. Thus, measuring the risk attitude of investors couldshed light on the type of funds that might succeed and be acceptable to individuals.

The study hypothesizes that risk propensity and affinity positively related to an investor’stendency to pursue non-economic investment goals:

H5. RT will be positively related to investors’ NEG.

PAGE 718 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Social investing efficacy

SIE is the perception that one’s actions will be able to bring about a much needed societalchange (Iyer and Kashyap, 2009). SIE impels individuals to contribute to a common cause.

The link between SIE and NEGs is based on Rogers’s (1975) Protection Motivation Theory.The theory suggests that efficacy is important in bringing about a change in attitude andbehavior. With a higher perception of efficacy, an individual is more confident that one’sactions will actually do well for the society and thus proceed with that action. In the case ofinvesting, if an individual believes that an investment will do overall good to the society,then they will be motivated to undertake it.

Prior studies have documented the impact of perceived efficacy in health-related matters(Block and Keller, 1995), self- resolutions (Mukhopadhyay and Johar, 2005),environmentally conscious actions (Berger and Corbin, 1992) and charitable giving(Diamond and Iyer, 2007). In most of the studies, efficacy has an influence on the action atleast moderately and rather significantly in the case of charitable giving. This can beconsidered as a form of cognitive reassurance, as posited by Gleicher and Petty (1992).Cognitive reassurance supports the confidence of people in their decisions. As they getassurance that their actions help attain their goal, they are motivated to continue with thataction. They may also influence others with their actions and discussions.

For SRI funds to succeed in India, it is important that investors feel that their actions will helpsustain the values they espouse. Accordingly, we measure SIE based on how strongly aperson feels that one’s investment strategies would be able to influence corporatebehavior.

In other words, though there are characteristics of an investor, which lead to trade-offbetween economic and NEGs, presence of SIE affects the strength of the relation betweeninvestor characteristics and their pursuit of non-economic investment goals. The studyposits that the higher the belief, the more the chance that an investor would pursue NEGs:

H6a. SIE will be positively related to investors’ NEG.

H6b. SIE will mediate the relationship between other investor characteristics and theirNEGs.

Empirical framework and analysis

After selecting the sample, the details of which are provide in the subsequent paragraph,the paper analyzed this data and established the validity and reliability of the proposedmeasures. Thereafter, a structural model, specifying the relationship between individualinvestor characteristics and their pursuit of NEG mediated by SIE, is estimated. For thispurpose, we conducted a hierarchical multiple regression with NEG as the dependentvariable and investor characteristics and SIE as the independent variable, the details areexplained in the later paragraphs.

Sample selection and data collection

The survey instrument was administered to a group of full-time working executives who areparticipants in different executive education programs[11] at our institute. The samplingmethodology adopted was convenience based and all respondents were contactedpersonally. In all, we had 515 respondents, of which only the 342 respondents, who hadprior experience of having invested in either the stock market or in mutual funds, wereconsidered for further analysis.

Most (98.5 per cent) of the participants were between the ages of 26-30 years. Allparticipants earned above $400 per month. While 48 per cent of respondents earnedbetween $400 and $1,550 per month, 51 per cent of the population earned more than100,000. While all the participants were graduates, 32.5 per cent of respondents had apost-graduate degree. The sample mix is more or less consistent with the sample composition

VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 719

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

of the Society for Capital Market Research and Development 2005[12]. We used a 7-pointLikert scale anchored at “Strongly Disagree” and “Strongly Agree” to measure the items ofinterest. The mid-point bias on average for all the questions together was less than 25 per cent.The maximum bias was 41.5 per cent and the minimum was 4.9 per cent.

The measurement model. The specified measurement model was first tested forsatisfactory levels of model fit using some of the key descriptive statistics. The key statisticsthat we considered were, CMIN/df � 1.479, df � 231, root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA) � 0.037, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) � 0.922, adjustedgoodness-of-fit index (AGFI) � 0.899, confirmatory fit index (CFI) � 0.964, Tucker–Lewisindex (TLI) � 0.957 and normed fit index (NFI) � 0.899. Using the thumb rules in practice,all reported measures are above the expected level indicating a good fit.

Tests of the model reliability and validity. As part of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), thestudy first estimated factor loadings for each item. Only items with a factor loading of morethan 0.5 were included in the measurement model (Hulland, 1999). Thereafter, the reliabilityof the constructs was measured through their alpha. The results (Cronbach’s alpha)reported in Table I, indicate that, except for collectivism, the Cronbach’s alpha is above 0.7for all other constructs, indicating satisfactory levels of internal consistency (Nunnally andBernstein, 1994; Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Even in the case of collectivism, theCronbach’s alpha is only marginally lower at, 0.689.

Convergent validity of the scales was established by measuring their internal CompositeReliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). While CR tests whether the itemsconsistently measure the latent construct, AVE estimates the average amount of variationin an observed variable (item) which is being explained by the latent construct to which itis theoretically related. It can be seen from Table II that in all the cases except one(collectivism) the internal CR coefficient is greater than 0.7. Even for collectivism, the CR is0.692. This indicates that the items/observed variable explain a high proportion of thevariation in the latent construct. Further, it can be seen that except for collectivism, in caseof all other constructs, the AVE is above 0.5, thus indicating a good convergent validity(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

To establish discriminant validity, we tested whether the AVE was greater than Average SharedVariance (ASV) and Maximum Shared Variance (MSV). We compared the shared variancebetween each pair of constructs against the minimum of the AVEs of the two constructs. It canbe seen from Table II that in case of all the constructs, the minimum AVE is greater than the ASVand the MSV, thus indicating that a given latent construct is able to account for more variancein the observed variables associated with it as compared to other constructs in themeasurement model. In other words, the constructs are distinct from each other.

Finally, we tested for Common Method Bias (CMB) following Podsakoff and Organ (1986).CMB is first tested by loading all the observed items on to a single factor. This factoraccounted for only 23 per cent of the total variance, thus indicating that there are otherimportant factors that explain the variation in items. Further, we conduct the common latentfactor method to see if there is a common latent factor that explains the common variancein all the observed items in the model. The variation so explained was very close to zero.Thus, there was no evidence to support the existence of common methods bias in the data.

The structural model. Having found the measurement model to be robust, we specified thestructural model to:

� analyze the hypotheses listed in the previous section; and

� determine if SIE mediates the relation between individual investor behavior and thenon-economic investment goals.

This helps to derive the relative importance of each investor characteristic in the presenceof SIE as the mediator

PAGE 720 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Table I Measurement model statistics

Scale itemsCFA loadings/coefficient �

Collectivism 0.6891 I shall sacrifice self interest for the benefit of my

community0.591

2 I try to adjust to other people’s feeling when weare communicating

0.510

3 I help my community members even if it isinconvenient to me

0.648

4 I will stick with my community even duringdifficult times

0.647

Materialism 0.8285 I measure my achievements through my

material possessions0.789

6 My professions speak a lot about my status 0.8467 I like to impress people with my material

possessions0.723

Religiosity 0.8438 Spiritual values guide me in making important

decisions0.697

9 If more individuals depend on religion, theywould make better investment decisions

0.750

10 My religious beliefs help me take the welfare ofthe people into consideration in my investmentdecision

0.850

11 I would describe myself as religious 0.723

Environment attitude 0.76312 I fell a moral obligation to help protect the

environment in whatever way I can0.638

13 I believe harm to our environment is a seriousproblem

0.627

14 I take responsibility to protect the environmentaround me

0.899

Risk Tolerance 0.75415 I find investing in risky funds to be thrilling 0.77716 I prefer to invest in risky individual stocks over

mutual funds or managed funds0.588

17 I believe in taking a lot of risk 0.772

Social investing efficiency 0.89218 I believe that my investments have a positive

impact on the environment0.758

19 I think that my investment will make managersmore responsive to social and community needs

0.812

20 I think my investments will improve the conditionof the ecosystem

0.867

21 I believe that my investments have a positivebearing on corporate governance

0.843

Non - economic goals 0.81122 The main goal of my investment strategy is

advancing social agenda0.748

23 I aim to promote environmental causes throughmy investment decisions

0.906

Notes: CMIN/df � 1.479; df � 231; RMSEA � 0.037; GFI � 0.922; AGFI � 0.899; CFI � 0.964;TLI � 0.957; NFI � 0.899

VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 721

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

To test for this mediation effect, we follow the four-step hierarchical multiple regressionprocedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). Accordingly, we first regressnon-economic investment goal on investor characteristics (Panel 1 Table III). Next, weregress the mediator (SIE) on the individual investor characteristics (Panel 2, Table III).Thereafter, we regress non-economic investment goal on the mediating variable, SIE(Panel 3, Table III). These three regressions establish the systematic relationship betweenthe various variables. To establish the existence of the mediating relationship and toanalyze the extent of mediation, we regress non-economic investment goals on the investorcharacteristic and SIE (Panel 4, Table III). As explained by Judd (1981), if a mediatingrelationship exists, the coefficients of the independent variable will either be partially orcompletely assuaged in the presence of SIE, the mediating variable.

Discussion on the results of the structural model. As stated earlier, the study posits that SIEmediates the relation between individual investor behavior and the non-economicinvestment goals.

From Panel 1 Table III, it can be seen that except materialism, all other investorcharacteristics (collectivism, religiosity, environment attitude and RT) significantly explainan investor’s pursuit of non-economic investment goals. The relationship between NEG andindividual characteristics, which were found statistically significant, is as hypothesized inH1–H5. A similar study in USA (Iyer and Kashyap, 2009) found collectivism, and RT did notinfluence the American investor’s pursuit of NEGs. In comparison, collectivism and RTsignificantly determined the Indian investors’ pursuit of NEGs. However, materialism did nothave any influence on the same. This result conforms to prior findings reported in across-cultural study of materialism which found that Indians were less materialistic ascompared to Americans (Ger and Belk, 1996). Resultantly, the hypothesized negativerelation between materialism and pursuit of NEG is not found to be statistically significant.As in IK, this paper finds too, EA and religiosity as attributes that significantly and positivelydetermine investor’s pursuit of NEG. Further, Panel 2 Table III, shows that all investor

Table II Reliability and validity statistics

Investor characteristics CR AVE MSV ASV

SIE 0.892 0.674 0.417 0.160Collectivism 0.692 0.362 0.159 0.090Materialism 0.830 0.620 0.011 0.004Risk tolerance 0.842 0.573 0.244 0.099Environmental attitude 0.771 0.537 0.156 0.065Religiosity 0.758 0.515 0.088 0.030NEG 0.818 0.694 0.417 0.154

Table III Hierarchical regression (test of mediation)

Investor characteristicsPanel 1–dependent

variable: NEGPanel 2–dependent

variable: (SIE)Panel 3–dependent

variable: NEG

Panel 4–dependentvariable: NEG(including SIE)

Investor characteristicsCollectivism 0.095* 0.151*** 0.029Materialism �0.024 0.019 �0.033Religiosity 0.352*** 0.217*** 0.256***Environmental attitude 0.136*** 0.243*** 0.029Risk tolerance 0.125*** 0.204*** 0.035Mediating variable socialinvestment efficacy 0.546*** 0.442***R2 0.215 0.240 0.298 0.363Adjusted R2 0.203 0.229 0.296 0.352

Notes: *,; **and; ***indicate statistical significance at 10, 5 and 1 per cent levels

PAGE 722 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

characteristics except materialism significantly influence SIE. In comparison, IK found hadfound that only collectivism and RT had a statistically significant influence on SIE. As in IK,Panel 3 Table III indicates that an investor’s SIE significantly determines one’s pursuit ofnon-economic investment goals and thus confirms H6a.

In Panel 4 of Table III, the results of the regression of NEG on the individual constructs andSIE is reported. Comparing the results of Panels 1 and 4 in the above table, the followingobservations can be made:

� when SIE is included in the regression, the adjusted R2, i.e. explanatory power of themodel, is up substantially from 20.3 to 35.2 per cent;

� SIE completely mediates the relation between NEG and collectivism, environmentattitude and RT; and

� SIE partially mediates the relation between religiosity and NEG; as a result, theregression coefficient gets attenuated from 0.352 to 0.256.

These results substantiate H6b. These results are also consistent with the findings of Iyerand Kashyap (2009), except that in their study, SIE, in addition to religiosity, partiallymediated EA.

Conclusion

Despite more than a decade of successful SRI movement in different parts of the world,India with a reasonably developed capital market and a culture of investments had justthree SR funds. This led us to the question: are Indian investors so rational that they pursueonly economic investment goals or is it that the investor did not find alternative investmentavenues to pursue their non-economic investment goals? There are a lot of papers thatstudy the “rational” investment behavior of Indian investors. The present paper analyses theexistence and the impact of select characteristics that lead Indian investors to pursuenon-economic investment goals. The paper tests the influence of characteristic such ascollectivism, religiosity, materialism, EA and RT on the Indian investors’ pursuit of NEGs.Further, it tests the mediating role played by SIE.

It is seen that collectivism, religiosity, RT and environment attitude are the attributes ofIndian investors that influence their pursuit of non-economic investment goals. Further, it isseen that SIE completely mediates the relationship between collectivistic, risk-tolerant andenvironment-friendly investor behavior in the pursuit of non-economic investment goals.Further, it is seen that the impact of religiosity gets attenuated in the presence of SIE. Inother words, in the presence of a strong belief that their actions could help corporationsespouse their protected values, only religiosity drives the Indian investor’s pursuit of NEG.This result is vindicated by the good performance of two new shariah funds in Indianmarkets. However, more funds targeting protected values of different religions, ifdeveloped, shall give more avenues to Indian investors to pursue NEG.

Recently, Reliance Industries Limited (a large Indian conglomerate) from its profitablenon-vegetarian food business is in deference to the wishes of a large section of consumers,shareholders and investors who felt that it hurt their religious sentiments (Pandey, 2013).Thus, slowly and steadily, non-economic investment goals are also determining corporateinvestment behavior in India. In light of this changing environment, the results of this studyhave tremendous implications for fund houses attempting to start SRI Funds in India. Theyneed to understand the protect values that would drive the Indian investor to pursue NEGby investing in SRI funds. Funds targeting community values such as those that applynegative filters on companies that produce alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, meatproducts, protecting animals and nature would give investors an avenue to pursue theirnon-economic investment goal. Further, a very important finding of this paper is the impactof religiosity on SRI behavior. This finding should go a long way, not only in helping designand market SRI funds upholding religious values (Faith Consistent Investment Schemes –

VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 723

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

FCIS) in India but also to design products that would appeal to religious organizations[13](Louche et al., 2012). With more than $15 billion available in different temples in modernIndia, a fund house could develop an FCIS and tap into this market. The Indian lotterymarket has already started catering to the Indian investor’s need for using investment as ameans to forward their protected values by coming out with lottery tickets that promote asocial cause. It is time for the Indian mutual fund industry to offer the Indian investora means to propagate protected values.

This study is, of course, not devoid of limitations. The cross-sectional nature of data and thelimitations of the convenience sampling process affect the generalizability of results. Also,the model ignores aspects of an investor’s financial stability that may influence the urge topursue non-economic investment goals. Future studies could overcome these by adoptinga more rigorous sampling process and incorporate the effect that financial stability has onthe choice of SRI funds. Despite these limitations, the study offers a first overview of thedrivers of Indian investors’ toward SRI funds. The findings have immense implications formutual funds and other financial service providers to design, develop and market productswhich support and fulfill the protected value of Indian investors.

Notes

1. Positive filter: investing in corporations with good ESG practices; Negative filter: avoid investing incompanies with poor ESG practices; and Integration: explicit inclusion of ESG risk into traditionalportfolio selection criteria.

2. Most funds employ some variant of a negative filter in their investment choice.

3. Since 2007, there is an ESG index which ranks corporation. The Companies Act, 1956 wasamended in 2013 in which companies with net worth of more than $77 million and/or turnovergreater than $144 million and/or net profit more than $0.77 million are mandated to spend twopercent of their three-year average net profits on CSR activities.

4. Given India’s development needs and the cultural dimension to shaping investors’ protectedvalues, it may not be appropriate to assume that the relevance and relative importance of factorsdetermining SRI behavior would be the same as demonstrated by investors in US.

5. Culture is commonly defined as the set of values and beliefs people have about the world and thenorms of behavior derived from that set of values.

6. Eastern religions tend to promote social affiliation.

7. In Eastern cultures, attitude to religion is based on traditional values.

8. Eastern culture with its emphasis on social connectedness and interdependence promotecautiousness.

9. In a recent study in South Africa, it was found that about 80 percent of SRI assets focused on socialdevelopment agenda; environmental issues were lesser of a concern (Giamporcaro and Pretorius,2012).

10. While most Hindus do not eat beef or items containing beef, followers of Islam and Judaism maynot eat pork or any meat which is not processed according to their religious beliefs.

11. a degree program and a shorter-duration certificate program in finance and strategy.

Figure 1 Relationship between investor characteristics, SIE and NEGs

Investor Characteris�cs

Social Inves�ng Efficacy

Non Economic Goals

PAGE 724 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

12. Society for Capital Market Research and Development (2005) was conducted on a samplewherein about 70% of the population was in the 26-50-years age bracket and had inflationadjusted income of more than $400 per month. About 89% of the respondents had a graduatedegree.

13. In a recent study by Louche et al. (2012), it was seen that religious organizations also look forwardto influencing companies’ behavior through their investment decisions.

References

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations,” Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.

Baxi, P.V. (2011), “Cross cultural differences in financial risk-taking: India and the United States,”available at: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/85313/pvbaxi.pdf;jsessionid�D65A0E48511122D7A91DB097F5E18865?sequence�1 (accessed 28 December 2012).

Beal, D.J., Goyen, M., and Phillips, P. (2005), “Why do we invest ethically?,” Journal of Investing,Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 66-77.

Belk, R.W. (1983), “Worldly possessions: issues and criticisms,” in Bagozzi, R.P. and Tybout, A.M.(Ed), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, MI, pp. 514-519.

Belk, R.W. (1984), “Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: reliability, validity, andrelationships to measures of happiness,” in Kinnear, T. (Ed), Advances in Consumer Research,Association for Consumer Research, UT, pp. 291-297.

Berger, I. and Corbin, R.M. (1992), “Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others asmoderators of environmentally responsible behavior,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 11No. 2, pp. 79-89.

Block, L.G. and Keller, P.A. (1995), “When to accentuate the negative: the effects of perceived efficacyand message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior,” Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 192-203.

Chatterjee, A., Hunt, J.M. and Kernan, J.B. (2000), “Social character of materialism,” PsychologicalReports, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 1147-1148.

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C. and House, R.J. (2007), Culture and Leadership Across the World: TheGLOBE Book of in-depth Studies of 25 Societies, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY.

Diamond, W.D. and Iyer, E.S. (2007), “Creating effective direct mail charitable solicitations: the effectsof enclosures and different appeals,” Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1,pp. 81-100.

Diltz, J.D. (1995), “Does social screening affect portfolio performance?,” Journal of Investing, Vol. 4No. 1, pp. 64-69.

Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982), Risk and Culture, University of California Press, Berkeley.

EIRIS and EMDP (2009), “Emerging market investor survey report: an analysis of responsibleinvestment in emerging markets,” available at: www.eiris.org/files/research%20publications/emdpinvestorsurveyjune09.pdf (accessed 30 January 2012).

Essoo, N. and Dibb, S. (2004), “Religious influences on shopping behavior: an exploratory study,”Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20 Nos 7/8, pp. 683-712.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.G. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement errors,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Garmhausen, S. (2014), “5 socially responsible funds: a look at five top-performing funds in thecategory,” available at https://www.fidelity.com/insights/investing-ideas/5-socially-responsible-funds(accessed 28 July 2014).

Ger, G. and Belk, R.W. (1996), “Cross-cultural differences in materialism,” Journal of EconomicPsychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 555-577.

Giamporcaro, S. and Pretorius, L. (2012), “Sustainable and Responsible Investment (SRI) in SouthAfrica: a limited adoption of environmental criteria,” Investment Analysts Journal, Vol. 75 No. 1,pp. 1-19.

VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 725

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Gleicher, F. and Petty, R.E. (1992), “Expectations of reassurance influence the nature of fear-simulatedattitude change,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 86-100.

Heberlein, T. (1981), “Environmental Attitudes,”, Journal of Environmental Policy, Vol. 2, pp. 241-270.

Herringer, A., Firer, C. and Viviers, S. (2009), “Key challenges facing the socially responsibleinvestment (SRI) sector in South Africa,” Investment Analysts Journal, Vol. 70 No. 69, pp. 11-26.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences In Work-related Values, Sage,Beverly Hills, CA.

Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review offour recent studies,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204.

Iyer, E.S. and Kashyap, R. (2009), “Non economic goals of investors,” Journal of Consumer Behavior,Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 225-237.

Johnson, B.R., Jang, S.J., Larson, D.B. and Li, S.D. (2001), “Does adolescent religious commitmentmatter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency,” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 22-43.

Judd, C.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1981), “Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations,”Evaluation Review, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 602-619.

Kasser, T. and Ryan, R.M., (1993), “A dark side of the American dream: correlates of financialsuccess as a central life aspiration,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2,pp. 410-422.

Kulkarni, S.P., Hudson, T., Ramamoorthy, N., Marchev, A., Kondakova, P.G. and Gorskov, V. (2010),“Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: a comparative study of five cultures,” Current Issues ofBusiness and Law, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 93-109.

Lindsay, D.M. (2007), Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, OxfordUniversity Press, New York, NY.

Louche, C., Arenas, D. and Van Cranenburght, K.C. (2012), “From preaching to investing: attitudes ofreligious organisations towards responsible investment,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 110 No. 3,pp. 301-320.

McDaniel, S.W. and Burnett, J.J. (1990), “Consumer religiosity and retail store evaluative criteria,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 101-112.

Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D.F. (2007), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, Prentice Hall,Harlow.

Markowitz, H. (1999), “The early history of portfolio theory: 1600-1960,” Financial Analysist Journal,Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 5-15.

Mokhlis, S. (2006), “The effect of religiosity on shopping orientation: an exploratory study in Malaysia,”Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 67-74.

Mukhopadhyay, A. and Johar, G.V. (2005), “Where there is a will, is there a Way? Effects of lay theoriesof self control on setting and keeping resolutions,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 4,pp. 779-786.

Nisbett, R.E. (2003), The Geography of Thought, Free Press, New York, NY.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Pandey, P. (2013), “No delight for RIL’s non-veg buyers,” The Times of India, available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/No-delight-for-RILs-non-veg-buyers/articleshow/27443212.cms (accessed 30 January 2014).

Phau, I. and Kea, G. (2007), “Attitudes on university students toward business ethics: a cross-nationalinvestigation of Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 72 No. 1,pp. 61-75.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems andprospects,” Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.

Poloinsky, M.J. and Mintu-Wimsatt, A.T. (1995), Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory,and Research, Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY.

PAGE 726 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Ramamoorthy, N., Kulkarni, S., Gupta, A. and Flood, P. (2007), “Individualism-collectivism orientationand employee attitudes: a comparison of employees from the high-technology sector in India andIreland,” Journal of International Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 187-203.

Richins, M.L. (1994), “Special possessions and expression of material value,” The Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 522-533.

Richins, M.L. and Dawson, S. (1992), “A consumer values orientation for materialism and itsmeasurement: scale development and validation,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 3,pp. 303-316.

Richins, M.L. and Rudmin, F.W. (1994), “Materialism and economic psychology,” Journal of EconomicPsychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 217-231.

Rogers, R.W. (1975), “A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change,” The Journalof Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 93-114.

Sagiv, L. and Schwartz, S.H. (2000), “Value priorities and subjective well-being: direct relations andcongruity effects,” European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 177-198.

Sasaki, J.Y. and Kim, H.S. (2011), “At the intersection of culture and religion: a cultural analysis ofreligion’s implication for secondary control and social affiliation,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 401-414.

Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1987), “Toward a psychological structure of human values,” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 550-562.

Shefrin, H. and Statman, M. (2000), “Behavioural portfolio theory,” Journal of Financial and QuantitativeAnalysis, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 127-151.

Society for Capital Market Research and Development (2005), “Indian household investorssurvey-2004?,” available at: www.scmrd.org/DCA%20SURVEY%20REPORT.pdf (accessed 20January 2014).

Sood, J. and Nasu, Y. (1995), “Religiosity and nationality: an exploratory study of their effect onconsumer behaviour in Japan and the United States,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 34 No. 1,pp. 1-9.

Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview, Boulder, CO.

Triandis, H.C. (2001), “Individualism and collectivism,” in Matsumoto, D. (Ed), Handbook of CrossCultural Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 35-50.

Vitell, S.J., Paolillo, J.G.P. and Singh, J. (2005), “Religiosity and consumer ethics,” Journal of BusinessEthics, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 175-181.

Wiesenberger, A. (1952), Investment Companies, Arthur Wiesenberger and Company, New York, NY.

Yencken, D. (2000), “Attitudes to nature in the east and west,” in Yencken, D, John, F and Helen, S(Eds), Environment, Education and Society in the Asia-Pacific: Local Traditions and Global Discourses,Routledge, London.

Zerubavel, E. (1991), The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life, The Free Press, NewYork, NY.

Corresponding author

Abhilash Sreekumar Nair can be contacted at: abhilash@iimk.ac.in

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

VOL. 14 NO. 5 2014 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 727

Dow

nloa

ded

by G

eorg

e M

ason

Uni

vers

ity A

t 01:

16 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)