Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized controlled studies reveal no significant support for regulation linked to ESG efforts, suggesting complex crowding effects.
Do voluntary corporate prosocial efforts reduce or amplify support for government regulation? We build a theory of opposing mechanisms. Voluntary efforts could make it seem like a regulable problem is being fixed (“Coca-Cola is already tackling plastic waste!”) and thus that regulation is unnecessary. Or they could make the problem seem more important (“Even Walmart is addressing this”) or regulation seem more feasible (“Regulation will not impose excessive costs on industry”). Because these factors move in opposing directions, we posit that any crowding-in or crowding-out effects of voluntary efforts will be small and context-dependent. To test our theory, we ran two preregistered, randomized controlled studies with over 2,800 participants, drawing from the real-world materials firms have used to advertise their voluntary efforts. We find no economically significant effects from firms’ voluntary efforts on popular support for government regulation, and we find evidence consistent with our theory that competing mechanisms are at play.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: