GHENT UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION

ACADEMIC YEAR 2008 – 2009

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting: How are targets transformed into actions?

Thesis submitted for the award of Master in Applied Economics

Audrey Thom

Romiena Decoutere

Under the guidance of

Prof. Dr. P. Everaert Lies Bouten

GHENT UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION

ACADEMIC YEAR 2008 – 2009

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting: How are targets transformed into actions?

Thesis submitted for the award of Master in Applied Economics

Audrey Thom

Romiena Decoutere

Under the guidance of

Prof. Dr. P. Everaert Lies Bouten

PERMISSION The undersigned confirm that the contents of this thesis may be consulted and/or reproduced provided the source is acknowledged. Audrey Thom Romiena Decoutere

i

Acknowledgements We would like to thank our promoter Prof. Dr. Patricia Everaert and especially Lies Bouten

for her support and helpful comments. Furthermore, we would like to thank Michael Thom

for proof-reading the text.

ii

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT ........................3

2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................................3

2.1.1. Types of disclosure.........................................................................................4 2.1.2. Areas of disclosure.........................................................................................5

2.2. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................5

2.2.1. Frequency and Extent of the disclosure types................................................5 2.2.2. Association between the disclosure types ......................................................6 2.2.3. Reporting practices and industry affiliation ..................................................7 2.2.4. Influence of specific disclosures on CSR reporting .......................................8

3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................9

3.1. SAMPLE.....................................................................................................................9

3.2. REPORTING MEDIA ................................................................................................10

3.3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................11

3.3.1. Content analysis...........................................................................................11 3.3.2. Coding Structure ..........................................................................................13 3.3.3. Procedure for content analysis ....................................................................16

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS.............................................................................................17

4.1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS.......................................................................................17

4.1.1. Voluntary disclosure ....................................................................................17 4.1.2. Quantitative versus qualitative reporting ....................................................18

4.2. HYPOTHESIS TESTING............................................................................................19

4.2.1. Frequency of disclosure types......................................................................19 4.2.2. The extent of the disclosure types ................................................................21 4.2.3. Association between disclosure types ..........................................................24 4.2.4. Reporting practices and industry affiliation ................................................26 4.2.5. Influence of specific CSR disclosures on CSR reporting .............................28

5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION .........................................................................32

6. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................35

TABLES AND FIGURES

APPENDIX

iii

List of abbreviations CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility

FP: Future Plans

FTE: Full Time Equivalent

GRI: Global Reporting Initiative

ICC: International Chamber of Commerce

MA: Management Approach

PI: Performance Indicators

VP: Values and Principles

iv

List of Tables Table 1: Number of companies per industry reporting CSR ...................................................... I

Table 2.a: Number of companies qualitatively and quantitatively disclosing, including the

companies reporting PI from the social balance sheet ............................................... I

2.b: Number of companies qualitatively and quantitatively disclosing, excluding the

companies reporting PI from the social balance sheet .............................................. I

Table 3: Number of companies reporting the different types of disclosure ............................... I

Table 4: Number of companies reporting on the different areas ............................................... II

Table 5: Number of companies reporting on the different areas per disclosure type ................ II

Table 6: Extent of the different types of qualitative disclosure ................................................. II

Table 7: Descriptive statistics words on Values and Principles (VP).......................................III

Table 8: Descriptive statistics words on Management Approach (MA)...................................III

Table 9: Descriptive statistics words on Future Plans (FP) ......................................................III

Table 10: Extent of the types of qualitative disclosure per area .............................................. IV

Table 11: Extent of the types of qualitative disclosure per subarea ..........................................V

Table 12: Pearson correlations between all types of disclosure ............................................. VII

Table 13: Pearson correlations on the level of the areas......................................................... VII

Table 14: Pearson correlations on the level of the subareas .................................................... IX

Table 15: Mean number of words spent on the different types of qualitative disclosure per

Industry..................................................................................................................XIII

Table 16: Analysis of Variance on Involvement ...................................................................XIV

Table 17: Analysis of Variance on Department.....................................................................XVI

Table 18: Analysis of Variance on Certificates ..................................................................XVIII

Table 19: Analysis of Variance on Nominations/Awards ................................................... XXII

v

List of figures Figure 1: Number of companies reporting VP.................................................................. XXVII

Figure 2: Number of companies reporting MA ................................................................ XXVII

Figure 3: Number of companies reporting FP .................................................................XXVIII

Figure 4: Mean number of words spent on VP per industry............................................XXVIII

Figure 5: Mean number of words spent on MA per industry .............................................XXIX

Figure 6: Mean number of words spent on FP per industry ...............................................XXIX

Figure 7: Percentage of companies per industry reporting at least 1 Performance

Indicator (PI) .........................................................................................................XXX

Figure 8: Percentage of companies per industry reporting at least 3 Performance

Indicator (PI) .........................................................................................................XXX

Figure 9: Mean number of words spent on VP-MA-FP per industry .................................XXXI

vi

List of Appendices Appendix 1: Overview of companies per industry ....................................................XXXVII

Appendix 2: Coding structure.................................................................................. XXXVIII

Appendix 3: Coding process.......................................................................................... XLIV

Appendix 4: Conditions for the ANOVA analysis on Involvement and Department .....XLV

Appendix 5: Implementation of the full ANOVA analysis ................................................. LI

Appendix 6: Conditions for the ANOVA analysis on Certificates and

Nominations/Award...................................................................................... LIX

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures by companies have received

increased research attention since mid-1970, because of the evolving expectations put on

the company in the new and changing society of today (Neu, Warsame and Pedwell, 1998).

Companies recognise that their social and environmental responsibilities towards all the

various stakeholders need to be addressed. For this reason, more and more corporations

voluntarily disclose information about their social and environmental performance

(Hackston and Milne, 1996; Gray, Javad, Power and Sinclair, 2001). Stakeholder demands

are very diverse because the various stakeholders – e.g. employees, shareholders,

consumers, government, NGO’s– have different expectations of the company.

The European Commission defines corporate social responsibility (CSR) as “a concept

whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business

operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis”. (Green

paper, 2001, p. 6). The Commission stresses the fact that CSR goes beyond mere

compliance. By reporting on CSR, companies are investing in their future and expect that

the voluntary commitment they adopt will help to increase their profitability, either directly

or indirectly.

Prior research concentrated on environmental disclosures (e.g. Neu et al., 1998; Patten,

2002; Jose and Lee, 2007) or social disclosures (e.g. Gray et al., 2001; Vuontisjärvi, 2006).

This paper focuses on the wide variety of different aspects of CSR. Therefore, the

framework developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is used.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the CSR reporting practices of Belgian companies,

by investigating their voluntary CSR disclosures in both annual reports and separate CSR

reports for the year 2001. The latter can be in the form of a social, environmental or

sustainability report depending on the company. By analysing the content of the CSR

disclosures and evaluating how companies report their CSR information, a clearer view of

the quality of the disclosures can be obtained. Subsequently, the paper evaluates in what

2

manner companies translate their described targets into verifiable actions. Investigation on

the influence of industry affiliation and external factors complete the research.

This paper contributes to the existing research of CSR reporting in three ways.

First, in comparison to prior research that mainly investigated environmental or social

disclosures (e.g. Vuontisjärvi, 2006; Jose and Lee, 2006; Clarkson, Li, Richardson and

Vasvari, 2008), this paper covers the five areas of CSR, as determined in the GRI

guidelines.

Second, this paper also includes analysis of stand-alone, environmental or social reports, in

addition to the analysis of the annual reports (Zéghal and Ahmed, 1990).

Third and finally, the focus of this research is an elaborate analysis of how companies

report their CSR information. By distinguishing between different types of qualitative and

quantitative disclosures, the paper provides an enhanced insight into the quality of

reporting practices (Wiseman, 1982).

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a review of the prior

research which has explored the CSR reporting practices. Section 3 discusses the research

design and methodology used to examine the data. We then present our empirical results in

the light of the hypotheses. The final section summarises the main findings with a

discussion of implications for future research.

3

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

2.1. Literature review

As indicated by José and Lee (2007), prior research on CSR reporting can be divided into

four, different streams. The first stream of research addresses the content of the CSR

disclosures (e.g. Vuontisjärvi, 2006; José and Lee, 2007). The second stream of research

investigates the corporate characteristics of the disclosing companies (e.g. Roberts, 1992;

Wanderley, Lucian, Farache and Sousa Filho, 2008). The next stream analyses the medium

of reporting (e.g. Zéghal and Ahmed, 1990; Jones, Alabaster and Walton, 1998). The last

stream of research considers the relation between CSR performance and CSR disclosure

(e.g. Neu et al., 1998; Patten, 2002; Clarkson et al., 2008).

This paper can be situated in the first and second stream of research. First, the content of

CSR disclosures is examined by focusing on the reporting practices. Secondly, the study

investigates the influence of the corporate characteristic industry (e.g. a bank, a chemical

company) on the reporting practices.

The investigation of the content of CSR disclosure, according to the first stream of

research, has repeatedly been the subject of previous literature. Especially, the quality issue

of CSR reporting has been the focus of considerable attention by researchers. Previous

research employed the number of words or the proportion of the report devoted to CSR

disclosure as an indicator for the quality of the disclosure (Hackston and Milne, 1996; Neu

et al., 1998). However, there is no necessary or straightforward link between the number of

words devoted to the disclosure and the quality of the disclosure. Effective reporting is not

about the volume of words, but should provide relevant and concrete information to all

stakeholders. This explains why various research investigates whether companies report

specific actions, quantifiable variables, formal targets, policies, future plans etc. (e.g.

KPMG 2005; Vuontisjärvi, 2006; José and Lee, 2007; KPMG 2008). The analysis of these

specific items provides a clearer view of the quality of the CSR disclosure. In other words,

this analysis provides an instrument to distinguish between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ measures. Soft

4

claims are characterized by their qualitative, non-verifiable nature while hard claims have

the attributes of being verifiable and forward looking on the corporate activities and

statements (Hutton, Miller and Skinner, 2003; Clarkson et al., 2008). The last category of

disclosures is of higher quality because they enhance the credibility of the disclosures as

opposed to soft claims that can be perceived as too vague to be credible by stakeholders.

2.1.1 Types of disclosure

Disclosure type is defined as the kind of CSR reporting conducted. Prior research evaluated

CSR disclosures by distinguishing between different types of disclosure.

Wiseman (1982) examined environmental disclosures and assessed whether the disclosures

were made in a qualitative or quantitative way. Within qualitative disclosures, the research

distinguished general reporting from more specific reporting. Wiseman developed a scoring

procedure to examine the quality of the disclosure. The highest score was assigned when

the disclosure contained monetary or quantitative information. If the disclosure contained

specific information in non-quantitative terms a lower score was allocated. Disclosures that

gave information in general terms were assigned the lowest score.

Vuontisjärvi (2006) classified the qualitative reporting on Human Resources into two

disclosure types: Principle Indicators and Process Indicators. “The first group represents

the stated aim or value, while Process Indicators describe the action or practice taken into

use” (Vuontisjärvi, 2006, pg. 339). The quantitative information is referred to as

Performance Indicators and reflects the outcome of the action by disclosing specific

numerical information.

Everaert, Bouten, Van Liedekerke, De Moor and Christiaens (2009) uses a similar

classification but also distinguishes between the disclosure type Future Plans within the

qualitative information. Future plans address the CSR initiatives that companies are

planning to undertake in the future.

The distinction between the types of disclosure makes it possible to investigate how

companies report their CSR information and in this way to examine the quality of the

disclosures.

5

2.1.2 Areas of disclosure

The content of CSR reporting can be divided into different areas. Prior studies have

focused on environmental reporting or social reporting (Neu et al., 1998; Vuontisjärvi,

2006). In contrast, the GRI guidelines provide a broad framework, which covers several

areas addressing the content of CSR reporting. The areas covered are: Environment,

Labour practices and decent work, Human rights, Product responsibility and Society. This

classification was also applied in Everaert et al. (2009). Information reported in these areas

of disclosure can be further divided into different subareas.

2.2. Hypothesis development

2.2.1. Frequency and Extent of the disclosure types

Generally, companies tend to report more qualitative disclosures in comparison to

quantitative disclosures. The following papers have identified this difference in reporting

practices.

Adams, Hill and Roberts (1998) make a distinction between the number of items for which

qualitative information was reported and the number of items for which quantified or

financial information was disclosed. The research concludes that significantly more

qualitative than quantitative items were disclosed. Vuöntisjarvi (2006) points out that the

disclosures tend to be mostly qualitative while only a few companies reported quantitative

performance indicators. Furthermore, Clarkson et al. (2008) point out that the number of

the companies publishing soft disclosure items is larger than the number of companies

providing hard disclosure items. Moreover, Everaert et al. (2009) state that only half the

companies that disclose qualitatively on CSR also disclose quantitatively by reporting one

or more performance indicators. They find that qualitative disclosures consist mainly of

actions the company undertakes to address a specific CSR issue.

6

The method used to determine the level of disclosure of a specific item differs across prior

research. The reporting practices were analysed using two research streams, the first which

focuses on the number of companies disclosing a specific item (e.g. Vuontisjärvi, 2006;

Jose and Lee, 2007) and the second research stream which uses the number of words

companies spend on a specific item (e.g. Neu et al., 1998; Patten, 2002). Everaert et al.

(2009) uses both ways to determine disclosure practices.

Based on prior research the following hypotheses are formulated:

H1a: The number of companies reporting depends on the disclosure type

H1b: The number of companies reporting the disclosure types differs across areas

H2a: The extent of the qualitative reporting depends on the disclosure type

H2b: The extent of the qualitative reporting differs across areas and subareas

2.2.2. Association between the disclosure types

Everaert et al. (2009) explores the CSR reporting practices of companies for five areas of

disclosure. They find that the number of companies deciding to report qualitatively and/or

quantitatively differs between areas of disclosure. They find that reporting in the areas of

Human rights and Product responsibility is generally carried out in a qualitative way. This

is in contrast to reporting on the areas of Environment and Labour practices and decent

work which is typically provided both in a qualitative and quantitative way. Therefore, we

expect that these reporting differences across the areas will be demonstrated in the relation

between the types of reporting for each area.

The paper examines the following hypothesis:

H3: The association between the disclosure types depends on the areas of disclosure.

7

2.2.3. Reporting practices and industry affiliation

The second stream of research explores, as indicated above, the influence of corporate

characteristics on CSR reporting. Empirical studies have shown that certain corporate

characteristics can explain the reporting differences between companies (Hackston and

Milne, 1996; Deegan and Gordon, 1996; Gray et al., 2001). A corporate characteristic

which often generates a significant effect on CSR reporting is industry affiliation.

Meek, Roberts and Gray (1995) examines the influence of industry type on three different

groups of reporting: strategic information, financial information and non-financial

information. The last contains information about the company’s environmental and social

activities directed at the entire group of stakeholders. The results indicate that the

companies in the Oil, Chemicals and Mining industry disclose particularly more non-

financial information as compared to the other industry groups.

Similarly, Adams et al. (1998) explore the industry-effect on social disclosures, including

environmental and employee disclosures. They find that the Oil, Chemical, Metals &

Power group reports on average the most. The least information was furnished by the

sector of Service, Retail and Food.

Brammer and Pavelin (2006) report that firms in the Chemical & Pharmaceutical and

Construction sectors disclose more environmental information compared to firms in other

sectors.

Furthermore, Clarkson et al. (2008) indicate that companies in the Pulp & Paper and

Utilities industry tend to disclose more environmental Performance Indicators, while the

companies in Chemicals disclose more soft items such as ‘Vision and Strategy’.

Finally, Everaert et al. (2009) find that companies in the Banks and Utilities industry make

the most extensive disclosures on CSR information while companies in Real Estate and

Holdings disclose the least CSR information.

Given previous research, the following hypothesis about reporting practices is formulated:

H4: The reporting practices of CSR information differs among industries

8

2.2.4. Influence of specific disclosures on CSR reporting

Prior research has investigated the disclosure of certain, specific CSR items. Vuontisjärvi

(2006) analyses the disclosure of staff participation and involvement. José and Lee (2007)

investigate whether corporations disclose external certifications such as ISO 14001 and

whether companies have a separate environmental department. Next, Wanderley et al.

(2008) include CSR partnerships as an indicator to determine the level of CSR disclosure.

Finally, Clarkson et al. (2008) examine the disclosure of an environmental department,

product certification, external environmental awards and the corporate inclusion in a

sustainability index. All of these studies rely on the disclosure of the specific item, rather

than verifying its presence or absence by checking against an external source or by

observation. Paralleling previous research, this paper will investigate if department,

employee involvement, certificates and nomination/awards have an influence on CSR

reporting.

The following hypotheses are examined :

H5: CSR reporting is higher for companies disclosing a separate CSR Department.

H6: CSR reporting is higher for companies disclosing Employee Involvement in CSR

issues.

H7: CSR reporting is higher for companies disclosing the receipt of an external Certificate.

H8: CSR reporting is higher for companies disclosing the receipt of an external

Nomination/Award.

9

3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1. Sample Previous literature investigated CSR reporting in annual reports (e.g. Adams et al. (1998),

Patten, 2002; Vuontisjärvi, 2006) as well as in separate CSR reports (Jose and Lee, 2007;

Clarkson et al., 2008). As previously mentioned, stand-alone CSR reports consist of

environmental, social or sustainability reports prepared by the company to inform

stakeholders about the corresponding activities. Data was gathered from the annual reports

and, if available, the stand-alone CSR reports, as published by Belgian companies for the

year 2001.

We choose to analyse the same sample as used in Everaert et al., (2009), which corresponds

with Belgian, listed companies at Euronext Brussels in 2005. This decision has been made to

enhance comparability. By selecting companies from Euronext Brussels, the sample consists of

the larger Belgian companies. In general, this focus on large companies facilitates the

identification of corporate trends in the social responsibility area (Roberts, 1992). The annual

reports and the stand-alone CSR reports were gathered from the company’s corporate website.

If the annual report was not available on the website, the company was contacted by email.

Where no reply was received, the researchers contacted the company by telephone. In several

cases companies had to be contacted several times in order to maximize our sample size.

Reports were examined in the Dutch language version, unless only the French or English

version was published.

The initial sample contained 127 listed companies, of which 99 annual reports and 5 stand-

alone CSR reports were collected for the year 2001. Within the stand-alone reports, we counted

two environmental reports, two health, safety and environmental reports and one sustainability

report. The annual report of the National Bank of Belgium was excluded from the sample,

because it provides a global and financial overview of the Belgian economy. This resulted in a

10

final sample containing 98 companies in which 12 industry categories were represented. The

industry classification is similar to Everaert et al. (2009)1.

3.2. Reporting Media The evaluation of corporate social reporting solely on the basis of the annual reports could

give misleading results, since companies may use other media to disclose their social

information (Zéghal and Ahmed, 1990). Therefore, in order to obtain a fuller picture of the

social information disclosure policy, the investigation is completed by examining the

separate CSR reports for the year 2001, where these existed.

The annual report is the primary information source on corporate activities for investors

and other stakeholders, as compared to alternative reporting media including interim

reports, newspaper articles, press releases, etc. (Adams et al., 1998).

As annual reports are considered the primary information source, they have the advantage

of being considered credible and being widely distributed to the relevant public audiences

(Neu et al., 1998). Consequently, disclosures in annual reports give companies a significant

opportunity to differentiate themselves from competitors.

This paper focuses on the voluntary reporting of CSR. Listed companies are obliged to

draw up and distribute an annual report, but only the minimum content of the annual report

is regulated. In the Belgian context, the stipulations of CSR disclosure are limited. Art. 96

of the Company Law states: “... To the degree necessary for a good understanding of the

development and the results or position of the company, the analysis includes both essential

financial and non-financial performance indicators including information concerning

environmental and labour practices...”.

Consequently, the disclosures in the annual report and the stand-alone CSR reports offer

the company’s management considerable latitude to provide information deemed relevant

to the users of the annual report.

1 Appendix 1: Overview of companies per industry

11

If the social balance sheet was included in the annual report, this information was also

analysed. We decided to include this information as it represents a voluntary decision of the

company. Under Belgian Law the company is obliged to publish the social balance sheet as

part of its annual accounts but is not obliged to include this social balance sheet in its

annual report. Hence, its inclusion in the annual report is a voluntary initiative by the

company.

However, the corporate governance charters included in the annual reports were not

analysed in the content analysis, since their aim is primarily to ensure the shareholders of

the management’s stewardship and not to report CSR issues.

Besides the annual report, companies also publish separate environmental, social and

sustainability reports. According to the KMPG International Survey of 2002, 45 percent of

the largest 250 companies worldwide issued a separate corporate responsibility report in

2001-2002 (KPMG, 2002). Our sample consists of 98 companies, of which five drew up a

separate CSR report.

3.3. Research Methodology

3.3.1. Content analysis

Content analysis is a methodology frequently used to examine the content of CSR disclosures

in annual reports and stand-alone CSR reports (e.g. Neu et al, 1998; Patten, 2002; Vuontisjärvi,

2006). Content analysis is a technique for codifying text, objectively and systematically,

depending on specified criteria (Weber, 1988). By using content analysis, the presence of

certain predetermined concepts is investigated. These categories can be determined based upon

reporting guidelines, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting

Guidelines (José and Lee, 2006; Clarkson et al. 2008).

12

Similar to Everaert et al. (2009) a content analysis based upon the GRI guidelines was

performed. The GRI is an entity that has developed a standardised sustainability reporting

framework that is applicable worldwide. This framework sets out the principles and indicators

that organizations can follow in order to provide their stakeholders information about their

economic, social and environmental performance (Global Reporting Initiative website). The

goal of the GRI guidelines is to improve the uniformity of sustainability reporting and to

enhance the quality of the information available to the different stakeholders.

The KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008 indicates that

companies increasingly use the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines as the framework to

select their report content (KPMG, 2008).

Prior to Everaert et al. (2009), some studies have tried to improve the method of content

analysis by adapting it to more closely reflect the GRI guidelines.

José and Lee (2007) investigate the environmental management policies and practices of

Fortune Global 200 companies. For this purpose, they developed a content analysis based upon

concepts derived from the GRI guidelines and other environmental reporting guidelines, such

as the ICC business charter on sustainable development.2

Clarkson et al. (2008) developed an own content analysis index for environmental disclosures.

They developed this index particularly to reflect the spirit of the GRI guidelines. Therefore,

they took over a significant number of Performance Indicators as proposed by the GRI and

placed a heavy emphasis on hard, verifiable and objective measures of environmental

performance rather that on soft measures. Hence, their content analysis corresponds to the

target of GRI guidelines and facilitates the assessment of the true environmental commitment

of a company.

2 ICC stands for The International Chamber of Commerce

13

3.3.2. Coding Structure3

This paper will analyse the CSR disclosures using the coding structure as developed in

Everaert et al. (2009). This coding structure is based on the classification as recommended in

the GRI guidelines but does not include the dimension of economic indicators, since the later

does not represent the CSR commitment of the company.

A. First part of the coding structure

As shown in Appendix 2, the coding structure in Everaert et al. (2009) consists of four

different levels. The first level covers environmental and social dimensions of reporting and

contains the areas: Overall CSR, Environment, Labor practices and decent work, Human

rights, Society and Product responsibility. The area, Overall CSR, was used for the disclosures

of general CSR information that could not be categorised into one specific area. The second

level divides all areas, except Overall CSR, into different subareas. Level three separated

reporting into qualitative and quantitative information. For example:

“Additional measures have been taken at various sites to do an even better job of

preventing soil pollution…” This environmental reporting relates to the subarea Emissions

and is classified as qualitative information.

“The company collected USD 55,000 for the Food Industry Crusade Against Hunger

campaign…” This societal information falls under the subarea of Good causes and is

qualified as quantitative information.

In accordance with Vuontisjärvi (2006) and Everaert et al. (2009) this study distinguishes

between different types of qualitative and quantitative disclosures.

The qualitative reporting is classified under three types of disclosure: ‘Values and Principles’,

‘Management Approach’ and ‘Future Plans’.

The definitions used are similar to Everaert et al. (2009)

3 Appendix 3

14

Values and Principles (VP): this category represents the information a company

provides about its policies, aims and general values related to Corporate Social

Responsibility.

Management Approach (MA): this category captures disclosures of CSR specific

practices undertaken by the company, excluding quantifiable data. The statement must

be specific enough to be compared with subsequent realisations to be included in the

category.

Future plans (FP): this category covers the actions a company is intending to undertake

in the future to demonstrate its social responsibility.

The quantitative reporting was linked to the relevant Performance Indicators (PI), which are

quantitative measures of the CSR activities reported by the company. The PIs used in this

research were taken over from the PIs of Everaert et al. (2009), which are based upon the GRI

guidelines.

This classification is also consistent with the KPMG reasoning. KPMG states that good

CSR reporting should reflect the company’s overall strategy and objectives, cover issues

and actions that are material to the company and its stakeholders, and should provide

details on performance (KPMG, 2008).

By investigating the differences between the types of CSR disclosure, the paper provides

an enhanced insight into the quality of CSR disclosure. This allows stakeholders to have an

improved understanding about the true CSR commitments of the company. More

specifically, the disclosure of Values and Principles and Future Plans and to a lesser extent

the disclosure of Management Approach is the subjective opinion of the management. VP

and FP can be reported in an extensive manner in accordance with the choice of the

management, whereas MA requires specific practices to be explained. In contrast to the

qualitative disclosures, the performance indicators give proof of verifiable CSR realisations

of the company. As stated in Brammer and Pavelin (2006), specific actions, quantifiable

impact and disclosures subject to external audit are the most relevant in disclosure reports.

By analysing the reporting practices for each type of disclosure, the paper identifies

companies using more objective ways of disclosure (PI), rather than companies reporting

15

less objective disclosures (MA), and even companies using the least objective way of

disclosure (VP and FP).

B. Second part of the coding structure

In order to make the investigation of CSR reporting more complete, this paper extended the

coding structure of Everaert et al. (2009) by adding four different categories: Certificates,

Nominations/Awards, Involvement and Department. The categories Involvement and

Department are independent categories and do not relate to the main areas of the coding

structure.

The following definitions were used:

Certificates: this category covers the reporting of an external certificate regarding a

specific area, achieved by the company.

Nominations/Awards: this category covers the reporting on an external nomination

or award regarding a specific area assigned to the company.

Employee Involvement: this category represents the initiatives the company reports

to involve its employees in their CSR practices. Based on Vuöntisjarvi (2006), this

category exclusively refers to staff involvement, without considering the entire

group of stakeholders.

Department: this category indicates that a company established a specific

department that is concerned with CSR issues.

For example:

“Several production sites have obtained the IS0 14001 Certificate…” This reporting

falls under the category Certificate and is related to the area, Environment.

“[...] received the ‘Arbed Award’ for the safety achievements on the work floor during

the period 1999-2001” This reporting belongs to the category Nominations/Awards

and is related to the area Labour practices and decent work.

16

“The development of sustainable products and technology is only feasible if each

employee is involved in the corporate social responsibility…” This reporting falls

under the category Employee Involvement.

“The department for safety, health and environment in the headquarters points out the

policies, the targets and the priorities for the production plants and the products of

Agfa.” This reporting belongs to the category Department.

3.3.3. Procedure for content analysis4

The content analysis was executed using Atlas.ti 5.2 (Atlas.ti, 2008). This software

program enables the qualitative analysis of a large magnitude of textual data.

First, the researchers selected the CSR reporting in the annual reports and in the stand-

alone CSR reports and afterwards the selection was copied to a Word document. This

conversion was necessary because Atlas.ti only accepts Word documents, whereas most

annual reports and sustainability reports are published in PDF formats.

In the next step, the CSR reporting was loaded into Atlas.ti where the appropriate codes

were linked to the relevant words and sentences. Since this study uses the coding structure

as developed by Everaert et al. (2009), the only additional codes that were created into the

program correspond with the categories: Certificates, Nominations/Awards, Employee

Involvement, and Department.

The content analysis was performed by three independent researchers; the differences in

the coding were discussed systematically in order to deliver one final result for analysis.

Finally, the software program Atlas.ti generated an Excel sheet that indicates the number of

words used for qualitative disclosures and the presence or absence of quantitative

disclosures.

4 Appendix 4

17

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1. Descriptive statistics

4.1.1. Voluntary disclosure

The initial sample consists of 98 companies, of which 79 companies disclosed voluntary CSR

information in the annual report or in a stand-alone CSR report of 2001. Thus, about 81% of

the initial sample reported a CSR issue, while 19% of the companies did not disclose any CSR

information. The reporting companies were those that disclosed either qualitative information

or quantitative information, being a PI. If the company published a separate CSR report, this

data was combined with the data from the annual report to investigate the company’s total CSR

disclosures.

The reporting companies are set out in Table 1 according to their industry group. The results

show that in eight industries all the companies made at least one CSR disclosure. In the

industries of Services and Electronics and ICT only, do 85% of the companies report CSR

information. The industries Real Estate and Holdings appear to report the least with only

around 50% of the companies reporting CSR information.

The 19 non-reporting companies were excluded from the sample, given that this study is

focused in how companies report their CSR information.

To investigate the presence of CSR information, we did not take into account the reporting of

quantitative information relating to the number of employees and changes in the staff/workers.

This information is considered to be standard information rather than a matter pertaining to

CSR strategy. Performance indicators coming from the social balance sheet, apart from the

performance indicators related to the personnel file, were nevertheless regarded as CSR

information. As explained earlier, the integration of the social balance sheet in the annual

report is a voluntary decision of the company. Consequently, companies reporting exclusively

performance indicators from the social balance sheet were included in the final sample. In

18

total, 8 companies fall under this category. If we were to consider these 8 companies as non

reporting in our sample (N=98), the percentage of companies making CSR disclosures falls

from 81% to 72%.

In order to investigate the hypotheses, the reporting practices of the remaining 79

companies will be analysed. Consequently, all the following analysis is based upon the

reduced sample of 79 companies.

4.1.2. Quantitative versus qualitative reporting

Since, this study is interested in the reporting practices of the companies, we investigate in

what way companies report CSR information (Table 2.a - 2.b)

Table 2.a shows that in total 87 % of our sample (N=79) disclosed CSR information in a

qualitative way, meaning that the company reported one of the three types of qualitative

disclosure: VP, MA or FP. Quantitative information was reported by 76% of the

companies. However, if the PI coming from the social reporting are excluded, the

percentage of companies reporting quantitatively drops from 76% to 52% of companies.

The paper further examines the number of companies reporting at least three PIs, in order

to have a better understanding into the quantitative reporting. The group of companies

reporting at least three PIs is reduced to only 34% of the sample if we include the PIs from

the social balance sheet. If these PIs from the social balance sheet are ignored, the

percentage of companies disclosing a minimum of three PIs drops to only 20%. The strong

difference between the number of companies reporting at least 1 PI and 3 PIs indicates that

quantitative reporting is relatively limited.

While a majority of companies report one specific PI, much less companies report

extensively their performance in a quantitative way.

19

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

4.2.1. The Frequency of the disclosure types

In order to test Hypothesis 1.a - which states that the number of companies reporting

depends on the disclosure type - we examine the number of companies reporting the

different types of disclosure. As shown in Table 3, 82 % of the companies (N=79) decide to

report MA information, while 66% decide to report VP information. FP is the least reported

qualitative disclosure type as it has only been disclosed by 39% of the companies. These

findings imply that most companies decide to report MA, followed by VP and to a lesser

extent FP. The quantitative disclosures are made by 76 % of the companies, as mentioned

above.

The results support Hypothesis 1.a and indicate that the number of companies reporting

depends on the type of disclosure. As predicted by prior literature, companies tend to report

more in a qualitative way rather than in a quantitative way (Adams et al., 1998;

Vuontisjärvi, 2006; Clarkson et al., 2008; Everaert et al., 2009). Especially, the number of

companies reporting at least three PIs (34%) is significantly less than the number of

companies reporting in a qualitative way (87%).

Given that CSR disclosures cover different areas, the paper analysed the number of

companies disclosing information on each area, regardless of the disclosure type.

As shown in Table 4, 90% of the companies report on Labour practices and decent work

topics, 56% of the companies report on Environmental topics, 54% disclose Product

Responsibility aspects and 38 % report societal items. The area of CSR Overall is

addressed by 35% of the companies. Human rights is only reported by 10 % of the

companies and is therefore the least popular item of CSR in terms of reporting frequency.

In order to test Hypothesis 1b - which states that the number of companies reporting the

disclosure types differs across the areas, we analyse the reporting practices for each area.

Therefore, we reduced the total sample to the companies reporting on the specific area.

20

Table 5 shows that for the area Labour practices and decent work 79% of the companies

reporting on this area disclose MA information while 58% report VP. The results show that

for the area Society, 97% of the companies made disclosures on MA, however only 53% of

the companies reported VP. Further, for the area of Product responsibility, 87% of the

companies covering this area, reported MA while 47% of those companies reported VP.

We conclude that in these areas there is a strong overweight of MA reporting. As shown in

Table 5, 86 % of the companies reporting on environmental issues, report both types of

disclosure. For this area, the reporting on VP and MA is done by the same number of

companies. We notice an opposite trend for the reporting on Human rights: 63% of the

companies reporting on the area, disclose VP while only 50% reports MA. Also the

reporting on the area of CSR Overall is overwhelmingly communicated through VP

disclosures (96%) rather than MA disclosures (36%).

In general, the frequency of FP reporting is the lowest for each area, especially for the area

of Human rights, where not a single company reported FP.

The number of companies reporting PI is strongly dependent upon the area. Companies

reporting on environmental issues and labour related items often include quantitative

disclosures; respectively 50% and 73% of the companies disclosed minimum one PI

concerning this area. Hence, reporting on these areas is performed both quantitatively and

qualitatively. This is in contrast to the area Human rights and Product Responsibility,

where the reporting is mainly carried out in a qualitative way.

These finding are consistent with the results in Everaert et al. (2009). The results confirm

Hypothesis 1b and indicate that the number of companies reporting the disclosure types

differs across the areas.

21

4.2.2. The extent of the disclosure types

The second hypothesis addresses the extent of the different types of CSR reporting. As

mentioned above, we use the number of words as an indicator of the extent of disclosure

(Hackston and Milne, 1996). Table 6 illustrates that a total of 61.331 words are devoted to

CSR. This means that the 79 companies report on average 776 words on CSR.

Table 6 shows a strong difference between the words devoted to VP, MA and FP. Of all

qualitative disclosures 71% is reported as MA, 25% of the words fall under VP reporting

and only 4% of the words relate to FP. We conclude that the largest part of CSR reporting

is realised by the most objective type of qualitative disclosure, namely MA.

As shown in the analysis of hypothesis 1.a., 66% of the companies cover VP and 82%

cover MA. However the number of words devoted to MA is three times that devoted to VP.

The extent of FP constitutes just 4% of the total words of CSR information, although

almost 40% of the companies make some FP disclosures.

When we take a closer look at the different types of disclosure at an aggregated level, we

discover that VP, MA and FP are reported in a different way.

Table 7 shows that on average companies are devoting 190 words to VP (N=79). We

further focus on the companies of the sample reporting VP (N=52). The extent of VP

reporting (N=52) ranges from 6 to a maximum of 2162 words. Figure 1 shows that 42% of

the companies reporting on VP, report less than 100 words.

Table 8 illustrates that on average companies spend 554 words on MA (N=79), this is

almost three times as much as the average number of words on VP. For the 65 companies

reporting MA, the range of the MA reporting is between 19 and 6123 words (N=65). Figure

2 indicates that 31% of the companies discloses less than 100 words on MA. We notice that

the percentage of companies reporting more than 1000 words is much higher for MA

(17%) than for VP (6%).

22

As shown in Table 9, the average number of words spent on FP is 32 (N=79). Considering

the 31 companies disclosing on FP, the range is between 5 and 549 words on FP. Figure 3

shows that 74% of the disclosing companies report less than 100 words FP (N=31).

These results confirm Hypothesis 2a, which states that the extent of reporting depends on

the disclosure type.

Hypothesis 2b examines the extent of the different types of reporting on the level of the

areas and the subareas.

On the level of the different areas, as shown in Table 10a, we identify a similar trend for

the areas Environment, Labour practices and decent work, Product responsibility and

Society. In each area, about 75% of the words are MA, about 20% of the words are VP and

the residual part, about 5%, are words devoted to FP. This trend is in line with the above

findings at the aggregate level.

Since there were no FP reported on the area Human rights, the reported words relate

exclusively to types VP and MA. Results show reporting is approximately equally

distributed between these two types. These patterns also manifest themselves in Everaert et

al. (2009).

The general category, CSR Overall, shows an opposite pattern. About 70% of the words in

this area is devoted to VP, while only 25% is devoted to MA. This can be explained by the

nature of the category CSR Overall. These disclosures do not belong to one of the five

specific areas as they consist of general statements, policies or corporate beliefs. This

could be expected given the fact that 96% of the companies reporting on CSR Overall

makes VP disclosures, while only 36% makes MA disclosures, as discussed in hypothesis

1b.

Table 10b indicates that for all three types of disclosure, Environment is the most popular

area in terms of number of words. The second is Labour practices and decent work for all

types of disclosure. It is remarkable that although more companies report on Labour

practices and decent work than on Environment, the extent of the reporting on Environment

23

is much larger than the extent of reporting on Labour practices and decent work. Everaert

et al. (2009) concluded that in the year 2005, Labour practices and decent work was the

most extensively reported area, followed by Environment. In other words, there has been a

shift from reporting most extensively on environmental issues in 2001 towards labour

issues in 2005.

If we do not take into account the general category CSR Overall, the areas, Product

responsibility and Society hold the third and fourth place. Human rights is the least

disclosed area for all three types of disclosures. A plausible explanation is that, based on

general considerations, Human rights is likely to be less of a controversial issue in

developed economies than in emerging markets. Therefore, given that in 2001 the

production is primarily situated in Belgium or other developed economies, such low

disclosures for Human rights are not surprising.

Table 11 displays the extent of disclosures at the level of the subareas.

In the subarea of Environment, we notice a difference in the extent of reporting between

VP, MA and FP. In the VP disclosures most words are devoted to the residual category, for

MA disclosures the subareas, Emissions and Product and service recycling contain the most

words, while for FP the Emissions and the Residual categories are the most reported

subareas.

In the area Human rights, approximately the same number of words are devoted to VP and

to MA, although the distribution of words is different in the subareas. The VP reporting

mainly covers three subareas namely, Child labour, Investment and procurement practices

and non discrimination, while almost all words of MA fall under the subarea Investment

and procurement practices. It seems remarkable that for the subareas, Non-discrimination

and Child labour, the disclosures consist mainly of VP. This suggests that companies are

aware of these subjects, but they do not undertake specific actions, neither commit

themselves to actions in the future. However, given the nature of these subareas, such

24

actions are unexpected5, unless it is e.g. to support organisation combating discrimination

and child labour.

In the area Labour practices and decent work, the subarea Health and safety benefits

from the most extensive disclosures for all three types, followed by the subarea, Training

and education.

Customer health and safety is the most important subarea for Product Responsibility for

the types, VP and FP. With regard to MA, companies place the highest emphasis on the

subarea Labelling.

In the area Society, the subareas Community, Public Policy and Good causes are the most

important ones. It is notable that Public Policy and Good causes principally consist of MA

reporting.

These results clearly support Hypothesis 2.b and confirm that the extent of the qualitative

reporting differs across areas and subareas.

4.2.3. The Association between the disclosure types

Hypothesis 3 states that the association between the disclosure types depends on the areas

of disclosure. Therefore, we measured the Pearson correlation coefficient between VP,

MA, FP and PI disclosures to examine the underlying association between the four types.

The extent of PI has been measured by counting for each company the number of subareas

for which a PI was reported. The extent of the qualitative disclosures was measured by the

number of words reported.

5 If for example, contrary to expectations, a company were to engage in such practices, it is unlikely to make such an admission, by committing itself to stop discrimination or the use of child labour in the future. Hence, given the nature of the subarea, future such actions are unexpected.

25

As shown in Table 12, the four types of disclosure are significantly and positively

associated to each other. Within the qualitative disclosure types, MA has the highest

correlation with the quantitative PI. This seems logical if we consider that MA disclosures

consist of verifiable and objective initiatives, which can be compared to subsequent

realisations. Moreover, this relation indicates that the more companies describe their

actions, the more they tend to support these with quantitative information.

In order to test Hypothesis 3, we performed the same analysis on the level of the different

areas covered by the CSR disclosures. As shown in Table 13, we identify, similar to the

aggregate level, the strongest correlation between MA and PI for the areas Environment,

Labor practices and decent work and Society. The area Human rights did not provide any

association between the types of disclosure. In contrast to the other areas, where MA is the

strongest correlated with PI, we find that for Product Responsibility FP has the highest

correlation to the quantitative PI.

Given that the areas consist of several subareas, it is useful to examine the relations

between the disclosure types at the level of the subareas.

Table 14 shows that the subarea of Environment, Material provides significant relations

between all types of disclosure. The subareas Emissions, Compliance and Residual

demonstrate a significant association between FP and MA.

For the subareas of Labor practices and decent work, the strongest correlation can be found

between MA and FP on Compliance and between VP and MA on Health and safety.

For the subareas of Society, Community, Public Policy and Good causes provide positive

and significant relations between different types of disclosure.

For the subareas of Product Responsibility, only the subarea Products and Service Labeling

provides a significant relation between the disclosure types, except for the relation between

MA and FP.

26

4.2.4. Reporting practices and industry affiliation

The fourth hypothesis examines whether the industry classification has an effect on

reporting practices.

As discussed previously, companies in the final sample report on average 190 words on

VP. Table 15 shows that the industries, Food and beverages, Chemicals, Utilities, Banks

and Manufacturing report more than this average number of words. Furthermore, Figure 4

indicates that Chemicals is the leading industry in reporting VP, with an average of 716

words per company. The industries Real estate and Holdings are the least reporting

industries, with an average of only 17, respectively 6 words.

On average companies spend 554 words on MA. Table 15 shows that the industries, Food

& beverages, Chemicals, Utilities, Banks and Manufacturing surpass this average. It is

remarkable that these are the same industries as the industries disclosing more than the

average on VP. Figure 5 indicates that Banks is on average the leading industry in MA

reporting, closely followed by the industries Chemicals and Utilities.

Also for FP reporting, we find the same industries disclosing with above average disclosure

( i.e. 32 words), except for the industry Food & beverages. Figure 6 indicates that again,

Chemicals is the leading industry with an average of 228 words. It is noteworthy to

mention that more than half of the industries (7 out of the 12 industries) report on average

less than 10 words for FP.

We conclude that for the three types of qualitative disclosures, Chemicals, Utilities, Banks

and Manufacturing are the highly reporting industries. Certainly concerning VP and FP,

Chemicals is the industry with the greatest disclosure. The leading position of the industry

Chemicals in CSR reporting has been identified in prior literature. Both Meek et al. (1995),

Adams et al., (1998) and Brammer and Pavelin (2006) conclude that Chemicals is among

the most extensively reporting industries.

Figures 7 and 8 show the quantitative disclosures for each industry. Figure 7 presents for

each industry the percentage of the companies reporting at least one PI. All the companies

27

in the industries Food and beverages, Chemicals, Utilities, Banks and Telecommunication

report at least one quantitative PI, whereas in the Pharmaceutical industry none of the

companies discloses a PI. Figure 8 gives an overview of the companies reporting at least 3

PIs. Only in the industry Telecommunication do all the companies report at least 3 PIs. It is

noteworthy that the leading industries for qualitative disclosure, namely, Chemicals,

Utilities, Manufacturing and Banks, do not take the same leading position for quantitative

disclosure.

While Banks is the industry reporting most exhaustively MA, at the same time not a single

company in this industry reports three or more PIs. Chemicals are the leading industry with

regard to VP and FP disclosures, while only 25% of the companies report at least three PIs.

The opposite phenomenon is noticeable for the Telecommunications industry. The latter is

a moderate, qualitatively reporting industry, but at the same time all companies disclose a

significant number of PIs. We conclude that the different industries have different reporting

practices and certain industries succeed better than others to transpose their reported CSR

values, actions and future plans in concrete results as measured by the reporting of PIs.

Figure 9 present graphically the mean number of VP, MA and FP for each industry.

The trend we discussed earlier, in which MA is most extensively reported, followed by VP

and FP, is present for all industries.

Chemicals, Services and Real estate are the industries most extensively reporting VP and

FP, namely the least objective ways of qualitative disclosures. In each of the three

industries, the types VP and FP represent almost 40% of the qualitative reporting. This is

considerably more than other industries. This lack of objective MA disclosures is

accompanied by a shortage in quantitative reporting. Only about 25% of the companies in

these industries report at least 3 PIs. These findings are consistent with Clarkson et al.

(2008), who found that Chemicals is one of the industries disclosing more soft items such

as Vision and Strategy.

On the other hand, Banks and Holdings are the industries using the most objective way of

qualitative disclosures. We find that approximately 85% of their qualitative disclosures are

devoted to MA. Despite the high MA reporting, these industries fail to complete the MA

28

disclosures with quantitative disclosures. Only 17% of the Holdings and 0% of the Banks

report three or more PIs.

Based on these results, we can accept Hypothesis 4 and confirm that there is a remarkable

difference in the reporting practices between different industries.

4.2.5. The Influence of specific disclosures on CSR reporting

In the following section, we examined the influence of specific CSR disclosures on the

extent of qualitative reporting, as hypothesized by H5 to H8. We analysed whether the

disclosure of Employee Involvement, CSR Department and external Certificates and

Nomination/Award results in more extensive disclosures throughout the CSR reporting.

We conducted a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) to investigate whether the CSR

reporting is higher in companies making these specific disclosures. The dependent variable,

the CSR disclosure type, is measured by the number of words. In order to examine in what

way the companies report more extensively, we performed the analysis separately for each

of the three qualitative disclosure types. The explanatory variables, Employee Involvement

CSR Department, Certificates and Nomination/Awards are dummy variables. For the

identification of Employee Involvement and the other three items, we rely on the

disclosures of the company. There is the general limitation that on the one hand some

companies will indeed involve their employees, but do not disclose this. On the other hand,

companies reporting Employee Involvement are not checked for the accuracy of this

disclosure. The same reasoning applies for the disclosure of CSR Department, Certificates

and Nominations/Awards. Whilst we recognise this limitation, prior research has relied

only on the disclosures of the specific CSR items (Vuontisjärvi, 2006; Clarkson et al.,

2008).

We controlled for the independent variables, Size and Industry, since prior research has

demonstrated that these two variables have a significant influence on the extent of CSR

reporting (Skinner, 1994; Hackston and Milne, 1996). The variable, Size, was measured by

the average number of employees in full-time equivalents (FTE). We divided this variable

29

into the following categories: less than 100 employees, between 100 and 1.000 employees,

between 1.000 and 10.000 employees and more than 10.000 employees. We chose this

classification as under Belgian law 100 employees is used as one of the criteria to

determine whether a company is large. The other category thresholds were constructed

from this base threshold of 100 employees (FTE) using a multiple of 10 to calculate the

next threshold. Given the long tail for the distribution of employee numbers, a

“logarithmic” scale does not seem an unreasonable approach to classify the companies

based on size.

To conduct the ANOVA analysis, the following two assumptions are required:

1) Each of the groups is an independent random sample from a normal population

2) In the population, the variances of the groups are equal

In order to obtain a normal distribution, we applied the natural logarithm to the types of

disclosures. As we are only interested in the influence on the reporting of VP, MA and FP,

we reduced the sample to the companies reporting these respective types of disclosure.

Appendix 1 illustrates the fulfilment of the conditions for both the investigation of the

influence of Employee Involvement and Department.

Appendix 2 shows the full execution of the ANOVA analysis, for both Employee

Involvement and Department.

A. The influence of Employee Involvement disclosure

A full ANOVA analysis was carried out for the disclosure type VP and revealed that there

are no significant interaction effects. By performing the ANOVA analysis only with the

main effects as shown in Table 16 (Panel A1), we find that Employee Involvement is the

only significant variable. Moreover, the confidence interval in Table 16 (Panel A2) reveals

that companies without Employee Involvement disclosure report less extensively VP

compared to companies disclosing Employee Involvement.

Next, we tested H 5 for the other two types of disclosure, MA and FP. Again, no interaction

effects between the variables were found in the full ANOVA analysis. Table 16 (Panel B1)

30

illustrates the significant effect of Employee Involvement on MA reporting. The

confidence interval in Table 16 (Panel B2) indicates that the disclosure of Employee

Involvement results in a higher extent of MA reporting compared to companies without

disclosure of Employee Involvement.

The reporting of FP is not significantly influenced by the disclosure of Employee

Involvement, as shown in Table 16 (Panel C).

We conclude that the reporting of Employee Involvement results in a significantly higher

extent of VP and MA reporting, as hypothesized in H5.

B. The influence of CSR Department disclosure

Hypothesis 6 addresses the influence of CSR Department disclosure on the different types

of disclosure. The full ANOVA analysis was carried out for the disclosure type MA and

revealed that there are no significant interaction effects. By conducting the ANOVA

analysis only with the main effects as shown in table 17 (Panel B1), we find that

Department, Size and Industry have a significant influence on MA reporting. Furthermore,

we find that companies not disclosing a CSR Department are reporting significantly less

words on MA than the companies disclosing a CSR Department (Table 17 Panel B2).

The ANOVA analysis for the disclosure types VP and FP indicate that there are no

significant interaction effects and no main effects (Table 17 Panel A,C).

We conclude that the disclosure of a CSR Department results in a significantly higher

extent of MA reporting, as hypothesised in H6.

C. The influence of the receipt of an external certificate or nomination/award

In order to test whether CSR reporting is influenced by the disclosure of an external

Certificate or Nomination/Award, we also performed an ANOVA analysis. We did not

conduct this analysis for the areas, Human rights and Society, since there was only one

company that disclosed the receipt of a nomination for its societal actions. Hence, we tested

31

the hypotheses for the reporting on the remaining areas Environment, Labour practices and

decent work, Society and Overall CSR. We investigated whether the receipt of a Certificate

or Nomination/Award relating to one area has an influence on the reporting on this specific

area (e.g. the influence of an environmental ISO14001 Certificate was tested on

environmental reporting). The influence of a Certificate and Nomination/Award concerning

the area Overall CSR, was tested on VP, MA and FP disclosures in total. We reason that a

Certificate or Nomination/Award given for the company’s general CSR practices will not

be reflected solely in the reporting on the area CSR Overall, since a “general” award will

probably have been based on the companies’ performance in a variety of specific areas. .

Appendix 6 shows the fulfilment of the ANOVA conditions6. The Lilliefors test indicates

the normality of the Standardised Residuals. The condition of equal variances is illustrated

by the scatter plot of the Standardised Residuals.

The results of the ANOVA analysis, as shown in Table 18 - 19, reveal that there were no

interaction effects and the only main effect of Certificates or Nomination/Awards was

found for VP reporting on environment, which appears to be just significant for both

Certificates and Nomination/Awards. If we look at a confidence interval of 95%, we find

that companies without disclosure of an environmental Nomination/Award report less than

companies disclosing the Nomination/Award (Table 20). We find the same results for the

disclosure of an environmental Certificate. In general, these findings indicate that the

separate disclosure of a Certificate or Nomination/Award does not result in more extensive

reporting practices.

To summarise, Hypotheses 7 and 8 are accepted only for VP reporting on the area

Environment.

6 This is illustrated for LPDW certificates on the VP reporting

32

5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The objective of the study is to determine the content of CSR disclosures and to examine

how companies report their CSR information. This permits an evaluation of the quality of

the disclosure. A content analysis was performed on the annual reports and separate CSR

reports of Belgian companies for 2001. A total of 127 companies were contacted to

produce an initial sample of 98 companies suitable for analysis. All these companies were

listed on Euronext Brussels in 2005. We decided upon this requirement to enhance

comparability with Everaert et al. (2009).

Of the initial sample, 81% of the companies reported CSR information in their annual

report. Consistent with the GRI guidelines, the CSR disclosures were categorised into five

areas, namely: Environment, Labour practices and decent work, Society, Human Rights

and Product Responsibility. The reporting area, Overall CSR, was also added to the

previous areas, as certain disclosures do not fall under one specific area.

Hypothesis 1a, which states that the number of companies reporting depends on the

disclosure type, is confirmed. More companies disclose in a qualitative way than in a

quantitative way. Within the qualitative disclosures, we find strong differences in the

number of companies reporting a specific type of disclosure. As described in Table 3, more

than 80% of the companies reports MA, 65% uses VP and only 40% of the companies

discloses FP. Similar results were found by Adams et al. (1998), Vuontisjärvi (2006),

Clarkson et al. (2008) and Everaert et al. (2009). As expected by Hypothesis 1b, the results

confirm that the number of companies reporting the disclosure types differ across the areas.

As explained in 4.3.1, the results reveal different patterns in the reporting practices across

the different areas.

The extent of the qualitative reporting, as measured by the number of words, depends on

the disclosure type, as stated in Hypothesis 2a. We conclude that the largest part of CSR

reporting relates to the most objective type of qualitative disclosure, i.e. MA reporting.

Furthermore, the number of words devoted to MA is three times the amount of words

devoted to VP. FP is the least extensively reported disclosure type.

33

Hypothesis 2b expects a difference in the extent of the qualitative reporting across the areas

and subareas. As described in 4.3.2, for the areas Human rights and CSR Overall there is a

high level of VP reporting compared to MA, whereas at the aggregate level and for the

other areas, this pattern is reversed and MA reporting is much more extensive than VP.

The third hypothesis, H3, which states that the association between the disclosure types

depends on the areas of disclosure, is confirmed. The results show that according to the

area we see different relations between the disclosure types. In general, we find that within

the qualitative disclosure types, MA is the strongest correlated with PI.

The industry affiliation is examined in the fourth hypothesis. Our analysis confirms that the

reporting practices of CSR information differs across industries. In particular, the industry

sectors, Chemicals, Utilities, Banks and Manufacturing report the most extensively for all

three types of qualitative disclosure, while the sectors, Real estate and Holdings, disclose

the least qualitative information. With regard to quantitative disclosures,

Telecommunication is the only industry were all companies report a significant number of

PI, while no company in the industrial sectors, Banks and Pharmaceuticals report three or

more different PIs. As could be expected from prior research, our results show that

amongst all industry sectors, the Chemical industry provides the most extensive disclosures

(Meek et al., (1995); Adams et al., (1998); Brammer and Pavelin, (2006); Everaert et al.,

(2009)).

Hypotheses 5 to 8 address the influence of specific CSR disclosures on CSR reporting. As

expected by Hypotheses 5 and 6, we find that the disclosure of Employee Involvement and

the disclosure of a CSR Department result in a higher extent of MA reporting as compared

to companies that do not make these disclosures. By contrast, when examining Hypotheses

7 and 8, we find that in general the disclosure of external certificates or nomination/awards

does not result in more extensive CSR reporting.

We recognise that the study contains several limitations that could be addressed by future

research. First, our sample consists of 98 companies. An investigation on a larger sample of

34

companies would improve the reliability of the analysis, particularly as regards the relation

between industry affiliation and CSR reporting. Second, this study focuses on annual

reports and separate CSR reports. Our research does not capture information contained in

other reporting media such as interim reports, corporate websites, newspaper articles and

press releases (Zéghal and Ahmed, 1990). Furthermore and thirdly, we did not include

pictures into our content analysis. It would be interesting to see whether these would

change the results. Next and fourthly, a more diversified sample with companies not

exclusively listed on a stock exchange and containing companies from other countries,

would offer the possibility of analysing possible inter-country differences and the effect of

regulatory factors on the CSR reporting. Fifthly and finally, for the investigation of the

influence of specific CSR factors, as addressed by hypotheses, H5 to H8, we relied only

the disclosure of the company. There was no verification of the accuracy of what

companies reported, nor was there a check for companies actually possessing an specific

CSR factor but not disclosing it. This limitation could be perhaps mitigated by more

extensive analysis given sufficient resources.

It would be interesting for future research to integrate the data from 2001 into a larger

study covering several years. In this way, the evolution in the content of CSR reporting and

the evolution of how companies disclose their CSR information could be observed.

35

6. REFERENCES

Atlas ti. (2008). www.atlasti.com.

Adams, C.A., Hill, W. & Roberts, C.B. (1998). “Corporate Social Reporting Practices

in Western Europe: Legitimating Corporate Behaviour?”, British Accounting Review,

30, 1-21.

Brammer, S. & Pavelin S. (2006). “Voluntary Environmental Disclosures by Large UK

Companies”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 33(7) and (8), 1168-1188.

Clarkson, M., Li, Y., Richardson, G.D. & Vasvari, F.P. (2008). “Revisiting the relation

between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical

analysis”, Accounting, Organization and Society, 33, 302-327.

Deegan, C. & Gordon, B. (1996). “A study of the environmental disclosure policies of

Australian corporations”, Accounting and business research, 26(3), 187-199.

Everaert, P., Bouten, L., Van Liedekerke, L., De Moor, L. & Christiaens, J. (2009).

“Discovering patterns in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: A transparent

framework based on the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) Sustainability Reporting

Guidelines”, www.feb.ugent.be.

Global Reporting Initiative Sustainability Reporting Guidelines G3, version 3.0. (2006).

Global Reporting Initiative website, www.globalreporting.org.

Gray, R., Javad, M., Power, D.M. & Sinclair, C.D. (2001). “Social and Environmental

Disclosures and Corporate Characteristics: A research Note and Extension”, Journal of

Business Finance & Accounting, 28(3) & (4), 327-356.

36

Green Paper, (2001). “Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social

Responsibility”, Commission of the European Communities, COM (2001), 366 final.

Hackston, D. & Milne, M.J. (1996). “Some Determinants of Social and Environmental

Disclosures in New Zealand Companies”, Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability

Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 77-108.

Hutton, A., Miller, G. & Skinner, J. (2003). “The role of supplementary statements with

management earnings forecasts”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 41, No. 5, 867-

889.

Jose, A. & Lee, S. (2007). “Environmental Reporting of Global Corporations: A

Content Analysis based on Website Disclosures”, Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 307-

321.

Jones, K., Alabaster, T. & Walton, J. (1998). “Virtual Environments for environmental

reporting”, Greener Management International, 21, 121-137.

KPMG, 2002, “International Survey of Environmental Reporting 2002”,

www.kpmg.nl/Docs/Corporate_Site/Publicaties/International_Survey_Environmental_

Reporting_2002.

KPMG, 2005, “International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005”,

www.kpmg.nl/Docs/Corporate_Site/Publicaties/International_Survey_Corporate_Resp

onsibility_2005.

KPMG, 2008, “International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008”,

www.kpmg.nl/Docs/Corporate_Site/Publicaties/Corp_responsibility_Survey_2008.

37

Meek, G., Roberts, C. & Gray, S. (1995). “Factors influencing Voluntary Annual

Report disclosures by US, UK and continental European multinational corporations”,

Journal of International Business Studies : third quarter, 555-572.

Neu, D., Warsame, H. & Pedwell, K. (1988). “Managing public impressions:

Environmental disclosures in annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society,

Vol. 23, No. 3, 265-282.

Patten, D.M. (2002). “The relation between environmental performance and

environmental disclosure: a research note”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27,

763-773.

Pava, M.L. & Krausz, J. (1997). “Criteria for Evaluating the Legitimacy of Corporate

Social Responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 337-347.

Roberts, R.W. (1992). “Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility disclosure :

An application of stakeholder theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6),

595-612.

Skinner, D. (1994). “Why Firms Voluntarily Disclose Bad News”, Journal of

Accounting Research, 32, 38-60.

Stanwick, P.A. & Stanwick S.D. (1998). “The Relationship Between Corporate Social

Performance and Organizational Size, Financial Performance, and Environmental

Performance: An Empirical Examination”, Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 195-204.

Ullmann, A.A. (1985). “Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the

Relationships Among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic

Performance of U.S. Firms”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.10, No.3, 540-557.

38

Vuontisjärvi, T. (2006). “Corporate Social Reporting in the European Context and

Human Resource Disclosures: An analysis of Finnish Companies”, Journal of Business

Ethics, 69, 331-354

Wanderley, L.S.O., Lucian, R., Farache, F. & Sousa Filho, J.M. (2008). “CSR

Information Disclosure on the Web: A Context-Based Approach Analysing the

Influence of Country of Origin and Industry Sector”, Journal of Business Ethics, 82,

369-378.

Wetboek voor vennootschappen in Belgium, 30/01/2006, art 96 regarding the Annual

Report, www.fisconet.fgov.be.

Weber, R. P. (1988). “Basic Content Analysis, Sage University Paper Series on

Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences”, Series No. 07-049 (Sage, Beverly

Hills, CA, and London)

Wiseman J. (1982). “An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate

annual reports”, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 7, No. 1, 53-63

Zéghal, D. & Ahmed, S. (1990). “Comparison of Social Responsibility Information

Disclosure Media used by Canadian Firms”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability

Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, 38-53

I

TABLES

Table 1: Number of companies per industry reporting CSR

Industry Sample Number of companies that disclose on CSR % (2)/(1)

Retail and Distribution 9 9 100%

Food and Beverages 7 7 100%

Chemicals 4 4 100%

Utilities 4 4 100%

Banks 3 3 100%

Telecom 2 2 100%

Manufacturing 15 15 100%

Pharma 2 2 100%

Services 9 8 89%

Electronics and ICT 7 6 86%

Real Estate 14 7 50%

Holdings 22 12 55%

TOTAL SAMPLE 98 79 81%

Table 2.a: Number of companies qualitatively and quantitatively disclosing, including

the companies reporting PI from the social balance sheet

N=79 Qualitative disclosures Quantitative dislosures min 1 PI min 3 Pi Number of companies 69 60 27% of companies 87,34% 75,95% 34,18% Table 2.b: Number of companies qualitatively and quantitatively disclosing, excluding

the companies reporting PI from the social balance sheet

N=79 Qualitative disclosures Quantitative dislosures min 1 PI min 3 Pi Number of companies 69 41 16% of companies 87,34% 51,90% 20,25%

Table 3: Number of companies reporting the different types of disclosure

N=79 VP MA FP PI

Number of disclosing companies 52 65 31 60

% of disclosing companies 65,82 % 82,28% 39,34 % 75,95%

II

Table 4: Number of companies reporting on the different areas N=79 TOTALENV number of companies 44

% 55,7%HR number of companies 8

% 10,1%LPDW number of companies 71

% 89,9%PR number of companies 43

% 54,4%SOC number of companies 30

% 38%CSR OVERALL number of companies 28

% 35,4%

Table 5: Number of companies reporting on the different areas per disclosure type VP MA FP PI

ENV (N=44) number of companies 38 38 11 22% 86,4% 86,4% 25% 50%

HR (N=8) number of companies 5 4 0 0% 62,5% 50% 0% 0%

LPDW (N=71) number of companies 41 56 20 52% 57,7% 78,9% 28,2% 73,2%

PR (N=43) number of companies 20 37 4 4% 46,5% 86,6% 9,3% 9,3%

SOC (N=30) number of companies 16 29 7 11% 53,3% 96,7% 23,3% 36,7%

CSR OVERALL (N=28) number of companies 27 10 3 /% 96,4% 35,7% 10,7% /

Table 6: Extent of the different types of qualitative disclosure

Number of words Percentage

VP 15.032 24,51%

MA 43.734 71,31%

FP 2.565 4,18%

TOTAL 61.331 100,00%

III

Table 7: Descriptive statistics words on Values and Principles (VP) ValuesAndPrinciples

790

190,2840,48747,00

0359,856

129496,02162

02162

15032

ValidMissing

N

MeanStd. Error of MeanMedianModeStd. DeviationVarianceRangeMinimumMaximumSum

Table 8: Descriptive statistics words on Management Approach (MA) ManagementApproach

790

553,59112,837171,00

01002,9191005847

61230

612343734

ValidMissing

N

MeanStd. Error of MeanMedianModeStd. DeviationVarianceRangeMinimumMaximumSum

Table 9: Descriptive statistics words on Future Plans (FP) FuturePlans

790

32,479,668

,000

85,9317384,175

5490

5492565

ValidMissing

N

MeanStd. Error of MeanMedianModeStd. DeviationVarianceRangeMinimumMaximumSum

IV

Table 10a: Extent of the types of qualitative disclosure per area

Area VP MA FP Total

CSR OVERALL Number of words 2.443 827 155 3.425

% 71,33% 24,15% 4,53% 100,00%

ENVIRONMENT Number of words 5.350 19.254 1.264 25.868

% 20,68% 74,43% 4,89% 100,00%

HR Number of words 466 432 0 898

% 51,89% 48,11% 0,00% 100,00%

LPDW Number of words 4.545 12.823 850 18.218

% 24,95% 70,39% 4,67% 100,00%

PR Number of words 1.292 5.134 115 6.541

% 19,75% 78,49% 1,76% 100,00%

SOCIETY Number of words 936 5.264 181 6.381

% 14,67% 82,49% 2,84% 100,00% Table 10b: Extent of the types of qualitative disclosure per area

Area VP MA FP

CSR OVERALL Number of words 2.443 827 155

% 16,25% 1,89% 6,04%

ENVIRONMENT Number of words 5.350 19.254 1.264

% 35,59% 44,03% 49,28%

HR Number of words 466 432 0

% 3,10% 0,99% 0,00%

LPDW Number of words 4.545 12.823 850

% 30,24% 29,32% 33,14%

PR Number of words 1.292 5.134 115

% 8,59% 11,74% 4,48%

SOCIETY Number of words 936 5.264 181

% 6,23% 12,04% 7,06%

TOTAL Number of words 15032 43734 2565

% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

V

Table 11: Extension of the types of qualitative disclosure per subarea

Area Subarea VP MA FP CSR OVERALL CSR Overall Number of words 2.443 827 155 ENVIRONMENT ENV material Number of words 497 1.475 81 % of total env 9,18% 7,66% 6,41% ENV energy Number of words 439 1.891 89 % of total env 8,11% 9,82% 7,04% ENV water Number of words 102 1.825 123 % of total env 1,88% 9,48% 9,73% ENV biodiversity Number of words 113 468 0 % of total env 2,09% 2,43% 0,00% ENV Emissions Number of words 634 5.375 418 % of total env 11,71% 27,92% 33,07% ENV products and service Number of words 518 3.984 97 recycling % of total env 9,57% 20,69% 7,67% ENV compliance Number of words 243 827 146 % of total env 4,49% 4,30% 11,55% ENV transport Number of words 161 537 41 % of total env 2,97% 2,79% 3,24% ENV general investments Number of words 25 61 0 % of total env 0,46% 0,32% 0,00% ENV residual Number of words 2.681 2.811 269 % of total env 49,53% 14,60% 21,28% TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 5413 19254 1264 100% 100% 100%HUMAN RESOURCES HR investment and Number of words 162 417 0 procurement practices % of total HR 34,76% 96,53% HR non-discrimination Number of words 101 15 0 % of total HR 21,67% 3,47% HR Freedom of association Number of words 0 0 0 and collective bargaining % of total HR 0,00% 0,00% HR child labor Number of words 184 0 0 % of total HR 39,48% 0,00% HR forced&compulsory Number of words 0 0 0 labor % of total HR 0,00% 0,00% HR security practices Number of words 0 0 0 % of total HR 0,00% 0,00% HR indigenous rights Number of words 0 0 0 % of total HR 0,00% 0,00% HR complaints & grievance Number of words 0 0 0 policy % of total HR 0,00% 0,00% HR compliance Number of words 0 0 0 % of total HR 0,00% 0,00% HR residual Number of words 19 0 0 % of total HR 4,08% 0,00% TOTAL HR 466 432 0 100% 100% 100%

VI

LABOUR PRACTICES LPDW Employment Number of words 198 1.809 62AND DECENT WORK % of total LPDW 4,36% 14,11% 7,29% LPDW labour/management Number of words 200 1.485 142 relations % of total LPDW 4,40% 11,58% 16,71% LPDW health and safety Number of words 1.852 3.979 390 % of total LPDW 40,75% 31,03% 45,88% LPDW training and Number of words 1.048 3.406 152 education % of total LPDW 23,06% 26,56% 17,88% LPDW diversity and equal Number of words 69 151 0 opportunity % of total LPDW 1,52% 1,18% 0,00% LPDW employee Number of words 688 1.555 98 satisfaction % of total LPDW 15,14% 12,13% 11,53% LPDW compliance Number of words 158 387 6 % of total LPDW 3,48% 3,02% 0,71% LPDW residual Number of words 332 51 0 % of total LPDW 7,30% 0,40% 0,00% TOTAL LPDW 4545 12823 850 100% 100% 100%PRODUCT PR customer health and Number of words 729 1.417 82RESPONSIBILITY safety % of total PR 56,42% 27,60% 71,30% PR labelling Number of words 323 2.376 17 % of total PR 25,00% 46,28% 14,78% PR customer satisfaction Number of words 132 417 9 % of total PR 10,22% 8,12% 7,83% PR marketing- Number of words 14 250 7 communications % of total PR 1,08% 4,87% 6,09% PR customerprivacy Number of words 24 38 0 % of total PR 1,86% 0,74% 0,00% PR compliance Number of words 70 636 0 % of total PR 5,42% 12,39% 0,00% PR residual Number of words 0 0 0 % of total PR 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% TOTAL PR 1292 5134 115 100% 100% 100%SOCIETY SOC community Number of words 549 1.303 58 % of total SOC 58,65% 24,75% 32,04% SOC corruption Number of words 0 0 0 % of total SOC 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% SOC public policy Number of words 16 1.431 60 % of total SOC 1,71% 27,18% 33,15% SOC anti-competitive Number of words 44 36 0 behavior % of total SOC 4,70% 0,68% 0,00% SOC compliance Number of words 68 69 6 % of total SOC 7,26% 1,31% 3,31% SOC good causes Number of words 122 2.425 57 % of total SOC 13,03% 46,07% 31,49% SOC residual Number of words 137 0 0 % of total SOC 14,64% 0,00% 0,00% TOTAL SOC 936 5264 181 100% 100% 100%

VII

Table 12: Pearson correlations between all types of disclosure

Correlations

1 .880** .843** .672**.000 .000 .000

79 79 79 79.880** 1 .814** .745**.000 .000 .000

79 79 79 79.843** .814** 1 .627**.000 .000 .000

79 79 79 79.672** .745** .627** 1.000 .000 .000

79 79 79 79

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VP

MA

FP

PI_ALLAREAS

VP MA FP PI_ALLAREAS

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Table 13: Pearson correlations on the level of the areas

Panel A: Environment Correlations

1 .870** .819** .613**.000 .000 .000

44 44 44 44.870** 1 .817** .740**.000 .000 .000

44 44 44 44.819** .817** 1 .593**.000 .000 .000

44 44 44 44.613** .740** .593** 1.000 .000 .000

44 44 44 44

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VP_ENV_REP

MA_ENV_REP

FP_ENV_REP

PI_ENV_REP

VP_ENV_REPMA_ENV_

REP FP_ENV_REP PI_ENV_REP

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Panel B: Labour practices and Decent work Correlations

1 .656** .419** .101.000 .000 .403

71 71 71 71.656** 1 .541** .285*.000 .000 .016

71 71 71 71.419** .541** 1 .211.000 .000 .078

71 71 71 71.101 .285* .211 1.403 .016 .078

71 71 71 71

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VP_LPDW_REP

MA_LPDW_REP

FP_LPDW_REP

PI_LPDW_REP

VP_LPDW_REP

MA_LPDW_REP

FP_LPDW_REP

PI_LPDW_REP

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*.

VIII

Panel C: Society

Correlations

1 .452* .476** .305.012 .008 .101

30 30 30 30.452* 1 .599** .625**.012 .000 .000

30 30 30 30.476** .599** 1 .545**.008 .000 .002

30 30 30 30.305 .625** .545** 1.101 .000 .002

30 30 30 30

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VP_SOC_REP

MA_SOC_REP

FP_SOC_REP

PI_SOC_REP

VP_SOC_REP

MA_SOC_REP

FP_SOC_REP PI_SOC_REP

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*.

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Panel D: Product Responsibility

Correlations

1 .721** .519** .602**.000 .000 .000

43 43 43 43.721** 1 .196 .403**.000 .207 .007

43 43 43 43.519** .196 1 .744**.000 .207 .000

43 43 43 43.602** .403** .744** 1.000 .007 .000

43 43 43 43

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VP_PR_REPORTING

MA_PR_REPORTING

FP_PR_REPORTING

PI_PR_REPORTING

VP_PR_REPORTING

MA_PR_REPORTING

FP_PR_REPORTING

PI_PR_REPORTING

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Panel E: Human Rights

Correlations

1 -.409 .a .a

.314 . .8 8 8 8

-.409 1 .a .a

.314 . .8 8 8 8.a .a .a .a

. . .8 8 8 8.a .a .a .a

. . .8 8 8 8

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VP_HR_REP

MA_HR_REP

FP_HR_REP

PI_HR_REP

VP_HR_REP MA_HR_REP FP_HR_REP PI_HR_REP

Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.a.

IX

Panel F: CSR overall Correlations

1 .544** .468*.003 .012

28 28 28.544** 1 .126.003 .521

28 28 28.468* .126 1.012 .521

28 28 28

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VP_CSR_OVERALL_REP

MA_CSR_OVERALL_REP

FP_CSR_OVERALL_REP

VP_CSR_OVERALL_

REP

MA_CSR_OVERALL_

REP

FP_CSR_OVERALL_

REP

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*.

Table 14: Pearson correlations on the level of the subareas Panel A: Pearson correlations on the subareas of Environment Panel A1: Pearson correlations on the subarea Material

Correlations

1 .732** .833**.000 .000

22 22 22.732** 1 .560**.000 .007

22 22 22.833** .560** 1.000 .007

22 22 22

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VPMATERIAL

MAMATERIAL

FPMATERIAL

VPMATERIAL MAMATERIAL FPMATERIAL

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Panel A2: Pearson correlations on the subarea Emissions

Correlations

1 .511** .347.003 .052

32 32 32.511** 1 .625**.003 .000

32 32 32.347 .625** 1.052 .000

32 32 32

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VPEMISSIONS

MAEMISSIONS

FPEMISSIONS

VPEMISSIONS

MAEMISSIONS

FPEMISSIONS

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

X

Panel A3: Pearson correlations on the subarea Compliance Correlations

1 .365 .532**.080 .007

24 24 24.365 1 .654**.080 .001

24 24 24.532** .654** 1.007 .001

24 24 24

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VPCOMPLIANCE

MACOMPLIANCE

FPCOMPLIANCE

VPCOMPLIANCE

MACOMPLIANCE

FPCOMPLIANCE

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Panel A4: Pearson correlations on the subarea Residual

Correlations

1 -.004 -.077.984 .691

29 29 29-.004 1 .705**.984 .000

29 29 29-.077 .705** 1.691 .000

29 29 29

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VPRESIDU

MARESIDU

FPRESIDU

VPRESIDU MARESIDU FPRESIDU

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Panel B: Pearson correlations on the subareas of Labour practices and Decent work

Panel B1: Pearson correlations on the subarea Compliance Correlations

1 -.238 -.177.393 .529

15 15 15-.238 1 .920**.393 .000

15 15 15-.177 .920** 1.529 .000

15 15 15

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VPCOMPLIANCE

MACOMPLIANCE

FPCOMPLIANCE

VPCOMPLIANCE

MACOMPLIANCE

FPCOMPLIANCE

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

XI

Panel B2: Pearson correlations on the subarea Health and Safety Correlations

1 .708** .348.000 .070

28 28 28.708** 1 .507**.000 .006

28 28 28.348 .507** 1.070 .006

28 28 28

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

vphealth

mahealth

fphealth

vphealth mahealth fphealth

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Panel C: Pearson correlations on the subareas of Society Panel C1: Pearson correlations on the subarea Community

Correlations

1 .829** .775**.000 .000

16 16 16.829** 1 .714**.000 .002

16 16 16.775** .714** 1.000 .002

16 16 16

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VPCOMMUNITY

MACOMMUNITY

FPCOMMUNITY

VPCOMMUNITY

MACOMMUNITY

FPCOMMUNITY

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Panel C2: Pearson correlations on the sub area Public Policy

Correlations

1 -.174 .815**.610 .002

11 11 11-.174 1 -.285.610 .396

11 11 11.815** -.285 1.002 .396

11 11 11

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VPpublicpolicy

MApublicpolicy

FPpublicpolicy

VPpublicpolicy

MApublicpolicy

FPpublicpolicy

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

XII

Panel C3: Pearson correlations on the sub area Good Causes Correlations

1 .397 .467.128 .068

16 16 16.397 1 .650**.128 .006

16 16 16.467 .650** 1.068 .006

16 16 16

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VPGOODCAUSES

MAGOODCAUSES

FPGOODCAUSES

VPGOODCAUSES

MAGOODCAUSES

FPGOODCAUSES

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Panel D: Pearson correlations on the subareas of Product Responsibility Panel D1: Pearson correlations on the subarea Products and Service Labeling

Correlations

1 .774** .715**.000 .000

20 20 20.774** 1 .247.000 .293

20 20 20.715** .247 1.000 .293

20 20 20

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)N

VPLABELING

MALABELING

FPLABELING

VPLABELING MALABELING FPLABELING

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

XIII

Table 15: Mean number of words spent on the different types of qualitative disclosure per industry VP MA FP

R&D Mean (number of words) 122,89 362,33 3,33

N=9 Std. Error of mean 66,74 196,65 1,83

F&B Mean (number of words) 211,14 555,14 2,43

N=7 Std. Error of mean 63,70 106,66 1,66

CHEMICALS Mean (number of words) 716,50 1518,50 228,00

N=4 Std. Error of mean 359,78 758,90 113,91

UTILITIES Mean (number of words) 326,75 1424,50 110,25

N=4 Std. Error of mean 100,30 569,00 57,48

BANKS Mean (number of words) 238,33 1553,67 69,67

N=3 Std. Error of mean 45,04 681,12 17,13

TELECOM Mean (number of words) 174,50 493,00 4,50

N=2 Std. Error of mean 147,50 176,00 4,50

MANUFACTURING Mean (number of words) 392,20 1047,40 45,33

N=15 Std. Error of mean 153,59 434,77 26,48

PHARMA Mean (number of words) 158,50 319,50 0,00

N=2 Std. Error of mean 135,50 284,50 0,00

SERVICES Mean (number of words) 63,00 122,88 16,38

N=8 Std. Error of mean 40,99 47,83 9,95

ELECTRONICS & ICT Mean (number of words) 53,33 134,67 6,50

N=6 Std. Error of mean 52,14 62,92 6,50

REAL ESTATE Mean (number of words) 16,57 26,43 0,00

N=7 Std. Error of mean 8,31 14,57 0,00

HOLDINGS Mean (number of words) 5,92 70,17 8,08

N=12 Std. Error of mean 4,42 46,92 4,22

XIV

Table 16: Analysis of Variance on Involvement Panel A1: Anova on Involvement for VP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnvp

52,506a 15 3,500 2,733 ,007482,913 1 482,913 377,040 ,00013,703 1 13,703 10,699 ,0025,259 3 1,753 1,369 ,268

20,746 11 1,886 1,473 ,18546,109 36 1,281

1321,100 5298,614 51

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptINVSizeGroupsIndustryErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,532 (Adjusted R Squared = ,338)a.

Panel A2: Parameter estimates

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: lnvp

7,166 ,867 8,261 ,000 5,407 8,926-1,602 ,490 -3,271 ,002 -2,596 -,609

0a . . . . .-1,490 ,949 -1,569 ,125 -3,415 ,436-1,370 ,922 -1,486 ,146 -3,239 ,499

-2,782 1,039 -2,678 ,011 -4,888 -,675

-,898 ,775 -1,159 ,254 -2,470 ,673-2,091 1,006 -2,078 ,045 -4,131 -,050

-1,011 ,698 -1,448 ,156 -2,427 ,405

-1,341 1,006 -1,333 ,191 -3,382 ,699-1,932 ,781 -2,474 ,018 -3,515 -,348

-1,813 ,933 -1,943 ,060 -3,706 ,080

-1,740 ,788 -2,208 ,034 -3,338 -,142-2,548 1,051 -2,424 ,020 -4,679 -,416

0a . . . . .

-,393 ,908 -,433 ,667 -2,234 1,447

1,062 ,594 1,788 ,082 -,143 2,266

,374 ,454 ,824 ,415 -,546 1,294

0a

. . . . .

ParameterIntercept[INV=,00][INV=1,00][Industry=BANKS ][Industry=CHEMICALS ][Industry=ELECTRONICS ][Industry=F&B ][Industry=HOLDING ][Industry=MANUFACTURING ][Industry=PHARMA ][Industry=R&D ][Industry=REAL ESTATE ][Industry=SERVICES ][Industry=TELECOM ][Industry=UTILITIES ][SizeGroups=<100werknemers][SizeGroups=>10 000werknem][SizeGroups=1001-10000werk][SizeGroups=101-1000werkne]

B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound95% Confidence Interval

This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.a.

XV

Panel B1: Anova on Involvement for MA

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA

83,670a 15 5,578 4,468 ,000810,710 1 810,710 649,336 ,000

12,765 3 4,255 3,408 ,02530,776 11 2,798 2,241 ,027

7,513 1 7,513 6,017 ,01861,178 49 1,249

2126,832 65144,848 64

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryINVErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,578 (Adjusted R Squared = ,448)a.

Panel B2: Parameter estimates

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: lnMA

8,205 ,815 10,062 ,000 6,566 9,843-1,094 ,925 -1,183 ,243 -2,952 ,764-1,658 ,894 -1,854 ,070 -3,456 ,139

-2,775 ,772 -3,597 ,001 -4,326 -1,225

-1,221 ,744 -1,642 ,107 -2,715 ,273-2,010 ,785 -2,559 ,014 -3,588 -,432

-1,488 ,664 -2,243 ,029 -2,822 -,155

-2,153 ,984 -2,188 ,033 -4,130 -,176-2,487 ,686 -3,623 ,001 -3,866 -1,107

-1,845 ,988 -1,867 ,068 -3,831 ,141

-2,408 ,740 -3,253 ,002 -3,895 -,921-2,156 1,026 -2,101 ,041 -4,219 -,094

0a . . . . .-1,148 ,468 -2,453 ,018 -2,088 -,207

0a . . . . .

-1,249 ,709 -1,761 ,084 -2,673 ,176

1,165 ,539 2,160 ,036 ,081 2,248

,151 ,385 ,392 ,697 -,623 ,925

0a

. . . . .

ParameterIntercept[Industry=BANKS ][Industry=CHEMICALS ][Industry=ELECTRONICS ][Industry=F&B ][Industry=HOLDING ][Industry=MANUFACTURING ][Industry=PHARMA ][Industry=R&D ][Industry=REAL ESTATE ][Industry=SERVICES ][Industry=TELECOM ][Industry=UTILITIES ][INV=,00][INV=1,00][SizeGroups=<100werknemers][SizeGroups=>10 000werknem][SizeGroups=1001-10000werk][SizeGroups=101-1000werkne]

B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound95% Confidence Interval

This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.a.

XVI

Panel C: Anova on Involvement for FP Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP

27,811a 13 2,139 1,569 ,190140,325 1 140,325 102,888 ,000

3,325 3 1,108 ,813 ,50420,520 9 2,280 1,672 ,173

,817 1 ,817 ,599 ,45023,186 17 1,364

450,565 3150,997 30

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryINVErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,545 (Adjusted R Squared = ,198)a.

Table 17: Analysis of Variance on Department Panel A: Anova on Department for VP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnvp

44,005a 15 2,934 1,934 ,053355,896 1 355,896 234,615 ,000

8,107 3 2,702 1,781 ,16822,310 11 2,028 1,337 ,2455,202 1 5,202 3,430 ,072

54,610 36 1,5171321,100 52

98,614 51

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,446 (Adjusted R Squared = ,215)a.

Panel B1: Anova on Department for MA

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA

82,348a 15 5,490 4,304 ,000625,340 1 625,340 490,270 ,00013,323 3 4,441 3,482 ,02331,582 11 2,871 2,251 ,0266,191 1 6,191 4,853 ,032

62,499 49 1,2752126,832 65144,848 64

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,569 (Adjusted R Squared = ,436)a.

XVII

Panel B2: Parameter estimates Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: lnMA

7,779 ,744 10,457 ,000 6,284 9,274-,423 ,946 -,447 ,657 -2,324 1,479-,829 ,849 -,977 ,333 -2,535 ,877

-2,114 ,792 -2,671 ,010 -3,705 -,523

-,610 ,768 -,794 ,431 -2,153 ,933-1,719 ,804 -2,137 ,038 -3,334 -,103

-1,088 ,669 -1,626 ,110 -2,432 ,257

-2,391 1,002 -2,388 ,021 -4,404 -,379-2,199 ,710 -3,096 ,003 -3,626 -,772

-1,613 1,005 -1,605 ,115 -3,631 ,406

-2,073 ,763 -2,716 ,009 -3,607 -,539-1,923 1,025 -1,877 ,067 -3,983 ,136

0a . . . . .

-,966 ,719 -1,344 ,185 -2,411 ,479

1,369 ,535 2,560 ,014 ,294 2,444

,421 ,387 1,089 ,281 -,356 1,199

0a

. . . . .

-1,237 ,561 -2,203 ,032 -2,365 -,1090a . . . . .

ParameterIntercept[Industry=BANKS ][Industry=CHEMICALS ][Industry=ELECTRONICS ][Industry=F&B ][Industry=HOLDING ][Industry=MANUFACTURING ][Industry=PHARMA ][Industry=R&D ][Industry=REAL ESTATE ][Industry=SERVICES ][Industry=TELECOM ][Industry=UTILITIES ][SizeGroups=<100werknemers][SizeGroups=>10 000werknem][SizeGroups=1001-10000werk][SizeGroups=101-1000werkne][DEP=,00][DEP=1,00]

B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound95% Confidence Interval

This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.a.

Panel C: Anova on Department for FP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP

28,265a 13 2,174 1,626 ,172104,070 1 104,070 77,827 ,000

3,133 3 1,044 ,781 ,52120,943 9 2,327 1,740 ,1561,270 1 1,270 ,950 ,343

22,733 17 1,337450,565 3150,997 30

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,554 (Adjusted R Squared = ,213)a.

XVIII

Table 18: Analysis of Variance on Certificates Panel A1: ANOVA on environmental Certificates for VP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnVP_ENV

32.279a 13 2.483 1.521 .18111.956 1 11.956 7.322 .01218.740 11 1.704 1.043 .442

.205 1 .205 .126 .7267.021 1 7.021 4.300 .049

39.188 24 1.633708.739 38

71.468 37

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustryLNSIZEENVcert01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = .452 (Adjusted R Squared = .155)a.

Panel A2: Parameter estimates

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: lnVP_ENV

5.395 1.370 3.937 .001 2.567 8.222-1.132 .546 -2.074 .049 -2.259 -.005

0a . . . . ..057 .162 .355 .726 -.277 .391

-1.167 1.255 -.930 .362 -3.757 1.423-.362 1.036 -.350 .730 -2.501 1.776

-1.606 1.457 -1.102 .281 -4.613 1.401

-1.235 .839 -1.472 .154 -2.968 .497-2.433 1.480 -1.644 .113 -5.488 .621

-.393 .770 -.511 .614 -1.982 1.196

-.756 1.436 -.527 .603 -3.719 2.207-2.235 1.004 -2.226 .036 -4.307 -.163

-1.394 1.115 -1.250 .223 -3.695 .907

-1.433 1.454 -.986 .334 -4.435 1.568-.019 1.578 -.012 .990 -3.276 3.237

0a . . . . .

ParameterIntercept[ENVcert01=.00][ENVcert01=1.00]LNSIZE[Industry=BANKS ][Industry=CHEMICALS ][Industry=ELECTRONICS ][Industry=F&B ][Industry=HOLDING ][Industry=MANUFACTURING ][Industry=PHARMA ][Industry=R&D ][Industry=REAL ESTATE ][Industry=SERVICES ][Industry=TELECOM ][Industry=UTILITIES ]

B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound95% Confidence Interval

This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.a.

XIX

Panel B: ANOVA on environmental Certificates for MA

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA_ENV

39.983a 13 3.076 2.541 .0232.020 1 2.020 1.669 .209

22.802 11 2.073 1.713 .1319.357 1 9.357 7.731 .0102.393 1 2.393 1.977 .173

29.046 24 1.2101200.190 38

69.028 37

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustryLNSIZEENVcert01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = .579 (Adjusted R Squared = .351)a.

Panel C: ANOVA on environmental Certificates for FP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP_ENV

16.938a 7 2.420 3.398 .171.913 1 .913 1.282 .340

13.616 5 2.723 3.825 .149.121 1 .121 .170 .707

1.575 1 1.575 2.212 .2342.136 3 .712

201.915 1119.074 10

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustryLNSIZEENVcert01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = .888 (Adjusted R Squared = .627)a.

Panel D: ANOVA on LPDW Certificates for VP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnVP_LPDW

19,224a 13 1,479 1,121 ,3854,324 1 4,324 3,276 ,081

14,800 11 1,345 1,020 ,456,281 1 ,281 ,213 ,648

2,355 1 2,355 1,785 ,19335,631 27 1,320

756,356 4154,854 40

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustryLPDWcert01lnSizeErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,350 (Adjusted R Squared = ,038)a.

XX

Panel E: ANOVA on LPDW Certificates for MA

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA_LPDW

40,651a 13 3,127 3,005 ,00316,812 1 16,812 16,155 ,00013,475 11 1,225 1,177 ,33110,055 1 10,055 9,662 ,003

1,881 1 1,881 1,808 ,18643,708 42 1,041

1370,292 5684,360 55

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeLPDWcert01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,482 (Adjusted R Squared = ,322)a.

Panel F: ANOVA on LPDW Certificates for FP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP_LPDW

10,747a 10 1,075 1,445 ,2961,691 1 1,691 2,275 ,1667,905 8 ,988 1,329 ,339

,020 1 ,020 ,027 ,872,041 1 ,041 ,055 ,820

6,692 9 ,744242,061 20

17,439 19

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeLPDWcert01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,616 (Adjusted R Squared = ,190)a.

Panel G: ANOVA on PR Certificates for VP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnVP_PR

8,966a 10 ,897 1,930 ,168,001 1 ,001 ,002 ,967

4,910 8 ,614 1,321 ,3424,692 1 4,692 10,101 ,011

,171 1 ,171 ,369 ,5594,181 9 ,465

302,853 2013,146 19

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizePRcert01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,682 (Adjusted R Squared = ,329)a.

XXI

Panel H: ANOVA on PR Certificates for MA Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA_PR

23,627a 12 1,969 1,569 ,168,673 1 ,673 ,536 ,471

11,817 10 1,182 ,942 ,51510,392 1 10,392 8,280 ,008

,365 1 ,365 ,291 ,59530,122 24 1,255

704,738 3753,749 36

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizePRcert01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,440 (Adjusted R Squared = ,159)a.

Panel I: ANOVA on Overall Certificates for VP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnvp

44,999a 13 3,461 2,453 ,0165,767 1 5,767 4,088 ,050

20,607 11 1,873 1,328 ,24711,189 1 11,189 7,930 ,008

,771 1 ,771 ,546 ,46453,615 38 1,411

1321,100 5298,614 51

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeOVCSRcert01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,456 (Adjusted R Squared = ,270)a.

Panel J: ANOVA on Overall Certificates for MA

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA

82,836a 13 6,372 5,241 ,00018,713 1 18,713 15,390 ,00030,034 11 2,730 2,246 ,02617,124 1 17,124 14,083 ,0001,424 1 1,424 1,171 ,284

62,012 51 1,2162126,832 65144,848 64

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeOVCSRcert01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,572 (Adjusted R Squared = ,463)a.

XXII

Panel K: ANOVA on Overall Certificates for FP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP

32,182a 11 2,926 2,954 ,0191,451 1 1,451 1,465 ,241

16,267 9 1,807 1,825 ,1293,361 1 3,361 3,394 ,0813,942 1 3,942 3,980 ,061

18,815 19 ,990450,565 31

50,997 30

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeOVCSRcert01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,631 (Adjusted R Squared = ,417)a.

Table 19: Analysis of Variance on Nominations/Awards Panel A: ANOVA on environmental Nominations/Awards for VP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnVP_ENV

34.782a 13 2.676 1.750 .11415.977 1 15.977 10.452 .00420.707 11 1.882 1.232 .320

.679 1 .679 .444 .5119.524 1 9.524 6.231 .020

36.685 24 1.529708.739 38

71.468 37

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustryLNSIZEENVnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = .487 (Adjusted R Squared = .209)a.

XXIII

Panel A2: Parameter estimates

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: lnVP_ENV

7.747 1.915 4.044 .000 3.793 11.700-.126 .189 -.667 .511 -.516 .264-.180 1.293 -.139 .891 -2.849 2.490-.301 1.003 -.300 .767 -2.371 1.769

-1.650 1.404 -1.175 .251 -4.548 1.248

-1.177 .813 -1.447 .161 -2.856 .501-2.354 1.432 -1.644 .113 -5.309 .601

-.597 .749 -.796 .434 -2.143 .949

-1.023 1.382 -.740 .466 -3.876 1.830-2.252 .968 -2.327 .029 -4.250 -.255

-1.773 1.075 -1.649 .112 -3.992 .446

-1.496 1.401 -1.068 .296 -4.387 1.395.391 1.556 .251 .804 -2.820 3.603

0a . . . . .-2.052 .822 -2.496 .020 -3.748 -.355

0a . . . . .

ParameterInterceptLNSIZE[Industry=BANKS ][Industry=CHEMICALS ][Industry=ELECTRONICS ][Industry=F&B ][Industry=HOLDING ][Industry=MANUFACTURING ][Industry=PHARMA ][Industry=R&D ][Industry=REAL ESTATE ][Industry=SERVICES ][Industry=TELECOM ][Industry=UTILITIES ][ENVnomaw01=.00][ENVnomaw01=1.00]

B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound95% Confidence Interval

This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.a.

Panel B: ANOVA on environmental Nominations/Awards for MA

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA_ENV

40.451a 13 3.112 2.613 .0203.630 1 3.630 3.049 .094

19.130 11 1.739 1.460 .2112.258 1 2.258 1.896 .1812.861 1 2.861 2.403 .134

28.578 24 1.1911200.190 38

69.028 37

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustryLNSIZEENVnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = .586 (Adjusted R Squared = .362)a.

XXIV

Panel C: ANOVA on environmental Nominations/Awards for FP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP_ENV

17.775a 7 2.539 5.862 .0872.795 1 2.795 6.453 .085

14.653 5 2.931 6.766 .0731.416 1 1.416 3.268 .1682.411 1 2.411 5.567 .0991.299 3 .433

201.915 1119.074 10

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustryLNSIZEENVnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = .932 (Adjusted R Squared = .773)a.

Panel D: ANOVA on LPDW Nominations/Awards for VP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnVP_LPDW

18,946a 13 1,457 1,096 ,4033,488 1 3,488 2,623 ,117

15,765 11 1,433 1,078 ,4143,091 1 3,091 2,324 ,139

,003 1 ,003 ,002 ,96435,908 27 1,330

756,356 4154,854 40

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeLPDWnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,345 (Adjusted R Squared = ,030)a.

Panel E: ANOVA on LPDW Nominations/Awards for MA

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA_LPDW

40,235a 13 3,095 2,946 ,00415,367 1 15,367 14,627 ,00017,504 11 1,591 1,515 ,162

8,965 1 8,965 8,533 ,0061,466 1 1,466 1,395 ,244

44,124 42 1,0511370,292 56

84,360 55

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeLPDWnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,477 (Adjusted R Squared = ,315)a.

XXV

Panel F: ANOVA on LPDW Nominations/Awards for FP Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP_LPDW

11,316a 10 1,132 1,663 ,2282,249 1 2,249 3,305 ,1026,776 8 ,847 1,245 ,373,003 1 ,003 ,004 ,953,610 1 ,610 ,897 ,368

6,123 9 ,680242,061 2017,439 19

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeLPDWnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,649 (Adjusted R Squared = ,259)a.

Panel G: ANOVA on PR Nominations/Awards for VP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnVP_PR

8,794a 10 ,879 1,819 ,191,009 1 ,009 ,018 ,897

4,571 8 ,571 1,181 ,4013,198 1 3,198 6,614 ,030

3,43E-005 1 3,43E-005 ,000 ,9934,352 9 ,484

302,853 2013,146 19

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizePRnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,669 (Adjusted R Squared = ,301)a.

Panel H: ANOVA on PR Nominations/Awards for MA

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA_PR

24,796a 12 2,066 1,713 ,1272,218 1 2,218 1,839 ,188

10,060 10 1,006 ,834 ,6026,236 1 6,236 5,169 ,0321,534 1 1,534 1,271 ,271

28,953 24 1,206704,738 3753,749 36

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizePRnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,461 (Adjusted R Squared = ,192)a.

XXVI

Panel I: ANOVA on Overall Nominations/Awards for VP Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnvp

44,230a 13 3,402 2,377 ,0193,092 1 3,092 2,160 ,150

23,977 11 2,180 1,523 ,16412,161 1 12,161 8,497 ,006

,002 1 ,002 ,001 ,97154,384 38 1,431

1321,100 5298,614 51

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeOVCSRnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,449 (Adjusted R Squared = ,260)a.

Panel J: ANOVA on Overall Nominations/Awards for MA

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA

81,568a 13 6,274 5,057 ,00013,413 1 13,413 10,810 ,00231,199 11 2,836 2,286 ,02317,619 1 17,619 14,200 ,000

,156 1 ,156 ,126 ,72463,279 51 1,241

2126,832 65144,848 64

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeOVCSRnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,563 (Adjusted R Squared = ,452)a.

Panel K: ANOVA on Overall Nominations/Awards for FP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP

28,409a 11 2,583 2,172 ,066,404 1 ,404 ,340 ,567

22,440 9 2,493 2,097 ,0833,724 1 3,724 3,132 ,093

,169 1 ,169 ,143 ,71022,588 19 1,189

450,565 3150,997 30

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrylnSizeOVCSRnomaw01ErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,557 (Adjusted R Squared = ,301)a.

XXVII

FIGURES Figure 1: Number of companies reporting VP

>1000woorden

801-900woorden

601-700woorden

501-600woorden

401-500woorden

301-400woorden

201-300woorden

101-200woorden

1-100woorden

Words VP

25

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f Com

pani

es

21

31

75

8

22

3

N=52

Figure2: Number of companies reporting MA

>1000woorden

901-1000woorde

801-900woorden

701-800woorden

601-700woorden

501-600woorden

401-500woorden

301-400woorden

201-300woorden

101-200woorden

1-100woorden

Words MA

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f com

pani

es

31

433

1

4

78

20

11

N=65

XXVIII

Figure 3: Number of companies reporting FP

501-600 woorden301-400 woorden201-300 woorden101-200 woorden1-100 woorden

words FP

25

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f com

pani

es

112

4

23

N=31

Figure 4: Mean number of words spent on VP per industry

HOLDINGREAL ESTATE

ELECTRONICSSERVICES

PHARMAMANUFACTU...

TELECOMBANKS

UTILITIESCHEMICALS

F&BR&D

Industry

800

600

400

200

0

Mea

n Va

lues

And

Prin

cipl

es

327

174

6317

125158

392

6

211

53

716

238

N=79

XXIX

Figure 5: Mean number of words spent on MA per industry

HOLDINGREAL ESTATE

ELECTRONICSSERVICES

PHARMAMANUFACTU...

TELECOMBANKS

UTILITIESCHEMICALS

F&BR&D

Industry

1500

1000

500

0

Mea

n M

anag

emen

tApp

roac

h

1424

493

123 26

362 320

1047

70

555

135

1518 1554

N=79

Figure 6 : Mean number of words spent on FP per industry

HOLDINGREAL ESTATE

ELECTRONICSSERVICES

PHARMAMANUFACTU...

TELECOMBANKS

UTILITIESCHEMICALS

F&BR&D

Industry

250

200

150

100

50

0

Mea

n Fu

ture

Plan

s

110

4 16 03 0

45

82 6

228

70

N=79

XXX

Percentage of companies/industry reporting at least 1 PI

0,00%

77,78%

100%100%

100%100%

100%

73,33%50,00%

57,14%57,14%

91,67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Industry

% o

f com

pani

es

R&D F&B Chemicals Utilities Banks Telecom Manufact Pharma Services Electr & ICT

Real Estate

Holdings

Percentage of companies/industry reporting at least 3 PI

22,22%

57,14%

25,00%

75,00%

0,00%

100%

53,33%

0,00%

25,00%

16,67%

28,57%

16,67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Industry

% o

f com

pani

es

F&B Chemicals Utilities Banks Telecom Manufact Pharma Services Electr & ICT

Real Estate

HoldingsR&D

Figure 7

Figure 8

XXXI

FPbijRDMAbijRDVPbijRD

400,00

300,00

200,00

100,00

0,00

Mea

n

3,33

362,33

122,89

N=9

R&D

Mean VP-MA-FP

FPbijFBMAbijFBVPbijFB

600,00

500,00

400,00

300,00

200,00

100,00

0,00

Mea

n

2,43

555,14

211,14

N=7

F&B

Mean VP-MA-FP

Figure 9: Mean number of words spent on VP-MA-FP per industry Panel A: Retail and distribution Panel B: Food and beverages

Panel

XXXII

C: Chemicals

FPbijCHEMICALSMAbijCHEMICALSVPbijCHEMICALS

1500,00

1000,00

500,00

0,00

Mea

n

228,00

1518,50

716,50

N=4

CHEMICALS

Mean VP-MA-FP

Panel D: Utilities

FPbijUTILITIESMAbijUTILITIESVPbijUTILITIES

1500,00

1200,00

900,00

600,00

300,00

0,00

Mea

n

110,25

1424,50

326,75

N=4

UTILITIES

Mean VP-MA-FP

XXXIII

Panel E: Banks

FPbijBANKSMAbijBANKSVPbijBANKS

1500,00

1000,00

500,00

0,00

Mea

n

69,67

1553,67

238,33

N=3

BANKS

Mean VP-MA-FP

Panel F: Telecommunication

FPbijTELECOMMAbijTELECOMVPbijTELECOM

500,00

400,00

300,00

200,00

100,00

0,00

Mea

n

4,50

493,00

174,50

N=2

TELECOM

Mean VP-MA-FP

XXXIV

Panel G: Manufacturing

FPbijMANUFACTURINGMAbijMANUFACTURINGVPbijMANUFACTURING

1200,00

1000,00

800,00

600,00

400,00

200,00

0,00

Mea

n

45,33

1047,40

392,20

N=15

MANUFACTURING

Mean VP-MA-FP

Panel H: Pharmaceuticals

FPbijPHARMAMAbijPHARMAVPbijPHARMA

300,00

200,00

100,00

0,00

Mea

n

0,00

319,50

158,50

N=2

PHARMA

Mean VP-MA-FP

XXXV

Panel I: Services

FPbijSERVICESMAbijSERVICESVPbijSERVICES

125,00

100,00

75,00

50,00

25,00

0,00

Mea

n

16,38

122,88

63,00

N=8

SERVICES

Mean VP-MA-FP

Panel J: Electronics and ICT

FPbijELECTRONICSMAbijELECTRONICSVPbijELECTRONICS

140,00

120,00

100,00

80,00

60,00

40,00

20,00

0,00

Mea

n

6,50

134,67

53,33

N=6

ELECTRONICS

Mean VP-MA-FP

XXXVI

Panel K: Real Estate

FPbijREALESTATEMAbijREALESTATEVPbijREALESTATE

30,00

25,00

20,00

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00

Mea

n

0,00

26,43

16,57

N=7

REAL ESTATE

Mean VP-MA-FP

Panel L: Holdings

FPbijHOLDINGMAbijHOLDINGVPbijHOLDING

80,00

60,00

40,00

20,00

0,00

Mea

n

8,08

70,17

5,92

N=12

HOLDING

Mean VP-MA-FP

XXXVII

Appendices

Appendix 1: Overview of companies per industry Retail en distribution Food en beverages Services Delhaize Miko Keyware D'Ieteren Lotus ICOS Fountain Inbev Epiq Omega Pharma Terbeke Arinso Econocom Duvel Real Systemat Pinguin* Artwork systems Colruyt Spadel Kinepolis Brantano Spector Sipef Dolmen Chemicals Utilities Electronics en ICT Recticel Distrigas EVS Tessenderlo Chemie Fluxys Melexis Solvay* Elia Barco UCB Electrabel Iris Option IPTE Zenitel Banks Telecom Pharma Dexia* Mobistar IBA KBC Belgacom Innogenetics Fortis Manufacturing Real estate Holdings Bekaert Confinimmo Bois Sauvage Roularta Immobel CMB Sioen Accentis Texaf Resilux Wereldhave GBL Jensen Neufcour Unibra Picanol Serviceflats Punch International Agfa* Warehouses Tubize VPK Leasinvest Catala Deceuninck Intervest GIMV Umicore* Befimmo Nat. Portefeuillemaatschap. CFE Retail estate Cismescaut Campine WDP Auximines Rosier Home Invest Sapec Sabca Ackermans van Haaren Quest for growth Moury Biotech Floredienne Atenor Mitiska Sofina Solvac Beluga Brederode * These companies released a separate CSR report

XXXVIII

Appendix 2: Coding structure

XXXIX

LEVEL 1  LEVEL 2  LEVEL 3  LEVEL 4 

 

AREA  SUBAREA  QUANTITATIVE‐  VP, MA, FP OR 

    QUALITATIVE   

 

Environment   A. Material   Quantitative  EN 1 to EN 2 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  B. Energy              Quantitative  EN 3 to EN 7 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

         C. Water  Quantitative  EN 8 to EN 10 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  D. Biodiversity  Quantitative  EN 11 to EN 15 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  E. Emissions, effluents  Quantitative   EN 16 to EN 25 

  and waste  Qualitative   VP, MA or FP                                                                     

  F. Products and services  Quantitative   EN 26 to EN 27 

  recycling  Qualitative  VP, MA or FP      

 

  G. Compliance  Quantitative  EN 28  

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  H. Transport   Quantitative  EN 29 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

   

XL

  I. General Investments  Quantitative  EN 30 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

  J. Overall   Quantitative  / 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

 

Labour  A. Employment  Quantitative  LA 1 to LA 3 

Practices    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP  

and Decent  

work  B. Labour relations    Quantitative  LA 4 to LA 5 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP   

   

  C. Occupational health  Quantitative  LA 6 to LA 9 

  and safety  Qualitative  VP, MA or FP   

   

  D. Trainining  and education  Quantitative  LA 10 to LA 12 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP        

         

  E. Diversity and equal  Quantitative   LA 13 to LA 14 

  opportunities       Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

       

F. Satisfaction  Quantitative  LA 15 

  Qualitative    VP, MA or FP 

   

  G. Compliance  Quantitative  LA 16  

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP        

   

  H. Overall  Quantitative   / 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP  

XLI

 

Product   A. Customer Health    Quantitative  PR 1 to PR 2 

Responsibility        and safety  Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  B. Products and  Quantitative   PR 3 to PR 4 

        services labelling  Qualitative   VP, MA or FP 

       

  C. Customer Satisfaction  Quantitative  PR 5 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  D. Marketing  Quantitative  PR 7        

     communications  Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  E. Customer Privacy  Quantitative   PR 8 

                               Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  F. Compliance  Quantitative  PR 9 

    Qualitative    VP, MA or FP 

   

  G. Overall  Quantitative             / 

                              Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

    

 

Human              A. Investment and     Quantitative   HR 1 to HR 3 

Rights  procurement practices  Qualitative  VP, MA or FP     

 

  B. Non discrimination  Quantitative  HR 4 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

XLII

  C. Freedom of  association  Quantitative  HR 5  

       and collective bargaining  Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

         

  D. Child Labor  Quantitative  HR 6 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

       

  E. Forced and compulsory  Quantitative  HR 7 

       labor  Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

          

  F. Security Practices  Quantitative  HR 8 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

       

  G. Indigenous rights  Quantitative  HR 9 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  H. Compliance  Quantitative  HR 10 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  I. Overall  Quantitative    / 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

       

Society  A. Community  Quantitative  SO 1 

    Qualitative   VP, MA or FP 

 

  B. Corruption  Quantitative  SO 2 to SO 3 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  C. Public Policy  Quantitative  SO 5 to SO 6 

XLIII

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  D. Anti‐Competitive  Quantitative  SO 7 

     Behaviour  Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  E. Compliance  Quantitative  SO 8 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  F. Good Causes  Quantitative  SO 9 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

  G. Overall   Quantitative   / 

    Qualitative  VP, MA or FP 

 

   

 

 

XLIV

Appendix 3: Coding process

1) Selection of the CSR disclosures in the Adobe file

2) Coding the sentences in Atlas-TI

XLV

Appendix 4: Conditions for the ANOVA analysis on Involvement and Department

1. Normality condition 1.1 Values and principles

Tests of Normality

,088 52 ,200* ,984 52 ,729lnvpStatistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

This is a lower bound of the true significance.*.

Lilliefors Significance Correctiona.

8.007.006.005.004.003.002.00

lnvp

10

8

6

4

2

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 4.8486Std. Dev. = 1.39055N = 52

Histogram

87654321

Observed Value

4

2

0

-2

-4

Expe

cted

Nor

mal

Normal Q-Q Plot of lnvp

XLVI

1.2 Management approach Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

lnMA ,071 65 ,200(*) ,972 65 ,141 * This is a lower bound of the true significance. a Lilliefors Significance Correction

9.008.007.006.005.004.003.00

lnMA

10

8

6

4

2

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 5.522Std. Dev. = 1.50441N = 65

Histogram

lnvp

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

XLVII

98765432

Observed Value

4

2

0

-2

-4

Expe

cted

Nor

mal

Normal Q-Q Plot of lnMA

1.3 Future plans Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

lnFP ,142 31 ,111 ,954 31 ,200 a Lilliefors Significance Correction

lnMA

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

XLVIII

6.005.004.003.002.00

lnFP

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 3.5902Std. Dev. = 1.3038N = 31

Histogram

7654321

Observed Value

2

1

0

-1

-2

Expe

cted

Nor

mal

Normal Q-Q Plot of lnFP

lnFP

8

6

4

2

0

XLIX

2. Condition of equal variances 2.1 Involvement

2.1.1 Values and principles

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: lnvp

1,022 30 21 ,489F df1 df2 Sig.

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of thedependent variable is equal across groups.

Design: Intercept+INV+SizeGroups+Industry+INV* SizeGroups+INV * Industry+SizeGroups *Industry+INV * SizeGroups * Industry

a.

2.1.2 Management approach

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: lnMA

,925 32 32 ,587F df1 df2 Sig.

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of thedependent variable is equal across groups.

Design: Intercept+INV+Industry+SizeGroups+INV* Industry+INV * SizeGroups+Industry *SizeGroups+INV * Industry * SizeGroups

a.

2.1.3 Future plans

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: lnFP

4,425 20 10 ,010F df1 df2 Sig.

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of thedependent variable is equal across groups.

Design: Intercept+INV+Industry+SizeGroups+INV* Industry+INV * SizeGroups+Industry *SizeGroups+INV * Industry * SizeGroups

a.

L

2.2 Department

2.2.1 Values and principles

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: lnvp

1,223 29 22 ,316F df1 df2 Sig.

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of thedependent variable is equal across groups.

Design: Intercept+Industry+SizeGroups+DEP+Industry* SizeGroups+Industry * DEP+SizeGroups *DEP+Industry * SizeGroups * DEP

a.

2.2.2 Management approach

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: lnMA

1,036 31 33 ,459F df1 df2 Sig.

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of thedependent variable is equal across groups.

Design: Intercept+Industry+SizeGroups+DEP+Industry* SizeGroups+Industry * DEP+SizeGroups *DEP+Industry * SizeGroups * DEP

a.

2.2.3 Future plans

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: lnFP

2,482 19 11 ,063F df1 df2 Sig.

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of thedependent variable is equal across groups.

Design: Intercept+Industry+SizeGroups+DEP+Industry* SizeGroups+Industry * DEP+SizeGroups *DEP+Industry * SizeGroups * DEP

a.

LI

Appendix 5: Implementation of the full ANOVA analysis 1. Involvement 1.1 Values and principles

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnvp

67,603a 30 2,253 1,526 ,159609,241 1 609,241 412,557 ,000

3,253 1 3,253 2,203 ,1533,368 3 1,123 ,760 ,529

18,292 11 1,663 1,126 ,390,003 1 ,003 ,002 ,962,144 1 ,144 ,097 ,758

11,815 9 1,313 ,889 ,551

,000 0 . . .

31,012 21 1,4771321,100 52

98,614 51

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptINVSizeGroupsIndustryINV * SizeGroupsINV * IndustrySizeGroups * IndustryINV * SizeGroups *IndustryErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,686 (Adjusted R Squared = ,236)a.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnvp

67,603a 30 2,253 1,526 ,159483,996 1 483,996 327,746 ,000

2,550 1 2,550 1,727 ,203,144 1 ,144 ,097 ,758

16,933 11 1,539 1,042 ,4473,410 3 1,137 ,770 ,524

11,815 9 1,313 ,889 ,551,003 1 ,003 ,002 ,962

31,012 21 1,4771321,100 52

98,614 51

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptINVINV * IndustryIndustrySizeGroupsIndustry * SizeGroupsINV * SizeGroupsErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,686 (Adjusted R Squared = ,236)a.

LII

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnvp

52,506a 15 3,500 2,733 ,007482,913 1 482,913 377,040 ,000

13,703 1 13,703 10,699 ,0025,259 3 1,753 1,369 ,268

20,746 11 1,886 1,473 ,18546,109 36 1,281

1321,100 5298,614 51

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptINVSizeGroupsIndustryErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,532 (Adjusted R Squared = ,338)a.

1.2 Management approach

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA

108,431a 32 3,388 2,977 ,001939,424 1 939,424 825,479 ,000

1,665 1 1,665 1,463 ,23522,193 11 2,018 1,773 ,10212,875 3 4,292 3,771 ,020

,142 1 ,142 ,124 ,727,006 1 ,006 ,005 ,942

20,872 11 1,897 1,667 ,127

,000 0 . . .

36,417 32 1,1382126,832 65

144,848 64

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptINVIndustrySizeGroupsINV * IndustryINV * SizeGroupsIndustry * SizeGroupsINV * Industry *SizeGroupsErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,749 (Adjusted R Squared = ,497)a.

LIII

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA

108,431a 32 3,388 2,977 ,001734,364 1 734,364 645,291 ,000

12,574 3 4,191 3,683 ,02221,939 11 1,994 1,753 ,106

1,335 1 1,335 1,173 ,28720,872 11 1,897 1,667 ,127

,006 1 ,006 ,005 ,942,142 1 ,142 ,124 ,727

36,417 32 1,1382126,832 65

144,848 64

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryINVSizeGroups * IndustrySizeGroups * INVIndustry * INVErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,749 (Adjusted R Squared = ,497)a.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA

83,670a 15 5,578 4,468 ,000810,710 1 810,710 649,336 ,000

12,765 3 4,255 3,408 ,02530,776 11 2,798 2,241 ,027

7,513 1 7,513 6,017 ,01861,178 49 1,249

2126,832 65144,848 64

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryINVErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,578 (Adjusted R Squared = ,448)a.

LIV

1.3 Future plans

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP

36,265a 20 1,813 1,231 ,380229,567 1 229,567 155,832 ,000

,360 1 ,360 ,244 ,63219,892 9 2,210 1,500 ,2686,011 3 2,004 1,360 ,310,130 1 ,130 ,088 ,773,000 0 . . .

7,894 3 2,631 1,786 ,213

,000 0 . . .

14,732 10 1,473450,565 3150,997 30

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptINVIndustrySizeGroupsINV * IndustryINV * SizeGroupsIndustry * SizeGroupsINV * Industry *SizeGroupsErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,711 (Adjusted R Squared = ,133)a.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP

36,265a 20 1,813 1,231 ,380199,899 1 199,899 135,693 ,000

5,902 3 1,967 1,336 ,31719,005 9 2,112 1,433 ,291

,357 1 ,357 ,242 ,6337,894 3 2,631 1,786 ,213,000 0 . . .,130 1 ,130 ,088 ,773

14,732 10 1,473450,565 3150,997 30

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryINVSizeGroups * IndustrySizeGroups * INVIndustry * INVErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,711 (Adjusted R Squared = ,133)a.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP

27,811a 13 2,139 1,569 ,190140,325 1 140,325 102,888 ,000

3,325 3 1,108 ,813 ,50420,520 9 2,280 1,672 ,173

,817 1 ,817 ,599 ,45023,186 17 1,364

450,565 3150,997 30

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryINVErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,545 (Adjusted R Squared = ,198)a.

LV

2. Department 2.1 Values and principles

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnvp

66,412a 29 2,290 1,565 ,141532,816 1 532,816 364,013 ,000

15,495 11 1,409 ,962 ,50512,073 3 4,024 2,749 ,067

1,144 1 1,144 ,781 ,38615,852 9 1,761 1,203 ,342

2,802 1 2,802 1,914 ,1801,611 1 1,611 1,101 ,305

,000 0 . . .

32,202 22 1,4641321,100 52

98,614 51

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptIndustrySizeGroupsDEPIndustry * SizeGroupsIndustry * DEPSizeGroups * DEPIndustry * SizeGroups* DEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,673 (Adjusted R Squared = ,243)a.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnvp

66,412a 29 2,290 1,565 ,141452,876 1 452,876 309,399 ,000

12,898 3 4,299 2,937 ,05615,904 11 1,446 ,988 ,486

1,988 1 1,988 1,358 ,25615,852 9 1,761 1,203 ,342

1,611 1 1,611 1,101 ,3052,802 1 2,802 1,914 ,180

32,202 22 1,4641321,100 52

98,614 51

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPSizeGroups * IndustrySizeGroups * DEPIndustry * DEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,673 (Adjusted R Squared = ,243)a.

LVI

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnvp

44,005a 15 2,934 1,934 ,053355,896 1 355,896 234,615 ,000

8,107 3 2,702 1,781 ,16822,310 11 2,028 1,337 ,245

5,202 1 5,202 3,430 ,07254,610 36 1,517

1321,100 5298,614 51

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,446 (Adjusted R Squared = ,215)a.

2.2 Management approach

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA

107,327a 31 3,462 3,045 ,001855,331 1 855,331 752,276 ,000

16,641 3 5,547 4,879 ,00618,375 11 1,670 1,469 ,190

2,049 1 2,049 1,802 ,18921,297 11 1,936 1,703 ,116

,084 1 ,084 ,074 ,787,318 1 ,318 ,280 ,600

,000 0 . . .

37,521 33 1,1372126,832 65

144,848 64

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPSizeGroups * IndustrySizeGroups * DEPIndustry * DEPSizeGroups * Industry* DEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,741 (Adjusted R Squared = ,498)a.

LVII

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA

107,327a 31 3,462 3,045 ,001718,545 1 718,545 631,971 ,000

16,511 3 5,504 4,840 ,00718,200 11 1,655 1,455 ,196

1,787 1 1,787 1,572 ,21921,297 11 1,936 1,703 ,116

,084 1 ,084 ,074 ,787,318 1 ,318 ,280 ,600

37,521 33 1,1372126,832 65

144,848 64

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPSizeGroups * IndustrySizeGroups * DEPIndustry * DEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,741 (Adjusted R Squared = ,498)a.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnMA

82,348a 15 5,490 4,304 ,000625,340 1 625,340 490,270 ,000

13,323 3 4,441 3,482 ,02331,582 11 2,871 2,251 ,026

6,191 1 6,191 4,853 ,03262,499 49 1,275

2126,832 65144,848 64

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,569 (Adjusted R Squared = ,436)a.

LVIII

2.3 Future plans

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP

37,113a 19 1,953 1,548 ,231218,751 1 218,751 173,314 ,000

5,779 3 1,926 1,526 ,26221,755 9 2,417 1,915 ,154

,071 1 ,071 ,056 ,8172,751 3 ,917 ,727 ,557

,000 0 . . .,991 1 ,991 ,785 ,395

,000 0 . . .

13,884 11 1,262450,565 31

50,997 30

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPSizeGroups * IndustrySizeGroups * DEPIndustry * DEPSizeGroups * Industry* DEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,728 (Adjusted R Squared = ,258)a.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP

37,113a 19 1,953 1,548 ,231191,411 1 191,411 151,653 ,000

5,730 3 1,910 1,513 ,26621,644 9 2,405 1,905 ,156

,071 1 ,071 ,056 ,8172,751 3 ,917 ,727 ,557,000 0 . . .,991 1 ,991 ,785 ,395

13,884 11 1,262450,565 3150,997 30

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPSizeGroups * IndustrySizeGroups * DEPIndustry * DEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,728 (Adjusted R Squared = ,258)a.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: lnFP

28,265a 13 2,174 1,626 ,172104,070 1 104,070 77,827 ,000

3,133 3 1,044 ,781 ,52120,943 9 2,327 1,740 ,1561,270 1 1,270 ,950 ,343

22,733 17 1,337450,565 3150,997 30

SourceCorrected ModelInterceptSizeGroupsIndustryDEPErrorTotalCorrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = ,554 (Adjusted R Squared = ,213)a.

LIX

Appendix 6: Conditions for the ANOVA analysis on Certificates and Nominations/Awards

1. Normality condition Example: LPDW Certificates –VP

Tests of Normality

,110 41 ,200* ,976 41 ,525Standardized Residualfor lnVP_LPDW

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

This is a lower bound of the true significance.*.

Lilliefors Significance Correctiona.

2. Condition of equal variances Example: LPDW Certificates –VP

6,005,004,003,00

Predicted Value for lnVP_LPDW

2,00

1,00

0,00

-1,00

-2,00

Stan

dard

ized

Res

idua

l for

lnVP

_LPD

W