Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Working Knowledge
Business Research for Business Leaders
  • Browse All Articles
  • Popular Articles
  • Cold Call Podcast
  • Managing the Future of Work Podcast
  • About Us
  • Book
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Finance
  • Management
  • Entrepreneurship
  • All Topics...
  • Topics
    • COVID-19
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Finance
    • Gender
    • Globalization
    • Leadership
    • Management
    • Negotiation
    • Social Enterprise
    • Strategy
  • Sections
    • Book
    • Podcasts
    • HBS Case
    • In Practice
    • Lessons from the Classroom
    • Op-Ed
    • Research & Ideas
    • Research Event
    • Sharpening Your Skills
    • What Do You Think?
    • Working Paper Summaries
  • Browse All
    Do Corporate Social Responsibility Ratings Predict Corporate Social Performance?
    09 Feb 2007Working Paper Summaries

    Do Corporate Social Responsibility Ratings Predict Corporate Social Performance?

    by Aaron K. Chatterji, David I. Levine and Michael W. Toffel
    Ratings of corporations' environmental activities and capabilities influence billions of dollars of "socially responsible" investments as well as consumers, activists, and potential employees. But how well do these ratings predict socially responsible outcomes such as superior environmental performance? Companies can enhance their environmental image in one of two ways: by reducing or minimizing their impact on the environment, or by merely appearing to do so via marketing efforts or "greenwashing." This study evaluates the predictive validity of environmental ratings produced by Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini Research & Analytics (KLD), and tests whether companies that score high on KLD ratings generate superior environmental performance or whether highly rated firms are simply superior marketers of the factors that these rating agencies purport to measure. The data analysis examines all 588 large, publicly-owned companies in the United States that were both regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and whose social performance was rated by KLD at least once during 1991-2003. This paper may be the first to examine the predictive validity of social or environmental ratings. Key concepts include:
    • KLD ratings for environmental "concerns," such as hazardous waste and regulatory problems, have small but statistically significant effects in predicting future emissions and regulatory violations.
    • KLD ratings for environmental "strengths," such as environmentally beneficial products or pollution prevention, do not predict future environmental outcomes.
    • Most, but not all, of the predictive power of KLD ratings is due to the fact that lagged emissions and regulatory violations predict both lagged KLD ratings and future emissions and regulatory violations.
    • KLD expends substantial resources attempting to measure the quality of companies' environmental management systems. The results suggest that this measurement is difficult to do well.
    LinkedIn
    Email

    Author Abstract

    Ratings of corporations' environmental activities and capabilities influence billions of dollars of "socially responsible" investments as well as some consumers, activists, and potential employees. Unfortunately, there is little evidence about the validity of these ratings. We examine how well the most widely used ratings—those of Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini Research & Analytics (KLD)—predict environmental performance. We find that firms that have more KLD environmental concerns have slightly, but statistically significantly, more pollution and regulatory compliance violations in later years than firms that elicit fewer KLD concerns. KLD environmental strengths, in contrast, do not accurately predict pollution levels or compliance violations. We discuss the implications of our findings for advocates and opponents of corporate social responsibility, as well as for studies relating social responsibility ratings with financial performance.

    Paper Information

    • Full Working Paper Text
    • Working Paper Publication Date: February 2007
    • HBS Working Paper Number: 07-051
    • Faculty Unit(s): Technology and Operations Management
      Trending
        • 25 Jan 2022
        • Research & Ideas

        More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)

        • 25 Feb 2019
        • Research & Ideas

        How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

        • 14 Mar 2023
        • In Practice

        What Does the Failure of Silicon Valley Bank Say About the State of Finance?

        • 17 May 2017
        • Research & Ideas

        Minorities Who 'Whiten' Job Resumes Get More Interviews

        • 15 Nov 2022
        • Book

        Stop Ignoring Bad Behavior: 6 Tips for Better Ethics at Work

    Michael W. Toffel
    Michael W. Toffel
    Senator John Heinz Professor of Environmental Management
    Contact
    Send an email
    → More Articles
    Find Related Articles
    • Social Enterprise
    • Natural Environment
    • Health
    • Society
    • North & Central America
    • United States

    Sign up for our weekly newsletter

    Interested in improving your business? Learn about fresh research and ideas from Harvard Business School faculty.
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
    ǁ
    Campus Map
    Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
    Baker Library | Bloomberg Center
    Soldiers Field
    Boston, MA 02163
    Email: Editor-in-Chief
    →Map & Directions
    →More Contact Information
    • Make a Gift
    • Site Map
    • Jobs
    • Harvard University
    • Trademarks
    • Policies
    • Accessibility
    • Digital Accessibility
    Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College