Significant positive relation between ep and ed --> disclosures Al Tuwaijri scores are higher for et.al. Content analysis, 4 annual industry the companies with 198 (2004) categories adjusted return better ED firms (+) When the sample is controlled for firm size, the social involvement seems to have small Abbott and corporate social impact on the Monsen involvement disclosure investors total profitability of the 450 (1979) scale (D) rate of return larger firms. firms (o) Information over corporate social responsibility disclosures differs Disclosures rated Average across firms. It relates Ingram divided into 5 categories monthly more to firm specific 287 (1978) (D) portfolio returns characteristics. firms (+) Using the whole sample no association between pollution measures and financial performance is found. However, after controlling for firm size, a negative (Cash basis) relationship is found Freedman ROA and ROE, between pollution and Jaggi Index of pollution 2 operating disclosures and the 109 (1982) disclosures ratio's financial performance. firms (-) Abnormal monthly returns of firms with more disclosure are Freedman Market based not significantly and Jaggi Environmental self returns adjusted different than firms (1986) report disclosure for risk with less disclosure. 56 firms (o) Results show that size and industry are significant explanatory variables of social disclosure, whereas the relationship with Patten Annual reports financial performance 156 (1991) disclosures 7 categories ROA and ROE is not. firms (+) Bowman CSP mentioned in (1978) annual reports ROS 46 firms (+) Preston Financial (1987) Social disclosure performance (+)
Al Tuwaijri et.al. (2004) Content analysis, 4 categories annual industry adjusted return Significant positive relation between ep and ed --> disclosures scores are higher for the companies with better ED 198 firms (+) Abbott and Monsen (1979) corporate social involvement disclosure scale (D) investors total rate of return When the sample is controlled for firm size, the social involvement seems to have small impact on the profitability of the larger firms. 450 firms (o) Ingram (1978) Disclosures rated divided into 5 categories (D) Average monthly portfolio returns Information over corporate social responsibility disclosures differs across firms. It relates more to firm specific characteristics. 287 firms (+) Freedman and Jaggi (1982) Index of pollution disclosures (Cash basis) ROA and ROE, 2 operating ratio's Using the whole sample no association between pollution measures and financial performance is found. However, after controlling for firm size, a negative relationship is found between pollution disclosures and the financial performance. 109 firms (-) Freedman and Jaggi (1986) Environmental self report disclosure Market based returns adjusted for risk Abnormal monthly returns of firms with more disclosure are not significantly different than firms with less disclosure. 56 firms (o) Patten (1991) Annual reports disclosures 7 categories ROA and ROE Results show that size and industry are significant explanatory variables of social disclosure, whereas the relationship with financial performance is not. 156 firms (+) Bowman (1978) CSP mentioned in annual reports ROS 46 firms (+) Preston (1987) Social disclosure Financial performance (+)