IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/sefpps/sef-11-2021-0510.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Glassdoor best places to work: how do they work for shareholders?

Author

Listed:
  • Greg Filbeck
  • Xin Zhao

Abstract

Purpose - This research explores whether Glassdoor's annual rankings of the Best Places to Work provide meaningful information to shareholders in identifying companies with the potential for superior future performance. Because their website reaches over 64 million unique visitors monthly, Glassdoor rankings can influence trading patterns. Glassdoor’s awards offer a unique way to analyze employees' feedback as there is no self-nomination process or cost involved, differentiating it from other measures of job satisfaction such as Fortune’s Best Companies to Work For survey. Design/methodology/approach - We compare holding period returns of the Best Companies firms to the performance of the S&P 500 index and three separately constructed matched benchmark portfolios. We calculate cumulative raw, risk-adjusted, and abnormal returns based on a buy-and-hold strategy as well as by using the Fama-French (1993) 3-factor and 4-factor models. We also analyze whether selected companies have higher performance one year after the announcement. We control for possible endogeneity problems. Findings - We find mixed evidence regarding the superiority of the Best Company firms in holding period returns and risk-adjusted measures compared to appropriate benchmarks. Longer-term cumulative raw returns show that they have higher annual returns compared with its benchmarks. The differences are not statistically significant on a raw or risk-adjusted basis. Research limitations/implications - The Best Companies sample is much larger than the matched sample, even with multiple matching methodologies. This difference is limited by the survey design as the employees of larger companies tend to post in Glassdoor survey. Also, since companies in the small Best Companies sample are private companies, comparing their stock performance with comparable companies is challenging. Practical implications - Human resource management theories argue that job satisfaction results in enhanced corporate performance. However, verification of such satisfaction by a Glassdoor, as a third-party survey, does not necessarily lead to higher risk-adjusted share price performance. Originality/value - We extend previous work that focuses on analyzing employee reviews to consider the impact of being ranked among the best companies on the survey. Second, we employ an extended set of financial performance measures to assess impact. Our analysis also employs a wider range of financial performance metrics and robustness tests.

Suggested Citation

  • Greg Filbeck & Xin Zhao, 2022. "Glassdoor best places to work: how do they work for shareholders?," Studies in Economics and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(1), pages 1-23, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:sefpps:sef-11-2021-0510
    DOI: 10.1108/SEF-11-2021-0510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SEF-11-2021-0510/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SEF-11-2021-0510/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/SEF-11-2021-0510?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:sefpps:sef-11-2021-0510. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.