| Table 1 Regression (1) Bloomberg ESG Disclosure = RobecoSAM + Control Variables | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | T | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 9.290 | 4.156 | 2.236 | .026 | |
| RobecoSAM Ranking | .308 | .013 | .616 | 24.414 | .000 | |
| Size | 1.150 | .424 | .069 | 2.713 | .007 | |
| ESSI | 7.545 | .825 | .228 | 9.146 | .000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Bloomberg ESG Disclosure Score | ||||||
Adjusted R square .455
| Table 2 Regression (2) Bloomberg ESG Disclosure = Sustainalytics_Rank + Control Variables | ||||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | T | Sig. | Collinearity Statistics | |||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | -2.167 | 4.809 | -.451 | .652 | |||
| ESSI | 6.783 | .909 | .202 | 7.466 | .000 | .976 | 1.025 | |
| Size | 1.853 | .487 | .104 | 3.804 | .000 | .954 | 1.048 | |
| Sustainalytics Ranking | .352 | .015 | .642 | 23.658 | .000 | .971 | 1.030 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Bloomberg ESG Disclosure Score | ||||||||
| Table 3
Regression (3) RobecoSAM = Sustainalytics_Rank + Control Variables |
||||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | T | Sig. | Collinearity Statistics | |||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | -22.728 | 9.472 | -2.400 | .017 | |||
| ESSI | -.008 | 1.794 | .000 | -.004 | .996 | .977 | 1.024 | |
| Size | 3.717 | .959 | .110 | 3.877 | .000 | .957 | 1.045 | |
| Sustainalytics Ranking | .680 | .029 | .657 | 23.268 | .000 | .972 | 1.029 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: RobecoSAM Ranking | ||||||||
Table 4
Mean Value of the Scores
| Descriptive Statistics | ||
| N | Mean | |
| Bloomberg ESG Disclosure Score | 925 | 38.49 |
| RobecoSAM Ranking | 918 | 52.00 |
| Sustainalytics Ranking | 695 | 62.37 |
| Valid N (listwise) | 619 | |
Table 5
Difference in Means between Companies in the Top and Bottom of the Bloomberg ESG Disclosure Score
| Bloomberg ESG Disclosure Score | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Sig. (2-tailed) | |
| 2016 Enterprise Value (in millions) |
≥ 38 | 445 | 32309.92 | 21628.892 | .034 |
| < 38 | 376 | 29208.77 | 19993.294 | ||
| 2016 ROE | ≥ 38 | 490 | 19.0876494 | 60.50105170 | .322 |
| < 38 | 411 | 15.8796389 | 27.86115626 | ||
Table 6
Difference in Means between Companies in the Top and Bottom of the Sustainalytics Ranking
| Sustainalytics Ranking | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Sig. (2-tailed) | |
| 2016 Enterprise Value (in millions) |
≥ 62 | 348 | 32719.53 | 21810.549 | .933 |
| < 62 | 283 | 32574.73 | 21187.098 | ||
| 2016 ROE | ≥ 62 | 381 | 22.4740402 | 69.171 | .050 |
| < 62 | 296 | 14.3445301 | 19.819 | ||
Table 7
Difference in Means between Companies in the Top and Bottom of the RobecoSAM Ranking
| RobecoSAM Ranking | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | Significance | |
| 2016 ROE | ≥ 52 | 447 | 16.9669063 | 34.70615674 | 1.64154489 | |
| < 52 | 442 | 19.3015344 | 57.50314449 | 2.73514566 | 0.463 | |
| 2016 Enterprise Value (iIn Mmillions) | ≥ 52 | 408 | 32469.51 | 21702.799 | 1074.449 | |
| < 52 | 402 | 29203.98 | 19507.080 | 972.925 | 0.025 | |
