Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis

In order to determine whether the mean of different statements and hypothesis for different groups
differ significantly, parametric and non-parametric tests are used. Independent t-test (if distribution is
normal) and 2 independent sample test (if distribution is not normal) is applied when two groups are
to be tested. For more than two groups, ANOVA is used if the distribution is normal while K sample
independent test is used if the distribution is not normally distributed.

The objective here is to critically analyze the undertaking of CSR in SMEs. Only questions seen as
fundamental and sector-wise analysis have been included. As such, several statistical tests are
performed to see their significance.

The 2% CSR levy imposed by the state seems to affect SMEs drastically. It might be one of the
reasons that impedes the latter’s engagement in CSR in an optimal manner. The first analysis is to
test whether those who have set a particular budget apart from the 2% levy face as much difficulty to
do CSR as do those who do not set a particular budget ,i.e., they contribute by way of the 2% levy.

To know which statistical test to use, we have to test for the normality of the distribution.

H0: Mean of setting particular budget follows a Normal Distribution

H1: Mean of not setting particular budget does not follow a Normal Distribution

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Do you set a particular

budget set for CSR .353 78 .000 .636 78 .000
activities?

Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Since p-value is 0.000 (less than 0.05), we reject Ho.
Hence, the setting of particular budget does not follow a normal distribution.

Shapiro-Wilk
For further affirmation, we look at the Shapiro-Wilk statistics. Here also, the p-value is 0.000
(<0.05). Again, we reject Ho.
\

Now, we want to test whether the difference in mean of setting 2% CSR levy as budget and the
barrier encountered to CSR is significant. To do this, the Mann-Whitney test is used.

The hypothesis is as follows:

H0: Population median of setting 2% CSR levy as budget = Population median of encountering
difficulty
H1: Population median of setting 2% CSR levy as budget ≠ Population median of encountering
difficulty

Mann-Whitney test

Ranks
Do you set a particular
budget set for CSR
activities? N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Barrier to engagement in CSR Yes 42 34.45 1412.50

No (2% levy) 36 44.18 1590.50

Total 78

Test Statistics

Barrier to engagement in CSR

-0.981
Z
0.327
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Monte Carlo Sig. (2-tailed) Sig. .330b
99% Confidence Interval Lower Bound .318
Upper Bound .343

Since p = 0.327(> 5%), we accept Ho.

It is concluded that there is no significant difference in setting 2% profit after tax as budget and
barriers encountered to CSR. Since those who contribute to CSR by way of the 2% tax levy have a
higher mean rank, they experience greater barrier to the implementation of CSR. This might be
because SMEs are cost sensitive. Compared to their larger counterparts, they pursue short term
profits to ensure their survivals and asking them to take out a fixed sum of 2% profit after tax might
be seen as a colossal amount by them. This might mainly result in:
1) financial constraint
2) time constraints whereby they strive hard to acquire an earning and thus do not have time to
engage in CSR
3) or resources constraints where they cannot afford to further spend on resources to produce
environmental friendly products given that they are already investing 2% of their profits on CSR.

Since there is no significant difference between setting 2% CSR levy as budget set and the
barrier encountered to CSR, it implies that there is no need to further test for the degree of
association and correlation values as it would be fruitless to do so, since it is already known that
the tax levy and barriers assumes very little difference and hence are closely linked.

Thus, it can be concluded that the 2% levy is indeed impeding CSR undertakings rather than
encouraging SMEs to do CSR.