This paper investigates whether or not shareholders benefit from corporate social responsibility (CSR) by studying the effect of institutional investors on CSR. After all, arguing against CSR is hard when investors push for it. I find that longer investor horizons lead to significantly more CSR. This positive effect, however, is moderated by long-term investors who hold large ownership blocks. Long-term blockholders ensure, through monitoring, that managers do not blindly increase CSR, but rather that managers pursue a CSR strategy that reduces the risk of costly incidents. A battery of robustness tests indicates causality. Overall, these findings indicate that CSR is in the interests of long-term investors if CSR prevents incidents.

We study whether institutional investors that sign the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), a commitment to responsible investing, exhibit better portfolio-level environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores. Signatories outside of the USA have superior ESG scores than nonsignatories, but US signatories have at best similar ESG ratings, and worse scores if they have underperformed recently, are retail-client facing, and joined the PRI late. US signatories do not improve the ESG scores of portfolio companies after investing in them. Commercial motives, uncertainty about fiduciary duties, and lower ESG market maturity explain why US-domiciled PRI signatories do not follow through on their responsible investment commitments.