A fundamental concern about green investing is that it may crowd out political support for public policies addressing negative externalities. We examine this concern in a preregistered experiment conducted shortly before a real referendum on a climate law in Switzerland. We find that offering an opportunity to invest in a climate-friendly fund does not reduce individual support for climate regulation, measured by political donations and voting intentions. A replication of the experiment in the United Kingdom yields similar results. Our estimates reject a crowding-out effect, suggesting instead a modest crowding-in effect of green investing on political support for green policies.

We assess how investors’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for sustainable investments responds to the social impact of those investments, using a framed field experiment. While investors have a substantial WTP for sustainable investments, they do not pay significantly more for more impact. This also holds for dedicated impact investors. When investors compare several sustainable investments, their WTP responds to relative, but not to absolute, levels of impact. Regardless of investments’ impact, investors experience positive emotions when choosing sustainable investments. Our findings suggest that the WTP for sustainable investments is primarily driven by an emotional, rather than a calculative, valuation of impact.