**5. Results**

#### *5.1. Descriptive Statistics*

Table 3 reports the descriptive statistics for all the variables used in the regression model. It is evident that the firms, overall, disclosed an average score of 48 of the total ESG disclosure score, with a minimum of 5.4 and a maximum score of 72 indicating the wide disclosure level in the quality of the disclosure score. We also find that the mean of environmental disclosure (ED) is 41 with ED ranging from a minimum of 2.3 to a maximum of 74 scores, again indicating how firm disclosures are at both ends of the spectrum. These results are mirrored by social disclosure (SD), with a mean score of 52, which social disclosure varies from a minimum of 3.5 to a maximum of 82. Finally, governance disclosure (GD) in firms on average had a disclosure score of 52, with a minimum score of 2.3 and a maximum of 82. These results indicate within the sample that ESG disclosure still differs in results with, on average, governance disclosure having the highest level of disclosure quality score, suggesting that most firms adopt higher governance practices.


**Table 3.** Descriptive statistics.

Table 3 further shows that the mean value of the CSR board orientation (B\_ORINT) ranging from 0 to 3, has an average of 2.6. This is related to the results seen in Helfaya and Moussa [11], the results showed an average of 2.104 in their UK sample. The mean value for board CSR strategy (B\_STRAT) is 7.6 with a range from 0 to 12. The mean value for GRI is 0.66 which has a range of 0 to 1. Regarding country–cultural dimensions, the mean values of individualism (INDIV) range from 0 to 1 with an average of 0.065. Masculinity (MAS) ranges from 0 to 1, respectively, and has an average of 0.81. The third dimension of country–cultural dimensions is uncertainty avoidance (UAI), with an average of 0.81 and a minimum and maximum ranging from 0 to 1.

Table 4 shows the correlation matrix for the variables used in our analysis. It is evident that the disclosure of ESG and the three individual pillars of ESG are significant and positively related to H1, H2, H3, and H4a, c. Table 4 also shows H4b with a negative correlation between GD and the dimension of masculinity and femininity (MAS). Table 4 further shows low correlations between the independent variables. This low correlation implies that multicollinearity is unlikely to be a concern for this dataset.



*p*< 0.01, *p* < 0.05, *p*< 0.1.

#### *5.2. Regression Results and Discussion*

Table 5 shows the regression results of examining the impact of board CSR orientation, board strategy, GRI, and country–cultural dimensions including individualism, masculinity or femininity, and uncertainty avoidance in the country on the disclosure of ESG information, and at an individual level of ED, SD, and GD scores.



Note: This table presents the analysis of the relationship between the ESG score, corporate governance, and country-level determinants. The panel fixed effect is used. t-statistics in brackets \*\*\* *p* < 0.01, \*\* *p* < 0.05, \* *p* < 0.1.
