matthew macarthur dissertation

BA Accounting with Economics

Honours Dissertation

SESSION 2015/16

TITLE

Are Corporate Characteristics Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure

in the UK?

AUTHOR

Matthew MacArthur 40084148

Supervisor: Alun Fotheringham

Matthew MacArthur BA(Hons) Accounting with Economics

ii

Declaration I declare that the work undertaken for this BA Dissertation has been undertaken by myself and the final Dissertation produced by me. The work has not been submitted in part or in whole in regard to any other academic qualification.

Title of Dissertation: Name (Print): ___________________________________________ Signature: _____________________________________________ Date: __________________________________


iii

Abstract

In recent times there has been an increased pressure put on companies to

perform business activities in a manor that is orientated to more than just

maximising profit. This leads to the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR) which is now at the foundation of most modern corporations in the UK. CSR

disclosure is the publication of a company’s business activities relating to issues

that provide social betterment, however the determinants of CSRD have been

cited to possibly being attributed to corporate characteristics.

The aim of this study was to investigate if certain corporate characteristics are

determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure in UK listed companies.

The characteristics to be investigated are Profitability, Gearing, Size and Industry

sensitivity.

The main method used to test the characteristics for a relationship with CSRD was

Multiple Linear Regression. Overall, the investigation concluded that of the four

potential corporate characteristics tested as a potential determinant of CSRD

(Size, Gearing, Profitability and Industry sensitivity), Size was the only

characteristic that showed a significant and positive relationship with CSRD.


iv

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank my parents, Kathleen and John MacArthur for their

continued support through life and especially through this dissertation.

Secondly, I would like to thank my original dissertation supervisor Mira Steven for

assisting me in developing my topic and always putting me in the right direction.

Lastly, I am very grateful to Alun Fotheringham for being such a helpful and

encouraging replacement dissertation supervisor. Thank-you for answering all of

my questions and guiding me through all of the problems that arose.


v

Table of Contents ListofTables................................................................................................................vii

ListofFigures...............................................................................................................vii

ListofAbbreviations.......................................................................................................1

ChapterOne–Introduction............................................................................................21.1 BackgroundtoResearch.............................................................................................21.2ReasonsforchoosingTopic...............................................................................................31.3UsefulnessofStudy..........................................................................................................31.4ResearchAim....................................................................................................................31.5ResearchObjectives.........................................................................................................41.6ResearchMethodology.....................................................................................................41.7PotentialLimitations........................................................................................................41.8EthicalStatement.............................................................................................................51.9Structure..........................................................................................................................5

ChapterTwo-LiteratureReview....................................................................................62.1Introduction.....................................................................................................................62.2DefiningCSR.....................................................................................................................62.3HowhasCSRdeveloped?..................................................................................................92.4WhydocompaniesinvolvethemselveswithCSR?..........................................................102.5WhatisCSRDisclosure?..................................................................................................112.6TheoriessurroundingCSRD............................................................................................12

2.6.2AgencyTheory................................................................................................................122.6.1StakeholderTheory........................................................................................................132.6.3LegitimacyTheory...........................................................................................................132.6.4SocialContractTheory....................................................................................................14

2.6.5WhydocompaniesdiscloseCSRActivities?.................................................................142.7RegulationsurroundingCSRDintheUK..........................................................................162.8TherelationshipofcorporatecharacteristicsandCSRD..................................................16

2.8.1IndustrySensitivity.........................................................................................................162.8.2Profitability.....................................................................................................................172.8.3CompanySize..................................................................................................................172.8.4Gearing...........................................................................................................................18

2.9Summary........................................................................................................................19

ChapterThree–ResearchMethods..............................................................................223.1Introduction...................................................................................................................223.2HypothesesDevelopment...............................................................................................223.3ResearchDesign.............................................................................................................233.4SamplingandDataCollection.........................................................................................233.5Variables........................................................................................................................253.6DependantVariable-CSRD.............................................................................................263.7IndependentVariables...................................................................................................27

3.7.1IndustrySensitivity.........................................................................................................273.7.2CompanySize..................................................................................................................273.7.3Profitability.....................................................................................................................273.7.4Gearing...........................................................................................................................28

3.8DataAnalysisTechniques...............................................................................................283.8.1MultipleLinearRegression.............................................................................................283.8.2PearsonCorrelation........................................................................................................30


vi

3.8.3SignificanceLevel............................................................................................................31

Chapter4–DataDescription........................................................................................324.1Introduction...................................................................................................................32

4.2DescriptiveAnalysis...........................................................................................................324.3TheFrequencyStatisticsfor‘PagesofCSRD’.....................................................................34

Chapter5–DataAnalysis.............................................................................................395.1PearsonCorrelativesAnalysis.........................................................................................395.2MultipleRegressionAnalysis..........................................................................................415.3HypothesisTestingandDiscussion..................................................................................44

5.3.1Hypothesis1-Size..........................................................................................................445.3.2Hypothesis2–IndustrySensitivity.................................................................................455.3.3Hypothesis3-Profitability.............................................................................................465.3.4Hypothesis4-Gearing....................................................................................................47

Chapter6–ConclusionandRecommendations............................................................486.1Conclusion.........................................................................................................................48

6.2MainFindings.................................................................................................................49Hypothesis...........................................................................................................................49Finding.................................................................................................................................496.3Limitations.....................................................................................................................506.4Recommendations..........................................................................................................51

References...................................................................................................................52

AppendixI....................................................................................................................64

AppendixII...................................................................................................................65


vii

List of Tables

Table 2.2 – CSR Equations p8

Table 2.6.5 – Motivations behind CSR p15

Table 4.2 Summary of Demographic Analysis p32

Table 4.3 Frequency Statistics Table p34

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables p37

Table 5.1 Pearson Correlation of Variables p39

Table 5.2 ANOVA Result of Multiple Regression Analysis p41

Table 5.3 Model Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis p42

Table 5.4 The Coefficient of Multiple Regressions Analysis p43

Table 6.2 Summary of Findings p49

List of Figures Figure 4.3 Histogram for Frequency for Dependent Variable – CSRD p35 Figure 4.4 Transformed Histogram for Dependent Variable – CSRD p36


1

List of Abbreviations

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

CSRD Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure

LSE London Stock Exchange


2

Chapter One – Introduction

1.1 Background to Research In the last few decades there has been increased pressure on companies to

perform its business activities in a manor that is more than just about maximising

profit. A modern corporate entity is now expected to contribute to the whole of

society by acting socially responsible. Companies demonstrate their socially

responsible activities to stakeholders by various methods of disclosure. Some

companies disclose using purpose made CSR reports, others include their CSR

information in their annual financial statements and others use their website as the

medium of communication. However, not all companies are equally CSR

conscious and therefore the degree at which CSR is disclosed varies dramatically

depending on the different characteristics that identify a company. This study

investigates the relationship between CSR disclosure and the various different

characteristics of companies.

Grant Thornton (2008) claim that CSR is no longer a concern of only large

corporations, but is now a necessity for all corporate entities to be concerned with.

Modern corporations seek effective CSR policy and have a desire to be portrayed

as being socially responsible. Visible evidence in the form of CSRD can placate

and satisfy stakeholders (Idowu & Filho 2009).

CSR is the belief that companies are accountable to all of their stakeholders and

encourages companies to consider the impact of their business operations to the

environment and the communities they operate in.

Furthermore, disclosing evidence of corporate social responsibility has been

shown to evoke a strong positive reaction amongst stakeholders (Morsing &

Schultz 2006). Therefore, it can be said that it is in a firm’s best interest to conduct

and disclose CSR activities.

However, although most companies do participate in some CSR activities, due to

the voluntary nature of CSR, it has been shown that certain corporate


3

characteristics can heavily influence the level of CSR practiced and disclosed

(Reverte 2009).

1.2 Reasons for choosing Topic Upon investigating the topic of CSR disclosure in the UK, it became apparent that

there was minimal literature exploring the determinants of CSRD for UK listed

companies. There is an expanse of literature exploring the determinants of CSRD

in emerging economies and some Western countries, however minimal literature

exploring the determinants of CSRD for UK listed companies could be found. This

study attempts to address this research gap.

1.3 Usefulness of Study Upon completion of this study, the findings will be of value to both academic

researchers and business professionals by contributing to the current knowledge

in the field of CSR and CSRD, particularly in the UK, where the study was

conducted.

1.4 Research Aim The aim of this study is to investigate if certain corporate characteristics are

determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure in UK listed companies.

The characteristics to be investigated are Profitability, Gearing, Size and Industry

sensitivity.


4

1.5 Research Objectives a) Undertake a critical literature review to:

• Provide an overview of the current knowledge of corporate social

responsibility (CSR), corporate social responsibility disclosure

(CSRD) and how corporate characteristics determine CSRD

• Explore the theories surrounding CSRD

• Explore the influences and determinants of CSRD

b) Develop an appropriate research method to investigate determinants of

CSRD

c) Analyse the data collected using appropriate research method and present

the findings

d) Identify if the chosen corporate characteristics are determinants of CSRD:

• Identify potential relationship between CSRD and Profitability

• Identify potential relationship between CSRD and Gearing

• Identify potential relationship between CSRD and Size

• Identify potential relationship between CSRD and Industry

Sensitivity.

1.6 Research Methodology The research in this study uses both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The literature review uses solely a qualitative approach using secondary data sources from a variety of Journals, websites and library sources. The primary research conducted in this study uses a quantitative approach and uses secondary data sourced from websites, financial statements and CSR reports. An appropriate statistical analysis is performed using the collected secondary data. In order to take an appropriate sample of companies, stratified sampling is used to ensure companies from a variety of industries is collected. 1.7 Potential Limitations There are many potential limitations in this study due to limited time and resources. Firstly, the findings from the primary research will be be based on a small sample of 48 companies in 8 different industries this means that generalisations will have to be made.


5

1.8 Ethical Statement Primary and secondary research data will be accurately obtained from reputable

sources with full acknowledgement given to the authors/sources used. The

Analysis of the primary data will be appropriate and free from bias.

1.9 Structure This dissertation is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

• Thischapterprovidesanoverviewofthecurrentrelevantliteraturetotheconcept

ofCSR,CSRDandthedeterminantsofCSRD.

Chapter 3 – Research Methodology

• Theaimofthischapteristoexplainandjustifythechoiceofresearchmethods

usedtoconducttheprimaryresearch,thehypotheseswillbedevelopedinthis

chapterandhowdatawascollected.

Chapter 4 – Data Description

• Theaimofthischapteristodescribethecharacteristicsofthedatacollected.

Chapter 5 – Data Analysis

• Thischapterpresentsthefindingsofthechosenstatisticalanalysistechniqueand

teststhehypothesesdeveloped.Thiswillbefollowedwithadiscussionrelating

thefindingstopriorresearchinthefield.

Chapter 6 – Conclusion and Recommendations

• Thischaptersummarisesthemainfindingsoftheresearchandprovidesfurther

researchrecommendations.


6

Chapter Two - Literature Review

2.1 Introduction The first part of this literature review explores the different perceptions of what it

means for a corporation to be ‘socially responsible’. This will be followed by a

summary of the development of CSR, followed by a presentation of reasons as to

why companies involve themselves with CSR.

2.2 Defining CSR Defining the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is rather difficult

due to its expansive and broad nature. CSR involves many different business

concepts including business ethics, sustainability and corporate conscience (Karim

et al. 2015). The concept of corporations having a social responsibility has been

referred to in literature using many different synonyms, including corporate

citizenship, corporate responsibility (CR), global citizenship, corporate social and

environmental responsibility and of course corporate social responsibility (Idowu &

Filho 2009).

Less commonly, the terms corporate community involvement, community

relations, community affairs, community development, corporate philanthropy, and

corporate societal marketing, corporate giving have also been used.

In 2008, it was claimed that there were 37 academically regarded definitions of

CSR in literature (Dahlsrud 2008; Carroll 2015). McWilliams & Siegel (2001),

Jones (1999) and Idowu & Papasolomou (2007) all argue that there is still no

generally accepted definition of CSR. McWilliams & Siegel (2001, p117) define

CSR as “actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of

the firm and that which is required by law”. Whereas, the European Union (2001,

p8) describe 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”. Both of these definitions highlight the fact

that CSR is about going beyond what is legally required and focusing on what

could be termed “doing good”, which is how Kotler & Lee (2005) describe CSR.


7

It is widely accepted that modern corporations have some form of ‘social

responsibility’. However, the problem arises in defining what exactly it’s social

responsibilities are. Consequentially, the concept of CSR tends to be split into two

fundamental perspective groups, the Broad view and the Narrow view (Crane &

Matten 2010).

The narrow view of CSR is the belief that the only objective of corporations is

direct profit maximisation and is therefore against the belief that corporations owe

any responsibility to any other stakeholder other than the shareholders (Idowu &

Filho 2009). This perspective of CSR is mainly attributed to Friedman (1962, 1970)

and is centred around his ideology of ‘Shareholder Theory’ and stems from

Agency Theory (Schwartz 2011). The narrow view of CSR argues that by diverting

corporations objectives away from the pursuit of profit, the overall economic

system becomes less efficient (Shaw & Barry 2012). Interestingly, Friedman

(1962, 1970) is the only modern academic to believe that the depth of CSR goes

no farther than profit maximisation (Idowu & Filho 2009). Furthermore, Urip (2010)

convincingly argues that support of the narrow approach to CSR has experienced

a sharp decline in recent decades.

The broad view of CSR, stemming from stakeholder theory, is the more popular

perception of what the concept of CSR entails in the 21st century. This perception

is the belief that corporations have not only obligations to the shareholder but they

also have obligations to other parties whom are affected (currently or potentially)

by a corporations business activities, including employee’s and the community

(Shaw & Barry 2012; Idowu & Filho 2009).

However, there are many interpretations of what the broad view of CSR involves.

Some of the key interpretations of broad view CSR were developed by Elkington

(1997) and Carroll & Buchholtz (2003).

Elkington (1997) developed the concept of the ‘Triple Bottom Line’, challenging the

traditional idea of the ‘Bottom Line’ (Profit) as the main objective of business. He

argued that that there should be three objectives of business and not one. He


8

believed that business must not only create profit or economic value (ECV) but

also to create ecological value (ECLV) and create social value (SOCV). Extending

from Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line approach, Carroll & Buchholtz (2003) believed

that business entities actually have four elements of responsibility – Economic

Responsibilities (ECR), Legal Responsibilities (LGR), Ethical Responsibilities

(ETR) and Philanthropic Responsibilities (PHR). Carroll & Buchholtz's (2003)

model was based on a pyramid, with economic responsibilities as the foundation

of the pyramid (most important), followed by legal responsibilities, ethical

responsibilities and at the tip of the pyramid, philanthropic responsibilities (least

important). Unlike, Elkington (1997), where all three objectives are equally

important, Carroll & Buchholtz (2003) believed that some of a corporations

responsibilities were more essential to address than others, hence the hierarchy of

the pyramid.

To help compare the above key perceptions of CSR, Idowu & Filho (2009)

expressed the discussed perceptions of CSR by using the mathematical

equations.

Table 2.2 – CSR Equations

Researcher(s) CSR equation Friedman (1962,1970) CSR = PROFIT

Elkington (1997) CSR = ECV + ECLV + SOCV

Carroll & Buchholtz (2003) CSR = ECR + LGR + ETR + PHR

(adapted from Idowu & Filho 2009)


9

2.3 How has CSR developed? The concept of CSR has an expansive and diverse history in literature, even

although the use of the term CSR is still regarded as being relatively recent (Karim

et al. 2015; Idowu & Filho 2009). There is evidence to support that some business’

have been ‘socially responsible’ far before the defined concept of CSR existed.

For example, the entrepreneur Richard Arkwright referred to his employee’s as

‘human assets’ and thus believed that they must be treated in a responsible manor

to enable them to perform well at their jobs and ultimately be more profitable

assets for the business (Idowu & Filho 2009). It can be said that what Arkwright

believed in, would be referred to today as being socially responsible and that he

understood the benefits of acting in such a way around 200 years before the term

CSR had been used. Another example of early socially responsible practice was

by sweet manufacturer Joseph Rowntree, where in 1906 he built Rowntree village

for his employee’s, allowing them access to affordable community housing. In the

years following, Rowntree set up one of the worlds first pension funds, introduced

an employee profit sharing scheme and then introduced the concept of staff

holidays (Cook 2003). These two examples indicate that even in their respective

era’s, when profit was still seen as the single purpose of business, there were still

some people that felt the need to challenge this perception.

One of the earliest publications identifying the modern perception of social

responsibility was by Howard R. Bowen in his book ‘Social Responsibilities of the

Businessman’ (1953). Bowen (1953) said that business operations should be

conducted with consideration of the effects caused to society and continued to

challenge the Laisez-Faire ideology, where business has no responsibility to the

greater good.

However, this stirred debate. Friedman (1962) argued that a business has no

social responsibility to society because the goal of business is to profit maximise

for the good of the shareholder. Thus, by having a concern for society would

create costs and a firm would not be profit maximising, the traditional purpose of

business. This is known as the Friedman Doctrine, in line with shareholder theory

and represents the ‘narrow view’ of corporate social responsibility, which is the


10

belief that the only social responsibility of a firm is to maximise shareholder wealth

(Friedman 1962; Schwartz 2011). Furthermore, Friedman (1962) also argued that

it is the governments responsibility to undertake the responsibilities of wider

society and that corporations should not be forced to do so (Shaw & Barry 2012).

During the late 1960’s and 1970’s there was a dramatic increase in academics

attempting to establish an accurate description of social responsibility (Carroll

2015; Karim et al. 2015). In the 1980’s, more empirical research emerged relating

to the concept and alternative but related concepts became the focus, such as

business ethics (Carroll 2015). In the 1990’s, the explanatory theories relating to

CSR became a focus, such as legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory.

Into the new millennium, sustainability became a major focus of CSR. Gray (2010)

believed that for companies to be sustainable, they should seek a balance

between profit, goals and public interest. This can be achieved through meeting

social and environmental responsibilities.

CSR literature in the 2000’s also tended to agree that CSR disclosure is an

essential part of Accounting Reporting in todays society (Karim et al 2015). An

interesting opinion comes from Lin-Hi & Müller (2013) who found that that CSRD in

the 21st century is really about making sure you are not perceived as being

‘socially irresponsible’, therefore CSR is about ‘avoiding bad’ rather than ‘doing

good’.

2.4 Why do companies involve themselves with CSR? CSR is a topical issue across the globe, however what is regarded as a CSR issue

in one country is not necessarily a CSR issue in another (Idowu & Filho 2009). For

example, the absence of clean running water in the community may not be a CSR

issue directly concerning a British operating PLC, however it may be a key CSR

issue needing to be addressed by a Sub-Saharan company.

It has been argued many times in literature that if a firm is perceived by it’s

stakeholders as being socially responsible then there are many rewards to be


11

reaped. Some of the most commonly cited benefits for a company being seen as

socially responsible are; An increase in Customer Loyalty, sympathy from the

Media, ability to attract Investors easily, ability to attract the best type of

employee’s and ultimately an increase in shareholder value in the long term

(Idowu & Filho 2009; Saleh 2009).

Furthermore, Amao 2011 approaches the issue from another perspective, and

describes the penalties to businesses of being socially irresponsible by linking it to

damaging brand image, tarnishing customer goodwill and ultimately hindering a

companies long-term growth. This opinion is similar to Lin-Hi & Müller (2013) in the

sense that the consequences of not being ‘socially responsible’ may be more

significant than the benefits of being ‘socially responsible’.

However, Morsing & Schultz (2006) explain that disclosing evidence of corporate

social responsibility has been shown to evoke a strong positive reaction amongst

stakeholders.

2.5 What is CSR Disclosure? Nowadays, companies face substantial increases in pressure from stakeholders

such as governments, customers and investors to actively disclose their efforts in

managing their impact of their operations on society (Scott & Jackson 2002)

As a result, CSR reporting has been developed to address this increased need for

companies to disclose their social and environmental performance to stakeholders

(Vourvachis 2008).

UK companies mainly disclose CSR using two methods, in a separate CSR report

or as a section within in their annual report, however, some companies chose to

use the internet as a medium of disclosure also.

Idowu & Towler (2004) identify that there are four main elements in a typical UK

CSR report: Environment, Community, Marketplace, and Workplace. The

Environment section may involve details of how the corporation reduced its

emissions during production or how they have reduced the use of energy. The


12

Community section usually outlines the role the entity has played and contributed

to the place in which it operates, such as charitable fund-raising or helping youth

unemployment projects. The Marketplace section could include details on

agreements the entity has made with it’s suppliers to use more recycled material.

The Workplace section reports on the social issues related to it’s employee’s such

as improvements on health and safety or evidence that the company is doing it’s

best to be an equal opportunities employer. However, Deegan & Gordon (1996)

found in their empirical qualitative CSRD study that it is apparent that a lot of

companies CSR reporting practices are actually self-laudatory and that companies

fail to address their negative aspects that make them look social irresponsible..

2.6 Theories surrounding CSRD In an attempt to understand the increasing level of content within CSR reports,

accounting researchers came to four perspective conclusions to theorise why they

disclose CSR (Idowu & Towler 2004). These are Agency Theory, Stakeholder

Theory, Legitimacy theory and Social Contract Theory. The first of these theories

to be discussed is Agency Theory.

2.6.2 Agency Theory The concept of CSR in itself can be viewed as being an agency issue (Hill & Jones

1992). However, this depends on your belief of what the purpose of ‘business’ is.

Friedman (1962; 2007) believed that a corporation had only one social

responsibility, to engage in efficient business activities so to maximise profit in the

interest of the shareholder who are the owners. He argued that a business has no

social responsibility to society because he believed the goal of business is to profit

maximise for the good of the shareholder.

Thus, by having a concern for society would create costs and a firm would not be

profit maximising, the traditional purpose of business. This is known as the

Friedman Doctrine, in line with shareholder theory and represents the ‘narrow

view’ of corporate social responsibility, which is that the only social responsibility is

to maximise shareholder wealth (Friedman 1962; Schwartz 2011).


13

Managers are the agents to the shareholders and therefore have an obligation to

increase shareholder wealth. This belief that the Profit maximisation is the only

Social Responsibility of the firm is referred to as the ‘Narrow Approach’ to CSR.

A second theory surrounding CSRD is Stakeholder Theory.

2.6.1 Stakeholder Theory

Fundamentally this theory is the belief that the management of a corporation must

create sustainable relationships with its stakeholders. According to Morhardt et al.

(2002), stakeholder theory attempts to address two questions – ‘What is the

objective of the corporation?’ and ‘What responsibility does it have to its

stakeholders?’. Freeman (1984), developed this theory and believed that a

corporation should create value for all of the individuals or groups who can affect

or be affected by the corporations activities. This theory is in response to the

traditional ‘shareholder theory’ where the only stakeholder is the shareholder. A third theory surrounding CSRD is Legitimacy Theory. 2.6.3 Legitimacy Theory This theory is concerned with organisations interaction with the whole of society as

opposed to Stakeholder Theory which identifies individual parties (Karim et al.

2015). Gray et al. (1996) viewed the theory as being concerned with the role of

disclosure of relationships between stakeholders. Furthermore, Lindblom (1994)

explained that if society perceives that an organisations business activities are

irresponsible or illegal then society will withdraw its ‘social contract’ with the

organisation and thus damage the organisations survival. Matthews (1993)

explains that a social contract exists between a firm and society, where society

provides the resources to produce and expects that the costs to society will be

less than the benefits to society (Karim et al 2015). This theory is cited as

providing the most insights into CSRD as it is explains the way in which

corporations disclose CSRD so to legitimise it’s own existence (Reverte 2009).

A fourth theory surrounding CSRD is the Social Contract Theory.


14

2.6.4 Social Contract Theory This theory implies there exists a tacit agreement between corporations and

society. Donaldson & Dunfee (2002) argue that corporations are responsible to the

whole of society of which they are an integral and essential part of. Furthermore,

Van Marrewijk (2003) describes that the main concept behind this theory is so

corporations operate to the satisfaction of societal norms.

2.6.5 Why do companies disclose CSR Activities?

According to Idowu & Filho (2009) in the United Kingdom, the main driving force

behind the disclosure and the production of CSR reports by UK companies is

because of the increasing demands by stakeholders for information.

In an empirical study analysing the motivations behind CSR reporting of 40 British

companies (20 FTSE 100), Idowu & Papasolomou (2007) found there to be over

20 key reasons for reporting CSR. 100% of the respondent companies said that

they “reported CSR to inform stakeholders of their contributions to social

betterment”. This response indicates that all the respondents believe that by

reporting CSR to stakeholders it will bring positive reactions from the stakeholders.

The second most cited response, with 50% of respondents giving this answer was

that it was “to meet best practice in company reporting” followed by “demonstrates

an open management style” with 30% citing that response. This indicates that the

sample of companies believe that transparency is important and that it is important

to be clear and honest with their stakeholders. Other reasons that were given

included “To provide a more rounded picture of the company”, “To derive CSR’s

positive public relations benefits”, “To satisfy disclosure requirements of major

shareholders” and “To demonstrate to stakeholders that non-financial issues are

also important”.


15

The table below presents the reasons given in the study by Idowu & Papasolomou

(2007). The reasons can be explained under five headings:

Table 2.6.5 – Motivations behind CSR

(Table adapted from Idowu & Papasolomou 2007, p144) Bayoud and Kavanagh (2012) suggests that CSR disclosure leads to increased

financial performance by attracting foreign investors and enhancing a corporation’s

reputation as well as leading to better employee commitment. Because there are

believed to be benefits of disclosing CSR, some firms may choose to disclose

more simply because it is perceived that it is good for business.


16

2.7 Regulation surrounding CSRD in the UK The UK government has been encouraging British business to be socially

responsible in various direct and indirect methods. However, according to Idowu &

Filho (2009), the UK government believes that CSR cannot be encouraged

through regulation but rather they provide guidance on how to report the impact of

business activity on social and environmental issues. Therefore, the format of

CSRD in the UK is unregulated. Because of the voluntary nature of CSRD in the

UK, CSRD also does not need to be audited, leaving it open to possible

exaggeration (Idowu & Papasolomou 2007) and failure to address possible social

irresponsibility (Deegan & Gordon 1996), which could be said supports the

legitimacy theory relating to disclosure, as corporations attempt to legitimise

themselves.

2.8 The relationship of corporate characteristics and CSRD Many corporate characteristics have been cited as being explanatory variables for

the amount of CSRD produced by corporations (Elsakit & Worthington 2014).

Some of the many characteristics cited are Industry sensitivity, profitability, size,

and gearing.

2.8.1 Industry Sensitivity Previous research has shown that industry is one of the most common variables to

explain the extent of CSRD (Reverte 2009). It has been found that industries who

are known to be more harmful to the environment disclose substantially more than

industries who are considered less harmful to the environment (Gray et al. 1995b;

Adams et al. 1998; Reverte 2009). Industries considered to be more harmful to the

environment are Mining, Oil/Gas Producers and the Chemical industry and

therefore they have been found to disclose more CSR information than, what are

considered to be, less ‘sensitive’ industries such as the media industry.


17

2.8.2 Profitability There are many reasons in literature explaining the relationship between

profitability and CSRD. Haniffa & Cooke (2005) claimed in their empirical study

that profitable companies disclose more CSR in order to legitimise their existence.

Hossain & Hammami (2009) cited the need for financial performance to be justified

as an appropriate reason for disclosure, as stakeholders may feel that the reason

for the company’s high profitability is because the company is being socially

irresponsible if not. Disclosing a greater amount of CSRD will reassure

stakeholders. For example, trade unions may feel that profitability was at the

expense of working conditions of it’s employee’s if there was not explanatory

disclosure. Cormier & Magnan (2003) were of a similar opinion of a positive

relationship between CSRD and profitability when they conducted a study of 50

French companies in seven business sectors. In Sweden, Tagesson et al. (2009)

also found a positive relationship between CSRD and profitability, in the context of

website disclosure. Other studies that found a positive relationship include Khan

(2010), Hossain and Reaz (2007) and Haniffa and Cooke (2005). However, on the

contrary Ho & Taylor (2007), found that less profitable companies tend to disclose

more CSR information. Studies conducted by Reverte (2009), Giannarakis

(2014b), Branco & Rodrigues (2008), Belal & Cooper (2011), Esa & Mohd-Ghazali

(2012), Veronica Siregar & Bachtiar (2010) found that there was no relationship at

all.

2.8.3 Company Size Empirical studies have shown that larger corporations tend to receive more

attention from external stakeholders than smaller corporations, they therefore have

to publish more CSR information to legitimise their actions. (Cormier & Gordon

2001). Larger corporations tend to have more resources available to cover the

costs of social responsibility and its disclosure than smaller corporations, thus

indicating a possible relationship (Ho & Taylor 2007; Werther & Chandler 2005).

However, Roberts (1992) did not find a correlation between size and CSRD in his

empirical research in the USA. Empirical studies that found a positive relationship

were Reverte (2009), Giannarakis (2014b), Branco & Rodrigues (2008),


18

Gamerschlag et al. (2011), Hossain & Reaz (2007), Khan (2010) and Haniffa &

Cooke (2005).

2.8.4 Gearing

Prior researchers appear to lack agreement with regard the relationship between

CSRD and the gearing of a company. Prior research tends to agree that CSRD

and gearing have a negative relationship. Brammer & Pavelin (2008) explain that a

lower gearing ratio leads to less pressure from creditors (stakeholder), therefore

less CSRD is expected of the managers to produce, due to the voluntary nature of

the disclosure. However, Andrikopoulos & Kriklani (2013) found that a high gearing

ratio tends to reduce the amount of CSRD because of costly procedures involved

in preparation could be seen by creditors as inefficient use of capital. However,

Veronica Siregar & Bachtiar (2010), Reverte (2009), Michelon & Parbonetti (2012),

Branco & Rodrigues (2008) and Giannarakis (2014b) found that there was no

relationship between gearing and CSRD.


19

2.9 Summary Firstly, it was established that CSR involves many many concepts. The concept of

CSR itself has numerous definitions and the authors on the subject have very

mixed opinions of what CSR entails.

The different researcher’s perspectives of CSR can be categorised into two main

perspective groups, the ‘narrow view’ and the ‘broad view’. The narrow is less

popular in the 21st century and follows the belief that business entities only have

one ‘social responsibility’, that is to create shareholder value. The ‘broad view’ is

the perspective that is most commonly accepted of what CSR entails in the 21st

century, where business entities have a responsibility to a wider group of

stakeholders and that the objective of business is more than just profit maximising.

However, even within the ‘broad view’, there is still disagreement amongst

researchers of what corporation’s responsibilities are. For example, Elkington

(1997) believes there are three objectives (triple bottom line) of business that

make up CSR, whereas Carroll & Buchholtz (2003) believe there are four

responsibilities’ that equate to CSR.

CSR is a concept that has developed a lot in history. There is evidence of

corporations acting socially responsibly long before the term ‘CSR’ was used. For

much of the late 20th century literature was focussed on attempting to establish

definitions of what CSR entails.

There are many reasons cited as to why companies involve themselves with CSR

activism. Most of the reasons cited are actually the benefits that CSR activism

bring to corporations. These include, increased customer loyalty and improved

shareholder value in the long term (Idowu & Filho 2009). On the other hand, Amao

(2011) warns of the consequences of not being socially responsible.

The next section detailed the disclosure of CSR. Firstly, it was established that

there are two main documents that UK companies disclose their CSR activism in.

These documents are either standalone CSR reports or company annual reports


20

in where there is a CSR section. Usually four elements of CSR are addressed

within CSRD: Environment, Community, Marketplace and Workplace (Idowu &

Towler 2004).

There are several theories that researchers use to explain why corporations

choose to disclose CSR. These are Stakeholder Theory, Agency Theory,

Legitimacy Theory and Social Contract theory.

Relating to CSR, Stakeholder Theory is the belief that corporations have a

responsibility to various groups in society. Agency Theory states that the

managers of the corporations are responsible, and therefore are the ‘agents’ to the

shareholders, whom are the owners. Therefore, they must act in their best interest.

Relating to CSRD, Legitimacy Theory is important as there is the need to

‘legitimise’ the actions of the business, disclosure of CSR helps to do this. Lastly,

Social Contract Theory believes that there is a tacit agreement between

corporations and society and therefore, a corporation needs to address how the

business affects and integrates with society.

There have been many reasons given as to why corporations disclose CSR. The

most common reason given by UK companies is to inform stakeholders of the

corporations contribution to social betterment (Idowu & Filho 2009). In the UK,

there is no regulation regarding CSRD, and the voluntary nature of CSRD can lead

to possible exaggeration.

Prior research has indicated certain corporate characteristics act as explanatory

variables for amount of CSRD produced by corporations (Elsakit & Worthington

2014). These include Industry, Profitability, Size and Gearing.

The industry sensitivity which is determined by environmental risk is shown in prior

research that industries in which there is a larger possibility of environmental harm

such as Oil & Gas and Chemical disclose more CSRD.


21

The profitability of a company has been found in prior research as an explanatory

variable of CSRD. However, the findings are mixed, with some researchers finding

a positive relationship, others finding a negative relationship and others finding no

relationship

The prior research investigating size as an explanatory variable of CSRD is also

mixed, with some researchers finding a positive relationship and others finding no

relationship at all. Lastly, there is also disagreement amongst researchers

regarding the correlation with CSRD.


22

Chapter Three – Research Methods

3.1 Introduction This chapter provides an overview of how the research was conducted by the

author in order to investigate the relationship between a variety of corporate

characteristics and CSR disclosure in line with research aim and objectives. In the

first part of this chapter, the Hypotheses of this research will be developed in order

to be tested. After the hypotheses have been set, the research design will be

explained in detail, followed by thorough explanation of the sample taken and the

variables to be analysed. Following this, the data analysis techniques chosen will

be explained and justified. Lastly, a summary will be presented.

3.2 Hypotheses Development In order to test the statistical significance of a potential relationship of variables,

hypotheses must be set in order to be tested. There are four corporate

characteristics that have been chosen to be tested, relating to existing literature

discussed in the previous chapter. These four characteristics are classed as four

independent variables and are needed to be tested for their relationship with the

dependant variable, CSRD. Therefore, there shall be four sets of hypotheses,

each with a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis.

Stated below are the hypotheses that are to be tested in this research study:

H0: There is no association between company size and CSR disclosure

HA1: There is an association between company size and CSR disclosure

H0: There is no association between industry sensitivity and CSR disclosure

HA2: There is an association between industry sensitivity and CSR disclosure

H0: There is no association between profitability and CSR disclosure

HA3: There is an association between profitability and CSR disclosure

H0: There is no association between gearing and CSR disclosure

HA4: There is an association between gearing and CSR disclosure


23

3.3 Research Design

According to Reverte (2009) there are three types of empirical studies in the field

of CSR. ‘Descriptive studies’, ‘Explicative Studies’ and ‘studies which investigate

the ‘impact of social and environmental information on stakeholders’. Similar to the

empirical study conducted by Reverte (2009), the research in this paper is an

‘explicative study’, as it attempts to identify potential determinants of a subject, in

this case the determinants of CSRD.

This research has a cross-sectional design due to the fact that it is based on

evidence from only one point in time to investigate the relationship between CSRD

and corporate characteristics. Furthermore, this is a quantitative study, therefore

the qualitative aspects of CSRD are not considered in depth but rather the sheer

quantity of CSRD disclosed is the main concern in this study.

This research relies solely on secondary data, using observational techniques and

content analysis to collect the required data to be analysed in order to address the

research aim and objectives. All of the data collected for the primary research has

been sourced only from each of the sample company’s official websites or from

the London Stock Exchange (LSE) website.

3.4 Sampling and Data Collection In order to address the research aim of analysing the relationship between the

quantity of CSRD and corporate characteristics, a sample of companies needed to

be take in order to analyse.

The sample of companies was taken from the official London Stock Exchange

(LSE) companies list, which can be found on their website, on the 29th February

2016 (LSE 2016). The full list compromises of 2339 companies with a total Market

Value of £3,879,397 billion.


24

Once the data was downloaded, Macros were immediately disabled on the

spreadsheet to stop the spreadsheet from updating automatically with changes in

data. This was to ensure that the data was consistent and from the same date

(29th February), even if the spreadsheet was accessed again at another time.

A filter was placed on the list of companies to only show ‘main market’ companies

and it was decided that 8 industries would be analysed.

According to Gorsuch (1983) and Hatcher (1994), there should be a minimum

subject-to-variable of at least 5:1, therefore as there are four independent

variables being tested a minimum sample of 20 companies is needed. It was

decided that using stratified sampling was the best way to ensure that this

minimum was reached, and it was decided that a sample of 6 companies should

be taken in each industry.

LSE listed companies belonged to 46 industries, according to the company list.

This was obviously too many to analyse accurately with the limited time and

resources, therefore a selection had to be made. Furthermore, some industries

had less than six companies in them, making a six company stratified sample

impossible.

It was decided that the sample was to come from 8 industries which were; Oil &

Gas Producers, Food & Drug Retailers, Mining, Travel & Leisure, Chemical,

Media, Industrial Metal and the Beverage industry. The reason for this particular

selection was to include four industries that are regarded as CSRD sensitive and

four which are regarded as not CSRD sensitive. What industries are regarded as

CSRD sensitive is listed in Reverte (2009) as well Deegan & Gordon (1996),

therefore by sampling in this way, allows comparison with those prior papers.

To select the companies by way of stratified random all of the companies in the

‘LSE Companies List’ were issued a randomly generated number in the

spreadsheet using the Random Number function in Excel and then assorted using

the random number. The data was then filtered to include each of the chosen


25

industries in turn and the top 6 companies for each of the 8 industries was

selected and transferred to a new spreadsheet.

Following the sampling procedure, the required data to test the hypotheses was

collected using the data available from the London Stock Exchange Website. This

was chosen as the source of the data rather than directly from each company’s

annual Reports as due to the sample companies having a different country of

origin, the data they report was in many different currencies. However, The LSE

website, provided all of the financial information needed and they had converted

all company data into US Dollars ($), meaning that a consistent data analysis can

be performed.

3.5 Variables The corporate characteristics are the independent variables in this study. They

were chosen because they were the variables previous studies (Such as: Reverte

2009; Deegan & Gordon 1996; Giannarakis 2014a; Haniffa & Cooke 2005;

Brammer & Pavelin 2008). There are many characteristics of the firm that have

been cited as being determinants of CSRD, however there will be four analysed

and tested for association with CSRD, these are: Industry Sensitivity, Profitability,

Size and Gearing. The Dependant variable in this study is CSRD, which will be

detailed below.


26

3.6 Dependant Variable - CSRD In investigate the amount of CSR disclosure published, prior empirical studies

such as Reverte (2009) and Giannarakis (2014), develop a CSR ranking system

established to determine the level of disclosure of CSR by companies as well us

using CSR Index’s such as a Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)-based scoring

index. On the other hand, prior studies such as Deegan & Gordon (1996) use

‘word count’ as a measure of CSRD. Based upon this quantitative measurement

this study has been conducted using ‘Pages of CSRD’ as the dependant variable

to investigate the quantity of CSR disclosed by the sample companies.

In order to determine what should be classed as a single ‘Page of CSRD’, a rule

was created by establishing an information hierarchy of the medium of disclosure.

This has been shown in the notation below:

𝑃𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑛𝐶𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 > 𝑃𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑛𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 > 𝑃𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑛𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑦𝑊𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒

Represented in the above notation, it can be seen that a CSR Report would be the

ideal disclosure, every page in this report is counted. If the company does not

produce a separate report, the number of pages relating to CSR in the Annual

Statement would be counted. If the company does not disclose CSR in either of

those two documents, CSR information on their website would qualify. Website

data would be converted to ‘pages of CSRD’ by counting how many printable

pages the CSR information would cover (using print preview). The purpose of this

hierarchy is to ensure that CSR disclosure is only counted once, as information

published in various formats is likely to be the same.

Once the number of pages of CSRD had been collected for each company, they

were transformed into normal distribution using Logarithm due to the raw data

being strongly skewed (See chapter 4). A constant of ‘1’ was also added so that

companies with no disclosure at all were included.

The notation below represents how ‘CSRD’ was calculated:

𝐶𝑆𝑅𝐷 = 𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑃𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑓𝐶𝑆𝑅𝐷 + 1)


27

3.7 Independent Variables The following independent variables are the corporate characteristics that are to be tested to see if they have a relationship with CSRD and are therefore also determinants. 3.7.1 Industry Sensitivity The ‘Industry sensitivity’ variable in this research is subjective. Reverte (2009)

explains that industries that have higher environmental risk are considered as

being more CSRD sensitive. These include according to Reverte (2009) Oil and

Gas Producers, Chemical Industry, Mining and Industrial Metals. On the other

hand, the other four industries analysed are considered by Reverte (2009) and

Brammer & Pavelin (2008) to be ‘less sensitive to CSRD’. This study will

investigate if this claim is true.

3.7.2 Company Size

The Total Assets is considered as size of a company, by taking the logarithm of

total assets, it creates a much more manageable range of values, usage of this

indicator of size in similar studies include Reverte (2009) and Giannarakis (2014b).

𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 𝐿𝑜𝑔AB(𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠)

3.7.3 Profitability Profitability in this research is the Return on Assets. This is calculated using the

equation below:

𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑛𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 = 𝑁𝑒𝑡𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠

The return on assets equation indicates how profitable a company is in relation to

its total assets, it is therefore a measure of management efficiency in generating

earnings. Using ROA as a measure of profitability has been used by Reverte

(2009), Joshi & Gao (2009) and Brammer & Pavelin (2008) in similar studies.


28

3.7.4 Gearing The gearing, also referred to as financial leverage, of a company, is calculated in

this study by using the equation below:

𝐺𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝐿𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦

The gearing of a company is represented using the Debt/Equity ratio as seen

above. It is used to understand the extent to which a company uses borrowed

money to finance its growth in relation to it’s shareholder equity. A high gearing

ratio is associated with having high levels of risk.

3.8 Data Analysis Techniques In order to investigate a relationship between variables, a variety of statistical tests

can be used such as parametric analysis which includes as Pearson Correlation

and Regression as well as non-parametric analysis such as Spearman Analysis.

Both types of analysis have different assumptions that need to be met in order to

give accurate results.

In this study a combination of Pearson analysis and Multiple Regression were

chosen as the appropriate techniques to address the aim of investigating potential

relationships between certain corporate characteristics and CSRD and thus also

addressing the hypotheses.

3.8.1 Multiple Linear Regression According to Laerd (2016), Multiple Regression analysis is used when trying to

establish a potential relationship between a single dependant variable and two or

more independent variables. In this study, the dependant variable is CSRD and

the independent variables are the corporate characteristics. Multiple Regression

also allows the overall fit (Explained Variance) of the model to be determined by

calculating the contribution of each of the Independent variables. Therefore, it can

be seen that by using Multiple Linear Regression, not only will the potential


29

relationships be established between CSRD and the corporate characteristics but

furthermore it will be seen how the influence of the chosen corporate

characteristics, when combined together, can influence CSRD.

In order for Pearson correlation and Regression analysis to be conducted, among

the many assumptions that must be met, normal distribution of the dependant

variable is assumed. Therefore, that is the reason why the ‘pages of CSRD’

needed to be transformed by way of taking a natural logarithm of it. Regression

does not assume multivariate normality, only the dependant variable needs to be

conditioned so that it is normally distributed.

Furthermore, the majority of the prior research in the field of CSRD particularly

within studies relationship with corporate characteristics (such as: Reverte 2009;

Giannarakis 2014a; Brammer & Pavelin 2008) have used Multiple Regression

Analysis which would allows this research to be consistent with their prior research

so to improve the validity of comparison with their findings. This attempts to

address a criticism made by Sapkauskiene & Leitoniene (2014, p243) whereby

they they state that in CSR, so many different techniques are used by different

researchers that it is “difficult to compare results from different studies” and that in

the absence of a unified methodology of CSRD and it’s research the obtained

results are “hardly comparable and in some cases even contradictory”.


30

The Multiple Regression Model approach can be summarised in the following

general expression:

Where:

CSRD = Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure

S = Size of Company

IS = Industry Sensitivity

P = Profitability (ROA)

G = Gearing

Ɛ = Error Tern

Β0 = Constant Term

Β1, β2, β3, β4 = Parameters

The above notation shows that when the values of the independent variables are

known then the value of CSRD can be predicted.

3.8.2 Pearson Correlation Pearson correlation is also conducted in order to establish potential relationships

between independent variables. Although it may at first glance seem to not directly

address the aims and objectives of this research, it does allow further

understanding of how correlated independent variables can be related to the

independent variable. According to Creech (2011), it is possible for independent

variables to be correlated to the dependant variable, however are not significant in

a multiple regression model.

CSRD= β0 + β1Si + β2ISi + β4Pi + β5Gi + Ɛi


31

3.8.3 Significance Level According to Siegle (2009) an alpha level, otherwise known as a significance level

or p-value, must be set in order to state how much risk should be taken in

concluding that a difference exists when it doesn’t actually. Siegle (2009) suggests

that the common alpha level for educational research should be 0.05.

A p-value ≤ 0.05 indicates strong evidence against the Null Hypothesis, therefore

the Null Hypothesis would be rejected.

A p-value >0.05 indicates weak evidence against the Null Hypothesis, therefore

the evidence would ‘fail to reject’ the Null Hypothesis.


32

Chapter 4 – Data Description

4.1 Introduction This chapter presents and describes the relevant data that is used in order to

perform the data analysis to test the hypotheses and address the aim and

objectives of investigating potential relationships between corporate characteristics

and CSRD. The analysis and discussion in this chapter will be addressing the

objectives stated and answering the aim. The full data set is presented in

Appendix I.

4.2 Descriptive Analysis The table below presents the descriptive analysis of the industries in which the

sample companies were taken from, which were then separated into what prior

research states are ‘more sensitive’ or ‘less sensitive’ industries, so that it can be

analysed to see if what has been stated before is true or not.

Table 4.2 Summary of Demographic Analysis

Demographic Sensitivity Constructs Freq. Freq. Percentage

Industry

Less Sensitive Industry

Beverage 6

24 50% Travel & leisure 6 Food and Drug

Retailers 6

Media 6

More Sensitive Industry

Oil & Gas Producers 6

24 50% Mining 6 Chemical 6

Industrial Metal 6 TOTAL 48 100%


33

Presented above in Table 4.2, it can be seen that 50% of the companies analysed

came from ‘Less Sensitive’ industries – These are the ‘Beverage’, ‘Travel and

Leisure’, ‘Food and Drug Retailers’ and ‘Media’ Industry’s. It can also be seen that

50% of the companies came from industries that are considered ‘More Sensitive’ –

These are ‘Oil and Gas Producers’, ‘Mining’, ‘Chemical’ and ‘Industrial Metal’

industries.


34

4.3 The Frequency Statistics for ‘Pages of CSRD’

The table below presents the frequency statistics for ‘Pages of CSRD’ before any

transformation of data has been performed.

For a full list detailing the sample, see appendix i and ii

(References for all sources are in the References section)

Table 4.3 Frequency Statistics Table

As seen in Table 4.3, when the sample data was collected from the 48 companies.

The minimum value collected from the sample was 0 pages of CSR. This meant

that they did not produce a CSR report or have any mention of CSR issues in their

annual report or their website. The maximum value was 150 pages, in which one

company produced a 150 CSR report. The mean number of pages was 23.38. It

can also be seen in the data that the distribution is skewed, meaning it is not

normally distributed, which is shown in the histogram on the next page.

Pages of CSRD

N Valid 48 Missing 0

Mean 23.38 Std. Deviation 29.694 Skewness 2.242 Std. Error of Skewness

.343

Minimum 0 Maximum 150 Percentiles 25 4.00

50 10.50 75 30.00


35

Figure 4.3 Histogram for Frequency for Dependent Variable - CSRD

In the above Histogram (Figure 4.3), it can be seen that the dependant variable

CSRD, represented by ‘Pages of CSRD’, is not normally distributed and is

regarded as being severely skewed.

It can be seen that companies with CSRD between 0 and 12.5 pages is by far the

most frequent. The mean can be observed in the description at the top as being

23.38.

Unfortunately, as the data is not normally distributed and outliers can be observed,

this data is not suitable as it is for Pearson Correlation and Linear Regression,

however Spearman correlation could be attempted due to the robustness of that

particular correlation test which uses a ranking system.


36

The next diagram (Figure 4.4) shows how the data was transformed to meet

Pearson and Regression’s criteria.

Figure 4.4 Transformed Histogram for Dependent Variable – CSRD

In the above Histogram (Figure 4.4), it can be seen that the raw data (as seen in

figure 4.3) has been transformed into data that resembles Normal Distribution.

This was done by adding a constant of 1 (so that the analysis can include

companies who had no pages of disclosure, as logarithm function does not work

on 0) and then taking the Natural Logarithm of the data.

The histogram shows that the data now resembles normal distributed and can be

used in Pearson correlation and Multiple Regression analysis that will follow.


37

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables

Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Industry Sensitivity 48 0 1 .50 .505

Size 48 7.09 11.36 9.1509 1.07639 Profitability 48 -.81 2.23 .0384 .36241 Gearing 48 .05 24.17 2.6054 4.46682 Valid N (listwise) 48

As shown in the Table 4.4 above, Industry sensitivity has a minimum value of 0

and a maximum value of 1 this is because, as can be observed in Table 4.2, the

sample of companies was split into two groups, companies in ‘Less CSRD

sensitive industries’, given the value of 0 and ‘More CSRD sensitive industries’

given the value of 1. The standard deviation is 0.505, because of the mean value

of 0.5, which indicates that 50% of the sample were ‘More Sensitive’ and 50%

were ‘Less Sensitive’, which was predetermined because of the use of stratified

sampling.

Size was measured as the Log10 of Total Assets, this was done because of the

very large value of total assets that most LSE listed companies have. Size has a

minimum value of 7.09 and a maximum value of 11.36, the mean value was

9.1509 with a standard deviation of 1.07639.

The profitability of the company was measured by calculating the return on assets,

which has a minimum value of -0.81 and a maximum value of 2.23. The mean is

0.0384 and the distribution has a standard deviation of 0.36241. This can be

understood that that although some companies are not profitable and some are,

the average of companies in the sample are profitable.

The gearing of a company was measured by using the debt ratio (Total Debt/Total

Assets). It can be seen that the minimum gearing value was -0.05 and the

maximum was 24.17. The Mean value was 2.6054 with a rather large standard

deviation of 4.46682. This can be interpreted as the gearing of the sample of


38

companies varies dramatically, some companies are incredibly highly geared, by

looking at the Raw data in appendix I, it be can seen that the company Stock

Spirits Group PLC is the culprit of the extraordinarily high borrowings in relation to

equity.


39

Chapter 5 – Data Analysis

This chapter presents the evidence of the statistical tests performed which are

Pearson Correlation Analysis and Multiple Linear Regression. These tests were

performed to address the research aim, objectives and to test the hypotheses

developed.

5.1 Pearson Correlatives Analysis The Pearson Correlation is used in order to determine the strength and direction

(positive or negative) of a linear relationship between two continuous variables.

The test generates a coefficient labelled ‘Pearson Correlation coefficient’. Its

values range from -1 (indicating a perfect negative correlation) to +1 (indicating a

perfect positive correlation), a value of 0 indicates no relationship at all (Laerd

2016).

The following table (Table 5.1) presents the results from conducting a Pearson

Correlation Analysis on the data collected between all variables:

Table 5.1 Pearson Correlation of Variables


40

The above Table (5.1), shows the Pearson Correlation matrix and presents the

results of all the variables chosen to be in this research. It can be observed that

between CSRD and Size there is a significant and positive relationship, as its

significance level is <0.05 (The predetermined alpha level). This means that this

study shows that the larger the company, the more CSR they disclose. This

correlation is in line with the results found by Brammer & Pavelin (2008), Reverte

(2009) and Haniffa & Cooke (2005).

Furthermore, CSRD is positively correlated to Industry Sensitivity, Profitability and

Gearing, however the relationship is not significant as the significance level is

>0.05. By looking at the Pearson Correlation coefficients, they are very close to 0,

which indicates there is no correlation.

By observing the correlation between size and industry sensitivity it can be seen

that there is a positive correlation, however as the significance is >0.05, it can be

said that there is no correlation. However, the results show that size has a

negative correlation with both profitability and gearing, although not significant.

Industry sensitivity has a negative correlation with both Profitability however it is

not significant. On the other hand, Industry Sensitivity was found to have a

significant and negative relationship with Gearing. This means that companies that

have less environmental risk such as the Media Industry appear to rely less on

borrowed finances.

Lastly, profitability was found to have a positive and significant relationship with

Gearing, indicating that companies that are more highly geared are actually more

profitable.


41

5.2 Multiple Regression Analysis

Conducting a multiple regression analysis and using CSRD as the dependant

variable, it will be able to show the degree in which variance in the dependable

variable us explained by the independent variables chosen for analysis (Siegle

2007).

The results of the Multiple regression analysis are presented using the following

three tables, the ANOVA, the Model Summary and t Table of Coefficient’s.

The model will then be presented using the results will then be presented using

the Multiple Regression Model Equation.

Table 5.2 ANOVA Result of Multiple Regression Analysis

The above Table (5.2) shows that the complete model with all of it predictors and

states that it is significant with a value of significance value of 0.000.


42

Table 5.3 Model Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis

Above, Table 5.3, it can be observed that because the ‘R2’ figure for the model is

0.605. This means that 60.5% of the variance for CSRD is attributed to the four

Independent variables tested in the model which are Size, Industry Sensitivity,

Gearing and Profitability.


43

The Table above (5.4) shows the results of the Multiple Linear Regression in

determining CSR Disclosure for companies on the London Stock Exchange using

four determinants.

Using the results found in the table above the multiple regression model can be

expressed as follows:

By analysing the above model equation, it can be seen that all of the corporate

characteristics used in the model are positively related to CSRD. However, the

only corporate characteristic that has a positive and significant relationship is Size.

This is because it’s significant value is 0.000 (Table 5.4) which is less than 0.05,

which was the alpha level set in this research.

The above model equation allows CSRD to be predicted if you know the

determinants of it, which are Size (S), Industry Sensitivity (IS), Profitability(P) and

Gearing (G). The ‘R2’ figure in Table 4.5, means that 60.5% of the variance is

Table 5.4 The Coefficient of Multiple Regressions Analysis

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) -5.850 1.041 -5.618 .000

Size .903 .112 .782 8.038 .000 Industry Sensitivity .088 .248 .036 .353 .726

Profitability .296 .368 .086 .803 .426 Gearing .022 .031 .078 .702 .486

a. Dependent Variable: CSRD

CSRD = -5.850 + 0.903S + 0.088IS + 0.296P + 0.022G


44

attributed to the the four determinants studied in this research, if more

determinants were added to the model then ‘R2’ and the model would become

more accurate in predicting CSRD.

5.3 Hypothesis Testing and Discussion

The following selection tests each hypothesis and discusses the findings, relating

them with the prior findings discussed in the literature.

5.3.1 Hypothesis 1 - Size

H0: There is no association between company size and CSR disclosure

HA1: There is an association between company size and CSR disclosure

Hypothesis Result HA1: There is an association between company size and CSR disclosure SUPPORTED

Based on the regression findings in Table 4.3, as the significance value is less

than the alpha level of 0.05, with a significant value of 0.000, the Null Hypothesis

is rejected. Therefore, the research conducted by this study on a sample of LSE

listed companies has found a significant and positive between Size and CSRD.

This finding is consistent with the following prior empirical studies which also found

a positive and significant relationship between CSRD and size of a company:

Giannarakis (2014b), Hossain & Reaz (2007), Reverte (2009), Gamerschlag et al.

(2011), Branco & Rodrigues (2008), Haniffa & Cooke (2005). It is inconsistent with

(Roberts 1992)

This result could be due to larger companies being more visible to stakeholders

and more pressure is put on them to be more transparent in their activities. On the

other hand, Larger companies also have more resources available to them, and


45

therefore may be able to justify the extra costs of producing extra disclosure, as

CSRD is voluntary in the UK.

Larger companies tend to receive much more public scrutiny than smaller

companies and therefore publish more CSRD as a way of legitimising their

existence (Cormier & Gordon 2001). Haniffa & Cook (2005) claim that visibility and

accountability are the factors that lead large companies to publish more CSRD.

However, (Gray et al. 1995a) suggests that large companies develop their CSRD

as a way to avoid regulation.

5.3.2 Hypothesis 2 – Industry Sensitivity

H0: There is no association between industry sensitivity and CSR disclosure

HA2: There is an association between industry sensitivity and CSR disclosure

Hypothesis Result HA2: There is an association between industry sensitivity and CSR disclosure NOT SUPPORTED

Based on the regression findings, as the significance level is >0.05 for the

relationship between Industry Sensitivity and CSRD, with a significance level a

value of 0.726, it can be said that this study fails to reject the Null hypothesis.

There is a positive relationship between Industry Sensitivity and CSRD, however it

is not significant. Therefore, it can be said that his study does not find a

relationship between CSRD sensitivity of Industries (Industries that are traditionally

seen to be harmful to the environment vs Industries seen to be less harmful to

Environment).

This result is inconsistent with Reverte (2009), who split industries using the same

method as this study. There are several potential reasons for this result. Industries

in the UK that are at less Environmental Risk could actually be disclosing more

CSRD than prior research suggests, possibly because of legitimacy theory or are

seeing the potential benefits of disclosing CSRD and are therefore on par with the


46

high disclosure levels of industries at a higher environmental risk. Environmental

risk has been cited as being a determinant of CSRD in prior research because of

increased stakeholder pressure (Brammer & Pavelin 2006; Reverte 2009). Th

5.3.3 Hypothesis 3 - Profitability

H0: There is no association between profitability and CSR disclosure

HA3: There is an association between profitability and CSR disclosure

Hypothesis Result HA3: There is an association between profitability and CSR disclosure NOT SUPPORTED


relationship between Profitability and CSRD, with a value of 0.426, it can be said

that this study fails to reject the Null hypothesis.

The findings of no relationship between profitability and CSR disclosure level are

consistent with Branco & Rodrigues (2008), Giannarakis (2014b), Reverte (2009),

Belal & Cooper (2011), Esa & Mohd-Ghazali (2012), Veronica Siregar & Bachtiar

(2010). The results are inconsistent with Khan (2010), Haniffa & Cooke (2005),

Cormier & Magnan (2003), Hossain & Reaz (2007) and Ho & Taylor (2007).

This result suggests that possibly CSRD is influenced more by ‘Public Pressure’

rather than ‘Economic Pressure’ (Giannarakis 2014b; Esa & Mohd-Ghazali 2012).

Interestingly, this finding does not agree with Haniffa & Cooke (2005), in that it is

suggested by this study that more profitable companies do not legitimise their

existence. This result also shows that companies do not necessarily feel the need

to disclose more CSRD just to justify their profit making, possibly in contrast to

legitimacy theory.


47

5.3.4 Hypothesis 4 - Gearing

H0: There is no association between gearing and CSR disclosure

HA4: There is an association between gearing and CSR disclosure

Hypothesis Result HA4: There is an association between gearing and CSR disclosure NOT SUPPORTED


relationship between Gearing and CSRD, with a value of 0.486, this study has

failed to reject the Null Hypothesis.

This result is consistent with Veronica Siregar & Bachtiar (2010), Giannarakis (2014a), Reverte (2009), Branco & Rodrigues (2008), Michelon & Parbonetti (2012). However it is inconsistent with Esa & Mohd-Ghazali (2012) and Andrikopoulos & Kriklani (2013). Brammer & Pavelin (2008) suggested that a lower gearing ratio leaded to less CSR disclosure because there is less pressure from creditors to legitimise their actions. Andrikopoulos & Kriklani (2013) found that a higher gearing ratio led to less CSRD, as the corporation could not be seen as wasting its money on ‘unnecessary’ disclosures.


48

Chapter 6 – Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusion

The overall aim of this study was to investigate if the corporate characteristics,

Profitability, Gearing, Size and Industry sensitivity, were determinants of corporate

social responsibility disclosure in UK listed companies.

Furthermore, the objectives of this study were to:

• Undertake a critical literature review of relevant literature

• Develop an appropriate research method to investigate determinants of

CSRD

• Analyse the data collected using appropriate research methods and present

the findings

• Identify if the chosen corporate characteristics are determinants of CSRD:

Upon reflection of the study carried out, it can be confirmed that each of the

objectives were successfully achieved in line with attempting to address the aim of

determining whether Profitability, Gearing, Size and Industry sensitivity were in

fact determinants of CSRD, as previously cited as being so in prior research.

The literature review set the scene and created a foundation of knowledge on the

subject in line with the overall aim. The primary research findings of this study

were established by use of Multiple Regression Analysis. This method of analysis

was appropriate as it is a method used to establish a potential relationship

between a single dependant variable with two or more independent variables. In

this study, the dependant variable was CSRD and the independent variables were

the corporate characteristics. In order for the findings to be confirmed, hypotheses

were developed to be tested. The sample of companies were UK LSE listed

companies and appropriate sampling methods were used to gather them.


49

6.2 Main Findings Table 5.4 below presents a summary of the findings of the primary research

conducted by this study:

Table 6.2 Summary of the Findings

In the above Table (6.2), is can be seen that the primary research conducted in

this study supports Hypothesis A1, however the research by way of Multiple

Regression analysis, does not support Hypothesis A2, Hypothesis A3 or

Hypothesis A4.

As discussed in the data analysis chapter, there is extensive support from prior

research as to why size of a company is a determinant of CSRD. Larger

companies tend to receive much more public scrutiny which leads them to

publishing more CSRD to legitimise themselves, as higher levels of visibility tend

to lead to more CSRD. Disclosing more CSRD can also be a way for companies to

avoid the creation of new regulation, which may restrict their activities (Gray et al.

1995a; Cormier & Gordon 2001; Haniffa & Cooke 2005)

Hypothesis Finding

HA1: There is an association between company size and CSR disclosure SUPPORTED

HA2: There is an association between industry sensitivity and CSR disclosure NOT SUPPORTED

HA3: There is an association between profitability and CSR disclosure NOT SUPPORTED

HA4: There is an association between gearing and CSR disclosure NOT SUPPORTED


50

6.3 Limitations Due to time constraints the sample of companies is limited in quantity, if a larger

sample was taken the results could have been more conclusive. Furthermore,

there may be scope to cross analyse the data variables however due to time

constraints this was not possible.

One of the main limitations of using a cross-sectional study to investigate the link

between the characteristics of a firm and its CSR disclosure is that it only provides

a ‘snapshot’ of the current link. This means that if the study was conducted again

in years to come the results may be completely different e.g. an industry may

disclose much more CSR activities in the future due to a potential scandal in the

industry. Therefore, the primary research conducted will only be relevant and

representative of present day.

Furthermore, by basing this study on CSR disclosure on the number of pages in

the annual accounts it brings with it many limitations. For instance, some

companies may primarily use informal methods to disclose their CSR activities

(e.g. Social Media), therefore some companies may be discriminated against.

Moreover, presentation of CSR disclosure may differ between reports i.e. font size

may be different, repetition of data may be present or images/graphs may be

present in some reports. This will also affect the accuracy of the analysis and is

therefore a limitation.

This research only looks at the quantity of CSRD and does not examine the

qualitative aspects of the disclosure. Using ‘Pages of CSRD’ as a proxy for

representing CSRD could be considered a crude measurement. However, it

worked well and the results appeared to be very similar to various more complex

rating systems.

One of the limitations of researching CSRD is that there are many different but

acceptable research methods of performing an analysis. In this study a regression


51

analysis was performed, however, other studies have used Pearson Correlation

and Spearman Correlation among many other relationship analysis techniques.

Also, both the dependant variable (CSRD) and independent variables can be

measured in many different ways, therefore comparability is restricted and results

are often contradictory among different studies (Sapkauskiene & Leitoniene 2014).

Lastly, the variables, such as ROA, can be very different depending on the

industry, making it not an ideal corporate characteristic to compare with amongst

different industries like in this study. Also, the method of calculating variables such

as profitability can vary amongst research, limiting accurate comparison.

6.4 Recommendations Following on from the significant and positive relationship found between Size and

CSRD, ‘Media Exposure’ could be another determinant to be researched for UK

listed companies. This is because it has been cited that size and public scrutiny

are correlated, which is largely down to media attention. This would be an

interesting claim to prove and could further support the findings that Size and

CSRD are related. Furthermore, more corporate characteristics could be added to

the regression model, creating a more accurate model.

At one time all CSR information would have been in the Annual Accounts, recently

there appears to be a move to disclosing the information in separate reports.

These reports are referred to by many names, including Sustainability Report,

CSR report or Environmental and Social Report. However, forward looking the

‘Integrated approach’ style of reporting is becoming the trend of the future,

whereby one report includes both the CSR disclosure and the traditional Annual

Accounts. This should be noted when comparing results to different years.

WORD COUNT 11,295


52

References Adams, C.A., Hill, W.Y. & Roberts, C.B., 1998. Corporate social reporting practices in western europe: Legitimating corporate behaviour? British Accounting Review, 30(1), pp.1–21. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0890-8389(97)90060-3 [Accessed 06/03/16] Amao, O., 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility, Human Rights and the Law: Multinational Corporations in Developing Countries, Routledge. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XumsAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. [Accessed 06/03/16] Andrikopoulos, A. & Kriklani, N., 2013. Environmental Disclosure and Financial Characteristics of the Firm: The Case of Denmark. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(1), pp.55–64. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_wj10.1002/csr.1281 [Accessed 06/03/16] Anglo American PLC. (2015). Sustainable Development Report 2014. Available at: http://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-PLC-V2/report-builder-2014/sdr/sdr14-interactive-version.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Anglo Pacific Group PLC. (2015). Annual Report & Accounts 2014. Available at: http://www.anglopacificgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/APG-Annual-Report-2014-FINAL1.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] at Bank of America 2014 CSR Report. Available at: http://about.bankofamerica.com/assets/pdf/Bank-of-America-2014-Corporate-Social-Responsibility-Report.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Bank of America Corp PLC. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility Bank of Ireland PLC. (2015). Responsible Business Report 2014. Available at: https://www.bankofireland.com/fs/doc/wysiwyg/boi-responsibility-report-2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] BARR(A.G). (2014) Annual Report. Available at: http://www.agbarr.co.uk/media/142393/Annual-Report-and-Accounts-January-2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] BASF PLC. (2015). Economic, Environmental and Social Performance. Available at: https://www.basf.com/documents/corp/en/about-us/publications/reports/2015/BASF_Report_2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Belal, A.R. & Cooper, S., 2011. The absence of corporate social responsibility reporting in Bangladesh. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(7), pp.654–667. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.06.020. [Accessed 06/03/16] Bowen, H. 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (University of Iowa Faculty Connections). First Edition. University of Iowa Press.


53

BP PLC. (2015). Sustainability Report 2014. Available at: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/sustainability/group-reports/Sustainability_Report_2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Brammer, S. & Pavelin, S., 2006. Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UK companies. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 33(7-8), pp.1168–1188. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_wj10.1111/j.1468-5957.2006.00598.x [Accessed 06/03/16] Brammer, S. & Pavelin, S., 2008. Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(2), pp.120–136. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_wj10.1002/bse.506 [Accessed 06/03/16] Branco, M.C. & Rodrigues, L.L., 2008. Factors influencing social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), pp.685–701. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_springer_jour10.1007/s10551-007-9658-z [Accessed 06/03/16] Britvic (2014) Sustainable Business Report 2014. Available at: http://visualisation.investis.com/britvic/efr/live/SUSTAINABLE_REPORT_2014/index.html [Accessed 06/03/16] C&C Group PLC (2014) Annual Report. Available at: http://www.candcgroupplc.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/21498/C-and-C_AR14.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Carclo. (2015). Annual Report 2015. Available at: http://www.carclo.co.uk/~/media/Files/C/Carclo/pdfs/carclo-annual-report-2015.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Carnival PLC. (2015). 2014 Corporate Sustainability Report. Available at: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzE3ODA5fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1&cb=635863991887483431 [Accessed 06/03/16] Carroll, A., 2015. CSR: Evolution of a Definitional Construct., 38(3), pp.268–295. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_proquest199339277 [Accessed 06/03/16] Carroll, A.B. & Buchholtz, A.K., 2003. Business & society: ethics and stakeholder management 6th ed., Mason. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:ALMA-44NAP_ALMA2137847240002111 [Accessed 06/03/16]


54

Coca-Cola HBC AG (2014). Annual Report. http://www.coca-colahellenic.com/~/media/Files/C/CCHBC/Annual%20Reports/Coca-Cola%20HBC%20-%202014%20Integrated%20annual%20report.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Compass Group PLC. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2015. Available at: http://cr15.compass-group.com/assets/pdf/Compass_CR_Report_2015_interactive_2015-12-18.pdf [Accessed 06/03/15] Cook, S., 2003. Who Cares Wins. Management Today. Available at: http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/412341/CARES-WINS/ [Accessed March 23, 2016]. Cormier, D. & Gordon, I.M., 2001. An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies, Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_emerald10.1108/EUM0000000006264 [Accessed 06/03/16] Cormier, D. & Magnan, M., 2003. Environmental reporting management: a continental European perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(1), pp.43–62. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0278-4254(02)00085-6 [Accessed 20/03/16] Crane, A. & Matten, D., 2010. Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization Third Edit., Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Accessed 29/03/16] Creech, S. (2011). ‘Why Should I Perform Pearsons Correlation and Multiple Linear Regression Analysis?’ Available online: http://www.statisticsconsultant.com/dissertation-advice/why-should-i-perform-pearson%E2%80%99s-correlation-and-multiple-linear-regression-analysis/ [Accessed 1/4/16] Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How Corporate Social Responsibility is Dead: An Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(November 2006), pp.1–13. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_wj10.1002/csr.132 [Accessed 29/03/16] Davis 1960. as cited in Karim, K. et al., 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from the United Kingdom. Journal of International Business Research, 14(1), p.98. Accessed at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_gale_ofa423819235 [Accessed 29/03/16] Deegan, C. & Gordon, B., 1996. A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Accounting and Business Research, 26(3), pp.187–199. Available at: http://pmt-


55

eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_tayfranc10.1080/00014788.1996.9729510 [Accessed 29/03/16] Donaldson, T. & Dunfee, T.W., 2002. Ties that bind in business ethics: Social contracts and why they matter. Journal of Banking and Finance, 26(9), pp.1853–1865. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0378-4266(02)00195-4 [Accessed 29/03/16] Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, Capstone Publishing Ltd. Elsakit, O.M. & Worthington, A.C., 2014. The Impact of Corporate Characteristics and Corporate Governance on Corporate Social and Environmental Disclosure: A Literature Review. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(9), pp.1–15. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_crossref10.5539/ijbm.v9n9p1 [Accessed 29/03/16] Esa, E. & Mohd-Ghazali, N.A., 2012. Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Malaysian government-linked companies. The international journal of business in society, 12(3), pp.292–305. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_emerald10.1108/14720701211234564 [Accessed 29/03/16] European Union, 2001. GREEN PAPER: Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. , 5(July), pp.1–37. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-01-9_en.pdf [Accessed 29/03/16] Evraz PLC (2014) Annual Report. Available at: http://www.evraz.com/upload/iblock/db1/EVRAZ_Annual_Report_2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] First Group PLC. (2015). 2014 Corporate Responsibility Report. Available at: http://www.firstgroupplc.com/~/media/Files/F/Firstgroup-Plc/signpost-documents/corporate-responsibility-report.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] First Quantum Minerals (2014) Annual Report. Available at: http://s1.q4cdn.com/857957299/files/doc_presentations/2014/2014_FQM-Sustainability-Report_English-Online.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Flybe Group PLC (2014). 2014 Annual Report. Available at: http://www.flybe.com/corporate/investors/2014/annual-results-2014/Flybe-Group-plc-Annual-Report-2013-14.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Cambridge University Press. Friedman, M., 1962. Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press.


56

Fuller Smith & Turner. (2015). Annual Report 2014. Available at: http://www.fullers.co.uk/~/media/mainsite/PDFs/Financial%20Reports/2015/Annual-Reports-and-Accounts---March-2015.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Gamerschlag, R., Möller, K. & Verbeeten, F., 2011. Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: Empirical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science, 5(2), pp.233–262. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_springer_jour10.1007/s11846-010-0052-3 [Accessed 29/03/16] Gem Diamonds LTD. (2015). Sustainable Development Report 2014. Available at: http://www.gemdiamonds.com/downloads/2014/gem-diamonds-SD-report-01-04_0.pdf [Accessed 30/03/16] Giannarakis, G., 2014a. Corporate governance and financial characteristic effects on the extent of corporate social responsibility disclosure. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(4), pp.569–590. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SRJ-02-2013-0008 [Accessed 30/03/16] Giannarakis, G., 2014b. The determinants influencing the extent of CSR disclosure. International Journal of Law and Management, 56(5), pp.393–416. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_proquest1650884013 [Accessed 30/03/16] Gorusch, R. L (1983) as cited in: Osborne, Jason W. & Anna B. Costello (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(11). Available at: http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=11 . [Accessed 30/03/16] Grant Thornton, 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility: a necessity not a choice. Available at: http://www.grantthornton.es/publicaciones/gestionEmpresarial/2008_AHGT.es_IBR_RSC.pdf [Accessed 30/03/16] Gray, R., 2010. Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability...and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), pp.47–62. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0361-3682(09)00042-7 [Accessed 30/03/16] Gray, R., Kouhy, R. & Lavers, S., 1995a. Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8, pp.47 – 77. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_proquest211240964 [Accessed 30/03/16]


57

Gray, R., Kouhy, R. & Lavers, S., 1995b. Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), pp.47–77. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_proquest211240964 [Accessed 30/03/16] Greggs PLC. (2015). Annual Report 2014. Available at: https://corporate.greggs.co.uk/sites/default/files/GREGGS%2021488%20AR2014%20Web_1.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Haniffa, R.M. & Cooke, T.E., 2005. The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), pp.391–430. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0278-4254(05)00034-7 [Accessed 30/03/16] Hardy Oil and Gas PLC (2015). Annual Report 2014/2015. Available at: http://www.investor-hardyoil.com/~/media/Files/H/Hardy-Oil/reports-and-presentations/financial-information/ar-2014-15.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Hassan, N., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An examination of framework of determinants and consequences. Durham University. Available at: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/480/1/Thesis_Nasr.pdf?DDD2 [Accessed 5/3/16]. Hatcher, L (1994) as cited in: Osborne, Jason W. & Anna B. Costello (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(11). Available at: http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=11 [Accessed 30/03/16] Haynes Publishing Group (2014). Annual Report. Available at: https://investor.haynes.co.uk/sites/default/files/report/Haynes-Publishing-Group-Annual-Report-2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Hill, C. W. L. and Jones, T. M. (1992), Stakeholder-Agency Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 131–154. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00657.x/pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Ho, L.J. & Taylor, M.E., 2007. An Empirical Analysis of Triple Bottom-Line Reporting and its Determinants: Evidence from the United States and Japan. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 18(2), 123-150. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_wj10.1111/j.1467-646X.2007.01010.x [Accessed 30/03/16] Hossain, M. & Hammami, H., 2009. Voluntary disclosure in the annual reports of an emerging country: The case of Qatar. Advances in Accounting, 25(2), pp.255–265. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_sciversescienced


58

irect_elsevierS0882-6110(09)00031-5 [Accessed 30/03/16] Hossain, M. & Reaz, M., 2007. The determinants and characteristics of voluntary disclosure by Indian banking companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14(5), pp.274–288. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_wj10.1002/csr.154 [Accessed 3/4/16] Huntsworth (2014) Annual Report. Available at: http://www.huntsworth.com/umbraco/Surface/Default/Download?url=%2Fmedia%2F1052%2Fannual-report-2014.pdf&filename=Annual%20Report%202014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Idowu, S.O. & Filho, W.L., 2009. Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility S. O. Idowu & W. L. Filho, eds., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-540-68815-0. [Accessed 23/4/16] Idowu, S.O. & Papasolomou, I., 2007. Are the corporate social responsibility matters based on good intentions or false pretences? An empirical study of the motivations behind the issuing of CSR reports by UK companies. Corporate Governance, 7(2), pp.136–147. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_emerald10.1108/14720700710739787 [Accessed 1/4/16] Idowu, S.O. & Towler, B.A., 2004. A comparative study of the contents of corporte social responsibility reports of UK companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 15, pp.420–437. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_emerald10.1108/14777830410540153 [Accessed 30/03/16] Johnson 1971 as cited in Karim, K. et al., 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from the United Kingdom. Journal Of International Business Research, 14(1), p.98. Accessed at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_gale_ofa423819235 [Accessed 30/03/16] Johnson Matthey PLC(2015). Annual Report 2014/2015. Available at: http://www.matthey.com/documents/reports-and-publications/2014-15/johnson-matthey-annual-report-2015.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Jones, M.T., 1999. The institutional determinants of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, pp.163–179. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_springer_jour1005871021412 [Accessed 12/2/16] Joshi, P.L. & Gao, S.S., 2009. Multinational corporations’ corporate social and environmental disclosures (CSED) on web sites. International Journal of Commerce & Management, 19(1), pp.27–44. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_emerald10.1108/


59

10569210910939654 [Accessed 4/2/16] Karim, K. et al., 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from the United Kingdom. Journal Of International Business Research, 14(1), p.98. Accessed at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_gale_ofa423819235 [Accessed 30/03/16] Khan, M.H.-U.-Z., 2010. The effect of corporate governance elements on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: Empirical evidence from private commercial banks of Bangladesh. International Journal of Law and Management, 52(2), pp.82–109. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_emerald10.1108/17542431011029406 [Accessed 30/03/16] Kim, Y., Park, M.S. & Wier, B., 2012. Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? Accounting Review, 87(3), pp.761–796. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_gale_ofa293985421 [Accessed 30/03/16] Kotler, P. & Lee, N., 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Available at: http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9780471704522_sample_418638.pdf. [Accessed 30/03/16] Laerd Statistics (2016). Available at: ttps://statistics.laerd.com [Accessed 30/03/16] Lenta PLC. (2015). Annual Report 2014. Available at: http://www.lentainvestor.com/en/files/file/download/id/597 [Accessed 06/03/16]. Lin-Hi, N. & Müller, K., 2013. The CSR bottom line: Preventing corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), pp.1928–1936. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0148-2963(13)00039-8 [Accessed 30/03/16] Lloyds Banking group PLC. (2015). Responsible Business Review 2014. Available at: http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/globalassets/our-group/responsible-business/download-centre/lloyds-banking-group-responsible-business-review-final.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] London Stock Exchange (LSE). 2016. Available online: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/statistics/companies-and-issuers/list-of-all-companies.xls [Accessed 29th February 2016] Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works (2014) Annual Report. Available at: http://eng.mmk.ru/upload/iblock/eda/Annex_to_annual_report_MMK_2014_eng2.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16]


60

McColl’s Retail Group PLC. (2015). Annual Report and Accounts 2014. Available at: https://www.mccolls.co.uk/media/11195047/mccoll_s_retail_group_plc_annual_report_and_accounts_2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D., 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility : a Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), pp.117–127. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_jstor_archive259398 [Accessed 30/03/16] Michelon, G. & Parbonetti, A., 2012. The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management and Governance, 16(3), pp.477–509. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_springer_jour10.1007/s10997-010-9160-3 [Accessed 30/03/16] Morhardt, J.E., Baird, S. & Freeman, K., 2002. Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(4), pp.215–233. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_wj10.1002/csr.26 [Accessed 30/03/16] Morrison Supermarkets PLC (2015). Annual Report and Financial Statements 2014. Available at: http://www.morrisons-corporate.com/ar2015/pdf/Morrisons_AR_2014_Full.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Morsing, M. & Schultz, M., 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Stakeholder Information, Response and Involvement Strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(October), pp.323–338. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_wj10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x [Accessed 30/03/16] Norsk Hydro ASA (2014). Annual Report. Available at: http://www.hydro.com/upload/Annual_reporting/annual_2014/downloadcenter/Reports/01_annual_report_2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Petra Diamonds (2014). Sustainability Report 2014. Available at: https://www.petradiamonds.com/wp-content/uploads/Petra-Diamonds-Limited-Sustainability-Report-2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Petropavlovsk PLC. (2015). Annual Report 2014. Available at: http://www.petropavlovsk.net/images/stories/FinancialsAnnualReports/POG_Annual_Report_2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Quarto Group Inc (2014) Annual Report 2014. Available at: http://www.quarto-ir.com/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-2014.pdf [Accessed 30/03/16]


61

Reverte, C., 2009. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), pp.351–366. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_springer_jour10.1007/s10551-008-9968-9 [Accessed 3/4/16] Rightmove PLC (2014) Annual Statement. Available at: http://plc.rightmove.co.uk/~/media/Files/R/Rightmove/reports-and-presentations/2014/rightmove-2014-annual-report-v2.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Roberts, R.W., 1992. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), pp.595–612. Available at: http://repository.binus.ac.id/2009-2/content/F0122/F012243637.pdf. [Accessed 30/03/16] Royal Dutch Shell PLC (2015). Sustainability Report 2014. Available at: http://reports.shell.com/sustainability-report/2014/servicepages/downloads/files/entire_shell_sr14.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Sabmiller (2014) Sustainable Development Summary Report. Available at: http://www.sabmiller.com/docs/default-source/investor-documents/reports/2014/sustainability-reports/sustainable-development-report-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=14 [Accessed 06/03/16] Saleh, M., 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure in an Emerging Market : A Longitudinal Analysis Approach. International Business Research, 2(1), pp.131–141. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_emerald10.1108/17574321111169849 Sapkauskiene, A. & Leitoniene, S., 2014. Corporate Social Responsibility Research Methods Analysis. European Scientific Journal, 1(February), pp.237–244. Available at: http://www.eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/2829. Schwartz, M.., 2011. Corporate social responsibility: An ethical approach, Broadview Press. Scott, P. & Jackson, R., 2002. Environmental, Social and Sustainability Reporting on the Web : Best Practices. Science, 9(2), pp.193–202. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS1066-7938(02)00016-7 Shaw, W.H. & Barry, V., 2012. Moral Issues in Business 12th ed., Wadsworth Publishing. Siegle, D (2009). ‘Educational Research Basics’. Available online: http://researchbasics.education.uconn.edu/ [Accessed 28/3/16] SKY PLC (2014) Annual Statement. Available at:


62

https://corporate.sky.com/documents/annual-report-2014/annual-report-2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Soco International PLC (2015). Annual Report 2014. Available at: https://www.socointernational.com/private/downloads/eKrzHAoDYqHCG1xP6hAUSw/SOCOARA2014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] South 32 LTD (2015) Annual Report. Available at: https://www.south32.net/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=a9c4ef48-785c-4ebb-9150-e7e96cb1005a [Accessed 06/03/16] Standard Chartered. (2014). Sustainability Summary 2014. Available at: https://www.sc.com/en/resources/global-en/pdf/annual_reports/2014-Sustainability-Summary.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Stock Spirits Group PLC (2014) Annual Report. Available at: http://files.the-group.net/library/stockspirits/annualreport2014/files/full_annual_report_2014.pdf STV Group PLC (2014) Annual Report. Available at: http://www.stvplc.tv/files/download/c869eea0c16b4bc [Accessed 06/03/16] Taftnet (2015). Annual Report for 2014. Available at: http://www.tatneft.ru/storage/block_editor/files/65ec680d699efb97b9495e44f8bd49c2cd80989e.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Tagesson, T. et al., 2009. What explains the extent and content of social disclosures on corporate websites? , 364(March), pp.352–364. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_wj10.1002/csr.194 [Accessed 06/03/16] Tesco PLC (2015). Tesco and Society Review 2014. Available at: http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=81 [Accessed 06/03/16] Treatt PLC (2015). Corporate and Social Responsibility. Available at: https://www.treatt.com/investor-relations/corporate-social-responsibility-statement [Accessed 0603/16] Urip, S., 2010. CSR Strategies Corporate Social Responsibility for a Competitive Edge in Emerging Markets, John Wiley & Sons Inc. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:ALMA-44NAP_ALMA5139876750002111 [Accessed 06/03/16] van Marrewijk, M. 2003. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), pp.95–105. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_springer_jour1023331212247 [Accessed 3/2/16] Veronica Siregar, S. & Bachtiar, Y., 2010. Corporate social reporting: empirical evidence from Indonesia Stock Exchange. International Journal of Islamic and


63

Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 3(3), pp.241–252. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_emerald10.1108/17538391011072435 [Accessed 06/03/16] Victrex PLC (2015) Sustainability Report 2014. Available at: http://www.victrexplc.com/download/2014-sustainability-report.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Vimetco NV (2014) Annual Report. Available at: http://www.vimetco.com/sites/default/files/vimetco/Annual%20Report%202014.pdf [Accessed 06/03/16] Vourvachis, P., 2008. In search of explanations for corporate social reporting (CSR): an attempt to revisit legitimacy theory, Available at: http://business.kingston.ac.uk/sites/default/files/3_rp_corsocialreport.pdf [Accessed 30/03/16] Werther, W.B. & Chandler, D., 2005. Strategic corporate social responsibility as global brand insurance. Business Horizons, 48(4), pp.317–324. Available at: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44NAP_ALMA_VU1:everything:TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0007-6813(04)00134-X [Accessed 30/03/16]


64

Appendix I


65

Appendix II

Pages of CSRD

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid 0 3 6.3 6.3 6.3

2 6 12.5 12.5 18.8 3 1 2.1 2.1 20.8 4 3 6.3 6.3 27.1 5 2 4.2 4.2 31.3 6 1 2.1 2.1 33.3 7 2 4.2 4.2 37.5 8 3 6.3 6.3 43.8 9 1 2.1 2.1 45.8 10 2 4.2 4.2 50.0 11 1 2.1 2.1 52.1 12 2 4.2 4.2 56.3 14 1 2.1 2.1 58.3 17 1 2.1 2.1 60.4 19 1 2.1 2.1 62.5 22 1 2.1 2.1 64.6 24 2 4.2 4.2 68.8 25 2 4.2 4.2 72.9 27 1 2.1 2.1 75.0 31 1 2.1 2.1 77.1 32 1 2.1 2.1 79.2 43 1 2.1 2.1 81.3 50 1 2.1 2.1 83.3 52 1 2.1 2.1 85.4 56 1 2.1 2.1 87.5 57 1 2.1 2.1 89.6 66 1 2.1 2.1 91.7 74 1 2.1 2.1 93.8 81 1 2.1 2.1 95.8 88 1 2.1 2.1 97.9 150 1 2.1 2.1 100.0 Total 48 100.0 100.0

matthew macarthur dissertation

Documents