The Human Right’s Campaign, one of America’s largest civil rights groups, scores companies in its yearly Corporate Equality Index (CEI) according to their treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees . The companies automatically evaluated are the Fortune 1000 and American Lawyer’s top 200. Additionally, any sufficiently large private sector organization can request inclusion in the CEI .
Similarly, Fortune Magazine publishes an annual list of 50 of the world’s most admired companies . Companies are rated by financial health, stock performance, leadership effectiveness, customer sentiment, scandals, and social responsibility.
I became curious whether CEI scores correlate with membership in Fortune’s most admired list, so I matched the two datasets and analyzed the outcome. The results (below) are striking. Code implementing the calculations, with the source data, is attached.
Plotting the CEI score distributions by whether a company was included in Fortune’s list produced:
From this difference in distributions it is clear that the status of being “most admired” correlates with a high CEI score, though there are a few outliers. In the distribution on the left, we see that over 50% of the companies in Fortune’s list held the top CEI score of 100, whereas only 25% of the companies not contained in Fortune’s held the top score. The median score for the most admired group was 100 while for the companies not included in Fortune’s list it is about 80. Over 80% of the most admired companies scored 90 or above. The variance is much wider for the companies not included on the list. Statistical analysis comparing the two groups, detailed below, confirms the correlation.
While correlation does not imply causality, this analysis suggests two things: First, the type of leadership necessary to achieve a high CEI score is the same type of leadership that leads to inclusion in Fortune’s most admired companies group. Second, any company aspiring to membership in the most admired group might consider developing its CEI score.
There is one possible source of bias, but I don’t expect that it is large: “Social responsibility” is used in Fortune’s rankings, which may include CEI scores (I don’t know). However, Fortune’s emphasis on financial health and stock price probably trumps any contribution that the CEI would generate alone. Furthermore, in the CEI score distribution for the most admired companies, there are outliers containing extremely low scores. This suggests that the CEI played little if any role in the selection of most admired companies.
I manually copied and pasted the company names and scores from the CEI online database . Then I cleaned up the results to create a manageable CSV file. Similarly, I copied and pasted the Fortune 50 most admired company list  into another CSV file. After that, I matched the two datasets by hand. Perhaps I could have performed the match algorithmically, but I would have had to worry about different representations of company names between the two datasets, e.g. “3M Co.” vs. “3M”. There was only 50 cases so the manual match did not take long.
Two cases in Fortune’s list had to be excluded, BMW and Singapore Airlines, because they were not included in the CEI, possibly because they are based outside the USA. In the case of two other non-US companies in Fortune’s list, Toyota and Volkswagen, I matched to Toyota Motor Sales USA and Volkswagen Group of America, respectively.
Finally, I plotted the CEI score distributions shown above and performed the statistical analysis reported below using the attached Python code.
The extreme difference in variance between the two groups makes it impossible to compare medians using a non-parametric test, and the distribution of the CEI scores does not lend itself to a clean regression analysis. Therefore I built the following contingency table from the data:
The p-value for this table obtained from Fisher’s exact test is 4.53e-08, indicating that the proportions are significantly different.