Skip to main content

Do Corporate Social Responsibility Practices Raise Employee Productivity?

A professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management and a researcher at the University of Paris-Dauphine have found that companies which follow international environmental standards have employee productivity that is 16 percent higher than companies which don’t.

The study, called, 'Environmental Standards and Labor Productivity'  tested three hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The adoption of environmental standards is associated with greater labor productivity.

Hypothesis 2: Training mediates the relationship between the adoption of environmental standards and greater labor productivity.

Hypothesis 3: Interpersonal contacts mediate the relationship between the adoption of environmental standards and greater labor productivity.

The authors, Magali A. Delmas of UCLA and Sanja Pekovic of the University Paris-Dauphine, looked at a 2006 employee-employer survey of 5200 private French firms with 20 or more employees, and compared the answers against a database of companies that had received ISO 14001 certifications. They threw in another database to help determine employee productivity.

ISO 14001, says Wikipedia, “is a family of standards related to environmental management that exists to help organizations (a) minimize how their operations (processes, etc.) negatively affect the environment… (b) comply with applicable laws, regulations, and other environmentally oriented requirements, and (c) continually improve the above.” The standards are set by the ISO, but the audits and certification are performed by third-parties.

Delmas and Pekovic controlled for age, gender, wages, education, and a number of other variables.

When all the models were completed and the math was done, Delmas and Pekovic found that the green firms are positively associated with markedly higher labor productivity than non-green firms. Likewise, the study demonstrated that when companies which adopted environmental standards of the sort measured in ISO 14001, were associated with greater employee training and interpersonal contacts.

Those of you with a logical frame of mind are probably think, ‘Sure, this is fine, but does it prove that adopting ISO 14001 standards will make a company more productive?’ The answer is no.

It could certainly be that better managed companies are more environmentally aware and more likely to manage for employee productivity. That is, it’s too soon to say which way the causation arrows are pointing.

That said, even though causation hasn’t been shown, part of being a manager is dealing with incomplete and imperfect information.

In fact, this may represent a kind of Pascal’s wager.

Blaise Pascal was a 17th century French mathematician and rationalist, who reasoned that there was more to be gained from living as though God existed than living as if he didn’t. That's Pascal at the left.

If companies adopted ISO 14001 standards hoping for increased employee productivity, but got none, the world as a whole is still better off.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cause Marketing: The All Packaging Edition

One way to activate a cause marketing campaign when the sponsor sells a physical product is on the packaging. I started my career in cause marketing on the charity side and I can tell you that back in the day we were thrilled to get a logo on pack of a consumer packaged good (CPG) or even just a mention. Since then, there’s been a welcome evolution of what sponsors are willing and able to do with their packaging in order to activate their cause sponsorships. That said, even today some sponsors don’t seem to have gotten the memo that when it comes to explaining your cause campaign, more really is more, even on something as small as a can or bottle. The savviest sponsors realize that their only guaranteed means of reaching actual customers with a cause marketing message is by putting it on packaging. And the reach and frequency of the media on packaging for certain high-volume CPG items is almost certainly greater than radio, print or outdoor advertising, and, in many cases, TV. More to

Why Even Absurd Cause-Related Marketing Has its Place

Buy a Bikini, Help Cure Cancer New York City (small-d) fashion designer Shoshonna Lonstein Gruss may have one of the more absurd cause-related marketing campaigns I’ve come across lately. When you buy the bikini or girls one-piece swimsuit at Bergdorf-Goodman in New York shown at the left all sales “proceeds” benefit Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center . Look past the weak ‘ proceeds ’ language, which I always decry, and think for a moment about the incongruities of the sales of swimsuits benefiting the legendary Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Cancer has nothing to do swimming or swimsuits or summering in The Hamptons for that matter. And it’s not clear from her website why Shoshanna, the comely lass who once adorned the arm of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, has chosen the esteemed cancer center to bestow her gifts, although a web search shows that she’s supported its events for years. Lesser critics would say that the ridiculousness of it all is a sign that cause-related marketing is

A Clever Cause Marketing Campaign from Snickers and Feeding America

Back in August I bought this cause-marketed Snickers bar during my fourth trip of the day to Home Depot. (Is it even possible to do home repairs and take care of all your needs with just one trip to Home Depot / Lowes ?) Here’s how it works: Snickers is donating the cost of 2.5 million meals to Feeding America, the nation’s leading hunger-relief charity. On the inside of the wrapper is a code. Text that code to 45495… or enter it at snickers.com… and Snickers will donate the cost of one meal to Feeding America, up to one million additional meals. The Feeding America website says that each dollar you donate provides seven meals. So Snickers donation might be something like $500,000. But I like that Snickers quantified its donations in terms of meals made available, rather than dollars. That’s much more concrete. It doesn’t hurt that 3.5 million is a much bigger number than $500,000. I also like the way they structured the donation. By guaranteeing 2.5 million meals, the risk of a poor