Table 6.

Robustness test: Sample selection bias – Heckman’s (1979) Two-stage model

 First stageSecond stage
 DISEISEIS
DV=(1)(2)(3)
RDI42.795***(4.01)−0.015 (−0.80)
ESGS0.644*** (6.83)
ESGS × RDI0.013**(2.18)
FS1.066*** [5.98]47.431*** (5.85)29.672*** (3.91)
LVG−0.608 [−1.51]−27.760*** (−3.69)−27.438*** (−3.99)
POV−0.446 [−1.47]−21.918*** (−4.25)−16.817*** (−3.34)
CH0.763** [2.26]25.229*** (3.50)23.755*** (3.78)
AT0.601*** [3.89]24.480*** (4.94)16.322*** (3.80)
AG−0.103 [−1.38]−4.554*** (−3.80)−2.905** (−2.50)
IMR42.795*** (4.01)34.110*** (3.76)
Intercept−10.581*** [−5.86]−475.150*** (−5.51)−313.468*** (−4.00)
Year fixed effectsYesYesYes
Industry fixed effectsYesYesYes
Pseudo R2/R20.3150.4900.577
Obs.3,03510491049
Note(s):

Model 1 reports the first stage of Heckman’s (1979) Two-stage model, a probit regression model with the dependent variable (disclosure [DIS]) equal to 1 for firms that have ESG data, and 0 otherwise. Models 2 and 3 present the second-stage regressions, a baseline model regression including the inverse Mills ratio (IMR) which is calculated from the first stage. All regressions are estimated with clustered robust standard errors by firm and include year and industry fixed effects. DV = dependent variable. EIS = environmental innovation score. The t-statistics (z-statistics) are reported in parentheses (brackets). Superscript *, **, and *** indicate significance at 10, 5, and 1% levels, respectively. Table 2 presents the definitions of variables

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal