CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY:

RECRUITING WELL BY DOING GOOD?

An Empirical Exploration of the Corporate Social Performance – Employer Attractiveness Link

8,057 Words Candidate 12905 April - September 2006 MSc Management - Dissertation

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank in particular for the provision of materials and their

time:

Claudia Volk, WestLB

Jay Carberry, KLD

Mikael Eriksson, Universum USA

Kayoko Chiba, Newsweek Japan

Tim Smith, Walden Asset Management

Further, I would like to thank the following for their communication and

advice:

My supervisor Thomas Kittsteiner, James Mattingly, Sandra Waddock, Lee

Jeegoo, Donald Siegel, Brett Stone, Daniel Turban, Doug Schuler, Kristin

Backhaus, Claire Moroni, David Crowther, Andrew Kakabadse, Mette

Morsing, Wilhelm Alexander, Marcel van Marrewijk, Jozica Knez-Riedl &

Carsten Riek

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................................... III

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................................VIII

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ IX

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................10 1.1 Definition attempts .................................................................................................................10

Components of CSR........................................................................................................12 1.2 The emergence of CSR...........................................................................................................13 1.3 Shareholder vs Stakeholder View...........................................................................................14 1.4 Government Involvement vs Self Regulation.........................................................................16 1.5 Standardisation & Reporting ..................................................................................................17 1.6 Research Agenda ....................................................................................................................18

LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................19 2.1 The CSP – CFP link................................................................................................................19

Sign of the relationship and Causality ............................................................................20 2.2 Signaling Theory ....................................................................................................................22 2.3 Social Identity Theory ............................................................................................................22 2.4 Organizational Attraction .......................................................................................................23

METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................26 3.1 Data Selection & Collection ...................................................................................................26

Corporate social performance .........................................................................................26 Employer attractiveness ..................................................................................................30 Financial data ..................................................................................................................31

ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................................33 4.1 Analysis & Findings ...............................................................................................................33 4.2 Discussion...............................................................................................................................37 4.3 Limitations..............................................................................................................................39

CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................40 5.1 Future Research ......................................................................................................................40

APPENDIX...........................................................................................................................................42

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................85

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Carroll’s Pyramid of corporate social responsibility....................................................12 Table 2 Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility ..........................................................13 Figure 3 A Firm’s Stakeholder groups .......................................................................................14 Table 4 Drivers of CSR.............................................................................................................15 Chart 5 The results of the CSP-CSF link for 127 studies, 1972-2002 ......................................20 Table 6 Overview of studies on the CSP-Employer attractiveness link....................................24 Table 7 Correlation and Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................33 Chart 8 CSP of MBAs' favourite companies to work for relative to S&P 500.........................34 Table 9 Results of Regression Analysis predicting Employer Attractiveness ..........................35 Table 10 Correlation Matrix, KLD-EIRIS data on common dimensions ...................................36 Figure 11 Decision tree to identify importance of CSR ...............................................................38

vi

APPENDIX CONTENTS

Appendix 1 Corporate Social Responsibility ..........................................................43 Text 1.1 Examples of corporate social responsibility ................................................................. 43 Chart 1.2 CSR papers by journal, 1992-2002.............................................................................. 44 Figure 1.3 The influence of globalisation on stakeholder empowerment....................................... 44 Table 1.4 Global Report Initiative (GRI) reporting guidelines....................................................... 45 Text 1.5 UN Global Impact Principles........................................................................................ 45 Text 1.7 International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting......................................... 46

Appendix 2 CSR Literature & Theories....................................................................47 Chart 2.1 The nature of CSR literature by type, 1992-2002......................................................... 47 Chart 2.2 Results by year of publication: corporate social performance as independent (left) and

dependent (right) variable............................................................................................ 47 Chart 2.3 Corporate social performance: sampling the good, the bad, and the big in 56 of 95

Studies ........................................................................................................................ 48 Chart 2.4 Measuring corporate social performance: data sources employed in 95 studies ......... 48 Table 2.5 Results and measures of 127 CSP-CFP Studies......................................................... 49 Table 2.6 CSP – CFP relationships ............................................................................................. 52 Table 2.7 Control variables used in CSP-CFP studies ................................................................ 52 Table 2.8 Explanatory frameworks and theories for the CSP-CFP link........................................ 53 Table 2.9 Most important characteristics of jobs for job seekers, study findings.......................... 54 Table 2.10 Company characteristics for which applicants are willing to forego financial benefits,

study findings............................................................................................................... 54 Chart 2.11 Fortune "100 Best Companies to work for" vs. Stock Market ....................................... 55

Appendix 3 KLD ratings criteria etc. ........................................................................56 Text 3.1 Rating Companies Profiles .......................................................................................... 56 Text 3.2 Methodology: KLD’s proprietary disciplined research process..................................... 57 Table 3.3 KLD ratings criteria list................................................................................................. 58 Text 3.4 KLD Ratings Criteria, descriptions ............................................................................... 60 Table 3.5 Two examples of KLD company CSP rating ................................................................ 63 Text 3.6 CSRR-OS Standards................................................................................................... 64

Appendix 4 Analysis & Calculations........................................................................65 Chart 4.1 Composition of the S&P and the ‘MBA ideal’ sample by Industry ................................ 65 Chart 4.2 MBAs’ favourite employers by Industry........................................................................ 65 Table 4.3 Comparison of results Turban & Greening (1997) and this study................................. 66 Table 4.4 Results of Regression Analysis predicting Employer Attractiveness............................ 66 Table 4.5 CSP dimensions’ (subjective) weighting used for this study ........................................ 67 Table 4.6 Average KLD ratings and z-scores for S&P500 and ‘MBA ideal’ sample, by industry .. 68 Table 4.7 Correlation matrix, detailed.......................................................................................... 70

Appendix 5 Other .......................................................................................................71 Table 5.1 S&P’s Global Industry Classification System (GICS) ................................................... 71

Appendix 6 Datasets..................................................................................................72 Table 6.1 Favourite MBA employers, ‘ideal’ and ‘considered’...................................................... 72 Table 6.2 Favourite Undergraduate employers, ‘ideal’ and ‘considered’...................................... 73 Chart 6.3 Favourite Undergraduates employers, ideal, distribution ............................................. 74 Chart 6.4 Favourite Undergraduates employers, considered, distribution ................................... 74 Chart 6.5 Favourite MBA employers, ideal, distribution............................................................... 75 Chart 6.6 Favourite MBA employers, considered, distribution ..................................................... 75 Table 6.7 Dataset: Expected starting salaries and after five years by Industry Salaries .............. 76 Table 6.8 Complete Dataset, KLD, employer attractiveness & financials .................................... 77

vii

Word Count: 8.057 (excluding appendices, abstract, quotes, footnotes, references, headings &

bibliography )

nota bene:

- References to the Appendix are placed in squared brackets, e.g. [Table 1.1], where the first number is the Appendix Chapter

- References to figures within the text are placed in round brackets, e.g. (Table 1)

viii

ABSTRACT

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an enormously complex field, and yet still an evolving subject. The study is focussing on the nature and current thinking about corporate social responsibility and related theories. Although difficult to define, new trends such as standardised reporting and management initiatives have emerged. Despite ample empirical studies the effects of CSR on companies and stakeholders are still unclear, nourishing the fierce dispute on the ‘if’ of CSR as well as the ‘hows’.

The main research body consists of empirical studies examining the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) link, but difficulties in measuring CSP and a lack of theory to explain the direction of causality have left the mystery unsolved. Following a less frequented path of research, this study examines the effect of CSP on employer attractiveness to job seekers which is considered to be one of the aspects through which a company can benefit from its CSR investments.

The literature, social identity theory and signalling theory are reviewed to explain a potential link between corporate social responsibility levels and employer attractiveness.

Using the S&P 500 as a base sample, data on CSP, financial performance and employer attractiveness was gathered from the most relevant sources. After highlighting the problems of measuring and interpreting CSP, descriptive statistical and hierarchical regression analysis are applied. This study finds little, but some indication that CSP contributes positively to employer attractiveness. The discussion offers several explanations and new approaches to the topic.

The study concludes and points at the development of new and more sophisticated techniques to measure CSP and interpret KLD data. Limitations and methodological weaknesses are identified.

ix

ABBREVIATIONS

- Concerns# Number+ StrenghtsAA AccountAbilityCEP Council on Economic Prioritiescf conferCFP Corporate Financial PerformanceCom CommunityCSP Corporate Social PerformanceCSR Corporate Social ResponsibilityDiv DiversityDJSI Dow Jones Sustainability IndexEC European CommunityEIA Energy Information AssociationEIRIS Ethical Investment Research ServicesEmp EmployeesEP Environmental PerformanceEPA Environmental Protection AgencyESG Environmental, Social and Corporate GovernanceESP Environmental/Social PerformanceEU European UnionFP Fincancial PerformanceFRDC Franklin Research & Development CorporationGICS Global Industry Classification SystemGRI Global Reporting InitiativeIRRC Investor Responsibility Research CenterISO International Standards OrganisationKLD Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini Research & Analytics, Inc.MBA Master of Business AdministrationNACBS National Affiliation of Concerned Business Studentsnet strenghts - concernsNGO Nongovernmental OrganisationOSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationROA Return on AssetsROE Return EquityROS Return on SalesS&P Standard & Poor'ss.d. Standard DeviationSA Social AccountabilitySIM Social Issues in ManagementSP Social PerformanceSRI Socially Responsible InvestmentTRS Toxics Release InventoryUG Undergraduateviz. videlicet, namelywa Weighted AverageWRDS Wharton Research Data Services

10

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Definition attempts

orporate social responsibility is very difficult to write about, for reasons that

will become clearer as this text progresses. This study attempts to scratch

the surface as much as possible within the imposed resource limitations,1 yet, due to

these same restrictions, some topics can only be given a superficial glance.

Corporate social responsibility is a highly controversial topic, which, despite

having been under examination in the literature for almost 40 years is still enduringly

popular, as both academic articles, and journal titles like Business and Society, Journal

of Business Ethics, Business and Society Review, Business Ethics Quarterly indicate

[Chart 1.2]. Every news story of supposedly bad (and sometimes good) business

conduct revives the discussion. Companies which have recently experienced public

attention for their business conduct include Shell (Brent Spar, 1995), Nike (sweatshops,

1998), McDonald’s (continuously for various reasons), Chiquita (child labour, 1997)

and more recently Apple (labour standards of contractors, August 20062), to name but a

few [Text 1.1].

In 1991 Wood (p.384) remarked that “Social Issues in Management is showing

signs […] of becoming a discipline-like, well defined area of study,” yet by 2006,

Lockett et al. (p.116) still categorise corporate social responsibility as a field of study

within management rather than a discipline of its own.3 Because the study of CSR

cannot as of yet claim “substantive/systematic distinctiveness” (ibid), and despite a long

research tradition, debate about the “nature of CSR knowledge” (ibid) continues, and

hence the study of CSR is generally seen rather in its infancy than nearing maturity.

This is also reflected by the lack of a universally agreed definition of corporate social

responsibility. Scholars are continuously proposing different definitions and synonyms

for very similar subjects, or inventing new terms with very small differences in

meaning.4

1 Word and timelimit 2 cf. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ipodreport/ (accessed: 5th September, 2006) 3 This hasn’t prevented the arrival of CSR on the business school’s syllabi with courses such “MBA in Corporate Social Responsibility” cf. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nubs/mba/N107.html (accessed: 5th September, 2006) 4 Sustainable development, corporate citizenship, triple bottom line, stakeholder management, social issues management, corporate accountability, business ethics (Garriga & Melé, 2004; van Marrewijk, 2003)

C

11

For example, Wood (1991, p.388) summarizes several CSR definitions that have

emerged over time, including the following:

Carroll (1979) declared, in a statement that proved to have broad appeal, that “the social responsibility of business encompass the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a point in time.”

Preston & Post (1975), in an equally popular formulation stated that business had public responsibility for their primary and secondary involvements with society, but not for social problems or issues unrelated to these involvements.

Frederick (1986) articulated the idea of CSR simply as follows: “Business corporations have an obligation to work for social betterment.” […]

Davis (1973) defined CSR as the firm’s “consideration of and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm [to] accomplish social benefits along with the traditional economic gains which the firm seeks.”

A popular, more recent definition stems from McWilliams and Siegel (2001, p.117)

who define CSR as

“actions that appear to advance the promotion of some social good beyond the immediate interests of the firm/shareholders and beyond legal requirements.”

That is, CSR activities are those that exceed compliance with respect to, e.g.,

environmental or social regulations, in order to create the perception or reality that these

firms are advancing a social good.

Buchholz (1991, p.19), tries to identify the key elements found in “most, if not all” of

the many CSR definitions; he concludes that

- Corporations have responsibilities that go beyond the production of goods and services at a profit

- These responsibilities involve helping to solve important social problems, especially those they have helped create

- Corporations have a broader constituency than stockholders alone

- Corporations have impacts that go beyond simple market place transactions

- Corporations serve a wider range of human values than can be captured by a sole focus on economic values.

An entire branch of CSR literature seems involved with the definition and

documentation of shifts in meaning (e.g. van Marrewijk, 2003; Garriga & Melé, 2004;

Ostas, 2001) backed up in regular intervals with reviews of the current state of

development of CSR (e.g. Locket et al., 2006; Griffin & Mahon, 1997). The reasons for

CSR’s inability to be defined may be deeply rooted. The fuzzy notion of CSR is formed

by hazy definitions and the lack of an agreed conceptual framework. Further the

difficulties may lie in the ‘soft’ and complex nature of the topic; Carroll (1994, p.14)

12

characterizes CSR as a dynamic, multi- and interdisciplinary field 5 with loose

boundaries, multiple memberships and perspectives, and wide breadth.

The confusion is enhanced by theories combining different approaches while

using the same terminology with different meanings at all levels and in every aspect of

the discussion (Garriga & Melé, 2004). This leads to a situation as described by Votaw

(1972, p.25):

“To some [CSR] conveys the idea of legal responsibility; to others, it means socially responsible behaviour in the ethical sense; to still others the meaning transmitted is that of ‘responsible for’ in a causal mode; many simply equate it with a charitable contribution; some take it to mean socially conscious; many of those who embrace it most fervently see it’s mere synonym for legitimacy in the context of belonging or being proper or valid; a few see a sort of fiduciary duty imposing higher standards of behaviour on businessmen than on citizens at large.”

Different cultures, value systems and personal belief structures necessarily lead to

different ideas of CSR between individuals and across groups. This view is also

supported by van Marrewijk (2003), and expressed pointedly by Votaw (1972, p.25):

“Corporate social responsibility means something, but not always the same thing to everybody.”6

Or, to use Vogel’s (2005, p.6) words: “[…] the reader should feel free to imagine

quotation marks everytime he or she encounters the word “responsible” or its

synonyms ethical, virtuous or social.”

Figure 1 Carroll’s Pyramid of corporate social responsibility

Components of CSR

Consequently, it is even less

clear what CSR means in practice for

corporate behaviour 7 (Sir Owen in

Henderson, 2001, p.12) - “there is no

solid and well developed consensus

which provides a basis for action”

(Henderson, 2001, p.42). One of the

most popular images in the CSR

literature canon is Carroll’s (1991)

5 drawing upon law, sociology, political science, philosophy/ethics, management, economics and more (Wood, 1991, p.384) 6 “This is why in Seattle, Genoa, Prague representatives of the Global Civil Society clashed with politicians and industrialists; their value systems do not align, there are conflicting truths and worldviews and opposite strategies as to how to deal with (their interpretation of) the situation.” (van Marrwijk, 2003, p.97) 7 Milton Moskowitz: “Looking over the history of corporate social responsibility, I can see it has consisted of 95 percent rhetoric and five percent action.” (quoted in Vogel, 2005, p.12)

ECONOMICResponsibilities

Be profitable.The foundation upon which all others rest.

LEGALResponsibilities

Obey the law.Law is society’s codification of right and wrong.

Play be the rules of the game.

ETHICALResponsibilities

Be ethical.Obligation to do what is right, just,

and fair.

PHILANTHROPICResponsibilities

Be a good corporate citizen.Contribute resources to the community;

improve quality of life

13

“pyramid of corporate social responsibility” which gives a first indication of the

different kinds of CSR (Figure 1).

Carroll’s pyramid also implies that some dimensions of CSR are more important

than others, or that some levels of CSR cannot be reached without first achieving the

previous ones. For example, without profit (economic), companies would not exist and

thus would not have the prospect of acting philanthropic.

CSR is a multidimensional construct (e.g. Waddock & Graves, 1997) and

although there is no consensus on the exact composition and the terms assigned to each

of these dimensions, Table 2 is an approximation of the most common categorisation,

also see [Table 1.4].

Table 2 Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility

Environment Governance Stakeholder (or Social)

Business Ethics Employees

Corporate Governance Community

Customers

Suppliers

This list does not contradict Carroll’s pyramid, rather these dimensions are a more

detailed representation of the pyramid’s two top levels. The self-evident ‘threshold

requirements,’ economic and legal responsibilities, have been excluded.

A second crucial notion related to CSR is corporate social performance (CSP).

When CSR is the noun, CSP is the adjective describing how well the organisation

handles its responsibilities. How to measure CSP will be discussed later.

There are several debates going on within the field of CSR; these should briefly

be outlined to provide context for any later discussion.

1.2 The emergence of CSR.

“The basic idea of corporate social responsibility is that business and society are

interwoven rather than distinct entities.” (Wood, 1991, p.695). Over time and with

growing affluence society’s expectations change (Werther & Chandler, 2006, p.13):

“In poor democracies, the general social well-being is focused on the necessities of life: food, shelter, transportation, education, medicine, social order, jobs, and the like. Governmental or self-imposed CSR restrictions add costs that poor societies can ill afford. As societies advance however, expectations change and the general social well-being is redefined. This ongoing redefinition and evolution of societal expectations causes the CSR response also to evolve. […] For example, the need for transportation evolves into a need for non-polluting forms of transportation as

14

society becomes more affluent. In time these expectations may evolve from a discretionary to a mandatory (legal) requirement.”

Changing societal expectations and demands indicate discontent with the view of

the corporation as a solely economic institution, and with the way capitalism allocates

resources today. Analogous to the process described in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

(1968), society’s expectations seem to be striving for the next level as soon the former

has been fulfilled, moving up Carroll’s pyramid. Werther and Chandler (2006) illustrate

their argument for the emergence of CSR with the notion of “stakeholder

empowerment,” which accelerates with the arrival of globalisation8 and communication

technology such as the internet [Figure 1.3]. The public can indicate its social

preferences through their purchases, by indicating whom they are willing to work for,

and by where they choose to invest9 (Vogel, 2005, p.4).

1.3 Shareholder vs Stakeholder View

Today a war is raging between CSR-believers and free-market, laissez-faire

economists. On a continuum of CSR support, Friedman (1970),10 and most neoclassical

economists would occupy the most negative position:

"The doctrine of social responsibility […] is fundamentally subversive […] there is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or

fraud."

Friedman classifies non-profit maximizing

activities as theft, and as going against the

economic principle of efficient resource

allocation. He believes that having

managers involved in tasks beyond their

expertise goes against the interests of

companies’ principals, the shareholders.

Figure 3 A Firm’s Stakeholder groups

Somewhere on the other, but still not

anti-capitalist, end of the continuum,

8 “global brands provide a market-based vehicle for activists in on country to affect corporate practises in another, a strategy that effectively bypasses the WTO’s restrictions on governmental trade sanctions” (Vogel, 2005, p.9) 9 Socially Responsible Investment (SRI): “Indeed large institutional investors are becoming increasingly concerned with companies’ risk exposure relative to certain corporate social responsibility issues.” (Ruggie, 2004, p.513) 10 However Friedman’s comments were made at a time when it had become a common practice for businesses to donate a percentage (5%) of pre-tax earnings (Vogel, 2005, p.18). But Friedman’s position is still supported by scholars such as Henderson (2001) today.

Economic Stakeholders- Customers- CreditoArs- Distributors- Suppliers

OrganisationalStakeholders- Employees- Managers- Stockholders- Unions

Societal Stakeholders- Communities- Government and Regulators- Nonprofuts and NGOs- Environment

15

Freeman (1984) developed stakeholder11 theory, which was quickly picked up as a pillar

of corporate social responsibility.12 “Although it remains contested, the principle is

taking hold that transnational firms […] ought to be held accountable not only to their

shareholders, but also to a broader community of stakeholders who are affected by their

decisions and behaviour” (Ruggie, 2004, p.512). “According to this view, the activities

of companies […] impinge in a variety of ways on the health of the societies in which

they operate, and on the environment. In return for the freedom which they enjoy in

pursuing their commercial objectives, companies must recognise these externalities and

adjust their behaviour accordingly” (Sir Owen in Henderson, 2001, p.12). CSR

proponents fear that companies use resources for their products which are not reflected

in the market prices charged (negative externalities – e.g. pollution). Due to these

hidden costs, profit is not a good measure of the firm’s contribution to overall welfare.

CSR attempts to hold businesses accountable for such costs. It is fair to say that

proponents of CSR would agree with Brundtlands’s (1987) widely agreed definition of

“sustainable development,” that is:

“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Neither Friedman (1970) nor Henderson (2001) denies the existence of externalities,

possible market failure and social problems, but both regard it as the state’s role to

address these.13

Table 4 Drivers of CSR

A third group supports CSR

because they believe in “doing well

by doing good,” also referred to as

the “business case.” The positive

effects of CSR are thought to offer a

rationale for investing in it. 14

Several business aspects such as

human resources, risk management,

branding, image, reputation, and

ultimately financial performance,

11 “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objective” (Freeman, 1984) 12 John Kenneth Galbraith Andrew Carnegie would probably also be supporting this end of the continuum. 13 Vogel (2005) expresses doubts about Friedman’s serenity behind this statement, given Friedman’s preference for deregulation. 14 Although table 4 seems to indicate strong business support for CSR, Bishop (quoted in Salls, 2004) said that CEOs would not publicly give into admitting that companies exist for profitmaximisation due to public and media pressure.

Survey amongst business representatives:

Drivers for corporate responsibility* %

Economic considerations 74

Ethical considertations 53

Innovation and learning 53

Employee motivation 47

Risk management or risk reduction 47

Access to capital or increased shareholder value 39

Repuation or brand 27

Market position (market share) improvement 21

Strengthened supplier relationship 13

Cost saving 9

Improved relationships with governmental authoritie 9

Other 11source: KPMG, 2005

16

are believed to be supported by strong CSR initiatives. If a link between CSP and

corporate financial performance (CFP) could be proven it would solve the current

controversy (Margolis & Walsh, 2001, p.4-5):

“Empirical evidence of a positive causal relationship moving from social performance to financial performance also promises […] a solution to endless debate about the role and responsibility of the firm. […] Those who construe a narrow economic role for the firm would embrace a financial rationale for socially responsible practices, and those with a broader conception of the firm’s responsibility would not need to appeal to an alternative control of the firm’s purpose to justify expansive responsibilities”

Kofi Annan (2001, quoted in Margolis & Walsh, 2003, p.273) expresses confidence in

this assumption when he refers to CSR as

“a happy convergence between what your shareholders want and what is best for millions of people the world over”

Recently, even Arnold Schwarzenegger was

referencing the business case when talking about the

introduction of new legislation15 saying that fighting global

warming makes good business as well as environmental

sense (Gumble, 01/09/2006). The legislation includes the

creation of a system of emissions credits. If a company

exceeds its targets on emission reduction, it can sell the

excess to a company lagging behind, creating a financial

incentive for business to do their bit for the environment.

Previously, BP had used such as system within the

organisation and between business divisions with

tremendous success (Malone, 2004). This is a good example of how market forces can

be used to drive CSR.16

1.4 Government Involvement vs Self Regulation

Presently, in most countries CSR is practised voluntarily on companies’ initiatives

alone, except in France where publishing a social responsibility report is mandatory.

However, it should also be noted that, like contracts due to bounded rationality

(Simon, 1957), legislation can never be complete. This is where business ethics will

matter. When companies have the choice to follow the letter or the spirit of the law,17

15 An example of legalising previously voluntary CSR, as discussed in section 1.2. It also illustrates the scope for and demand for CSR 16 One problem looming is the allocation of emission reduction targets. 17 the terms “creative compliance” or “creative accounting” indicate that occasionally businesses like to bend the rules.

17

society and government will expect them to show goodwill and follow the spirit, rather

than exploit loopholes.

Government regulation carries the risk of over-regulation (Henderson, 2001),

while voluntary self-regulation can be regarded as industry’s defence mechanism

against more (expensive) government regulation (Ashby, 2003). Because CSR is not

verifiable it often has a bitter connotation of being more about image building, cheap

talk, or PR activity. Klawitter (2006) gives an example how Chiquita’s PR activities

resulted in very favourable press coverage while NGO Human Rights Watch still finds

evidence of child labour on plantations supplying Chiquita. Klawitter (ibid) quotes an

estimate according to which 40% of the information of newspapers originate from PR

agencies or companies’ marketing departments.

Yet some companies have declared ethics as a foundation of their business model

(cf. Bodyshop, Fairtrade) which differentiates their product from others on the market.

Whether it is ethical to use ethics as a differentiating characteristic to make a profit is

beyond the scope of this study. Can CSR, if openly declared as a way of differentiation,

and hence profit maximisation be compared with intrinsically, altruistically motivated

corporate responsibility?

1.5 Standardisation & Reporting

The lack of a common understanding and a comprehensive CSR definition has not

prevented the emergence of standards for many aspects of CSR [Text 1.7]. Generally

European companies are more engaged in CSR than their American

counterparts.

SA8000, developed by Social Accountability International

(SAI),18 is a way for retailers, brand companies, suppliers and other

organizations to maintain just and decent working conditions

throughout the supply chain. Companies that have sufficiently demonstrated that they

have adhered to the various requirements are awarded the respective certification.

ISO 9000, and ISO 1400, both developed by the International Organization for

Standardization19 are management systems concerned with “quality management” and

“environmental management” respectively while OHSAS18001

covers health and safety issues.

AA1000 20 sets guidelines for the quality of social and ethical accounting

processes, along with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 21 for the quality of 18 http://www.sa-intl.org/ 19 http://www.iso.org/

18

sustainability reporting. The standards are complementary, with GRI providing a

framework with which to evaluate CSR and to capture data on CSR performance.

(Bhimani & Soonawalla, 2005, p.170) [Table 1.4].

The United Nations’ initiative, called Global Compact22

and officially launched in July 2000, established their own set

of global norms for responsible corporate conduct consisting

of ten rules [Text 1.5]. To date this initiative counts 2,500 signatories in 90 countries.

The emergence of such standards and independent auditing of companies’ non-

financial reports illustrates business’ desire to increase credibility and

to counter the notion that CSR reports are meaningless PR activities.

Again, this short list illustrates that like academic definitions, NGOs

are tinkering with their own reporting standard (cf Context, 2006).

At the legal international level initiatives such as the Kyoto

protocol, or attempts by the EU (Greenpaper, 2001) to initiate the

establishment of international CSR reporting standards have

emerged.

1.6 Research Agenda

This study is trying to investigate the effect of CSP on the firm, hence the unit of

analysis is the firm. Instead of following the widely used trail of CSP-CFP studies, this

text will follow a less frequented side path in order to be able to make a contribution to

the literature. While a CSP-CFP link cannot be proven nor explained at present, some

theoretical sub-mechanisms have been put forward that could validate the business case

(section 1.3). The best way forward seems to be the investigation of the hypothesised

micro-workings of an eventual business case. So far, the research into these has been

limited. Next to branding and image enhancement, CSR’s potential effects to attracting

a larger applicant pool are thought to have the highest potential of contributing to the

business case. Thus, the remainder of the study will explore the CSP-employer

attractiveness relationship. The literature review below still discusses the CSP-CFP

literature because its methodology and findings are relevant to the research proposed for

this study.

20 http://www.accountability.org.uk/ 21 http://www.globalreporting.org/ (established in 1977) 22 http://www.unglobalcompact.org/

19

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The CSP – CFP link

he most prominent question in the field of CSR research is its effect on

corporate performance. From above, it is clear that the most important

(economic) driver of CSR is the argument that CSR is also good business. Amongst

CSR researchers, proving the CSP-CFP link is the ‘holy grail’ of their research efforts,

and scholars of business ethics hope for a positive link because it would justify their

area of teaching in business schools (Vogel, 2005, p.9). This is why “oceans of ink”

(ibid, p.11) have flowed into the search for an answer to this question. Margolis &

Walsh (2003, p.277-8):

If corporate social performance contributes to corporate social financial performance, then a firm’s resources are being used to advance the interests of shareholders, the rightful claimants in the economic contractarian model. Concerns about misallocation recede as well. If social performance is contributing to financial performance, then the firm is being used to advance the objective for which it is considered to be best suited, maximising wealth.

However, this does still not mean that investment into CSP is profit-maximising, nor

that no other investment would yield a higher return. Between 1972 and 2002, 127

published studies empirically examined the relationship between companies’ social

performance and their financial performance (ibid). These have yielded positive,

negative and neutral relationships. An aggregative count of the results reported by these

studies would lead one to believe that a positive relationship between CSP and CFP

exists (Chart 5), [Chart 2.2, Table 2.5]. However methodologies and data vary widely

between all studies. Margolis & Walsh (2001, p.13):

“The clear signal that emerges from thirty years of academic research – indicating that a positive relationship exists between social performance and financial performance – must be treated with caution. Serious methodological concerns have been raised about many of the studies and about efforts to aggregate results […] Questions arise about the connection between the underlying CSP construct and efforts to measure it; the validity of the measures used to assess social performance; the diversity of measures used to assess financial performance; and the direction and mechanism of causation, given the heavy reliance on correlation analyses and contemporaneous financial and social performance data.”

T

20

Chart 5 The results of 127 studies on the CSP-CFP link, 1972-2002

16

30

3

54

28

7

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Positive Zero Negative MixedRelationship

Num

ber o

f Rel

atio

nshi

ps

CSP as Independent Variable

CSP as Dependent Variable

Source: Margolis & Walsh, 2003

McWilliams and Siegel (2000, p.604) criticise the typical econometric model used to

examine the CSP-CFP relationship, quoting Waddock & Graves (1997) as an example,

see below. Most models follow a very similar or even simpler setup:

PERFi = f(CSPi, SIZEi, Riski, INDi) where PERFi

= long-run economic or financial performance of firm i

(measure of accounting profits) CSPi = a proxy for corporate social responsibility of firm i (based on

an index of social performance SIZEi = a proxy for the size of the firm i Riski = a proxy for the “risk” of the firm i (debt/asset ratio) INDi = Industry of firm i (4 digit SIC code)

In this case, McWilliams and Siegel (ibid) argue that the omission of a variable for

company ‘R&D intensity’ renders the model invalid and go on to demonstrate that

including ‘R&D intensity’ results in a neutral relationship, whereas Waddock & Graves

(ibid) previously found a positive relationship. This example is given to illustrate the

fragility of current CSR research.

Glancing at the statistics shows the differences in sample bases [Chart 2.3], CSP

measures used [Chart 2.4], and financial measures used [Table 2.5] – yet there is not

consensus on the causality of the relationship (Chart 5). The relevant theoretical

explanations for the sign of the CSP-CFP relationship, and the direction of causation put

forward so far, are briefly outlined below.

Sign of the relationship and Causality

Sign of the relationship The beliefs underlying each case have already been

addressed in section 1.3. Friedman’s shareholder view does not recognize measurable

economic benefits, only costs; the relationship is negative.

21

A positive association implies that the costs of CSP are lower then the benefits.

For example, good human resources management may be inexpensive while creating a

competitive advantage for the company against less responsible firms. Being regarded

as a good employer or being ranked in lists such as Fortune’s 100 best companies to

work for might facilitate the recruitment of top talent at low cost (Waddock and Graves,

1997; Moskowitz, 1972). A company being a good place to work seems to be reflected

in share price performance at least, see [Chart 2.11].

However, the mixed empirical findings do not preclude the idea that there is no

relationship. Ullmann (1985) argues that the relationship could be indirect, and that the

number of factors influencing profitability is so large that there is not even a reason to

expect a direct causal relationship. This also suggests that a relationship might be more

easily proven or disproven through the analysis of mirco-factors such as branding and

recruiting. The inaccuracies in the measurement of CSP might be another factor

preventing the tracing of a direct relationship.

CSP as the independent variable: Good management23 According to this theory,

there is a high correlation between good management practice and CSP. Improving

stakeholder relationships results in better overall performance. For example, good

employee relations might be expected to enhance morale, productivity, and employee

satisfaction. Positive customer perceptions may lead to increased sales or reduced

stakeholder management cost. CSP is both a predictor and consequence of firm

financial performance, forming a simultaneous relationship or a kind of ‘virtuous

circle’.

CSP as the dependent variable: Slack resources24 Better financial performance

results in the availability of ‘slack resources’ which provide the opportunity to invest

into CSR activities. This theory assumes CSR to be dependent variable. [Table 2.1 and

Table 2.3] show the discussed models and some alternatives models.

Margolis and Walsh (2003) complain about the ongoing flow of quantitative

studies [Chart 2.1], while the field is lacking a theoretical exploration of the issue.

To avoid confounding effects, some study specific industries to isolate industry

effects, while some, to avoid the problem of quantifying CSP, have conducted

qualitative reviews of industries. But these have low applicability outside the relevant

23 Paragraph based on an explanation as given in Waddock & Graves, 1997, p.306-7 24 based on Waddock & Graves, 1997, p.306

22

industries (e.g. Frynas, 2005; Simpson & Kohers, 2002). Others have studied single

dimensions of CSR, such as the environmental aspect only.

One aspect of the business case is CSR’s influence on employer attractiveness and

reputation. Compared with the more than hundred studies on the CSP-CFP link, little

attention has focused on the narrow area of recruiting. The literature review will look

briefly at the psychological aspects of job-selection – although a glimpse at this

literature indicates that the decision-making process is extremely complicated, with

more factors involved than described here. Two strings of theory are commonly

employed by current research on this issue to explain the forces that drive employer

attractiveness: signaling theory and social identity theory.

2.2 Signaling Theory

The majority of papers, inter alia Turban & Greening, (1997), Greening and

Turban, (2000) and Backhaus et al., (2002, p.295-6) draw on signalling theory (ibid):

“[…]Wanous (1992) pointed out that job seekers require complete and accurate organizational information to match their needs properly with organizational offerings. However, job seekers usually have limited information about organizations and must use bits and pieces of data to construct a view of what it would be like to work for an organization (Barber, 1998). Organizational characteristics have been shown to be indicative of personnel practices (Jackson et al., 1989), and job seekers tend to use these characteristics as clues. This use of organizational attributes as predictors of working conditions is captured under the rubric of signaling theory. Signaling theory suggests that individuals use various clues, dropped by the firm, to draw conclusions about the firm’s intentions or actions (Srivastava & Lurie, 2001). In the organizational choice process, prospective employees use any available information to improve their efforts to make a rational decision (Wanous, 1992). […] Information about certain CSP dimensions may provide the data a job seeker needs to assess the appropriateness of the employer.”

2.3 Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory, developed by Henri Tajfel (1979) and John Turner,

suggests that individuals derive their self-concept partly from their membership in

certain social groups. Assuming that this behaviour also applies to the membership of an

organisation, firms with high CSP are more attractive as employers because prospective

employees expect their self-concept to be enhanced through their association with such

firms. Backhaus et al., (2002, p.296):

In other words, we define our identity in terms of our group membership, and enhance our self-esteem by comparing our group to lesser quality groups (Stets & Burke, 2000). The successes and reputation of our group contribute to our self-concept (Underwood, Bond, & Baer, 2001). Our employer is an important source of self-concept (Tajfel, 1982). We enjoy the benefits of our employer’s positive

23

reputation but also suffer detrimental effects of our firm’s negative reputation (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). This provides another foundation on which to argue that a firm’s CSP will be important to job seekers as a way of selecting a self-enhancing employment setting.”

2.4 Organizational Attraction

The job market is a very popular field of study and of high interest to businesses,

yet much remains to be learned (Barber, 1998). Previous research (quoted in Backhaus

et al., 2002) indicates that structural attributes, such as decentralized decision making

and performance pay, are increasing attractiveness. “Gatewood and associates (1993)

examined corporate image, another organizational characteristic, finding that

perception of an organization’s image is a significant predictor of decisions to pursue

employment with that company” (ibid).

Turban & Greening’s work (1997, 2000) is maybe the most prominent

contribution to the CSP/employer-attractiveness literature. They find a positive

relationship between published ratings of firms’ CSP and participants’ ratings of firms’

attractiveness, and conclude that perceptions of an organization’s attractivenes may be

influenced by CSP. Later, Greening and Turban (2000) supplied a student sample with

CSP ratings, testing the effects of that information on their perceptions of companies’

attractiveness, and again found a positive relationship. It should be remarked that in

both cases the relationships found were indicative, rather than evident.

Following one of Turban & Greening’s propositions, Albinger & Freeman (2002)

investigated different job-seeking populations and found a positive relationship between

CSP and companys’ attractiveness to high-choice applicants (MBA students), while

there was no significant relationship for medium (undergraduate) and low-choice

applicants (unemployed).

Backhaus et al. (2002) built on these studies and tested more differentiated

hypotheses of the nature of the CSP/employer-attractiveness link. Their overall findings

support the previous studies; in particular, they find that CSR is part of the image-

building process, and that some dimensions are more important to job-seekers than

others.

Most previous studies, while technically well-executed and sophisticated in the

statistical models used, either lack good CSP data or employer-attractiveness ratings.

For example, Albinger & Freeman (2002) obtain CSP measures through a survey of

business school faculty members – but without any of these individuals being industry

insiders, the ratings are bound to be mere ‘perceptions’ rather than actual CSP. While a

24

small scale like this allowed customary, multi stage experiment-like setups, the small

sample size does not give a definitive answer on the relationship between CSR and

employer attractiveness. Small sample sizes have not allowed the investigation of

industry-specific effects.

This study tries to test the relationship with an up-to-date and significant dataset

relying on observational data as much as possible. Some of the detailed implications and

differences between previous studies and this one will be detailed in later parts of the

dissertation.

Table 6 Overview of studies on the CSP- Employer attractiveness link

25

CSP Data Sample Methodology Research Question Finding

Turban & Greening, 1996, "Corporate Social Performance and Organisational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees" student ratings

via likert scale

Student sample 1: n=75 (rating reputation)Student sample 2: n=34 (rating attractiveness)161 companies

Bivariate correlation & linear Regression

Controlling for:Size (total assets)profitability (ROA)

H1: Organizations higher on independently rated corporate social perfgormance willl more positive reputations and will ne perceived as more attractive employers than organisations lower on CSP

CSR may provide a competitive advantage in attracting applicants only when applicants are familiar with a firm and its CSP

Greening & Turban, 2000, "Corporate Social Performance as a Competitive Advantage in Attracting a Quality Workforce"

KLD(5 dimensions)

Pilot Study: n=39n = 292

experimental setup: manipulation of CSP ratings to measure the effect of CSP on job seekers perception of company attractiveness

H1: Individuals will report stronger job pursuit intententions toward firmsdecribed with positive versus negative CSP

H2: Individual differences will moderate the effects of CSP on job pursuit, gender and person's value for the environment

results support the hypothesis that firms higher in CSP are perceived as more attractive employers than firms lower in CSP and that prospective applicants' job pursuit, probability to interview, and probability to accept a job offer are posiively associated with a firm's CSP.

Albinger & Freeman, 2000, "Corporate Social Performance and Attractiveness as an Employer to different Job seeking populations"

25 Companies' CSP evaluated by a panel of business school faculty

low choice: n=30medium choice: n=91high choice: n=79

companies=25

Bivariate correlation & multivariate analysis of variance

H1: There will be a strong, positive relationship between organisations' CSP and their attractiveness as employers among job-seeking populations with many choices. This relationship will be wrak or non existant among job seekers with few choices

low choice groups do not value CSR as highly as medium and high choice groupscertain dimensions of CSP affect a job-seeker's perception more than others

Backhaus, et al., 2002, "Exploring the Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Employer Attractiveness"

student ratings &KLD(5 dimensions)

Part 1: n=297Part 2: n=297 (same sample)

companies=50

student survey

correlation and descriptive statistics

controling for gender

H1: CSP is important to job seekersH2: Certain CSP dimensions are more important than othersH3 & 4: Women and Minorities will value diversity more highlyH5: Firm's CSP rating will influence job seeker's assessment of employer attractivenessH6: Individual CSP dimensions will have differential effects on job seekers' assessement of employer attractivenessH7: Employee relations will be the most influential ofthe five dimensions on asssessment of employer attractivenessH8: Product issues will rank second among the dimensions in its effect on employer attractiveness

Part 1: CSP is an important criterion in the overall assessment of the company, at all stages.Environment, Community, Employee, Diversity and Product are the most important issues.Women and minorities more concerned about diversity and CSR in general.Part 2: Familiarity with Companies seems to reinforce positive perceptions of CSP and vice-versa.Confronted with actual CSP (ratings)H7 & H8 are not supported

26

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Data Selection & Collection

Corporate social performance

ith the problems of measuring CSP described above, collecting CSP data

posed itself as the most difficult problem in this research. The problems

of measuring CSP are not noted in the literature without reason! There is no single best

way to measure CSP and, over time, each new measure proposed has bared its own set

of weaknesses (Wolfe & Aupperle, 1991, quoted in Sharfman, 1996, p.287). The most

frequently used measures will briefly be outlined below:

As is clear from Margolis & Walsh’s CSP-CFP link literature survey, many CSP

measures have been used, some more frequently than others [Chart 2.4].

Fortune’s frequently-used America’s most admired companies ranking, for

example, measures eight categories, one of which is “responsibility to the community

and the environment.”25 However, this item is highly correlated to the overall reputation

score so it may not be a separate measure (Sharfman, 1996, p.288). One can also argue

that data collected through a survey amongst presumably well-informed managers

outside the focal firm rather produces the image that a particular firm has in the business

community (ibid, p.290). Brown and Perry propose an entire methodology for removing

the financial halo of Fortune’s ranking (1994) and for the CSP component in particular

(1995).

Content analyses of social reports published by the companies themselves would

require a valid coding scheme that eliminates the self-serving bias. The more

questionable the scheme, the more the research is open to criticism (Sharfman, 1996,

p.288). This is what standardised reporting initiatives as discussed above want to

address, but support is not yet universal, and might be avoided by those companies who

have skeletons in their closets.

25 the others are: innovation, people management, use of corporate assets, quality of management, financial soundness, long-term investment and quality of products/ services (source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/best_worst/)

W

27

The approach taken for this study (and an increasing number of academic studies)

was to rely on CSP ratings provided by professional rating agencies. Several agencies

which collect Company CSP data were contacted to inquire about the availability of

data for the purpose of this study. After some considerable inquisitive efforts, access to

data from three sources could be secured:26

- A sample of 500 global companies rated on four dimensions27 by EIRIS [Text 3.1] which were part of a survey of the “Global 500 Most Responsible Companies” published in Japanese Newsweek.

- A sample of 463 European companies rated in three categories on six28 dimensions collected by Scoris. These companies were from the DJSTOXX600 universe.

- Access to Socrates, a database which contains company ratings on 7 dimensions29 on more than 3,000 public US companies collected by KLD [Text 3.1].

The rating methodologies between these three sources differ, as do the things that are

measured – sometimes even by dimensions of the same name. Confronted with the a

priori unexpected wide choice, the author decided to use the KLD data set for several

reasons:

- KLD data was used by a majority of previous studies on this topic [Chart 2.4]

- Access to the database meant that the sample of companies could be self-selected, here the S&P500 was chosen as the most representative sample.

- The other samples had shortcomings: the EIRIS sample was non random, no data for employer attractiveness could be found for European companies and both samples were mixing companies from different countries, a potential confounding factor.

Waddock & Graves (1997, p.307) summarise KLD data as follows:

“KLD is an independent rating service that focuses exclusively on assessment of corporate social performance across a range of dimensions related to stakeholder concerns. KLD’s rating scheme makes several advances beyond those used in earlier research. First, all companies in the S&P 500 are rated. Second, each company is rated on multiple attributes considered relevant to CSP. Third, a single group of researchers, working independently from the rated companies or any particular brokerage house, applies the same set of criteria to related companies. Fourth, the criteria are applied consistently across a wide range of companies, with data gathered from a range of sources, both internal and external to the firm.”

26 Equal thanks to Jay Carberry, Claudia Volk, Kayoko Chiba 27 Governance, employees, society, environment 28 Environment, corp. governance, business ethics, employees, contractors, customers, community 29 Community, diversity, employees, corporate governance, + 4 negative screens: tobacco, alcohol, gambling, nuclear, military

28

See also Appendix 3 on KLD’s methodology, data sources [Text 3.2] and rating

criteria [Text 3.4] and their detailed descriptions [Text 3.4]. As recently as 2002

(Backhaus et al., 2002), the most widely used rating method was to assign a score on a

scale from -2 (major concern), -1 (concern) to 0 (neutral) and +1 (strength) to +2 (major

strength) to each KLD CSP dimension, also used by Turban & Greening, (1997);

Waddock & Graves, (1997).

However the measures have improved over time. Today, the Socrates database30

to which the author had been given bespoke personal access for the purpose of this

study, reports a number of both strengths and concerns in seven major dimensions and

negative scores in five more areas of potential concern31 [Table 3.3]. These dimensions

are:

- Community

- Corporate Governance (new)

- Diversity

- Employee Relations

- Environment

- Human Rights (new)

- Product

- Negative screens: involvement with alcohol, tobacco, gambling, military, nuclear power

It must be noted, that virtually all previous research used only five of these dimensions.

Although the dimensions ‘human rights’ and ‘corporate governance’ were collected and

available in the database since 1991 (communication with KLD), previous researchers

have not used these dimensions because they were only partially available or not

labelled correctly (communication with Prof Waddock).

Similar to Sharfman’s conclusions (1996), it seems best to transform the raw KLD

data in several ways. The study will follow two approaches of displaying KLD scores.

KLD assigns a number of strengths (positive) and concerns (negative) to each

dimension (see [Table 3.5] for a worked example). For each firm, concerns are

subtracted from strengths along all dimensions for aggregate dimension scores. This

simple method was also used by Turban & Greening (1997).

Careful analysis of the KLD data and its rating methodology revealed that by

design some CSP dimensions have different possible maximum values,32 because they

30 http://web.kld.com/ 31 (-1) if present, (0) otherwise 32 See [Table 3.2], Since there are eight criteria for diversity strength the maximum value (if no concerns present) is eight, the human right dimension however can only achieve a maximum score of three.

29

are composed of differing numbers of criteria. Hence a standardisation of scores is

recommended.

This is taken account of through the second transformation, as used for the

publication Business Ethics’ 100 Best Corporate Citizens survey and also Garz et al.,

(2002) who work with Scoris’ CSP data, is to display dimensional KLD net ratings

(from above) as z-scores.33 This means that they are always relative scores, indicating

the distance from the population mean in number of standard deviations.34 Below the

formula and example for the transformation of the employee dimension into z-scores:

emp

iempiempiemp

ratingratingz

Xz

σ

σμ

,,,

−=

−=

Garz et al. (2002, p.48):

“z-scores have the advantage that results can be interpreted simply, directly and unambiguously. A zero score means that a company tallies precisely with the market average”

These transformations of the data represent a significant improvement over the methods

of many other studies using KLD data.

To derive composite scores representing the firm’s entire CSP as a single number,

weighting individual dimensions can be considered. Although Waddock & Graves

(1997) weighted their dimensions, it is not recommended because the weighting will be

different for each stakeholder. Generally, composite scores should be avoided.

Alternatively, a new CSP could be constructed containing only the stakeholder group

relevant factors (here: job seekers). The Scoris data is used with sophisticated and

industry specific weighting systems (Garz, 2002), but it could not be applied to KLD’s

data, because the dimensions are arranged too differently. EIRIS created composite

scores for its data by simply adding all four scores.

In addition to the equal weight, non-standardised (net strengths) and standardised

transformation (z-scores), the author has applied an estimated subjective weighting,

informed by a month of research and based on other literature for internal use [Table

4.5].

33 “Z scores are a special application of the transformation rules. The z score for an item, indicates how far and in what direction, that item deviates from its distribution's mean, expressed in units of its distribution's standard deviation. The mathematics of the z score transformation are such that if every item in a distribution is converted to its z score, the transformed scores will necessarily have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.” http://www.animatedsoftware.com/statglos/sgzscore.htm (accessed: 06/09/2006) 34 Since the population is not available, the S&P500 sample mean will be substituted. Using the industry-mean would facilitate intra-industry comparisons.

30

Volumes could be, have been, and continue to be written on CSP measurement,

and on the transformation of KLD ratings into the most representative quantitative form.

For example, Sharfman (1996) examines the validity of KLD CSP ratings by comparing

it to Fortune’s rating. He finds only medium correlation (less than 50% of the variance

in either variable explained), which could stem from the fact that either KLD or Fortune

rankings are the better measure for CSP. The financial halo of Fortune’s most admired

survey could be a confounding factor. Still, this just shows that the validity of KLD

ratings is not guaranteed (Mistra, 2001; Vivien et al., 2004).

At the time of writing, new research emerged (Mattingly & Berman, March 2006)

which finds that using factor analysis, KLD dimension strengths and weaknesses should

be treated separately. Further they suggest that the six (they ignore human rights) factors

be reduced to four: institutional strengths and weaknesses and technical strengths and

weaknesses.

At the same time KLD ratings which assign a value of “1” for each strength or

concern, irrelevant of its salience, is a gross simplification. KLD indicated the

introduction of a new rating system in which a score of 1-3 can be assigned to each

strength or weakness - “swirling waters of CSP measurement” indeed (Carroll, 1991,

p.386)

Employer attractiveness

In the next step, these CSP ratings had to be matched with a suitable proxy for

employer attractiveness. Most previous studies (Table 6) had relied on small sample

student surveys. Rankings such as “Best Companies to Work for” published by

magazines such as The Times (UK), Fortune (US) and others were not suitable because

they measure the satisfaction of current35 employees and not the desire to work with a

company perceived by outsiders. Id est the CSR signal is perceived differently

Finally, suitable data was provided by Universum Communications. 36 Two

populations have been surveyed. The first sample includes 37,063 undergraduates from

207 US universities studying subjects in business, IT, engineering, science and the arts.

Albinger and Freeman (2000) would refer to this kind of job seeker as medium-choice

applicants.

4,996 MBA students from 43 US universities constitute the (~high-choice) second

sample. Both sets were collected in the time period between December 2005 and March

35 Methodology described in Great Places to Work, 2006, p.54 36 Universum Communications is an employer branding specialist, based in Philadelphia, which conducts yearly surveys and also provides the data for Fortune’s 100 Top MBA Employers ranking. The results are also featured in the Financial Times, CNN and other media outlets. Thanks to Mikael Eriksson.

31

2006. Data is also collected on gender, or can be broken down by area of study, but

these have not been requested.

Students were asked to name their Top5 “most desirable workplaces” as well as to

consider 15 to 25 companies that they would consider working for. This results in four

samples, UG ideal, UG considered (both 195 companies), MBA ideal, MBA considered,

(both 177 companies), see [Table 6.1 & Table 6.2] for a full list. 99 of the companies

that are on the ‘MBA ideal’ list are also in S&P500; likewise 93 companies which are in

the S&P500 appear on both the MBA and UG lists [Table 6-1 – 6.4]. The study will

focus primarily on the ‘MBA ideal’ sample. Having selected the S&P500 as the sample

base, only publicly traded companies37 primarily from the US are under investigation.

Fortune 100 Top MBA Employers also reports industry specific salary figures

[Table 6.7] that MBAs say they expect to receive. These have been assigned by hand to

the companies in the sample [Table 6.8], on an industry basis [Table 5.1]. Starting

salaries and five-years-time’s salaries were added and divided by two to take job

applicants’ long- as well as short-term considerations equally into account (variable

SalaryIndicator).

The advantage of picking the MBA ranking over the more broad undergraduate

rating is a better defined, more homogenous sample which could be matched with salary

data that was subsequently used as a control variable in the later regression. If

undergraduates of different study areas had been used it would have been very difficult

to determine weather a person would want work in with a company, say, because of its

management’s reputation or that of its engineering department – for example in the case

of chip manufaturer Intel. Because the sample consists only of MBA students, it is clear

that students aim for the same kind of jobs within a company.

Financial data

Financial data for the sample companies was taken from Standard & Poor’s

Compustat database (accessed through the Wharton Research Data Service) for the

(most recent) 200538 financial year and attached to the data series without modification.

Compustat is the most popular source of financial data and was also used in Turban &

Greening, (1996) and Waddock & Graves (1997) inter alia. The entire dataset (n=495)

containing all three elements can be found in Appendix 6 [Table 6.8].

37 Large-cap companies with >US$ 4billion marketcap 38 The following have been supplemented with 2004 financial data: Navistar International Corporation, Cintas Corporation, FedEx Corporation, NIKE, Inc., ConAgra Foods, Inc., General Mills Incorporated, Heinz (H.J.) Company, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Biomet, Inc., Medtronic, Inc., Paychex, Inc., CA, Inc., Oracle Corporation, Comverse Technology, Inc., Tektronix, Inc.

32

There are pros as well as cons of using the S&P500 as the sample base. On the

one hand information for this group of companies was more easily available (and may

be the only sample for which these information are available without further primary

research). Also, the potential for surveyed companies’ large size confounding the

comparison of companies of different size is avoided – although Orlitzky (2001) found

that company size had no effect on the CSP-CFP link.

On the other hand the sample excludes non-public companies, and this means

excluding some of the job-seekers’ favourite places to work (mainly consultancies, Mc

Kinsey, etc) [Chart 4.2]

33

4 ANALYSIS

4.1 Analysis & Findings

mployer attractiveness is assumed as the dependent variable, while CSP is

the predicting variable. In contrast to the CSR-CFP causality dilemma, the

possible direction of the causality seems clearer in this case, or at least has not been

disputed in the literature. The analysis will use multiple regression analysis and simple

descriptive statistics.

Table 7 Correlation and Descriptive Statistics mean s.d.

Corporate Social Performance

Community 0.22 0.95 1

Diversity 1.37 1.59 0.38 ** 1

Employees -0.11 1.21 0.10 * 0.13 ** 1

Environment -0.15 1.12 0.25 ** 0.14 ** 0.08 1

Human Rights -0.14 0.42 -0.10 * -0.08 0.03 0.26 ** 1

Product -0.57 1.00 -0.08 -0.16 ** 0.18 ** 0.14 ** 0.10 * 1

Corp Gov -0.56 0.83 -0.04 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.14 ** 1

Employer Attractiveness

MBA Ideal (n=99) 0.02 0.03 0.20 * 0.27 ** 0.20 * 0.18 -0.33 ** -0.13 0.06 1

Control Variables

Total Assets 47,482 143,968 0.36 ** 0.25 ** 0.05 0.00 -0.16 ** -0.27 ** -0.18 ** 0.42 ** 1

ROA '05 0.07 2.24 -0.06 -0.02 0.14 ** 0.02 -0.07 0.14 ** 0.09 0.06 -0.19 ** 1

Salary Indicator 124,100 10,859 0.06 -0.01 0.08 -0.09 * -0.09 -0.14 ** -0.06 0.43 ** 0.30 ** -0.07 1

mean s.d.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Total Assets

Salary IndicatorDiversity Environ-

ment Product MBA Ideal(n=99) ROA '05Com-

munityEmp-loyees

Human Rights Corp Gov

Com-munity Diversity Emp-

loyeesEnviron-

mentTotal

Assets ROA '05 Salary Indicator

Human Rights Product Corp Gov MBA Ideal

(n=99)

Table 7 shows descriptive statistics which have been calculated from non-standardised

KLD ratings. A full version is given in the Appendix, [Table 4.7].

Although Turban and Greening (1997, p.663) noted that (in their case) Pearson’s r

of the CSP dimensions amongst themselves did not exceed 0.48, in this dataset this

value is below 0.38, despite significance [Table 4.3]. But factor analysis has shown that

fewer variables would be required to express CSP in this set. However, to maintain the

dimension influence and comparability the dimensions continued to be treated

separately.

The correlation of factors with employer-attractiveness proxy ‘MBA ideal’ are the

most interesting ones. Four of the seven dimensions show significant relationships,

although ‘human rights’ is negatively correlated. Salary and company size (Total

Assets) show a strong correlation with ‘MBA Ideal’.

E

34

The high average for diversity for example can be explained by the fact that

KLD’s rating grid allows eight strengths, but only three concerns [Table 3.3] (also

discussed in section 2.3). In this case z-scores are more meaningful.

Looking at the standardised z-scores, which have also been broken down for each

industry in both the S&P500 (n=495) and the ‘MBA ideal’ (n=99) sample, one can see

in which categories the 100 favourite companies distinguish themselves from the

average S&P500 company (Chart 8) and see [Table 4.6].

Chart 8 CSP of MBAs' favourite companies to work for relative to S&P 500

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Community Diversity Employees Environ-ment Human Rights Product Corp. Gov. average z-score

Stan

dard

Dev

iatio

ns fr

om th

e (S

&P5

00) M

ean

sample of 99 'MBA ideal' companies

Why are MBA’s favourite companies below S&P500 average on the dimensions

Corporate Governance, Product and Human Rights? Looking at the criteria for

Corporate Governance [Text 3.4], one has to wonder why ‘low CEO pay’ is considered

as necessarily ethical/responsible. It comes as no surprise that this characteristic fares

badly with ambitious MBA students (given the correlation of attractiveness with Salary

Table 7). KLD’s rating criteria seem very immature for the corporate governance

dimension, where criteria such as “position of chairman and CEO are held by different

persons” or “supervisory board independence” have established themselves as the

standard criteria for dimensions of the same name by other research agencies (e.g.

Scoris, EIRIS). Looking at the criteria for the other dimensions does not evoke any

obvious explanations.

The simple linear regression for the research question would look like this:

CSPCSP xnessattractiveemployerE

xYE

βα

βα

+=

+=

)_(

)(

35

To control for non-CSP influences a (multiple) hierarchical regression analysis is

conducted.

govgovproprohrhrenvenvempempdivdiv

comcomSalarySalaryROAROAassetsassets

kk

xxxxxx

xxxxnessattractiveemployerE

xxxYE

ββββββ

ββββα

βββα

++++++

++++=

++++=

)()_(

...)( 2211

The setup follows and expands Turban & Greening (1997) with the additional data

available today. Three control variables – company size (total assets), profitability

(ROA) and industry salary (salary indicator) – are added in the first step, shown in

brackets above. This controls for the effects other than CSP that influence employer

attractiveness:

“Because we expected larger and more profitable firms to receive more publicity and to have greater name recognition, we controlled for organisation size and firm profitability. Turban and Keon (1993) presented evidence that an organization’s size influences its attractiveness and that reputation is related to profitability (Brown & Perry, 1994)”

Later on, Turban and Greening (ibid, p.668) find that more familiar firms were rated as

more attractive. More familiar firms were larger, had a more positive reputation, more

media exposure, larger advertising budgets and were more likely to recruit on campus.39

This suggests that the more people have heard about a firm, the more positively it is

regarded (ibid).

The seven CSP dimensions, including human rights and corporate governance are

added in the second step, (ibid, p.663):

“The change in r2 from step 1 to step 2 provides a test of whether the set of CSP dimensions explains variance in the dependent variable beyond what the control variables explain. The significance of the regression coefficients indicates whether the CSP dimensions explain unique variance in the dependent variable”

After the control step, the CSP dimensions (Environment and Human Rights)

explained more of the unique variance in employer attractiveness than the control

variables alone.40

In sum, these results indicate at best only weak support that CSP is related to

companies’ attractiveness. Given that only two dimensions could significantly add 39 Turban and Greening (1996, p.665-6) report negative correlations between unfamiliarity with firm and firm size (-0.25), media exposure (-0.45), advertising expenditure (-0.40), reputation (-0.52) and attractiveness as an employer (-0.49). However, company size has been noted as insignificant as an influence on CSP (Waddock & Graves, 1997, Orlitzky, 2001) 40 r2 is the percent (explained deviation) divided by (total deviation). This calculation yields a percentage. Each additional variable used in the equation can only increase, not decrease r2, even when the new variable causes the equation to become worse. In theory, using an infinite number of independent variables to explain the change in a dependent variable would result in an r2 of one. The adjusted r2 value however can decline in value if the contribution to the explained deviation by the additional variable is less than the impact on the degrees of freedom. The adjusted r2 is not a percentage. This study is using the adjusted r2.

36

explanatory value, suggests that job seekers can infer most other dimensions from

company size, profitability and salary. The KLD human rights dimension has not been

discussed in the literature before or been used in any empirical study. It is unclear why

this dimension in particular should be most relevant.

Table 9 Results of Regression Analysis predicting Employer Attractiveness

Predictors β Change in r²

1. Control variables 0.30 **

Assets 0.35 **

Profitability (ROA) 0.25 **

Industry Salary 0.26 *

2. CSP Dimensions 0.08 *

Community -0.05

Employees 0.11

Environment 0.19 *

Product -0.03

Diversity 0.13

Human Rights -0.23 **

Corp. Governance 0.11

Total r² 0.38 **

* p < 0.05** p < 0.01

n.b.: standardised β coefficients and adjusted r² for the full model are shown.

Employer Attractiveness

The idea to run a regression with a single overall CSP score has been rejected

because of the problems shown of calculating a fair overall CSP score, since there are

many ways to weigh stakeholder. Secondly, this way dimension differences remain

visible.

Table 10 Correlation Matrix, KLD-EIRIS data on common dimensions

KLD Community

KLD Employees

KLD Environment

KLD Corp Gov KLD Total '06

EIRIS Society 0.270 **

EIRIS Employees 0.192 * 0.074

EIRIS Environment 0.290 ** 0.107 0.149

EIRIS Governance 0.058 0.057 -0.001 0.080

EIRIS Total '06 0.286 ** 0.114 0.062 0.192 * 0.298

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). n = 151

Inspired by Sharfman (1996), an exploratory post-hoc analysis of the validity of

KLD data has been attempted. To make use of the availability of CSP ratings from

different sources that the research process yielded, KLD ratings of 151 companies

37

which are in both sets (section 3.1) are correlated with their corresponding EIRIS

ratings. Only those dimensions that could be matched were compared. ‘KLD Total ‘06’

and ‘EIRIS Total ‘06’ both are simple, equal weighted totals of all other dimensions.

The results indicate a very weak and largely insignificant correlation. These could

be taken as primary research results: that CSP is difficult to measure and that definitions

vary. Perhaps different aspects of CSR are captured under different dimension

headings?

4.2 Discussion

The analysis has shown weak support for the CSP-employer attractiveness link.

At the same time there is no evidence for a negative link. Methodologically similar to

earlier studies, but with better data on employer attractiveness, improved KLD data and

an added control variable for salary, this study’s conclusions don’t support a CSP-

employer-attractiveness link and exhibit its fugitive characteristics. The post-hoc

analysis of KLD-EIRIS CSP correlation has supported the view of imprecise and fragile

CSP measures.

Possibly too many factors were being ignored, since this study did not take

account of company reputation, media exposure and eventual differences within the

sample population. It is not improbable that student first select their favourite industry

to work in, and then potentially after controlling for company reputation and salary,

pick the most ethical one.

The CSR element might play only a very minor role in the company selection

process. It would seem natural to assume that CSR is considered a threshold

requirement that, if above a certain acceptable level, does not matter. It does however

increase in importance if the CSR track record is either very bad or very good.

If CSR only plays a minor role, Ullmann’s (1985) CSP-CFP hypothesis that too

many variables are involved to be able to detect a direct relationship might also apply to

this link.

CSR is perceived in a very similar way as brands and company reputation are:

based on what people learn, they form an image in their minds. As Fortune’s most

admired companies ranking shows, perceptions and reality don’t always match. The

image is mainly fed by what companies choose to disclose, or sometimes what the

media decide to publish. How would the CSR perception of a company that donates £1

million anonymously differ from the one that does the same and spend another £10

million on publicising its donation (as it happens in the tobacco industry)?

38

CSR communication might matter more than (actual) performance. Reviewing the

literature, a model by Schuler & Cording (2006) explaining the CSP-CFP linkage was

discovered. Schuler and Cording (2006) put forward several explanatory behavioural

conditions of consumers which all have to be fulfilled for a business case to exist (i.e. a

positive CSP-CFP link). The author has adapted this model to the job market below.

Figure 11 Decision tree to identify importance of CSR

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

valuesCSR

does notvalue CSR

no relationship

no relationship

no relationship

no relationship;decision basedon other factors

+ relationship

Is Information available abouta firm’s corporate socialperformance?

Is the job applicantaware of theinformation?

adapted from Schuler & Cording, 2006

What are theapplicant’s values?Is it important towork for a high CSPfirm?

Is the applicant’s behaviourinfluenced?

Unless the job applicant had the opportunity to inform himself of a company’s CSP, his

decision cannot be influenced by the company’s CSR practice. Unless the individual

values the CSR exhibited by the company (value congruence!), or values CSR in

general, his decision cannot be influenced. In the final stage the impact has to be large

enough, for example to make the student write the company’s name on his list of TOP5

companies to work for. If a condition is not met at any stage, there is likely to be no

CSP-employer attractiveness relationship.

If the characteristic of the MBA student body is such that only few are informed

about CSR (should expect better from MBA students), few care about CSR (although

several studies contradict this [Table 2.9 & 2.10]), or behaviour is simply not changed

by the CSR signal (the temptation of money is too big?) then a neutral result would be

explained. Alternatively, Companies simply could not have made their CSR information

public.

39

4.3 Limitations

Limitations have been addressed throughout the study; where this wasn’t possible

they are discussed separately here.

A major limitation is the restrictive validity of the findings to the MBA student

body. Other studies have shown that different audiences (e.g. women, minorities,

undergraduates, already employed) perceive and behave differently.

It is known that companies in Fortune’s 100 Best companies to work for have by

far outperformed the average S&P500 stock [Chart 2.11], however no study, known to

the author, examines the performance of companies which are most attractive to job

seekers (here: MBAs). Hence the literature (including this study), which states that

being an attractive employer (to current employees) results in a competitive advantage

makes the assumption that this is the case. Are the extra applicants attracted of higher

quality than those who apply anyway? Does the screening process pick out these higher

quality entrants? It is difficult to imagine that large applicant pools could have negative

effects, but perhaps the real question is whether the extra effort (costs) of attracting

them pays off.

The time aspect addressed by some other studies has been completely ignored in

the analysis. It is argued that investments into CSR pay off at a later date or even only in

the very long term (cf Orlitzky et al., 2003), this study has consistently used the latest

figures that were available.

There also seems to a be fashion element involved in the popularity of some

companies. For example last year, Google was not amongst the Top100. This could

produce outliers which are difficult to account for – this has not been checked for.

Maybe CSP is not perceived by the majority of the job seeking population as it is

researched by KLD, or maybe the Fortune rating might achieve higher levels of

correlation; but this would likely propagate better PR rather than more investment into

CSR – see again the example of tobacco companies. The sample was assumed to be

homogeneously informed, yet this is not a realistic assumption. On the contrary,

knowledge about companies CSR is hypothesised to be very heterogeneous.

40

5 CONCLUSION

he results show a neutral image rather than a strongly positive link. Different

statistical methods and perspectives let indications of a relationship flash up

occasionally, but not always does this signal hold up to a second glance. It is not clear if

this is the result of blurry CSP measures, model misspecification, or if the link is just

too weak for detection amongst the general noise.

Theoretical explanations do exist, however, for both, a positive and a neutral link

as illustrated. The study concludes that the weak correlation found indicates that more

factors are involved which must be considered, and that the presented model shows a

starting point for this consideration.

5.1 Future Research

As hinted in the study and as evident from the limitations, the study is subject to

resource constraints that make a further visit to the topic promising. The study could be

expanded to non-MBA populations, or fine-tuned to take account of job applicants’ sex,

ethnicity, age, and current employment status. Does the experienced job-seeker select

differently? Does the nature of the company make a difference? Is there a public

company effect? How does the lack of an agency problem and shareholders influence

CSR? Since this study only examined public companies it would also be interesting to

examine if the CSR of privately-owned companies plays a different role, since there has

been no examination in the existing literature of the role which this company

characteristic might play.

Having proposed an adaptation of Schuler and Cording’s model as a possible

explanation, experimental research could attempt to test the hypothesised relationships.

Other studies (Margolis & Walsh, 2003) call for research into the causality of the

CSP-CFP link, or into the theoretical background. However, recently there have been

improvements in CSP measurement – or rather the methodology with which existing

data (in particular: KLD) can be transformed into meaningful quantitative figures has

gained in sophistication (Mattingly & Berman, 2006). Unfortunately, these results were

discovered too late to apply them to this study. At the same time KLD and other

agencies are refining their CSP measures.

T

41

Following the discusssion, I hypothesise that those companies who build their

image and publicise their CSR efforts are probably popular with job seekers. But those

companies that have CSR embedded in their culture are more likely to appear on

Fortune’s Best companies to work for.

Drawing on previous personal experience, CSR’s complexity and dynamic nature

seem to lend themselves very well to an analysis of the dynamics of CSR with the tools

of systems thinking, and it is surprising that this has not been attempted before.

It is certainly the case that more theoretical research into the CSR construct is

needed, for as least as long as CSR can’t be quantified.

42

APPENDIX

Appendix 1 Corporate Social Responsibility ..........................................................43 Text 1.1 Examples of corporate social responsibility ................................................................. 43 Chart 1.2 CSR papers by journal, 1992-2002.............................................................................. 44 Figure 1.3 The influence of globalisation on stakeholder empowerment....................................... 44 Table 1.4 Global Report Initiative (GRI) reporting guidelines....................................................... 45 Text 1.5 UN Global Impact Principles........................................................................................ 45 Text 1.7 International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting......................................... 46

Appendix 2 CSR Literature & Theories....................................................................47 Chart 2.1 The nature of CSR literature by type, 1992-2002......................................................... 47 Chart 2.2 Results by year of publication: corporate social performance as independent (left) and

dependent (right) variable............................................................................................ 47 Chart 2.3 Corporate social performance: sampling the good, the bad, and the big in 56 of 95

Studies ........................................................................................................................ 48 Table 2.4 Measuring corporate social performance: data sources employed in 95 studies ......... 48 Table 2.5 Results and measures of 127 CSP-CFP Studies......................................................... 49 Table 2.6 CSP – CFP relationships ............................................................................................. 52 Table 2.7 Control variables used in CSP-CFP studies ................................................................ 52 Table 2.8 Explanatory frameworks and theories for the CSP-CFP link........................................ 53 Table 2.9 Most important characteristics of jobs for job seekers, study findings.......................... 54 Table 2.10 Company characteristics for which applicants are willing to forego financial benefits,

study findings............................................................................................................... 54 Chart 2.11 Fortune "100 Best Companies to work for" vs. Stock Market ....................................... 55

Appendix 3 KLD ratings criteria etc. ........................................................................56 Text 3.1 Rating Companies Profiles .......................................................................................... 56 Text 3.2 Methodology: KLD’s proprietary disciplined research process..................................... 57 Table 3.3 KLD ratings criteria list................................................................................................. 58 Text 3.4 KLD Ratings Criteria, descriptions ............................................................................... 60 Table 3.5 Two examples of KLD company CSP rating ................................................................ 63 Text 3.6 CSRR-OS Standards................................................................................................... 64

Appendix 4 Analysis & Calculations........................................................................65 Chart 4.1 Composition of the S&P and the ‘MBA ideal’ sample by Industry ................................ 65 Chart 4.2 MBAs’ favourite employers by Industry........................................................................ 65 Table 4.3 Comparison of results Turban & Greening (1997) and this study................................. 66 Table 4.4 Results of Regression Analysis predicting Employer Attractiveness............................ 66 Table 4.5 CSP dimensions’ (subjective) weighting used for this study ........................................ 67 Table 4.6 Average KLD ratings and z-scores for S&P500 and ‘MBA ideal’ sample, by industry .. 68 Table 4.7 Correlation matrix, detailed.......................................................................................... 70

Appendix 5 Other .......................................................................................................71 Table 5.1 S&P’s Global Industry Classification System (GICS) ................................................... 71

Appendix 6 Datasets..................................................................................................72 Table 6.1 Favourite MBA employers, ‘ideal’ and ‘considered’...................................................... 72 Table 6.2 Favourite Undergraduate employers, ‘ideal’ and ‘considered’...................................... 73 Chart 6.3 Favourite Undergraduates employers, ideal, distribution ............................................. 74 Chart 6.4 Favourite Undergraduates employers, considered, distribution ................................... 74 Chart 6.5 Favourite MBA employers, ideal, distribution............................................................... 75 Chart 6.6 Favourite MBA employers, considered, distribution ..................................................... 75 Table 6.7 Dataset: Expected starting salaries and after five years by Industry Salaries .............. 76 Table 6.8 Complete Dataset, KLD, employer attractiveness & financials .................................... 77

43

Appendix 1 Corporate Social Responsibility

Text 1.1 Examples of corporate social responsibility

o Nike, along with numerous other American and European firms that produce or sell apparel, footwear, sporting equipment, and toys, monitors working conditions in its supplier factories in developing countries.

o Ikea requires its rug suppliers in India to prohibit the employment of children and provides

families with financial assistance to help keep their children out of the labour market.

o Starbucks, as well as many other major coffee distributors and retailers, sell coffee bearing the Fair Trade label, which guarantees coffee producers an above-world-market price for their products.

o Home depot, along with major retailers of wood products in the United States and Europe,

no longer sells products harvested from old growth or endangered forests.

o British Petroleum, along with scores of other major firms in the United States and Europe, has significantly reduced its greenhouse gas emissions.

o Shell, along with many other major international extractive industry firms, has adopted

policies to address human rights and environmental abuses associated with its investments in developing countries.

o Citibank, along with other major financial institutions, has developed citeria for assessing the

environmental impact of its lending decisions in developing countries.

o PepsiCo, along with more than a dozen oil companies and consumer goods manufacturers, has withdrawn its investments from Burma because of human rights concerns.

o McDonald’s has adopted the European Union’s restrictions on the use of growth-promoting

antibiotics for its suppliers of beef and chicken in the United States.

o Chiquita has implemented stringent environmental practices for its suppliers of bananas in Central America.

o Timberland allows its employees to taken one week off with pay each year to work with local

charities. These are a all examples of corporate social responsibility or business virtue – that is, practices that improve the workplace and benefit society in ways that go beyond what companies are legally required to do.

Source: Vogel, 2005, p.1-2

44

Chart 1.2 CSR papers by journal, 1992-2002

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Academy of Management Review

Academy of Management Journal

Journal of Management Studies

Organization Science

Strategic Management Journal

Journal of Management

Administrative Science Quarterly

California Management Review

Harvard Business Review

Sloan Management Review

Journal of Management Studies

Sloan Management Review

core management journals

practitioner management j l

source: Lockett et al. , 2006 Figure 1.3 The influence of globalisation on stakeholder empowerment

Globalization - Phase l

Empowered corporations

Globalization - Phase ll

Empowered stakeholders

EmpoweredNGOs

Empoweredconsumers

Empoweredmedia

Source: Werther & Chandler, 2006

45

Table 1.4 Global Report Initiative (GRI) reporting guidelines

Category Aspect

Econ

omic Direct Economic Impacts Customers

SuppliersEmployeesProviders of capitalPublic sector

Envi

ronm

enta

lEvironmental Materials

EnergyWaterBiodiversityEmissions, effluents, and wasteSuppliersProducts and servicesComplianceTransportOverall

Labour Practicesand Decent Work

EmploymentLabour/mangement relationsHealth and safetyTraining and educationDiversity and opportunity

Human Rights Strategy and managementNon-discriminationFreedom of association and collective bargainingChild labourForced and compulsary labourDisciplinary practicesIndigenous rights

Society CommunityBribery and corruptionPolitical contributionsCompetition and pricing

Product Responsibility Customer health and safetyProducts and servicesAdvertisingRespect for privacy

source: GRI, 2002

Soci

al

Text 1.5 UN Global Impact Principles

The Ten Principles The Global Compact's ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption enjoy universal consensus and are derived from:

o The Universal Declaration of Human Rights o The International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at

Work o The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development o The United Nations Convention Against Corruption

The Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment, and anti-corruption:

46

Human Rights Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Labour Standards

Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour; Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Environment

Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges; Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies

Anti-Corruption

Principle 10: Businesses should work against all forms of corruption, including extortion and bribery.

Source: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ Text 1.7 International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting

The KPMG International Survey of CSR Reporting is a triennial survey that analyses trends in CSR reporting in the world’s largest corporations. Altogether this fifth international CSR survey covers more than 1600 companies. Major survey findings include:

o corporate social responsibility have been steadily rising since 1993 and has substantially increased in that past three years. In 2005, 52% of G250 and 33% of N100 companies issued CSR reports, while it was only 45%, respectively 23% in 2002

o CSR reports have shifted from being purely environmentally focused in 1999 to being more sustainability focused (social, environmental and economic)

o although the majority of N100 companies in most countries still issue separate CSR reports, there has been an increase in the number of companies publishing CSR information as part of their annual reports

o at a national level, the top two countries in terms of CSR reporting are Japan (80%) and the UK (71%)

o business drivers for CSR are diverse, both economic (74%) and ethical (53%); the top three reported economic drivers are innovation & learning, employee’s motivation and risk management & reduction

o almost two-thirds of CR reports include a section on corporate governance, although most reports lack specifics on how CSR is structured and information on how governance policies are implemented within the organisation

o report content is most commonly decided based on GRI guidelines (40%) with only a fifth (21 percent) mentioning stakeholder feedback on the report

o yet, stakeholder dialogue was mentioned in almost 40 percent of reports with dialogue focused more on CSR policies than reporting

o compared with environmental issues coverage of social and economic sues and topics is far more superficial

o social topics are discussed, but while the majority of companies express their commitment to these issues reporting performance remains sketchy, possibly due to the lack of clear social indicators

o reporting on the supply chain is now common. Supplier issues are mentioned in a vast majority (80 percent) )of reports, albeit without specifics, as companies are increasingly being asked to extend their responsibility down their supply chain

o climate change, which was addressed in about 85% of reports, is the most pressing environmental issues of today.

o Source: KPMG, 2005 & http://www.eldis.org/cf/search/disp/docdisplay.cfm?doc=DOC18813&resource=f1

47

Appendix 2 CSR Literature & Theories

Chart 2.1 The nature of CSR literature by type, 1992-2002

Normative (6)

Non-Normative (48)

Qualitative (12)

Quantitative (48)

Empirical (60)

Theoretical (54)

Source: Locket et al., 2006 Chart 2.2 Results by year of publication: corporate social performance as independent (left)

and dependent (right) variable

CSP-CFP Relationship outcomes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Years of Publication

Num

ber o

d St

udie

s

positive zero negative mixed

1971-75 1976-80 1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-00

CSP as independent variable

CSP as independent variable

source: Margolis & Walsh, 2001

48

Chart 2.3 Corporate social performance: sampling the good, the bad, and the big in 56 of 95 Studies

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Fortune most admired

Moskowitz

Chemicals, Oil, Pulp & Paper, Steel, Textiles

Council on EconomicPriorities (environment)

Fortune 500

Standard & Poor's 500

Fortune 1250

Business Week 1000

Forbes

Sam

ple

Bas

e

Number of Studies

source: Margolis & Walsh, 2001

Chart 2.4 Measuring corporate social performance: data sources employed in 95 studies

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Mutual Fund Selection Criteria

CEP (multiple practices)

KLD

CSP Survey Response

South Africa

Case Study Reports

Women/Minorities as Officers & Dirs.

Organisational Unit

Board Soc. Resp. Comitte

Policies

Content Analysis: Annual Report

Annual Report/10K Disclosures

PAC Contributions

Regulatory Compliance Expenditures

Charity/Money

Regulatory Customer Sevice Reports

Franklin Research

Environmental Crisis

Environmental Award Winners

Government Environemtal Reports

Environmental Technology

TRI/IRRC

CEP (environmental practices)

Moskowitz Selection

Businessperson Survey

Student Survey

Fortune Most Admired

Dat

a so

urce

s

Number of Studies

source: Margolis & Walsh, 2001

.

49

Table 2.5 Results and measures of 127 CSP-CFP Studies

Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance in 127 Studies*

Study Social performance Financial performance

Positive relationship1 Anderson & Frankle (1980) Disclosure of social performance Market2 Belkaoui (1976) Disclosure of pollution control Market3 Blacconiere & Northcut (1997) Disclosure of and expenditures on environmental practices Market4 Blacconiere & Patten (1994) Disclosure of and expenditures on environmental practices Market5 Bowman (1976) Disclosure of social performance Accounting

6 Bragdon & Karash (2002) Stewardship, systems thinking, transparency, employee growth, financial strength Market

7 Bragdon & Marlin (1972) CEP evaluation Accounting8 Brown (1998) Fortune reputation rating Market9 Christmann (2000) Survey of environmental practices Cost advantage

10 Clarkson (1988)Ratings of charity, community relations, customer relations, environmental practices, human resource practices, and org. structures based on case studies

Accounting

11 Conine & Madden (1986) Fortune reputation ratingPerception of value as long-term investment and of soundness of financial position

12 D’Antonio, Johnsen & Hutton (1997) Mutual fund screens Market13 Dowell, Hart & Yeung (2000) IRRC evaluation of environmental performance Accounting & market14 Epstein & Schnietz (2002) Industry reputation for environment and labor abuses Market15 Freedman & Stagliano (1991) Disclosure of EPA and OSHA costs Market16 Graves & Waddock (2000) KLD evaluation Accounting & market

17 Griffin & Mahon (1997) Fortune reputation rating, KLD evaluation, charitable contributions, pollution control Accounting

18 Hart & Ahuja (1996) IRRC evaluation of environmental performance Accounting19 Heinze (1976) NACBS ratings Accounting

20 Herremans, Akathaporn & McInnes (1993) Fortune reputation rating Accounting & market

21 Ingram (1978) Disclosure of social performance Market22 Jones & Murrell (2001) Working Mother list of “Most Family Friendly” companies Market23 Judge & Douglas (1998) Survey of environmental practices Accounting & market share24 Klassen & McLaughlin (1996) Environmental awards and crises Market

25 Klassen & Whybark (1999) Survey of environmental practices and TRI Manufacturing cost, quality, speed, and flexibility

26 Konar & Cohen (2001) TRI and environmental lawsuits Accounting & market27 Luck & Pilotte (1993) KLD evaluation Market

28 McGuire, Sundgren & Schneeweis (1988) Fortune reputation rating Accounting & market

29 Moskowitz (1972)

Observations of charitable contributions, consumer protection, disclosure, equal employment opportunity, human resource practices, South Africa operations, and urban renewal

Personal assessment

30 Nehrt (1996) Timing and intensity of pollution-reducing technologies Accounting31 Newgren et al. (1985) Survey of environmental practices Market

32 Parket & Eilbirt (1975) Survey on minority hiring and training, ecology, contributions to education and art Accounting

33 Porter & van der Linde (1995) Waste prevention practices Accounting34 Posnikoff (1997) South Africa: divestment Market35 Preston (1978) Disclosure of social performance Accounting36 Preston & O’Bannon (1997) Fortune reputation rating Accounting37 Preston & Sapienza (1990) Fortune reputation rating Market

38 Reimann (1975)Survey of attitudes toward national government, suppliers, consumers, community, stockholders, creditors, and employees

Organizational competence

39 Russo & Fouts (1997) FRDC ratings of environmental practices Accounting40 Shane & Spicer (1983) CEP evaluation Market41 Sharma & Vredenburg (1998) Survey of environmental strategy Operational improvement42 Simerly (1994) Fortune reputation rating Accounting & market

Measure

Corporate social performance as independent variable

50

Table 2.5 …continued… 43 Simerly (1995) Fortune reputation rating Accounting44 Spencer & Taylor (1987) Fortune reputation rating Accounting45 Spicer (1978) CEP evaluation Accounting & market46 Stevens (1984) CEP evaluation Market47 Sturdivant & Ginter (1977) Moskowitz ratings of social responsiveness Accounting48 Tichy, McGill & St. Clair (1997) Fortune reputation rating Accounting49 Travers (1997) Mutual fund screens Market50 Verschoor (1998) Espoused commitment to ethics in annual report Accounting & market51 Verschoor (1999) Explicit statement of an ethics code in annual report Accounting & market52 Waddock & Graves (1997) KLD evaluation Accounting

53 Wokutch & Spencer (1987) Fortune reputation rating, charitable contributions, corporate crime Accounting

54 Wright et al. (1995) Awards from U.S. Dept. of Labor for exemplary equal employment opportunity Market

Non-significant relationship55 Abbott & Monsen (1979) Disclosure of social performance Accounting56 Alexander & Buchholz (1978) Moskowitz ratings of social responsiveness Market

57 Aupperle, Carroll & Hatfield (1985) Survey of social responsibility practices and organizational structures Accounting

58 Bowman (1978) Disclosure of social performance Accounting59 Chen & Metcalf (1980) CEP evaluation Accounting & market60 Fogler & Nutt (1975) CEP evaluation Market61 Fombrun & Shanley (1990) Fortune reputation rating Accounting & market62 Freedman & Jaggi (1982) CEP evaluation Accounting63 Freedman & Jaggi (1986) Disclosure of pollution Market64 Fry & Hock (1976) Disclosure of social performance Accounting65 Greening (1995) EIA reports on conservation practices Accounting & market66 Guerard (1997a) KLD evaluation Market67 Hamilton, Jo & Statman (1993) Mutual fund screens Market68 Hickman, Teets & Kohls (1999) Mutual fund screens Market69 Hylton (1992) Mutual fund screens Market70 Ingram & Frazier (1983) Disclosure of environmental quality control Accounting71 Kurtz & DiBartolomeo (1996) KLD evaluation Market72 Lashgari & Gant (1989) South Africa: adherence to Sullivan principles Accounting73 Luther & Matatko (1994) Mutual fund screens Market74 Mahapatra (1984) Disclosure of capital expenditures on pollution control Market

75 McWilliams & Siegel (1997) Awards from U.S. Dept. of Labor for exemplary equal employment opportunity Market

76 McWilliams & Siegel (2000) KLD evaluation Accounting

77 O’Neill, Saunders & McCarthy (1989) Survey of directors’ concern for social responsibility Accounting

78 Patten (1990) South Africa: announcement of signing of Sullivan principles Market

79 Reyes & Grieb (1998) Mutual fund screens Market80 Sauer (1997) Mutual fund screens Market81 Teoh, Welch & Wazzan (1999) South Africa: divestment Market82 Waddock & Graves (2000) KLD evaluation Accounting & market

Negative relationship83 Boyle, Higgins & Rhee (1997) Compliance with Defense Industries Initiative Market

84 Kahn, Lekander & Leimkuhler (1997) Tobacco-free Market

85 Meznar, Nigh & Kwok (1994) South Africa: withdrawal Market86 Mueller (1991) Mutual fund screens Market

87 Teper (1992)No alcohol, tobacco, gambling, defense contracts, or operations in South Africa; adherence to broad social guidelines

Market

88 Vance (1975) Moskowitz ratings of social responsiveness Market89 Wright & Ferris (1997) South Africa: divestment Market

Mixed relationship

90 Belkaoui & Karpik (1989) Disclosure of social performance and Moskowitz ratings of social responsiveness Accounting & market

91 Berman et al. (1999) KLD evaluation Accounting92 Blackburn, Doran & Shrader (1994) CEP evaluation Accounting & market93 Bowman & Haire (1975) Disclosure of social performance Accounting94 Brown (1997) Fortune reputation rating Market95 Cochran & Wood (1984) Moskowitz ratings of social responsiveness Accounting & market96 Diltz (1995) CEP evaluation Market

51

Table 2.5 …continued.

96 Diltz (1995) CEP evaluation Market97 Graves & Waddock (1994) KLD evaluation Accounting98 Gregory, Matatko & Luther (1997) Mutual fund screens Market99 Guerard (1997b) KLD evaluation Market

100 Hillman & Keim (2001) KLD evaluation Market

101 Holman, New & Singer (1990) Disclosure of social performance & capital expenditures on regulatory compliance

Market

102 Kedia & Kuntz (1981)Interview and survey on charitable contributions, low income housing loans, minority enterprise loans, female corporate officers, and minority employment

Accounting & market share

103 Luther, Matatko & Corner (1992) Mutual fund screens Market104 Mallin, Saadouni & Briston (1995) Mutual fund screens Market

105 Marcus & Goodman (1986) Compliance with safety regulations Capabilities & productive efficiency

106 McGuire, Schneeweis & Branch (1990)

Fortune reputation rating Accounting & market

107 Ogden & Watson (1999) Customer service complaints Accounting & market108 Pava & Krausz (1996) CEP evaluation Accounting & market

109 Rockness, Schlachter & Rockness (1986)

EPA and U.S. House of Representatives data on hazardous waste disposal

Accounting & market

Positive relationship

110 Brown & Perry (1994) Fortune reputation rating Accounting & market111 Cottrill (1990) Fortune reputation rating Market share112 Dooley & Lerner (1994) TRI Accounting113 Fry, Keim & Meiners (1982) Charitable contributions Accounting114 Galaskiewicz (1997) Charitable contributions Accounting115 Konar & Cohen (1997) TRI Market116 Levy & Shatto (1980) Charitable contributions Accounting117 Maddox & Siegfried (1980) Charitable contributions Accounting118 Marcus & Goodman (1986) Compliance with emissions regulations Accounting

119McGuire, Sundgren & Schneeweis (1988) Fortune reputation rating Accounting & market

120 Mills & Gardner (1984) Disclosure of social performance Accounting & market121 Navarro (1988) Charitable contributions Accounting122 Preston & O’Bannon (1997) Fortune reputation rating Accounting123 Riahi-Belkaoui (1991) Fortune reputation rating Accounting & market124 Roberts (1992) CEP evaluation Accounting & market125 Waddock & Graves (1997) KLD evaluation Accounting

Non-significant relationship

126 Buehler & Shetty (1976) Organizational programs in consumer affairs, environmental affairs, urban affairs

Accounting

127 Cowen, Ferreri & Parker (1987) Disclosure of social performance Accounting128 Patten (1991) Disclosure of social performance Accounting

Mixed relationship

129 Johnson & Greening (1999) KLD evaluation Accounting130 Lerner & Fryxell (1988) CEP evaluation Accounting & market

131 McGuire, Schneeweis & Branch (1990)

Fortune reputation rating Accounting & market

source: Margolis & Walsh, 2003

* CEP = Council on Economic Priorities; EIA = Energy Information Association; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; FRDC = Franklin Research & Development Corporation; IRRC = Investor Responsibility Research Center; KLD = Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini multidimensional rating; NACBS = National Affiliation of Concerned Business Students; OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration; and TRI = Toxics Release Inventory.Four studies investigate the relationship in both directions but are counted as only one study: McGuire, Schneeweis & Branch (1990); McGuire, Sundgren & Schneeweis (1988); Preston & O’Bannon (1997); Waddock & Graves (1997). Marcus & Goodman (1986) contains two separate studies and is therefore counted twice.

Corporate social performance as dependent variable

52

Table 2.6 CSP – CFP relationships Typologies for CSR-CFP Relationship - Based on Preston & O'Bannon (1997, p.422)

Causal sequence

Positive link Neutral link Negative link

CSR leads to CFP Social impact hypothesis Trade-off hypothesis

CFP leads to CSR Available funds hypothesis or slack resources theory

Managerial opportunism hypothesis

CSR and CFP are synergistic Positive Synergy Negative synergy

adapted from Salzmann et al. , 2005

Supply and demand theory

of the firm

Direction of relationship

Table 2.7 Control variables used in CSP-CFP studies

Control Variables and the Number or Studies Using Each

none 19

industry 41

size 32

risk 12

leverage 7

advertising intensity 7

industry concentration 4

R&D intensity 4

firm growth rate 3

asset age 3

acid-test-ratio 2

managerial control of firm 2

CEO compensation 2

past financial performance 2

overall market performance 2

source: Margolis & Walsh, 2001

53

Table 2.8 Explanatory frameworks and theories for the CSP-CFP link

Framework Description Empirical evidence

Social impact hypothesis(Cornell and Shapiro, 1987)Higher CSR leads to higher CFP

Meeting the needs of various non-owner stakeholders increases FP. Failure to meet less explicit needs of stakeholders generates market fears (i.e. affects company reputation), thus increasing a company’s risk premium and affecting FP. Actual ESP costs are minimal compared to the potential benefits.

Pava and Krausz (1996)Preston and O’Bannon (1997)

Available funds hypothesis or slack resources theory(Waddock and Graves, 1997b)Higher CFP leads to higher CSR

Superior FP enables companies to devote more resources to ESP.

McGuire et al. (1988)Kraft and Hage (1990)partially Moore (2001)

Positive synergy: ‘‘Virtuous circle’’(Waddock and Graves, 1997a)

Simultaneous relationship combining slack resources and good management Good management does most things well, including both ESP and FP. Good management and good ESP are synonymous when ESP is defined in terms of the stakeholder relationships considered important to the firm’s performance and not in terms of discretionary activities, e.g. philanthropy.

Empirically supported byPreston and O’Bannon (1997)Pava and Krausz (1996)Stanwick and Stanwick (1998)

Framework Description Empirical evidence

Supply and demand theory of the firm(McWilliams and Siegel, 2001)No link between CSR and CFP

Companies supply a demanded and unique level of ESP to maximize their profits.

Some studies found no or inconclusive correlations (Anderson and Frankle, 1980; Aupperle et al., 1985; Freedman and Jaggi, 1982)

Framework Description Empirical evidence

Trade-off hypothesis(Friedman, 1962)Higher CSR leads to lower CFP

Reflects Friedman’s neoclassical argument that firms have only one social responsibility, which is to increase profits. By increasing ESP, they unnecessarily incur costs and reduce their profitability.

Vance (1975)

Managerial opprtunism hypothesis(Preston & O'Bannon, 1997)Higher CFP leads to lower CSR

Managers will reduce expenditure on ESP when FP is strong to maximize personal compensation (which is tied to short-term FP).

Posner & Schmidt (1992)Alkhafaji (1989)

Negative synergy(Preston & O'Bannon, 1997)

Simultaneous relationship combining trade-off and managerial opportunism hypothesis

adapted from Salzmann et al. , 2005

Frameworks Suggesting a Neutral Link between CFP and CSR

Frameworks Suggesting a Negative Link between CFP and CSR

Frameworks Suggesting a Positive Link between CFP and CSR

54

Table 2.9 Most important characteristics of jobs for job seekers, study findings

Overall Attribute Importance Results (N=279)

AttributesAverage Importance Score

S. D. of Importance Score

Average Rank

Group 1

Intellectual Challenge 9.38 2.80 3.76

Group 2

Financial Package 7.36 2.31 6.42

Group 3

Geographic Area 6.70 3.10 7.75

People in Organisation 6.46 2.97 7.86

Caring about Employees 6.40 2.33 7.76

Learning on Job 6.33 2.66 8.32

Type of Position 6.31 3.37 8.29

Group 4

Advancement 5.71 2.28 9.21

Ethical Reputation 5.69 3.21 9.32

Dynamics & Culture 5.42 2.57 9.79

Environmental Sustainability 5.40 2.65 9.72

Business Travel 5.38 2.70 9.82

Group 5

Work Environment 4.97 2.23 10.54

Community Relatinships 4.88 2.29 10.54

Economic Sustainability 4.66 2.29 11.04

Leangth of Communte 4.66 2.40 10.97

Image of Organisation 4.38 2.54 11.55

source: Montgomery, 2003 Table 2.10 Company characteristics for which applicants are willing to forego financial benefits,

study findings

Willingness to Forgo Financial Benefits (WFFB)

Job Search Parameters Mean & S. D. of WFFB

% Willing to Forgo Income ($>0)

Mean WFFB as % of Mean Expected Financial Benefits($115,00)

WFFB for companies which care about employees

$9,300(7,200) 90.30% 8.10%

WFFB for companies which care about stakeholders

$ 3,700(4,100) 70.80% 3.20%

WFFB for companies which care about sustainability

$ 5,500(6,000) 76.90% 4.80%

WFFB for companies which exhibit all three above characteristics

$ 13,700(9,600) 94.20% 11.90%

source: Montgomery, 2003

55

Chart 2.11 Fortune "100 Best Companies to work for" vs. Stock Market

Independent financial analysts have studied the financial performance of "100 Best" companies beginning with the publication of the book, The 100 Best Companies to Work For in America (by Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz, 1984 and 1993), and on an ongoing basis to accompany each of the "100 Best Companies" lists with Fortune since their inception in 1998. Using various profitability indicators, this data illustrates the extent to which the publicly traded 100 Best Companies consistently outperform major stock indices over the ten year periods preceding the publication of the 100 Best lists! Fortune "100 Best" vs. Stock Market 1998-2005, 1998-2004, 1998-2003, 1998-2002

14.8%15.6% 15.2%

9.9%10.1%10.7%

9.6%

4.9%4.8% 4.8%3.8%

-0.6%

5.2% 5.1%4.0%

-0.7%-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

1998-2005 1998-2004 1998-2003 1998-2002Time Period

Retu

rn

"100 Best to work for" Reset Annually"100 Best" Buy and HoldS&P 500Russell 3000

Source: Frank Russell Company ©Great Place to Work® Institute, Inc

Source: Frank Russell Company © Great Place to Work® Institute, Inc. The "Reset Annually" portfolio invests equal dollar amounts (at the beginning of 1998) in the stock of each of the 1998 “100 Best” publicly traded companies. The portfolio is liquidated at the end of 1998 and the proceeds invested in the 1999 list by buying equal dollar amounts of each publicly traded firm on the 1999 list. This process of liquidating the portfolio at the end of the year and using the proceeds to invest in the new list of “100 Best” is repeated for all years covered in the charts.. The "Buy & Hold" Portfolio invests equal dollar amounts (at the beginning of 1998) in the stock of each of the 1998 “100 Best” publicly traded companies and holds these stocks for all years covered in the charts.

56

Appendix 3 KLD ratings criteria etc.

Text 3.1 Rating Companies Profiles

EIRiS, UK EIRiS is the UK’s oldest and largest specialist SRI-research company and they assess corporate activity in many areas. These cover both negative screening and, to a growing extent, also positive criteria with gradings of corporate performance. Later in 2001 they will introduce set of gradings for corporate environmental performance supplementing the existing evaluation of environmental management, policy and reporting. EIRiS has developed a software product, Ethical Portfolio Manager, that provides users with online access to its extensive database on 850 UK and 500 European companies. The services will be expanded to cover also the US, Asia-Pacific and Australasia before the end of this year. EIRiS supply SRI-information to many fundmanagers and rating organisations, including the newly started FTSE4Good family of indices. The screening process is mainly based on official company information and information collected through questionnaires. Direct contacts with the companies being evaluated are less frequent. KLD (Kinder Lydenberg Domini), US KLD is a US-based provider of social research for institutional investors who wish to integrate social criteria into their investment decisions. KLD has developed performance benchmarks for socially screened portfolios, e.g. the Domini 400 Social Index which was launched in 1990. KLD has also developed Socrates, a social investment database containing data on over 1600 companies. This includes profiles on over 3000 US corporations, including every company on the Standard & Poor’s 500 index, Russell 1000 and Russell 3000 indices. The social rating criteria are divided into two categories; social issues and industry involvement issues. • social issues analyze the impact of corporate behaviour on the environment and on stakeholders, including communities, employees, customers and suppliers. • Industry involvement issues identify companies that produce goods or services in specific markets of interest to social investors, e.g. involved in the production of tobacco, alcoholic beverages and weapons. On these issues, companies are designated as either involved or not. KLD presents its social research in two formats: Company Profiles and Industry Involvement Reports. The profi les contain ratings and analysis of each company focusing on strengths and concerns in the following areas; community, diversity, employee relations, environment, non-US operations and products. The evaluation of environmental performance is risk-oriented.

Source: Mistra, 2001

57

Text 3.2 Methodology: KLD’s proprietary disciplined research process

KLD’s Research Process KLD researches the social, environmental, and governance performance of corporations. KLD research relies on five distinct data sources to inform our ratings and analysis. Data are collected in a disciplined process from a wide variety of company, government, non-government organization and media sources. KLD tracks each company through more than 10,000 global media sources daily.

KLDKnowledge

Base

3 MediaOver 10,00 global newssources reviewed dail y.

CompanyDirect communication withcompany officers1

SiRiAccess to global research by10 global SRI research firmscovering non-US companies2

PublicAll major SEC filings reviewed,including 10-K, annual report,and proxy4

Government & NGO InformationIncluding: Department of Labo r, EPA, Human RightsWatch, OSHA, CANNICOR, CERIES, DoD5

Rating Approach Once the information is collected, KLD rates the social, environmental and governance performance of companies using a proprietary framework of positive and negative indicators. Companies are rated in seven major qualitative issue areas: Environment, Community, Corporate Governance, Diversity, Employee Relations, Human Rights and Product Quality and Safety. Analysts assign Strengths and Concerns associated with these issues, providing a social and environmental profile of companies. The business involvement screens are associated with activities that are controversial to certain social investors. KLD analysts specialize by sector. This improves the quality of analysis, improving sector insight to identify the key social, environmental and governance factors affecting peer companies. Monitoring and Updating Process KLD uses three processes to maintain the accuracy and currency of its research:

o Continuous updates: daily updates from media sources and special updates from NGOs and government data sources

o Fiscal year updates: annual updates from company public documents o Annual updates: a comprehensive annual review that includes analysis of all information

gathered throughout the year, review of company websites and CSR reports, and direct communication with the company, NGOs, and research partners.

Quality Assurance KLD senior analysts perform a quality review of every company profile at least once per year, edit daily updates for content and ratings quality, and mentor junior analysts. KLD’s Ratings Review Committee (RRC), composed of senior analysts and the Director of Research reviews controversial questions, maintains the currency of existing ratings, and develops new ratings as thought leaders for the business. KLD evaluates its methodology each year, using the experience of rating companies since 1988.

58

Table 3.3 KLD ratings criteria list

KLD Reseach 2006 Company Profile Ratings Grid

Issues Strengths Concerns

Community Charitable Giving Investment ControversiesInnovative Giving Negative Economic ImpactNon-US Charitable Giving Tax DisputesSupport for Education Other ConcernsSupport for HousingVolunteer ProgramsOther Strengths

Corporate Governance Compensation CompensationOwnership OwnershipPolitical Accountability Political AccountabilityTransparency TransparencyOther Strengths Accounting

Other Concerns

Diversity Board of Directors ControversiesCEO Non-RepresentationEmployment of the Disabled Other ConcernsGay & Lesbian PoliciesPromotionWomen & Minority ContractingWork/Life BenefitsOther Strengths

Employee Relations Health and Safety Union RelationsRetirement Benefits Health and SafetyUnion Relations Retirement BenefitsCash Profit Sharing Workforce ReductionsEmployee Involvement Other ConcernsOther Strengths

Environment Beneficial Products & Services Agricultural ChemicalsClean Energy Climate ChangeManagement Systems Hazardous WastePollution Prevention Ozone Depleting ChemicalsRecycling Regulatory ProblemsOther Strengths Substantial Emissions

Other Concerns

Human Rights Labor Rights Labor RightsRelations with Indigenous Peoples Relations with Indigenous PeoplesOther Strengths Burma

Other Concerns

Product Benefits Economically Disadvantaged Qualit AntitrustR&D/Innovation Marketing/Contracting ControversiesOther Strengths Safety

Other Concerns

source: KLD, 2006

59

Table 3.3 …continued.

KLD Reseach 2006 Company Profile Controversial Business Issues

Issues Involvement Type

Adult Entertainment DistributorOwner and OperatorProducerProviderOwnership by an Adult Entertainment CompanyOwnership of an Adult Entertainment Company

Alcohol LicensingManufacturerManufacturer of Products Necessary for Alcoholic BeveragesRetailerOwnership by an Alcohol CompanyOwnership of an Alcohol Company

Firearms ManufacturerRetailerOwnership by a Firearms CompanyOwnership of a Firearms Company

Gambling LicensingManufacturerOwner and OperatorSupporting Products or ServicesOwnership by a Gambling CompanyOwnership of a Gambling Company

Military Weapons Manufacturer of Weapons or Weapons SystemsManufacturer of Components for Weapons or Weapons SystemsOwnership by a Military CompanyOwnership of a Military Company

Nuclear Power Ownership of Nuclear Power PlantsConstruction & Design of Nuclear Power PlantsNuclear Fuel & Key PartsNuclear Power Service ProviderOwnership by a Nuclear Power CompanyOwnership of a Nuclear Power Company

Tobacco LicensingManufacturerManufacturer of Products Necessary for Tobacco ProductsRetailerOwnership by a Tobacco CompanyOwnership of a Tobacco Company

source: KLD, 2006

60

Text 3.4 KLD Ratings Criteria, descriptions

Community

STRENGTHS Charitable Giving. The company has been exceptionally generous in its giving. Innovative Giving. The company has an innovative giving program that supports nonprofit organizations, particularly those promoting self-sufficiency among the economically disadvantaged. Non-US Charitable Giving. The company has innovative giving programs outside of the U.S., or dedicates a significant percentage of its overall charitable giving to programs outside of the U.S. Support for Education. The company is either a leader in its support for primary or secondary public school education, or the company has offered significant support for youth job-training programs. Support for Housing. The company is a prominent participant in public/private partnerships that support housing initiatives for the economically disadvantaged. Volunteer Programs. The company has an exceptionally strong employee volunteer program. Other Strengths. The company has either an exceptionally strong in-kind giving program or engages in other positive community activities not covered by other KLD ratings. CONCERNS Investment Controversies. The company’s lending or investment practices are controversial. Negative Economic Impact. The company’s actions have resulted in major controversies concerning the quality of life, tax base, or property values in the community. Tax Disputes. The company has recently been involved in major tax disputes involving Federal, state, local or non-U.S. government authorities, or is involved in controversies over its tax obligations to the community. Other Concerns. The company is involved in a community controversy not covered by other KLD ratings.

Corporate Governance STRENGTHS Compensation. The company pays a low level of compensation to its CEO or its board members. Ownership. The company owns between 20% and 50% of another firm that has a positive environmental, social or governance record, or a firm with a positive environmental, social or governance record owns 20% or more of the company. Political Accountability. The company has shown markedly responsible leadership on public policy issues and/or has an exceptional record of transparency and accountability concerning its political involvement in state or federal-level U.S. politics, or in non-U.S. politics. Transparency. The company is particularly effective in reporting on a wide range of social and environmental performance measures, or is exceptional in reporting on one particular measure. Other Strengths. The company has a unique and positive corporate culture, or has undertaken a noteworthy corporate governance initiative not covered by KLD’s other ratings. CONCERNS Compensation. The company pays a high level of compensation to its CEO or its board members. Ownership. The company owns between 20% and 50% of another firm that has a negative environmental, social or governance record, or a firm with a negative environmental, social or governance record owns 20% or more of the company. Political Accountability. The company has been involved in noteworthy controversies on public policy issues and/or has a very poor record of transparency and accountability concerning its political involvement in state or federal-level U.S. politics, or in non-U.S. politics. Transparency. The company is distinctly weak in reporting on a wide range of social and environmental performance measures. Accounting. The company is involved in significant accounting-related controversies. Other Concerns. The company is involved with a corporate governance controversy not covered by other KLD ratings.

61

Diversity STRENGTHS Board of Directors. Women and/or minorities hold a significant proportion of the seats on the company’s board of directors. CEO. The company's chief executive officer is a woman or a member of a minority group. Employment of the Disabled. The company has innovative hiring or other human resource programs for the disabled, or it has a superior reputation as an employer of the disabled. Gay & Lesbian Policies. The company has progressive policies toward its gay and lesbian employees. Promotion. The company has made substantive progress in the promotion of women and/or minorities to senior executive line positions. Women & Minority Contracting. The company has a strong record of purchasing and/or contracting with businesses owned by women or minorities. Work/Life Benefits. The company has outstanding programs addressing employee work/life concerns. Other Strengths. The company has made a notable commitment to diversity that is not covered by other KLD ratings. CONCERNS Controversies. The company has either paid substantial fines or civil penalties as a result of diversity-related controversies, or has been involved in other major diversity-related controversies. Non-Representation. The company has no women on its board of directors or among its senior line executives. Other Concerns. The company is involved in diversity controversies not covered by other KLD ratings.

Employee Relations STRENGTHS Health and Safety. The company has strong health and safety programs. Retirement Benefits. The company has a strong retirement benefits program. Union Relations. The company has taken exceptional steps to treat its unionized workforce fairly. Cash Profit Sharing. The company has a cash profit-sharing program through which it has recently made distributions to a majority of its workforce. Employee Involvement. The company strongly encourages employee involvement through active participation n management decision-making, and/or through ownership in the company by granting stock options to a majority of its employees. Other Strengths. The company has strong employee relations initiatives not covered by other KLD ratings. CONCERNS Union Relations. The company has a history of notably poor union relations. Health and Safety. The company recently has either paid substantial fines or civil penalties for willful violations of employee health and safety standards, or it has been otherwise involved in major health and safety controversies. Retirement Benefits. The company has either a substantially under funded defined benefit pension plan, or an otherwise inadequate retirement benefits program. Workforce Reductions. The company has made significant reductions in its workforce in recent years. Other Concerns. The company is involved in an employee relations controversy that is not covered by other KLD ratings.

Environment STRENGTHS Beneficial Products& Services. The company derives substantial revenues from the development of innovative products with environmental benefits, including remediation products, environmental services, or products that promote the efficient use of energy. Clean Energy. The company has taken significant measures to reduce the contributions of its operations to global climate change and air pollution through the use of renewable energy, other clean fuels, or through the introduction of energy efficient programs or sale of products promoting energy efficiency. Management Systems. The company has demonstrated a superior commitment to management systems through ISO 14001 certification and other voluntary programs. Pollution Prevention. The company has strong pollution prevention programs, including both emissions and toxic-use reduction programs. Recycling. The company is either a substantial user of recycled materials in its manufacturing processes, or a major firm in the recycling industry. Other Strengths. The company has undertaken noteworthy environmental initiatives not covered by other KLD ratings.

62

CONCERNS Agricultural Chemicals. The company is a substantial producer of agricultural chemicals, including pesticides. Climate Change. The company derives substantial revenues, directly or indirectly, from the sale of coal or oil and its derivative fuel products. Hazardous Waste. The company has substantial liabilities for hazardous waste, or has recently paid significant fines or civil penalties for waste management violations. Ozone Depleting Chemicals. The company manufacturers ozone depleting chemicals such as HCFCs, methyl chloroform, methylene chloride, or bromines. Regulatory Problems. The company has recently paid substantial fines or civil penalties for, or it has a pattern of controversies regarding, violations of air, water, or other environmental regulations. Substantial Emissions. The company’s emissions of toxic chemicals into the air and water from individual plants are notably high. Other Concerns. The company has been involved in an environmental controversy not covered by other KLD ratings.

Product STRENGTHS Benefits to Economically Disadvantaged. The company has as part of its basic mission the provision of products or services for the economically disadvantaged. Quality. The company has a long-term, well-developed, company-wide quality program, or it has a quality program widely recognized as exceptional. R&D/Innovation. The company leads its industry in the research and development of innovative products. Other Strengths. The company's products have social benefits that are highly unusual or unique for its industry and not covered by other KLD ratings. CONCERNS Antitrust. The company has recently paid substantial fines or civil penalties for antitrust violations such as price fixing, collusion, or predatory pricing, or is involved in major controversies or regulatory actions related to antitrust allegations. Marketing/Contracting Controversy. The company has either been involved in a major marketing or contracting controversy, or has paid a substantial fine or civil penalty relating to advertising practices, consumer fraud, or government contracting. Safety. The company has either paid substantial fines or civil penalties, or is involved in a major recent controversy or regulatory action, relating to the safety of its products or services. Other Concerns. The company has major controversies with its franchises, is an electric utility with nuclear safety problems, defective product issues, or is involved in other product-related controversies not covered by other KLD ratings.

Human Rights STRENGTHS Labor Rights. The company has undertaken outstanding or innovative initiatives primarily related to labor rights in its supply chain, or has particularly good union relations outside the U.S. Relations with Indigenous Peoples. The company has established relations with indigenous peoples near its proposed or current operations (either in or outside the U.S.) that respect their sovereignty, land, culture, human rights, and intellectual property. Other Strengths. The company has undertaken exceptional human rights initiatives not covered by other KLD ratings. CONCERNS Labor Rights. The company's operations have had major recent controversies primarily related to labor standards in its supply chain. Relations with Indigenous Peoples. The company has been involved in serious controversies with indigenous peoples (either in or outside the U.S.) that indicate the company has not respected their sovereignty, land, culture, human rights, and/or intellectual property. Burma. The company has operations or direct investment in, or sourcing from, Burma. Other Concerns. The company’s operations have been the subject of major recent human rights controversies not covered by other KLD ratings. Other Issues are (negative score only if involvement present): Adult Entertainment, Alcohol, Firearms, Gambling, Military Weapons, Nuclear Power, Tobacco

63

Table 3.5 Two examples of KLD company CSP rating Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (WMT)

Issues Strengths Concerns Score

CommunityCharitable Giving Negative Economic Impact

Other Concerns

1 -2 -1

Corporate Governance ControversiesOther Concerns

0 -2 -2

Diversity

Board of DirectorsEmployment of the DisabledPromotionWomen & Minority Cotracting

ControversiesOther Concerns

5 -2 3

Employee RelationsUnion RelationsHealth & SafetyOther Concerns

0 -3 -3

Environment Regulatory Problems

0 -1 -1

Human Rights Labour Rights

0 -1 -1

ProductMarketing/ContractingSafetyOther Concerns

0 -3 -3

source: KLD, 2006

Merck & Co., Inc

Issues Strengths Concerns

CommunityNon-US Charitable GivingSupport for Education

Corporate GovernanceHigh CompesationTax DisputesOther Concern

DiversityPromotionFamily BenefitsGay & Lesbian Policies

Controversies

Employee Relations Other Strength

EnvironmentRegulatory ProblemsSubstantial EmissionsHazardous Waste

Human Rights

ProductR&D/InnovationOther Strength

Product SafetyMarketing/Contracting

source: KLD, 2006

64

Text 3.6 CSRR-OS Standards

Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility Research Quality Standard (CSRR-QS 1.0) The voluntary Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility Research Quality Standard (CSRR-QS 1.0) has recently been launched. It is the first quality standard worked out at a sector level in the field of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and corporate environmental research and analysis. The standard aims to improve quality management systems, stimulate transparency, facilitate assurance processes and form the basis for further verification procedures. The standard sets out the following ten criteria for the assessment of companies: • sources must be independent, not just information supplied by companies; • global activities of companies must be taken into account; • best available techniques (BAT) should be used rather than minimum legal requirements; • environmental and social aspects must be taken into account; • a suitable balance must be found between environmental and social, quantitative and qualitative data

sources • content must be relevant; • information must be comparable to others; • stakeholders should be involved in the process as much as possible; • information must be up to date; • there should be transparency about methods. • (Information is available from www.csrr-qs.org) The CSRR-QS 1.0 was initiated, supported and funded by the European Commission, Employment and Social Affairs. Partners and signatories of the quality standard represent many parties with vested interests in the sector, including Avanzi, SERM, Ethibel and oekom research. The involvement of these companies reflects their recognition of the need to improve quality and credibility. It is difficult to make informed judgements regarding the success of this quality standard before we can review the results of the pilot. A recent spin-off of the CSRR-QS 1.0 is the launch of a new trade association, the Association for Independent Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility Research (AI CSRR). One of the main objectives of this association is to develop, promote and maintain professional standards, expertise and codes of conduct for the CSRR sector.

Source: Vivian et al, 2004

65

Appendix 4 Analysis & Calculations

Chart 4.1 Composition of the S&P and the ‘MBA ideal’ sample by Industry

Consitutent firms of the S&P500 and the BMA ideal list by Industry

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Energy Materials Industrials Cons.Discretionary

ConsumerStaples

Health Care Financials Info.Technology

Telecom.Services

Utilities

S&P 500 (n=495)

MBA ideal (n=99)

Chart 4.2 MBAs’ favourite employers by Industry

Favourite MBA employers amongst the S&P 500 by Industry

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Consulting* Financials Info.Technology

ConsumerStaples

Cons.Discretionary

Industrials Health Care Energy Telecom.Services

Materials Utilities

*Consulting companies are missing since most are not contained within the S&P500, but were the most popular industry in the survey.

66

Table 4.3 Comparison of results Turban & Greening (1997) and this study Turban and Greening, 1997, Correlation and Descriptive Statistics

Variable Mean s.d. 1 Com 2 Emp 3 Env 4 Prod 5 Div 6 Asst 7 ROA 8 Rep 9 Att

Corporate Social Performance

1. Community relations 0.67 0.82

2. Employee relations 0.07 1.02 0.40

3. Environment -0.38 0.85 0.26 0.21

4. Product quality -0.35 0.95 0.00 0.18 0.30

5. Treatment of women and minorities 0.55 0.94 0.48 0.31 0.18 -0.10

Control Variables (S&P Compustat)

6. Assets (Total Assets ) 25,415.00 42,910.00 0.22 0.02 -0.01 -0.19 0.31

7. Profitability (ROA ) 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.14 -0.02 -0.07 0.11 0.00

Reputation and attractiveness

8. Corporate reputation 3.85 0.36 0.16 0.20 0.21 0.16 0.15 -0.05 0.25

9. Attractiveness as an employer 3.59 0.41 0.22 0.25 0.06 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.75

values for n ranged from 155 to 171 * p < 0.05** p < 0.01

MSc Dissertation, 2006, Correlation and Descriptive Statistics

Variable Mean s.d. 1 Com 2 Emp 3 Env 4 Prod 5 Div 6 Asst 7 ROA 8 Rep 9 Att

Corporate Social Performance (KLD, 2006)

1. Community relations 0.22 -0.95

2. Employee relations -0.11 1.21 0.10

3. Environment -0.15 1.12 0.25 0.09

4. Product quality -0.57 1.00 -0.76 0.18 0.14

5. Treatment of women and minorities 1.37 1.59 0.38 0.13 0.15 -0.16

Control Variables (S&P Compustat)

6. Assets (Total Assets ) 47,482.33 143,968.15 0.37 0.06 -0.00 -0.27 0.25

7. Profitability (ROA ) 0.07 0.07 -0.06 0.14 0.02 0.14 -0.02 -0.19

Reputation and attractiveness (MBA ideal)

8. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

9. Attractiveness as an employer 0.02 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.18 -0.13 0.27 0.42 0.05 n/a

values for n ranged from 495 to 99 * p < 0.05** p < 0.01

Table 4.4 Results of Regression Analysis predicting Employer Attractiveness

Predictors β Change in r² Predictors β Change in r²

1. Control variables 0.30 ** 1. Control variables 0.30 **Assets 0.41 ** Assets 0.41 **Profitability (ROA) 0.35 ** Profitability (ROA) 0.35 **Industry Salary 0.30 ** Industry Salary 0.30 **

2. Composite CSP score 0.04 * 2. Composite CSP score 0.05

Total Raw 0.21 * Total weighted 0.23

Total r² 0.34 ** Total r² 0.37 **

Predictors β Change in r² Predictors β Change in r²

1. Control variables 0.30 ** 1. Control variables 0.30 **Assets 0.41 ** Assets 0.41 **Profitability (ROA) 0.35 ** Profitability (ROA) 0.35 **Industry Salary 0.30 ** Industry Salary 0.30 **

2. Composite CSP score 0.03 * 2. Composite CSP score 0.04

z-score 0.18 * z-score weighted 0.21 *

Total r² 0.35 ** Total r² 0.37 **

* p < 0.05** p < 0.01 n.b.: standardised coefficients for the full model are shown.

Employer Attractiveness

Employer Attractiveness Employer Attractiveness

Employer Attractiveness

67

Table 4.5 CSP dimensions’ (subjective) weighting used for this study

CSP Dimension Weighting (%)

employee 25environment 20product 15diversity 15community 15human rights 5corporate governance 5

nuclear power -5military -5alcohol -5tobacco -5gambling -5

68

Table 4.6 Average KLD ratings and z-scores for S&P500 and ‘MBA ideal’ sample, by industry A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

1GIS

sector code

Samplen GIS sector name Measure Community Community

z-score Diversity Diversity z-score Employees Employee

z-scoreEnviron-

ment

Environ-ment

z-score

Human Rights

Human Rights z-score

Product Product z-score Corp. Gov. Corp. Gov.

z-scoreTotal

StrenghtsTotal

Concerns Total Total Weighted

average z-score

weighted z-score

10 S&P 500 Energy Average -0.62 -0.88 0.10 -0.80 -0.10 0.00 -1.34 -1.07 -0.52 -0.90 -0.21 0.37 -0.55 0.01 2.21 5.45 -3.24 -0.46 -0.47 -0.45 29 S.D. 0.62 0.65 0.98 0.62 1.35 1.12 1.63 1.46 0.87 2.09 0.62 0.62 0.87 1.05 2.11 3.63 2.44 0.43 0.46 0.42

MBA ideal Average -0.33 -0.58 1.33 -0.02 -0.67 -0.47 -4.33 -3.74 -2.00 -4.45 -0.67 -0.09 -1.67 -1.33 6.00 14.33 -8.33 -1.17 -1.53 -1.26 3 S.D. 0.58 0.61 1.53 0.96 0.58 0.48 0.58 0.52 1.00 2.40 0.58 0.58 1.15 1.39 3.61 3.06 2.08 0.41 0.04 0.24

15 S&P 500 Materials Average 0.17 -0.05 1.03 -0.21 -0.07 0.03 -0.50 -0.32 -0.23 -0.22 -0.40 0.17 -0.20 0.43 4.47 4.80 -0.33 -0.03 -0.02 -0.06 30 S.D. 0.87 0.92 1.27 0.80 1.05 0.87 1.53 1.36 0.57 1.36 0.89 0.90 0.81 0.97 3.36 3.18 3.24 0.57 0.46 0.51

MBA ideal Average 0.00 -0.23 2.00 0.40 1.00 0.92 -0.67 -0.46 0.00 0.34 -1.33 -0.76 0.33 1.07 7.67 6.33 1.33 0.23 0.18 0.123 S.D. 1.00 1.05 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.83 1.15 1.03 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.16 0.58 0.69 2.31 4.51 2.89 0.55 0.43 0.54

20 S&P 500 Industrials Average -0.16 -0.39 0.84 -0.33 -0.25 -0.12 -0.16 -0.01 -0.10 0.10 -0.41 0.16 -0.57 -0.01 3.49 4.73 -1.24 -0.11 -0.09 -0.13 52 S.D. 0.66 0.69 1.53 0.96 1.37 1.13 1.19 1.06 0.30 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.87 3.31 2.99 3.27 0.58 0.41 0.49

MBA ideal Average 0.18 -0.04 2.18 0.51 0.73 0.69 -0.73 -0.52 -0.09 0.12 -0.36 0.21 -0.82 -0.31 7.73 7.45 0.27 0.25 0.10 0.1211 S.D. 0.75 0.79 1.60 1.01 1.74 1.44 1.19 1.06 0.30 0.72 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.90 3.61 3.98 4.20 0.69 0.50 0.59

25 S&P 500 Cons. Discretionary Average 0.29 0.08 1.40 0.02 -0.44 -0.27 0.00 0.13 -0.21 -0.17 -0.54 0.03 -0.54 0.02 3.40 3.60 -0.20 0.02 -0.02 -0.04 85 S.D. 0.99 1.03 1.63 1.03 1.28 1.06 0.71 0.63 0.44 1.05 0.93 0.93 0.89 1.07 3.45 2.53 3.21 0.54 0.42 0.45

MBA ideal Average 0.77 0.58 2.14 0.48 -0.45 -0.29 0.36 0.46 -0.27 -0.31 -0.64 -0.06 -0.45 0.13 5.64 4.36 1.27 0.25 0.14 0.1522 S.D. 1.27 1.33 1.67 1.05 1.10 0.91 1.05 0.94 0.46 1.09 0.95 0.95 0.74 0.89 4.81 3.22 3.81 0.63 0.54 0.55

30 S&P 500 Cons. Staples Average 0.21 -0.01 2.05 0.43 -0.72 -0.51 -0.15 -0.01 -0.15 -0.03 -0.85 -0.27 -0.51 0.06 4.18 4.64 -0.46 -0.05 -0.05 -0.12 39 S.D. 0.80 0.84 1.62 1.02 1.36 1.12 0.93 0.83 0.43 1.03 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.20 2.91 3.64 4.36 0.69 0.58 0.60

MBA ideal Average 0.08 -0.15 2.77 0.88 -0.46 -0.30 -0.46 -0.28 -0.15 -0.03 -0.54 0.04 -0.62 -0.07 6.23 5.92 0.31 0.08 0.01 -0.03 13 S.D. 0.95 1.00 1.92 1.21 1.39 1.15 1.05 0.94 0.55 1.33 1.39 1.39 1.26 1.52 3.17 4.61 5.69 0.89 0.78 0.78

35 S&P 500 Health Care Average 0.29 0.07 1.50 0.08 -0.05 0.04 0.13 0.24 -0.02 0.30 -1.11 -0.53 -0.64 -0.10 3.25 3.16 0.09 0.08 0.01 0.0156 S.D. 0.85 0.89 1.43 0.90 0.88 0.73 0.79 0.70 0.13 0.32 1.23 1.23 0.84 1.01 3.47 2.35 2.66 0.42 0.34 0.36

MBA ideal Average 1.20 1.03 3.20 1.15 0.00 0.09 -0.10 0.04 -0.10 0.10 -1.60 -1.03 -0.40 0.19 8.10 5.90 2.20 0.38 0.23 0.2210 S.D. 1.14 1.19 1.40 0.88 1.15 0.96 1.52 1.36 0.32 0.76 1.51 1.51 0.70 0.84 4.72 2.96 3.19 0.57 0.41 0.50

40 S&P 500 Financials Average 0.67 0.48 1.38 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.01 0.14 -0.07 0.17 -0.76 -0.18 -0.63 -0.08 3.22 2.55 0.67 0.18 0.10 0.1186 S.D. 1.21 1.27 1.60 1.01 0.92 0.76 0.19 0.17 0.30 0.72 0.98 0.98 0.77 0.92 3.04 2.25 2.74 0.45 0.35 0.38

MBA ideal Average 1.93 1.79 2.57 0.76 0.29 0.32 0.07 0.20 -0.36 -0.52 -1.79 -1.21 -1.21 -0.79 6.86 5.36 1.50 0.41 0.08 0.2614 S.D. 1.64 1.72 1.91 1.20 0.83 0.68 0.27 0.24 0.63 1.52 0.97 0.98 0.70 0.84 4.15 2.37 3.44 0.53 0.48 0.45

45 S&P 500 Info. Technology Average 0.32 0.11 1.73 0.23 0.58 0.57 0.45 0.53 -0.09 0.12 -0.01 0.56 -0.67 -0.13 4.38 2.17 2.22 0.50 0.28 0.3878 S.D. 0.75 0.78 1.73 1.09 1.25 1.04 1.06 0.95 0.33 0.79 0.69 0.69 0.73 0.88 4.16 1.60 3.82 0.67 0.45 0.55

MBA ideal Average 0.85 0.66 3.05 1.06 1.05 0.96 0.95 0.98 -0.30 -0.38 -0.05 0.52 -0.25 0.37 8.00 2.75 5.25 1.00 0.60 0.7720 S.D. 1.14 1.19 1.70 1.07 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.34 0.57 1.37 0.76 0.76 0.72 0.86 5.44 2.02 4.77 0.85 0.60 0.72

50 S&P 500 Telecom. Services Average 0.22 0.01 2.56 0.75 -0.33 -0.19 -0.22 -0.07 0.00 0.34 -1.00 -0.43 -1.00 -0.53 3.56 3.33 0.22 0.09 -0.02 -0.02 9 S.D. 1.09 1.15 1.67 1.05 0.71 0.59 0.44 0.39 0.00 0.00 1.12 1.12 0.71 0.85 2.65 2.83 1.56 0.20 0.25 0.21

MBA ideal Average 1.00 0.82 4.00 1.66 -1.00 -0.74 -0.33 -0.17 0.00 0.34 -2.00 -1.43 -1.33 -0.93 6.33 6.00 0.33 0.07 -0.06 -0.09 3 S.D. 1.00 1.05 2.00 1.26 1.00 0.83 0.58 0.52 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.69 2.08 2.00 1.53 0.15 0.18 0.13

55 S&P 500 Utilities Average -0.23 -0.46 1.23 -0.09 -0.48 -0.31 -1.52 -1.22 -0.16 -0.05 -0.97 -0.39 -0.29 0.32 2.68 5.77 -3.10 -0.48 -0.32 -0.49 31 S.D. 0.80 0.84 1.18 0.74 0.93 0.77 1.46 1.30 0.37 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.94 1.13 1.62 2.38 2.89 0.46 0.43 0.42

MBA ideal n/a31

S&P 500 Total Average 0.22 0.0 1.37 0.0 -0.11 0.0 -0.15 0.0 -0.14 0.0 -0.57 0.0 -0.56 0.0 3.55 3.65 -0.11 0.05 0.00 -0.01

495 S.D. 0.95 1.0 1.59 1.0 1.21 1.0 1.12 1.0 0.42 1.0 1.00 1.0 0.83 1.0 3.32 2.84 3.52 0.60 0.46 0.52

MBA ideal Total Average 0.79 0.6 2.61 0.8 0.15 0.2 -0.03 0.1 -0.27 -0.3 -0.80 -0.2 -0.62 -0.1 6.94 5.29 1.65 0.37 0.16 0.22

99 S.D. 1.29 1.3 1.72 1.1 1.39 1.2 1.45 1.3 0.59 1.4 1.19 1.2 0.89 1.1 4.36 3.76 4.73 0.79 0.64 0.69

5

7

9

2

6

4

3

12

11

10

8

69

Table 4.6 KLD ratings and z-scores for S&P500 and MBA ideal sample, continued A B C D S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK

1GIS

sector code

Samplen GIS sector name Measure Total

StrenghtsTotal

Concerns Total Total Weighted

average z-score

weighted z-score UG Ideal UG

Consid. MBA Ideal MBA Consid.

Total Assets Total Sales Total

Liabilities

Stock-holder Equity

Net Income ROE '05 ROA '05 ROS '05avg. # of

Emp-loyees

10 S&P 500 Energy Average 2.21 5.45 -3.24 -0.46 -0.47 -0.45 28,902 35,121 15,378 13,524 3,424 0.21 0.10 0.16 19,64529 S.D. 2.11 3.63 2.44 0.43 0.46 0.42 44,276 72,127 21,442 23,347 7,169 0.14 0.05 0.13 24,995

MBA ideal Average 6.00 14.33 -8.33 -1.17 -1.53 -1.26 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.09 147,056 225,180 71,525 75,531 21,253 0.27 0.14 0.09 60,2783 S.D. 3.61 3.06 2.08 0.41 0.04 0.24 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 53,898 89,937 22,632 31,276 12,887 0.05 0.03 0.02 24,075

15 S&P 500 Materials Average 4.47 4.80 -0.33 -0.03 -0.02 -0.06 11,527 9,780 7,384 4,143 766 0.26 0.08 0.08 24,58930 S.D. 3.36 3.18 3.24 0.57 0.46 0.51 11,331 10,056 7,971 3,819 894 0.30 0.06 0.06 24,385

MBA ideal Average 7.67 6.33 1.33 0.23 0.18 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.05 23,735 19,380 16,194 7,541 1,138 0.16 0.05 0.06 43,3883 S.D. 2.31 4.51 2.89 0.55 0.43 0.54 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.04 12,389 10,159 9,466 3,170 786 0.08 0.02 0.03 23,485

20 S&P 500 Industrials Average 3.49 4.73 -1.24 -0.11 -0.09 -0.13 29,556 16,796 21,561 7,995 1,260 0.19 0.07 0.07 64,94152 S.D. 3.31 2.99 3.27 0.58 0.41 0.49 92,250 22,336 77,403 15,451 2,317 0.11 0.04 0.03 75,512

MBA ideal Average 7.73 7.45 0.27 0.25 0.10 0.12 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.12 89,821 39,141 69,074 20,747 3,183 0.18 0.06 0.07 133,97511 S.D. 3.61 3.98 4.20 0.69 0.50 0.59 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.08 194,432 39,087 164,657 30,534 4,480 0.08 0.04 0.03 92,329

25 S&P 500 Cons. Discretionary Average 3.40 3.60 -0.20 0.02 -0.02 -0.04 22,091 16,379 16,068 6,206 554 0.22 0.08 0.06 67,57685 S.D. 3.45 2.53 3.21 0.54 0.42 0.45 60,202 29,133 57,126 9,467 1,741 0.42 0.06 0.08 84,559

MBA ideal Average 5.64 4.36 1.27 0.25 0.14 0.15 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.13 46,340 33,244 39,415 6,925 662 0.24 0.09 0.06 118,35722 S.D. 4.81 3.22 3.81 0.63 0.54 0.55 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.07 111,167 51,923 108,369 7,522 2,788 0.35 0.05 0.04 103,022

30 S&P 500 Cons. Staples Average 4.18 4.64 -0.46 -0.05 -0.05 -0.12 18,427 27,022 11,872 6,555 1,615 0.39 0.10 0.08 110,41539 S.D. 2.91 3.64 4.36 0.69 0.58 0.60 27,162 50,298 17,474 10,051 2,563 1.18 0.07 0.07 282,808

MBA ideal Average 6.23 5.92 0.31 0.08 0.01 -0.03 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.13 28,095 41,728 17,996 10,099 2,804 0.38 0.10 0.10 183,77213 S.D. 3.17 4.61 5.69 0.89 0.78 0.78 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.08 36,379 82,747 22,612 14,162 3,244 0.24 0.04 0.05 457,609

35 S&P 500 Health Care Average 3.25 3.16 0.09 0.08 0.01 0.01 15,032 14,538 8,074 6,958 1,197 0.17 0.09 0.11 26,51256 S.D. 3.47 2.35 2.66 0.42 0.34 0.36 20,279 19,513 11,046 10,569 1,925 0.17 0.05 0.08 29,287

MBA ideal Average 8.10 5.90 2.20 0.38 0.23 0.22 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.12 35,402 20,731 16,254 19,149 3,735 0.20 0.10 0.17 51,94410 S.D. 4.72 2.96 3.19 0.57 0.41 0.50 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.07 33,438 17,377 14,913 19,369 3,279 0.06 0.04 0.06 38,489

40 S&P 500 Financials Average 3.22 2.55 0.67 0.18 0.10 0.11 176,314 15,040 162,063 14,250 2,029 0.16 0.03 0.17 27,50586 S.D. 3.04 2.25 2.74 0.45 0.35 0.38 298,448 22,447 278,483 21,589 3,520 0.19 0.05 0.11 45,949

MBA ideal Average 6.86 5.36 1.50 0.41 0.08 0.26 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.16 635,631 45,714 593,634 41,997 6,777 0.17 0.01 0.14 86,51514 S.D. 4.15 2.37 3.44 0.53 0.48 0.45 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.08 437,640 30,548 403,648 37,154 6,382 0.06 0.01 0.05 83,597

45 S&P 500 Info. Technology Average 4.38 2.17 2.22 0.50 0.28 0.38 11,284 8,954 5,343 5,941 985 0.86 0.08 0.11 26,28178 S.D. 4.16 1.60 3.82 0.67 0.45 0.55 17,640 16,326 10,430 8,798 2,074 6.01 0.10 0.19 44,651

MBA ideal Average 8.00 2.75 5.25 1.00 0.60 0.77 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.15 26,249 23,402 12,111 14,138 2,901 0.21 0.11 0.16 54,07920 S.D. 5.44 2.02 4.77 0.85 0.60 0.72 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.10 28,429 27,141 17,462 13,858 3,347 0.19 0.06 0.11 74,961

50 S&P 500 Telecom. Services Average 3.56 3.33 0.22 0.09 -0.02 -0.02 60,200 23,161 39,156 21,044 2,136 0.14 0.04 0.10 74,1319 S.D. 2.65 2.83 1.56 0.20 0.25 0.21 63,054 24,227 43,872 22,567 2,595 0.07 0.04 0.07 87,584

MBA ideal Average 6.33 6.00 0.33 0.07 -0.06 -0.09 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.08 138,781 51,218 89,929 48,851 4,654 0.10 0.03 0.09 173,0273 S.D. 2.08 2.00 1.53 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 33,308 21,196 39,037 8,041 2,812 0.08 0.01 0.03 86,257

55 S&P 500 Utilities Average 2.68 5.77 -3.10 -0.48 -0.32 -0.49 24,800 9,627 19,009 5,791 672 0.22 0.03 0.07 12,19431 S.D. 1.62 2.38 2.89 0.46 0.43 0.42 12,919 4,410 9,926 3,702 473 0.63 0.01 0.03 6,621

MBA ideal 0.01 0.04 n/a n/a31 n/a n/a n/a n/a

S&P 500 Total Average 3.55 3.65 -0.11 0.05 0.00 -0.01 47,482 16,058 39,146 8,414 1,330 0.32 0.07 0.11 43,241

495 S.D. 3.32 2.84 3.52 0.60 0.46 0.52 143,968 30,295 133,756 14,402 2,899 2.42 0.07 0.11 95,688

MBA ideal Total Average 6.94 5.29 1.65 0.37 0.16 0.22 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.13 132,114 39,465 112,217 19,897 3,610 0.23 0.08 0.11 102,110

99 S.D. 4.36 3.76 4.73 0.79 0.64 0.69 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.08 274,836 56,732 257,100 25,698 5,520 0.22 0.05 0.07 182,336

10

11

12

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

70

Table 4.7 Correlation matrix, detailed

Variable Mean s.d.

Corporate Social Performance

Community 0.22 0.95 1

Diversity 1.37 1.59 0.38 ** 1

Employees -0.11 1.21 0.10 * 0.13 ** 1

Environment -0.15 1.12 0.25 ** 0.14 ** 0.08 1

Human Rights -0.14 0.42 -0.10 * -0.08 0.03 0.26 ** 1

Product -0.57 1.00 -0.08 -0.16 ** 0.18 ** 0.14 ** 0.10 * 1

Corp Gov -0.56 0.83 -0.04 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.14 ** 1

Consolidated CSP

Total Raw -0.11 3.52 0.52 ** 0.60 ** 0.53 ** 0.58 ** 0.19 ** 0.35 ** 0.31 ** 1

Total Weighted 0.05 0.60 0.51 ** 0.57 ** 0.66 ** 0.59 ** 0.12 ** 0.32 ** 0.16 ** 0.97 ** 1

z-score Total 0.00 0.46 0.47 ** 0.45 ** 0.50 ** 0.60 ** 0.39 ** 0.41 ** 0.39 ** 0.96 ** 0.91 ** 1

z-score Weighted -0.01 0.52 0.51 ** 0.47 ** 0.65 ** 0.62 ** 0.20 ** 0.39 ** 0.19 ** 0.97 ** 0.99 ** 0.94 ** 1

Employer Attractiveness

UG Ideal (n=114) 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.33 ** 0.05 0.21 * -0.21 * -0.09 0.13 0.20 * 0.21 * 0.13 0.18 1

UG Considered (n=114) 0.08 0.05 0.23 * 0.45 ** 0.17 0.29 ** -0.16 -0.06 0.12 0.35 ** 0.37 ** 0.27 ** 0.33 ** 0.90 ** 1

MBA Ideal (n=99) 0.02 0.03 0.20 * 0.27 ** 0.20 * 0.18 -0.33 ** -0.13 0.06 0.20 * 0.25 ** 0.10 0.21 ** 0.74 ** 0.69 ** 1

MBA Considered (n=98) 0.13 0.08 0.22 * 0.36 ** 0.25 * 0.25 * -0.27 ** -0.07 0.14 0.32 ** 0.36 ** 0.22 * 0.32 ** 0.74 ** 0.84 ** 0.90 ** 1

Control Variables

Total Assets 47,482.33 143,968.15 0.36 ** 0.25 ** 0.05 0.00 -0.16 ** -0.27 ** -0.18 ** 0.09 * 0.13 ** 0.02 0.09 * 0.15 0.19 ** 0.42 ** 0.30 ** 1

Total Sales 16,057.85 30,294.86 0.18 ** 0.25 ** -0.03 -0.20 ** -0.34 ** -0.28 ** -0.23 ** -0.09 -0.04 -0.20 ** -0.10 * 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.44 ** 1

Net Income 1,329.93 2,898.93 0.21 ** 0.27 ** 0.06 -0.17 ** -0.32 ** -0.19 ** -0.15 ** 0.02 0.05 -0.09 * 0.00 0.19 * 0.23 * 0.34 ** 0.32 ** 0.55 ** 0.70 ** 1

ROE '05 0.32 2.41 -0.02 0.05 -0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.04 0.18 -0.02 -0.02 -0.04 1

ROA '05 0.07 0.07 -0.06 -0.02 0.14 ** 0.02 -0.07 0.14 ** 0.09 0.08 0.09 * 0.07 0.09 * 0.14 0.18 * 0.06 0.19 -0.19 ** -0.02 0.14 ** -0.26 ** 1

ROS '05 0.11 0.11 0.03 -0.03 0.23 ** 0.03 0.01 0.09 * 0.04 0.13 ** 0.15 ** 0.13 ** 0.16 ** 0.16 0.17 0.31 ** 0.31 ** 0.04 -0.11 * 0.18 ** -0.13 ** 0.57 ** 1

Number of Employees 43,241.44 95,688.29 0.13 ** 0.22 ** -0.16 ** 0.00 -0.19 ** -0.23 ** -0.15 ** -0.05 -0.04 -0.12 * -0.08 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.23 ** 0.65 ** 0.35 ** -0.01 -0.02 -0.11 * 1

Salary Indicator 124,100.45 10,859.12 0.06 -0.01 0.08 -0.09 * -0.09 -0.14 ** -0.06 -0.03 -0.02 -0.08 -0.03 0.09 0.08 0.43 ** 0.28 ** 0.30 ** 0.01 0.14 ** -0.02 -0.07 0.24 ** -0.12 ** 1

Variable Mean s.d.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

ROS '05Number of Employee

s

Salary Indicator

Total Sales

Net Income ROE '05 ROA '05

UG Considered

(n=114)

MBA Ideal(n=99)

MBA Considered

(n=98)

Total Assets

Total Weighted Z Total Z

WeightedUG Ideal(n=114)

Human Rights Product Corp Gov Total RawCommunit

y Diversity Employees

Environ-ment

Community

Employees

Human Rights Corp Gov Total

WeightedZ

Weighted

UG Considered

(n=114)

MBA Considered

(n=98)

Total Sales ROE '05 ROS '05 Salary

Indicator

Number of Employee

sROA '05Net

IncomeTotal

AssetsMBA Ideal

(n=99)UG Ideal(n=114)Z TotalTotal RawProductEnviron-

mentDiversity

71

Appendix 5 Other

Table 5.1 S&P’s Global Industry Classification System (GICS) GICSCode Sector GICS

Code Industry Group GICS Code Industry

10 Energy 1010 Energy 101010 Energy Equipment & Services

101020 Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels

15 Materials 1510 Materials 151010 Chemicals

151020 Construction Materials

151030 Containers & Packaging

151040 Metals & Mining

151050 Paper & Forest Products

20 Industrials 2010 Capital Goods 201010 Aerospace & Defense

201020 Building Products

201030 Construction & Engineering

201040 Electrical Equipment

201060 Machinery

201070 Trading Companies & Distributors

2030 Transportation 203010 Air Freight & Logistics

203020 Airlines

203040 Road & Rail

25 Consumer Discretionary 2510 Automobiles & Components 251010 Auto Components

251020 Automobiles

2520 Consumer Durables & Apparel 252010 Household Durables

252020 Leisure Equipment & Products

252030 Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods

2530 Consumer Services 253010 Hotels Restaurants & Leisure

253020 Diversified Consumer Services

2540 Media 254010 Media

2550 Retailing 255010 Distributors

255020 Internet & Catalog Retail

255030 Multiline Retail

255040 Specialty Retail

255040 Specialty Retail

30 Consumer Staples 3010 Food & Staples Retailing 301010 Food & Staples Retailing

3020 Food Beverage & Tobacco 302010 Beverages

302020 Food Products

302030 Tobacco

3030 Household & Personal Products 303010 Household Products

303020 Personal Products

35 Health Care 3510 Health Care Equipment & Services 351010 Health Care Equipment & Supplies

351020 Health Care Providers & Services

351030 Health Care Technology

3520 Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences 352010 Biotechnology

352020 Pharmaceuticals

352030 Life Sciences Tools & Services

40 Financials 4010 Banks 401010 Commercial Banks

401020 Thrifts & Mortgage Finance

4020 Diversified Financials 402010 Diversified Financial Services

402020 Consumer Finance

402030 Capital Markets

4030 Insurance 403010 Insurance

4040 Real Estate 404020 Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

45 Information Technology 4510 Software & Services 451010 Internet Software & Services

451020 IT Services

451030 Software

4520 Technology Hardware & Equipment 452010 Communications Equipment

452020 Computers & Peripherals

452030 Electronic Equipment & Instruments

452040 Office Electronics

4530 Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment 453010 Semiconductor & Semiconductor Equipment

50 Telecommunication Services 5010 Telecommunication Services 501010 Diversified Telecommunication Services

501020 Wireless Telecommunication Services

55 Utilities 5510 Utilities 551010 Electric Utilities

551020 Gas Utilities

551030 Multi-Utilities

551050 Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders

source: www.standardandpoors.com

72

Appendix 6 Datasets

Table 6.1 Favourite MBA employers, ‘ideal’ and ‘considered’

Rank(ideal)

Rank(consid.) MBAs Ideal

(Top 5)*Considered

(Top 15-25)**Rank(ideal)

Rank(consid.) MBAs Ideal

(Top 5)*Considered

(Top 15-25)**

1 2 McKinsey & Company 18.3 33.6 91 82 Mattel 1.3 11.02 1 Google 12.5 34.2 92 115 American Airlines 1.3 8.53 15 Goldman Sachs 12.5 25.1 93 100 MGM Mirage 1.3 9.54 4 Bain & Company 12.3 29.5 94 132 United Technologies 1.2 7.15 7 The Boston Consulting Group 10.7 27.7 95 158 Pulte Homes 1.2 4.86 9 Citigroup 9.2 27.4 96 109 Wal-Mart Stores 1.2 9.17 3 Apple Computer 9.0 30.5 97 87 DaimlerChrysler 1.1 10.58 10 General Electric 8.1 27.4 98 84 Shell Oil Company 1.1 10.69 5 Johnson & Johnson 8.1 28.6 99 112 ING U.S. Financial Services 1.1 9.0

10 23 Morgan Stanley 7.3 22.9 100 106 Bearing Point 1.1 9.211 14 Procter & Gamble 6.9 25.6 101 68 Bose Corporation 1.1 12.512 6 Nike 6.8 28.3 102 101 Bristol-Myers Squibb 1.1 9.513 36 Lehman Brothers 6.7 18.5 103 44 Nokia 1.1 15.614 24 Walt Disney 6.4 22.8 104 77 Siemens 1.0 12.015 20 Booz Allen Hamilton 6.3 23.8 105 91 Kimberly-Clark Corporation 1.0 10.116 8 Microsoft 6.1 27.6 106 119 Novartis 1.0 8.117 29 Deloitte 5.9 20.9 107 71 Nissan 1.0 12.418 16 Bank of America 5.8 24.5 108 90 Coors Brewing Company 1.0 10.119 11 BMW 5.1 26.6 109 99 DuPont 1.0 9.620 33 Merrill Lynch 5.0 20.0 110 113 Ford Motor Company 1.0 8.721 35 JPMorgan Investment Bank 4.9 18.9 111 123 Honda R&D Americas 0.9 7.922 22 Starbucks 4.9 23.5 112 143 Guidant 0.9 6.223 19 IBM 4.9 23.9 113 102 Verizon 0.9 9.524 12 3M 4.8 25.9 114 163 Eaton Corporation 0.8 4.125 30 Intel 4.6 20.7 115 104 S.C Johnson & Son 0.8 9.426 25 Yahoo! 4.6 22.4 116 121 General Motors 0.8 8.027 18 Coca-Cola 4.5 24.1 117 86 Merck 0.8 10.528 39 UBS Investment Bank 3.9 17.1 118 135 Roche 0.8 7.029 13 Sony 3.9 25.8 119 126 AIG 0.8 7.630 21 PepsiCo 3.9 23.6 120 120 AT&T 0.8 8.031 31 Toyota 3.9 20.2 121 155 TIAA-CREF 0.7 5.032 17 Amazon.com 3.8 24.4 122 137 McGraw-Hill Companies 0.7 6.733 27 American Express 3.7 21.2 123 144 Northrop Grumman 0.7 6.134 34 Target 3.7 19.2 124 138 Philip Morris USA 0.7 6.635 66 Genentech 3.6 12.6 125 152 Mayo Clinic 0.7 5.136 26 Dell 3.6 21.7 126 139 ConAgra Foods 0.7 6.637 32 eBay 3.3 20.1 127 140 QUALCOMM 0.7 6.638 43 JPMorgan Chase 3.3 16.2 128 110 Texas Instruments Incorporate 0.7 9.139 57 Fidelity Investments 3.3 14.1 129 162 Cummins, Inc. 0.7 4.440 67 Harrah's Entertainment 3.2 12.6 130 128 Black & Decker 0.6 7.541 42 Deutsche Bank 3.2 16.5 131 116 Mars Incorporated / Masterfoo 0.6 8.442 51 L'Oréal 3.1 15.1 132 111 Campbell Soup Company 0.6 9.043 40 Accenture 3.0 17.0 133 154 PNC Financial Services Group 0.6 5.044 46 Credit Suisse First Boston 3.0 15.5 134 72 The Hershey Company 0.6 12.345 47 Unilever 3.0 15.4 135 161 DiamondCluster 0.6 4.546 62 Starwood Hotels & Resorts W 3.0 13.3 136 148 AstraZeneca 0.6 5.347 37 Pfizer 3.0 18.1 137 147 Georgia-Pacific Corporation 0.6 5.648 41 Gap Inc 3.0 16.9 138 117 AMD 0.6 8.449 28 Nestlé 2.9 21.1 139 159 Avaya 0.6 4.850 50 PricewaterhouseCoopers 2.9 15.3 140 92 Philips 0.6 10.051 49 Southwest Airlines 2.8 15.4 141 74 The Kellogg Company 0.5 12.152 63 Wachovia Corporation 2.6 13.2 142 134 Whirlpool Corporation 0.5 7.053 69 Lilly (Eli Lilly and Company) 2.5 12.5 143 142 Prudential Financial 0.5 6.554 65 BP 2.5 12.6 144 136 DHL 0.5 6.855 96 Amgen 2.5 9.8 145 153 Bertelsmann (BMG, Random 0.5 5.156 76 Central Intelligence Agency 2.5 12.0 146 150 Intuit 0.5 5.257 53 General Mills 2.5 14.5 147 160 Fifth Third Bancorp 0.5 4.658 45 Marriott 2.4 15.6 148 94 MasterCard 0.5 9.859 54 Bear Stearns 2.3 14.3 149 114 Sun Microsystems 0.5 8.660 48 Kraft Foods 2.2 15.4 150 146 ConocoPhillips 0.4 5.761 75 ExxonMobil 2.1 12.1 151 133 Sprint Nextel 0.4 7.062 61 Boeing 2.1 13.3 152 118 Xerox 0.4 8.163 64 A.T. Kearney 2.0 13.0 153 166 Thomson Corporation 0.4 3.664 60 Barclays Capital 2.0 13.5 154 131 Staples 0.4 7.365 129 Medtronic 2.0 7.4 155 149 Liberty Mutual 0.4 5.366 38 Motorola 2.0 18.0 156 127 AOL 0.4 7.667 73 Ernst & Young 2.0 12.1 157 124 Bayer 0.4 7.768 108 Monitor Group 1.9 9.2 158 145 Tyco International 0.3 5.969 52 The Home Depot 1.9 14.9 159 122 T-Mobile 0.3 7.970 130 Diageo 1.8 7.3 160 151 Capgemini 0.3 5.271 70 Cisco Systems 1.8 12.5 161 164 The Hartford Financial Service 0.3 3.972 107 Limited Brands 1.7 9.2 162 78 Panasonic 0.3 11.573 95 GlaxoSmithKline 1.7 9.8 163 157 Hyundai 0.3 5.074 55 Reebok 1.6 14.3 164 171 IRS 0.3 2.775 56 Hewlett-Packard 1.6 14.2 165 125 Bausch & Lomb 0.3 7.776 103 The Vanguard Group 1.6 9.4 166 169 Weyerhaeuser 0.2 2.877 105 Chevron Corporation 1.6 9.2 167 168 Rohm & Haas 0.2 3.078 81 Mercer Management Consultin 1.5 11.0 168 167 State Farm Insurance Compa 0.2 3.579 89 Abbott 1.5 10.2 169 173 Florida Power & Light Co. 0.2 2.180 58 Colgate-Palmolive 1.5 14.0 170 156 Tyson Foods 0.1 5.081 59 Best Buy 1.5 13.6 171 170 Takeda Pharmaceuticals Nort 0.1 2.782 79 KPMG 1.5 11.5 172 172 The TJX Companies 0.1 2.383 88 Federal Bureau of Investigatio 1.5 10.3 173 165 Sanofi-Aventis 0.1 3.784 85 Miller Brewing Company 1.5 10.6 174 174 ARAMARK 0.1 2.085 141 Cargill 1.5 6.5 175 176 Hospira 0.1 1.186 83 HSBC 1.4 11.0 176 175 Convergys 0.0 1.487 97 Wells Fargo & Company 1.4 9.8 177 177 Stockamp & Associates 0.0 1.088 93 Saks Inc. 1.4 9.989 98 Lockheed Martin Corporation 1.4 9.690 80 Honeywell 1.3 11.0

source: Universum Communications, 2006

* % of MBAs who put in their top 5 most desirable workplaces** % of MBAs who who consider employment with this company (15-25 choices)

73

Table 6.2 Favourite Undergraduate employers, ‘ideal’ and ‘considered’Rank(ideal)

Rank(consid.) Undergraduates Ideal

(Top 5)*Considered

(Top 15-25)**Rank(ideal)

Rank(consid.) Undergraduates Ideal

(Top 5)*Considered

(Top 15-25)**

1 1 Walt Disney 11.2 23.6 100 120 Dow Chemical 1.1 5.22 2 Google 9.1 23.5 101 85 Cisco Systems 1.1 7.03 9 U.S. Department of State 8.5 17.3 102 116 BP 1.1 5.34 11 Federal Bureau of Investigatio 8.0 16.5 103 89 Mattel 1.1 6.95 17 Central Intelligence Agency 7.6 15.2 104 94 Miller Brewing Company 1.0 6.76 3 Microsoft 6.7 20.7 105 79 Wells Fargo & Company 1.0 7.47 7 Apple Computer 6.4 18.6 106 81 UPS 1.0 7.28 5 Johnson & Johnson 6.2 19.9 107 161 Amgen 1.0 2.99 6 BMW 5.8 19.3 108 58 Verizon 1.0 9.7

10 4 Sony 5.4 20.5 109 96 Sun Microsystems 1.0 6.511 37 PricewaterhouseCoopers 5.3 11.8 110 87 Prudential Financial 0.9 7.012 13 Nike 5.2 16.2 111 108 Kimberly-Clark Corporation 0.9 5.713 59 Mayo Clinic 5.0 9.7 112 74 AOL 0.9 7.814 12 Procter & Gamble 4.7 16.3 113 125 Walgreen Corporation 0.9 4.915 24 Pfizer 4.7 13.7 114 114 State Farm Insurance Compan 0.8 5.416 28 Ernst & Young 4.5 13.0 115 98 S.C Johnson & Son 0.8 6.217 19 Boeing 4.5 14.9 116 62 AT&T 0.8 9.218 38 Lockheed Martin Corporation 4.5 11.7 117 155 Novartis 0.8 3.319 8 Coca-Cola 4.3 17.6 118 99 Philip Morris USA 0.8 6.220 21 Starbucks 4.0 14.7 119 149 Takeda Pharmaceuticals Nort 0.8 3.621 23 Merrill Lynch 4.0 14.0 120 119 ING U.S. Financial Services 0.8 5.222 14 IBM 4.0 16.1 121 118 Honeywell 0.7 5.223 60 Goldman Sachs 4.0 9.5 122 92 Philips 0.7 6.824 61 Deloitte 4.0 9.3 123 159 Booz Allen Hamilton 0.7 3.025 20 General Electric 3.9 14.7 124 146 Mercer Management Consultin 0.7 3.826 52 National Security Agency 3.8 10.0 125 141 United Technologies 0.7 4.027 33 L'Oréal 3.7 12.7 126 131 The Vanguard Group 0.7 4.628 10 Amazon.com 3.7 16.7 127 55 Nokia 0.7 9.829 18 Bank of America 3.7 15.2 128 115 New York Life Insurance Com 0.7 5.330 25 Gap Inc. 3.4 13.3 129 82 Sprint Nextel 0.7 7.231 31 Time Warner Inc. 3.3 12.7 130 147 Halliburton 0.7 3.832 30 Target 3.3 12.7 131 127 Chevron Corporation 0.7 4.933 45 Anheuser-Busch 3.2 11.3 132 145 HSBC 0.7 3.934 27 Intel 3.1 13.0 133 153 Bear Stearns 0.6 3.535 42 JPMorgan Investment Bank 3.1 11.5 134 150 Credit Suisse First Boston 0.6 3.636 22 3M 3.0 14.5 135 142 Pacific Gas and Electric Comp 0.6 4.037 80 KPMG 3.0 7.4 136 70 Cingular 0.6 8.238 39 Morgan Stanley 3.0 11.6 137 177 Eckerd Youth Alternatives 0.6 2.239 49 Hilton Hotels Corporation 3.0 10.8 138 160 Roche 0.6 3.040 43 American Airlines 2.8 11.4 139 68 MasterCard 0.6 8.541 71 GlaxoSmithKline 2.8 8.0 140 163 Federated Department Stores 0.6 2.842 47 Virgin 2.7 11.0 141 135 Tyson Foods 0.6 4.343 26 Toyota 2.7 13.1 142 112 Oracle 0.6 5.544 64 Merck 2.6 8.8 143 169 Pulte Homes 0.6 2.445 66 Electronic Arts 2.6 8.7 144 138 PNC Financial Services Group 0.5 4.246 36 JPMorgan Chase 2.5 12.4 145 158 Unilever 0.5 3.247 50 Citigroup 2.5 10.6 146 175 Turner Construction 0.5 2.348 15 Dell 2.4 15.3 147 139 Bosch 0.5 4.249 16 PepsiCo 2.3 15.3 148 107 The Home Depot 0.5 5.750 44 General Motors 2.2 11.4 149 111 Campbell Soup Company 0.5 5.551 54 Southwest Airlines 2.2 9.9 150 152 QUALCOMM 0.5 3.552 56 Marriott 2.2 9.7 151 173 Bertelsmann (BMG, Random H 0.5 2.353 34 eBay 2.2 12.5 152 132 Liberty Mutual 0.4 4.654 97 Abbott 2.1 6.4 153 171 Yum! Brands 0.4 2.455 29 Yahoo! 2.0 12.8 154 156 ConAgra Foods 0.4 3.356 32 American Express 2.0 12.7 155 157 ConocoPhillips 0.4 3.257 128 McKinsey & Company 2.0 4.8 156 180 Cargill 0.4 2.058 69 ExxonMobil 1.9 8.3 157 167 BAE Systems 0.4 2.559 113 Lilly (Eli Lilly and Company) 1.9 5.5 158 140 The Hartford Financial Service 0.4 4.260 53 Ford Motor Company 1.8 10.0 159 172 Weyerhaeuser 0.4 2.461 102 Wyeth Pharmaceuticals 1.8 6.0 160 78 T-Mobile 0.4 7.562 35 Nestlé 1.7 12.4 161 174 National City 0.4 2.363 88 McGraw-Hill Companies 1.7 6.9 162 136 3Com 0.4 4.264 101 Raytheon 1.7 6.0 163 137 Tyco 0.3 4.265 84 The Boston Consulting Group 1.6 7.0 164 179 The TJX Companies 0.3 2.166 105 Internal Revenue Service (IRS 1.6 5.9 165 110 Staples 0.3 5.567 65 Adobe Systems 1.6 8.8 166 151 Georgia-Pacific Corporation 0.3 3.668 100 Accenture 1.6 6.2 167 121 Black & Decker 0.3 5.269 72 Shell Oil Company 1.6 7.9 168 154 Citadel Investment Group 0.3 3.470 133 Genentech 1.6 4.4 169 134 Bell South 0.3 4.471 41 The Hershey Company 1.6 11.5 170 162 Fifth Third Bancorp 0.3 2.872 75 DuPont 1.5 7.8 171 182 Cummins, Inc. 0.3 2.073 48 Best Buy 1.5 10.8 172 165 Enterprise Rent-A-Car 0.2 2.674 40 Hewlett-Packard 1.5 11.6 173 178 ARAMARK 0.2 2.175 117 U.S. Customs Border Protectio 1.5 5.3 174 176 BB&T Corporation 0.2 2.276 122 Northrop Grumman Corporatio 1.5 5.1 175 168 Owens Corning 0.2 2.577 83 Deutsche Bank 1.4 7.1 176 166 Sunoco 0.2 2.678 144 Bain & Company 1.4 3.9 177 183 Milliken & Company 0.2 1.979 106 AMD 1.4 5.8 178 130 Ericsson 0.2 4.780 90 Honda R&D Americas 1.4 6.8 179 187 Ferguson 0.2 1.681 57 Kraft Foods 1.4 9.7 180 148 Sears Holding Corporation 0.2 3.782 93 Bayer 1.4 6.8 181 181 Alcoa 0.2 2.083 123 Starwood Hotels & Resorts W 1.4 5.0 182 143 Whirlpool Corporation 0.2 3.984 86 DaimlerChrysler 1.4 7.0 183 186 Darden Restaurants 0.2 1.685 126 Lehman Brothers 1.4 4.9 184 170 DHL 0.2 2.486 73 Wachovia Corporation 1.3 7.9 185 188 Rohm & Haas 0.2 1.587 109 Caterpillar 1.3 5.6 186 184 Intuit 0.1 1.788 51 General Mills 1.3 10.2 187 185 Eaton Corporation 0.1 1.789 91 Fidelity Investments 1.2 6.8 188 191 CNA 0.1 1.290 104 Wal-Mart Stores 1.2 5.9 189 195 Capgemini 0.1 1.191 95 UBS Investment Bank 1.2 6.5 190 194 Hospira 0.1 1.192 67 Rolls-Royce North America 1.2 8.7 191 192 Stockamp & Associates 0.1 1.293 129 Limited Brands 1.2 4.7 192 189 Avaya 0.1 1.494 124 Harrah's Entertainment 1.2 5.0 193 193 Convergys 0.1 1.195 63 Texas Instruments Incorporate 1.2 9.1 194 164 Hertz 0.0 2.796 103 Bristol-Myers Squibb 1.2 6.0 195 190 Continental Tires 0.0 1.397 77 Siemens 1.2 7.698 76 Bose Corporation 1.1 7.6

99 46 Motorola 1.1 11.0

source: Universum Communications, 2006

* % of Undergraduates who put in their top 5 most desirable workplaces

** % of UGs who who consider employment with this company (15-25 choices)

74

Chart 6.3 Favourite Undergraduates employers, ideal, distribution

UG - Ideal (Top5)

0.%

2.%

4.%

6.%

8.%

10.%

12.%

Wal

t Dis

ney

Mic

roso

ft

Pric

ewat

erho

useC

oope

rs

Ern

st &

You

ng

Mer

rill L

ynch

Nat

iona

l Sec

urity

Age

ncy

Tim

e W

arne

r Inc

.

3M

Gla

xoS

mith

Klin

e

JPM

orga

n C

hase

Sou

thw

est A

irlin

es

Amer

ican

Exp

ress

Wye

th P

harm

aceu

tical

s

Inte

rnal

Rev

enue

Ser

vice

The

Her

shey

Com

pany

Nor

thro

p G

rum

man

Kraf

t Foo

ds

Wac

hovi

a C

orpo

ratio

n

UB

S In

vest

men

t Ban

k

Bris

tol-M

yers

Squ

ibb

Cis

co S

yste

ms

UPS

Kim

berly

-Cla

rk C

orpo

ratio

n

AT&

T

Hon

eyw

ell

The

Van

guar

d G

roup

Che

vron

Cor

pora

tion

Cin

gula

r

Tyso

n Fo

ods

Turn

er C

onst

ruct

ion

Ber

tels

man

n (B

MG

, Ran

dom

Car

gill

Nat

iona

l City

Geo

rgia

-Pac

ific

Cor

pora

tion

Cum

min

s, In

c.

Sun

oco

Alc

oa

Intu

it

Sto

ckam

p &

Ass

ocia

tes

Companies

% o

f UG

s w

ho p

ut in

thei

r top

5 m

ost d

esira

ble

wor

kpla

ces

compmanies n = 195student sample: 37,063

intersection with S&P500: 115S&P500 Companies that are in both, UG and MBA lists:

Chart 6.4 Favourite Undergraduates employers, considered, distribution

UG - Considered (Top 15-25)

0.%

5.%

10.%

15.%

20.%

25.%

Wal

t Dis

ney

BMW

Fede

ral B

urea

u of

Inve

stig

atio

n

Peps

iCo

Star

buck

s

Toyo

ta

Tim

e W

arne

r Inc

.

JPM

orga

n C

hase

The

Her

shey

Com

pany

Mot

orol

a

Gen

eral

Mills

Mar

riott

Del

oitte

Elec

troni

c Ar

ts

Gla

xoSm

ithKl

ine

Bose

Cor

pora

tion

UPS

Dai

mle

rChr

ysle

r

Fide

lity

Inve

stm

ents

Sun

Mic

rosy

stem

s

Ray

theo

n

AMD

Cam

pbel

l Sou

p C

ompa

ny BP

Blac

k &

Dec

ker

Lehm

an B

roth

ers

The

Vang

uard

Gro

up

3Com

Uni

ted

Tech

nolo

gies

Mer

cer M

anag

emen

t Con

sulti

ng

Geo

rgia

-Pac

ific

Cor

pora

tion

Con

Agra

Foo

ds

Amge

n

Suno

co

Yum

! Bra

nds

BB&T

Cor

pora

tion

Alco

a

Dar

den

Res

taur

ants

CN

A% o

f UG

s w

ho w

ho c

onsi

der e

mpl

oym

ent w

ith th

is c

ompa

ny (1

5-25

cho

ices

)

compmanies n = 195student sample: 37,063

intersection with S&P500: 115S&P500 Companies that are in both, UG and MBA

75

Chart 6.5 Favourite MBA employers, ideal, distribution

MBA - Ideal (Top5)

0.%

2.%

4.%

6.%

8.%

10.%

12.%

14.%

16.%

18.%

20.%

McK

inse

y &

Com

pany

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

John

son

& Jo

hnso

n

Lehm

an B

roth

ers

Del

oitte

JPM

orga

n In

vest

men

t Ban

k

Inte

l

Son

y

Amer

ican

Exp

ress

eBay

Deu

tsch

e Ba

nk

Uni

leve

r

Nes

tlé

Lilly

(Eli

Lilly

and

Com

pany

)

Gen

eral

Mills

Exx

onM

obil

Med

troni

c

The

Hom

e D

epot

Gla

xoS

mith

Klin

e

Che

vron

Cor

pora

tion

Best

Buy

Car

gill

Lock

heed

Mar

tin C

orpo

ratio

n

MG

M M

irage

Dai

mle

rChr

ysle

r

Bos

e C

orpo

ratio

n

Kim

berly

-Cla

rk C

orpo

ratio

n

DuP

ont

Ver

izon

Mer

ck

TIAA

-CR

EF

May

o C

linic

Cum

min

s, In

c.

PNC

Fin

anci

al S

ervi

ces

Gro

up

Geo

rgia

-Pac

ific

Cor

pora

tion

The

Kel

logg

Com

pany

Berte

lsm

ann

(BM

G, R

ando

m H

ouse

)

Sun

Mic

rosy

stem

s

Thom

son

Cor

pora

tion

Baye

r

The

Har

tford

Fin

anci

al S

ervi

ces

Gro

up

Bau

sch

& L

omb

Flor

ida

Pow

er &

Lig

ht C

o.

Sano

fi-Av

entis

Stoc

kam

p &

Ass

ocia

tes

% o

f MB

As

who

put

in th

eir t

op 5

mos

t des

irabl

e w

orkp

lace

s

compmanies n = 177student sample: 4,996

intersection with S&P500: 99S&P500 Companies that are in both, UG and MBA

Chart 6.6 Favourite MBA employers, considered, distribution

MBA - Considered (Top 15-25)

0.%

5.%

10.%

15.%

20.%

25.%

30.%

35.%

40.%

Goo

gle

John

son

& J

ohns

on

Citi

grou

p

Son

y

Am

azon

.com

Peps

iCo

Yaho

o!

Del

oitte

Mer

rill L

ynch

Pfiz

er

Gap

Inc

Mar

riott

Sou

thw

est A

irlin

es

Gen

eral

Mills

Fide

lity

Inve

stm

ents

Boe

ing

BP

Lilly

(Eli

Lilly

and

Com

pany

)

Ern

st &

You

ng

Siem

ens

Mer

cer M

anag

emen

t Con

sulti

ng

Mille

r Bre

win

g C

ompa

ny

Abbo

tt

Sak

s In

c.

Wel

ls F

argo

& C

ompa

ny

Bris

tol-M

yers

Squ

ibb

Che

vron

Cor

pora

tion

Wal

-Mar

t Sto

res

Ford

Mot

or C

ompa

ny

AM

D

Gen

eral

Mot

ors

Bau

sch

& Lo

mb

Med

troni

c

Spr

int N

exte

l

McG

raw

-Hill

Com

pani

es

Car

gill

Tyco

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Libe

rty M

utua

l

Ber

tels

man

n (B

MG

, Ran

dom

Hou

se)

Hyu

ndai

Dia

mon

dClu

ster

Sano

fi-A

vent

is

Wey

erha

euse

r

Flor

ida

Pow

er &

Lig

ht C

o.

Sto

ckam

p &

Ass

ocia

tes

% o

f MB

As

who

who

con

side

r em

ploy

men

t with

this

com

pany

(15-

25 c

hoic

es)

compmanies n = 177student sample: 4,996

intersection with S&P500: 99S&P500 Companies that are in both, UG and MBA

76

Table 6.7 Dataset: Expected starting salaries and after five years by Industry Salaries

Base salary MBA candidates say they expect to earn - by Industry

Expected salary Expected salary

first job after graduation $ five years after graduation $ ((Sal. 0 ) + (Sal. 5 ))/2 Ind. Group Industry GICS Industry Name

Academic research 87,743 173,456 130,600

Advertising/ public relations 79,804 126,402 103,103

Aerospace/defense 84,908 142,212 113,560 201010 Aerospace & Defense

Agricultural 82,130 144,545 113,338

Airline/travel 87,763 166,835 127,299 203020 Airlines

Auditing/ accounting/ taxation 56,531 92,000 74,266

Automotive 87,046 144,606 115,826 251020 Automobiles

Biotechnology 92,809 160,629 126,719 352010 Biotechnology

Chemical/petroleum 88,919 152,453 120,686 151010 Chemicals

Commercial banking 85,289 155,832 120,561 401010 Commercial Banks

Computer hardware 90,752 144,504 117,628 45304520

Semiconductor & EqmtTechnology Hardware & Eqmt

Computer software 95,342 173,842 134,592 451010451030

Internet Software & ServicesApplication Software

Construction 81,394 141,563 111,479 151020201020

Construction MaterialsBuilding Products

Consumer goods 87,012 143,776 115,394 252030

Consumer Durables & ApparelConsumer Staples

Education/teaching 79,908 139,554 109,731 25302010 Education Services

Electronics 89,043 144,281 116,662 201040 Electrical Equipment

Energy/power 92,838 168,435 130,637 1010 Energy

Engineering consulting 85,178 133,378 109,278

Engineering/manufacturing 86,684 142,374 114,529 201060201050

MachineryIndustrial Conglomerates

Entertainment/ media/ public relations 86,100 150,435 118,268 254010 Media

Environmental/ conservation 84,027 130,342 107,185

Financial services 93,155 194,733 143,944 402020402010

Consumer FinanceDiversified Financial Services

Food service 88,326 176,075 132,201

Forestry/paper/pulp 86,667 139,444 113,056 151050 Paper & Forest Products

Government/public service 85,266 144,882 115,074

Healthcare 90,220 159,541 124,881 351020 Health Care Provider

Healthcare/pharmaceutical 91,432 158,157 124,795 3520351010

PharmaceuticalsHealth Care Equipment & Supplies

Hospitality 91,531 172,188 131,860

Hotel/restaurant/tourism 86,962 143,228 115,095 253010 Hotels Restaurants & Leisure

Insurance 85,592 175,938 130,765 403010 Insurance

Internet/e-commerce 95,971 177,324 136,648 451010 Internet Software & Services

Investment banking 95,726 239,336 167,531 402030 Capital Markets

Investment management 98,088 225,254 161,671

IT consulting 88,424 154,208 121,316 451020 IT Services

Management consulting 97,563 195,341 146,452

Metals 89,500 186,800 138,150 151040 Metals & Mining

Network communications/ data networking 85,724 163,069 124,397

Non-profit 84,339 138,309 111,324

Other 89,097 157,480 123,2892020

151030201050

Containers & packagingIndustrial ConglomeratesCommerical Services

Real estate 91,426 183,755 137,591 4040 Real Estate

Retail/fashion/apparel 86,871 155,552 121,212 2550 Retailing

Telecommunications 92,733 178,493 135,613 5010 Telecommunications

Transportation/ distribution/ logistics 83,180 143,083 113,132 2030 Transportation

Utilities 88,200 160,385 124,293 5510 Utilities

Venture capital 103,274 234,344 168,809

Average 88,087 167,052 124,321

source: Universum Communications allocations to GICS industry codes by author

Base salary MBA candidates say they expect to earn - Overall

First job after graduation 2006 $ 2005 $

All students 88,087 81,658

Women 86,805 81,962

Men 94,710 89,933

5 years after graduation 2006 $ 2005 $

All students 167,052 156,753

Women 156,290 155,909

Men 191,541 184,352

source: Universum Communications

Matching GICS Indutries

77

Table 6.8 Complete Dataset, KLD, employer attractiveness & financials

Company Name Ticker Sector Industry Group + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z al

c

gam

tob

mil

nuc + - net wa z z wa MBA

Ideal Assets Net Income

ROE '05 (%)

ROA '05 (%)

ROS '05 (%) # of Emp. Salary

Indicator1 3M Company MMM 20 2010 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 4 3 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 2 1 1 1.58 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 12 5 7 1.20 0.91 1.00 4.8% 20,513 3,199 0.32 0.16 0.15 69,315 123,2892 Abbott Laboratories ABT 35 3520 1 0 1 0.82 5 1 4 1.66 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 4 -4 -3.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 7 9 -2 -0.50 -0.33 -0.61 1.5% 29,141 3,372 0.23 0.12 0.15 62,636 124,7953 Ace Limited ACE 40 4030 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 -0.50 -0.45 -0.44 62,440 983 0.08 0.02 0.08 9,204 130,7654 ADC Telecommunications, Inc. ADCT 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.15 -0.10 -0.15 1,535 111 0.14 0.07 0.09 8,500 117,6285 Adobe Systems Incorporated ADBE 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 3 0 3 2.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0.85 0.38 0.68 2,440 603 0.32 0.25 0.31 5,734 134,5926 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. AMD 45 4530 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 2 0 2 1.75 3 0 3 2.81 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 10 1.85 1.28 1.56 0.6% 7,288 165 0.05 0.02 0.03 9,860 117,6287 AES Corporation AES 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 1 0 0.09 1 3 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 -3 -0.55 -0.30 -0.49 29,432 630 0.38 0.02 0.06 30,000 124,2938 Aetna, Inc. AET 35 3510 2 0 2 1.87 4 0 4 1.66 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 0.45 0.33 0.26 44,365 1,635 0.16 0.04 0.07 26,700 124,8819 Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. ACS 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.20 -0.21 -0.19 4,851 416 0.15 0.09 0.10 43,000 121,316

10 AFLAC, Inc. AFL 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.25 0.11 0.15 56,361 1,483 0.19 0.03 0.10 6,970 130,76511 Agilent Technologies, Inc. A 45 4520 2 0 2 1.87 3 0 3 1.03 2 2 0 0.09 4 0 4 3.71 0 0 0 0.34 2 0 2 2.58 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 1 0 14 3 11 1.85 1.64 1.64 6,751 327 0.08 0.05 0.06 28,200 117,62812 Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. APD 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 2 1 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 2 0 2 3.08 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 0.45 0.66 0.41 10,409 712 0.16 0.07 0.09 19,500 120,68613 Alberto-Culver Company ACV 30 3030 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.02 0.06 2,302 211 0.14 0.09 0.06 19,000 115,39414 Alcoa, Inc. AA 15 1510 2 0 2 1.87 2 0 2 0.40 2 2 0 0.09 2 4 -2 -1.66 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 1 0 9 9 0 0.10 -0.02 -0.00 33,696 1,231 0.09 0.04 0.05 119,000 138,15015 Allegheny Energy, Inc. AYE 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 1 0 0.09 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 -4 -0.65 -0.45 -0.58 8,559 63 0.04 0.01 0.02 5,100 124,29316 Allegheny Technologies Incorporated ATI 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 2 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 -3 -0.50 -0.14 -0.41 2,732 360 0.45 0.13 0.10 9,300 138,15017 Allergan, Inc. AGN 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 1 2 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 -3 -0.40 -0.40 -0.42 2,851 404 0.26 0.14 0.17 5,030 124,79518 Allied Waste Industries, Inc. AW 20 2020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -3 -0.55 -0.24 -0.43 13,626 152 0.04 0.01 0.03 25,000 123,28919 Allstate Corporation (The) ALL 40 4030 2 0 2 1.87 2 2 0 -0.86 1 2 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 -2 -0.30 -0.17 -0.23 156,072 1,765 0.09 0.01 0.05 n/a 130,76520 ALLTEL Corporation AT 50 5010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 -0.05 0.06 -0.06 24,013 1,331 0.10 0.06 0.14 18,598 135,61321 Altera Corporation ALTR 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.15 0.19 0.12 1,823 279 0.22 0.15 0.25 2,361 117,62822 Altria Group, Inc. MO 30 3020 1 1 0 -0.23 4 1 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 4 -4 -3.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 1 0 1 0 0 6 10 -4 -0.10 -0.60 -0.37 107,949 10,435 0.29 0.10 0.15 156,000 115,39423 Amazon.com, Inc. AMZN 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.05 0.22 0.03 3.8% 3,696 359 1.46 0.10 0.04 12,000 121,21224 Ambac Financial Group, Inc. ABK 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 2 0 2 1.75 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.45 0.17 0.38 19,725 751 0.14 0.04 0.45 354 130,76525 Ameren Corporation AEE 55 5510 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 -8 -1.45 -0.81 -1.29 18,162 606 0.09 0.03 0.09 9,136 124,29326 American Electric Power Company, Inc. AEP 55 5510 0 2 -2 -2.32 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 3 -2 -1.66 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 1 3 11 -8 -1.10 -1.19 -1.20 36,172 814 0.09 0.02 0.07 19,893 124,29327 American Express Company AXP 40 4020 2 0 2 1.87 5 0 5 2.29 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 7 1.25 0.80 0.96 3.7% 113,960 3,734 0.35 0.03 0.15 65,800 143,94428 American International Group, Inc. AIG 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 1 3 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 -2 -0.10 -0.35 -0.21 853,370 10,477 0.12 0.01 0.10 92,465 130,76529 American Power Conversion APCC 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0.60 0.44 0.50 2,075 144 0.09 0.07 0.07 7,580 116,66230 American Standard Companies Inc. ASD 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 3 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.40 -0.22 -0.36 6,868 556 0.60 0.08 0.05 61,500 111,47931 Ameriprise Financial, Inc. AMP 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.08 0.08 93,121 574 0.07 0.01 0.08 11,196 167,53132 AmeriSourceBergen Corporation ABC 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.25 -0.07 -0.24 11,381 265 0.06 0.02 0.00 12,300 124,88133 Amgen Inc. AMGN 35 3520 1 0 1 0.82 4 0 4 1.66 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 0.80 0.42 0.55 2.5% 29,297 3,674 0.18 0.13 0.30 16,400 126,71934 AmSouth Bancorporation ASO 40 4010 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.15 0.20 0.12 52,607 726 0.20 0.01 0.22 11,600 120,56135 Anadarko Petroleum Corporation APC 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 1 1 0 0.09 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -0.40 -0.35 -0.37 22,588 2,466 0.22 0.11 0.35 3,500 130,63736 Analog Devices, Inc. ADI 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 2 0 2 1.75 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.60 0.12 0.49 4,583 415 0.11 0.09 0.17 8,800 117,62837 Andrew Corporation ANDW 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.55 -0.17 -0.48 2,311 39 0.02 0.02 0.02 11,318 117,62838 Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. BUD 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 1 2 -1 -0.74 1 2 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 1 1 0 0 0 6 7 -1 -0.10 0.13 -0.18 0.3% 16,555 1,839 0.55 0.11 0.12 31,485 115,39439 AON Corporation AOC 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 -4 -0.80 -0.42 -0.69 27,818 735 0.14 0.03 0.07 48,000 130,76540 Apache Corporation APA 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 2 0 2 1.75 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.15 0.06 0.10 19,272 2,618 0.25 0.14 0.35 2,642 130,63741 Apartment Investment And Management Co AIV 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 -0.40 -0.47 -0.34 10,017 -17 -0.01 -0.00 -0.01 6,800 137,59142 Apollo Group, Inc. APOL 25 2530 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.50 -0.19 -0.45 1,303 445 0.63 0.34 0.20 29,913 109,73143 Apple Computer, Inc. AAPL 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 1 0 1 1.03 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0.40 0.01 0.29 9.0% 11,551 1,335 0.18 0.12 0.10 14,800 117,62844 Applera Corporation - Applied Biosystems G ABI 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.35 0.14 0.26 2,290 237 0.16 0.10 0.13 4,930 124,79545 Applied Materials, Inc. AMAT 45 4530 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 3 0 3 2.57 2 0 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 8 1.70 0.96 1.38 11,269 1,210 0.14 0.11 0.17 12,576 117,62846 Archer-Daniels-Midland Company ADM 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 -9 -1.30 -1.26 -1.28 18,598 1,044 0.12 0.06 0.03 25,641 115,39447 Archstone-Smith Trust ASN 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.30 -0.13 -0.22 11,467 612 0.12 0.05 0.65 2,703 137,59148 Ashland Inc. ASH 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.30 -0.23 -0.30 6,815 2,004 0.54 0.29 0.21 20,900 120,68649 AT&T Inc. T 50 5010 2 0 2 1.87 4 0 4 1.66 1 2 -1 -0.74 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 -1 -0.10 -0.26 -0.24 0.8% 145,632 4,786 0.09 0.03 0.11 189,000 135,61350 Autodesk, Inc. ADSK 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0.40 0.20 0.24 1,361 329 0.42 0.24 0.22 3,477 134,59251 Automatic Data Processing, Inc. ADP 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.30 0.28 0.21 27,615 1,055 0.18 0.04 0.12 44,000 121,31652 AutoNation, Inc. AN 25 2550 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 1 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -0.50 -0.32 -0.46 8,825 497 0.11 0.06 0.03 27,000 121,21253 AutoZone, Inc. AZO 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.55 -0.17 -0.48 4,245 571 1.46 0.13 0.10 29,640 121,21254 Avaya Inc. AV 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 -3 -0.55 -0.41 -0.56 0.6% 5,219 921 0.47 0.18 0.19 19,100 117,62855 Avery Dennison Corporation AVY 20 2020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.25 -0.07 -0.24 4,204 226 0.15 0.05 0.04 21,400 123,28956 Avon Products, Inc. AVP 30 3030 2 0 2 1.87 6 0 6 2.92 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 7 0.95 0.82 0.70 4,763 848 1.07 0.18 0.10 47,700 115,39457 Baker Hughes Inc. BHI 10 1010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 2 1 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.35 -0.18 -0.27 7,807 878 0.19 0.11 0.12 26,900 130,63758 Ball Corporation BLL 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 -1 0.00 0.03 -0.02 4,343 262 0.31 0.06 0.05 13,200 123,28959 Bank of America Corporation BAC 40 4020 3 1 2 1.87 5 2 3 1.03 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 1 2 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 2 0.40 0.21 0.26 5.8% 1,291,803 16,447 0.16 0.01 0.19 175,742 143,94460 Bank of New York Company, Inc. (The) BK 40 4020 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.15 0.15 0.07 102,074 1,571 0.16 0.02 0.19 23,451 167,53161 Bard (C.R.), Inc. BCR 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.15 0.19 0.12 2,266 337 0.22 0.15 0.19 8,900 124,79562 Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. BRL 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 2 1 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0.40 0.26 0.27 1,483 215 0.17 0.14 0.21 1,900 124,79563 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated BOL 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0.05 -0.02 -0.03 0.3% 3,022 160 0.11 0.05 0.07 12,400 124,79564 Baxter International Inc. BAX 35 3510 2 0 2 1.87 2 0 2 0.40 1 2 -1 -0.74 3 0 3 2.81 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 4 0.65 0.56 0.55 12,727 956 0.22 0.08 0.10 47,000 124,79565 BB&T Corporation BBT 40 4010 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.25 0.16 0.17 109,170 1,654 0.15 0.02 0.21 27,700 120,56166 Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. (The) BSC 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 -4 -0.40 -0.53 -0.40 2.3% 292,635 1,488 0.14 0.01 0.13 11,843 167,53167 Becton Dickinson and Company BDX 35 3510 1 0 1 0.82 0 0 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.35 0.01 -0.24 6,072 722 0.22 0.12 0.13 25,571 124,79568 Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. BBBY 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 -0.20 0.16 -0.13 3,382 573 0.25 0.17 0.10 n/a 121,21269 BellSouth Corporation BLS 50 5010 1 0 1 0.82 4 1 3 1.03 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0.40 0.21 0.25 56,553 3,294 0.14 0.06 0.16 63,000 135,61370 Bemis Company, Inc. BMS 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.20 -0.16 -0.13 2,965 163 0.12 0.05 0.05 15,900 123,289

Negative Screens Total Key Financial FiguresEnvironment Human Rights Product Corp. GovernanceCompany Information Community Diversity Employees

78

Company Name Ticker Sector Industry Group + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z al

c

gam

tob

mil

nuc + - net wa z z wa MBA

Ideal Assets Net Income

ROE '05 (%)

ROA '05 (%)

ROS '05 (%) # of Emp. Salary

Indicator71 Best Buy Company, Inc. BBY 25 2550 2 0 2 1.87 2 1 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0.25 0.18 0.22 1.5% 11,864 1,140 0.22 0.10 0.04 128,000 121,21272 Big Lots, Inc. BLI 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -3 -0.45 -0.33 -0.40 1,625 -10 -0.01 -0.01 -0.00 18,623 121,21273 Biogen Idec Inc. BIIB 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 2 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 -4 -0.50 -0.50 -0.46 8,367 160 0.02 0.02 0.07 4,266 126,71974 Biomet, Inc. BMET 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.30 0.39 0.29 2,097 352 0.22 0.17 0.19 6,100 124,79575 BJ Services Company BJS 10 1010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 -0.45 -0.63 -0.43 3,396 453 0.18 0.13 0.14 13,600 130,63776 Black & Decker Corporation BDK 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 1 1 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.10 -0.41 -0.16 0.6% 5,817 544 0.36 0.09 0.08 26,200 115,39477 Block (H&R), Inc. HRB 25 2530 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0.35 0.09 0.21 5,989 490 0.23 0.08 0.10 15,300 115,09578 BMC Software, Inc. BMC 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.02 0.06 3,211 102 0.09 0.03 0.07 6,905 134,59279 Boeing Company BA 20 2010 2 1 1 0.82 4 1 3 1.03 4 2 2 1.75 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 1 2 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 11 10 1 0.45 0.19 0.26 2.1% 60,058 2,572 0.23 0.04 0.05 153,000 113,56080 Boston Properties, Inc. BXP 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.10 0.02 8,902 438 0.15 0.05 0.30 673 137,59181 Boston Scientific Corporation BSX 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 2 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0.10 0.15 0.03 8,196 628 0.15 0.08 0.10 19,800 124,79582 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company BMY 35 3520 4 0 4 3.97 3 0 3 1.03 0 1 -1 -0.74 4 2 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 5 0.75 0.68 0.63 1.1% 28,138 3,000 0.27 0.11 0.16 43,000 124,79583 Broadcom Corporation BRCM 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.10 0.02 0.06 3,752 412 0.13 0.11 0.15 4,287 117,62884 Brown-Forman Corporation BF.B 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.15 0.07 -0.14 2,728 320 0.20 0.12 0.16 n/a 115,39485 Brunswick Corporation BC 25 2520 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 -4 -0.60 -0.53 -0.61 4,622 385 0.19 0.08 0.07 27,500 115,39486 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. BNI 20 2030 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -8 -1.40 -0.94 -1.21 30,304 1,531 0.16 0.05 0.12 40,000 113,13287 CA, Inc. CA 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.35 0.03 0.18 11,163 -4 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 15,300 134,59288 Campbell Soup Company CPB 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 4 0 4 1.66 0 0 0 0.09 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0.30 0.16 0.11 0.6% 6,776 707 0.56 0.10 0.09 24,000 115,39489 Capital One Financial Corporation COF 40 4020 2 1 1 0.82 3 1 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0.60 0.21 0.45 88,701 1,809 0.13 0.02 0.15 14,481 143,94490 Cardinal Health, Inc. CAH 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 3 -3 -2.93 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -0.15 -0.47 -0.21 22,059 1,051 0.12 0.05 0.01 55,000 124,88191 Caremark Rx, Inc. CMX 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.05 -0.12 -0.09 12,851 932 0.11 0.07 0.03 13,628 124,88192 Carnival Corporation, Inc. CCL 25 2530 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 -6 -0.90 -0.59 -0.81 28,432 2,257 0.13 0.08 0.20 n/a 115,09593 Caterpillar Inc. CAT 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 2 2 0 0.09 1 2 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 2 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 5 10 -5 -0.50 -0.68 -0.54 47,069 2,854 0.34 0.06 0.08 76,920 114,52994 CBS Corporation CBS 25 2540 1 0 1 0.82 2 1 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 1 0 0 0 3 8 -5 -0.80 -0.48 -0.73 43,030 -7,089 -0.33 -0.16 -0.49 n/a 118,26895 CenterPoint Energy, Inc. CNP 55 5510 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 -1 -0.25 -0.07 -0.28 17,116 252 0.19 0.01 0.03 9,001 124,29396 Centex Corporation CTX 25 2520 1 1 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.20 -0.21 -0.19 21,365 1,289 0.26 0.06 0.09 17,134 115,39497 CenturyTel, Inc. CTL 50 5010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.02 0.06 7,763 334 0.09 0.04 0.14 6,900 135,61398 Chesapeake Energy Corporation CHK 10 1010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.13 0.13 16,118 880 0.14 0.05 0.19 2,885 130,63799 Chevron Corporation CVX 10 1010 2 2 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 2 2 0 0.09 1 5 -4 -3.44 0 3 -3 -6.85 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 2 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 9 15 -6 -0.70 -1.48 -0.98 1.6% 125,833 14,099 0.22 0.11 0.08 61,533 130,637

100 Chubb Corporation CB 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0.00 -0.06 -0.11 48,061 1,826 0.15 0.04 0.13 10,800 130,765101 Ciena Corporation CIEN 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 2 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.25 -0.02 -0.19 1,675 -436 -0.59 -0.26 -1.02 1,497 117,628102 CIGNA Corporation CI 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 3 1 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0.10 -0.03 0.00 44,863 1,625 0.30 0.04 0.10 28,600 124,881103 Cincinnati Financial Corporation CINF 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 2 0 2 1.75 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0.50 0.39 0.49 16,003 602 0.10 0.04 0.16 3,983 130,765104 Cintas Corporation CTAS 20 2020 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 3 -3 -2.40 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 -7 -1.40 -0.93 -1.24 3,060 301 0.14 0.10 0.10 30,000 123,289105 Circuit City Stores, Inc. CC 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.25 -0.02 -0.19 4,069 140 0.07 0.03 0.01 52,006 121,212106 Cisco Systems, Inc. CSCO 45 4520 2 0 2 1.87 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 6 1.05 0.83 0.91 1.8% 33,883 5,741 0.25 0.17 0.23 34,000 117,628107 CIT Group, Inc. CIT 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.30 0.34 0.27 63,387 936 0.13 0.01 0.17 6,340 143,944108 Citigroup Inc. C 40 4020 4 1 3 2.92 5 0 5 2.29 1 1 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 2 -1 -0.43 2 3 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 14 8 6 1.15 0.47 0.81 9.2% 1,494,037 24,521 0.22 0.02 0.20 299,000 143,944109 Citizens Communications Company CZN 50 5010 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.25 0.11 0.15 6,412 202 0.19 0.03 0.09 6,103 135,613110 Citrix Systems, Inc. CTXS 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.20 0.05 0.17 1,682 166 0.14 0.10 0.18 2,656 134,592111 Clear Channel Communications, Inc. CCU 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 -4 -0.40 -0.58 -0.45 18,703 936 0.11 0.05 0.14 35,200 118,268112 Clorox Company (The) CLX 30 3030 1 1 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0.40 0.20 0.24 3,617 1,096 -1.98 0.30 0.25 7,600 115,394113 CMS Energy Corporation CMS 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 -9 -1.30 -1.03 -1.19 16,020 -94 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 8,713 124,293114 Coach, Inc. COH 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.35 0.14 0.26 1,347 389 0.38 0.29 0.23 5,700 115,394115 Coca-Cola Company KO 30 3020 2 1 1 0.82 3 1 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 2 1 1 1.03 1 2 -1 -2.06 0 3 -3 -2.43 1 4 -3 -2.93 1 0 0 0 0 9 14 -5 -0.30 -0.85 -0.46 4.5% 29,427 4,872 0.30 0.17 0.21 55,000 115,394116 Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. CCE 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 -3 -0.80 -0.23 -0.66 25,357 514 0.09 0.02 0.03 74,000 115,394117 Colgate-Palmolive Company CL 30 3030 0 1 -1 -1.27 5 0 5 2.29 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 4 0.50 0.43 0.28 1.5% 8,507 1,323 0.98 0.16 0.12 36,000 115,394118 Comcast Corporation CMCSA 25 2540 1 1 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 0 3 -3 -2.40 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 -5 -0.95 -0.57 -0.81 103,146 928 0.02 0.01 0.04 80,000 118,268119 Comerica Incorporated CMA 40 4010 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0.45 0.43 0.37 53,013 861 0.17 0.02 0.24 10,207 120,561120 Commerce Bancorp, Inc. CBH 40 4010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 -1 0.05 -0.09 0.02 38,466 283 0.12 0.01 0.13 10,800 120,561121 Compass Bancshares, Inc. CBSS 40 4010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 -0.15 0.01 -0.07 30,798 402 0.18 0.01 0.18 7,832 120,561122 Computer Sciences Corporation CSC 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 -6 -0.80 -0.74 -0.72 12,943 634 0.09 0.05 0.04 79,000 121,316123 Compuware Corporation CPWR 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 4 0 4 1.66 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 0.55 0.29 0.34 2,511 143 0.09 0.06 0.12 7,908 134,592124 Comverse Technology, Inc. CMVT 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -3 -0.25 -0.33 -0.19 2,925 57 0.03 0.02 0.06 4,663 117,628125 ConAgra Foods, Inc. CAG 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 1 2 -1 -0.74 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 -5 -0.80 -0.55 -0.67 0.7% 12,792 642 0.13 0.05 0.04 38,000 115,394126 ConocoPhillips COP 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 1 2 -1 -0.74 0 4 -4 -3.44 0 2 -2 -4.45 0 0 0 0.57 1 2 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 -9 -1.35 -1.53 -1.36 0.5% 106,999 13,529 0.26 0.13 0.08 35,600 130,637127 CONSOL Energy, Inc. CNX 10 1010 0 2 -2 -2.32 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 -0.75 -0.44 -0.68 5,088 581 0.57 0.11 0.17 7,257 130,637128 Consolidated Edison Inc. ED 55 5510 1 1 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 0 3 -3 -2.40 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 -1 -0.55 -0.10 -0.56 24,850 719 0.10 0.03 0.06 14,537 124,293129 Constellation Brands, Inc. STZ 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 -0.05 0.10 -0.03 7,401 315 0.11 0.04 0.07 7,700 115,394130 Constellation Energy Group CEG 55 5510 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 -0.05 0.19 -0.07 21,474 623 0.12 0.03 0.04 9,850 124,293131 Convergys Corporation CVG 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.1% 2,411 123 0.09 0.05 0.05 66,300 121,316132 Cooper Industries, Ltd. CBE 20 2010 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.05 0.03 -0.01 5,215 164 0.07 0.03 0.03 29,400 116,662133 Corning Incorporated GLW 45 4520 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 1 1 0 0.09 2 0 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 4 0.70 0.49 0.52 11,207 585 0.11 0.05 0.13 26,000 117,628134 Costco Wholesale Corporation COST 30 3010 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 1 0 -0.86 2 0 2 1.75 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0.30 -0.15 0.16 16,514 1,063 0.12 0.06 0.02 n/a 115,394135 Countrywide Financial Corporation CFC 40 4010 1 1 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 -1 -0.25 -0.13 -0.26 175,085 2,528 0.20 0.01 0.14 42,141 120,561136 Coventry Health Care, Inc. CVH 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -3 -0.35 -0.30 -0.28 4,895 502 0.20 0.10 0.08 9,830 124,881137 CSX Corporation CSX 20 2030 0 1 -1 -1.27 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 -3 -0.50 -0.43 -0.54 24,232 1,145 0.14 0.05 0.13 35,000 113,132138 Cummins, Inc. CMI 20 2010 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 1 1 0 0.09 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 4 0.60 0.52 0.46 0.7% 6,885 550 0.30 0.08 0.06 28,100 114,529139 CVS Corporation CVS 30 3010 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 -1 -0.25 -0.12 -0.26 15,283 1,211 0.15 0.08 0.03 148,000 115,394140 D.R. Horton, Inc. DHI 25 2520 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.40 -0.11 -0.32 12,515 1,471 0.27 0.12 0.11 8,900 115,394

Negative Screens Total Key Financial FiguresEnvironment Human Rights Product Corp. GovernanceCompany Information Community Diversity Employees

79

Company Name Ticker Sector Industry Group + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z al

c

gam

tob

mil

nuc + - net wa z z wa MBA

Ideal Assets Net Income

ROE '05 (%)

ROA '05 (%)

ROS '05 (%) # of Emp. Salary

Indicator143 Dean Foods Company DF 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 -1 0.00 -0.14 -0.03 7,051 328 0.17 0.05 0.03 27,466 115,394144 Deere & Company DE 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 1 2 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0.30 0.15 0.23 33,637 1,447 0.21 0.04 0.07 47,400 114,529145 Dell Inc. DELL 45 4520 1 0 1 0.82 4 0 4 1.66 1 0 1 0.92 3 0 3 2.81 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 8 1.55 0.77 1.18 3.6% 23,109 3,572 0.87 0.15 0.06 65,200 117,628146 Devon Energy Corporation DVN 10 1010 1 1 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 3 1 2 1.75 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 -1 0.10 -0.05 0.10 30,273 2,920 0.20 0.10 0.27 4,135 130,637147 Dillard's, Inc. DDS 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 1 2 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -0.35 -0.30 -0.28 5,517 121 0.05 0.02 0.02 52,056 121,212148 Disney, Walt Company (The) DIS 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 4 0 4 1.66 0 3 -3 -2.40 1 0 1 1.03 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 2 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 -1 -0.20 -0.42 -0.37 6.4% 53,158 2,533 0.10 0.05 0.08 133,000 118,268149 Dollar General Corporation DG 25 2550 1 0 1 0.82 1 1 0 -0.86 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0.25 0.22 0.27 2,992 350 0.20 0.12 0.04 63,200 121,212150 Dominion Resources, Inc. D 55 5510 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 -5 -0.90 -0.45 -0.87 52,660 1,033 0.10 0.02 0.06 17,400 124,293151 Donnelley (R.R.) & Sons Company RRD 20 2020 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 1 -1 -1.49 1 1 0 0.09 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 -3 -0.35 -0.31 -0.29 9,374 137 0.04 0.01 0.02 43,000 123,289152 Dover Corporation DOV 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 -1 -0.05 0.10 -0.03 6,573 510 0.15 0.08 0.08 31,650 114,529153 Dow Chemical Company DOW 15 1510 0 1 -1 -1.27 3 0 3 1.03 2 2 0 0.09 4 5 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 3 -2 -1.43 2 2 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 12 14 -2 -0.25 -0.53 -0.45 45,934 4,515 0.29 0.10 0.10 43,203 120,686154 Dow Jones & Company DJ 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0.55 0.34 0.40 1,782 60 0.37 0.03 0.03 7,143 118,268155 DTE Energy Company DTE 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 1 2 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 -1 -0.20 0.09 -0.20 23,335 537 0.09 0.02 0.06 11,410 124,293156 Duke Energy Corporation DUK 55 5510 0 1 -1 -1.27 3 0 3 1.03 1 1 0 0.09 0 4 -4 -3.44 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 5 9 -4 -0.70 -0.43 -0.77 54,723 1,812 0.11 0.03 0.11 21,500 124,293157 DuPont Company DD 15 1510 0 1 -1 -1.27 3 0 3 1.03 1 1 0 0.09 3 5 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 1 3 -2 -1.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 9 11 -2 -0.40 -0.32 -0.51 1.0% 33,250 2,043 0.23 0.06 0.07 60,000 120,686158 Dynegy Inc. DYN 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 3 -3 -2.93 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 -7 -1.05 -0.96 -0.99 10,126 81 0.03 0.01 0.04 1,371 124,293159 E*Trade Financial Corporation ET 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.15 -0.10 -0.15 44,568 430 0.13 0.01 0.17 3,400 167,531160 E.W. Scripps Company (The) SSP 25 2540 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0.35 0.46 0.31 4,033 249 0.11 0.06 0.10 8,900 118,268161 Eastman Chemical Company EMN 15 1510 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 1 2 -1 -0.74 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 1 0 0 4 7 -3 -0.55 -0.18 -0.49 5,773 557 0.35 0.10 0.08 15,000 120,686162 Eastman Kodak Company EK 25 2520 1 1 0 -0.23 4 1 3 1.03 3 1 2 1.75 3 3 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 2 0 2 3.08 0 0 0 1 0 13 7 6 1.00 0.95 0.79 14,921 -1,362 -0.69 -0.09 -0.10 54,800 115,394163 Eaton Corporation ETN 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 0 0.20 0.11 0.10 0.8% 10,218 805 0.21 0.08 0.07 55,000 114,529164 eBay, Inc. EBAY 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 0.65 0.32 0.45 3.3% 11,789 1,082 0.11 0.09 0.24 9,300 134,592165 Ecolab Inc. ECL 15 1510 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 3 0 3 2.81 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 1.45 1.08 1.26 3,797 319 0.19 0.08 0.07 21,300 120,686166 Edison International EIX 55 5510 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 1 2 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 -2 -0.05 -0.30 -0.14 34,791 1,137 0.16 0.03 0.10 15,293 124,293167 El Paso Corporation EP 10 1010 0 2 -2 -2.32 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 -5 -0.75 -0.73 -0.82 31,838 -633 -0.19 -0.02 -0.16 7,574 130,637168 Electronic Arts Inc. ERTS 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.25 0.11 0.15 0.1% 4,386 236 0.07 0.05 0.08 6,100 134,592169 Electronic Data Systems Corporation EDS 45 4510 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 1 0.35 0.04 0.19 17,087 150 0.02 0.01 0.01 117,000 121,316170 Embarq Corporation EQ 50 5010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.15 0.19 0.12 9,221 878 0.18 0.10 0.14 14,500 135,613171 EMC Corporation EMC 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0.50 0.23 0.36 16,790 1,133 0.09 0.07 0.12 26,500 117,628172 Emerson Electric Co. EMR 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.15 0.11 0.20 17,227 1,422 0.19 0.08 0.08 114,200 116,662173 Entergy Corporation ETR 55 5510 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 1 1 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 -5 -0.40 -0.72 -0.49 30,851 898 0.11 0.03 0.09 14,136 124,293174 EOG Resources, Inc. EOG 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 1 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.10 0.07 0.07 7,753 1,252 0.29 0.16 0.35 1,250 130,637175 Equifax Inc. EFX 20 2020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 -3 -0.25 -0.21 -0.24 1,832 247 0.30 0.13 0.17 4,400 123,289176 Equity Office Properties Trust EOP 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.15 0.19 0.12 22,974 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,300 137,591177 Equity Residential EQR 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.15 0.14 0.06 14,099 808 0.15 0.06 0.40 6,000 137,591178 Estée Lauder Companies, Inc. (The) EL 30 3030 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0.10 -0.03 0.00 3,886 406 0.24 0.10 0.06 23,700 115,394179 Exelon Corporation EXC 55 5510 0 1 -1 -1.27 4 0 4 1.66 1 1 0 0.09 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 5 6 -1 -0.15 -0.09 -0.32 42,389 923 0.10 0.02 0.06 17,300 124,293180 Express Scripts, Inc. ESRX 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.05 -0.12 -0.09 5,493 400 0.27 0.07 0.02 10,828 124,881181 Exxon Mobil Corporation XOM 10 1010 3 3 0 -0.23 2 1 1 -0.23 2 3 -1 -0.74 0 5 -5 -4.34 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 3 -3 -2.93 0 0 0 0 0 7 17 -10 -1.45 -1.57 -1.44 2.2% 208,335 36,130 0.32 0.17 0.11 83,700 130,637182 Family Dollar Stores, Inc. FDO 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.50 -0.08 -0.34 2,410 218 0.15 0.09 0.04 24,000 121,212183 Federated Department Stores, Inc. FD 25 2550 3 0 3 2.92 3 1 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 1 0.35 -0.07 0.20 33,168 1,406 0.10 0.04 0.06 232,000 121,212184 Federated Investors, Inc. FII 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.30 -0.13 -0.22 897 160 0.30 0.18 0.18 1,358 167,531185 FedEx Corporation FDX 20 2030 1 0 1 0.82 2 1 1 -0.23 2 2 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 3 0.60 0.44 0.54 20,404 1,449 0.15 0.07 0.05 87,100 113,132186 Fifth Third Bancorp FITB 40 4010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 -0.15 0.01 -0.07 0.5% 105,225 1,548 0.16 0.01 0.21 21,681 120,561187 First Data Corporation FDC 45 4510 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 1 0 0 0 2 5 -3 -0.35 -0.23 -0.34 34,249 1,586 0.19 0.05 0.15 30,400 121,316188 First Horizon National Corporation FHN 40 4010 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 2 0 2 1.75 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0.80 0.58 0.69 36,579 438 0.19 0.01 0.14 13,501 120,561189 FirstEnergy Corporation FE 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 4 -4 -3.44 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 -9 -1.45 -1.21 -1.39 31,841 861 0.09 0.03 0.07 14,586 124,293190 Fiserv, Inc. FISV 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 0.05 -0.03 6,040 516 0.21 0.09 0.13 22,000 121,316191 Fisher Scientific International, Inc. FSH 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.20 0.36 0.18 8,430 389 0.09 0.05 0.07 19,500 124,795192 Fluor Corporation FLR 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.20 -0.21 -0.19 4,574 227 0.14 0.05 0.02 34,799 111,479193 Ford Motor Company F 25 2510 4 0 4 3.97 5 1 4 1.66 3 2 1 0.92 2 4 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 2 3 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 16 12 4 0.70 0.47 0.52 1.0% 269,476 2,024 0.16 0.01 0.01 300,000 115,826194 Forest Laboratories, Inc. FRX 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0.70 0.49 0.51 3,120 709 0.26 0.23 0.24 5,136 124,795195 Fortune Brands, Inc. FO 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 0.05 0.08 0.03 13,202 621 0.17 0.05 0.09 30,298 115,394196 FPL Group, Inc. FPL 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 1 0.30 0.32 0.24 33,004 885 0.10 0.03 0.07 10,200 124,293197 Franklin Resources, Inc. BEN 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.15 0.14 0.06 8,894 1,058 0.19 0.12 0.24 7,200 167,531198 Freddie Mac FRE 40 4010 2 0 2 1.87 3 0 3 1.03 2 1 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 6 1.10 0.76 0.92 806,222 1,907 0.07 0.00 0.05 5,064 120,561199 Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. FCX 15 1510 2 0 2 1.87 1 0 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 2 -2 -4.45 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 -1 0.10 -0.49 -0.05 5,550 935 0.51 0.17 0.22 8,738 138,150200 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. FSL.B 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 2 0 2 1.75 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 1.10 0.57 0.84 7,170 563 0.13 0.08 0.10 22,700 117,628201 Gannett Co., Inc. GCI 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 4 0 4 1.66 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0.30 0.17 0.13 15,743 1,245 0.16 0.08 0.16 52,600 118,268202 Gap, Inc. (The) GPS 25 2550 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 1 1 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 2 1 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 0.25 0.49 0.22 3.0% 8,821 1,113 0.21 0.13 0.07 152,000 121,212203 General Dynamics Corporation GD 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 -2 -0.05 -0.08 -0.06 19,591 1,461 0.18 0.07 0.07 70,200 113,560204 General Electric Company GE 20 2010 2 1 1 0.82 6 0 6 2.92 2 1 1 0.92 3 4 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 2 -1 -0.43 1 3 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 1 1 15 14 1 0.70 -0.05 0.28 8.1% 673,342 16,353 0.15 0.02 0.11 316,000 123,289205 General Mills Incorporated GIS 30 3020 2 0 2 1.87 4 0 4 1.66 1 0 1 0.92 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 1 2 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 8 1.45 0.98 1.19 2.5% 18,066 1,240 0.22 0.07 0.11 27,800 115,394206 General Motors Corporation GM 25 2510 1 0 1 0.82 6 2 4 1.66 2 1 1 0.92 5 3 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 2 3 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 16 12 4 0.90 0.39 0.61 0.8% 476,078 -10,567 -0.72 -0.02 -0.06 324,000 115,826207 Genuine Parts Company GPC 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 -0.25 -0.02 -0.19 4,772 437 0.16 0.09 0.04 31,700 121,212208 Genworth Financial, Inc. GNW 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.15 0.19 0.12 105,292 1,221 0.09 0.01 0.12 n/a 130,765209 Genzyme Corporation GENZ 35 3520 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.35 0.15 0.27 6,879 441 0.09 0.06 0.16 8,200 126,719210 Gilead Sciences, Inc. GILD 35 3520 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.35 0.15 0.27 3,765 814 0.27 0.22 0.40 1,900 126,719

Corp. Governance Negative Screens Total Key Financial FiguresCompany Information Community Diversity Employees Environment Human Rights Product

80

Company Name Ticker Sector Industry Group + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z al

c

gam

tob

mil

nuc + - net wa z z wa MBA

Ideal Assets Net Income

ROE '05 (%)

ROA '05 (%)

ROS '05 (%) # of Emp. Salary

Indicator211 Golden West Financial GDW 40 4010 1 1 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0.45 0.37 0.31 124,615 1,486 0.17 0.01 0.22 10,888 120,561212 Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) GS 40 4020 3 0 3 2.92 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 1 0.55 -0.17 0.29 12.5% 706,804 5,609 0.20 0.01 0.13 22,425 167,531213 Goodrich Corporation GR 20 2010 0 1 -1 -1.27 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 -1 -0.10 0.00 -0.18 6,454 264 0.18 0.04 0.05 21,300 113,560214 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company GT 25 2510 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 2 -2 -1.57 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 -7 -0.90 -0.73 -0.79 15,627 228 3.12 0.01 0.01 80,000 115,826215 Google, Inc. GOOG 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 1 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 0.55 0.23 0.36 12.6% 10,272 1,465 0.16 0.14 0.24 3,021 134,592216 Grainger (W.W.), Inc. GWW 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 2 0 2 1.75 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.35 0.25 0.34 3,108 346 0.15 0.11 0.06 13,260 114,529217 Halliburton Company HAL 10 1010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 2 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 -4 -0.45 -0.52 -0.43 15,010 2,358 0.37 0.16 0.11 97,000 130,637218 Harley-Davidson, Inc. HDI 25 2510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 4 0 4 3.40 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 0.65 -0.07 0.44 5,255 960 0.31 0.18 0.17 9,000 115,826219 Harman International Industries, Inc. HAR 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.35 0.14 0.26 2,187 233 0.22 0.11 0.08 10,606 115,394220 Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. HET 25 2530 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.25 0.28 0.16 3.2% 20,518 236 0.04 0.01 0.03 46,600 115,095221 Hartford Financial Services Group (The) HIG 40 4030 2 0 2 1.87 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.3% 285,557 2,274 0.15 0.01 0.08 30,000 130,765222 Hasbro, Inc. HAS 25 2520 4 0 4 3.97 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 1 0 0 0 7 4 3 0.75 0.37 0.61 3,301 212 0.12 0.06 0.07 6,000 115,394223 HCA Inc. HCA 35 3510 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -0.45 -0.39 -0.46 22,225 1,424 0.29 0.06 0.06 137,900 124,881224 Health Management Associates, Inc. HMA 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.10 0.02 3,988 353 0.15 0.09 0.10 31,000 124,881225 Heinz (H.J.) Company HNZ 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 -1 -0.10 -0.11 -0.12 10,578 753 0.29 0.07 0.08 41,000 115,394226 Hercules Incorporated HPC 15 1510 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 -4 -0.90 -0.39 -0.79 2,569 -41 1.66 -0.02 -0.02 4,650 120,686227 Hershey Company (The) HSY 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0.55 0.23 0.36 0.6% 4,295 493 0.48 0.11 0.10 13,750 115,394228 Hess Corporation HES 10 1010 1 1 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 2 1 1 0.92 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 2 -2 -4.45 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 -3 -0.40 -0.68 -0.49 19,115 1,194 0.19 0.06 0.05 11,119 130,637229 Hewlett-Packard Company HPQ 45 4520 4 0 4 3.97 6 0 6 2.92 4 0 4 3.40 1 0 1 1.03 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 1 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 17 3 14 2.65 1.50 2.11 1.6% 77,317 2,398 0.06 0.03 0.03 150,000 117,628230 Hilton Hotels Corporation HLT 25 2530 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.19 0.07 8,743 460 0.16 0.05 0.10 70,000 115,095231 Home Depot, Inc. (The) HD 25 2550 1 1 0 -0.23 2 1 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 2 1 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 -1 0.00 -0.14 -0.07 1.9% 44,482 5,838 0.22 0.13 0.07 221,000 121,212232 Honeywell International, Inc. HON 20 2010 0 1 -1 -1.27 2 1 1 -0.23 4 1 3 2.57 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 1 2 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 1 7 11 -4 -0.15 -0.30 -0.27 1.3% 32,294 1,655 0.15 0.05 0.06 108,000 113,560233 Hospira, Inc. HSP 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.40 -0.27 -0.41 0.1% 2,789 236 0.18 0.08 0.09 13,000 124,795234 Humana Inc. HUM 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.30 -0.18 -0.28 6,870 308 0.12 0.04 0.02 18,700 124,881235 Huntington Bancshares, Inc. HBAN 40 4010 0 1 -1 -1.27 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.10 -0.04 -0.01 32,765 412 0.16 0.01 0.18 7,602 120,561236 Illinois Tool Works Inc. ITW 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.10 0.02 0.06 11,446 1,495 0.20 0.13 0.12 49,000 114,529237 IMS Health Incorporated RX 35 3510 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 0.04 -0.04 1,973 284 0.68 0.14 0.16 6,900 124,881238 Ingersoll-Rand Company IR 20 2010 0 2 -2 -2.32 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 -3 -0.30 -0.44 -0.38 11,756 1,054 0.18 0.09 0.10 36,000 114,529239 Intel Corporation INTC 45 4530 3 1 2 1.87 4 0 4 1.66 4 0 4 3.40 3 0 3 2.81 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 2 1 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 16 3 13 2.40 1.65 1.99 4.6% 48,314 8,664 0.24 0.18 0.22 99,900 117,628240 International Business Machines Corporatio IBM 45 4520 4 1 3 2.92 5 0 5 2.29 3 2 1 0.92 3 2 1 1.03 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 0 1 1.58 2 3 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 18 9 9 1.70 0.88 1.32 4.9% 105,748 7,934 0.24 0.08 0.09 329,001 117,628241 International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. IFF 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -3 -0.45 -0.33 -0.40 2,638 193 0.21 0.07 0.10 5,212 120,686242 International Game Technology IGT 25 2530 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.30 0.14 0.21 3,864 437 0.23 0.11 0.18 5,000 115,095243 International Paper Company IP 15 1510 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 1 2 -1 -0.74 3 3 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 1 0.05 0.17 0.01 28,771 1,100 0.13 0.04 0.05 68,700 113,056244 Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. IPG 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.20 -0.27 -0.21 11,945 -289 -0.15 -0.02 -0.05 43,700 118,268245 Intuit, Inc. INTU 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0.50 0.23 0.36 0.5% 2,716 382 0.23 0.14 0.19 6,700 134,592246 ITT Corporation ITT 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 3 1 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 1 0 6 5 1 0.25 0.28 0.16 7,063 360 0.13 0.05 0.05 44,000 114,529247 Jabil Circuit, Inc. JBL 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.05 0.14 0.11 4,077 232 0.11 0.06 0.03 34,000 117,628248 Janus Capital Group, Inc. JNS 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.20 -0.21 -0.19 3,629 88 0.03 0.02 0.09 1,457 167,531249 JDS Uniphase Corporation JDSU 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 2 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.05 0.16 0.00 2,081 -261 -0.20 -0.13 -0.37 5,022 117,628250 Johnson & Johnson JNJ 35 3520 1 0 1 0.82 5 1 4 1.66 2 1 1 0.92 3 1 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 3 3 0 0.57 2 2 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 16 8 8 1.40 0.99 1.12 8.1% 58,025 10,411 0.27 0.18 0.21 109,900 124,795251 Johnson Controls, Inc. JCI 25 2510 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 2 -2 -1.57 2 2 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 0 1 1.58 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 1 0.05 -0.00 -0.02 16,144 909 0.15 0.06 0.03 114,000 115,826252 Jones Apparel Group, Inc. JNY 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 2 1 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 -3 -0.45 -0.56 -0.48 4,578 274 0.10 0.06 0.05 13,530 115,394253 JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPM 40 4020 3 0 3 2.92 3 1 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 1 0.45 -0.09 0.26 3.3% 1,198,942 8,470 0.08 0.01 0.11 168,847 143,944254 Juniper Networks, Inc. JNPR 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.30 0.28 0.21 8,027 354 0.05 0.04 0.17 4,145 117,628255 KB Home KBH 25 2520 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -0.35 -0.42 -0.40 7,747 842 0.30 0.11 0.09 6,700 115,394256 Kellogg Company K 30 3020 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0.45 0.43 0.37 0.5% 10,575 980 0.43 0.09 0.10 25,000 115,394257 KeyCorp KEY 40 4010 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0.40 0.32 0.33 93,126 1,129 0.15 0.01 0.17 19,485 120,561258 KeySpan Corporation KSE 55 5510 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0.00 0.05 0.01 13,813 388 0.09 0.03 0.05 10,000 124,293259 Kimberly-Clark Corporation KMB 30 3030 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 2 2 0 0.09 2 1 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 6 0.95 0.79 0.79 1.0% 16,303 1,568 0.28 0.10 0.10 57,000 115,394260 Kimco Realty Corporation KIM 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 0.05 -0.04 0.07 5,535 352 0.15 0.06 0.47 488 137,591261 Kinder Morgan, Inc. KMI 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 -1 -0.20 -0.09 -0.22 17,452 555 0.14 0.03 0.35 6,072 130,637262 King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. KG 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -0.15 -0.41 -0.19 2,965 118 0.06 0.04 0.07 2,746 124,795263 KLA-Tencor Corporation KLAC 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.02 0.06 3,986 467 0.15 0.12 0.22 5,500 117,628264 Kohl's Corporation KSS 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.15 0.02 0.06 9,153 842 0.14 0.09 0.06 20,000 121,212265 Kroger Co. KR 30 3010 2 0 2 1.87 2 1 1 -0.23 0 4 -4 -3.23 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 -4 -1.00 -0.41 -0.85 20,482 958 0.22 0.05 0.02 n/a 115,394266 L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. LLL 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 -6 -0.90 -0.71 -0.81 11,909 509 0.11 0.04 0.05 44,200 113,560267 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings LH 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.20 -0.21 -0.19 3,876 386 0.20 0.10 0.12 24,000 124,881268 Legg Mason, Inc. LM 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.08 0.08 9,302 1,144 0.20 0.12 0.42 5,580 167,531269 Leggett & Platt, Inc. LEG 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 1 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.20 0.23 0.20 4,053 251 0.11 0.06 0.05 33,000 115,394270 Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. LEH 40 4020 0 1 -1 -1.27 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 -2 0.00 -0.55 -0.22 6.8% 410,063 3,191 0.19 0.01 0.10 19,600 167,531271 Lennar Corporation LEN 25 2520 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.20 -0.22 -0.20 12,541 1,355 0.26 0.11 0.10 11,796 115,394272 Lexmark International, Inc. LXK 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0.70 0.49 0.51 3,330 356 0.25 0.11 0.07 13,400 117,628273 Lilly (Eli) and Company LLY 35 3520 2 0 2 1.87 5 0 5 2.29 1 0 1 0.92 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 2 1 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 4 0.50 0.46 0.27 2.5% 24,581 1,980 0.18 0.08 0.14 44,500 124,795274 Limited Brands, Inc. LTD 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 2 1 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 -1 -0.15 -0.27 -0.21 1.7% 6,346 683 0.28 0.11 0.07 19,800 121,212275 Lincoln National Corporation LNC 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 3 1 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0.00 -0.01 -0.06 124,788 831 0.13 0.01 0.15 5,259 130,765276 Linear Technology Corporation LLTC 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 -2 0.00 -0.04 0.02 2,286 434 0.22 0.19 0.41 3,217 117,628277 Liz Claiborne, Inc. LIZ 25 2520 1 0 1 0.82 4 0 4 1.66 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 0.90 0.22 0.58 3,152 317 0.16 0.10 0.07 14,500 115,394278 Lockheed Martin Corporation LMT 20 2010 1 1 0 -0.23 2 1 1 -0.23 1 3 -2 -1.57 2 2 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 2 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 7 11 -4 -0.60 -0.36 -0.56 1.4% 27,744 1,825 0.23 0.07 0.05 130,000 113,560279 Loews Corporation LTR 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 -5 -0.85 -0.47 -0.80 70,676 960 0.07 0.01 0.06 22,000 130,765280 Louisiana-Pacific Corporation LPX 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 1 2 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 -0.05 0.11 -0.01 3,598 456 0.22 0.13 0.18 5,600 113,056

Negative Screens Total Key Financial FiguresEnvironment Human Rights Product Corp. GovernanceCompany Information Community Diversity Employees

81

Company Name Ticker Sector Industry Group + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z al

c

gam

tob

mil

nuc + - net wa z z wa MBA

Ideal Assets Net Income

ROE '05 (%)

ROA '05 (%)

ROS '05 (%) # of Emp. Salary

Indicator281 Lowe's Companies, Inc. LOW 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.30 -0.19 -0.25 24,682 2,771 0.19 0.11 0.06 144,000 121,212282 LSI Logic Corporation LSI 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 4 1 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 2 0 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 5 1.05 0.57 0.81 2,796 -6 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 4,322 117,628283 Lucent Technologies, Inc. LU 45 4520 1 0 1 0.82 6 1 5 2.29 2 1 1 0.92 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 1 3 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 5 1.05 0.48 0.74 16,400 1,185 3.16 0.07 0.13 30,500 117,628284 M&T Bank Corporation MTB 40 4010 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.05 0.22 0.07 55,146 782 0.13 0.01 0.21 13,525 120,561285 Manor Care, Inc. HCR 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 -0.70 -0.45 -0.60 2,339 161 0.21 0.07 0.05 58,000 124,881286 Marathon Oil Corporation MRO 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 1 3 -2 -1.66 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 -3 -0.25 -0.61 -0.37 28,498 3,032 0.26 0.11 0.05 25,804 130,637287 Marriott International, Inc. MAR 25 2530 0 0 0 -0.23 4 1 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 1 0 0 0 6 2 4 0.80 0.63 0.61 2.4% 8,530 669 0.21 0.08 0.06 143,000 115,095288 Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. MMC 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.10 -0.35 -0.21 17,892 404 0.08 0.02 0.03 61,800 130,765289 Marshall & Ilsley Corporation MI 40 4010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 -0.15 -0.04 -0.13 46,213 727 0.16 0.02 0.18 13,967 120,561290 Masco Corporation MAS 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 -3 -0.55 -0.25 -0.43 12,559 940 0.19 0.07 0.07 62,000 111,479291 Mattel, Inc. MAT 25 2520 0 1 -1 -1.27 3 0 3 1.03 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 1 1 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 2 1 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0.10 0.28 0.00 1.3% 4,372 417 0.20 0.10 0.08 26,000 115,394292 Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. MXIM 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.25 -0.15 -0.16 3,004 541 0.21 0.18 0.32 7,980 117,628293 MBIA Inc. MBI 40 4030 1 0 1 0.82 4 0 4 1.66 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 0.95 0.56 0.70 34,561 711 0.11 0.02 0.31 626 130,765294 McCormick & Company, Inc. MKC 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.10 0.02 0.06 2,273 215 0.27 0.09 0.08 8,000 115,394295 McDonald's Corporation MCD 25 2530 0 0 0 -0.23 6 1 5 2.29 0 3 -3 -2.40 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 2 0 2 3.08 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 2 -0.10 0.06 -0.28 29,989 2,602 0.17 0.09 0.13 438,000 115,095296 McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. MHP 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 4 0 4 1.66 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0.40 0.15 0.19 0.7% 6,396 844 0.27 0.13 0.14 17,253 118,268297 McKesson Corporation MCK 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 3 1 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 -1 0.05 -0.20 -0.06 20,975 751 0.13 0.04 0.01 25,200 124,881298 MeadWestvaco Corporation MWV 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 4 0 4 1.66 1 0 1 0.92 2 2 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 6 0.90 0.75 0.67 8,908 28 0.01 0.00 0.00 22,195 113,056299 Medco Health Solutions, Inc. MHS 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.10 -0.03 0.00 13,703 602 0.08 0.04 0.02 13,000 124,881300 MedImmune, Inc. MEDI 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 -1 0.15 -0.18 0.05 2,780 -17 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1,976 126,719301 Medtronic, Inc. MDT 35 3510 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.25 0.17 0.21 2.0% 16,617 1,804 0.17 0.11 0.18 33,000 124,795302 Mellon Financial Corp. MEL 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 2 -1 -1.49 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -0.55 -0.25 -0.43 38,678 782 0.19 0.02 0.15 20,900 167,531303 Merck & Co., Inc. MRK 35 3520 2 1 1 0.82 3 1 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 1 3 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 2 2 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 1 0.25 0.12 0.16 0.8% 44,846 4,631 0.26 0.10 0.21 62,600 124,795304 Meredith Corporation MDP 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.25 0.11 0.15 1,491 129 0.20 0.09 0.11 2,706 118,268305 Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. MER 40 4020 4 1 3 2.92 6 1 5 2.29 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 3 -2 -1.43 1 2 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 12 9 3 0.55 0.08 0.28 5.0% 681,015 5,046 0.14 0.01 0.11 54,600 167,531306 Metlife, Inc. MET 40 4030 2 0 2 1.87 4 1 3 1.03 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 3 -3 -2.93 0 0 0 0 0 6 8 -2 -0.15 -0.38 -0.25 481,645 4,651 0.16 0.01 0.10 65,500 130,765307 MGIC Investment Corporation MTG 40 4010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0.55 0.45 0.47 6,358 627 0.15 0.10 0.41 n/a 120,561308 Micron Technology, Inc. MU 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.08 0.08 8,006 188 0.03 0.02 0.04 1,880 117,628309 Microsoft Corporation MSFT 45 4510 1 0 1 0.82 5 0 5 2.29 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 2 -2 -1.43 2 1 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 5 0.85 0.36 0.50 6.1% 70,815 12,254 0.25 0.17 0.31 61,000 134,592310 Millipore Corporation MIL 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.15 0.08 0.04 1,647 80 0.10 0.05 0.08 4,500 124,795311 Molex Incorporated MOLX 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 2 0 2 2.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.25 0.22 0.26 2,728 154 0.07 0.06 0.06 27,525 117,628312 Molson Coors Brewing Company TAP 30 3020 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 1 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 0.40 0.61 0.35 11,799 135 0.03 0.01 0.02 8,400 115,394313 Monsanto Company MON 15 1510 0 1 -1 -1.27 3 0 3 1.03 2 1 1 0.92 1 3 -2 -1.66 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 2 -2 -1.43 1 2 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 -3 -0.25 -0.71 -0.48 10,579 255 0.05 0.02 0.04 12,600 120,686314 Monster Worldwide, Inc. MNST 20 2020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.20 -0.16 -0.13 1,679 107 0.12 0.06 0.11 5,000 123,289315 Moody's Corporation MCO 40 4020 0 1 -1 -1.27 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.15 0.13 0.05 1,457 561 1.81 0.38 0.32 2,300 143,944316 Morgan Stanley MS 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 3 1 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 3 -3 -2.43 1 2 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 -3 -0.25 -0.66 -0.42 7.3% 898,523 4,939 0.17 0.01 0.09 53,284 167,531317 Motorola, Inc. MOT 45 4520 1 1 0 -0.23 4 0 4 1.66 3 1 2 1.75 3 0 3 2.81 1 0 1 2.73 1 0 1 1.58 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 14 3 11 1.90 1.57 1.62 2.0% 35,649 4,578 0.27 0.13 0.12 69,000 117,628318 Murphy Oil Corporation MUR 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -5 -1.05 -0.54 -0.91 6,369 846 0.24 0.13 0.07 2,139 130,637319 Mylan Laboratories, Inc. MYL 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -3 -0.35 -0.36 -0.34 1,871 185 0.23 0.10 0.15 3,000 124,795320 Nabors Industries, Ltd. NBR 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 -0.60 -0.43 -0.50 7,230 649 0.17 0.09 0.19 19,776 130,637321 National City Corporation NCC 40 4010 1 0 1 0.82 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.15 0.25 0.18 142,397 1,984 0.16 0.01 0.18 34,270 120,561322 National Semiconductor Corporation NSM 45 4530 1 0 1 0.82 1 1 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0.45 0.35 0.45 2,511 449 0.23 0.18 0.21 9,800 117,628323 National-Oilwell Varco, Inc. NOV 10 1010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 0.16 0.08 6,679 287 0.07 0.04 0.06 n/a 130,637324 Navistar International Corporation NAV 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.40 -0.22 -0.36 7,592 247 0.47 0.03 0.03 14,800 114,529325 NCR Corporation NCR 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 0 0 0 0.09 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0.00 -0.05 -0.11 5,287 529 0.26 0.10 0.09 28,200 117,628326 Network Appliance, Inc. NTAP 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.40 0.31 0.32 3,261 266 0.14 0.08 0.13 3,801 117,628327 New York Times Company NYT 25 2540 1 0 1 0.82 4 0 4 1.66 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0.20 0.20 0.08 4,533 260 0.17 0.06 0.08 12,300 118,268328 Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. NWL 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -3 -0.65 -0.28 -0.54 6,446 251 0.15 0.04 0.04 27,900 115,394329 Newmont Mining Corporation NEM 15 1510 1 0 1 0.82 0 1 -1 -1.49 1 1 0 0.09 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 2 -2 -4.45 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 -4 -0.65 -0.73 -0.63 13,992 322 0.04 0.02 0.07 14,000 138,150330 News Corporation NWS.A 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 0 2 -2 -2.12 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 -5 -0.65 -0.37 -0.49 54,692 2,118 0.07 0.04 0.09 30,000 118,268331 Nicor, Inc. GAS 55 5510 1 1 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -0.35 -0.30 -0.28 4,391 136 0.17 0.03 0.04 3,600 124,293332 NIKE, Inc. NKE 25 2520 3 0 3 2.92 4 0 4 1.66 1 1 0 0.09 3 0 3 2.81 1 1 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 13 4 9 1.50 1.15 1.26 6.8% 8,794 1,212 0.21 0.14 0.09 25,000 115,394333 NiSource, Inc. NI 55 5510 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 2 2 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.30 -0.19 -0.29 17,959 307 0.06 0.02 0.04 8,628 124,293334 Noble Corporation NE 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 1 2 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.25 -0.21 -0.22 4,346 297 0.11 0.07 0.21 5,300 130,637335 Nordstrom, Inc. JWN 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 5 0 5 2.29 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 0.80 0.19 0.43 4,921 551 0.26 0.11 0.07 n/a 121,212336 Norfolk Southern Corporation NSC 20 2030 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.15 -0.23 -0.17 25,861 1,281 0.14 0.05 0.15 30,294 113,132337 North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. NFB 40 4010 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0.55 0.46 0.48 57,617 949 0.11 0.02 0.27 7,546 120,561338 Northern Trust Corporation NTRS 40 4020 1 0 1 0.82 5 0 5 2.29 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 0.60 0.42 0.35 53,414 584 0.16 0.01 0.16 9,088 167,531339 Northrop Grumman Corporation NOC 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 3 6 -3 -0.35 -0.29 -0.41 0.7% 34,214 1,400 0.08 0.04 0.05 125,400 113,560340 Novell, Inc. NOVL 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0.65 0.32 0.45 2,762 373 0.27 0.13 0.31 5,066 134,592341 Novellus Systems, Inc. NVLS 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 2 1 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.35 0.14 0.26 2,290 110 0.06 0.05 0.08 3,550 117,628342 Nucor Corporation NUE 15 1510 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 3 0 3 2.57 2 1 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 0.90 0.41 0.75 7,139 1,310 0.31 0.18 0.10 11,300 138,150343 NVIDIA Corporation NVDA 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 2 1 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.15 0.19 0.12 1,915 303 0.21 0.16 0.13 2,737 117,628344 Occidental Petroleum Corporation OXY 10 1010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 4 -4 -3.44 0 2 -2 -4.45 0 0 0 0.57 2 1 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 -4 -0.60 -0.80 -0.67 26,108 5,281 0.35 0.20 0.35 7,209 130,637345 Office Depot, Inc. ODP 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.15 0.14 0.06 6,099 274 0.10 0.04 0.02 47,000 121,212346 OfficeMax, Inc. OMX 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -5 -0.75 -0.62 -0.66 6,272 -78 -0.05 -0.01 -0.01 35,000 121,212347 Omnicom Group Inc. OMC 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 0.05 -0.03 15,920 791 0.20 0.05 0.08 61,000 118,268348 Oracle Corporation ORCL 45 4510 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 0.65 0.33 0.46 20,687 2,886 0.27 0.14 0.24 49,872 134,592349 PACCAR, Inc. PCAR 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 -0.80 -0.36 -0.64 13,715 1,133 0.29 0.08 0.08 20,500 114,529350 Pactiv Corporation PTV 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.20 -0.21 -0.19 2,820 54 0.07 0.02 0.02 11,100 123,289

Corp. Governance Negative Screens Total Key Financial FiguresCompany Information Community Diversity Employees Environment Human Rights Product

82

Company Name Ticker Sector Industry Group + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z al

c

gam

tob

mil

nuc + - net wa z z wa MBA

Ideal Assets Net Income

ROE '05 (%)

ROA '05 (%)

ROS '05 (%) # of Emp. Salary

Indicator351 Pall Corporation PLL 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 -3 -0.40 -0.18 -0.32 2,265 141 0.12 0.06 0.07 10,500 114,529352 Parametric Technology Corporation PMTC 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.20 -0.16 -0.13 787 84 0.26 0.11 0.12 3,751 134,592353 Parker-Hannifin Corporation PH 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 2 1 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 -2 -0.25 -0.03 -0.21 6,899 605 0.18 0.09 0.07 50,638 114,529354 Patterson Companies, Inc. PDCO 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 0.10 0.02 1,912 198 0.16 0.10 0.08 5,950 124,881355 Paychex, Inc. PAYX 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.13 0.13 4,379 369 0.27 0.08 0.26 10,000 121,316356 Penney (J.C.) Company, Inc. JCP 25 2550 1 0 1 0.82 4 0 4 1.66 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0.40 -0.02 0.17 12,461 1,088 0.27 0.09 0.06 151,000 121,212357 Peoples Energy Corporation PGL 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.30 -0.24 -0.30 3,538 78 0.10 0.02 0.03 2,182 124,293358 Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. PBG 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 -1 -0.25 -0.13 -0.26 11,524 466 0.23 0.04 0.04 66,900 115,394359 PepsiCo, Inc. PEP 30 3020 0 1 -1 -1.27 5 1 4 1.66 2 1 1 0.92 0 1 -1 -0.76 1 0 1 2.73 0 2 -2 -1.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 9 7 2 0.25 0.36 0.09 3.9% 31,727 4,060 0.28 0.13 0.12 157,000 115,394360 PerkinElmer, Inc. PKI 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.05 0.03 0.03 2,693 268 0.16 0.10 0.18 8,000 124,795361 Pfizer, Inc. PFE 35 3520 3 2 1 0.82 5 0 5 2.29 1 0 1 0.92 3 3 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 3 -3 -2.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 13 10 3 0.65 0.05 0.29 3.0% 117,565 8,079 0.12 0.07 0.16 122,000 124,795362 PG&E Corporation PCG 55 5510 0 2 -2 -2.32 4 0 4 1.66 1 0 1 0.92 1 2 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 7 8 -1 0.00 -0.13 -0.24 34,074 917 0.12 0.03 0.08 19,800 124,293363 Phelps Dodge Corporation PD 15 1510 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 -5 -1.10 -0.58 -0.99 10,358 1,550 0.28 0.15 0.19 15,000 138,150364 Pinnacle West Capital Corporation PNW 55 5510 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 2 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 -0.15 0.27 -0.10 11,323 176 0.05 0.02 0.06 7,300 124,293365 Pitney Bowes, Inc. PBI 20 2020 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 0 0 0 0.09 3 0 3 2.81 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 1.20 0.91 1.00 10,621 526 0.40 0.05 0.10 35,183 123,289366 Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. PCL 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.50 -0.13 -0.39 4,812 354 0.15 0.07 0.22 2,100 137,591367 PMC-Sierra, Inc. PMCS 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 2 0 2 1.75 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.45 0.17 0.38 733 28 0.08 0.04 0.10 875 117,628368 PNC Financial Services Group PNC 40 4010 2 0 2 1.87 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0.70 -0.04 0.44 91,954 1,324 0.15 0.01 0.17 23,593 120,561369 PPG Industries, Inc. PPG 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 2 1 1 0.92 1 3 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 -2 -0.20 -0.31 -0.30 8,681 596 0.20 0.07 0.06 30,800 120,686370 PPL Corporation PPL 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 -2 -0.35 0.01 -0.30 17,926 678 0.15 0.04 0.11 12,028 124,293371 Praxair, Inc. PX 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 3 1 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 0.70 0.54 0.57 10,491 726 0.19 0.07 0.09 25,438 120,686372 Principal Financial Group, Inc. PFG 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0.50 0.18 0.30 127,035 901 0.12 0.01 0.10 14,507 130,765373 Procter & Gamble Company PG 30 3030 0 0 0 -0.23 6 0 6 2.92 2 1 1 0.92 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 2 1 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 6 0.80 0.68 0.50 6.9% 61,527 7,121 0.41 0.12 0.13 110,000 115,394374 Progress Energy, Inc. PGN 55 5510 2 1 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 5 6 -1 -0.05 0.01 -0.13 27,023 697 0.09 0.03 0.07 15,700 124,293375 Progressive Corporation (The) PGR 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.20 0.18 0.14 18,899 1,394 0.23 0.07 0.10 27,085 130,765376 ProLogis PLD 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.15 0.19 0.12 13,114 371 0.07 0.03 0.19 830 137,591377 Prudential Financial, Inc. PRU 40 4030 3 0 3 2.92 3 1 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0.40 0.27 0.32 0.5% 417,776 3,301 0.15 0.01 0.10 38,853 130,765378 Public Service Enterprise Group, Incorporate PEG 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 3 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 -2 -0.40 -0.09 -0.40 29,815 661 0.11 0.02 0.05 6,327 124,293379 Public Storage, Inc. PSA 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 -0.15 0.01 -0.07 5,552 254 0.05 0.05 0.23 4,030 137,591380 Pulte Homes, Inc. PHM 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 -0.05 -0.07 -0.04 1.2% 13,048 1,492 0.25 0.11 0.10 13,000 115,394381 QLogic Corporation QLGC 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.20 0.05 0.17 938 284 0.33 0.30 0.57 847 117,628382 QUALCOMM Inc. QCOM 45 4520 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0.65 0.38 0.51 0.7% 12,479 2,143 0.19 0.17 0.38 9,300 117,628383 Quest Diagnostics Incorporated DGX 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 0.80 0.46 0.60 5,306 546 0.20 0.10 0.10 41,500 124,881384 Qwest Communications International, Inc. Q 50 5010 0 2 -2 -2.32 3 0 3 1.03 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 -3 -0.25 -0.56 -0.43 21,497 -779 0.24 -0.04 -0.06 39,000 135,613385 RadioShack Corporation RSH 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.30 -0.19 -0.25 2,205 267 0.45 0.12 0.05 47,000 121,212386 Raytheon Company RTN 20 2010 1 0 1 0.82 3 1 2 0.40 0 3 -3 -2.40 2 2 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 6 9 -3 -0.55 -0.24 -0.51 24,381 871 0.08 0.04 0.04 79,000 113,560387 Regions Financial Corporation RF 40 4010 1 0 1 0.82 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.08 0.12 84,786 1,001 0.09 0.01 0.16 25,000 120,561388 Reynolds American, Inc. RAI 30 3020 0 1 -1 -1.27 3 0 3 1.03 0 3 -3 -2.40 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 4 -4 -3.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 1 0 0 3 10 -7 -1.15 -0.88 -1.18 14,519 1,042 0.16 0.07 0.13 n/a 115,394389 Robert Half International, Inc. RHI 20 2020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 0.05 -0.04 0.07 1,319 238 0.25 0.18 0.07 9,200 123,289390 Rockwell Automation, Inc. ROK 20 2010 1 1 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 2 1 1 1.03 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 2 0 2 3.08 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0.15 0.20 0.09 4,525 540 0.33 0.12 0.11 21,000 116,662391 Rockwell Collins COL 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 2 1 1 0.92 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 1 0.50 0.27 0.39 3,140 396 0.42 0.13 0.11 17,100 113,560392 Rohm and Haas Company ROH 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 2 2 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 0.55 0.40 0.42 0.2% 9,727 637 0.16 0.07 0.08 16,519 120,686393 Rowan Companies, Inc. RDC 10 1010 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 -0.65 -0.41 -0.52 2,975 230 0.14 0.08 0.22 4,392 130,637394 Ryder System, Inc. R 20 2030 0 1 -1 -1.27 4 0 4 1.66 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0.35 0.15 0.15 6,033 227 0.15 0.04 0.04 26,300 113,132395 Sabre Holdings Corporation TSG 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.25 0.11 0.15 4,374 172 0.10 0.04 0.07 6,700 121,316396 SAFECO Corporation SAFC 40 4030 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0.40 0.26 0.31 14,887 691 0.17 0.05 0.11 9,181 130,765397 Safeway Inc. SWY 30 3010 1 0 1 0.82 2 1 1 -0.23 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 -3 -0.55 -0.35 -0.50 15,757 561 0.11 0.04 0.01 191,000 115,394398 SanDisk Corporation SNDK 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.02 0.06 3,120 386 0.15 0.12 0.17 1,073 117,628399 Sanmina-SCI Corporation SANM 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 1 0 1 0.92 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 0.35 0.18 0.30 6,242 -1,006 -0.42 -0.16 -0.09 48,621 117,628400 Sara Lee Corporation SLE 30 3020 1 0 1 0.82 4 0 4 1.66 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0.05 -0.29 -0.16 14,412 719 0.24 0.05 0.04 137,000 115,394401 Schering-Plough Corporation SGP 35 3520 0 1 -1 -1.27 3 0 3 1.03 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 4 -4 -3.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 -2 -0.35 -0.34 -0.48 15,469 183 0.02 0.01 0.02 30,500 124,795402 Schlumberger N.V. SLB 10 1010 1 1 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 2 -2 -4.45 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 -4 -0.45 -0.91 -0.57 18,077 2,207 0.29 0.12 0.15 52,500 130,637403 Schwab (Charles) Corporation SCHW 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 2 -1 -0.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.10 -0.29 -0.15 47,351 725 0.16 0.02 0.14 14,200 167,531404 Sealed Air Corporation SEE 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.30 -0.19 -0.25 4,864 256 0.18 0.05 0.06 17,600 123,289405 Sears Holdings Corporation SHLD 25 2550 1 0 1 0.82 4 2 2 0.40 0 3 -3 -2.40 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 -7 -1.10 -1.17 -1.12 30,573 858 0.07 0.03 0.02 133,000 121,212406 Sempra Energy SRE 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 -1 -0.05 -0.00 -0.14 29,213 920 0.15 0.03 0.08 13,381 124,293407 Sherwin-Williams Company (The) SHW 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 3 0 3 2.57 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.40 0.19 0.31 4,369 463 0.27 0.11 0.06 28,690 121,212408 Sigma-Aldrich Corporation SIAL 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.35 -0.23 -0.33 2,131 258 0.21 0.12 0.15 6,849 120,686409 Simon Property Group, Inc. SPG 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.10 0.02 21,131 402 0.09 0.02 0.12 3,700 137,591410 SLM Corporation SLM 40 4020 2 0 2 1.87 4 0 4 1.66 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 6 1.00 0.74 0.77 99,339 1,360 0.36 0.01 0.22 12,000 143,944411 Snap-on Incorporated SNA 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 2 0 2 3.08 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 -0.05 0.25 -0.06 2,008 93 0.10 0.05 0.04 11,500 115,394412 Solectron Corporation SLR 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.05 0.08 0.08 5,258 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 53,000 117,628413 Southern Company SO 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 -2 -0.35 -0.10 -0.38 39,877 1,591 0.14 0.04 0.12 25,554 124,293414 Southwest Airlines Co. LUV 20 2030 0 0 0 -0.23 3 1 2 0.40 4 0 4 3.40 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 7 1.45 0.90 1.19 2.8% 14,218 548 0.08 0.04 0.07 31,011 127,299415 Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. SOV 40 4010 2 0 2 1.87 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0.75 0.72 0.67 63,679 676 0.12 0.01 0.19 8,956 120,561416 Sprint Nextel Corporation S 50 5010 1 1 0 -0.23 3 1 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0.10 -0.03 0.00 0.4% 102,580 1,778 0.03 0.02 0.05 79,900 135,613417 St. Jude Medical, Inc. STJ 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 -0.15 -0.04 -0.13 4,845 393 0.14 0.08 0.13 10,000 124,795418 St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. (The) STA 40 4030 4 0 4 3.97 3 0 3 1.03 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 5 0.85 0.66 0.72 113,187 1,616 0.07 0.01 0.07 n/a 130,765419 Stanley Works (The) SWK 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 3 1 2 1.75 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0.70 0.18 0.50 3,545 270 0.19 0.08 0.08 15,800 115,394420 Staples, Inc. SPLS 25 2550 1 0 1 0.82 4 0 4 1.66 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 1 -1 -2.06 1 1 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 4 0.65 0.28 0.41 0.4% 7,677 834 0.19 0.11 0.05 47,000 121,212

Negative Screens Total Key Financial FiguresEnvironment Human Rights Product Corp. GovernanceCompany Information Community Diversity Employees

83

Company Name Ticker Sector Industry Group + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z al

c

gam

tob

mil

nuc + - net wa z z wa MBA

Ideal Assets Net Income

ROE '05 (%)

ROA '05 (%)

ROS '05 (%) # of Emp. Salary

Indicator421 Starbucks Corporation SBUX 25 2530 3 0 3 2.92 4 0 4 1.66 2 1 1 0.92 2 0 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 1 0 0 0 0 12 3 9 1.65 1.29 1.39 4.9% 3,514 494 0.24 0.14 0.08 115,000 115,095422 Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, In HOT 25 2530 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 1 0 0 0 2 4 -2 -0.30 -0.13 -0.31 3.0% 12,454 422 0.08 0.03 0.07 120,000 115,095423 State Street Corporation STT 40 4020 2 0 2 1.87 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 0.60 0.58 0.52 97,968 838 0.13 0.01 0.11 19,668 167,531424 Stryker Corporation SYK 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.30 -0.19 -0.25 4,944 675 0.21 0.14 0.14 17,265 124,795425 Sun Microsystems, Inc. SUNW 45 4520 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0.20 0.26 0.10 0.5% 14,190 -107 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 31,000 117,628426 Sunoco, Inc. SUN 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 -5 -1.10 -0.47 -0.91 9,931 974 0.47 0.10 0.03 14,200 130,637427 SunTrust Banks, Inc. STI 40 4010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.05 -0.12 -0.09 179,713 1,987 0.12 0.01 0.18 33,406 120,561428 SUPERVALU Inc. SVU 30 3010 0 0 0 -0.23 3 1 2 0.40 1 3 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 -3 -0.55 -0.41 -0.56 6,038 206 0.08 0.03 0.01 200,000 115,394429 Symantec Corporation SYMC 45 4510 0 1 -1 -1.27 3 0 3 1.03 2 0 2 1.75 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 0.75 0.29 0.50 17,913 157 0.01 0.01 0.04 5,300 134,592430 Symbol Technologies, Inc. SBL 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 3 -3 -2.93 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -0.15 -0.36 -0.10 1,816 32 0.03 0.02 0.02 5,200 117,628431 Synovus Financial Corp. SNV 40 4010 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 2 0 2 1.75 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0.85 0.69 0.69 27,621 516 0.18 0.02 0.15 12,691 120,561432 SYSCO Corporation SYY 30 3010 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0.10 0.34 0.06 8,268 961 0.35 0.12 0.03 47,500 115,394433 T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. TROW 40 4020 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.40 0.31 0.32 2,311 431 0.21 0.19 0.28 4,372 167,531434 Target Corporation TGT 25 2550 1 0 1 0.82 3 1 2 0.40 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 -3 -0.45 -0.60 -0.53 4.0% 34,995 2,408 0.17 0.07 0.05 292,000 121,212435 TECO Energy, Inc. TE 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 2 -1 -0.74 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 -3 -0.70 -0.31 -0.63 7,170 275 0.17 0.04 0.09 5,543 124,293436 Tektronix, Inc. TEK 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.25 0.11 0.15 1,460 82 0.08 0.06 0.08 4,334 117,628437 Tellabs, Inc. TLAB 45 4520 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 3 0 3 2.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 1.20 0.78 0.98 3,515 176 0.06 0.05 0.09 3,609 117,628438 Temple-Inland Inc. TIN 15 1510 2 0 2 1.87 0 0 0 -0.86 1 2 -1 -0.74 2 0 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 4 0.60 0.68 0.64 21,633 176 0.08 0.01 0.04 16,000 123,289439 Tenet Healthcare Corporation THC 35 3510 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 -6 -0.70 -0.82 -0.71 9,812 -724 -0.71 -0.07 -0.08 53,607 124,881440 Teradyne, Inc. TER 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 2 1 1 0.92 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 1 0.50 0.27 0.39 1,860 91 0.07 0.05 0.08 6,200 117,628441 Texas Instruments Incorporated TXN 45 4530 1 0 1 0.82 4 0 4 1.66 3 0 3 2.57 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 9 1.70 1.10 1.36 0.7% 15,063 2,324 0.19 0.15 0.17 35,207 117,628442 Textron Inc. TXT 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 -2 -0.25 -0.13 -0.32 16,499 203 0.06 0.01 0.02 44,000 123,289443 Thermo Electron Corporation TMO 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 -0.05 0.11 -0.01 4,252 223 0.08 0.05 0.08 9,900 124,795444 Tiffany & Co. TIF 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 1 0 1 2.73 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.05 0.33 0.06 2,777 255 0.14 0.09 0.11 8,100 121,212445 Time Warner, Inc. TWX 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 4 0 4 1.66 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 -3 -0.25 -0.77 -0.50 122,475 2,905 0.05 0.02 0.07 84,900 118,268446 TJX Companies, Inc. TJX 25 2550 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.10 0.02 0.06 0.1% 5,496 690 0.36 0.13 0.04 105,000 121,212447 Torchmark Corporation TMK 40 4030 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 -0.60 -0.42 -0.49 14,769 495 0.14 0.03 0.16 2,169 130,765448 Transocean, Inc. RIG 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 0 3 -3 -2.40 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 -0.90 -0.40 -0.76 10,457 716 0.09 0.07 0.25 10,800 130,637449 Tribune Company TRB 25 2540 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 1 2 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 -2 -0.30 -0.25 -0.31 14,546 526 0.08 0.04 0.09 23,800 118,268450 TXU Corporation TXU 55 5510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 -2 -0.20 -0.10 -0.20 25,539 1,712 3.60 0.07 0.16 7,900 124,293451 Tyco International Ltd. TYC 20 2010 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 1 2 -1 -0.74 2 3 -1 -0.76 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 3 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 -4 -0.55 -0.55 -0.55 0.4% 62,621 3,032 0.09 0.05 0.08 247,900 123,289452 Tyson Foods, Inc. TSN 30 3020 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 1 0 -0.86 1 4 -3 -2.40 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 -8 -1.50 -0.97 -1.33 0.2% 10,504 372 0.08 0.04 0.01 114,000 115,394453 U.S. Bancorp USB 40 4010 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 -1 -0.15 -0.14 -0.20 209,465 4,489 0.22 0.02 0.27 48,831 120,561454 Union Pacific Corporation UNP 20 2030 0 1 -1 -1.27 3 1 2 0.40 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 -4 -0.80 -0.53 -0.78 35,620 1,026 0.07 0.03 0.08 49,747 113,132455 Unisys Corporation UIS 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0.35 0.21 0.22 4,029 -1,732 53.13 -0.43 -0.30 36,400 121,316456 United Parcel Service, Inc. UPS 20 2030 1 1 0 -0.23 4 1 3 1.03 2 3 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 4 0.45 0.55 0.34 35,222 3,870 0.23 0.11 0.09 384,000 113,132457 United States Steel Corporation X 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 1 3 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 -2 -0.30 -0.23 -0.30 9,822 892 0.27 0.09 0.06 46,000 138,150458 United Technologies Corporation UTX 20 2010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 1 0 -0.86 2 2 0 0.09 2 2 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 0 1 0 6 8 -2 -0.20 -0.04 -0.18 1.2% 45,925 3,069 0.18 0.07 0.07 210,000 113,560459 UnitedHealth Group, Inc. UNH 35 3510 0 0 0 -0.23 3 0 3 1.03 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 -1 -0.05 -0.23 -0.21 41,374 3,300 0.19 0.08 0.07 40,000 124,881460 Univision Communications Inc. UVN 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 2 2 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0.05 0.27 0.08 8,128 187 0.04 0.02 0.10 4,400 118,268461 UnumProvident Corp. UNM 40 4030 2 0 2 1.87 3 0 3 1.03 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 1 -0.05 0.15 -0.10 51,867 514 0.07 0.01 0.05 11,600 130,765462 UST Inc. UST 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 0 0 0.67 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 -6 -0.80 -0.45 -0.74 1,367 534 7.11 0.39 0.30 5,100 115,394463 Valero Energy Corporation VLO 10 1010 1 1 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 4 1 3 2.57 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 -1 0.10 -0.10 0.05 32,728 3,577 0.24 0.11 0.04 19,797 130,637464 VeriSign, Inc. VRSN 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.15 0.19 0.12 3,173 406 0.20 0.13 0.25 4,076 134,592465 Verizon Communications VZ 50 5010 2 1 1 0.82 6 0 6 2.92 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 2 0.20 0.10 -0.03 0.9% 168,130 7,397 0.19 0.04 0.10 250,181 135,613466 VF Corporation VFC 25 2520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.10 -0.41 -0.16 5,171 505 0.18 0.10 0.08 52,300 115,394467 Viacom, Inc. VIA.B 25 2540 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -3 -0.45 -0.33 -0.40 19,116 1,257 0.16 0.07 0.13 9,850 118,268468 Vornado Realty Trust VNO 40 4040 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.15 -0.10 -0.15 13,637 493 0.09 0.04 0.18 3,015 137,591469 Vulcan Materials Company VMC 15 1510 0 0 0 -0.23 0 1 -1 -1.49 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 -0.15 0.01 -0.07 3,589 389 0.18 0.11 0.13 8,410 111,479470 Wachovia Corporation WB 40 4010 5 0 5 5.01 2 1 1 -0.23 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 3 -3 -2.93 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 1 0.45 0.14 0.42 2.6% 520,755 6,643 0.14 0.01 0.19 96,030 120,561471 Walgreen Company WAG 30 3010 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.10 0.02 0.02 14,609 1,560 0.18 0.11 0.04 179,000 115,394472 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. WMT 30 3010 1 2 -1 -1.27 4 2 2 0.40 0 3 -3 -2.40 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 3 -3 -2.43 0 3 -3 -2.93 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 -10 -1.45 -1.64 -1.50 1.2% 138,187 11,231 0.21 0.08 0.04 1,700,000 115,394473 Washington Mutual, Inc. WM 40 4010 4 1 3 2.92 4 0 4 1.66 1 1 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 6 0.90 0.77 0.72 343,839 3,432 0.12 0.01 0.16 60,798 120,561474 Waste Management, Inc. WMI 20 2020 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 1 0 1 0.92 1 3 -2 -1.66 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 -3 -0.35 -0.41 -0.40 21,135 1,182 0.19 0.06 0.09 51,000 123,289475 Waters Corporation WAT 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 2 -2 -1.73 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 -1 0.05 -0.10 0.05 1,429 202 0.71 0.14 0.17 4,200 124,795476 Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. WPI 35 3520 0 0 0 -0.23 1 0 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.05 -0.12 -0.09 3,080 138 0.07 0.04 0.08 3,844 124,795477 Weatherford International, Inc. WFT 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1 -0.25 -0.08 -0.25 8,580 467 0.08 0.05 0.11 18,400 130,637478 WellPoint, Inc. WLP 35 3510 1 0 1 0.82 3 0 3 1.03 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 0.65 0.33 0.46 51,405 2,464 0.10 0.05 0.05 42,000 124,881479 Wells Fargo & Company WFC 40 4010 3 1 2 1.87 5 0 5 2.29 2 0 2 1.75 0 0 0 0.13 1 0 1 2.73 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 11 4 7 1.25 0.97 0.98 1.5% 481,741 7,671 0.19 0.02 0.19 153,500 120,561480 Wendy's International, Inc. WEN 25 2530 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.30 0.28 0.21 3,440 224 0.11 0.07 0.06 10,000 115,095481 Weyerhaeuser Company WY 15 1510 1 0 1 0.82 1 0 1 -0.23 3 1 2 1.75 3 3 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 2 -2 -1.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 3 0.55 0.46 0.45 0.3% 28,229 733 0.07 0.03 0.03 53,646 113,056482 Whirlpool Corporation WHR 25 2520 2 0 2 1.87 3 1 2 0.40 0 1 -1 -0.74 1 0 1 1.03 0 0 0 0.34 1 1 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 3 0.50 0.42 0.44 0.5% 8,248 422 0.24 0.05 0.03 66,000 115,394483 Whole Foods Market, Inc. WFMI 30 3010 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 2 2 0 0.09 2 0 2 1.92 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 6 0.90 0.86 0.79 1,889 136 0.10 0.07 0.03 40,000 115,394484 Williams Companies, Inc. WMB 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 1 0 1 -0.23 2 1 1 0.92 0 2 -2 -1.66 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 -3 -0.35 -0.58 -0.46 29,443 314 0.06 0.01 0.02 3,656 130,637485 Wrigley (Wm.) Jr. Company WWY 30 3020 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0.55 0.40 0.42 4,460 517 0.23 0.12 0.12 14,800 115,394486 Wyeth WYE 35 3520 0 1 -1 -1.27 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 1 1 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 4 -4 -3.43 1 0 1 1.87 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 -1 -0.15 -0.15 -0.28 35,841 3,656 0.30 0.10 0.19 49,732 124,795487 Xcel Energy, Inc. XEL 55 5510 0 1 -1 -1.27 2 1 1 -0.23 0 0 0 0.09 0 3 -3 -2.55 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 2 -2 -1.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 1 2 10 -8 -1.05 -1.14 -1.11 21,648 509 0.09 0.02 0.05 10,650 124,293488 Xerox Corporation XRX 45 4520 1 1 0 -0.23 7 1 6 2.92 0 2 -2 -1.57 4 0 4 3.71 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 1 2 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 14 6 8 1.30 0.89 0.98 0.4% 21,953 920 0.13 0.04 0.06 55,200 117,628489 Xilinx, Inc. XLNX 45 4530 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 3 0 3 2.57 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 1 0 1 1.58 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 1.15 0.61 0.92 3,174 354 0.13 0.11 0.21 3,050 117,628490 XL Capital, Ltd. XL 40 4030 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.20 -0.22 -0.20 58,455 -1,292 -0.15 -0.02 -0.12 3,527 130,765

Corp. Governance Negative Screens Total Key Financial FiguresCompany Information Community Diversity Employees Environment Human Rights Product

84

Company Name Ticker Sector Industry Group + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z + - net z al

c

gam

tob

mil

nuc + - net wa z z wa MBA

Ideal Assets Net Income

ROE '05 (%)

ROA '05 (%)

ROS '05 (%) # of Emp. Salary

Indicator491 XTO Energy Inc. XTO 10 1010 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 1 -1 -1.49 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 -2 -0.10 -0.19 -0.08 9,857 1,152 0.27 0.12 0.33 1,323 130,637492 Yahoo! Inc. YHOO 45 4510 0 0 0 -0.23 2 0 2 0.40 1 0 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 0 0 0.57 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 0.40 -0.11 0.19 4.6% 10,832 1,896 0.22 0.18 0.36 7,600 134,592493 Yum! Brands, Inc. YUM 25 2530 0 0 0 -0.23 0 2 -2 -2.12 0 2 -2 -1.57 0 1 -1 -0.76 0 1 -1 -2.06 0 1 -1 -0.43 0 1 -1 -0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -8 -1.25 -1.10 -1.09 0.7% 5,698 762 0.53 0.13 0.08 272,000 115,095494 Zimmer Holdings, Inc. ZMH 35 3510 1 0 1 0.82 2 0 2 0.40 2 1 1 0.92 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 0.70 0.55 0.57 5,722 733 0.16 0.13 0.22 6,700 124,795

495 Zions Bancorporation ZION 40 4010 0 1 -1 -1.27 0 0 0 -0.86 0 1 -1 -0.74 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -0.40 -0.17 -0.34 42,780 480 0.11 0.01 0.20 10,102 120,561

Average 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.00 1.6 0.3 1.4 0.00 0.6 0.7 -0.1 0.00 0.4 0.6 -0.2 -0.00 0.0 0.2 -0.1 0.00 0.1 0.7 -0.6 -0.00 0.2 0.8 -0.6 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.6 3.7 -0.11 0.05 -0.00 -0.01 0.02 47,650 1,333 0.32 0.07 0.11 43,046 124,138

s.d. 0.9 0.5 1.0 1.00 1.5 0.5 1.6 1.00 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.00 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.00 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.00 0.4 0.9 1.0 1.00 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.00 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 3.3 2.8 3.52 0.60 0.46 0.52 0.03 144,236 2,904 2.43 0.07 0.11 95,761 10,865

max 5 3 5 5.01 7 2 6 2.92 4 4 4 3.40 5 5 4 3.71 1 3 1 2.73 3 4 2 2.58 2 4 2 3.08 18 17 14 2.65 1.65 2.11 0.13 1,494,037 36,130 53.13 0.39 0.65 1,700,000 167,531

min 0 0 -2 -2.32 0 0 -2 -2.12 0 0 -4 -3.23 0 0 -5 -4.34 0 0 -3 -6.85 0 0 -4 -3.43 0 0 -3 -2.93 0 0 -10 -1.50 -1.64 -1.50 0.00 733 -10,567 -1.98 -0.43 -1.02 354 109,731source: KLD, Computstat, Universum Communication

Negative Screens Total Key Financial FiguresEnvironment Human Rights Product Corp. GovernanceCompany Information Community Diversity Employees

85

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Obviously not all works in the Bibliography have been read in toto, however the abstract of every work listed has been read and a copy is in the possession of the author or has been in the case of library books. The amount of literature has grown in an attempt to narrow the topic down and to ensure that no relevant document is omitted. Therefore not all of the Bibliography is relevant, but has been decisive in giving the search a push in the right direction. Also the many facets of corporate social responsibility case were documented in various areas of literature so that a broad range of issues had to be considered.

Every effort has been made to reference sources fully and correctly, however this was not always possible. In those cases if no substituting information could be found, ‘unknown’ has been used.

The Appendix also includes the entire research on CD-ROM (where digital), attached at the end of the document. Each paper that has been collected in digital format has been saved on the CD.

ACCA 2003, Corporate Social Responsibility: Is there a business case?, ACCA, London.

AccountAbility 2003, Assurance Standard, AccountAbility, London.

Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. 1997, Statistical Methods for the Social Science Prentice Hall, London.

Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. Putting the S back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A mult-level theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review forthcoming. 2006.

Albinger, H. S. and Freeman, S. J. 2000, "Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 243-253.

Alexander, G. J. and Buchholz, R. A. 1978, "Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Market Performance", Academy of Management Journal. vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 479-486.

Alnajjar, F. K. 2000, "Determinants of social responsibility disclosures of U.S. Fortune 500 firms: An application of content analysis," in Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, Volume 1 edn, Elsevier JAI, Oxford, pp. 163-200.

Ashby, S., Chuah, S. H., and Hoffmann, R. 2003, "Industry Self-Regulation: A Game-Theoretic Typology of Strategic Voluntary Compliance", International Journal of the Economics of Business. vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 91-106.

Ashforth, B. E. and Mael, F. 1989, "Social identity theory and the organization", Academy of Management Review. vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 20-39.

Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., and Hatfield, J. D. 1985, "An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability", Academy of Management Journal. vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 446-463.

Backhaus, K. B., Stone, B. A., and Heiner, K. 2006, "Exploring the Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Employer Attractiveness", Business & Society. vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 292-318.

Barber, A. E. 1998, Recruiting employees Sage, Thousend Oaks, CA, USA.

Barnea, A. & Rubin, A. Corporate Social Responsibility as a conflict between Shareholders. Mimeo. 2005.

Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., and Hill, R. P. 2006, "The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior", Journal of Business Research. vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 46-53.

Benn, S. & Dunphy, D. 2006, Corporate Governance and Sustainability: Challenges for Theory and Practice Routledge, New York.

Bernard Tong. Unilever embarks on global CSR initiatives. The Edge Financial Daily . 28-7-2006.

86

Bhattacharya, C. B. and Sen, S. 2004, "Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives", California Management Review. vol. 47, no. 1, p. 9-+.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Smith, N. C., and Vogel, D. 2004, "Integrating social responsibility and marketing strategy: An introduction", California Management Review. vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 6-8.

Bhimani, A. and Soonawalla, K. 2005, "From conformance to performance: The corporate responsibilities continuum", Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 165-174.

Boatright, J. R. 1996, "Business ethics and the theory of the firm", American Business Law Journal. vol. 34, no. 2, p. 217-&.

Bowie, N. 1991, "New directions in corporate social responsibility", Business Horizons. vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 56-65.

Brammer, S. J. and Millington, A. 2003, "The effect of stakeholder preferences, organizational structure and industry type on corporate community involvement", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 213-226.

Brammer, S. J. and Pavelin, S. 2004, "Building a Good Reputation", European Management Journal. vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 704-713.

Brammer, S. J. and Pavelin, S. 2006, "Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit", Journal of Management Studies. vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 435-455.

Bretz, R. D., Ash, R. A., and Dreher, G. F. 1989, "Do people make the place? An examination of the attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis", Personnel Psychology. vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 561-581.

Brown, B. and Perry, S. 1994, "Focal Paper: Halo-Removed Residuals of Fortune's "Responsibility to the Community and Environment" - A Decade of Data", Business & Society. vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 199-216.

Brown, B. and Perry, S. 1994, "Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune's "Most Admired" Companies", Academy of Management Journal. vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 1347-1359.

Buchholz, R. A. 2006, "Corporate Responsibility and the Good Society: From Economics to Ecology", Business Horizons. vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 19-31.

Buck, T. More companies reveal social policies. Financial Times , 8. 15-6-2005.

Burke, L. and Logsdon, J. M. 1996, "How corporate social responsibility pays off", Long Range Planning. vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 495-502.

Business Ethics. Business Ethics 100 best corporate citizens 2006. 2006.

Cabral, L. M. B. The Economics of Trust and Reputation: A Primer. Draft . 2005.

Campbell, J. L. Why would Corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review forthcoming. 2005.

Campbell, J. L. 2006, "Institutional analysis and the paradox of corporate social responsibility", American Behavioral Scientist. vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 925-938.

Cannon, T. 1992, Corporate Social Responsibility Pitman Publishing, London.

Carroll, A. B. 1991, "The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders", Business Horizons. vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 39-48.

Carter, M. Ethical business practices come into fashion. Financial Times , 14. 19-4-2005.

Chochran, P. L. and Wood, R. A. 1984, "Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance", Academy of Management Journal. vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 42-56.

Clark, G. L. and Hebb, T. 2005, "Why should they care? The role of institutional investors in the market for corporate global responsibility", Environment and Planning A. vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 2015-2031.

Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995, "A Stakeholder Framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance", Academy of Management Review. vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 92-117.

Clausen, J., Loew, T., Raupach, M., & Schoenheit, I. 2001, Der Nachhaltigkeitsbericht, Institut für Ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung, Berlin.

Clausen, J., Loew, T., & Westermann, U. 2005, Sustainability Reporting in Germany, future e.V., Berlin.

Context 2005, Corporate Responsibility: A united state?, Context, London.

Context 2006, Global Corporate Responsibility Reporting Trends, Context, Report.

References & Bibliography

87

Cooper, S. 2004, Corporate Social Performance: A Stakholder Approach Ashgate, Aldershot.

Coors, A. C. & Winegarden, W. Corporate Social Responsibility or Good Advertising? Regulation Spring. 2005.

Cox, P., Brammer, S. J., and Millington, A. 2004, "An Empirical Examination of Institutional Investor Preferences for Corporate Social Performance", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 27-43.

Cozier, M. Study shows more US firms reporting on green efforts. ICIS Chemicals Business . 24-7-2006.

Crouch, C. 2006, Modellingthefirminitsmarketandorganizationalenvironment:methodologiesforstudyingcorporatesocialresponsibility, Mimeo, Warwick.

Crowther, D. 2002, A Social Critique of Corporate Reporting Ashgate, Hampshire.

Curran, M. M. & Moran, D. Impact of the FTSE4Good Index on firm price: An event study. Journal of Environmental Management In Press, Corrected Proof. 2006.

David, M. & Sutton, C. D. 2004, Social Research Sage, London.

Deakin, S. 2002, "Squaring the circle? Shareholder value and corporate social responsibility in the UK", George Washington Law Review. vol. 70, no. 5-6, pp. 976-987.

Dentchev, N. A. 2004, "Corporate social performance as a business strategy", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 397-412.

Department of Trade and Industry 2004, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Goverment Update, Department of Trade and Industry, London.

Doane, D. 2005, "Beyond corporate social responsibility: minnows, mammoths and markets", Futures. vol. 37, no. 2-3, pp. 215-229.

Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. L. 1995, "The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications", Academy of Management Review. vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 65-91.

Eilbirt, H. and Parket, I. R. 1973, "The corporate responsibility officer: A new position on the organization chart", Business Horizons. vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 45-51.

Elhauge, E. 2005, "Sacrificing corporate profits in the public interest", New York University Law Review. vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 733-869.

European Commission 2001, Promoting a European framwork for corporate social responsibility, EU, Luxembourg.

Eurosif 2003, Socially Responsible Investment among European Institutional Investors, Eurosif, Paris.

Fassin, Y. 2005, "The reasons behind non-ethical behaviour in business and entrepreneurship", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 265-279.

Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility: An introduction from the environmental perspective, Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, München.

Freeman, R. E. and Liedtka, J. 1991, "Corporate social responsibility: A critical approach", Business Horizons. vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 92-98.

Friedman, M. The social responsibility of business is to increase it profits. New York Times Magazine [33], 122-125. 30-9-1970.

Frynas, J. G. 2005, "The false developmental promise of Corporate Social Responsibility: evidence from multinational oil companies", International Affairs. vol. 81, no. 3, p. 581-+.

Fryxell, G. E. and Wang, J. 1994, "The Fortune corporate 'reputation' index: Reputation for what?", Journal of Management. vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-14.

Gallagher, S. 2005, "A strategic response to Friedman's critique of business ethics", Journal of Business Strategy. vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 55-60.

Gardberg, N. A. and Fombrun, C. J. 2006, "Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments", Academy of Management Review. vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 329-346.

Garriga, E. and Melé, D. 2004, "Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory", Journal of Busines Ethics. vol. 53, no. 1-2, pp. 51-71.

88

Garz, H., Volk, C., & Gilles, M. 2002, More Gain than Pain, WestLB, Düsseldorf.

Global Reporting Initiative 2002, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, MA.

Göbbels, M. The contemporary Dynamics of Corporate Social Responsibility. 2001.

Göbbels, M. Reframing Corporate Social Responsibility: The Contemporary Conception of a Fuzzy Notion. 2002.

Great Place to Work 2006, 100 Best Workplaces in Europe, Great Place to Work.

Greenfield, W. M. 2004, "In the name of corporate social responsibility", Business Horizons. vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 19-28.

Greening, D. W. and Turban, D. B. 2000, "Corporate Social Performance as a Competitive Advantage in Attracting a Quality Workforce", Business & Society. vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 254-280.

Greenley, G. E. and Foxall, G. R. 1997, "Multiple stakeholder orientation in UK companies and the implications for company performance", Journal of Management Studies. vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 259-284.

Griffin, J. J. and Mahon, J. F. 1997, "The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate", Business & Society. vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 5-31.

Gumbel, A. From the grassroots to a green revolution. The Independent , 1-5. 1-9-2006.

Hahn, T. and Scheermesser, M. 2006, "Approaches to Corporate Sustainability among German Companies", Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 150-165.

Hardjono, T. W. and van Marrewijk, M. 2001, "The Social Dimensions of Business Excellence", Corporate Environmental Strategy . vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 223-233.

Havemann, R. & Webster, P. 1999, Does Ethical Investment Pay, EIRIS, London.

Hayward, N. Business needs to be less two-faced about corporate social responsibility. Personnel Today , 13. 30-5-2006.

Hemphill, T. A. 1997, "Legislating Corporate Social Responsibility", Business Horizons. vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 53-58.

Henderson, D. 2001, Misguided Virtue The Institute of Economic Afairs, London.

Herremans, I. M., Akathaporn, P., and McInnes, M. 1993, "An investigation of corporate social responsibility reputation and economic performance", Accounting, Organizations and Society. vol. 18, no. 7-8, pp. 587-604.

Hill, A. The profit paradox. Financial Times , 36. 10-6-2006.

Hillman, A. J. and Keim, G. D. 2001, "Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What's the bottom line?", Strategic Management Journal. vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 125-139.

Holmes, S. L. 1976, "Executive perceptions of corporate social responsibility", Business Horizons. vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 34-40.

Husted, B. W. and Allen, D. B. 2000, "Is it ethical to use ethics as strategy?", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 27, no. 1-2, pp. 21-31.

Husted, B. W. and Salazar, J. D. J. 2006, "Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance", Journal of Management Studies. vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 75-91.

iz-Deniz, M. D. and De Saa-Perez, P. 2003, "A resource-based view of corporate responsiveness toward employees", Organization Studies. vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 299-319.

Jensen, M. C. 2001, "Value Maximisation, Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Objective Function", European Financial Management. vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 297-317.

Judge, T. A. and Bretz, R. D. Jr. 1992, "Effects of work values on job choice decisions", Journal of Applied Psychology. vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 261-271.

Klassen, R. D. and McLaughlin, C. P. 1996, "The impact of environmental management on firm performance", Management Science. vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1199-1214.

KLD 2006, SOCRATES - 2006 Ratings Criteria, KLD Research & Analytics, Inc., Boston, MA.

Knez-Riedl, J., Mulej, M., and Dyck, R. G. 2006, "Corporate social responsibility from the viewpoint of systems thinking", Kybernetes. vol. 35, no. 3-4, pp. 441-460.

References & Bibliography

89

Knoepfel, I. 2001, "Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index: A Global Benchmark for Corporate Sustainability", Corporate Environmental Strategy. vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 6-15.

Knox, S., Maklan, S., and French, P. 2005, "Corporate social responsibility: Exploring stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE companies", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 7-28.

Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. 2006, "Stakeholder Mismanagement and Corporate Social Responsibility Crises", European Management Journal. vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 59-72.

Kotler, P. & Lee, N. 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for your Company and your Cause Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons.

KPMG 2005, KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005, KPMG, Amsterdam.

Levis, J. 2006, "Adoption of corporate social responsibility codes by multinational companies", Journal of Asian Economics. vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 50-55.

Lockett, A., Moon, J., and Visser, W. 2006, "Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence", Journal of Management Studies. vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 115-136.

London, S. How corporate social responsibility works in a market economy. Financial Times , 13. 23-11-2005.

Maignan, I. 2001, "Consumers' perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 57-72.

Maignan, I. and Ralston, D. A. 2002, "Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses' self-presentations", Journal of International Business Studies. vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 497-514.

Mainelli, M. The ethical dilemma. Accountancy Age , 20-21. 30-3-2006.

Margolis, J. D. & Walsh, J. P. 2001, People and Profits? The search for a link between a Company's Social and Financial Performance Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Margolis, J. D. and Walsh, J. P. 2003, "Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business", Administrative Science Quarterly. vol. 48, no. June, pp. 268-305.

Martin, R. L. 2002, "The Virtue Matrix: Calculating the Return on Corporate Responsibility", Harvard Business Review. vol. unkown, no. unkown, pp. 5-10.

Matten, D. and Crane, A. 2005, "Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization", Academy of Management Review. vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 166-179.

McClaughry, J. 1972, "Friedman responds", Business & Society Review. vol. Spring72, no. 1, pp. 5-17.

McGuire, J., Sundgren, A., and Schneeweis, T. 1988, "Corporate Social Performance and Firm Financial Performance", Academy of Management Journal. vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 854-872.

McGuire, J., Dow, S., and Argheyd, K. 2003, "CEO incentives and corporate social performance", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 341-359.

McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. 2000, "Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification?", Strategic Management Journal. vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 603-609.

McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. 2001, "Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective", Academy of Management Review. vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 117-127.

McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. 2001, "Profit-maximizing corporate social responsibility", Academy of Management Review. vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 504-505.

McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. 2002, "Additional reflections on the strategic implications of corporate social responsibility", Academy of Management Review. vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 15-16.

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., and Wright, P. M. 2006, "Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications", Journal of Management Studies. vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1-18.

McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. S. 2001, "Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective", Academy of Management Review. vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 117-127.

Mistra 2001, Screening of Screening Companies, Mistra, Stockholm.

Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., and Harris, K. E. 2001, "Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior", Journal of Consumer Affairs. vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 45-72.

90

Mohr, L. A. and Webb, D. J. 2005, "The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses", Journal of Consumer Affairs. vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 121-147.

Montgomery, D. B. & Ramus, C. A. Corporate Social Responsibility: Reputation Effects on MBA Job Choice. 2003.

Moore, G. 2001, "Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the UK supermarket industry", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 34, no. 3-4, pp. 299-315.

Moskowitz, M. R. 1972, "Choosing Socially Responsible Stocks", Business & Society Review. vol. unkown, no. unkown, pp. 71-75.

Mulligan, T. 1986, "A Critique of Milton Friedman's Essay 'The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits'", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 265-269.

Murray, A. 2003, Corporate Social Responsibility in the EU Centre for European Reform (CER), London.

Newburry, W., Gardberg, N. A., and Belkin, L. Y. 2005, "Organizational attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder: the interaction of demographic characteristics with foreignness", Journal of International Business Studies. vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 666-686.

Norman, W. and MacDonald, C. 2004, "Getting to the bottom of "Triple Bottom Line"", Business Ethics Quarterly. vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 243-262.

Orlitzky, M. 2001, "Does firm size confound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance?", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 167-180.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., and Rynes, S. L. 2003, "Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis", Organization Studies. vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 403-441.

Ostas, D. T. 2001, "Deconstructing corporate social responsibility: Insights from legal and economic theory", American Business Law Journal. vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 261-299.

Page, G. 2005, "Corporate reputation: What do consumers really care about?", Journal of Advertising Research. vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 305-313.

Paton, D. and Siegel, D. S. 2005, "The economics of corporate social responsibility: an overview of the special issue", Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 309-312.

Pearce, B. 2003, Sustainability and Business Competitiveness, Department of Trade and Industry, London.

Peloza, J. 2006, "Using corporate social responsibility as insurance for financial performance", California Management Review. vol. 48, no. 2, p. 52-+.

Perrini, F. 2005, "Building a European Portrait of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting", European Management Journal. vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 611-627.

Phillips, M. J. 1996, "How much does corporate theory matter? Response", American Business Law Journal. vol. 34, no. 2, p. 239-&.

Piga, C. 2002, ""Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective" - A few comments and some suggested extensions", Academy of Management Review. vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 13-15.

Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. 2002, "The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy", Harvard Business Review. vol. 80, no. 12, p. 56-+.

Quazi, A. M. and O'Brien, D. 2000, "An Empirical Test of a Cross-national Model of Corporate Social Responsibility", Journal of Busines Ethics. vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 33-51.

Redington, I. 2005, Making CSR Happen - The Contribution of People Management Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

Redman, E. 2005, Three Models of Corporate Social Responsibility, Roosevelt Institution, New York.

Rubbens, C., Monaghan, P., Bonfiglioli, E., & Zadek, S. 2006, Impacts of CSR Reporting, CSR Europe, Brussels.

Ruggie, J. G. 2004, "Reconstituting the Global Public Domain - Issues, Actors, and Practices", European Journal of International Relations. vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 499-531.

Rynes, S. L. and Barber, A. E. 1989, "Applicant Attraction Strategies: An Organisational Perspective", Academy of Management Review. vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 286-310.

Salzmann, O., Ionescu-somers, A., and Steger, U. 2005, "The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability: Literature Review and Research Options", European Management Journal. vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 27-36.

References & Bibliography

91

Schoenberger-Org and McKie, D. 2005, "Sustaining edges: CSR, postmodern play, and SMEs", Public Relations Review. vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 578-583.

Schuler, D. A. and Cording, M. 2006, "A corporate social performance-corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers", Academy of Management Review. vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 540-558.

Schwartz, M. S. 1998, "Peter Drucker and the denial of business ethics", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 17, no. 15, pp. 1685-1692.

Schwartz, M. S. and Carroll, A. B. 2003, "Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach", Business Ethics Quarterly. vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 503-530.

Scott, E. D. 2000, "Moral Values Fit: Do applicants really care?", Teaching Business Ethics. vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 405-435.

Scott, J. T. 2005, "Corporate social responsibility and environmental research and development", Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 313-331.

Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C. B. 2001, "Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility", Journal of Marketing Research. vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 225-243.

Sexty, R. W. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Concept. 2005.

Sharfman M. 1996, " The Construct Validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini Social Performance Ratings Data", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 287-296.

Siegel, D. S. & Vitalino, D. F. An Empirical Analysis of the Strategic Use of Corporate Social Responsibility. Rensselaer Working Paper in Economics . 2006.

Simpson, W. G. and Kohers, T. 2002, "The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 97-109.

Smith, N. C. 2003, "Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how?", California Management Review. vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 52-76.

Snider, J., Hill, R. P., and Martin, D. 2003, "Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the world's most successful firms", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 175-187.

Social Investment Forum 2006, 205 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States, Social Investment Forum, Washington, DC.

Sparkes, R. 2002, "From Corporate Governane to Corporate responsibility: The changing boardroom agenda", Ivey Business Journal. vol. unkown, no. March/April.

Sparkes, R. 2002, Socially Responsible Investment - A Global Revolution John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Sparkes, R. 2003, A Pragmatic Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility London.

Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., and Martinuzzi, A. 2005, "Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: A theoretical exploration of business-society relations", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 263-281.

Stewart, H. & Hesse, D. Corporate UK plays the green card. The Observer , 3. 23-7-2006.

Stitzer, T. Business must loudly proclaim what it stands for. Financial Times , 17. 1-6-2006.

Strom, S. Corporate conscience survey says workers should come first. New York Times , 2. 31-5-2006.

Szekely, F. and Knirsch, M. 2005, "Responsible Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility: Metrics for Sustainable Performance", European Management Journal. vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 628-647.

Tajfel, H. 1979, "Individuals and Groups in Social-Psychology", British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. vol. 18, no. JUN, pp. 183-190.

Tassell, T. Companies weighed down by survey fatigue. Financial Times , 4. 16-4-2003.

Tenser, J. The new Samaritans; Corporate social responsibility grows as marketers find that doing good is good business. Advertising Age [77], 1. 12-6-2006.

Tsoutsoura, M. 2004, Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance, Haas School of Business, Berkeley, California.

Turban, D. B. and Keon, T. 1993, "Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective", Journal of Applied Psychology. vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 184-193.

92

Turban, D. B. and Greening, D. W. 1997, "Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees", Academy of Management Journal. vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 658-672.

Turban, D. B. and Cable, D. M. 2003, "Firm reputations and applicant pool characteristics", Journal of Organizational Behavior. vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 733-751.

Tyler, R. Global suppliers feel ethical pressure. The Daily Telegraph , 1. 20-7-2006.

Ullmann, A. A. 1985, "Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships Among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of US Firms", Academy of Management Review. vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 540-557.

UNEP 2006, Show me the money: Linking Environmental, Social and Governance Issues to Company Value, UNEP, Genève.

Unkown. Study: Good Firms treat employees as partners. Bristol Evening Post , 28. 28-12-2005.

Unkown. A Survey of corporate social responsibility. 22-1-2005.

Unkown. The business of business; Expectations of the company are changing. The Washington Post , 20. 26-6-2006.

Unkown. Sustainability: Rise of the ethical agency. Campaign , 31. 14-7-2006.

Unkown. McDonald's, Tesco an the limits of CSR. Marketing Week , 23. 1-6-2006.

Unkown. Corporate executives touts benefits of social responsibility. States News Service . 26-7-2006.

Valand, T. and Heide, M. 2005, "Corporate Social Responsiveness: Exploring the Dynamics of "Bad Episodes"", European Management Journal. vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 495-506.

Van Buren, H. J. 2005, "An employee-centered model of corporate social performance", Business Ethics Quarterly. vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 687-709.

van de Ven, B. and Jeurissen, R. 2005, "Competing responsibly", Business Ethics Quarterly. vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 299-317.

van Marrewijk, M. 2003, "Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 95-105.

van Marrewijk, M. and Werre, M. 2003, "Multiple levels of corporate sustainability", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 107-119.

Verschoor, C. C. 1998, "A study of the link between a corporation's financial performance and its commitment to ethics", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 17, no. 13, pp. 1509-1516.

Vivian, S., Glover, A., Vahalato, S., Ridley, M., & Morgan, E. 2004, Corporate Environmental Research, Environment Agency, Bristol.

Vogel, D. 2005, The Market for Virtue Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Waddock, S. A. and Graves, S. B. 1997, "The corporate social performance - Financial performance link", Strategic Management Journal. vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 303-319.

Waddock, S. A. 2005, "Corporate Citizens", Journal of Corporate Citizenship. vol. 19, no. Autumn, pp. 20-26.

Walton, C. C. 1982, "Corporate social responsibility: The debate revisited", Journal of Economics and Business. vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 173-187.

Wanous, J. P. 1992, Organizational entry: Managing human resources Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Warhurst, A. 2005, "Future roles of business in society: the expanding boundaries of corporate responsibility and a compelling case for partnership", Futures. vol. 37, no. 2-3, pp. 151-168.

Weiser, J. & Zadek, S. 2001, Ongoing Conversations with Disbelievers: Persuading Busines to address social challenges, AccountAbility, Boston.

Werther, W. B. Jr. and Chandler, D. 2005, "Strategic corporate social responsibility as global brand insurance", Business Horizons. vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 317-324.

Werther, W. B. Jr. & Chandler, D. 2006, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Sage Publications, London.

Whitehouse, L. 2006, "Corporate social responsibility: Views from the frontline", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 279-296.

References & Bibliography

93

Windsor, D. 2001, ""Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective" - Some comments", Academy of Management Review. vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 502-504.

Windsor, D. 2006, "Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches", Journal of Management Studies. vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 93-114.

Wood, D. J. 1991, "Corporate Social Performance Revisited", Academy of Management Review. vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 691-718.

Wood, D. J. 1991, "Toward Improving Corporate Social Performance", Business Horizons. vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 66-74.

Wood, D. J. 1991, "Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate Social Performance", Journal of Management. vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 383-406.

Woodward, D., Edwards, P., and Birkin, F. 2001, "Some Evidence on Executives' views of Corporate Social Responsibility", The British Accounting Review. vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 357-397.

Wry, T. & Deephouse, D. L. An Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Stakeholder Perceptions of Corporate Social Performance. 2005.

Wulfson, M. 2001, "The ethics of corporate social responsibility and philanthropic ventures", Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 29, no. 1-2, pp. 135-145.

Ylagan, A. H. C. Social equity investing. Business World , 1. 10-7-2006.

Zadek, S., Hojensgard, N., & Raynard, P. 2006, Perspectives on the New Economy of Corporate Citizenship The Copenhagen Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Zivin, J. G. and Small, A. 2005, "A Modigliani-Miller Theory of Altrusitics Corporate Social Responsibility", Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy. vol. 5, no. 1.