Investors are increasingly weighing up the cost of investing in companies with adverse impacts on society and the natural environment.
In light of the shift to responsible investing, this study compared the risk-adjusted performance of a portfolio of morally questionable shares listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) to a portfolio consisting of morally acceptable (responsible) ones.
Although previous research suggests that investors can perform well by investing in morally questionable shares (such as alcohol and tobacco), sentiment is rapidly moving towards a more responsible approach to selecting shares.
The historic returns of equity portfolios were evaluated over the period July 2004 to April 2019. Two equally weighted portfolios were constructed: one for morally questionable shares and the other for morally acceptable shares. These portfolios’ risk-adjusted returns were compared to the JSE Responsible Investment Composite Index, the Financial Times Stock Exchange/JSE Shareholder Weighted Index and an equally weighted benchmark. In addition, the analysis was divided into two distinct sub-periods, covering the financial crisis and the subsequent recovery period. Morally questionable companies included those with exposure to alcohol, tobacco, gambling, oil, gas and coal.
Morally questionable investing in South Africa does not produce risk-adjusted outperformance. No evidence was found to support the theories predicting the outperformance of morally questionable shares on the JSE.
Socially and environmentally conscious investors can achieve risk-adjusted returns comparable to those of investors who opt to invest in morally questionable shares and conventional benchmarks.
The study provides insights for investors who are concerned about the opportunity costs of adopting a responsible investment approach.
Is it beneficial for an investor, from a risk-adjusted point of view, to invest in morally questionable companies? This question is important given the growing emphasis on investing in a responsible manner (Riedl & Smeets
The addictive nature of the so-called vice products and services enables companies to maintain consistently high financial returns, even during economic downswings (Jo et al.
The risk-adjusted performance of a portfolio of morally questionable shares listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) was compared to a portfolio consisting of morally acceptable shares. The analysis covered the period July 2004 to April 2019. The risk-adjusted returns of the two equally weighted portfolios were compared to the JSE Responsible Investment (RI) Composite Index, the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE)/JSE Shareholder Weighted Index (SWIX) and an equally weighted benchmark (EQBM). The study contributes to the limited body of knowledge on morally questionable investing, particularly in the South African context. Insights gleaned will also clarify questions that investors might have regarding the opportunity costs associated with avoiding morally questionable shares.
Arguments in favour of morally questionable investing are presented next, followed by empirical evidence in this regard. The definition of, and rationale for, morally acceptable investing is then described along with pertinent empirical findings. Attention is also given to morally acceptable (responsible) investing in South Africa.
There are a number of reasons why a morally questionable investment strategy should outperform a conventional investment strategy. One popular theory, related to the notion of neglected stocks proposed by Merton (
Hong and Kacperczyk (
Other explanations for the possible outperformance of morally questionable companies are based on economic and psychological reasons. There are often high barriers to entry in ‘sin’ industries, which result in monopoly type protection of incumbents (Blitz & Fabozzi
Numerous international studies have been conducted on morally questionable investing, particularly vice investing. In the United States (US), Derwall, Koedijk and Ter Horst (
There appears to be some inconsistency in the literature between the performance of vice-type funds and individual sin shares. Studies investigating the performance of vice-type funds, such as the VICEX Fund, found no evidence of outperformance (Chang & Krueger
The implication of the evidence presented is that the observed outperformance of vice shares can be explained by the two new quality factors. Vice-type shares tend to have high exposure to both factors. Tobacco companies, for instance, typically have higher margins because of their price inelasticity. Additionally, vice companies are restricted in the way they can expand their asset base (Blitz & Fabozzi
The concept of ethical or virtue investing emerged in the 18th century and it describes investments based on moral or religious convictions (Sparkes
The launch of the United Nations-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) in 2005 provided much-needed clarity for practitioners and scholars. The PRI emphasises the important role that ESG factors could play in determining investment risk and returns (PRI
The rationale for adopting an RI strategy is grounded in stakeholder theory, where firms that are involved in positive business activities are said to have a competitive advantage over those that are not (see, e.g. Bénabou & Tirole
The information generated by the screening process could be a source of potential outperformance of RI strategies and funds (Renneboog, Ter Horst & Zhang
The errors-in-expectations hypothesis, suggested by Derwall et al. (
Fu and Shan (
The potential underperformance of RI funds could be owing to the willingness of socially and environmentally conscious investors to accept lower returns. Fu and Shan (
Internationally, numerous studies investigated the performance of RI strategies (see, e.g. Bauer et al.
Investigating the relative performance of RI strategies on a fund and index level has been an increasingly popular topic amongst international researchers. This trend is possibly because of an increased awareness of sustainability issues amongst investors (Renneboog et al.
Evidence that RI underperformed conventional funds was provided by Frost et al. (
Relatively few studies have supported RI strategy outperformance. On an index level, Knoepfel (
Very few RI studies have been conducted in South Africa. One reason could be the small RI investment universe. A brief overview of the local RI market is presented next along with the findings of three empirical studies.
Local trade unions became the first responsible investors in the country when they refused to invest their members’ funds in companies that were supportive of the apartheid government (Herringer, Firer & Viviers
Although the new scoring mechanism is more comprehensive, the three essential ESG pillars’ criteria were maintained. Companies that generate high scores are typically those that demonstrate that they have policies and practices in place to measure and monitor ESG risk exposures. A mining company can thus be included if there is a clear policy in place to address environmental issues. Although important, the actual environmental impact of a company’s activities plays a less prominent role.
On a fund level, Viviers and Firer (
Chawana (
To address the gap in the literature, the primary objective of this study centred on the risk-adjusted performance of a portfolio of morally questionable JSE-listed shares relative to a portfolio consisting of morally acceptable (responsible) shares. Three secondary objectives were formulated. The first objective was to determine whether morally questionable shares outperformed morally acceptable shares after accounting for risk. The second objective was to establish whether either morally questionable or morally acceptable shares outperformed a composite RI Index. The third objective was to compare the risk-adjusted performance of morally acceptable and morally questionable portfolios to a broad market index (SWIX) and an EQBM. In this study, a ‘morally acceptable’ company was regarded as one that scored high on ESG considerations, but excluded all morally questionable and mining shares.
Seven null hypotheses were developed to address the research objectives, namely:
The data collection and the sample description, the portfolio construction process and data analysis are explained.
This study compared the performance of morally questionable and morally acceptable shares to each other, and to a number of benchmarks from July 2004 to April 2019. The research period started in 2004 as both the JSE RI Index and the SWIX were launched during that year. Price data were collected from the Bloomberg database.
Monthly total returns were calculated using adjusted prices. The collected price data were adjusted to reflect the impact of dividends, share splits and share buybacks on share returns. The sample frame for this study was the SWIX Index constituents. The SWIX Index is a popular, broad equity market index where the market capitalisation weights are adjusted to reflect the available free float (JSE
Companies in sectors such as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, military, nuclear power and adult entertainment were considered vice stocks in previous research conducted on vice investing (Fabozzi et al.
In addition, during the chemical process that enables coal to produce energy, a number of pollutants harmful to the environment, as well as public health, are produced (World Health Organisation
At the start of each month, all shares that met the morally questionable criteria were included in the morally questionable portfolio for that month. Thereafter, the equally weighted total return was calculated and recorded for the particular month. The process was repeated for the entire sample period, which avoided any potential look-ahead or survivorship bias. Qualifying shares listed during a specific month were included in the following month at the closing share price on the last trading day of the month. Shares that were delisted or suspended during the sample period were removed from the portfolio at the closing price on the day of the delisting or suspension.
The morally acceptable portfolio was compiled by using the constituents of the SRI Index (up to October 2015) and the RI Index (from November 2015 to April 2019) as the sampling frame. In doing so, the selection criteria of these indices were indirectly applied. This meant that the reduced sampling frame only contained shares with high ESG scores. Derwall et al. (
In addition, all mining shares were removed from the portfolio. This was performed to exclude any firms that met the RI selection criteria, but could potentially contribute to environmental degradation because of their business activities. Giamporcaro and Pretorius (
For the morally acceptable portfolio to be a comparable portfolio to the morally questionable portfolio, a matched-sample procedure was utilised. This was performed to avoid any potential return differences because of inconsistencies in portfolio concentration and diversification. For any given month, the same number of shares as in the morally questionable portfolio was included in the morally acceptable portfolio. If the morally questionable portfolio included only 18 shares for a given month after applying the screening criteria for selection, then only the largest 18 shares in the morally acceptable sample were included in the morally acceptable portfolio. This process was used to provide a more comparable portfolio to address the intended research objective.
Data were also collected on a number of benchmarks. As indicated earlier, the JSE introduced its SRI Index in May 2004 and replaced it with the FTSE/JSE RI Index in October 2015. To have an RI reference index over the entire research period, a composite return series comprising of both indices was used. The composite index return history is simply the return of the SRI Index up to October 2015 and the RI Index for the period thereafter. This index will be referred to as the RI Composite Index in the remainder of this article.
The SWIX Index was selected as the broad market index, given its popularity as an equity fund benchmark in South Africa. The SWIX Index methodology adjusted the market capitalisation approach used for the FTSE/JSE All Share Index by making adjustments to weighting based on the available free float (JSE
In addition to comparing the morally questionable and morally acceptable portfolios to the SWIX and RI Composite Index, an EQBM Index was also computed. Both the morally questionable and morally acceptable portfolios were calculated using an equally weighted methodology; therefore, it was necessary to have an additional benchmark that employed the same portfolio construction methodology. Observed performance differences could be because of the way indices were constructed. Both the SWIX and SRI indices follow a market capitalisation weighted methodology. This method causes larger capitalisation shares to have a larger weight in the index and, therefore, a larger impact on the calculated performance of the index. In the calculation of the performance of the EQBM, each share in the opportunity set had an equal contribution to monthly performance.
The Alexander Forbes Short-Term Fixed Interest (STeFI) Composite Index was considered to be an appropriate proxy of the risk-free rate. The STeFI is a proprietary index that measures the performance of money market or short-term fixed interest instruments in South Africa. Only investment instruments with a maximum term of 1 year are eligible for inclusion.
To address the first hypothesis, a paired sample test (student’s
Observed higher returns can be because of higher risk. It was, therefore, necessary to calculate the risk-adjusted returns for each portfolio. The Sharpe ratio was used to measure and compare risk-adjusted returns. The Sortino ratio was employed as an additional risk-adjusted return measure. The Sortino ratio offers an improvement to the Sharpe ratio by using an alternative risk measure. Where the Sharpe ratio uses the standard deviation as the risk metric, the Sortino ratio employs downside deviation (Sortino & Van der Meer
To determine whether the risk-adjusted returns of two portfolios were significantly different (hypotheses H02 to H07), the Jobson and Korkie (
Where:
A significance level (
This article followed all ethical standards for carrying out research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
The first part of this section presents descriptive statistics and the results of the tests for symmetrical distributions. The second part contains the results of the paired sample test on mean monthly returns. In the third segment, the risk-adjusted returns and tests for significant differences are shown. Then, the performance of the portfolios and the benchmarks are considered in both bear and bull market conditions. Finally, the results are reconciled with the stated hypotheses.
Descriptive statistics: July 2004 to April 2019.
Variables | Morally questionable portfolio (%) | Morally acceptable portfolio (%) | RI Composite Index (%) | EQBM (%) | SWIX (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arithmetic mean monthly | 1.56 | 1.59 | 1.15 | 1.29 | 1.21 |
Geometric mean monthly | 1.44 | 1.50 | 1.04 | 1.23 | 1.13 |
Median monthly return | 1.78 | 1.57 | 1.60 | 1.44 | 1.49 |
Maximum monthly return | 11.55 | 14.64 | 12.85 | 10.03 | 10.38 |
Minimum monthly return | −16.48 | −12.67 | −15.19 | −11.28 | −12.69 |
Standard deviation of monthly returns | 4.77 | 4.28 | 4.66 | 3.44 | 4.02 |
Downside deviation of monthly returns | 2.81 | 2.21 | 2.85 | 1.88 | 2.34 |
Annualised standard deviation | 16.52 | 14.81 | 16.16 | 11.91 | 13.91 |
Compounded annual return | 18.78 | 19.53 | 13.21 | 15.75 | 14.45 |
RI, responsible investment; EQBM, equally weighted benchmark; SWIX, Shareholder Weighted Index.
The morally acceptable portfolio generated the highest absolute arithmetic monthly mean (1.59%), geometric monthly mean (1.50%) and compounded annual return (19.53%) amongst portfolios compared. In addition, it also recorded the best maximum monthly return. This result would suggest that morally acceptable shares could produce outperformance on an absolute return basis. The RI Composite Index produced the lowest returns when considering arithmetic mean (1.15%), geometric mean (1.04%) and compounded annual return (13.21%). This relative underperformance of the RI Index is consistent with evidence presented in previous South African studies (Chawana
The EQBM had the lowest monthly standard deviation (3.44%) and the lowest downside deviation (1.88%). An equally weighted index is more diversified and less concentrated than strategies that employ ESG screens. This result was thus in line with expectations suggested by the literature (Barnett & Salomon
Before any test for significant differences could be performed, it had to be established whether the various return streams were symmetrically distributed. The paired sample test and the Sharpe ratio assume that samples are drawn from normal distributions (Jobson & Korkie
Tests for normality of distributions.
Variables | Morally questionable portfolio | Morally acceptable portfolio | RI Composite Index | EQBM | SWIX |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Skewness | −0.53 | −0.02 | −0.37 | −0.35 | −0.31 |
Excess kurtosis | 1.11 | 0.32 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.54 |
Jarque–Bera statistic | 17.51 | 0.78 | 10.06 | 10.05 | 4.99 |
Significance | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.08 |
Conclusion | Not normal | Normal | Not normal | Not normal | Normal |
RI, responsible investment; EQBM, equally weighted benchmark; SWIX, Shareholder Weighted Index.
A skewness and excess kurtosis score of close to zero would be an indication of a normal distribution (Webster
From
The primary objective of the study was to determine whether morally questionable shares outperformed morally acceptable shares over the research period.
Paired sample statistics.
Variable | Mean or standard deviation | Statistic | 95% confidence interval |
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||
Morally questionable | Mean | 0.0154 | 0.0081 | 0.0228 |
Standard deviation | 0.0481 | 0.0425 | 0.0534 | |
Morally acceptable | Mean | 0.0158 | 0.0095 | 0.0220 |
Standard deviation | 0.0429 | 0.0386 | 0.0473 | |
Morally questionable–morally acceptable | Mean | −0.0004 | −0.0074 | 0.0064 |
Standard error | 0.0035 | – | – | |
Significance | 0.9140 | – | – |
Note: This table shows the output of the paired sample test following the bootstrap process. The number of bootstrap samples used was 5000.
The mean monthly return of the morally acceptable portfolio was only marginally higher than that of the morally questionable portfolio. However, the paired sample test produced a significance of 0.9140, which means that the null hypothesis (H01) of no difference in observed returns could not be rejected at the 5% significance level. Stated differently, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean monthly returns of the morally questionable and morally acceptable portfolios.
Two different risk-adjusted return measures were used to compare the performance of the morally questionable and morally acceptable portfolios to the three benchmarks.
Risk-adjusted return measures: July 2004 to April 2019.
Variable | Sharpe ratio | Rank on Sharpe | Sortino ratio | Rank on Sortino |
---|---|---|---|---|
Morally questionable portfolio | 0.69 | 3 | 0.34 | 3 |
Morally acceptable portfolio | 0.82 | 1 | 0.45 | 1 |
RI Composite Index | 0.36 | 5 | 0.20 | 5 |
EQBM | 0.71 | 2 | 0.37 | 2 |
SWIX | 0.51 | 4 | 0.26 | 4 |
RI, responsible investment; EQBM, equally weighted benchmark; SWIX, Shareholder Weighted Index.
Note: The Sharpe ratio and the Sortino ratio were annualised. The risk-free rate of return used was the annualised Alexander Forbes Short-Term Fixed Interest Rate Index, also known as the STeFI Index.
The morally acceptable portfolio generated the highest Sharpe (0.82) and Sortino (0.45) ratios, which suggests that there are few opportunity costs associated with investing responsibly. However, the lowest risk-adjusted statistics were produced by the RI Composite Index, that is, 0.36 and 0.20 for the Sharpe and Sortino ratios, respectively. This apparent discrepancy may be because of the additional criteria imposed to form the morally acceptable portfolio. In addition, the RI Composite Index followed a market capitalisation weighted construction methodology, whereas the morally acceptable strategy was equally weighted. Lastly, the morally acceptable portfolio included 18 shares on average, whereas the SRI Index had in excess of 70 constituents on average. These factors could have had an impact on the performance differences observed.
The morally questionable portfolio had very similar risk-adjusted results to the EQBM. This observation could suggest that there is no morally questionable risk premium available on the JSE. Investors not constrained by RI mandates will thus not be better off by following a morally questionable strategy.
The Sharpe and Sortino ratios produced the same relative rankings between the different sets of returns. The Sortino ratio uses downside deviation as the risk-adjustment measure. In certain circumstances, where portfolios have favourable positive volatility, the Sharpe and Sortino ratios can come to different conclusions. The identical relative rankings, shown in
To address the secondary research objectives (hypotheses H02 to H07), tests for statistically significant differences in observed Sharpe ratios were performed.
Tests for significant differences in the Sharpe ratio.
Variable | Morally acceptable portfolio | RI Composite Index | EQBM | SWIX |
---|---|---|---|---|
Difference in Sharpe ratio | −0.13 | 0.33 | −0.01 | 0.18 |
−1.55 | 5.87 | −0.22 | 1.70 | |
Significance | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.82 | 0.09 |
Conclusion | No difference | Morally questionable portfolio outperforms | No difference | No difference |
Difference in Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 0.46 | 0.12 | 0.31 |
1.55 | 6.99 | 1.97 | 2.77 | |
Significance | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
Conclusion | No difference | Morally acceptable portfolio outperforms | Morally acceptable portfolio outperforms | Morally acceptable portfolio outperforms |
RI, responsible investment; EQBM, equally weighted benchmark; SWIX, Shareholder Weighted Index.
Note: This table shows the results of the Jobson and Korkie (
As can be seen from Panel A in
The morally acceptable portfolio did, however, produce statistically significant risk-adjusted outperformance of the RI Composite Index, the EQBM and the SWIX over the full research period. By following an investment process focussed on highly rated RI shares, and excluding morally questionable and mining shares, it would have been possible to produce statistically significantly better risk-adjusted returns compared to the RI Composite Index, an equally weighted strategy and investing in the SWIX. This outcome is similar to evidence presented by Kempf and Osthoff (
The outperformance of the morally acceptable strategy over the RI Composite Index could be because of an improved filtering process. By specifically excluding any morally questionable and mining shares from the SRI constituents, a more focussed and concentrated ‘responsible investing’ strategy was formulated. The portfolio constructing methodology could also have impacted the observed results. The morally acceptable strategy had fewer shares on average and was equally weighted, whereas the RI Composite Index was more diversified and followed a market capitalisation weighting construction methodology.
Li et al. (
Performance during different sub-periods.
Variable | Annualised return (%) | Annualised standard deviation (%) | Sharpe ratio | Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|
Morally questionable portfolio | −13.96 | 26.14 | −0.066 |
2 |
Morally acceptable portfolio | −17.38 | 23.92 | −0.069 |
3 |
RI Composite Index | −24.21 | 27.15 | −0.097 |
5 |
EQBM | −22.03 | 17.77 | −0.059 |
1 |
SWIX | −23.71 | 21.40 | −0.075 |
4 |
Morally questionable portfolio | 38.41 | 10.62 | 2.857 | 3 |
Morally acceptable portfolio | 46.23 | 13.81 | 2.763 | 4 |
RI Composite Index | 36.45 | 15.36 | 1.848 | 5 |
EQBM | 47.33 | 8.37 | 4.690 | 1 |
SWIX | 50.52 | 13.29 | 3.194 | 2 |
RI, responsible investment; EQBM, equally weighted benchmark; SWIX, Shareholder Weighted Index.
Note: The table shows returns and risk-adjusted returns for two specific periods. Panel A shows the performance during the financial crisis (bear market) and Panel B shows the performance during the recovery period (bull market).
, Israelsen (
From Panel A in
During the recovery period (Panel B in
Chawana (
Addressing the research hypotheses.
Hypotheses | Description | Conclusion |
---|---|---|
H01 | There is no difference between the mean monthly returns of the morally questionable portfolio and the morally acceptable portfolio. | Fail to reject |
H02 | There is no difference between the risk-adjusted returns of the morally questionable portfolio and the morally acceptable portfolio. | Fail to reject |
H03 | There is no difference between the risk-adjusted returns of the morally questionable portfolio and the RI Composite Index. | Reject |
H04 | There is no difference between the risk-adjusted returns of the morally questionable portfolio and the≈SWIX. | Fail to reject |
H05 | There is no difference between the risk-adjusted returns of the morally questionable portfolio and the EQBM. | Fail to reject |
H06 | There is no difference between the risk-adjusted returns of the morally acceptable portfolio and the SWIX. | Reject |
H07 | There is no difference between the risk-adjusted returns of the morally acceptable portfolio and the EQBM. | Reject |
RI, responsible investment; EQBM, equally weighted benchmark; SWIX, Shareholder Weighted Index.
From
This study investigated the historical performance of a morally questionable oriented investment strategy relative to a morally acceptable strategy on the JSE. With the growth of RI, there could be a concern amongst socially and environmentally conscious investors about the opportunity costs involved in following a more sustainable investment approach. Essentially, the research question came down to: Is it better to be bad?
The main finding of the study was that morally questionable investing in South Africa does not produce risk-adjusted outperformance. No evidence could be found to support the various theories that predict outperformance of morally questionable shares listed on the JSE. The study confirmed previous studies on RI in South Africa, which showed underperformance of the FTSE/JSE RI Index. By suggesting an alternative (narrower) definition of RI, and contrasting it to morally questionable investing, it was shown that the non-financial benefits of RI do not come at an additional financial cost.
Another pertinent finding was that a different approach to morally questionable investing (morally acceptable investing) does not result in lower investment returns. The morally acceptable portfolio produced superior risk-adjusted returns relative to the RI Composite Index, the SWIX and an EQBM. This is an important result because it indicates to both retail and institutional investors that it is possible to follow a responsible and ethical investment approach without sacrificing investment returns. This outcome is particularly relevant for investors who prefer to invest in shares that have favourable ESG ratings.
The empirical evidence of this study may be of interest to asset managers drawn to creating RI strategies. It is recommended that closer attention is paid to the way the constituents of RI indices are selected. Perhaps the selection criteria are not strict enough. There could be additional financial and non-financial benefits by applying stricter ethical and environmental screening criteria. Reducing exposure to companies that contribute to environmental degradation has become more relevant as many economies have struggled to reduce carbon emissions in recent years. With the devastating environmental effects becoming more visible, climate change has become a prominent talking point on investor agendas.
For consultants to institutional investors, such as pension funds, the results of this study place the observed historical underperformance of RI in a different light. The results suggest closer attention should be given to selection criteria of responsible investing strategies, especially regarding the environmental aspects. Perhaps ESG ratings should be scrutinised more closely and not be taken at face value.
This study did not take into account the potential transaction costs involved in constructing and following either a morally questionable investment strategy or a morally acceptable investment strategy. Future researchers may incorporate portfolio turnover and transaction cost in their analyses. The research could potentially be expanded by employing a multi-factor model to determine whether the observed outperformance of morally acceptable shares is because of proven return drivers in the South African listed equity market.
The share level analysis applied in this study is in contrast to previous studies investigating the performance of RIs in South Africa. These studies were carried out on a fund level, or focussed on the returns of the RI Index. Not only is the study unique in terms of its focus on morally questionable investing in the country, but the approach followed to select morally questionable shares is also amended. The inclusion of coal mining shares in the definition of morally questionable shares, specifically, is arguably an improvement and is justified on the basis of the potential harm to both humans and the environment.
Given the increased importance of ethical and ESG considerations amongst investors, socially oriented investors could achieve returns in line with a morally questionable investment strategy and those of conventional benchmarks. These investors do not need to tolerate lower financial returns to derive the non-financial utility associated with RI. No evidence was found that a less morally conscious investor, following a morally questionable investing strategy, could realise higher risk-adjusted returns. Stated differently, there is no risk premium available to the investor who is willing to shun morally oriented criteria. The study has shown that, in fact, it is not better to be bad.
The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, J.P. Steyn, upon reasonable request.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.