Regression analysis suggests that the probability of MNEs reporting on environmental issues regarding their supply chain is significantly higher than for non‐MNEs, as shown in Table 18. Multinationals are more likely to report on the percentage of new suppliers that were screened using environmental criteria (EN32), and negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and actions taken (EN33). We do not find any statistically significant difference between MNEs and non‐MNEs and other environmental indicators.

**Table 18: Other environmental indicators, regressions, Probit model**

|**GRI G4**<br>**Metric**|**GRI Indicator**|**_MNE_**|**p‐value**|<br>**_Large_**|**p‐value**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|G4‐EN12|Description of significant impacts of activities, products, and services on biodiversity in<br>protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas|‐0.025|0.844|**0.374***|**0.071**|
|G4‐EN13|Habitats protected or restored|‐0.082|0.521|**0.442****|**0.032**|
|G4‐EN24|Total number and volume of significant spills|‐0.099|0.400|**0.809*****|**0.000**|
|G4‐EN25|Weight of transported, imported, exported, or treated waste deemed hazardous under<br>the terms of the Basel Convention (2) Annex I, II, III, and VIII, and percentage of<br>transported waste shipped internationally|‐0.138|0.305|**1.136*****|**0.000**|
|G4‐EN29|Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non‐monetary sanctions for non‐<br>compliance with environmental laws and regulations|‐0.101|0.370|**0.393****|**0.016**|
|G4‐EN30|Significant environmental impacts of transporting products and other goods and<br>materials for the organization’s operations, and transporting members of the workforce|0.173|0.114|0.212|0.186|
|G4‐EN31|Total environmental protection expenditures and investments by type|0.032|0.785|**0.309***|**0.063**|
|**G4‐EN32**|**Percentage of new suppliers that were screened using environmental criteria**|**0.188***|**0.080**|**0.436*****|**0.009**|
|**G4‐EN33**|**Significant actual and potential negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and**<br>**actions taken**|<br>**0.198***|**0.092**|**0.455****|**0.014**|

Source: Own calculations. p*<0.1, p**<0.05, p***<0.01. Note: Variables refer to 2015 GRI data (see section 2.2). All regressions control for country‐sector fixed effects. Standard errors are robust to heteroscedasticity.

# **4.4 GOVERNANCE INDICATORS**

In this section, we assess if multinational enterprises are different from non‐multinationals in terms of their reporting patterns on governance. Overall, a higher portion of firms tends to report issues related to corruption (Figure 10). Of MNEs, 68.1% disclose information on communication and training on anti‐ corruption policies and procedures (SO4), 48.1% information on confirmed incidents of corruption and actions taken (SO5), and 45.9% on the total number and percentage of operations assessed for risks related to corruption and the significant risks identified (SO3).

Firms tend to disclose less information regarding political contributions made by firms and financial assistance received from governments. The disclosure share of MNEs on the total monetary value of financial and in‐kind political contributions by country and recipient/beneficiary (SO6) is only 34.9%, and that on financial assistance received from government (EC4) is 38.6%. Interestingly, the reporting coverage of large firms is much higher for the latter indicator (44.9%).

Similarly, disclosure on societal impacts in the supply chain tends to be low, too. MNEs’ disclosure share regarding the percentage of new suppliers that were screened using criteria for impacts on society (SO9) is only 32.1%, that on significant actual and potential negative impacts on society in the supply chain and actions taken (SO10) even lower at 27.5%, and that on the number of grievances about impacts on society filed, addressed, and resolved through formal grievance mechanisms (SO11) only 30.6%.

29