Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Essay Available:
Pages:
15 pages/≈4125 words
Sources:
6 Sources
Level:
APA
Subject:
Accounting, Finance, SPSS
Type:
Dissertation - Results
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 39.95
Topic:

Corporate Sustainability and Financial Performance (Dissertation - Results Sample)

Instructions:

The client only required the results and analysis chapter for his dissertation on corporation sustainability and financial performance

source..
Content:
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Correlations and Statistics
The descriptive statistics and their relation to (contribution per share) corporate sustainability performance and (return on assets) corporate financial performance are assessed in table below. The average value of return on assets is 0.02 and a high end range of 0.26 and low end range of -0.74 where the highest value of contribution per share is 3.83 and its lowest value is 0.04 with an average of 0.02.The normal supportability score of 1.10 is moderately low in examination with the greatest record score of 4.00. Then again, this may be clarified by the structure of the supportability list, which compensates quantitative change divulgence higher than subjective reporting. Along these lines, to qualify as a top supportability entertainer, both high scores as far as subjective and quantitative revelation is concerned are required. Hence, the normal score demonstrates that moderately few could satisfy both these conditions. To expand the straightforwardness of the outcomes, clear measurements for changed variables. Contribution per share and return on assets demonstrate a noteworthy positive connection at 0.25 (p<0.01). This backs our first theory, i.e. that there is a positive relationship between corporate maintainability exercises and money related execution. Return on assets and FIRM SIZE have a positive relationship at 0.10 (p<0.0.1). Moreover, contribution per share and FIRM SIZE are emphatically corresponded at 0.45 (p<0.01). This could be clarified by that bigger firms, by and large, score higher on manageability execution than smaller firms. This outcome is not surprisingly, since bigger firms, for the most part, have more assets to spend on maintainability improving exercises than small scale firms.
Every different measurement of the manageability record, i.e. Corporate Governance, Employees and Suppliers, Customer and Society, and Environment, is decidedly corresponded to return on assets (p<0.01). Consequently, the first speculation is bolstered for every partner classification of the file, that is, each of the four angles show a positive relationship between corporate supportability execution and money related execution.
Table: Correlations and Statistics – Return on assets & Contribution per share

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.










1. RETURN ON ASSETS

1








2. CONTRIBUTION PER SHARE

0.25**

1







3. CG

0.22**

0.88**

1






4. ES

0.15**

0.80**

0.64**

1





5. CS

0.23**

0.79**

0.55**

0.46**

1




6. E

0.20**

0.84**

0.70**

0.60**

0.51**

1



7. FIRM SIZE

0.10**

0.45**

0.41**

0.41**

0.32**

0.34**

1


8. DEBT RATIO

‐0.01

0.24**

0.19**

0.17**

0.21**

0.22**

0.15**

1

Mean

0.02

1.10

0.26

0.26

0.35

0.22

16,955.8

0.52

Standard dev.

0.15

0.81

0.26

0.22

0.28

0.23

47,291.7

0.19

Minimum

‐0.74

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

24.3

0.01

Maximum

0.26

3.83

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

396,110.5

1.41

N

1,015

1,015

1,015

1,015

1,015

1,015

1,015

1,015

The above table, exhibits the expressive insights and relationships for the variables used to answer the second theory – including the (DIV) aggregated diversity measurement and the different assorted qualities segments, gender, education, and age. DIV's average value is 2.03, with a base and most extreme of 0.00 and 2.68, where 3.0 is the most astounding score for complete heterogeneity. Overall, sexual orientation board assorted qualities (gender) is around 0.64. The base and greatest level for gender is 0.00 separately 1.0, hence it represents with both complete homogeneous and heterogeneous boards. AGE is overall 0.73, with a base level of 0.0 and a most extreme level of 0.99. Thus, no board among the specimen constitutes of flawless heterogeneity with respect to chief age. The last and fourth assorted qualities estimation, education has a mean of 0.66 – with a base level of 0.00 and a most extreme level of 0.93. Similarly as with AGE, there is no board with flawless heterogeneity in the example. Concerning the measure of the (BOARD SIZE), the quantity of board individuals differs somewhere around 3 and 12 - and constitutes all things considered of 6 board individuals.
The connection in the middle of return on assets and DIV demonstrates a positive relationship, 0.09 (p<0.01). There is besides a positive connection in the middle of contribution per share and DIV at 0.24 (p<0.01). This suggests a heterogeneous board is emphatically related with both supportability and monetary execution. Sex is decidedly associated with both return on assets, 0.12 (p<0.01) and contribution per share, 0.22 (p<0.01). Showing that an even dissemination in the middle of male and female board individuals among the top managerial staff is absolutely connected with corporate supportability execution and money related execution. Besides, AGE is decidedly identified with contribution per share, 0.11 (p<0.01), therefore, flagging that heterogeneity in regards to age dissemination among the board has a positive relationship with maintainability execution. At last, a more grounded relationship is found amongst contribution per share and BOARD SIZE, which is certain at 0.52 (p<0.01). There is likewise a weaker positive relationship among return on assets and BOARD SIZE, 0.15 (p<0.01). Board size is further absolutely corresponded to every one of the four board segments.
Table: Descriptive statistics and correlations – Board diversity

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.











1. RETURN ON ASSETS

1









2. CONTRIBUTION PER SHARE

0.25**

1








3. DIV

0.09**

0.24**

1







4. GENDER

0.12**

0.22**

0.73**

1






5. AGE

0.02

0.11**

0.46**

‐0.02

1





6. EDUCATION

‐0.04

0.04

0.45**

‐0.13**

0.13**

1




7. FIRM SIZE

0.10**

0.45**

0.09**

0.03

0.06

0.08*

1



8. DEBT RATIO

‐0.01

0.24**

0.03

0.09**

‐0.02

‐0.07*

0.15**

1


9. BOARD SIZE

0.15**

0.52**

0.28**

0.12**

0.23**

0.17**

0.49**

0.16**

1

Mean

0.02

1.10

2.03

0.64

0.73

0.66

16,955.8

0.52

6.48

Standard dev.

0.15

0.81

0.36

0.29

0.15

0.18

47,291.7

0.19

1.44

Minimum

‐0.74

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

24.3

0.01

3.00

Maximum

0.26

3.83

2.68

1.00

0.99

0.93

396,110.5

1.41

12.00

N

1,015

1,015

927

927

927

927

1,015

1,015

1,015

Still, a great measure of caution should be taken when reaching on to final results derived from the various relationships, as the relationships just show a minimal magnitude. Moreover the study cannot cover the effects of industry and as well as not control time. Thus to extract accurate results and in order to reach a more satisfying conclusion a multivariate regression analysis is further done along with these relationships.
4.2 Positive relationship between sustainability performance and financial performance
To test the first theory, a multivariate relapse investigation was led with return on assets as the indigent variable. Although, before the multivariate relapse, a relapse examination was performed with return on assets as the variable and contribution per share as the autonomous variable – to test the hidden relationship (See Appendix II, Table 4 for results). The outcomes show a noteworthy (p<0.01) positive relationship among return on assets and contribution per share – with a balanced R-square at 0.059. In any case, to have the capacity to decide the quality of the relationship, multivariate relapse investigations were likewise led to control for other persuasive variables.
The outcomes from the multivariate relapse examinations, which are partitioned into three models, are displayed in Table VI. In Model 1, return on assets is relapsed in view of contribution per share utilizing firm size and obligation proportion as control variables and without settled year and industry impacts. In Models 2 and 3, the same multivariate relapse was led, with the exemption that year impacts are incorporated into the second model and both year a...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Other Topics:

    Need a Custom Essay Written?
    First time 15% Discount!