Does Corporate Social Responsibility Benefit Society?

In short, it depends on the ownership type. We construct an event-based outcome measure of firm-level environmental, social, and governance (ESG) impact for public and private firms globally from 2007 to 2015 using data from RepRisk. Then, we measure the societal impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagements using participation in the United Nations Global Compact as a proxy. We demonstrate a striking difference between public and private firms: while private firms significantly reduce their negative ESG incident levels after CSR engagements, public firms fail to do so. We attribute this difference to the conflicts of interest between shareholders and stakeholders, which are more pronounced in public firms than private firms. We empirically validate this interpretation through examination of scenarios with varying levels of conflict intensity. We find that for issues types with higher conflict intensity such as collective bargaining, supply-chain-related issues, and controversial products and services, the performance gap between public and private firms is even more severe. For issue types with lower conflict intensity such as tax evasion, executive compensation, and overuse and wasting of resources, the performance gap is smaller and even public companies may do better post-commitment. Moreover, the performance gap is also wider for upstream firms than for downstream firms in supply chains. We also rule out a host of alternative interpretations related to time trends and endogeneity issues. Our results show that existing CSR engagements may not necessarily lead to better societal outcomes, and that policy interventions aimed at aligning the interests of different parties can potentially improve the overall outcome.