This paper highlights the importance of non-financial impact (NFI) when assessing socially responsible investment (SRI) and how NFI fits into the European Commission's Action Plan for a Greener and Cleaner Economy. Due to insufficient research on NFIs in theory and practice, the role of SRI funds in sustainability transformation has not been adequately discussed. As a result, a steadily increasing market share held by SRI has not resulted in similar sustainability successes. This is in stark contrast to investor expectations, the sector's self-portrayal and the objectives of the European Commission's action plan. As a solution, the developed ESRI perspective elevates NFI to a second cornerstone for theory and practice. A particular focus is on the role of SRI fund management as a transmission mechanism to steer portfolio companies' business practices towards more sustainable behavior.

This article outlines how the perspective in the socially responsible investment (SRI) industry is changing from a

avoidance has shifted to an impact perspective. It emphasizes the importance of changing the strategies of SRI products as well. This study structures the empirical evidence on various SRI strategies and provides guidance for investors and policy makers. It is shown that there are indeed major differences in the effectiveness of exclusions, positive approaches and shareholder engagement, and that shareholder engagement is preferable.

Our article examines how "investor impact" is taken into account in the ethical investment policies of socially responsible fund providers, thereby expanding knowledge in this area. Based on a typological content analysis, we first develop an impact-oriented category system that is used in a second step to distinguish three types of fund providers: ESG hermits, ESG ambassadors and ESG evangelists. Our results suggest that socially responsible fund providers with a stronger focus on impact, such as ESG evangelists, also employ strategies that are more likely to achieve change in portfolio companies. In contrast, fund providers with a weaker impact orientation, such as ESG hermits, focus more on purity aspects and are therefore more likely to implement strategies that defend the claim of purity, but also show a weaker impact on companies.