From 2008 to 2020, 180 of S&P 1500 have disclosed employee diversity targets. We conduct the first analysis of firms’ employee diversity targets and ask three research questions: (i) who announces diversity targets? (ii) do firms deliver on their diversity targets? (iii) what are the implications of disclosure of such targets for employee hiring and investors? We find that firms with a greater willingness (proxied by past ESG penalties, higher CEO-to-median employee pay ratio, more media coverage, and after #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements) and ability (proxied by financial strength, a blue-collar heavy labor force, and gender and ethnic minorities on boards) to improve employee diversity are more likely to disclose diversity targets. Exploiting the Revelio dataset of 15,639 firm-years for 1,203 distinct firms from 2008 to 2020, we observe that firms that disclosed a diversity target have indeed hired more diverse employees, but such diversity levels had already increased substantially prior to the target disclosure. Firms with numerical, forward-looking, and rank-and-file employee-targeted goals are associated with greater employee diversity relative to firms that announce other types of diversity goals. Moreover, improved diversity performance does not appear to occur at the cost of employee quality, as measured by Revelio. Overall our results have practical implications for how investors and stakeholders might want to interpret corporate diversity targets

US state governments frequently provide firms with targeted subsidies. In exchange, recipients promise to create or retain a certain number of jobs in the subsidizing state. Using novel hand-collected data, we address three questions: (i) the extent to which firms meet job creation targets promised in their applications, (ii) the factors that determine which firms meet the targets, and (iii) the benefits to firms from meeting those targets. We find that 63% of subsidies awarded to publicly traded U.S. firms between 2004 and 2015 meet their promised job creation targets. Firms with poorer labor practices are less likely to meet their targets, as are politically connected firms that receive subsidies in election years. Conversely, promised job targets are also more likely to be met for subsidies accompanied by government press releases but less likely to be met for subsidies accompanied by firm press releases; the latter likely reflects the fact that firms put out press releases for larger subsidies with more ambitious job targets. In terms of consequences, firms that meet job targets are more successful at obtaining subsequent subsidies both in and out of subsidizing states. However, while firms’ success in meeting job targets is associated with an uptick in positive media coverage, this does not flow through to ESG ratings, even on scores specific to community impact. Our results should be of interest to both academics and policymakers interested in the design of state-level economic incentives