CSRHub Blog Research on ESG metrics and comments on sustainability best practice

Site Selection Magazine Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Analysis

[fa icon="calendar'] Jul 26, 2016 12:28:02 PM / by Bahar Gidwani

By: Bahar Gidwani

Do some states attract more progressive companies while others receive investment from companies who are thought to be less socially progressive?  If so, why might this occur?

A recent article in Site Selection Magazine used the CSRHub database as part of determining which of 50 US states and 132 non-US countries were most attractive for a new site from a sustainability perspective.  This article presents analysis which provides deeper understanding of the corporate social responsibility aspect. Our goal is to make it easier for companies to use sustainability as a site selection criteria and localities to screen siting companies for sustainability, thereby improving their desirability.

CSRHub’s Contribution to the Study

The CSRHub data set contains estimates of the perceived corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance of more than 16,000 entities.  It includes data on both public and private companies and on government entities and not for profits.  CSRHub collects information for its big data engine from more than 469 sources and its data set includes companies from 133 countries.  For more information on how CSRHub ratings are generated, please see the CSRHub site.

Because many Site Magazine entries were from subsidiaries, a total of 3,073 CSRHub companies connected to at least one site decision entry on the Site Selection list, and 2,217 of these matched companies had full CSRHub scores.  These companies were responsible for 5,549 of the site entries—About 55% of these site entries (3,052) were for U.S. sites and the other 45% were for sites in 106 other countries.

Using only scores from fully rated companies, CSRHub calculated two numbers for each US state and for each foreign country:

  • The average perceived CSR performance for the entities headquartered in that location. For example, CSRHub found that the 63 fully rated companies in Minnesota had an average percentile rank of 54.8%. Similarly, the 34 companies in Finland have 88% average ranks.  (CSRHub tracks a total of 137 companies in Minnesota and 72 companies in Finland.
  • The average perceived CSR performance of the entities who placed sites in a location. For example, entities with an average 58.5% rank placed 93 sites in Georgia.  (Another 23 sites were placed by entities who were headquartered in Georgia.)  Entities with an average 70.7% rank placed 75 sites in Brazil  (Another 5 sites were placed in Brazil by Brazilian companies.)

The difference between these numbers shows whether companies selecting sites in a given location are perceived to be more or less sustainable than that location’s current rating.  The following table shows the relevant data on both scores for the 39 US states that had at least 5 sites selected by companies outside of the state and at least five companies tracked by CSRHub.  The table is sorted in order by the difference between the two scores.

Comparison US State-part 1 Comparison US State-part 2

The preponderance of positive scores is probably due to several factors:

  • Many of the new entrants into these US states came from European companies. European companies have consistently higher sustainability ratings than US companies.
  • Idaho and South Dakota companies already have relatively high scores. They may be seeing lower scores for those siting in their state because they are attracting companies primarily interested in extracting their resources.
  • Connecticut has positioned itself as a business-friendly state and this may have encouraged some lower-ranked companies to enter.
  • Arkansas, Delaware, and Mississippi all have lower starting scores and are likely to see benefits from encouraging positive companies join their communities.

The table below shows the same information for non-US countries.  Note that we have narrowed the list to those countries with at least five sites from companies with headquarters outside the country and that have at least five entities that are fully rated by CSRHub.

Comparison Non-US state- part 1 Comparison Non-US state Part 2

The foreign table shows much bigger differences in the baseline performance of the companies in each country.  The three countries with the biggest negative differential are those who also have the highest average scores for their existing companies.  It is probably difficult for these countries to find many companies outside of their jurisdictions who can match this level of performance.

The three countries with the biggest positive score difference with new site contributors are:

  • Greece—which has very low scores from its current companies and who is getting huge support and attention from other higher-scoring parts of the EU.
  • Saudi Arabia—which is trying to build a base of sustainable, non-energy-reliant industries.
  • Egypt—which has such weak performance within its existing base of companies that outside companies must generally seem quite attractive.

We hope that studies such as the one done by Site Selection Magazine will encourage companies to include sustainability factors in their site research strategies.  Our data suggests that the localities who are accepting new sites will generally see candidate companies who are at least as socially positive as the companies who are already in their communities.  However, it may make sense for localities to screen each candidate carefully and seek to improve their reputation for being a socially positive and sustainable place to put a new site.

Appendix 1:  How CSRHub Generates a Score

How CSRHub generates a score

Appendix 2:

Appendix 2- part1 Appendix 2- part2

Appendix 3:

Appendix 3-part1 Appendix 3-part2 Appendix 3-part3



Bahar Gidwani Bahar Gidwani
 is CEO and Co-founder of CSRHub.  He has built and run large technology-based businesses for many years. Bahar holds a CFA, worked on Wall Street with Kidder, Peabody, and with McKinsey & Co. Bahar has consulted to a number of major companies and currently serves on the board of several software and Web companies. He has an MBA from Harvard Business School and an undergraduate degree in physics and astronomy. He plays bridge, races sailboats, and is based in New York City.

CSRHub provides access to the world’s largest corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information.  It covers over 16,000 companies from 135 industries in 132 countries. By aggregating and normalizing the information from 461 data sources, CSRHub has created a broad, consistent rating system and a searchable database that links millions of rating elements back to their source. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub to benchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices, and seek ways to improve corporate sustainability performance.

Read More [fa icon="long-arrow-right"]

[fa icon="comment"] 0 Comments posted in Bahar Gidwani, Corporate Social Resonsibility analysis, CSR performance, CSRHub ratings, CSRHub score, Non-US performance, Uncategorized, Site Selection Magazine, US state performance, CSRHub

Which Comes First? State Social Chickens or Company CSR Eggs?

[fa icon="calendar'] Dec 16, 2010 5:42:00 AM / by Bahar Gidwani

We recently offered ratings data from our CSRHUB CSR ratings tool on which countries have the most socially-responsible and sustainability-oriented companies.  We were able to check our data against the UN’s Human Development Index, and show that our ratings supported their scores.

I thought I’d carry this analysis a step further, and see how company CSR scores in the US varied by state.  Is there a clear difference in CSR performance across the US and does it tie to differences in each state’s quality of life?

There are a lot of caveats in a study such as this.  In particular, while a company may be headquartered in a particular state, it may have the majority of its operations and employees in other states.  Further, while state regulations have some effect on things like employee and community treatment, they have little power over governance and environmental issues.  Finally, there seem to be relatively few state-by-state measures of social performance that can be correlated against company performance.

Here is a list of the overall CSR score by state, using our CSRHUB community rating profile as a target.  (CSRHUB ratings are personalized to fit the views of each of our individual members and groups.  So, there is no “default” or “standard” view to use for this type of analysis.  The “CSRHUB community” profile is an average of our active users and therefore is only a rough proxy for the views of our site’s visitors.)  As you can see, Hawaii, Vermont, and Maine get the top ratings under this profile and Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Utah were ranked at the bottom.

US State CSR Performance Table

OK, Vermont has some pretty well known high-CSR companies like Seventh Generation and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters.  But it surprised me a bit to see Maine and Hawaii up there.  I thought West Virginia and Oklahoma might be near the bottom, but I didn't expect Utah with several software and personal care product companies, to join them.

I looked hard for indexes to compare our scores against.  America’s Health Rankings had some interesting figures on personal income, violent crime, and child poverty.  A cool site called StateMaster had good info on unemployment, quality of life, and educational levels.  Unfortunately, none of these indicators seemed well correlated with our data.  Below is a typical one—the correlation between our score and the StateMaster data on the percentage of each state who have an income below the poverty level.

US State CSR Performance Table

As I mentioned in my post on countries, we firmly believe that company social behavior has an effect on the communities they are part of.  As such, we could have hoped for a greater and more apparent connection between our scores and the indexes we studied.  The slope of the curve is in the right direction (downward makes sense as better companies should encourage less poverty), but the 6% correlation is not very strong.  Our sample size is good—we have studied more than 3,000 US companies.  Of course, there are many different social indicators and we might need a more sophisticated, multivariate regression, to prove a connection between these statistics and ours.

In addition, our study universe is based almost entirely on large, publicly-traded firms.  We have neglected the horde of smaller companies, institutions, and private businesses who make up the bulk of our “economic society.”  Perhaps as our base of business expands, we will start to see more signs of the connection we seek?  We hope so.

Read More [fa icon="long-arrow-right"]

[fa icon="comment"] 0 Comments posted in Bahar Gidwani, corporate social responsibility, CSR, CSR and crime, CSR and health, CSR and personal income, CSR and poverty, CSR and unemployment, Hawaii, Maine, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, relationship between corporate performance and soc, relative performance, Uncategorized, Oklahoma, rankings, ratings, US state performance, chicken or egg, top US states

Subscribe to Email Updates

Lists by Topic

see all

Posts by Topic

see all

Recent Posts