JUST Capital_American Perceptions of Corporate JUSTness: White Paper

© 2016, JUST CAPITAL · JUSTCAPITAL.COM · @JUSTCAPITAL 1
PERCEPTIONS OF CORPORATE AMERICA
2015 STUDY

INTRODUCTION
2
Between January and September of 2015, the Just Capital Foundation, an independent non-profit
organization, conducted a series of studies about the role of the corporation in US society.
Involving over 43,000 respondents in total, the research produced a detailed understanding of how
the US public, and many subgroups within it, view publicly traded corporations today.
Throughout the research, respondents were given the following two pieces of context:
• When we use the word corporation, we are referring to large corporations whose stocks are
bought and sold in the stock market.
• Please think of “ ‘just’ as the root of the word justice—fair, balanced, equitable; not as the word
‘only.’ Generally, you can think about “just” as a corporation ‘doing the right thing’, whatever you
may think that is.
They were then asked to consider what would constitute just corporate behavior.

SECTION 1: HOW AMERICA SEES ITS CORPORATIONS

HOW AMERICA SEES ITS CORPORATIONS
Across the ideological spectrum, from respondents identifying themselves as “very liberal” to
those saying they are “very conservative,” a majority of Americans believe the behavior of
large corporations in this country today is headed in the wrong direction.

AMERICANS ACROSS THE TRADITIONAL IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM AGREE
CORPORATE BEHAVIOR IS GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
5
55 55
50 51 51
35
29
30 26 28
10
16 21
22 21
Very Liberal Somewhat Liberal Moderate Somewhat Conservative Very Conservative
Direction of Corporate Behavior
Wrong Direction Right Direction Don't Know
Survey information: Data from Phase 4, survey of 20,001 US adults conducted for JUST Capital by Penn Schoen Berland in July 2015.
Survey question: In general, do you think the behavior of large corporations is going in the right direction or the wrong direction?

Wealthier Americans, those with annual incomes over $200,000, are more likely to say
corporate behavior is going in the right direction. By contrast, in households with incomes
below that level, Americans feel corporate behavior is going in the wrong direction.

WEALTHIEST AMERICANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SAY
CORPORATE BEHAVIOR IS GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
54 55 55 54
48 47 47
40
20 22 24 28
34 36 37 48
27 23 21 19 18 17 16
13
Less than
$25,000
$25,000 -
$34,999
$35,000 -
$49,999
$50,000 -
$74,999
$75,000 -
$99,999
$100,000 -
$149,999
$150,000 -
$199,999
$200,000 and
above
Direction of Corporate Behavior
Wrong Direction Right Direction Don't Know
Survey question: In general, do you think the behavior of large corporations is going in the right direction or the wrong direction?

A similar pattern emerges when respondents are asked for their view of how corporate
behavior has changed over the last decade. Most Americans believe corporations have
become less just, but the wealthiest Americans are the most likely to say corporations have
become more just.

WEALTHIEST AMERICANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO INDICATE
CORPORATE BEHAVIOR HAS BECOME MORE JUST
44 45 44 45
39 41 38
28
24 24 24 23
22 23
22
32
23 26 26 29
35 33 37 38
9 5 5 4 3 4 3 2
Less than
$25,000
$25,000 - $34,999$35,000 - $49,999$50,000 - $74,999$75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 -
$149,999
$150,000 -
$199,999
$200,000 and
above
In The Past Decade Corporation Behavior Has Become…
Less Just (Bottom 2 Box) Neither More Just Nor Less Just More Just (Top 2 Box) Don't Know
Survey question: Do you think corporations have become more "just" or less "just" over the past decade?
Top 2 box: Respondents who chose “much more just” and “somewhat more just.” Bottom 2 box: Respondents who chose “much less just” and “somewhat less just.”

Millennials aged 18-32 and Gen Xers aged 33-49 are divided on whether corporations have
become more or less just, while Baby Boomers aged 50-68 and Golden Agers of 69 and up
are much more likely to say corporations have become less just.

OLDER AMERICANS THINK CORPORATE BEHAVIOR HAS
BECOME LESS JUST IN THE LAST DECADE
37 37
49 50
23 25
23 24
36 32
22 21
5 5 6 5
Millennials Generation X Baby Boomers Golden Agers
In The Past Decade, Corporate Behavior Has Become…
Less Just (Bottom 2 Box) Neither More Just Nor Less Just More Just (Top 2 Box) Don't Know
Survey question: Do you think corporations have become more "just" or less "just" over the past decade?
Top 2 box: Respondents who chose “much more just” or “somewhat more just.” Bottom 2 box: Respondents who chose “much less just” or “somewhat less just.”

Trust in corporations varies across the traditional political spectrum. Americans calling
themselves “very conservative” are the most likely to say they trust corporations at least
“somewhat.”

TRUST IN CORPORATIONS IS LOW ACROSS THE TRADITIONAL
POLITICAL SPECTRUM
41 37
42 44
49
Trust In Corporations
Survey question: How much do you trust the following institutions? Corporations.
Top 2 box: Respondents who chose “trust a great deal” and “trust somewhat.”

The public does not think that corporations are currently prioritizing the right stakeholders.
Regardless of political ideology, respondents feel that corporations should ideally prioritize
customers, communities, employees and the environment more than they do now.

ACROSS TRADITIONAL IDEOLOGIES, AMERICANS SEE A GAP BETWEEN HOW
CORPORATIONS CURRENTLY MEET VERSUS SHOULD MEET OBLIGATIONS TO
STAKEHOLDERS
14
4 3 2
-14
-16
-21
-23
9
11
1 1
-12 -12
-16
-11
Shareholders Government Suppliers Other Customers Communities Employees Environment
Difference Between Current Obligations and Ideal Obligations Toward Stakeholders
Liberal Conservative
Survey questions: When you think about all of the things corporations do and all of the people affected by their choices, where do you think their biggest obligation should be? Where do you think
they currently consider their biggest obligations lie? Rank the following from biggest obligation to smallest obligation by dragging the box with the stakeholder into a position below the line.

Both respondents earning above $75K per year in income and those earning less feel
corporations should ideally prioritize customers, communities, employees, and the
environment more than they do now.

REGARDLESS OF INCOME, AMERICANS BELIEVE
CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PRIORITIZING THE CORRECT
STAKEHOLDERS
12
9
2 2
-13 -14
-17 -17
10
5
1 2
-11 -12
-15 -15
Shareholders Government Suppliers Other Customers Communities Environment Employees
Difference Between Current Obligations and Ideal Obligations Toward Stakeholders
Less than $75,000 More than $75,000
Survey questions: When you think about all of the things corporations do and all of the people affected by their choices, where do you think their biggest obligation should be? Where do you
think they currently consider their biggest obligations lie? Rank the following from biggest obligation to smallest obligation by dragging the box with the stakeholder into a position below the li
ne. You can rearrange the boxes at any time.

As a part of Phase 3 research, Just Capital investigated broad attitudes about corporate
behavior, and impact of specific economic and social issues on perceptions of justness.
The following pages (19-24) contain information from that research.

To approach the question of different stakeholder interests in another way, Phase 3 included the
following question:
Which is closer to your view?
• Corporations exist first and foremost to make money for shareholders, and if they do that well,
everything else will usually take care of itself.
• Corporations need to balance the interests of employees, customers, shareholders,
communities, the environment, and governments. Which is most important depends on the
situation.
Investment behavior does not change response patterns. Strong majorities of both non-investors
and investors, including 71% of high-net worth investors (defined as those with portfolios worth at
least $250,000) say corporations should balance multiple stakeholder interests, with priority
varying depending on the situation.

INVESTORS AND NON-INVESTORS IN PHASE 3 RESEARCH AGREE THAT
CORPORATIONS NEED TO BALANCE INTERESTS OF MANY STAKEHOLDERS
AND NOT ONLY PRIORITIZE SHAREHOLDERS
71 76 73
High Net Worth Investor Investor Non-Investor
Corporations need to balance the interests of employees, customers, shareholders, communities, the
environment, and governments. Which is most important depends on the situation.
Survey information: Data from Phase 3, survey of 15,001 US adults conducted for JUST Capital by Penn Schoen Berland in May 2015.
Survey question: Which is closer to your view? Corporations need to balance the interests of employees, customers, shareholders, communities, the environment, and governments. Which
is most important depends on the situation. Corporations exist first and foremost to make money for shareholders, and if they do that well, everything else will usually take care of itself. Ans
wers randomly rotated. High net worth investor defined as having portfolio worth at least $250,000.

Along with all this evidence of concern about corporate behavior, however, the surveys also
produce evidence of some goodwill toward corporations. For example, in Phase 3 when
asked whether “a corporation should get credit for being transparent about how it does
business and for disclosing problems, even if its actions have had a detrimental social or
environmental impact,” a majority of respondents across the traditional political spectrum
agree.

REGARDLESS OF IDEOLOGY, IN PHASE 3 RESEARCH AMERICANS GIVE
CORPORATIONS SOME CREDIT FOR BEING HONEST AND DISCLOSING
NEGATIVE INFORMATION
54 54 53 52 57
A corporation should get credit for being transparent about how it does business and for disclosing
problems, even if its actions have had a detrimental social or environmental impact
Showing Percent Agree
Survey information: Data from Phase 3, survey of 15,001 US US adults conducted for JUST Capital by Penn Schoen Berland in May 2015.
Survey question: A corporation should get credit for being transparent about how it does business and for disclosing problems, even if its actions have had a detrimental social or environ
mental impact.
Top 2 box: Respondents who chose “agree strongly” or “agree somewhat.”

Large majorities of every traditional ideological grouping in Phase 3 agree that “a company
should get credit for improving the way it affects people or the
environment, even if it still has some problems.”

REGARDLESS OF IDEOLOGY, IN PHASE 3 RESEARCH
AMERICANS GIVE CORPORATIONS CREDIT FOR WORKING TO
GET BETTER
69 73 69 70 69
A company should get credit for improving the way it affects people or the environment, even if it still has
some problems
Survey question: A company should get credit for improving the way it affects people or the environment, even if it still has some problems.
Top 2 box: Respondents who chose “agree strongly” and “agree somewhat.”

In Phase 4, Just Capital asked a set of broad attitudinal questions about corporate behavior.
The following pages (26-35) contain information from that research.

While the strength of the sentiment varies by ideology, clear majorities of every
traditional ideological group in the country agrees that in general, “What is good
for business is good for the country.”

A MAJORITY ACROSS TRADITIONAL IDEOLOGIES AGREES
WHAT IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY
57 58 62
69 71
What is Good For Business Is Good For The Country
Survey question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? What is good for business is good for the country.
Top 2 box: Respondents who chose “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree.”

Taken in context with other questions asked in Phase 4 (pages 5-17), these questions about
American attitudes towards corporations suggest that while people are disappointed in
corporations’ current and recent actions, they believe corporations can play a positive role in
society and are willing to give credit to those that try to do so.
It also suggests that Americans would value efforts to assess whether corporations are fulfilling
their obligations to society. Indeed, when asked whether it is important to measure just corporate
behavior, a strong majority of respondents across the traditional political spectrum say that it is.

STRONG MAJORITIES ACROSS THE TRADITIONAL POLITICAL
SPECTRUM SAY THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO MEASURE
JUSTNESS
94 95 92 89 88
The Importance of Measuring Justness
Survey question: How important do you think it is to measure "just" corporate behavior?
Top 2 box: Respondents who think it is “very important” and “somewhat important” to measure justness.

A strong majority of respondents in every income group say measuring just corporate behavior
is important.

STRONG MAJORITIES OF ALL INCOME LEVELS SAY THAT IT IS
IMPORTANT TO MEASURE JUSTNESS
88 91 92 92 92 92 93
88
Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 -
$149,999
$150,000 -
$199,999
$200,000 and
above
The Importance of Measuring Justness
Survey question: How important do you think it is to measure "just" corporate behavior?
Top 2 box: Respondents who chose “very important” and “somewhat important.”

A clear majority of people in every traditional ideological grouping say that if they had
information on how just a corporation is, it would have at least some influence on their
decisions to work for, buy from, or invest in that corporation.

CLEAR MAJORITIES OF ALL TRADITIONAL IDEOLOGIES SAY THEY WOULD BE
MORE LIKELY TO BUY FROM, WORK FOR, AND INVEST IN JUST
CORPORATIONS
87 86
79
74 74
84
81
75
71 71
89
86
82
76 76
Likelihood To Buy, Work, and Invest Based on Justness
Buy Work Invest*
Survey question: If information were available that helped you assess how "just" a corporation is, how much influence would it have on your likelihood to purchase their products/servi
ces (seek employment at that corporation / invest in that corporation)?
Top 2 box: Respondents who chose “a lot of influence” and “some influence.”
*Investment question only asked of those who invest

A clear majority of people in every income bracket also said that if they had information on
how just a corporation is, it would have at least some influence on their decision to work for,
buy from, or invest in that corporation.

AMERICANS OF ALL INCOMES SAY THEY WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO BUY
FROM, WORK FOR, AND INVEST IN JUST CORPORATIONS
72
78 78 80 80 80
85
75
67
74 73
76 77 78 80
77
81 79 79 81 81 81
85
77
Less than
$25,000
$25,000 -
$34,999
$35,000 -
$49,999
$50,000 -
$74,999
$75,000 -
$99,999
$100,000 -
$149,999
$150,000 -
$199,999
$200,000 and
above
Likelihood To Buy, Work, and Invest Based on Justness
Buy Work Invest*
Survey question: If information were available that helped you assess how "just" a corporation is, how much influence would it have on your likelihood to purchas
e their products/services (seek employment at that corporation / invest in that corporation)?
Top 2 box: Respondents who chose “a lot of influence” and “some influence.”
*Investment question only asked of those who invest

SECTION 2: HOW AMERICA DEFINES JUST

HOW AMERICA DEFINES JUST
37
Just Capital began its research with open-ended conversations across the United States in the late
winter of 2015, asking people from all regions and walks of life what they thought corporations
should and should not do, where corporations’ obligations lay, and how they thought corporate
leaders should handle hard situations where obligations were in conflict. A series of quantitative
surveys was then conducted in the spring and summer of 2015 in order to consolidate and clarify
the key elements in the public’s definition of justness, and to determine their relative importance
(or weight) in respondents’ assessments of just corporate behavior.
The resulting comprehensive definition of just corporate behavior in the eyes of the American
public has ten elements, which are listed below in their order of their importance in Americans’
evaluations of corporate performance.

THE ELEMENTS OF CORPORATE JUSTNESS ACCORDING TO
THE US PUBLIC
38
15.8% 15.2%
10.9%
10.0% 9.5% 9.4%
8.1% 8.0%
6.8%
6.2%
Employee Pay &
Benefits
Employee
Satisfaction &
Fair Hiring
Product Benefit
or Harm
Human Rights
Record
Governance &
Profitability
Environmental
Impact
Customer
Satisfaction &
Value
Community
Relations &
Charitable Giving
Corporate Ethics
& Honesty
US Job Creation
Factor Importance Scores
(Importance adds up to 100%)

Employee relations are by far the most important aspect of corporate performance: fully 30% of
Americans’ assessment of what matters to corporate justness relates to how a corporation treats
its employees. But the public also includes safe products, the protection of human rights, honest
investor relations and good financial performance as part of corporate justness, along with
environmental impact, customer satisfaction, community relations, corporate ethics, and job
creation. And the public’s priorities and definitions are broadly shared across subgroups.

THERE IS BROAD AGREEMENT ACROSS DEMOGRAPHICS ON
WHAT DEFINES JUSTNESS
• Employee-related attributes are the most important, but other attributes also
carry substantial weight with the public
• Americans of different ideologies, income levels, regions, ages and genders
rank top issue areas (such as employees or customers) in similar order
• Conservatives care slightly more about shareholders, liberals slightly more
about the environment, and women slightly more about fair hiring
1
2
3

41
In the year to come, Just Capital will be working to determine the best ways to measure
corporate performance on each of the factors the public has identified. To do so, we will be
collaborating with members of the public, corporate leaders, academics, and research experts
in many fields. The goal is to rank, in 2016, the country’s largest firms on their performance
against the public’s standards.

JUST CAPITAL WILL BE RANKING AMERICA'S LARGEST FIRMS
AGAINST THE PUBLIC'S STANDARDS
• JUST Capital will be consulting with many groups to decide how best to measure the factors that make up corporate
Justness
• We are talking to companies, academics, the public, research organizations, and industry professionals to best evaluate
and map corporate data to the public's standards.
✔
✔

SECTION 3: EMPLOYEE FACTORS

EMPLOYEE FACTORS
The two employee-related factors that together make up over 30% of Just Capital’s model for
corporate justness are Employee Pay and Benefits and Employee Satisfaction and Fair Hiring.
These factors were confirmed by the Phase 5 survey conducted in August 2015. This survey
presented online respondents with a range of topics derived from our qualitative research groups,
and asked them to categorize and rank them.
According to this survey, what matters to Americans about Employee Pay and Benefits is both the
level of compensation (for example, receiving a living wage) and its reliability (for example,
whether corporations follow through on pension and health care commitments to retirees).

WHEN IT COMES TO PAY AND BENEFITS, AMERICANS SAY
CORPORATE JUSTNESS INCLUDES. . .
*Numbers indicate percent of respondents agreeing, only showing those that scored above 80%. Based on a Just Capital survey of 5,000 US adults in August 2015.
Employer-sponsored health insurance (88%)
Employee pay and benefits
Paid sick days (85%)
Living wage (that is high enough to cover employees’ needs for food, housing, and medical care) (86%)
Paid vacation (85%)
Follows through on retiree health care and pension commitments (85%)
Fair and transparent merit-based pay (including equal pay by gender) (83%)
Family benefits (maternity, paternity, childcare) (84%)
Employer-funded pension or 401(k) match (81%)

EMPLOYEE FACTORS
Since many respondents in the qualitative phase mentioned both the importance of adequate
wages, and the importance of corporations’ balancing many different, sometimes competing,
obligations, Just Capital’s May 2015 Phase 3 survey included a series of questions about tradeoffs
between “very low” wages and other things.
One question:
Which is closer to your view? It’s okay for corporations to pay very low wages if it means the
company can provide products or services at very low prices. It’s never okay for corporations to
pay very low wages even if that means the corporation is not able to provide products or services
at very low prices.
A majority of all subgroups, including low-income, said low prices did not justify very low wages.

REGARDLESS OF INCOME, FEW AMERICANS IN PHASE 3 THINK VERY LOW
WAGES ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE CORPORATION BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE
PRODUCTS OR SERVICES AT VERY LOW PRICES
86 82 83 81 78 74 71 71
Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 -
$149,999
$150,000 -
$199,999
$200,000 and
above
It’s never okay for corporations to pay very low wages even if that means the corporation is not able to
provide products or services at very low prices
Survey question: Which is closer to your view? It’s okay for corporations to pay very low wages if it means the company can provide products or services at very low
prices. It’s never okay for corporations to pay very low wages even if that means the corporation is not able to provide products or services at very low prices.

EMPLOYEE FACTORS
Another question in Phase 3 asked respondents how strongly they agreed or disagreed that
“it’s acceptable for corporations to pay very low wages if it means they create more US jobs.”
Only a minority of any income group agreed.

REGARDLESS OF INCOME, FEW AMERICANS IN PHASE 3 THINK
VERY LOW WAGES ARE JUSTIFIED BY INCREASED JOB
CREATION
18 19 20 20
26 28 28
37
Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 -
$149,999
$150,000 -
$199,999
$200,000 and
above
It’s acceptable for corporations to pay very low wages if it means they create more US jobs
Survey question: It’s acceptable for corporations to pay very low wages if it means they create more US jobs.
Top 2 box: Respondents who chose “agree strongly” and “agree somewhat.”

EMPLOYEE FACTORS
Finally, we included a question in Phase 3 on whether very low wages are acceptable in
industries where low pay levels are the norm. Investors are more likely to say yes, and high-
net worth investors the most likely of all. However, even in the latter group, 58% of
respondents chose “it’s never okay for corporations to pay very low wages no matter what
industry they are in.”

MAJORITY OF ALL GROUPS IN PHASE 3, INCLUDING HIGH NET WORTH
INVESTORS, AGREE THAT REGARDLESS OF INDUSTRY A CORPORATION
SHOULD NEVER PAY VERY LOW WAGES
58
75
82
High Net Worth Investor Investor Non-Investor
It’s never okay for corporations to pay very low wages no matter what industry they are in
Survey question: Which is closer to your view? It’s okay for corporations in industries such as retail, hospitality, and food service to pay very low wages because that is standard for
their industries. It’s never okay for corporations to pay very low wages no matter what industry they are in.

EMPLOYEE FACTORS
The Employee Satisfaction and Fair Hiring factor, like all the factors in our model, was confirmed
by the public through the Phase 5 survey conducted in August 2015. This survey presented online
respondents with a range of topics derived from our qualitative research groups, and asked them
to categorize and rank them.
According to this survey, a large part of what Americans mean by Employee Satisfaction is respect
for people as employees. It includes not only nondiscrimination but also loyalty to employees,
which can be manifested through promotion from within or by the retention of long-serving, well-
performing employees even when younger replacements might be cheaper for the firm.

WHEN IT COMES TO EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AND FAIR
HIRING, CORPORATE JUSTNESS INCLUDES. . .
*Numbers indicate percent of respondents agreeing, only showing those that scored above 80%. Based on a Just Capital survey of 5,000 US adults in August 2015.
Nondiscriminatory hiring and promotion (with regards to race, religion, gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or education
unrelated to job) (85%)
Employee Satisfaction and Fair Hiring
Loyalty to employees (not replacing long-serving workers with cheaper ones and not firing people who are dealing with family
emergencies) (86%)
Fair handling of grievances (including harassment claims, unionization efforts, and protection of whistleblowers) (85%)
Respect for employees as people (including work-life balance and individual beliefs) (84%)
Minimizing impact of layoffs (through advance notice, clear explanation, retraining or severance pay) (81%)

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY
Just Capital’s research, conducted in conjunction with survey research partner Penn Schoen Berland, proceeded in five
phases, the first two of which ran concurrently in the late winter of 2015.
Phase 1 was an online survey to test different methods of assigning weights to factors in a model for corporate justness. Its
results confirmed the usefulness of a discrete choice model, which was implemented in Phase 4 of the research and is
described in depth below.
Phase 2 was a qualitative research phase that involved open-ended conversations in focus groups, online, and by
telephone, asking 212 people from all regions and walks of life what they thought corporations should and should not do,
where corporations’ obligations lay, and how they thought corporate leaders should handle hard situations where
obligations were in conflict. This research produced a comprehensive list of mutually exclusive items mentioned by the
public as constituting part of the definition of just corporate behavior.
Phase 3 was an online survey of 15,001 people conducted in May 2015 in order to in order to consolidate and clarify the
key elements in the public’s definition of justness.
Phase 4 was an online survey of 20,001 people conducted in July 2015 featuring a discrete choice model used in order to
determine these elements’ relative importance (or weight) in respondents’ assessments of just corporate behavior.
Phase 5, in August 2015, confirmed with a sample of 5,002 online respondents the rankings, definitions and best
terminology to describe the factors in corporate justness.

SAMPLING STRATEGY
US
General
Population
Age
Household
Income
Employment
Status
Census
sub-region
Ethnicity
(including
Hispanic)
Education
Level
Gender
Across every phase of research,
Just Capital ensured that the
online surveys matched the U.S.
Census across the following
demographic markers

SAMPLE SIZES AND MARGINS OF ERROR
Audience
Grouping
Audience
Phase 3 (May 2015) Phase 4 (July 2015) Phase 5 (August 2015)
Sample Size Margin of Error Sample Size Margin of Error Sample Size Margin of Error
All 15001 ±0.8 20001 ±0.7 5002 ±1.4
Ideology
Very Liberal 1535 ±2.5 2279 ±2.1
Somewhat Liberal 2501 ±2.0 3156 ±1.7
Moderate 4789 ±1.4 6670 ±1.2
Somewhat Conservative 3111 ±1.8 3815 ±1.6
Very Conservative 1831 ±2.3 2315 ±2.0
Income
Less than $25,000 3354 ±1.7 4388 ±1.5
$25,000 - $34,999 1989 ±2.2 2321 ±2.0
$35,000 - $49,999 2273 ±2.1 2915 ±1.8
$50,000 - $74,999 2961 ±1.8 3809 ±1.6
$75,000 - $99,999 1758 ±2.3 2489 ±2.0
$100,000 - $149,999 1486 ±2.5 2309 ±2.0
$150,000 - $199,999 473 ±4.5 733 ±3.6
$200,000 or greater 336 ±5.4 484 ±4.5
Investment
High Net Worth Investors 1852 ±2.3
Investors 4097 ±1.5
Non-Investors 8383 ±1.1
*Margins of error calculated at the 95% confidence level

RESEARCH TIMELINE & PHASES
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
2015
Phase 4
Pilot study to test
weighting
methodologies
(3,224 respondents
online survey) with
initial qualitative
component (31
focus group
participants)
3,467
Cumulative
Americans surveyed
Quantitative online
survey of 15,001
respondents to
define key factors
within range of
corporate justness
topics
Online survey of
20,001
respondents using
Discrete Choice
Modeling to derive
weights of factors
Phase 5
Confirmation of
factor titles,
definitions, and
ranking with 5,002
online respondents
Qualitative
research to define
range of corporate
justness topics (
212 participant in
focus groups,
online and by
phone)
18,468
Cumulative
Americans surveyed
38,469
Cumulative
Americans surveyed
3,255
Americans surveyed
Open
Conversation 188 Topics 38 Attributes 15 Attributes 10 Defining
Factors
43,471
Cumulative
Americans surveyed

METHODOLOGY
Our qualitative phase involved focus groups in 10 US cities across the country, and sought
to balance representation to census categories as well as political ideology. We also took
steps to include the views of people who are unlikely to be represented in the populations
from which focus groups are drawn. Since focus groups largely draw on suburban and urban
residents, we conducted an online discussion group to reach rural people across the country.
Finally, we conducted one-on-one telephone interviews to ensure representation of offline
Americans (who are disproportionately low-income or visually impaired) and those from
underrepresented regions.

JUST CAPITAL QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Representative of US census
Jan-March 2015
22 Focus Groups:
Albuquerque
Allentown
Birmingham
Chicago
Dallas
Los Angeles
New Orleans
New York
Seattle
Wichita
Grouping by ideology
(conservative, moderate,
liberal, apolitical, and mixed)
32–Person online Ethosphere discussi
on group:
Used to target online rural
populations
26 In–Depth Interviews (IDIs):
Phone interviews with offline American
s (including visually impaired and low-i
ncome)
and residents of
underrepresented regions

METHODOLOGY
The resulting qualitative phase involved people from all regions of the country.

GEOGRAPHIC SPREAD OF JUST CAPITAL’S QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY
Our focus group moderator, online moderator, and phone representatives followed a
discussion guide that facilitated a wide-ranging conversation about what constitutes just
corporate behavior. The resulting transcripts were examined to compile a comprehensive,
non-overlapping list of respondents’ criteria for justness.

AFTER COMPLETING THE QUALITATIVE, WE COMPILED A COMPREHENSIVE,
NON-OVERLAPPING LIST OF THE ITEMS MENTIONED
"It's the short– term versus long term. The good companies pay attention to customers
and customer service and all the good things because they want to be here over the
long haul.”
“There’s so many studies out there that show that women will do the same job as a gu
y, and they get paid 20% less [and that is unjust].”
“I guess for me it was understood [that corporations wouldn’t violate human rights].”
“They would pay [employees] what they deserve, they would give them the time off,
good benefits.”
“Well, there's lobbying and then there’s bribery. You can lobby those congressmen no
t
to pass those laws, but if you try to slip them a dollar bill, then you're doing it illegally.”
1. Cost of living raises
2. CEO/Average Worker Pay Disparity
3. Employee assistance programs
4. Employer-sponsored day care
5. Equal pay by gender
6. Good value for money
7. Innovative products
8. Living Wage
9. Maternity benefits
10. No abusive conditions
11. No child labor
12. No forced labor
13. Paid holidays (e.g., New Year's)
14. Paid vacation
15. Paternity benefits
16. Lobbying
17. Product longevity
18. Provision of 401K plans
19. Relations with repressive regimes
20. Respect customer privacy
21. Sick leave
22. Disaster relief/recovery
23. Stands behind product
24. …
188. Stock options
Sample of 188 topics

METHODOLOGY
These items were grouped into 38 categories, based on how respondents had discussed them
and how they fit together logically.

WE ORGANIZED THESE ITEMS INTO 38 CATEGORIES, GUIDED BY HOW
RESPONDENTS HAD DISCUSSED THEM, IN ORDER TO PRESENT THEM IN A
QUANTITATIVE SURVEY
Paying its employees a living wage Providing fair pay for all employees
1. Living Wage 1. Cost of living raises
2. Stock options
3. Open discussion of compensation
structures within company
5. …
Employee benefits (such as vacation, sick days,
and family leave)
Record on human rights, forced labor, child
labor
5. Paid vacation
6. Sick leave
2. No child labor
3. No forced labor
4. No materials sourcing that exacerbates
conflict
Sample of 38 Phase 3 Attributes
1. Adjust products/services to local tastes
2. CEO/Average Worker Pay Disparity
3. Cost of living raises
4. Employee assistance programs
7. Good value for money
8. Innovative products
9. Living Wage
12. No child labor
13. No forced labor
15. Paid vacation
17. Lobbying
18. Product longevity
19. Provision of 401K plans
20. Relations with repressive regimes
21. Respect customer privacy
22. Sick leave
23. Disaster relief/recovery
24. Stands behind product
25. …
188. Stock options
Sample of 188 topics
Quality of products/services Quality of healthcare benefits for employees
1. Makes/offers innovative products/services
2. No unfair or abusive loan terms
3. Products that last a long time
4. Products/services are reliable & safe
5. Adjusts products/services to local tastes
1. Doesn't force employees into part time
schedules
2. Employer-sponsored programs to help with
personal crises
3. Employer-sponsored health insurance

METHODOLOGY
67
We then prepared a survey designed to confirm or amend what the qualitative respondents
had said, based on an demographically representative online sample of 15,001 people. We
chose this large sample size in order to allow us to make statistically valid assessments of
subgroup opinions.

Education
16%
7% 7%
12%
6%
19%
13%
5%
15%
Region
Gender
Environmentally
Conscious
Pro-
Business
Charitable Activist or
Advocate
EntrepreneurFamily-
Oriented
Religious
Age/Generation
18-24
13%
25-34
18%
35-44
17%
45-54
20%
55-64
16%
65+
16%
Self-Described Values
Income
Investors Ideology
72% 43% 42% 34% 23% 17% 14%
Investor
High Net
Worth
Investor
Non-
Investor/Unknown
57%
29%
15%
49%
51%
32%
26%
33%
8%
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate
Apolitical
Less than
high
school
6%
56%
24%
10%
4%
High
school
Bachelors/
Associates
Graduate
degree
Technical/
vocational
Business Elite
Less
than
$24,999
23%
$25,000-
$34,999
10%
$35,000-
$49,999
14%
$50,000-
$74,999
18%
$75,000-
$99,999
12%
$100,000
$149,999
13%
$150,000
$199,999
5%
More
than
$200,000
4%
-
-
Elite
Non-Elite
32%
68%
27%
Millennial
29%
Generation X
36%
Baby Boomer Golden Ager
8%
*Respondents chose all that apply
COMPOSITION OF JUST CAPITAL’S MAY
2015 SURVEY OF 15,001 US ADULTS…

METHODOLOGY
This survey asked people whether they agreed that specific items belonged in the definition of
each category of justness. It also asked them to rank topics in importance within each
category, and to rank categories relative to each other.

AN ONLINE SURVEY OF 15,001 PEOPLE ASKED:
Which topics should be part of the definition of just corporate behavior in each category, and which of those topics are most important?
How do the categories rank relative to each other in importance?
Providing fair pay for all employees
1. Wage that is high
enough to cover
employees' needs for
food, housing, and
medical care
Paying its employees a living wage Quality of products/services
Quality of healthcare benefits for
employees
Offering products/services that are
good value for the price
Employee benefits (such as vacation,
sick days, and family leave)
Record on human rights, forced labor,
child labor CEO pay
✓ ✓
✓
✗
1. Offers cost of living
raises
2. Employees receive
performance-linked
bonuses
3. Offer stock options to
employees
4. …
✓
✓
✗
1. Makes/offers innovative
products/services
2. Products that last a long
time
3. Adjusts
products/services to
local tastes
4. …
✓
✗
✓
1. Doesn't force employees
into part time schedules
2. Employer-sponsored
programs to help with
personal crises
3. Employer-sponsored
health insurance
4. …
✓1. Product/service price
reflects value
✗
✓
✗
✓
✓
✓
1. Employer-sponsored day
care
2. Offers paid maternity
leave (for new mothers)
3. Offers paid paternity
leave (for new fathers)
4. Corporation has
designated paid holidays
(e.g. New Year's)
5. Offers paid vacation
days
6. Paid sick leave available
✓
✓
✓
✗
1. No abusive workplace
conditions
2. No child labor is used
anywhere in their supply
chain
3. No forced labor is used
anywhere in their supply
chain
4. Does not cause conflict
when sourcing materials
(e.g. blood diamonds)
✓1. Pay of CEO compared to
employees

METHODOLOGY
Information we learned about the public’s definitions and priorities in each category was used
to consolidate the 38 categories of Phase 3 into 15 attributes for our Phase 4 weighting
survey.

RESULTS WERE USED TO DISTILL LIST OF 38 INTO 15
ATTRIBUTES FOR USE IN OUR WEIGHTING STUDY
Paying its employees a living wage
1
2
Percentage of employees offered benefits
(including healthcare coverage and paid time off)
Record of protecting human rights (including
avoiding forced labor, child labor, or collaboration
with repressive regimes)
and family leave)
Quality of healthcare benefits for employees
Quality of retirement benefits for employees
Customer satisfaction (including customer service,
product performance, and value for price)
Fair pay (including living wage, no discrimination,
and pay disparity between CEO and employees)
Good record on standing behind its
products/services
Offering products/services that are good value for
the price
Quality of customer service
Record on ethical relations with governments
Record on human rights, forced labor, child labor
CEO pay
Paying its employees a living wage
Quality of products/services
Treating customers fairly and with respect
Quality of products/services
6
Treating customers fairly and with respect
8
Quality of healthcare benefits for employees
9
Good record on standing behind its
products/services
10
Offering products/services that are good value
for the price
11
and family leave)
12
Record on human rights, forced labor, child
labor
13
Quality of retirement benefits for employees
19
Quality of customer service
20
Record on ethical relations with governments
31
CEO pay
36
Sampleof38Phase3Attributes

METHODOLOGY
The 15 items that resulted represented a comprehensive, non-overlapping definition of
corporate justness according to the American public.

THE 15 ITEMS THAT RESULTED REPRESENTED A COMPREHENSIVE, NON-
OVERLAPPING DEFINITION OF CORPORATE JUSTNESS ACCORDING TO THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC
Impact of products and services on consumer health, wellness, and safety1
Record of protecting human rights (including avoiding forced labor, child labor, or collaboration with repressive regimes)2
Percentage of employees offered benefits (including healthcare coverage and paid time off)3
Fair pay (including living wage, no discrimination, and pay disparity between CEO and employees)6
Integrity of shareholder relationship (including quality of the board, accuracy of financial reporting, and honesty of communication)7
Fairness in hiring, firing, and promotion practices (including no discrimination; promoting diversity; merit-based; hiring veterans)8
Corporate ethics and honesty (including fair tax payments, political involvement, and avoidance of bribery)9
Net change in US jobs over past 5 years (reflects new jobs created as well as those eliminated for any reason, including outsourcing)10
Managing the environmental impact of the use and disposal of its products11
Environmental management of corporation's routine operations (including manufacturing and pollution control)12
Community relations (including community engagement; honest, two-way communication; and adapting plans to community
concerns)
13
Charitable giving as percent of profits14
Employee satisfaction (based on factors such as appreciation of employees, collaboration, and work-life balance)4
Customer satisfaction (including customer service, product performance, and value for price)5
Long-term financial performance (profit made over the last 5 years)15

METHODOLOGY
While most corporate responsibility evaluation models set weights based on expert opinion, ours
broke new ground by deriving weights from public opinion using discrete choice methodology, a
technique which has been widely used in product research and demonstrated to predict behavior.
Respondents were shown sets of hypothetical corporations, described as having different levels of
performance on attributes of justness. Respondents chose which corporation they considered the
most just, and whether that corporation was just. Statistical analysis consisted of a Hierarchical
Bayesian analysis using a part-worth model to derive implicit weights of factors in respondents'
decision-making.

OUR WEIGHTING SYSTEM USED AN APPROACH UNIQUE IN
THE FIELD
Most corporate responsibility evaluation models set weights based on expert opinion, but our
weights are derived from a survey using discrete choice methodology
DCM has been widely used in product research and demonstrated to predict behavior
Respondents were shown sets of hypothetical corporations, described as having different
levels of performance on attributes of justness
Respondents chose which corporation they considered the most just, and whether that
corporation was just
Statistical analysis consisted of a Hierarchical Bayesian analysis using a partworth model to
derive implicit weights of factors in respondents' decision-making

THE SETUP OF THE DCM SURVEY
• Each respondent was shown 18 screens. On each
screen they could choose between 3 options. Each
option represented a mock corporation and
respondents were asked to choose which one they
thought was the most “just”
• The definition for “just” was given to respondents
earlier in the survey and they were asked to judge
the corporations based on this definition: “Please
think of ‘just’ not as ‘only’ but as the root of the
word justice—fair, balanced, equitable. Generally,
you can think about ‘just’ as a corporation doing
the right thing in your eyes.”
• Respondents were advised “to assume that each
corporation shown performs the same on any
issues that aren’t shown”
• They were then asked, whether they considered
the corporation they had selected was “just”
• Each respondent saw a unique set of 18 screens
ExampleScreen

METHODOLOGY
Our July 2015 Phase 4 weighting survey, like the May Phase 3 definition survey, was mapped
to census categories. It drew on a sample of 20,001 people. Again, we chose a large sample
size in order to allow us to make statistically valid assessments of subgroup opinions.

16%
7% 7%
12%
6%
19%
13%
5%
15%
Education
Region
Gender
Environmentally
Conscious
Pro-BusinessCharitable Activist or
Advocate
EntrepreneurFamily-
Oriented
Religious
Age/Generation
18-24
13%
25-34
18%
35-44
17%
45-54
20%
55-64
16%
65+
16%
Self-Described Values
Income
Investors Ideology
68% 40% 40% 33% 21% 18% 13%
General
Investor
High Net
Worth
Investor
Non-
Investor/Unknown
58%
25%
17%
49%
51%
32%
28%
34%
9%
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate
Apolitical
High school or
less
45%
7%
17%
10%
3%
Associate degree
Bachelor’s
degree
Graduate degree
Technical/
vocational
Business Elite
Less than
$24,999
23%
$25,000-
$34,999
10%
$35,000-
$49,999
14%
$50,000-
$74,999
18%
$75,000-
$99,999
12%
$100,000-
$149,999
13%
$150,000-
$199,999
5%
More than
$200,000
5%
Elite
Non-Elite
34%
66%
27%
Millennial
30%
Generation X
33%
Baby Boomer Golden Ager
10%
*Respondents chose all that apply
41% 28%
Free spirited Career-Oriented
17%
Some college
COMPOSITION OF JUST CAPITAL’S JULY
2015 SURVEY OF 20,001 US ADULTS…
79

METHODOLOGY
The survey produced a set of relative weights which the 15 attributes, on average, have in
people’s evaluations of corporate behavior.

THE RESULTS WERE AS FOLLOWS
10.9%
10.0%
8.2% 8.1% 8.1%
7.6%
7.2% 7.1% 6.8%
6.2%
4.8% 4.6% 4.4%
3.6%
2.2%
*Importance adds up to 100%
15 Phase 4 Attributes

SECTION 5: COMMUNICATING THE RESULTS

COMMUNICATING THE RESULTS
Once we had the 15 attributes, we performed factor analysis, a statistical technique that identifies
correlations among attributes, and determined that some, including the quantitative and qualitative
aspects of employee relations, were closely correlated. Informed by this analysis, we combined
several pairs of attributes, producing a final model with ten factors. While this combination has no
effect on the weights of attributes or the eventual corporate scores the model will produce, it
clarifies the contents of the model, and facilitates communication about it.
The final model thus has 10 factors, which are derived from the 15 attributes of the Phase 4
survey, and ultimately from the most significant of the original topics raised by respondents in the
qualitative phase.
In September 2015, we conducted a 5,000 respondent online survey to confirm that these final
factors adequately captured the ideas we had heard from the American public throughout our
survey series. Using a methodology similar to our Phase 3 survey described above, this survey
asked respondents to rank the ten factors, to select topics that fall within each, and to select the
name for the factor which they considered clearest. Results were consistent with previous phases
of research. The final factor names, informed by this survey and final review by Just Capital, are
shown below.

FACTOR ANALYSIS INFORMED THE REDUCTION OF 15
ATTRIBUTES TO 10
Charitable giving as percent of profits
Community relations (including community engagement; honest, two-way communication; and adapting plans
to community concerns)
Corporate ethics and honesty (including fair tax payments, political involvement, and avoidance of bribery)
Customer satisfaction (including customer service, product performance, and value for price)
Employee satisfaction (based on factors such as appreciation of employees, collaboration, and work-life
balance)
Environmental management of corporation's routine operations (including manufacturing and pollution control)
Fair pay (including living wage, no discrimination, and pay disparity between CEO and employees)
Fairness in hiring, firing, and promotion practices (including no discrimination; promoting diversity; merit-based;
hiring veterans)
Impact of products and services on consumer health, wellness, and safety
Integrity of shareholder relationship (including quality of the board, accuracy of financial reporting, and honesty
of communication)
Which attributes correlate? What makes sense?
Long-term financial performance (profit made over the last 5 years)
Managing the environmental impact of the use and disposal of its products
Net change in US jobs over past 5 years (reflects new jobs created as well as those eliminated for any reason,
including outsourcing)
Percentage of employees offered benefits (including healthcare coverage and paid time off)
Record of protecting human rights (including avoiding forced labor, child labor, or collaboration with repressive
regimes)
15Phase4Attributes
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
4
5
15
Employee Pay & Benefits
1
US Job Creation
10
Employee Satisfaction & Fair Hiring
2
Product Benefit or Harm
3
Human Rights Record
4
Governance & Profitability
5
Environmental Impact
6
Customer Satisfaction & Value
7
Community Relations & Charitable Giving
8
Corporate Ethics & Honesty
9

FINAL RESULTS
Data reflects the relative importance (out of 100%) that the American Public assigns to each of the issues they have
identified as defining a just corporation.
Data from survey of 20,001 US adults conducted for JUST Capital by Penn Schoen Berland in July 2015.
15.8%
15.2%
10.9%
10.0%
9.5%
9.4%
8.1%
8.0%
6.8%
6.2%
Employee Pay & Benefits 1
Employee Satisfaction & Fair Hiring 2
Product Benefit or Harm 3
Human Rights Record 4
Governance & Profitability 5
Environmental Impact 6
Customer Satisfaction & Value 7
Community Relations & Charitable Giving 8
Corporate Ethics & Honesty 9
US Job Creation 10

COMMUNICATING THE RESULTS
To make it clear what Americans believe just companies do, we also created a version of
these factor names that expresses them as actions.

FINAL RESULTS
15.8%
15.2%
10.9%
10.0%
9.5%
9.4%
8.1%
8.0%
6.8%
6.2%
Provides fair pay & benefits 1
Treats employees well 2
Makes safe & beneficial products 3
Protects human rights 4
Is well-governed and makes money 5
Minimises its environmental impact 6
Satisfies customers and provides good value 7
Plays a positive role in the community 8
Behaves ethically & honestly 9
Creates US jobs 10
Data from survey of 20,001 US adults conducted for JUST Capital by Penn Schoen Berland in July 2015.
Data reflects the relative importance (out of 100%) that the American Public assigns to each of the issues they have
identified as defining a just corporation.

JUST Capital_American Perceptions of Corporate JUSTness: White Paper

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (18)

Ähnlich wie JUST Capital_American Perceptions of Corporate JUSTness: White Paper

Ähnlich wie JUST Capital_American Perceptions of Corporate JUSTness: White Paper (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

JUST Capital_American Perceptions of Corporate JUSTness: White Paper