The Corporate Rating Sham:

The Case of T-Mobile

Tom Juravich

juravich@lrrc.umass.edu
http://www.umass.edu/lrrc/

Essie Ablavsky

September 11, 2014

WORKING PAPER SERIES

LABOR CENTER

The Corporate Rating Sham: The Case of T-Mobile1

Tom Juravich2 & Essie Ablavsky3

Executive Summary
The U.S. market has witnessed an explosion of corporate rating programs in the last
20 years. We evaluate these rating systems through a case study of T-Mobile. The
firm received at least 47 best of awards from 2011 to 2013, making the company
an excellent candidate for our study. We evaluated these award programs in terms
of selection criteria, the criteria used to evaluate firms, the quality of the data used,
and the independence of the rating program. Our key findings include:
The majority of contests are based on self-nomination, and very few are transparent about how firms are actually selected.
These programs lack transparency in terms of the criteria used for evaluation.
Consequently, several questionable firms have been included in these awards.
Most of the national awards are based on company self-reports with little independent verification of the data.
Many of the firms conducting national evaluations also provide consulting
services to the very companies they are rating. This creates a strong potential
for conflict of interest.
Ratings based on workers surveys typically have low and unrepresentative
response rates, calling into question the validity of the data.
Employers are often responsible for supervising survey data collection, which
may also compromise the validity of the data.
The current rating systems fall short of established best practices in survey
research.
Taken as a whole, these ratings and awards cannot be seen as objective measures of corporate performance. Instead, they are best understood as parts of
marketing programs operating in the guise of contests and competitions.
Rather than evaluating actual company performance, the ratings are a better
indicator of a companys allocations of resources to win awards and its work
to create a facade of good behavior.
Consulting more rigorous and objective measures of corporate social responsibility suggests very different findings than the popular best of contest. At
the same time that T-Mobile was named One of the Worlds Most Ethical
Companies, the highly rated ESG IVA rating gave T-Mobile a CCC rating, the
lowest score possible, further questioning the validity of the best of ratings.

Juravich/Ablavsky

Introduction: The Explosion of Corporate Ratings

The corporate world has come under increasing public scrutiny. Beginning with
the early corporate raiders in the 1980s such as Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky,
through the scandals at WorldCom and Enron, and the failures of Lehman Brothers
and Bear Sterns, corporations have come under the closer watch of shareholders,
activists, and citizens. More than ever, corporations feel under the microscope after
such incidents as the oil spills from the Exxon Valdez and BPs Deepwater Horizon,
the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh, and overwhelming scientific
evidence of the impact of carbon on global warming.
Many companies have responded to this increased scrutiny by developing policies
on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) that have become standard in corporate
documents and annual reports. At the same time, industries and analysts responded with an explosion of new indexes and rating systems for a variety of criteria
such as corporate governance, environmental performance, and supply chain management. These range from the United Nations Global Compact and the Carbon
Disclosure Project to indexes such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the London-based FTSE4Good Index Series, and the KLD (Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini)
Social Rating (now part of MSCI ESG Research).
In addition to these large-scale efforts to evaluate corporate social responsibility, we
have also witnessed the explosion of best of contests that rate corporate performance.4 The two best known are Fortune magazines 100 Best Companies to Work
For,5 and the Ethisphere Institutes Worlds Most Ethical Companies.6 Following
in their footsteps, states, cities, and industries have developed hundreds of awards
and the awards often play a prominent role in their branding and public relations.
Firms play the numbers game, counting how many awards they have won in a
particular year as a metric of their corporate performance and social responsibility.
Given the lack of any long-standing real measures of corporate social responsibility,
and the technical nature of some of the emerging indexes of social responsibility
firms use these popular best of contests as a proxy to demonstrate how well their
firm is doing. They are easy to understand and are part of the larger social trend of
contests and ratings.
Given the growth of both industry- and business-based indexes along with more
popular best of contests, it is important to step back and assess these contests
and ratings. In this research, we scientifically evaluate the criteria, the data, and
the research methods used to determine these scores and ratings. We will examine
these best of contests using the case of a specific company, T-Mobile US (formerly
known as T-Mobile USA, and hereafter referred to as T-Mobile). The company received no fewer than 47 best of awards from 2011 to 2013, which makes it an
excellent case through which to examine the issue of corporate rating programs in
more detail.

The Corporate Rating Sham

T-Mobiles Accolades
Table 1 (page 4) lists the awards that T-Mobile reported winning from 2011 to 20137.
The company lists 11 awards received in 2011, 16 in 2012, and 20 in 2013. Nine of
the awards were received in all three years. A small number of these awards might
be considered national awards examining larger issues of corporate governance and
social responsibility, including the Ethispheres Most Ethical Companies; Top Military Employers, Universums Top Workplaces for Corporate Social Responsibility;
and Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality. The majority of the awards, however,
are state- and city-based awards that rate employee satisfaction at specific company
locations; in T-Mobiles case, these are primarily calls centers. In some locations,
such as Tampa Bay, Birmingham, and Idaho, T-Mobile has remained on the list all
three years. In other locations, such as Richmond (Virginia), Atlanta, and Maine,
they have been on and off the list. Four awards rate specific areas, such as recycling,
Facebook use, and supply chain issues.
In conducting this evaluation, we identified six major deficiencies across these rating systems. First, virtually all of the contests are based on self-nomination. Consequently only a small subset of employers in the industry is evaluated, biasing the
evaluation process. Second, there is little transparency in the criteria used to evaluate firms. Overall, rating firms disclose very little about the methodology of their
rating system, which undermines both the validity and reliability of their findings.
Third, the majority of the rating systems are based on self-reporting by the firms
that are evaluated. Without independent assessment of the data, the objectivity of
the information used for rating firms is seriously called into question. Fourth, many
of the firms conducting the rating contest also act as consultants on branding and
public relations to the very firms they are evaluating. These consulting or potential
consulting relationships, and the lack of arms-length relationships, questions the
objectivity of the rating agency. Fifth, the many ratings based on surveys of workers
have low and unrepresentative response rates. Given that they may be based on a
biased subset of employees, the validity of the data used for evaluation can be questioned. Sixth, the vast majority of rating systems based on employee surveys utilize
data collected by the employer. The lack of involvement of a neutral third party in
data collection calls the validity of these data into question.
Our overall evaluation suggests serious problems with the scientific validity of the
47 awards won by T-Mobile from 2011-2013. Taken as a whole, these rating systems
do not provide objective, verifiable measures of worker satisfaction or Corporate
Social Responsibility at T-Mobile. Instead, our analysis suggests that they are better
understood as part of the marketing and branding efforts of the company. Rather
than objective indicators of T-Mobiles actual performance, the number of awards
they won is a product of the companys efforts to apply for and to maneuver to
win these awards. For T-Mobile to present these awards uncritically as measures of
worker satisfaction and Corporate Social Responsibility is both misleading and un-

Juravich/Ablavsky

ethical. It is even more troubling given that more objective measures of Corporate
Responsibility suggest that T-Mobile rates quite poorly, and among the lowest in its
peer group.

Evaluating the Methods of Corporate Ratings

We examined each award that T-Mobile won from 2011 to 2013 using the follow
criteria:
The selection of firms to be evaluated
The criteria used to evaluate firms
The data that was collected
The manner in which that data was analyzed
The independence of the rating agency
Our detailed evaluation of each of the contests is listed in Appendix 1. In conducting this assessment, six deficiencies emerged that are summarized below.
1. Most Contests Are Based on Self-Nomination
For virtually all the national and many of the state/city contests we evaluated, firms
were included because they nominated themselves. Contest organizers did not began with a list of all relevant firms and rate them all with some sense of comprehensiveness. Instead, in most cases the only firms that were rated were ones that
nominated themselves and, in some cases, paid a fee to be included in this evaluation/contest. This is the case for the two best-known corporate rating systems, Fortune magazines 100 Best Companies to Work For and Ethispheres Worlds Most
Ethical Companies. Equally troubling is that neither system is transparent about
how many firms are actually included in their evaluations. Although we assume
that their rating must be based on thousands of companies, an investigative journalist suggests that the 2013 100 Best Companies to Work For contest by Fortune
is only the best of the 311 that applied.8
State and local contests are typically run by newspapers, many in conjunction with
national organizations such as Workplace Dynamics and other polling firms, and
often begin with general surveys of workers at local firms. In most cases, however,
the firm must get involved to ensure that the response rate from their company
meets some minimum threshold. In essence, this is another form of self-nomination, for only those companies that participate will be included in the final ranking.

The Corporate Rating Sham

Table 1: T-Mobile Awards 201120139

National Awards
1. One of the Worlds Most Ethical Companies

Ethisphere Institute

2011, 2012, 2013

2. A Best Place to Work for LGBT Equality

Human Rights Campaign

2013

3. A Top 100 Military Friendly Employer

G.I. Jobs Magazine

2011, 2012,2013

4. A Top Workplace for Corporate Social Responsibility Universum

2012, 2013

5. A National Top Workplace

Workplace Dynamics

2012

Denver Post

2012, 2013

State/City Awards
6. Workplace Achiever Award for Top

7. A Top Workplace in Tampa Bay, FL - Large Company St. Petersburg Times

Division

2011, 2012, 2013

8. A Top Workplace in Atlanta, GA

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

2011

9. A Best Place to Work

Tampa Bay Business Journal

2011, 2012, 2013

10. A Best Place to Work in Idaho, Large Company

Division

Idaho Business Review

2011, 2012, 2013

11. Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom

Award for New Mexico (Nomination)

Department of Defense

2013

12. A Top Employer in Richmond, VA

TimesDispatch.com

2013

13. A Top Workplace in New Mexico

The Albuquerque Journal

2012, 2013

14. A Best Place to Work in Birmingham, AL

Birmingham Business Journal

2013

15. Sterling Workplace Award in Richmond, VA

Richmond SHRM & Richmond

Chamber of Commerce

2013

16. A Best Place to Work in Birming-ham, AL, Large

Company Division

Birmingham Business Journal

2011, 2012, 2013

17. A Best Place to Work in Maine, Oakland Call Center

Society for Human Resources

ManagementMaine State Council

2013

18. One of the Best Workplaces for Recycling and

Waste Reduction King County

Washington State

2011, 2012, 2013

19. A Best Place to Work in Wichita, KS, Large Business

Category

Wichita Business Journal

2013

20. One of Puerto Ricos Best Employers

2012

21. 100 Best Companies to Work in Oregon, Salem

Call Center

Oregon Business Magazine

2011

22. Green Washington Award, Retail Category, Silver

Placement

Seattle Business Magazine

2013

Other Awards
23. A Top Ten Socially Devoted Brand on Facebook, Q1 Socialbakers

2012, 2013

24. A Marketer of the Year

Direct Marketing Association

2013

25. Green Supply Chain Award Recipient

Supply Chain Distinction Awards 2012

26. Recognized Finalist, Supply Chain Distinction

Award for Operations Excellence

World Trade Group

2012

Juravich/Ablavsky

This practice of self-nomination raises at least two concerns. First, and most important, the rating agency may only be rating a smalland not necessarily representativesubset of all employers. In this way, the selection of firms evaluated may
be biased. For example, one could assume that a peer-group firm must not have
made the list, when in fact it neither competed nor was evaluated. Second, without
knowing the total number of cases selected, it is impossible to know how competitive the contest is. For example, was the company on a list selected from thousands
of firms, or just a few more than are on the list?
2. Lack of Transparency in Selection Criteria
The ratings groups were also surprisingly secretive about the actual criteria that
were used for evaluation. This was equally true for national and state/city ratings.
In determining their list of the most ethical companies, for example, the Ethisphere
Institute initially suggests that their rating system is based on the following criteria:
Ethics and Compliance Program (25%)
Reputation, Leadership, and Innovation (20%)
Governance (10%)
Corporate Citizenship and Responsibility (25%)
Culture of Ethics (20%)
These criteria seem to promise a quite transparent process. However, Ethisphere
suggests the score based on these criteria is just the foundation for the selection
process, used simply to narrow down the entrants to the top percentile of performers in each industry. Thereafter, additional due diligence efforts begin which
may include multiple means of verification as needed and warranted, including
independent research, request for documentation supporting select answers and/
or interviews with company leadership.10 So what initially appears to be based on
specific, transparent criteria, in the end is based on ad hoc evaluation. While verification is important, it is best used to buttress a formal evaluation system, rather
than to create a new, less formal rating system.
Without transparency about the criteria used for evaluation, it is difficult to know
why a particular firm ended up on the Worlds Most Ethnical Companies list, which
in the past has included some questionable firms. According to the investigative
journalist Rich McEachran:
Earlier this year, Kelloggs and PepsiCo were featured in Oxfams Behind the
Brands report on ethical shortfalls, scoring low on commitment to improving
the rights of women and farmers. Neither was given a good rating for transparency. The following month, they were listed as two of the worlds most
ethical companies by the Ethisphere Institute and awarded at a gala dinner
in New York.11

The Corporate Rating Sham

Similar concerns have been raised about Sodexos inclusion on the list.12 As Chris
MacDonald, a former member of Ethispheres advisory panel and a professor of
business ethics, commented, Some of the categorization and terminology used can
be quite vague. You can have a tobacco company appear near the top of a ranking,
awarded just because none of the survey questions asks whether your product kills
your consumers.13
3. Firms Self-Report Without Independent Verification
Equally troubling is that most of the national awards are based primarily on corporate self-reporting. This is the case for the Fortune and Ethisphere ratings, as well as
the Corporate Equality Index on LGBT Equality. Fortune gives no indication that it
engages in supplemental research or verification. The Ethisphere Institute suggests
it has a follow-up procedure in place to monitor responses, but it may be to gather
additional information rather than verifying the data already collected. The Corporate Equality Index suggests a more rigorous verification, although the level of verification is not indicated. These three major ratings are based largely on employer
self-reporting without independent verification.
Corporate governance and CSR ratings suffer from the same problem.14 For example, two of the best-known indexesthe Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the
London-based FTSE4Goodare based on employer self-reports. The massive Carbon Disclosure Project is also rooted largely in employer self-disclosure. In these
ratings, as well as in national best of contests we have reviewed, it will be difficult
to demonstrate scientific validity in the long run without independent verification.
4. Many National Firms Conducting Evaluations also Act as Consultants
Many rating agencies also provide consulting services to the very companies they
are rating, raising serious questions of conflict of interest. Such a conflict is evident
for the two largest and most prestigious awards, Fortune magazines 100 Best Companies to Work For, and the Ethisphere Institutes Worlds Most Ethical Companies.
In examining the Fortune list, the analyst Phillip Mattera suggests, What is most
telling about the Institute website is the amount of space devoted to the promotion
of the services being offered to customers. The way it seems to work is that companies are encouraged to apply for consideration on one of the best-companies lists
and they are urged to purchase services from the Institute.15 Workforce Dynamics,
an organization that compiles a national ranking and coordinates surveys in over
30 citiesincluding several cities where T-Mobile won awardsalso acts as a consultant.
In other aspects of the operations of firms, this kind of conflict of interest is prohibited. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in the wake of the Enron and
WorldCom scandals, requires public companies to have an independent audit of
their internal control practices. While there remains opposition in the business
community, a recent report documents that overall the provisions have been suc-

Juravich/Ablavsky

cessful both to firms and markets.16 The kind of conflict of interest that is widespread in the firms that both rate companies and provide consulting to them on
their brand undermines the validity of their ratings.
Only the Top 100 Military Friendly Employer rating and the Best Place to Work
for LGBT Equality rating are derived from agencies devoted only to rating (i.e., the
agencies do not offer consulting). Both rankings also stand out from the pack in
that their purpose is not to promote business but to provide information and guidance to military consumers and to consumers and potential workers about LGBT
issues. In this way, they represent models of the independence necessary for rating
agencies.
We do not know if rating agencies let their consulting relations with firms affect
their ratings. Yet the lack of an arms length perspective and the potential for undue influence raise important questions about the rating agencies independence.
Additionally, the connection of these rating programs to consultation concerning
branding and CSR suggests that the goal of these contests may be marketing and
generating revenue (from consulting) rather than providing an objective corporate
rating system. Thus, the existence of a consulting relationship (or the possibility of
one) does not inspire confidence in the objectivity of the rating system.
5. Ratings Based on Worker Surveys Typically Have
Low and Unrepresentative Response Rates
Many of the state and local ratings are based on workers surveys. These surveybased ratings go out of their way to suggest that they have surveyed a large number
of employees. In reporting the results of its national survey, Workplace Dynamics
brags that its findings are based on over 1 million responses. Such claims imply that
more responses make for a more valid survey. Based on the accepted practices of
survey research and polling, however, the most important criterion when evaluating a sample is not size but representativeness.
Survey researchers define the population as the universe about which they seek to
study or wish to generalize. The sample is a subset of the population selected for
study. Survey researchers typically stratify samples to ensure they are representative
of the population. For example, in national polls conducted by news organizations,
researchers use stratification or quota sampling to ensure that their sample has the
same demographic proportions as the population. They also work hard to ensure
that all members selected complete the survey. If the sample is representative and
the response rates high, a relatively small sample can be used to make a valid inference to the population. Typically these kinds of surveys sample between 500 and
1,200 individuals depending on what confidence interval is desired. Two types of
errors can take place in the process of sampling. Coverage error results when not every individual in the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample. Sampling error results when data is collected from some subset of the sample.17

The Corporate Rating Sham

In its survey, Workplace Dynamics typically requires a set number of responses to

the survey based on firm size. That number might be adequate if it was a representative sample. But this approach to survey research fails to draw a representative
samplea subset of the total number of employees in the firm. Instead, it simplye
surveys the entire population. Such a method reduces the coverage error in that all
workers have the opportunity to participate in the survey. However, it maximizes
sampling error because not all workers will respond to the survey. No matter how
large the response rates, unless it approaches 100% of the employees, we cannot be
sure that it is representative. If the number of responses is a quarter or a tenth of
all those employed at the workplace, we have no way of knowing if these responses
are typical or are most likely individuals who feel strongly about the firm or have
some reason to participate. This method does not generate valid data generalizable
to the population.
6. Employers Are Often Responsible for Supervising Survey Data Collection
One of the other concerns we have identified from our evaluation of ratings based
on surveys of workers, is that the data collection is typically coordinated by employers and not by neutral third parties. For example, in the Workplace Dynamics
surveys at the national and state/local level, the employer must ensure the company meets the threshold necessary for a minimum sample size. This raises two
potential issues in terms of the validity of the data. First, if workers know that the
company is coordinating the survey, then individuals with more negative views of
the firm would be more likely not to complete the survey, fearing reprisal. Survey
respondents may be skeptical of guarantees of confidentiality, particularly in this
very anti-worker and anti-union time period, and decide not to respond, biasing
the overall results. Second, employers may be sending subtle or not so subtle cues
to workers about the importance of the company scoring highly, which may also
bias the responses.

Science or Marketing?
Table 2 (page 8) lists the deficiencies we identified for each of the 47 awards won
by T-Mobile from 2011 to 2013. These findings suggest serious questions about the
scientific validity of the awards the company received.
Most were initiated by employers who were also the primary source of information.
Given the lack of transparency, we do not know how many firms took part in these
competitions, whether employer self-reports were verified using other data, or what
exact categories were used in determining these scores. Equally troubling is that a
significant number of these awards were given out by organizations that also act as
consultants, bringing into question their objectivity. Rating systems based on workers surveys are rarely based on representative samples and the administration of
these surveys by employers has the potential for biasing the results.

10

Juravich/Ablavsky

Se
lfSe
lec
No
tio
Tr
n
an
sp
Se
a re
lfRe
nc
p
y
Co
or
t
ns
ult
an
Re
sp
t
on
s
Em
e
plo Rate
ye
rD
ata

Table 2: T-Mobile Awards 20112013

and their Deficiencies

National Awards

Deficiencies

1. One of the Worlds Most Ethical Companies

2. A Best Place to Work for LGBT Equality

3. A Top 100 Military Friendly Employer

4. A Top Workplace for Corporate Social Responsibility

5. A National Top Workplace

X
X

6. Workplace Achiever Award for Top

7. A Top Workplace in Tampa Bay, FL - Large Company Division

8. A Top Workplace in Atlanta, GA

9. A Best Place to Work

10. A Best Place to Work in Idaho, Large Company Division

X
X

State/City Awards

11. Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award

12. A Top Employer in Richmond, VA

13. A Top Workplace in New Mexico

14. A Best Place to Work in Birmingham, AL

15. Sterling Workplace Award in Richmond, VA

16. A Best Place to Work in Birmingham, AL, Large Company Division

17. A Best Place to Work in Maine, Oakland Call Center

18. One of the Best Workplaces for Recycling and Waste Reduction
19. A Best Place to Work in Wichita, KS, Large Business Category

X
X

20. One of Puerto Ricos Best Employers

21. 100 Best Companies to Work in Oregon, Salem Call Center

X
X

22. Green Washington Award, Retail Category, Silver Placement

Other Awards
23. A Top Ten Socially Devoted Brand on Facebook, Q1

24. A Marketer of the Year

25. Green Supply Chain Award Recipient

26. Recognized Finalist, Supply Chain Distinction Award

X
X

The Corporate Rating Sham

11

Taken as a whole, these rating cannot be seen as objective measures of T-Mobiles

performance in areas of Corporate Social Responsibility or worker satisfaction. They
list these awards as if the number of contests won is an indicator of their actual
performance as a corporation. Our research suggests that the number of awards a
company receives may actually be a better indicator of how the company allocates
resources and maneuvers to win awards. Given that almost all the rating systems we
reviewed were based on self-nomination where firms supply their own data, companies like T-Mobile can boost their numbers simply by applying for more awards.
In this way, our analysis suggests that these rating systems are not objective measures of company performance but are best understood as part of marketing efforts.
Emerging business literature reinforces this connection with rating contests and
marketing. This is clear in the title of Janine Popicks article, Industry Awards Create Buzz for Your Business: Learn How to Pick the Right Awards, and How to Market
Your Success.18 Popick is not suggesting that you build a company with the highest standard of corporate social responsibility, but only that you chose the right
awards to improve your marketing. Johnny Torrance-Nesbsitt concurs: An important component of any firms Employment Branding Strategy must include going after and winning various Best Place to Work/Employer of Choice Awards.19
These best of surveys are part of the growing use of spot surveyssometimes
referred to as pulse surveysin marketing.
We do not suggest that firms restrain from marketing. Indeed, marketing is part of
the life-blood of a firm. Rather, we suggest that marketing in the guise of a legitimate contest is both misleading and unethical.

An Alternative Corporate Rating System

An alternative to these more marketing-driven corporate rating systems is the framework created by the analyst community to evaluate Corporate Social Responsibility.
MSCI ESG Research, one of the most highly respected measurers of CSR, provides
research, analysis and ratings concerning the environmental, social and governance (ESG)related business practices of more than 5,000 global companies.20
MSCI indexes are not based on employer self-reports and are highly respected in
the investor community.
One of their most popular measures is their Intangible Value Assessment (IVA).
IVA measures and analyzes companies risk and opportunities arising from environmental, social, and governance issues. IVA scores rank company management
on key issues relative to sector peers using a best-in-class ratings system, on a seven
point scale from AAACCC.21 Rather than trying to squeeze all issues of Corporate
Social Responsibility into a single index, MSCI provides several distinct measures.22
At the same time that T-Mobile was winning an increasing number of awards, MSCI
rated T-Mobiles overall IVA score as CCC in 2013, the lowest score given to a com-

12

Juravich/Ablavsky

pany. In an updated report issued March 25, 2014, MSCI ESG moved T-Mobile up
one notch to an overall BB IVA rating. It noted that this was largely due to the
influence of Deutsche Telekom (DT), T-Mobiles parent company in Germany.23
However, in the 2014 report MSCI ESG reiterated significant concerns about corporate governance, writing that T-Mobile has a poison pill in place...shareholders
cannot call special meetings, cannot act by written consent, and a super majority
is required to change any bylaws.24 Some new concerns, however, also appear. In
the labor management area of the report MSCI ESG states, The company performs
poorly compared to its peers, amid repeated allegations of union-busting activities
in the U.S. They also cite the results of a survey conducted by the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the labor federation UNI Global Union, which
state, 46% percent of T-Mobile US workers had experienced harassment in the
workplace.25
To conduct a thorough assessment of T-Mobiles corporate governance and corporate social responsibility we would need to do much more than consult the ESG IVA
rating. Yet this brief analysis raises further doubts about the validity of the more
popular best employer ratings. At the same time that the Ethisphere Institute was
including T-Mobile as One of the Worlds Most Ethical Companies, ESG gave the
company the lowest score (CCC) in terms of their overall corporate governance.
From a scientific perspective, as we have seen, the ESG IVA data is far superior to
that collected by the Ethisphere Institute.

Conclusions: Beyond the Corporate Rating Game

This review of the 47 awards that T-Mobile won from 2011 to 2013 raises deep concerns about their scientific validity. The selection process, the criteria used and the
method and kinds of data collected fall far short of the established best practices
in polling and survey research. Given the corporate rating systems connection to
consulting practices, many of the surveys in their current form are more appropriately seen as part of marketing and do not represent efforts at scientific evaluation
of a firms performance.
Consequently, we have little confidence that these awards are true measures of TMobiles Corporate Social Responsibility. Our examination of more objective data
used by the analyst community suggest that far from being award winning, T-Mobile is far below average in the industry and among the lowest in terms of their U.S.based peer group on several measures of company performance.
Given the myriad ways in which these rating systems fall short of established practices in polling and survey research, a number of changes would need to be made
to conform to current industry practices.
Rating agencies need to be transparent in terms of how many companies apply to the contest and how many were considered in developing rankings.

The Corporate Rating Sham

13

The criteria used by rating agencies in evaluation should be transparent, including full disclosure of rating systems and any questionnaires used.
Rating agencies should make a full disclosure of all scores for winner and losers.
When ratings are based on workers experiences, rating agencies should develop survey methods that ensure representative samples.
The collection of data should not be supervised by the employer, but by a
third party at arms-length from the firm.
Organizations conducting ratings should not be allowed to provide consulting services on the very issues on which they are rating firms.

14

Juravich/Ablavsky

Appendix 1: A Summary of T-Mobile Awards and the

Methods by Which They Were Determined

National / Regional Awards

1. One of the Worlds Most Ethical CompaniesEthisphere Institute, 2011,
2012, 2013, http://ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/wme-honorees/
Companies self-nominate for this award, and complete Ethispheres extensive questionnaire online.26 The survey covers demographic details of the company, reputation, innovation, and leadership. It also focuses on corporate governance, compliance, and ethics programs as well as auditing and monitoring of these programs.
These questions, largely about corporate policy, constitute a very significant portion of the survey, which is followed by a smaller number of questions about sustainability.
Ethispheres Worlds Most Ethical (WME) Companies has a Methodology Advisory
Panel comprising leading attorneys and government officials, professors and organization leaders who care about ethical and honest business practices.27 The Methodology Advisory Panel is only involved in reviewing and commenting on WMEs
Methodology and is not involved in selecting companies.
The scoring is based on Ethispheres proprietary rating system, the corporate Ethics
Quotient (EQTM). It is based on the following categories:
Ethics and Compliance Program (25%)
Reputation, Leadership, and Innovation (20%)
Governance (10%)
Corporate Citizenship and Responsibility (25%)
Culture of Ethics (20%)
Ethisphere notes that although the EQ score is the foundation for the WME selection process, the score is used simply to narrow down the entrants to the top percentile of performers in each industry. Afterward, additional due diligence efforts
begin which may include multiple means of verification as needed and warranted, including independent research, request for documentation supporting select
answers and/or interviews with company leadership.28 While verification is important, it is best used to buttress a formal evaluation system, rather than creating a
new less formal rating system.
The EQ of awardees is not made public. It is also impossible to tell how awardees
performed in each individual category. Additionally, the verification process that
Ethisphere employs after its initial evaluation of a companys survey is not transparent. In short, it is difficult to know why any given company received a WME award.

The Corporate Rating Sham

15

In addition to compiling these ratings on firms, Ethisphere also provides consulting services on CSR compliance. Its programs include Ethics Inside Certification,
Compliance Leader Verification, and Anti-Corruption Program Verification.
Since Ethisphere is in the business of providing ethics certification to the very firm
it is rating, this raises significant questions about how it can act as an objective
evaluator of ethics performance.
2. A Best Place to Work for LGBT EqualityHuman Rights Campaign,
2013, http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/corporate-equality-index
Since 2002 the Human Rights Campaign has been annually calculating the Corporate Equality Index on Since 2002, the Human Rights Campaign has been annually
calculating the Corporate Equality Index on LGBT Equality. The campaign invites
major firms to participate, including Fortune magazines 1,000 largest publicly
traded businesses and American Lawyer magazines top 200 revenue-grossing law
firms. Any private-sector for-profit employer with 500 or more full-time U.S. employees can also apply. According to their annual report, A total of 1,923 received
invitations to take part in the survey. Of that number, 574 submitted surveys, and
734 were officially rated.29
The Human Rights Campaign rates companies in three basic areas of compliance:
Have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination protections
explicitly included in all of its operations, both within the United States and
globally.
Require U.S. contractors to abide by companies existing inclusive nondiscrimination policy.
Implement internal requirements prohibiting company/law firm philanthropic giving to nonreligious organizations that have a written policy of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Based on these three criteria, the Human Rights Campaign has developed an extensive questionnaire that rates firms in a number of specific areas. The Corporate
Equality survey completed by individual companies is the primary source of the
data. It recommends, A team of researchers investigates and cross-checks the policies and practices of the rated businesses and the implications of those policies and
practices for LGBT workers, including any connections with organizations that engage in anti-LGBT activities. Employers are not rated until all appropriate information has been gathered and verified to the extent possible. Based on these data, the
campaign compiles a list of firms that score 100%. In 2013, that list had 304 firms.
It included T-Mobile, along with AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon.
The Corporate Equality Index on LGBT Equality is the strongest corporate rating
that we have evaluated. It is transparent about the number of firms it evaluated as
well as its criteria for evaluation, and there is at least some indication that research-

16

Juravich/Ablavsky

ers seek to verify self-reports. The Human Rights Campaign also does not act as a
corporate consultant on issues of corporate governance or social responsibility.
3. A Top 100 Military Friendly Employer, G.I. Jobs Magazine,
2011, 2012, 2013, http://employers.militaryfriendly.com/
According to the G.I. Jobs website: Our rankings of the Top 100 Military Friendly
Employers are based on a survey of over 100 questions which assesses a companys
long-term commitment to hiring former military, recruiting, and hiring efforts and
results, policies for Reserve/Guard members called to active duty, and the presence
of special recruitment military programs. See methodology table below. Corporate
America has a voracious appetite for hiring military. The pool of companies eligible
for our list is approximately 5,000 (minimum of $500 million in annual revenues).
Only 2 percent make the Top 100 list. These companies are listed in rank order,
within the Ranked Top 100 Employers section of our site. The methodology table
on the magazines website indicates the weighting per criterion.
Survey Question Categories

Weighting

Recruiting Effort (resources and policies)

35%

Recruiting Results

24%

Number of Years on the List

11%

Guard and Reserve Policies

10%

Retention

10%

Internal Programs / Community Outreach

10%

G.I. Jobs states that the survey results used to compile the 2013 lists were independently tested by Ernst & Young LLP based upon the weightings and methodology
established by Victory Media.30
In 2013, telecommunication companies were ranked as follows: Verizon (#3), AT&T
(#15), and T-Mobile (#66). One thing that sets this rating contest apart from most
of the others we have evaluated is that it is not designed to promote businesses
but instead is focused on providing information for the military consumer. This
arms-length perspective suggests a stronger validity for this rating system. One
potential problem, however, is that although Victory Media states that 5,000 firms
are eligible to compete in these ratings, it does not provide any information on how
many actually applied. Consequently, this raises questions about the validity of the
findings, considering how firms self-select for this award.
4. A Top Workplace for Corporate Social ResponsibilityUniversum,
2012, 2013, http://universumglobal.com/ideal-employer-rankings/
According to its website, Every year, Universum asks students to select the employers they would consider working for and then choose the employers they would
most like to work for, i.e., the companies that they perceive as being ideal. Uni-

The Corporate Rating Sham

17

versums Ideal Employer Rankings reveal which companies are the most popular to
work for. The Universum Student Survey is conducted every year around the world
and students of all years of study are targeted at the top academic institutions.31
Universum uses these students preferences to compile a series of Top 100 firms in
a variety of disciplines.
In 2013 the company surveyed 20,812 business students in the United States and
in addition to the Top 100 firms in business, it also complied scores for a Top 10 in
terms of corporate social responsibility. 32 Winners included:
1. Phillips 66
2. T-Mobile
3. City Year
4. Aflac
5. American Cancer Society
6. DOW Chemical
7. United State Postal Service
8. Johnson & Johnson
9. The Home Depot
10. Peace Corps
This list reveals the real weakness of Universums rating system. Despite the large
number of surveys conducted, the rating is based on the perceptions of students
who have no direct experience with the company they are evaluating. In essence,
this is a popularity contest. While some of the companies may be reviewed in
course materials, their ratings are based on impressions of firms in the media and
corporate advertising as well. Consequently, this results in a very odd list of the
Top 10 firms in terms of Corporate Social Responsibility. To begin with, a number
of those listed are not, in fact, private companies. The United State Postal Service is
an independent agency of the federal government. City Year, the American Cancer
Society, and the Peace Corps are nonprofit organizations. Universums polling may
reveal where students want to work, but it does not provide us with a valid measure
of CSR.
Universums rating system is further compromised because the firm offers consulting on branding and communications to the very same firms it is rating.
5. A National Top WorkplaceWorkplace Dynamics,
LLC, 2012, http://www.topworkplaces.com/
Workplace Dynamics is a consulting firm that partners with 30 publications across
the United States to run regional best employer contests based on employee surveys. The firm conducted research in Denver, Tampa Bay, and Atlanta, where T-Mobile also won awards (see below). Workplace Dynamics pools that individual data,
and also allows companies to apply directly for consideration, to create its national
Top Workplaces program. For 2012, we evaluated approximately 5,000 organiza-

18

Juravich/Ablavsky

tions in total, which included 872 companies with more than 1,000 employees nationwide. Top Workplaces evaluation is based purely on the results of an employee
survey. For the National Top Workplaces list we aggregated all the employee survey
data for the 872 companies with over 1,000 U.S. employees and looked at them on
a national basis.33
The survey contains 22 questions and allows employers to add five questions of
their own. The basic questionnaire is not disclosed, so we have no way to evaluate
the questions asked. By partnering up with employers, such as other national ratings agencies, Workplace Dynamics also acts as consultant to firms it is evaluating,
which draws into question its objectivity.
Workplace Dynamics emphasizes the large number of responses for its surveys. The
firm suggests that its national ratings are based on more than 1 million surveys that
represent 1 out of 88 of the workers at the firms rated by its surveys. For national
rankings, Workplace Dynamics requires at least 350 survey responses. While the
large numbers may look impressive, there is no indication that the sample is representative.
6. Workplace Achiever Award for Top WorkplacesDenver Post,
2012, 2013, http://www.denverpost.com/topworkplaces
In the Denver Posts 2012 Top Workplaces contest, surveys were filled out by
roughly 25,600 employees of 178 companies and other organizations based, or with
offices in, the Denver area. One hundred employers were chosen to be ranked. Employers with 85 or fewer local employees were required to have at least 30 responders. The company reports that of about 54,900 workers at all of the employers,
roughly 39,000 were invited to fill out surveys and about 25,600 did so. T-Mobile
was ranked 13th out of 30 midsize employers. In 2013, T-Mobile met the national
standard as a Top Workplace, but did not score high enough to make the Top 100.
The Top Workplaces program for the Denver Post was coordinated by Workplace
Dynamics. For more on their methodology see the discussion in #5 above.
7. A Top Workplace in Tampa Bay, FL, Large Company Division
St. Petersburg Times, 2011, 2012, 2013, http://www.tampabay.com/
specials/2012/reports/best-places-to-work-in-Tampa-Bay/
To be eligible, a company must employ at least 50 employees in the Tampa Bay
area. If a company has less than 2,500 employees in the region, it must offer the
survey to a minimum of 500 employees; if a company employs 2,500 to 5,000 employees in the region it needs to offer the survey to a minimum of 20% of employees; and if it has over 5,000 employees in the region it needs to offer the survey to
a minimum of 1,000 employees. A 35% response rate is required to be considered
for a Top Workplaces designation. For organizations with less than 85 employees,
30 survey responses are required.

The Corporate Rating Sham

19

In 2012, 33,838 employees at 132 bay area companies were surveyed and approximately 23,000 employees responded. The Top Workplaces designation is divided
into large, medium, and small employers to allow for more accurate comparisons.
T-Mobile, Inc., ranked 14 out of 15 large employers. No other telecommunication
companies were on the list. In 2013, when T-Mobile was again listed as a top place
to work, it was the only large telecommunication company on the list.
The Tampa Bay Times partnered with Workplace Dynamics to conduct the study.
For more on their methodology see the discussion in #5 above.
8. A Top Workplace in Atlanta, GAThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
2011, http://www.topworkplaces.com/frontend.php/regional-list/map/ajc
More than 1,200 companies were nominated or asked to participate in the 2013
contest by the AJC and its partner, Workplace Dynamics. For more on their methodology see the discussion in #5 above. Workplace Dynamics then surveyed 183
metropolitan Atlanta companies that agreed to participate. Each company required
a survey response rate of at least 35% for employees based in metro Atlanta. More
than 49,000 metro workers participated in the survey. The resulting Top 100 list
consisted of 20 large companies (500 or more employees), 30 midsize companies
(150499 employees) and 50 small companies (149 or fewer employees).
9. A Best Place to WorkTampa Bay Business Journal, 2011, 2012,
2013, http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/event/78021
The Tampa Bay Business Journals Best Places to Work Award is coordinated by
Quantum Workplace, which serves more than 5,000 organizations annually through
employee engagement surveys, action-planning tools, leadership assessment, and
employer of choice recognition. Quantum Workplace provides its survey to companies for free, but survey customization and advanced reporting are available for a
fee. The survey contains 40 questions and assesses 10 areas of engagement. Quantum Workplace manages the Best Places to Work Award in partnership with American City Business Journals and various other organizations, such as associations,
chambers of commerce, and corporate sponsors. In this survey, no information is
provided about how many workplaces were surveyed, how many employees were
surveyed, or the response rate. This makes the scope of the survey highly suspect.
Quantum Workplace is also a consultancy, providing a potential conflict of interest.
10. A Best Place to Work in Idaho, Large Company DivisionIdaho Business
Review, 2011. 2012, 2013, https://www.bestplacestoworkinidaho.com/honorees
In 2012, T-Mobile placed fifth in this contest and selected among large employers
in 2013. The Best Places to Work in Idaho is collaboration between POPULUS and
the Idaho Business Review. POPULUS is a strategic marketing and human resources
research and consulting company. It provides many different types of services to
companies including business development research, pricing studies, branding, and
employee research. Companies can purchase additional services related to their sur-

20

Juravich/Ablavsky

vey results. POPULUS has served several telecommunication clients, but T-Mobile
is not listed among them.
In the Best Places to Work in Idaho survey, there is no breakdown of the number
of participating companies and employees. All employees, from top management
to entry-level, are eligible to take the survey. Minimum survey completion rates for
eligibility for an award vary:
50 or fewer employees: 80%
51 to 250 employees: 60%
251 to 500 employees: 40%
500 or more employees: 20%
Employees evaluate employers based on the following criteria:
Compensation and Benefits
Employee Growth and Development
Work-Life Balance
Workplace Environment
Company Management.
Employee responses are tabulated and combined to create an Index of Excellence
for each of the five dimensions of employee satisfaction. These indexes are used to
select the winners and rank the Top Ten organizations in each size category.
As with many of the other state-based awards program, we have concerns about
how employees are sampled and how representative the sample is. POPULUS also
offers consulting services, which could create at least an appearance of conflict of
interest. Managers are also included in the survey, which may also affect the results.
11. Nominated for Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award for
New MexicoU.S. Government, 2013, http://www.freedomaward.mil/NewsView.
aspx?cphMainContent_LeftColumn_News1_grdNewsChangePage=7
The Freedom Award website states: The Secretary of Defense Employer Support
Freedom Award is the highest recognition given by the U.S. Government to employers for their support of their employees who serve in the Guard and Reserve.
Nominations must come from a Guard or Reserve member who is employed by the
organization they are nominating, or from a family member. The award was created
to publicly recognize employers who provide exceptional support to their Guard
and Reserve employees. It is the highest in a series of employer recognition awards
given by the Department of Defense.
The first award was given in 1996, and a total of 190 employers have received it
since then. Each year, 15 awards are presented to employers in three categories:
large business, small business, and the public sector. Any Guard or Reserve service

The Corporate Rating Sham

21

member can nominate their employer, and the employer must be the service members current employer.
Nominations go to a review committee in the companys state. Once the nomination period closes, the state selects semifinalists to move forward. A review board at
HQ ESGR, a Department of Defense agency, considers all semifinalists for selection
to the next round (finalists). The group of finalists goes before a National Selection
Board comprising senior Department of Defense officials, representatives from each
of the seven Reserve Components, employer associations, and past recipients of the
Freedom Award. This selection committee makes recommendations for up to 15
recipients to the Secretary of Defense for final approval.
The exact selection criteria are not given, and there is no indication of how many
companies are nominated. This makes it difficult to assess the validity of the survey
methodology.
12. A Top Employer in Richmond, VATimesDispatch.com, 2013, http://
www.timesdispatch.com/business/local/top-50-employers/
In 2013, T-Mobile ranked 49 out of 50 for the Top Employer in Richmond, VA
award. No information was available about the methodology of this contest.
13. A Top Workplace in New Mexico, No. 4The Albuquerque Journal, 2012, 2013,
http://www.abqjournal.com/151989/biz/survey-seeks-to-find-top-workplaces.html
In 2012, The Albuquerque Journal reached out to 700 companies and organizations
around New Mexico to participate in the survey. Any organizationprivate, public,
or governmentwith 35 or more employees in New Mexico can participate. The
Top Workplace contest is coordinated by Workplace Dynamics. It therefore exhibits the same methodological defects as the other Workplace Dynamics awards.
For more on their methodology see the discussion in #5 above.
14. A Best Place to Work in Birmingham, ALBirmingham Business
Journal, 2011, 2012, 2013, http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/
blog/2013/06/birminghams-best-places-to-work-for.html
This survey was conducted for the Birmingham Business Journal by Quantum Workplace. T-Mobiles Birmingham Call Center rated #2 in 2013. For more on their methodology see the discussion in #9 above. In this survey, no information is provided
about how many workplaces were surveyed, how many employees were surveyed,
or the response rate. This makes the scope of the survey highly suspect. Quantum
Workplace is also a consultancy, meaning there is a potential conflict of interest.
15. Sterling Workplace Award in Richmond, VARichmond SHRM &
Richmond Chamber of Commerce, 2013, http://www.timesdispatch.com/
business/economy/article_2d1d5e0e-3a9e-5c54-8df6-7e2426eff44e.html
According to the Times-Dispatch website, The Sterling Workplace Awards, the former Employer All Star Awards, highlight employers who excel in employee engage-

22

Juravich/Ablavsky

ment, encourage community involvement, promote diversity and inclusion, and

support employee development. The awards are sponsored by Richmond SHRM, a
chapter of the national Society for Human Resource Management, with the Greater
Richmond Chamber and the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The top executives at each
of the 11 finalist companies were asked to describe in 100 words or less what makes
their workplaces sterling.34
The award includes four categories of employers:
Small companies with up to 99 employees
Medium companies with 100 to 499 employees
Large companies with 500 to 999 employees
Mega companies with 1,000 or more employees
Scoring was based on the results of a survey conducted by Radford University, in
which at least 60% of employees at each company participated. Respondents addressed 65 items intended to assess the upper levels of organizational management
and the attention given to employee focus, motivation, and development. A group
of faculty and graduate students from Radford Universitys Industrial/Organizational Psychology department voluntarily donated their time to develop and administer the surveys, and analyze and score the results.
This award is based on self-nomination, and it is unclear how many companies
participate. Furthermore, there is no detailed information about the contents of the
survey and how it is scored.
16. A Best Place to Work in Birmingham, AL, No. 2, Large Company Division
Birmingham Business Journal, 2011, 2012, 2013, http://www.bizjournals.
com/birmingham/blog/2013/05/birminghams-best-places-to-work-for.html
This survey was conducted for the Birmingham Business Journal by Quantum Workplace. T-Mobiles Birmingham Call Center rated # 2 in 2013. For more on their
methodology see the discussion in #9 above. In this survey, no information is provided about how many workplaces were surveyed, how many employees were surveyed, or the response rate. This makes the scope of the survey highly suspect.
Quantum Workplace is also a consultancy, meaning there is a potential conflict of
interest.
17. A Best Place to Work in Maine, No. 11, Oakland Call CenterSociety for Human
Resources Management Maine State Council, 2013, http://www.bestplacestoworkinme.
com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=1
To be eligible for consideration, companies must meet the following criteria:
For-profit or not-for-profit business or government entity
Publicly or privately held business
Have a facility in the state of Maine

The Corporate Rating Sham

23

Minimum of 15 full- or part-time permanent employees working in the state

of Maine*
Be in business a minimum of 1 year
To ensure credibility, organizations surveying 15 to 24 employees must have an 80%
or better response rate on the employee survey. Temporary or seasonal employees,
per diem employees, PRN, independent contractors / 1099 employees, volunteers,
interns, consultants, or employees placed with other organizations are not eligible.
There are sizeable fees associated with participating in this survey. It costs nearly
$1,000 to survey a workplace of less than 100 employees. Therefore, it is questionable how representative these employers really are.
18. One of the Best Workplaces for Recycling and Waste ReductionKing
County, Washington State, 2011, 2012, 2013, http://your.kingcounty.
gov/solidwaste/garbage-recycling/best-workplaces-2013.asp
The Best Workplace for Recycling and Waste Reduction award recognizes local businesses in King County, Washington. Businesses are invited to apply for recognition.
The countys website states, King County locations return for their third year as
Best Workplaces for Waste Prevention and Recycling. Nationwide, T-Mobiles most
successful printer optimization program resulted in eliminating more than 1,700
printers, which led to a 30 percent reduction in paper use. A receipt reduction program at retail stores resulted in a paper reduction of 35 percent. They continue to
recycle handsets and accessories at all stores and have collected close to one million
handsets.35
Several issues emerge in evaluating this award. We know that businesses are invited
to apply for recognition but we have no indication of the number of submissions
or rejections. There is also no information on the criteria used to determine this
award. From the text describing the award, it appears that T-Mobile is being evaluated primarily for what the company does on a national level, although without
knowing more about the actual criteria used, it is difficult to access.
19. A Best Place to Work in Wichita, KS, Large Business Category
Wichita Business Journal, 2013, http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/
morning_call/2013/12/meet-wichitas-best-places-to-work.html
In 2013 the Wichita Business Journal presented 10 Best Place to Work awards to
small employers, 10 to medium-sized employers, and seven to large employers, of
which T-Mobile was one. Employees themselves choose the Best Places to Work
by participating in a survey administered by Quantum Workplace. The goal of the
program is to find companies whose benefits, policies and practices are among the
best in the region.36 For an explanation of the Quantum Workplace methodology,
see the discussion in #9.

24

Juravich/Ablavsky

20. Recognized as One of Puerto Ricos Best Employers, 2012

No information on this award was available.
21. 100 Best Companies to Work in Oregon, Oregon Business Journal,
2011, http://www.oregonbusiness.com/100-best-companies-2011\
Private and public companies, nonprofits, and government agencies with a minimum of 15 employees are invited to participate in this contest, which segments
employees into different categories by size and type of employer. In 2011, the Oregon Business Journal surveyed nearly 14,000 Oregon workers who rated 263 employers in the following categories:
Benefits and compensation (health coverage, fitness and wellness, retirement
plan, compensation, employee retention)
Work environment (scheduling, diversity, family balance, teamwork, fun,
technology, community work, policies and procedures)
Decision-making and trust (collaboration and cooperation, creativity, trust
and openness, organizational pride, ethical standards)
Performance management (performance feedback and goals, employee accountability, rewards and acknowledgement)
Career development and learning (opportunities, promotions, employee
training, educational support, management diversity and communications)
This data is supplemented by an employer benefits survey including information
on health and wellness, time off, family-friendly policies, work scheduling, incentives, retirement plans, and culture. The employee survey makes up 5/6 of a companys score with the remaining 1/6 allocated to the employer benefit survey. One
of the strengths of this rating system is that it combines both worker evaluations
with an evaluation of company benefits.
The weakness of this rating system is how the surveys are conducted. First executives and owners are eligible to participate in the worker survey, although temporary and contract workers cannot. Furthermore, the threshold for sample size of
just 12 employees, or 10% of the Oregon workforce, is a quite low and is not likely
to yield a representative sample. The overall response rate for the annual surveys
is not disclosed, and it should also be noted that this is one of the few awards that
charges for their best-of list.
22. Green Washington Award, Retail Category, Silver PlacementSeattle Business
Magazine, 2013, http://seattlebusinessmag.com/article/2013-green-washington-awards
This is one of a family of awards given by Seattle Business magazine. It is an award
given to the 50 companies and organizations in Washington State considered to
be among the most environmentally aware and actively committed to sustainable
business practices.37 This list expands on the Green Washington Awards sponsored

The Corporate Rating Sham

25

by the magazine since 2009. Seattle Business summarizes the factors that led to TMobiles selection.
The companys PC Power Management project automatically powers down
all of its retail computers overnight and has saved almost 2 million pounds
of CO2 in its first year of operation. An ambitious overhaul of product packaging will eliminate plastic inserts, VOC finishes, petroleum-based inks and
adhesives by the end of 2014. T-Mobile has recycled more than one million
handsets at its retail stores and all of the companys buildings at its Factoria
headquarters are being retrofitted to achieve at least LEED Silver certification.38
It is clear from this description that the awards is based on what T-Mobile does
nationwide and not just at its Washington facilities. Only very general criteria are
specified in terms of this award, and there is no indication of how firms are selected
for this award.

Other Awards
23. A Top Ten Socially Devoted Brand on FacebookSocialbakers, 2012,
2013, http://www.socialbakers.com/blog/1309-socially-devoted-q4-resultsout-t-mobile-usa-trounces-at-t-in-customer-care-on-facebook
This is a new contest organized by Socialbakers, a provider of analytic tools, statistics, and metrics for social media, which rates a firms response rate and time to
customers Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. No additional information is available
on the rating system. The firm also sells the ability for a company to monitor its
own and its competitors performance on social media as well as other consulting
options.
24. A Marketer of the YearDirect Marketing Association,
2013, http://thedma.org/marketer-of-the-year/
The company website provides a very short description of this award. Established
in 1968, the DMA Marketer of the Year Award accolade honors the achievement,
innovation, and inspiring leadership of an individual or company whose work represents the very best in data-driven marketing industry. The individual or company
being considered will have exhibited corporate and social responsibility through the
innovation and implementation of new products, services, processes and growth
within the last 12 months.39
No additional information is given on how firms are selected or on the criteria used
for inclusion. It is very clear from this website that DMA is a major consultant to
firms on data-driven marketing. Firms can join to become members of DMA, which
provides a wide variety of consulting services. We could not determine if T-Mobile

26

Juravich/Ablavsky

was a member, but this heavy emphasis on consulting raises concerns about the
objectivity of this contest.
25. Green Supply Chain Award RecipientSupply Chain Distinction Awards, 2012, http://
www.sdcexec.com/article/10829171/supply-demand-chain-executive-announces-2012annual-green-supply-chain-award-winners
Supply & Demand Chain Executive is an industry-based organization and website.
The 13th Annual Supply & Demand Chain Executive 100 ranking recognizes those
companies that initiated successful and innovative transformation projects delivering bottom-line value to small, medium, and large enterprises across the range
of supply chain functions faced by industry professionals today. Supply & Demand
Chain Executives Green Supply Chain Awards spotlight the different sustainable
approaches that global businesses take to cut costs, save time, drive revenue.40
In describing the award, the magazine does not indicate how companies are selected for the award or what criteria they use. They simply state, Tell us: What have
you done in your operations to improve the value of the global supply chain? The
lack of specifying anything beyond an open invitation to self-nominate does not
inspire confidence in this award.
26. Recognized Finalist, Supply Chain Distinction Award for Operations Excellence
World Trade Group, 2012, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/supply-chaindistinction-awards---rewarding-europes-leading-supply-chain-innovators-161058775.html
The Annual Supply Chain Distinction Awards is a European award given to companies from in and around Europe. The awards were created to celebrate the achievements at the highest strategic levels of supply chain management, across six disciplines... Established five years ago, the awards are now well known as the biggest
networking event of its kind. Leading manufacturers from the region congregated
and utilised the awards, as a benchmark for validating the generation and adaptations required to their current supply chain strategies.41
No information is given on how firms are selected or what criteria are used. What
is not clear is why T-Mobile, as a U.S.-based firm, was included in this contest. TMobile was not an award-winning firm but a recognized finalist.

The Corporate Rating Sham

27

Endnotes
The paper can be downloaded at: http://www.umass.edu/lrrc/ Partial funding was provided by the
Communications Workers of America (CWA).
1.

Professor of Labor Studies and Sociology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, juravich@lrrc.umass.

edu, phone 413-545-5986

2.

3.

Graduate student, Labor Studies, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Wayne Norman, Caroline Roux, and Philippe Blanger, Recognizing Business Ethics: Practical and
Ethical Challenges in Awarding Prizes for Good Corporate Behaviour, Journal of Business Ethics 86
(2009, 3): 25771.

4.

Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For, Money/CNN, accessed May 13, 2014, from http://money.
cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2014/list/

5.

Worlds Most Ethical Companies Rankings, Ethisphere Institute, accessed May 13, 2014, from
http://ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/wme-honorees/

6.

T-Mobile Awards and Recognition, T-Mobile US, accessed May 13, 2014, from http://www.t-mobile.com/Company/CompanyInfo.aspx?tp=Abt_Tab_Awards

7.

Why The 100 Best Companies To Work List Is Useless, 24/7 Wall St., February, 10, 2011,
http://247wallst.com/investing/2011/02/10/why-the-100-best-companies-to-work-list-is-useless/
8.

9.

http://www.t-mobile.com/Company/CompanyInfo.aspx?tp=Abt_Tab_Awards

10. Scoring and Methodology, Ethisphere Institute, accessed May 13, 2014, http://ethisphere.com/
worlds-most-ethical/scoring-methodology/
11. Rich McEachran, Ethical Awards: Green Wash or Genuinely Recognizing Sustainability? The
Guardian Sustainable Business Blog, September 3, 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/ethical-awards-green-wash-sustainability

Alyssa Figueroa, A Raw Look at Sodexo, Buzzsaw, http://www.buzzsawmag.org/2010/04/05/a-rawlook-at-sodexo/

12.

13.

Quoted in McEachran, Ibid.

14. Richard Crane, Are You Ethical? Please Tick Yes or No on Researching Ethics in Business Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 20 (3, 2009): 23748.

Phillip Mattera, Background on the 100 Best Companies to Work For List and the Great Place to
Work Institute, ROC United, September 2013.
15.

16.

Julia Hanna, The Cost and Benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley, Forbes, March 10, 2014.

17.

Don A. Dillman, Mail and Internet Surveys. New York: John Reilly & Sons, 2009.

18. Janine Popick, Industry Awards Create Buzz for Your Business: Learn How to Pick the Right Awards,
and How to Market Your Success, July 20, 2010, http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/207586#
19. Johnny Torrance-Nesbitt. Best Place to Work Awards Cultivate Employer Branding, October 14,
2013, http://www.smartrecruiters.com/blog/best-place-to-work-awards-cultivate-employer-branding/
20. FAQs for the Corporate Community, MSCI ESG Research, accessed May 13, 2014, http://www.msci.
com/resources/factsheets/MSCI_ESG_Research-FAQs_for_the_Corporate_Community.pdf
21.

Ibid.

Viramaditya S. Khanna, Corporate Governance Ratings: One Score, Two Score or More? University
of Pennsylvania Law Review, 39 (2009), 3951.
22.

23.

MSCI ESG Research Intangible Value Asset (IVA) Report on T-Mobile, March 25, 2014.

24.

MSCI ESG Research Intangible Value Asset (IVA) Report on T-Mobile, March 25, 2014.

25.

MSCI, ESG Research Intangible Value Asset (IVA) Report on T-Mobile, March 25, 2014.

2014 Worlds Most Ethical Companies Survey, Ethisphere, accessed May 13, 2014, http://
m1.ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/2014/survey-private-companies.pdf
26.

28

Juravich/Ablavsky

27. Advisory Panel, Ethisphere, accessed May 13, 2014, http://ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/

advisory-panel
28.

2014 Worlds Most Ethical Companies Survey.

29. Corporate Equality Index, 2014, Human Rights Campaign, accessed May 13, 2014, http://hrcassets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/CEI_2014_final_draft_7.pdf#__utm
a=149406063.1451293426.1396628759.1396794152.1396901239.3&__utmb=149406063.2.10.13969
01239&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1396794152.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn
=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=(not%20provided)&__utmv=-&__utmk=201170606
30. Ranked Top 100 Military Friendly Employers, accessed May 13, 2014, http://employers.militaryfriendly.com/
31. Ideal Employer Rankings, Universum, accessed May 13, 2014, http://universumglobal.com/idealemployer-rankings/
32. U.S. Organizations with the Best CSR Reputation, Universum, accessed May 13, 2014, http://universumglobal.com/2013/08/us-organizations-with-the-best-csr-reputation/
33. Top Workplaces: How We Picked the Winners, Working Dynamics, accessed May 13, 2014, http://
www.topworkplaces.com/newsroom/how-we-picked-the-winners.php
34. FAQs for Sterling Workplace Awards, Richmond SHRM, accessed May 13, 2014, http://www.richmondshrm.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=1278
35. Best Workplaces for Waste Prevention and Recycling, King County Solid Waste Division, accessed
May 13, 2014 http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/garbage-recycling/best-workplaces-2013.asp

Meet Wichitas Best Places to Work, Wichita Business Journals, accessed may 13, 2014, http://www.
bizjournals.com/wichita/morning_call/2013/12/meet-wichitas-best-places-to-work.html
36.

2013 Green Washington Awards, Seattle Business, accessed May 13, 2014, http://seattlebusinessmag.com/article/2013-green-washington-awards
37.

38.

Ibid.

39.

Marketer of the Year, DMA, accessed May 13, 2014, http://thedma.org/marketer-of-the-year/

Supply & Demand Chain Executives Annual Rewards Program, accessed May 13, 2014, http://
www.sdcexec.com/awards
40.

Supply Chain Distinction Awards, PR Newswire, accessed May 13, 2014, http://www.prnewswire.
com/news-releases/supply-chain-distinction-awards---rewarding-europes-leading-supply-chain-innovators-161058775.html
41.

WORKING PAPER SERIES

LABOR CENTER