Skip to main content
About HEC About HEC
Summer School Summer School
Faculty & Research Faculty & Research
Master’s programs Master’s programs
Bachelor Programs Bachelor Programs
MBA Programs MBA Programs
PhD Program PhD Program
Executive Education Executive Education
HEC Online HEC Online
About HEC
Overview Overview
Who
We Are
Who
We Are
Egalité des chances Egalité des chances
HEC Talents HEC Talents
International International
Campus
Life
Campus
Life
Sustainability Sustainability
Diversity
& Inclusion
Diversity
& Inclusion
Stories Stories
The HEC
Foundation
The HEC
Foundation
Summer School
Youth Programs Youth Programs
Summer programs Summer programs
Online Programs Online Programs
Faculty & Research
Overview Overview
Faculty Directory Faculty Directory
Departments Departments
Centers Centers
Chairs Chairs
Grants Grants
Knowledge@HEC Knowledge@HEC
Master’s programs
Master in
Management
Master in
Management
Master's
Programs
Master's
Programs
Double Degree
Programs
Double Degree
Programs
Bachelor
Programs
Bachelor
Programs
Summer
Programs
Summer
Programs
Exchange
students
Exchange
students
Student
Life
Student
Life
Our
Difference
Our
Difference
Bachelor Programs
Overview Overview
Course content Course content
Admissions Admissions
Fees and Financing Fees and Financing
MBA Programs
MBA MBA
Executive MBA Executive MBA
TRIUM EMBA TRIUM EMBA
PhD Program
Overview Overview
HEC Difference HEC Difference
Program details Program details
Research areas Research areas
HEC Community HEC Community
Placement Placement
Job Market Job Market
Admissions Admissions
Financing Financing
Executive Education
Home Home
About us About us
Management topics Management topics
Open Programs Open Programs
Custom Programs Custom Programs
Events/News Events/News
Contacts Contacts
HEC Online
Overview Overview
Degree Program Degree Program
Executive certificates Executive certificates
MOOCs MOOCs
Summer Programs Summer Programs
Youth programs Youth programs
Article

CSR Priorities: Why Companies Benefit From Unique Choices

Strategy
Published on:

While corporate social responsibility (CSR) is widely viewed as highly strategic, not all firms address all dimensions of CSR  equally, either across or within sectors. But how much latitude have they actually got when deciding which dimensions to prioritize? And is it more profitable to follow industry norms and patterns or to craft a unique CSR strategy? Researchers Leandro Nardi of the HEC Paris S&O Institute, Todd Zenger of the David Eccles School of Business, Sergio Lazzarini of the Ivey Business School, and Sandro Cabral of Insper, show how making strategic investment choices of CSR dimensions can build competitive edge and greater financial value.

Oil infrastructure offshore (Photo Credits: Suksan on Adobe Stock)

The financial gains of CSR can be high – a recent study estimated that $1 invested in 1993 in high sustainability companies would have grown to $22.6 by the end of 2010, while $1 invested in low sustainability companies would have only reached $15.4. There are many choices of CSR dimensions including the whole set of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) areas: everything from carbon footprint to human rights to workplace diversity. No company has the resources to invest equally in all CSR dimensions, and most are limited in how many dimensions they can invest. So, which should companies choose to invest in, and how should they decide?

CSR decisions and benefits

We wanted to investigate the impact of CSR dimension choices to help in the decision-making process. With the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) currently establishing a global baseline of financial disclosures on sustainability that are set to be finalized in 2023, this is timely. As a result, organizations will increasingly need to report more consistently on what they are doing on the different dimensions.

Our first goal was to explore if firms are incentivized to strategically choose certain CSR dimensions. We set out to understand if the uniqueness of CSR dimension choices made a difference. We also investigated how the financial materiality of the various CSR dimensions –– that is, each dimension’s capacity to directly benefit the firm’s financials –– influenced these strategic choices. As we saw it, choices were not just about what firms invested in, but also what they did not invest in.

 

Our research shows a positive association between CSR uniqueness and market value.

 

Our study pinpointed a positive association between CSR uniqueness and market value. But we also showed that the positive market returns to CSR uniqueness decrease as the number of material CSR dimensions increases: the association was not as strong in industries where the firms had many dimensions of high materiality. This is because materiality constrains the set of valuable differentiation opportunities, since all firms in the industry are expected to perform well in high-materiality dimensions. We illustrated this mechanism in a real-life scenario by studying the case of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

How materiality constrains differentiation choices: the BP Deepwater Horizon case

Putting our theory to the test, we examined how an exogenous event that increased the financial materiality of certain CSR dimensions affected firms’ differentiation choices. More specifically, we used the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster as an empirical context. The disaster resulted from an explosion on a drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010 and led to one of the worst offshore oil spills in history. A total of 11 workers died and four million barrels of oil flowed into the ocean. Communities in the Gulf Coast states of the USA were hard-hit through the shutting of fisheries and lost employment opportunities. In all, BP agreed on a $20 billion claims fund for the spill.  

What we saw was that certain CSR dimensions became non-optional, or downright required, following the incident. Companies had to deliver on CSR goals relating to health and safety – a CSR dimension that became critical for oil companies. Another dimension that became a “must” was community. With BP having to pay extensive reparations to communities affected by the spill, investors wanted to see that other oil companies were on top of this dimension.

Therefore, after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, other companies competing in oil-related sectors started paying much closer attention to these dimensions that had gained materiality. As a result, these companies opted for less unique CSR strategies: the need to perform well in dimensions such as health and safety or community constrained their ability to compose differentiated positions by investing in other dimensions.

How can companies make unique CSR choices?

Companies cannot invest in every single CSR dimension equally. With limited budgets, choices must be made about the best strategic options for the organization. Our research shows that firms can benefit from choices of CSR dimensions that are unique in their sector. Mimicking what other companies do is likely to be of limited value, except for dimensions where there is no choice (e.g., dimensions of high materiality).

As seen, oil companies must now focus CSR on health and safety and community impact. Yet in areas of lower materiality there may be greater scope for differentiation. While returns will be lower on investments in health and safety, companies can still find opportunities to be unique on other dimensions, gaining greater returns there. For example, an oil company might choose to position itself as being the “most diverse” to attract better talent, differentiating from another oil firm that might perhaps focus instead on a dimension eliminating child labor in the supply chain. This can improve firm performance by focusing attention on stakeholders that other firms may be overlooking.

 

In emphasizing CSR strategy in dimensions that are different from the competitors, firms can attract investor attention by showing they are building long-term relationships with varied stakeholders.


 
Taking the example of a professional service consulting firm, diversity is very material for such companies and most have good incentives for focusing on diversity to attract top talent. Firms in this sector need to differentiate in other ways. One such approach might be positioning as the most environmentally friendly company. This could be achieved by encouraging consultants to lower their carbon footprint by using Zoom or traveling by train, or they might differentiate by stating they will not engage with companies that do not respect human rights in their supply chains. In emphasizing dimensions that are different from the competitors, firms can attract investor attention by showing they are building long-term relationships with varied stakeholders.

 

Methodology

We developed measures of both CSR uniqueness and overall CSR performance using data from the Refinitiv/ASSET4 database, and we used stock market data from CompStat/CRPS and CompStat Segment Files to undertake correlations. We also studied the case of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, using the disaster as an exogenous shock to examine CSR uniqueness choices.

Applications

Companies will likely benefit from strategic differentiation in their choice of CSR dimensions, rather than simply mimicking competitor choices. Differentiating is likely to lead to higher returns. Focusing on areas of core competence and making the CSR strategy relevant to the overall strategy and purpose will be beneficial. For example, a professional services company may wish to not only focus on industry-wide dimensions that investors require –– such as workplace diversity –– but also on more unusual dimensions for this sector, such as environmental innovation or human rights. Investors should look for companies not just focused on industry standard dimensions but also differentiation, considering the longer-term impact focus in these areas might have for the firm.
Based on an interview with Distinguished Visiting Research Scholar Leandro Nardi on his paper “Doing Well by Doing Good, Uniquely: Materiality and the Market Value of Unique CSR Strategies,” co-written with Professors Todd Zenger, Sérgio Giovanetti Lazzarini, and Sandro Cabral, published in Strategy Science, 5 October 2021.

Related content on Strategy

iStock-Amsterdam_a_Taiga
Strategy

Sustainable Cities Pave the Way for Successful Private Public Collaborations

By Bertrand Quélin

Rodolphe Durand HEC
Rodolphe Durand
Joly Family Professor of Purposeful Leadership
Strategy
Jayda Moore: Can She Rebuild Trust?
Nils Plambeck
Associate Professor
Strategy
Hannah Walt: Is She Trustworthy?
Nils Plambeck
Associate Professor
Case Study
Circular Magic? Carpets Reborn at Desso
Laurence Lehmann-Ortega
Laurence Lehmann-Ortega
Professor (Education Track)