The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (2 comments)

  1. SeattleSam

    Why would it be considered “socially responsible” to produce less than you could from a given amount of resources?

  2. Todd Mason

    Wow. Academics who are fuzzy on the concept of cause and effect. Mutual fund analysts classify socially responsible funds as investors in large companies that — yes — can afford same-sex spousal benefits, green energy and the other KLD trappings. But large companies have different agendas than do smaller companies. It is hard to say that Google wasted money on its reputation after Justice sifted iffy antitrust data and gave it a pass.

    Industry sectors play a role. Commodities producers, including oil, rarely pass CSR environmental screens. Market segments are equally important. The study compares Wendys and Starbucks even though the high-margin coffee chain is much more vulnerable to consumer retrenchment, and more dependent on the good will of a discerning clientele. Yes, Starbucks has been on the wrong side of consumer trends lately. No, its corporate priorities are not the cause.

    Finally CSR is a murky concept at best. Range Resources, a leading shale gas company, will never make the CSR cut, but shale gas has cut US carbon emissions substantially, and Range is a good corporate citizen. We’ll ignore the difficulties of dividing companies into red and blue by campaign contributions and headquarters state. Royal blue Whole Foods, after all, is based in Texas.

    So what can we learn from comparing an arbitrary group with another arbitrary group without the slightest effort to control extraneous variables? I think we’ve learned something about AEI.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content