Project Report

on

R&D investment, ESG performance and Firm performance: Evidence

from India

Submitted By
Sajith Nikhith Dcosta
4NM20BA126

Submitted To
Prof. Arun G D’souza

Assistant Professor, JKSHIM, Nitte

Submitted to partial fulfilment of MBA Course to

N.M.A.M. Institute of Technology, Nitte
(An Autonomous Institute under Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi)

Department of Business Administration

Justice K. S. Hegde Institute of Management, Nitte
NMAMIT, Nitte - 574110
August 2022
 CERTIFICATE BY THE INSTITUTE

This is to certify that Mr. Sajith Nikhith Dcosta (4NM20BA126) is a student of Master of
Business Administration at the Department of Management Studies, Justice K S Hegde
Institute of Management, Nitte for the academic year 2020-2022. The Project Report entitled
“R&D investment, ESG performance and Firm performance: Evidence from India” is
prepared by her under the guidance of Mr. Arun G D’souza, Assistant Professor - Department
of Management Studies, Justice K S Hegde Institute of Management, Nitte, in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree in Master of Business Administration
from the Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi.

Date:

Place:

Valued by:

Sl. No. Name of the Examiner Signature Date

1.
2.
 CERTIFICATE BY THE GUIDE

This is to certify that the Project Report entitled “R&D investment, ESG performance and
Firm performance: Evidence from India” has been carried out and prepared by Mr. Sajith
Nikhith Dcosta, student of the Department of Management Studies, Justice K S Hegde
Institute of Management, Nitte in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree
in Masters of Business Administration during the academic year 2020-2022 under my
guidance.

Date:

Place: Mr. Arun G D’souza

Assistant Professor

Justice K S Hegde Institute of Management

Nitte
 DECLARATION

I, Sajith Nikhith Dcosta, hereby declare that the Project Report entitled “R&D investment,
ESG performance and Firm performance: Evidence from India” submitted by me is my
original work and is done under the guidance of Mr. Arun G D’souza, Assistant Professor,
Department of Management Studies, Justice K S Hegde Institute of Management, Nitte in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree in Master of Business
Administration from the Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi. The information I
provided is authentic to the best of my knowledge and has not been submitted to any other
University/Institute for the award of any Degree/Diploma.

Date:

Place: Sajith Dcosta

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all those people who have
helped me in making this report a successful one, without whose support the project would be an
incomplete one.

Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. K. Sankaran, Director, Department of Management Studies,
Justice K S Hegde Institute of Management, Nitte for providing me with this opportunity to
undertake this project.

I am highly indebted to Mr. Arun G D’souza, Assistant Professor, Department of Management

Studies, Justice K S Hegde Institute of Management, Nitte, my guide for this valuable support
and guidance right from the beginning to the end. I am thankful for his valuable encouragement,
advice, support, motivation, and assistance throughout the process.

Lastly, I would also like to extend gratitude to everyone who helped directly or indirectly
throughout the completion of my Project.
 ABSTRACT

In this research paper, we are examining the relationship between R&D and Firm performance.
Also, finding whether there is any relation between ESG ratings and Firm Performance. The
objectives of the study are to examine the relationship between R&D and performance of the
firm and also to study how a company’s ESG model can make the investors, stakeholders,
customers as well as its own employees more efficient which will result into a raising
performance of the firm.

The sample used for the study is the 40 Indian companies which are listed under NIFTY 50
index. The data considered for the study are financial statements of selected companies for the 5
years. The financial statements from FY2016-17 to FY2020-21 are considered for analysis. The
ESG scores has been obtained from the Bloomberg ESG. The study has collected data from
Bloomberg. For the purpose of the study, we have used 7 variables. Among which 4 variables
are independent variables. They are Environmental scores, Social scores, Governance scores and
the R&D expenses of the firm. We have used 3 dependent variables to examine Firm’s
performance. Those are ROA, Tobin’s Q and net profit of the firm.

In this study we observed that only R&D had an impact on company’s profit. When
Environmental, social and governance scores are examined with Firm performance it is found
that there is no significant relationship between the variables.
Contents
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Objectives of the study ..................................................................................................................... 11
2.0 Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1 R&D Investment ................................................................................................................................ 11
2.2 ESG performance .............................................................................................................................. 13
2.3. R&D and Firm Performance ............................................................................................................. 14
2.4. Environmental Rating and Firm Performance ................................................................................. 15
2.5. Social Rating and Firm Performance ................................................................................................ 16
2.6. Governance Rating and Firm Performance...................................................................................... 17
3. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1. Data .................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.2. Variables........................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.1 Dependent variables .................................................................................................................. 18
3.2.2 Dependent Variables.................................................................................................................. 19
3.3 Sample Size ....................................................................................................................................... 20
3.4. Period of the data ............................................................................................................................ 20
3.5 Analytical Technique ......................................................................................................................... 20
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1 R&D and Firm Performance .............................................................................................................. 21
4.1.1 R&D and Net Profit .................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.2 R&D and ROA ............................................................................................................................. 22
4.1.3 R&D and TOBIN’S Q.................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Environmental Ratings and Firm Performance ................................................................................. 23
4.2.1 Environmental Ratings and Net Profit ....................................................................................... 24
4.2.2 Environmental Ratings and Tobin’s Q ratio ........................................................................ 24
4.2.3 Environmental Ratings and ROA ................................................................................................ 25
4.3 Social Ratings and Firm Performance ............................................................................................... 26
4.3.1 Social Ratings and Net profit...................................................................................................... 26
4.3.2 Social Ratings and Tobin’s Q Ratio ............................................................................................. 27
4.3.3 Social Ratings and ROA .............................................................................................................. 28
4.4 Governance Ratings and Firm Performance ..................................................................................... 28
4.4.1 Governance Ratings and net profit ............................................................................................ 29
 4.4.2 Governance Ratings and Tobin’s Q ............................................................................................ 29
4.4.3 Governance Ratings and ROA .................................................................................................... 30
5.0 Results and Discussions ........................................................................................................................ 32
6.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 33
7.0 References ............................................................................................................................................ 34
ANNEXURE .................................................................................................................................................. 36
1.0 Introduction
This study examines the relationship between R&D and Firm performance. Also, this finding
whether there is any relation between ESG ratings and Firm Performance. Researchers have
different views on ESG and R&D effect on Firm Performance. As we know, R&D investment
has a positive impact on the Firm performance, but researcher says that there is no such relation
between the two variables. This study is motivated by the research of such many researchers who
gave an idea that there is not only ESG or R&D factor which impact the profitability, but there
are numerous factors which will affect firm’s profit.

ESG (environmental, social, and governance) performance of businesses has gained importance
among investors and legislators. Businesses that harm the environment or have unjust employee
relations risk fines or consumer boycotts, which will cost them money and make them
unattractive to investors. More and more businesses today are realising the importance of ESG in
gaining a competitive edge, improving operational effectiveness, and building their reputations.
Therefore, this research will aid me in understanding the effects and implications of the ESG on
an organisation.

The conclusions could be used to guide managers and policymakers in developing nations as
they build ecological innovation strategies for achieving business sustainability. This is the first
study to look at the effects of R&D investment and ESG performance on the performance of
green innovation in relation to India, a rising market.

The study's findings add to the body of knowledge about environmental, social, and governance
issues by examining how ESG performance affects green innovation performance. Instead than
merely concentrating on short-term profitability when making strategic decisions, executives
should be aware of the effect of ESG indices on innovation performance. Businesses that
produce significant pollution should make greater investments in protection of the environment
and adopt green technologies to modernise their production methods.

The objectives of the study are to examine the relationship between R&D and performance of the
firm and also to study how a company’s ESG model can make the investors, stakeholders,
customers as well as its own employees more efficient which will result into a raising
performance of the firm.
The sample used for the study is the 40 Indian companies which are listed under NIFTY 50
index. So, the size of the population is 40. It is very hard to study the whole defined population.
Therefore, a sample has been selected for the study. Since our study is based on earnings, we are
selecting non-banking and finance companies that made their earnings announcement in the last
completed financial years i.e., FY 2021-22. The reason for choosing non- banking and financial
companies because of non-availability of data.

The data considered for the study are financial statements of selected companies for the 5 years.
The financial statements from FY2016-17 to FY2020-21 are considered for analysis. The ESG
scores has been obtained from the Bloomberg ESG. The study has collected data from
Bloomberg.

For the purpose of the study, we have used 7 variables. Among which 4 variables are
independent variables. They are Environmental scores, Social scores, Governance scores and the
R&D expenses of the firm. We have used 3 dependent variables to examine Firm’s performance.
Those are ROA, Tobin’s Q and net profit of the firm. We conducted secondary research,
particularly quantitative type of research where we are collecting data from external sources i.e.,
Bloomberg, the annual report of the company, and the National Stock Exchange website. To
study the relationship between dependent and independent variable we have used regression
model.

In this study we observed that only R&D had an impact on company’s profit. Though many
literatures say that there is huge impact of R&D on firm performance we observed that there is
no such huge impact on Tobin’s Q because it may be effected by the Covid wave. When it comes
to ROA of top 40 companies 0f Nifty 50 from past 5 years R&D has positively correlated with
ROA. We can say that it is not only the R&D, but a firm’s performance is based on many other
things. This study also focused on finding the relation between the ESG and firm performance.
When Environmental, social and governance scores are examined with Firm performance it is
found that there is no significant relationship between the variables. Again this study is done
with one perspective that is in this study we used the ESG ratings given by Bloomberg LLP
where as there are more than 100 certified analysis companies who deal with the same. So the
indicators of Bloomberg vary from other firms.
1.1 Objectives of the study

Following are the objective of the study

1. To examine the relationship between R&D and performance of the firm

2. To examine the relationship between Environmental rating and performance of the firm
3. To examine the relationship between social rating and performance of the firm
4. To examine the relationship between governance rating and performance of the firm

2.0 Literature Review

ESG is a topic of discussion for managers, practitioners, stakeholders, and customers of a firm.
Globalisation and company acts made it compulsory for the firms to strictly follow the ESG
regulations and focus on the investment for the same. It is observed from the literature that ESG
contribution can enhance the competitive advantages of firms. Enterprises from different nations
and their stakeholders are paying more attention to the three main sectors of the environment,
society, and governance as an essential component of social responsibility reports, which helps
develop sustainable strategies that affect the enterprises' future development (Michelson, 2004).
The goal was to switch from a short-term focus on shareholder value to a more sustainable
management approach that takes into account the interests of many stakeholder groups (e.g.
customers, employees). a fruitful.

A successful stakeholder management plan should improve the environment, the

social Governance performance (ESGP) and potential links to financial future performance
(FINP) (velte, patrick;, 2017) The following literature review will explain the relevance of R&D
investments, ESG performance and the company value.

2.1 R&D Investment

The term R&D is widely known as the innovation and new investments made by a corporate to
enhance its value. R&D helps a company to stay alive in its competition. Without an R&D
programme, a business may not be able to exist on its own and may need to rely on alternative
methods of innovation, such as collaborations or mergers and acquisitions (M&A). through R&D
company can bring new services and products to the market.

Many different industries, businesses of all sizes, and sectors engage in research and
development. These include sectors like food and drink as well as highly-reliant R&D industries
like pharmaceuticals, life sciences, automotive, software, and technology. In the industrial and
engineering sectors of the construction business, R&D also plays a significant role. R&D in
business is more crucial than ever because of developing technologies and quickly shifting
markets. Despite the fact that R&D is a function in many firms, how it is carried out in practise
varies greatly. Additionally, the level of R&D intensity varies greatly between industries and
within firms. We will delve a little more into this.

The development and use of new technology will be the main drivers of economic prosperity in
any nation in the future. Therein lies the significance of research and development because it is
one type of expenditure that fosters the growth of and motivation for these new technologies.
Because they encourage creative manufacturing techniques, cut expenses, and raise product
quality, R&D plays a significant part in expanding a company's capability. Some big businesses
devote a sizeable portion of their budget to R&D initiatives that boost productivity and
profitability.

R&D is a crucial component of the modern business environment today. The importance of
R&D is taken into account while making significant decisions in businesses. Market research and
development is closely related to product research and development. The product researchers
make advantage of marketing data.

The challenge of establishing a link between R&D expenditure and corporate value continues to
be of great importance (Yamasaki, 2005). identified three barriers to the relationship between
R&D spending and business value. These include the lack of a clear way to measure R&D
results, the delay between initial R&D expenditure and the appearance of results, and, finally, the
failure to adopt appropriate indices due to the lack of established concepts regarding future
project techniques, undermining the pervasiveness of any R&D performance measurement.
Therefore, as the time lag lengthens, it becomes more challenging to precisely estimate the
overall effects of cumulative investments in R&D. R&D-intensive businesses are typically more
likely to be profitable. According to Hay and Morris (Hay, Morris, Liu, & Yao, 1979-87), high
investment in R&D is typically a high risk-high return strategy that is alluring to shareholders in
anticipation of better financial performance. The industrial organisation literature suggests that
R&D intensity is a significant determinant of firm profitability.

2.2 ESG performance

The United Nations' Principles of Responsible Investment (UNPRI) first popularised the term
environmental, social, and governance (hereafter, ESG), which has since gained enormous
popularity among the investment community. This expression is synonymous with SRI,
responsible investing, and sustainable investing (Preeti Sharma, 2020). Enterprises from different
nations and their stakeholders are paying more attention to the three main sectors of the
environment, society, and governance as a key component of social responsibility reports, which
helps establish sustainable strategies that impact the enterprises' future development (Michelson,
2004). The general degree of ESG disclosure among businesses in nations where industrial
expansion is the dominant economic driver is low, and issues with the disclosure of
environmental information are particularly noticeable. The majority of high value enterprises
choose social information disclosure because it is cheaper than environmental information
disclosure, which replaces the impact of environmental information disclosure on high-level
enterprises' value. This is in addition to the mandatory disclosure of specific enterprises (Fen
Zhang, 2020).

Not just Chinese businesses, but businesses all over the world are under pressure from the
accountability systems of relevant departments to not only produce traditional financial reports,
but also to publicly release their non-financial information to stakeholders by increasing the
disclosure transparency of ESG information in the corporate responsibility report (Lingyun He,
2018). The vast majority of accumulated evidence demonstrates that organisations that take
environmental, social, and governance concerns seriously do not experience a burden on value
creation—quite the reverse, in fact. From both a tilt and momentum viewpoint, a strong ESG
proposition is associated with superior equities returns. Lower loan and credit default swap
spreads and improved credit ratings are only a couple of the indicators that show how better ESG
performance reduces negative risk (Witold Henisz, 2019).
Some of the ESG indicators that are used by the rating agencies to give score to a corporate are
as follows

ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL GOVERNANCE

GHG Emissions Health & Safety Board Of Directors

Employees &
Energy Compensation
Diversity/Equality
Ownership &
Water And Waste Training
Control
Human Rights
Materials Audit
Assessment

Other Air Emissions* Community Engagement Tax Approach

Environmental Compliance Suppliers Compliance Cases

Source : Sika Group

2.3. R&D and Firm Performance

The expectation is that businesses with bigger R&D budgets will outperform those without. The
costs of R&D will be outweighed by a company's performance. After attaining equilibrium, the
benefits will offset the expenses of R&D (Wang, 2011). Even after accounting for ME and BM,
there is a substantial correlation between returns and RD activity. The cross-sectional results are
consistent with the idea that intangible assets produced by R&D activities are riskier than
tangible assets. Overall, it is thought that the findings point to the relevance of research and
development in modelling returns. The analysis of industry portfolios used as examples shows
that the factor model specification has a significant impact on predicted risk, particularly for
companies with little RD activity (AL-HORANI, 2003).

From the studies of various literatures, we can say that R&D has very much positively impacted
the organisation. Upon that the firms have taken measures to have a separate R&D department,
which only focus on the new innovations in Goods and Services. Controlling for company size
and area, agility increase was highly connected with R&D intensity and computerization in
manufacturing, and it did show industry impacts, with electronic equipment businesses scoring
higher on this metric. Regional (as opposed to industry) disparities were evident in
computerization, with South American businesses underperforming on this metric.

The impact of computerization on production and the importance of firm agility are both
explored (Jinfa Chen, 1998). According to (Bing Guo, 2018),Spending in R&D will benefit
businesses' performance in the future if they pursue a strategy of product differentiation. In
contrast, the link between R&D spending and business success is more akin to an inversed U-
shape for companies that use a cost leadership approach. Additionally, it is discovered that this
inversed U-shape association only applies to privately held businesses.

Though many studies show that R&D had a positive effect on firm performance, (Robert
Resutek, 2011) prove that there is no relationship between R&D and the firm performance, they
prove that Future profits are positively correlated with current R&D, and analyst and investor
earnings projections are unaffected by a company's R&D spending strategy.

H1: Research& Development has a Positive Impact on Firm performance

2.4. Environmental Rating and Firm Performance

Enterprises from various nations and their stakeholders have given the three main sectors of the
environment, society, and governance increasing attention as a crucial component of social
responsibility reports, which aids in the development of sustainable strategies that have an
impact on the future development of the enterprises (Fen Zhang, 2020). It expands on prior
research on the interaction effect between general innovation and comprehensive social
responsibility on firm value from the standpoint of information disclosure by bringing together
environment, society, and governance with green innovation under a single framework,
discussing their interaction in terms of firm value.
Environmental dimension refers to firm’s environmental impact(s) and risk management
practices. This dimension deals with the environmental aspects and it helps the organisation as
well as the environment a safe place for the future. The dimension takes in to action against
direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, the firm’s overall resiliency against physical
climate risks (like climate change, flooding, and fires) as well as stewardship over natural
resources. On the plus side, an ESG halo—what we refer to as a positive ESG reputation—adds
an additional layer of safety. Even though these companies operated in sectors that were more
generally viewed as being environmentally harmful and labour-abusive, they were protected
from a decline in stock price around the time of the dramatic protests that disrupted the 1999
World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meetings in Seattle. These factors make ESG
disclosure beneficial since it enables a business to show that it is managing its risks and has a
history of keeping an eye on its ESG performance.

According to academic research, those who disclose more ESG data are more likely to
experience a lower cost of capital (Dr. Dinah A. Koehler, 2013). The 2020 Dubai Expo will have
sustainability as its focus. China or South Korea are home to many of the companies setting the
pace in fields like solar energy, electric vehicles, and water purification. The idea that ESG only
matters to the economies of developed countries is untrue.

ESG issues will also be a major topic at the next annual conference of the Emerging Market
Institute, which thinks that this decade is the beginning of ESG concerns becoming absolutely
vital in business and investment decisions ((CALS), John Ninia ’22, 2021) So we can say that the
Environmental aspects will surely have an impact on the company performance because, as the
image of the company will be in danger if the company does not follow environmental aspects.
In emerging markets, ESG has grown significantly in significance.

H2: There Is a Positive Relationship Between Environmental Rating and Firm Performance

2.5. Social Rating and Firm Performance

Social disclosure can be described as any information that a company releases to the public about
its performance, standards, or endeavours that fall under the purview of corporate social
responsibility, generally in or alongside its annual reports or in a separate report. These reports
go by a variety of names, including sustainability reports, corporate responsibility reports, eco-
reports, and company governance reports (Oikonomou, 2018). There is a rich history of literature
review on the link between social responsibility and the firm performance. The question is that
whether there are direct benefits are available from following the social dimension in the
company or any indirect benefits are available.

The Stakeholder Theory by Freeman in 1983 has provided the base for ESG in the corporates. It
says the bridging relationship with various stakeholders such as customers, employees, local
governments, NGO, shareholders have become important for firm’s long successful performance
and financial standing. Social dimensions may be required by law to be made public or may be
voluntary, in which case the scope and kind of reporting may differ greatly amongst firms. As
disclosure standards have evolved over time, obligatory reporting requirements have been
implemented in a larger variety of countries. This has led to a predictable rise in disclosure levels
in the impacted countries. (Ioannou, 2016).

In particular, the sustainability information disclosure results in: a) a prioritisation of sustainable

development; b) an increase in the social responsibility of business leaders; c) a prioritisation of
employee training; d) more effective management oversight by boards of directors; e) an
increase in the adoption of ethical practises by firms; e) a decrease in bribery and corruption; and
f) an improvement in managerial credibility with stakeholders. These effects are more
pronounced in more developed, countries with better enforcement procedures, and nations with
more frequent assurance of sustainability data (Oikonomou, 2018). Social dimension deals with
the relationship of the company and the reputation it carries with the people and the stakeholders
of the communities where it always does the business. So it is very necessary for the firm to
address its social criteria.

H3: There Is a Positive Relationship Between Social Rating and Firm Performance

2.6. Governance Rating and Firm Performance

Governance is also known as corporate governance, it is commonly understood as the code of

conduct which includes directing, control and organising the company (Preeti Sharma, 2020). It
is designed to professionally direct the firm with worldly accepted corporate governance codes.
Some of the good corporate governance codes are accountability, responsibility, independence
and fairness. Profitability is strongly impacted negatively by board independence. Profitability
was found to be unaffected greatly by an outside [Link] was not considerably
impacted by the audit committee's size. Profitability is considerably impacted positively by the
frequency of audit committee sessions. Profitability is strongly impacted favourably by audit
quality. Profitability is considerably improved by corporate governance concepts. Profitability is
negatively affected by leverage and firm size (Hamidah, 2017).

During the 1990s Corporate governance is strongly correlated with stock returns during the
1990s (Gompers, 2003). By the end of 1900’s decade it has been seen that though company has a
good corporate governance the companies incurred loss so it disproves the thought of corporate
governance having relationship with the firm performance but it is also possible companies
incurring loss due to the other controlling characteristics of a firm.

Effective corporate governance raises the likelihood that managers will invest in initiatives that
have a net positive present value by decreasing the "right to control" that shareholders and
creditors grant to managers. This demonstrates that businesses with superior management have
greater operational performance, according to the performance measures (Fabrizio Fratini, 2015)

H4: There Is a Positive Relationship Between Governance Rating and Firm Performance

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Data
For the purpose of study have taken secondary data. Data will be extracted from the Bloomberg
Terminals, Annual reports of the companies, and from NSE website. The data has been taken
from past 5 years which includes Covid-19 period.

3.2. Variables

3.2.1 Dependent variables

Firm Performance

Firm performance will be measured from taking into consideration of following indicators: -

ROA- Return on Assets

The term return on assets (ROA) refers to a financial ratio that indicates how profitable a
company is in relation to its total assets. Corporate management, analysts, and investors can use
ROA to determine how efficiently a company uses its assets to generate a profit. Return on assets
is a metric that indicates a company's profitability in relation to its total assets. ROA can be used
by management, analysts, and investors to determine whether a company uses its assets
efficiently to generate a profit. You can calculate a company's ROA by dividing its net income
by its total assets (HARGRAVE, 2022).

Return on Assets=Total Assets/Net Income

NPR- Net Profit Ratio

The net profit margin, or simply net margin, measures how much net income or profit is
generated as a percentage of revenue. It is the ratio of net profits to revenues for a company or
business segment. Net profit margin is typically expressed as a percentage but can also be
represented in decimal form. The net profit margin illustrates how much of each dollar in
revenue collected by a company translates into profit (MURPHY, 2022).

TOBINS’Q

The Tobin’s Q ratio is the ratio between the market value of physical assets and their
replacement value or cost. This ratio was further popularized by James Tobin of Yale University,
who the ratio was eventually named after. According to Tobin’s Q ratio, the value of a company
is the total asset value of the company divided by its market value. Tobin’s Q ratio also posits
that the market value of companies should equal their replacement costs. The Tobin’s Q ratio
measures the ratio between the market value of a physical asset and its replacement cost
(Gordon, 2022).

Tobin’s Q = Total Asset Value of Firm / Total Market Value of Firm

3.2.2 Dependent Variables

ESG Scores

ESG score is the score or rating given by the Rating Agencies to the corporates by evaluating the
Environmental, Social, Governance. This rating is given by considered more than 140 indicators
in respect of ESG. (Please refer 2.2). For the purpose of the study, ESG score will be extracted
from the Bloomberg Data.
3.3 Sample Size

For the purpose of the study, NIFTY 50 companies have been taken into consideration. The top
50. The size of the population is 40. It is very hard to study the whole defined population.
Therefore, a sample has been selected for the study. Since our study is based on earnings, we are
selecting non-banking and finance companies that made their earnings announcement in the last
completed financial years i.e., FY 2021-22. The reason for choosing non- banking and financial
companies because of non-availability of data. We have taken sample of Nifty 50 because
The NIFTY 50 is a benchmark that represents the weighted average of 50 of the largest Indian
companies listed on the National Stock Exchange. It is one of the two main stock indices used in
India, the other being the BSE SENSEX.

3.4. Period of the data

5 years of the data is taken into the study. From the year 2017 to 2021.

3.5 Analytical Technique

Simple linear regression is used to examine the relationship between two quantitative variables.
It will show us how strong the link between the R&D, ESG performance and Firm performance.
To examine the relationship of ESG and selected attributes of companies for 2017–2021, of
profitability.
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS
In this study simple linier regression was used to examine the relation between variables. The
data was extracted from Bloomberg Terminal. Firstly, the net profit and Research are tested
together for the significance.

4.1 R&D and Firm Performance

To test the significance between R&D and Firm Performance we have used R&D expenses of
the company and tested it with three variables of the company i.e. Net profit, Tobin’s Q ratio and
Return on Asset ratio.

4.1.1 R&D and Net Profit

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.0950583

R Square 0.00903608
Adjusted R Square -0.01704192
Standard Error 84556.8441
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 2477441381 2477441381 0.3465021 0.55958289
Residual 38 2.71695E+11 7149859882
Total 39 2.74172E+11

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 62080.458 15734.91363 3.94539554 0.0003319 30226.7907 93934.12532 30226.7907 93934.12532
R&D EXP 0.94066775 1.598024114 0.58864428 0.5595829 -2.29436294 4.175698443 -2.29436294 4.175698443

Interpretation

The above table shows regression analysis of R&D and net profit of the 40 companies of NIFTY
50. The correlation analysis shows no significant relationship between R&D and net profit
(r=0.095). The value of R square is 0.009 which shows a very weak association between the
variables. The F statistics between these variables is 0.346 and the p value is >0. 05 which leads
to accept the null hypothesis. The regression analysis indicates a t statistic of 3.94 with a p value
of >0.05. A low p-value would indicate that the regression model can significantly predict the
dependent variable and that it is not a good fit. Hence the alternative hypothesis cannot be
accepted in this scenario.

4.1.2 R&D and ROA

The below table shows regression analysis of R&D and Return on Assets of the 40 companies of
NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows significant relationship between R&D and
ROA(r=0.321). The value of R square is 0.103 which shows a normal association between the
variables. The F statistics between these variables is 4.38 and the p value is <0. 05 which leads to
reject the null hypothesis.

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.32170983
R Square 0.10349721
Adjusted R Square 0.07990503
Standard Error 7.89783785
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 273.6383956 273.6384 4.38692904 0.04293698
Residual 38 2370.282022 62.375843
Total 39 2643.920418

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 12.2629176 1.469683475 8.3439175 4.0539E-10 9.28769896 15.2381363 9.28769896 15.2381363
R&D EXP -0.00031262 0.00014926 -2.0945 0.04293698 -0.00061479 -1.046E-05 -0.00061479 -1.046E-05

The regression analysis indicates a t statistic of 8.34 with a p value of <0.05. A low p-value
would indicate that the regression model can significantly predict the dependent variable and that
it is a good fit. Hence the alternative hypothesis can be accepted in this scenario.
4.1.3 R&D and TOBIN’S Q

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.2601122
R Square 0.0676584
Adjusted R Square 0.0431231
Standard Error 3.9668347
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 43.39285722 43.3928572 2.75759214 0.10502453
Residual 38 597.9595578 15.7357778
Total 39 641.3524151

CoefficientsStandard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0%Upper 95.0%
Intercept 4.4850166 0.738175634 6.07581236 4.4806E-07 2.9906582 5.97937509 2.9906582 5.97937509
R&D EXP -0.0001245 7.49685E-05 -1.6605999 0.10502453 -0.00027626 2.7273E-05 -0.0002763 2.7273E-05

The above table shows regression analysis of R&D and Tobin’s Q Ratio of the 40 companies of
NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows very less significant relationship between R&D and
Tobin’s Q ratio (r=0.260). The value of R square is 0.0676 which shows a very weak association
between the variables. The F statistics between these variables is 2.75 and the p value is >0. 05
which leads to accept the null hypothesis. The regression analysis indicates a t statistic of 6.07
with a p value of >0.05. A low p-value would indicate that the regression model cannot predict
the dependent variable and that it is not a good fit. Hence the alternative hypothesis cannot be
accepted in this scenario.

4.2 Environmental Ratings and Firm Performance

To test the significance between Environmental Ratings and Firm Performance we have used
R&D expenses of the company and tested it with three variables of the company i.e. Net profit,
Tobin’s Q ratio and Return on Asset ratio.
4.2.1 Environmental Ratings and Net Profit

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.19149874
R Square 0.03667177
Adjusted R Square 0.01132102
Standard Error 83369.46
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 10054376215 1.005E+10 1.44657566 0.236518875
Residual 38 2.64118E+11 6.95E+09
Total 39 2.74172E+11

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 39014.9032 26716.67182 1.4603205 0.15242114 -15070.1713 93099.9777 -15070.1713 93099.9777
E SCORE 11354.2268 9440.325942 1.2027367 0.23651888 -7756.7139 30465.1676 -7756.7139 30465.1676

The above table shows regression analysis of Environmental Ratings and Net Profit of the 40
companies of NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows no significant relationship between
Environmental Ratings and Net Profit (r=0.191). The value of R square is 0.0366 shows a mild
association between the variables. The F statistics between these variables is 1.446 and the p
value is >0. 05 which leads to accept the null hypothesis. The regression analysis indicates a t
statistic of 1.46 with a p value of >0.05. A low p-value would indicate that the regression model
can significantly predict the dependent variable and that it is not a good fit. Hence the alternative
hypothesis cannot be accepted in this scenario.

4.2.2 Environmental Ratings and Tobin’s Q ratio

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.11031094
R Square 0.0121685
Adjusted R Square -0.01382706
Standard Error 4.08317509
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 7.804299503 7.8042995 0.46809922 0.498014455
Residual 38 633.5481156 16.672319
Total 39 641.3524151

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 4.61733223 1.308498926 3.5287245 0.00111083 1.968414642 7.26624982 1.96841464 7.26624982
E SCORE -0.3163348 0.462357604 -0.684178 0.49801446 -1.25232883 0.61965924 -1.25232883 0.61965924
The above table shows regression analysis of Environmental Ratings and Tobin’s Q ratio of the
40 companies of NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows no significant relationship between
Environmental Ratings and Tobin’s Q ratio (r=0.110). The value of R square is 0.012 shows a
mild association between the variables. The F statistics between these variables is 0.468 and the
p value is >0. 05 which leads to accept the null hypothesis. The regression analysis indicates a t
statistic of 3.52 with a p value of >0.05. A low p-value would indicate that the regression model
can significantly predict the dependent variable and that it is not a good fit. Hence the alternative
hypothesis cannot be accepted in this scenario.

4.2.3 Environmental Ratings and ROA

The below table shows regression analysis of Environmental Ratings and ROA ratio of the 40
companies of NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows mild relationship between
Environmental Ratings and ROA (r=0.072). The value of R square is 0.0053 shows a mild
association between the variables

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.07294388
R Square 0.00532081
Adjusted R Square -0.02085496
Standard Error 8.31905331
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 14.06779542 14.067795 0.20327231 0.654654651
Residual 38 2629.852622 69.206648
Total 39 2643.920418

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 11.6852174 2.66593327 4.383162 8.92E-05 6.288317674 17.0821172 6.28831767 17.0821172
E SCORE -0.42471052 0.942006519 -0.450857 0.65465465 -2.33170302 1.48228197 -2.33170302 1.48228197

The F statistics between these variables is 0.203 and the p value is >0. 05 which leads to accept
the null hypothesis. The regression analysis indicates a t statistic of 4.38 with a p value of >0.05.
A low p-value would indicate that the regression model can significantly predict the dependent
variable and that it is not a good fit. Hence the alternative hypothesis cannot be accepted in this
scenario.

4.3 Social Ratings and Firm Performance

To test the significance between Social Ratings and Firm Performance we have used R&D
expenses of the company and tested it with three variables of the company i.e. Net profit,
Tobin’s Q ratio and Return on Asset ratio.

4.3.1 Social Ratings and Net profit

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.21397223
R Square 0.04578411
Adjusted R Square 0.02067317
Standard Error 82974.2175
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 12552727722 1.255E+10 1.82327332 0.184911927
Residual 38 2.61619E+11 6.885E+09
Total 39 2.74172E+11

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 33924.9891 27763.74223 1.221917 0.22926501 -22279.7686 90129.7469 -22279.7686 90129.7469
S SCORE 13739.8286 10175.49222 1.3502864 0.18491193 -6859.37845 34339.0357 -6859.37845 34339.0357

The above table shows regression analysis of Social Ratings and Net Profit of the 40 companies
of NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows no significant relationship between Environmental
Social Ratings and Net Profit (r=0.213). The value of R square is 0.045 shows a mild association
between the variables. The F statistics between these variables is 1.823 and the p value is >0. 05
which leads to accept the null hypothesis. The regression analysis indicates a t statistic of 1.22
with a p value of >0.05. A low p-value would indicate that the regression model can significantly
predict the dependent variable and that it is not a good fit. Hence the alternative hypothesis
cannot be accepted in this scenario.

4.3.2 Social Ratings and Tobin’s Q Ratio

The below table shows regression analysis of Social Ratings and Tobin’s Q Ratio of the 40
companies of NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows no significant relationship between
Environmental Social Ratings and Tobin’s Q Ratio (r=0.175). The value of R square is 0.031
shows a mild association between the variables. The F statistics between these variables is 1.204
and the p value is >0. 05 which leads to accept the null hypothesis. The regression analysis
indicates a t statistic of 3.80 with a p value of >0.05. A low p-value would indicate that the
regression model can significantly predict the dependent variable and that it is not a good fit.
Hence the alternative hypothesis cannot be accepted in this scenario.

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.17525852
R Square 0.03071555
Adjusted R Square 0.00520806
Standard Error 4.0446616
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 19.699491 19.699491 1.20417781 0.279393449
Residual 38 621.6529241 16.359287
Total 39 641.3524151

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 5.1474978 1.353371511 3.8034625 0.00050358 2.407740413 7.88725519 2.40774041 7.88725519
S SCORE -0.54430179 0.496014592 -1.09735 0.27939345 -1.54843084 0.45982725 -1.54843084 0.45982725
4.3.3 Social Ratings and ROA

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.27571709
R Square 0.07601991
Adjusted R Square 0.05170465
Standard Error 8.01795651
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 200.9906044 200.9906 3.12642751 0.085060667
Residual 38 2442.929813 64.287627
Total 39 2643.920418

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 14.820479 2.682863239 5.5241276 2.5587E-06 9.389306273 20.2516516 9.38930627 20.2516516
S SCORE -1.73860186 0.983277174 -1.768171 0.08506067 -3.72914243 0.25193872 -3.72914243 0.25193872

The above table shows regression analysis of Social Ratings and ROA Ratio of the 40 companies
of NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows no significant relationship between Environmental
Social Ratings and ROA Ratio (r=0.275). The value of R square is 0.076 shows a mild
association between the variables. The F statistics between these variables is 3.126 and the p
value is >0. 05 which leads to accept the null hypothesis. The regression analysis indicates a t
statistic of 5.52 with a p value of >0.05. A low p-value would indicate that the regression model
can significantly predict the dependent variable and that it is not a good fit. Hence the alternative
hypothesis cannot be accepted in this scenario.

4.4 Governance Ratings and Firm Performance

To test the significance between Governance Ratings and Firm Performance we have used R&D
expenses of the company and tested it with three variables of the company i.e. Net profit,
Tobin’s Q ratio and Return on Asset ratio.
4.4.1 Governance Ratings and net profit

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.13962662
R Square 0.01949559
Adjusted R Square -0.00630716
Standard Error 84109.4164
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 5345147663 5.345E+09 0.75556263 0.390178102
Residual 38 2.68827E+11 7.074E+09
Total 39 2.74172E+11

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 18125.5233 57738.79915 0.3139228 0.75529662 -98760.5647 135011.611 -98760.5647 135011.611
G SCORE 11873.5658 13659.85001 0.8692311 0.3901781 -15779.3548 39526.4865 -15779.3548 39526.4865

The above table shows regression analysis of Social Ratings and Net Profit of the 40 companies
of NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows no significant relationship between Environmental
Social Ratings and Net Profit (r=0.139). The value of R square is 0.019 shows a mild association
between the variables. The F statistics between these variables is 0.755 and the p value is >0. 05
which leads to accept the null hypothesis. The regression analysis indicates a t statistic of 0.313
with a p value of >0.05. A low p-value would indicate that the regression model can significantly
predict the dependent variable and that it is not a good fit. Hence the alternative hypothesis
cannot be accepted in this scenario.

4.4.2 Governance Ratings and Tobin’s Q

The below table shows regression analysis of Social Ratings and Tobin’s Q of the 40 companies
of NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows no significant relationship between Environmental
Social Ratings and Tobin’s Q (r=0.075). The value of R square is 0.0056 shows a mild
association between the variables. The F statistics between these variables is 0.216 and the p
value is >0. 05 which leads to accept the null hypothesis. The regression analysis indicates a t
statistic of 0.911 with a p value of >0.05. A low p-value would indicate that the regression model
can significantly predict the dependent variable and that it is not a good fit. Hence the alternative
hypothesis cannot be accepted in this scenario.

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.07532322
R Square 0.00567359
Adjusted R Square -0.0204929
Standard Error 4.09657638
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 3.638769038 3.638769 0.21682651 0.644126583
Residual 38 637.713646 16.781938
Total 39 641.3524151

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 2.56436603 2.812186923 0.9118761 0.36758285 -3.12860876 8.25734083 -3.12860876 8.25734083
G SCORE 0.30979796 0.665307421 0.4656463 0.64412658 -1.0370465 1.65664242 -1.0370465 1.65664242

4.4.3 Governance Ratings and ROA

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.01084868
R Square 0.00011769
Adjusted R Square -0.026195
Standard Error 8.3407832
Observations 40

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 0.311173332 0.3111733 0.0044729 0.947028121
Residual 38 2643.609244 69.568664
Total 39 2643.920418

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 11.0123884 5.725718074 1.9233201 0.06195637 -0.57872186 22.6034987 -0.57872186 22.6034987
G SCORE -0.09059464 1.354590869 -0.06688 0.94702812 -2.83282049 2.65163121 -2.83282049 2.65163121
The above table shows regression analysis of Social Ratings and ROA of the 40 companies of
NIFTY 50. The correlation analysis shows no significant relationship between Environmental
Social Ratings and ROA (r=0.018). The value of R square is 0.0001 shows a mild association
between the variables. The F statistics between these variables is 0.0044 and the p value is >0. 05
which leads to accept the null hypothesis. The regression analysis indicates a t statistic of 0.947
with a p value of >0.05. A low p-value would indicate that the regression model can significantly
predict the dependent variable and that it is not a good fit. Hence the alternative hypothesis
cannot be accepted in this scenario.
5.0 Results and Discussions

In this study we observed that only R&D had an impact on company’s profit. Though many
literatures say that there is huge impact of R&D on firm performance we observed that there is
no such huge impact on Tobin’s Q because it may be effected by the Covid wave. When it comes
to ROA of top 40 companies 0f Nifty 50 from past 5 years R&D has positively correlated with
ROA. We can conclude by saying that it is not only the R&D, but a firm’s performance is based
on many other things. This study observes the relationship between the variables from one view
but there are numerous factors which effects the company performance. For example, when
Covid-19 pandemic hit the world, companies all over the world were so much in a chaos and
they some companies were shut off because of no sales. So we cannot really say that only R&D
will have an effect on the firm performance. When we examine the top 40 companies of nifty 50
it is seen that the companies keep on increasing their R&D investment in order to bring new
changes to the service and bring innovation in the products of the company.

This study also focused on finding the relation between the ESG and firm performance. When
Environmental, social and governance scores are examined with Firm performance it is found
that there is no significant relationship between the variables. Again this study is done with one
perspective that is in this study we used the ESG ratings given by Bloomberg LLP where as there
are more than 100 certified analysis companies who deal with the same. So the indicators of
Bloomberg vary from other firms. And also this study observes the relationship between the
variables from one view but there are numerous factors which effects the company performance.
For example, when Covid-19 pandemic hit the world, companies all over the world were so
much in a chaos and they some companies were shut off because of no sales. This study found
that there are many factors which supports in company’s welfare. The study does not oppose the
literature which says there is a positive relationship between R&D and Firm performance as well
as ESG scores and form performance.
6.0 Conclusion

In this era of doing business, sustainability has been a very important issue to the companies. It is
very important for the firms to be sustain for a longer period. Because of the increased pollution
and exploitation is natural resources has made it compulsory to government to bring some rules
for companies. Here Environmental aspects come into picture. In a firm social and governance
has been evolved as another important factor which can effect to the company’s growth as well
as fall. So it has also created its own importance.

Concerning the mediating impact of ESG, managers looking to boost innovation performance
should concentrate on R&D spending that has been boosted by ESG practises. ESG should be
taken into account as a mediator to get better results. Higher levels of ESG rating may improve
the influence of R&D investment on green performance, which is an important practical
application of this study for practitioners searching for green innovation. According to this
report, businesses engage in ESG activities to send a positive message to their internal
workforce, encourage sustainability, and produce environmentally friendly results. Enterprise
managers must therefore concentrate on the intersection of R&D management and ESG
operations in order to set the groundwork for businesses that will enable them to produce more
environmentally friendly parents.

This study also emphasises how organisations and businesses that influence policy work
together. To attract additional funds that support green themes, businesses should be encouraged
to consistently improve their ESG performance and reveal their ESG reports and ratings. To
ensure the reliability of ESG rating results, the government should set up a monitoring system
and communicate ESG data with environmental protection agencies. More crucially, enterprises
who anticipate gaining green performance from R&D spending should be eligible for a specific
green innovation incentive. In general, policymakers should give practitioners the tools and
support they need to effectively execute green initiatives.

Finally, we emphasise the constraints of our research. Only Nifty 50-listed firms are included in
the data set, and companies from other emerging markets should also be taken into account.
Further study should also take into account other variables influencing ESG performance, such
as systematic risk and board structure.
7.0 References
(cals), john ninia ’22. (2021, august 24). Emerging market institutes. Retrieved from sc johnson college of
business: [Link]
performance/

Al-horani, p. F. (2003). Research and development activity and expected returns in the united kingdom.
European finance review, 1-20.

Bing guo, j. W. (2018). R&d spending, strategic position and firm performance. Frontiers of business
research in china, 1-19.

Dr. Dinah a. Koehler, e. J. (2013, january 31). Deloitte . Retrieved from deloitte insights:
[Link]
[Link]/#endnote-19

Fabrizio fratini, p. T. (2015). Corporate governance and performance: evidence from italian companies.
Open journal of business and management, 1-22.

Fen zhang, x. Q. (2020). The interaction effect between esg and green innovation and its impact on firm
value from the perspective of information disclosure. Sustainbality, 1-18.

Gompers, p. A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. Paul a. Gompers, 1-67.

Gordon, j. (2022, april 17). Business finance, personal finance, and valuation principles. Retrieved from
the business professor: [Link]
valuation/q-ratio-tobins-q-definition

Hamidah, z. N. (2017). The role of corporate governance in firm performance. Shs web of conferences 34,
1-6. Doi:10.1051/ shs web of conferences 34, shsconf/20173413003

Hargrave, m. (2022, june 14). Investopedia. Retrieved from corporate finance financial ratios:
[Link]

Hay, d., morris, d., liu, g., & yao, s. (1979-87). Economic reform and state-owned enterprises in china.
China: clarendon press, 1994.

Ioannou, i. A. (2016). The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. Harvard

business school, 1-100.

Jinfa chen, d. Y. (1998). R&d and global manufacturing performance. Managaement science, 1-11.
Lingyun he, l. Z. (2018). Green credit, renewable energy investment and green economy development:
empirical analysis based on 150 listed companies of china. Journal of cleaner production, 1-392.

Michelson. (2004). Ethical investment processes and outcomes. Journal of business ethics, 1-10.

Murphy, c. B. (2022, march 06). Investpedia. Retrieved from corporate finance financial ratios:
[Link]

Oikonomou, c. B. (2018). The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosures and
performance on firm value: a review of the literature in accounting and finance . The british
accounting review, 1-43.

Preeti sharma, p. P. (2020). Determinants of environmental, social and corporate governance (esg)
disclosure: a study of indian companies. International journal of disclosure and governance, 1-
10.

Robert resutek, d. C. (2011). The effect of r&d on future returns and earnings forecasts. Social science
research network electronic paper collection, 1-42.

Velte, p. (2017). "does esg performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence. Journal of
global responsibility, 1-11. Doi: [Link]

Velte, patrick;. (2017). Does esg performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from
germany. Journal of global responsibility, 1-11.

Wang, c.-h. (2011). Clarifying the effects of r&d on performance: evidence from the high technology
industries. Asia pacific management review, 1-15.

Witold henisz, t. K. (2019). Five ways that esg creates value. Mckinsey quarterly, 1-12.

Yamasaki, y. O. (2005). Proposal of industrial research and development performance indices. R&d
management, 1-7.
ANNEXURE

DATA COLLECTED

NET PROFIT
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Reliance Industries Ltd. 299010 360750 395540 393,540.00 491,280.00
Infosys Ltd. 143,530.00 160,290.00 154,040.00 165,940.00 193,510.00
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 262,890.00 258,260.00 314,720.00 323,400.00 324,300.00
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 102,894.40 112,712.00 125,923.30 153,062.30 131,611.90
ITC Ltd. 102,894.40 112,712.00 125923 153062 131611
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 44,760.00 52,140.00 60,540.00 67,480.00 79,950.00
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 60412 73698 89051 95490 115829
Bharti Airtel Ltd. 37998 10990 4095 -321832 -150835
Asian Paints 19394 20389 21559 27051 31392
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 75099 78800 76491 56760 43891
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 36980 75103 53154 1270 18124
HCL Technologies Ltd. 84644 87210 100805 110167 124780
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 69,643.70 20,957.00 26,654.20 37,649.30 29,038.20
Britannia Industries Ltd. 8,844.70 10,042.30 11,591.20 14,026.30 18,639.00
Tata Motors Ltd. 74543 89889 -288262 -120708 134514
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. 74507 82040 100335 110594 120364
Tata Steel Ltd. -42408 134543 101944.9 15565 74902
NTPC Ltd. 107196 105439 137366 116002 146346
UltraTech Cement Ltd. 27149 22221 24035 57552 54631
Tech Mahindra Ltd. 28129 37998 42976 40330 44280
Nestle India Ltd. 12251 16069 19684 20824 21448
Wipro Ltd. 84895 80081 90031 97218 107646
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. 244,192.50 221,059.30 305,460.40 108,036.00 163,044.00
JSW Steel Ltd. 35231 62140 76190 43100 79110
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. 12,039.00 9,806.00 18,795.00 19,498.00 19,149.00
Grasim Industries Ltd. 31,673.00 26,785.80 16,929.90 44,117.40 43,048.20
Cipla Ltd. 10,063.90 14,105.30 15,277.00 15,465.20 24,048.70
Hindalco Industries Ltd. 18,997.40 60829 54960 37670 34830
Adani Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. 39115 36736 39902 36631 49943
Bajaj Auto Ltd. 40794 42189 49276 52119 48570
Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. 10604 8770 13527 13765 19842
Tata Consumer Products Ltd. 3894 4955.6 4081 4598 8567
Britannia Industries Ltd. 8844 10042 11591 14026 18639
Coal India Ltd 92,800.20 70,385.60 174,630.70 167,141.90 126,998.90
Eicher Motors Ltd. 16670 19596 22027 18274 13468.9
Appolo Hospital 2209 1174 2360 4549 1504
Hero MotoCorp Ltd. 35,842.70 37,204.00 34,440.90 36,381.10 29,177.50
UPL Ltd. 17,270.00 20,220.00 14,910.00 17,760.00 28,710.00
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. 87,209.40 90,086.30 78,023.00 30,553.60 161,649.80
Shree Cement Ltd. 13,390.80 13,841.50 10,063.90 15,358.50 22,858.70
 R&D EXP
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Reliance Industries Ltd. 14,480.00 18,240.00 20000.23 23439 25,720.00
Infosys Ltd. 3,510.00 7,480.00 7,690.00 8,290.00 9,450.00
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 3242 3423 2365 3,060.00 4573
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 1,562.50 1,463.50 1,727.10 1,553.90 1,433.40
ITC Ltd. 15623 1463 1727 1553 1433
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 300 280 220 345 230
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 1778 1799 2322 2477 2875
Bharti Airtel Ltd. 589 568 486 635 565
Asian Paints 750 762.2 823 943 1023
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 6404 8316 7128 7639 6259
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 20757 19919 26419 23456 25648
HCL Technologies Ltd. 2412 1410 9240 12832 14029
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 22,703.00 22,340.00 19,775.00 19,690.00 21,443.00
Britannia Industries Ltd. 478.4 285.4 346 335.7 321.5
Tata Motors Ltd. 34135 35318 42245.7 41884.9 52266.3
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. 26.3 13.3 126.7 95.4 45.5
Tata Steel Ltd. 2455 6722.8 8572.1 7563.1 7383.1
NTPC Ltd. 804 1231 986 873 1489
UltraTech Cement Ltd. 162 149 272 174 155
Tech Mahindra Ltd. 78.4 78.4 78.4 78.4 78.4
Nestle India Ltd. 265 253 232 258 280
Wipro Ltd. 3338 3041 3942 3041 3942
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. 4,416.60 7,115.00 7,550.40 6574 9807
JSW Steel Ltd. 250.2 389.23 580 680 540
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. 19,551.00 18,265.00 15,607.00 15,410.00 16,541.00
Grasim Industries Ltd. 250 234.4 236 0 0
Cipla Ltd. 10,305.70 9,802.20 10,475.50 10,213.30 7,910.50
Hindalco Industries Ltd. 4088 4356 5310 6250 6380
Adani Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. 0 0 0 0 0
Bajaj Auto Ltd. 3676 3676 3676 3676 3676
Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. 431 431 379 394 512
Tata Consumer Products Ltd. 104 102 104 220 185
Britannia Industries Ltd. 478.4 285.4 346 335.7 321.5
Coal India Ltd 27.40 33.30 1.44 89.40 275.20
Eicher Motors Ltd. 1280 2375 3549 2573 2991
Appolo Hospital 0 0 0 0 0
Hero MotoCorp Ltd. 7010 3667 4174 7117 5400
UPL Ltd. 190 190 340 70 910
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. 494.40 831.90 856.7 922.00 866.00
Shree Cement Ltd. 304 706 320 484 278.6
 TOBINS Q
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Reliance Industries Ltd. 1.18 1.28 1.42 1.22 1.5
Infosys Ltd. 2.98 3.27 4.04 3.23 5.65
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 4.71 5.23 6.63 5.97 9.18
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 6.26 5.03 5.25 2.88 3.83
ITC Ltd. 6.26 5.03 5.25 2.88 3.83
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 13.13 16.75 20.41 25.23 8.62
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 1.46 1.53 1.47 1.15 1.4
Bharti Airtel Ltd. 1.31 1.36 1.22 1.45 1.65
Asian Paints 8.68 8.19 9.21 10.27 12.32
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 3.78 4.74 3.41 2.26 3.17
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 1.38 1.32 1.2 0.95 1.28
HCL Technologies Ltd. 2.95 3.05 2.84 1.83 3.39
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 3.09 2.25 2.15 1.58 2.43
Britannia Industries Ltd. 10.2 11.85 12.2 8.68 11.46
Tata Motors Ltd. 1.37 1.05 1 0.88 1.17
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. 1.27 1.21 1.18 1.07 1.17
Tata Steel Ltd. 1.05 1.04 0.978 0.84 1.1
NTPC Ltd. 1.16 1.13 1.06 0.91 0.94
UltraTech Cement Ltd. 3.01 2.44 1.99 1.69 2.74
Tech Mahindra Ltd. 1.92 2.21 2.45 1.74 2.56
Nestle India Ltd. 10.84 13.76 20.61 23.9 23.89
Wipro Ltd. 1.92 2.04 2.16 1.69 3.06
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. 1.10 1.05 0.97 0.77 0.83
JSW Steel Ltd. 1.26 1.45 1.31 0.99 1.46
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. 2.42 1.97 2.42 2.56 3.16
Grasim Industries Ltd. 1.28 1.06 0.99 0.9 1.11
Cipla Ltd. 2.67 2.30 2.15 1.77 2.88
Hindalco Industries Ltd. 0.98 0.95 0.93 0.78 1.04
Adani Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. 2.22 2.11 1.95 1.41 2.49
Bajaj Auto Ltd. 3.93 3.35 3.12 2.39 3.35
Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. 2.82 4.39 5.76 6.33 9.06
Tata Consumer Products Ltd. 1.34 1.88 1.51 1.72 3.19
Britannia Industries Ltd. 1.2 11.85 12.2 8.68 11.46
Coal India Ltd 2.33 2.25 1.90 1.36 1.27
Eicher Motors Ltd. 10.17 8.38 5.14 3.07 5.1
Appolo Hospital 2.59 2.34 2.5 2.1 4.25
Hero MotoCorp Ltd. 4.53 4.38 3.05 1.89 2.85
UPL Ltd. 2.45 2.22 1.54 1.08 1.4
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. 1.58 1.47 1.35 1.21 1.24
Shree Cement Ltd. 5.64 4.14 4.57 3.51 5.23
 ROA
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Reliance Industries Ltd. 4.56 4.72 4.35 3.63 3.95
Infosys Ltd. 18.08 19.64 18.71 18.7 19.24
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 26.75 24.16 27.92 27.18 25.56
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 19.12 18.75 18.51 20.52 17.41
ITC Ltd. 19.12 18.15 18.75 20.52 17.41
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 29.35 31.07 33.18 34.8 17.98
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2.97 3.23 3.41 3.26 3.74
Bharti Airtel Ltd. 1.66 0.45 0.16 -10.12 -4.72
Asian Paints 16.88 15.56 14.34 16.68 17.19
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 15.86 14.05 12.32 8.9 6.5
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 3.43 5.96 3.54 0.08 1.09
HCL Technologies Ltd. 19.26 18.53 18.13 15.92 14.62
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 11.91 3.33 4.13 5.66 4.27
Britannia Industries Ltd. 23.27 21.6 20.28 19.92 23.52
Tata Motors Ltd. 2.67 2.97 -9.03 -3.84 -4.04
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. 3.97 3.9 4.25 4.39 4.7
Tata Steel Ltd. -2.42 7.02 4.6 0.64 3.02
NTPC Ltd. 4.53 3.97 4.37 3.2 3.77
UltraTech Cement Ltd. 6.51 4.47 3.6 7.39 6.61
Tech Mahindra Ltd. 11.58 13.45 13.45 11.39 11.5
Nestle India Ltd. 17.29 20.81 25.8 27.63 26.63
Wipro Ltd. 11.19 10.31 11.3 11.78 13.1
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. 6.20 4.88 6.41 2.15 3.10
JSW Steel Ltd. 4.13 6.9 7.38 3.27 5.67
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. 5.63 4.40 8.33 8.52 7.69
Grasim Industries Ltd. 5.18 1.98 0.75 1.82 1.68
Cipla Ltd. 4.77 6.43 6.53 6.49 9.85
Hindalco Industries Ltd. 1.31 4.13 3.66 2.34 1.94
Adani Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. 9.52 8.08 7.68 6.34 7.26
Bajaj Auto Ltd. 20.99 18.44 18.26 18.83 16.16
Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. 19.17 13.55 18.25 16.61 20.55
Tata Consumer Products Ltd. 3.97 4.91 3.79 3.12 4.42
Britannia Industries Ltd. 23.27 21.6 20.28 19.92 23.52
Coal India Ltd 8.05 5.79 13.51 11.80 8.14
Eicher Motors Ltd. 27.91 23.71 21.07 15.33 9.97
Appolo Hospital 2.86 1.8 2.65 4.43 1.32
Hero MotoCorp Ltd. 25.41 22.75 19.19 19.06 13.64
UPL Ltd. 9.24 9.31 3.46 2.67 4.09
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. 8.92 7.85 6.07 2.12 10.37
Shree Cement Ltd. 5.67 10.52 6.57 8.67 11.03
 ENVITONMENTAL SCORE
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Reliance Industries Ltd. 1.56 2.46 2.9 2.47 3.33
Infosys Ltd. 4.49 4.6 4.63 4.8 5.64
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 4.27 3.66 3.48 4.67 4.28
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 2.21 2.16 2.04 1.88 2.08
ITC Ltd. 2.21 2.16 2.04 1.88 2.08
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 1.58 1.7 1.73 1.77 3.03
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 0.7 0.71 0.69 0.69 0.69
Bharti Airtel Ltd. 1.81 1.81 1.42 1.75 1.73
Asian Paints 2.85 2.99 3.03 3.02 3.7
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 1.13 0.54 1.02 0.99 0.85
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 2 2 2 2 2
HCL Technologies Ltd. 1.01 1.01 3 1.56 2.62
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 0.69 1.05 5.45 5.29 5.09
Britannia Industries Ltd. 1.13 1.19 2.8 2.91 5.06
Tata Motors Ltd. 1.6 1.87 1.82 2.47 2.56
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72
Tata Steel Ltd. 1.99 2.05 1.84 1.7 2.5
NTPC Ltd. 2.06 2.08 1.59 1.66 1.76
UltraTech Cement Ltd. 3.3 4.44 5.11 4.94 4.87
Tech Mahindra Ltd. 3.1 3.36 3.65 3.75 5.01
Nestle India Ltd. 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19
Wipro Ltd. 3.19 3.51 4.24 4.16 4.23
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. 2.90 3.55 3.56 2.91 3.45
JSW Steel Ltd. 2.15 2.71 2.46 2.76 1.82
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. 3.02 2.68 3.40 3.80 3.86
Grasim Industries Ltd. 1.9 2.5 2.62 3.45 2.88
Cipla Ltd. 0.00 2.32 4.56 4.63 5.04
Hindalco Industries Ltd. 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.66 1.66
Adani Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. 4.17 4.33 3.4 4.12 3.98
Bajaj Auto Ltd. 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.53 0.55
Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.11
Tata Consumer Products Ltd. 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11
Britannia Industries Ltd. 1.13 1.19 2.8 2.91 5.06
Coal India Ltd 3.56 2.60 2.92 3.02 3.28
Eicher Motors Ltd. 0.53 0.53 1.07 0.45 0.89
Appolo Hospital 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Hero MotoCorp Ltd. 0 0 0 0 0
UPL Ltd. 1.41 4.15 3.89 3.69 4.73
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. 5.03 4.82 4.50 5.16 5.42
Shree Cement Ltd. 5.76 6 5.95 5.61 5.72
 SOCIAL SCORE
2017 2018 2019 2020 2020
Reliance Industries Ltd. 4.31 5.77 3.15 3.45 3.54
Infosys Ltd. 2.63 2.73 3.01 3.35 3.56
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 2.12 2.09 2.26 2.05 2.15
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 3.41
ITC Ltd. 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 3.41
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 1.37 1.37 2.74 2.9 2.82
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 7.61 4.39 4.4 2.49 3.56
Bharti Airtel Ltd. 1.47 1.37 1.38 2.15 2.3
Asian Paints 1.75 1.76 1.73 1.38 1.36
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 0.66 0.6 0.66 0.6 0.66
HCL Technologies Ltd. 0.44 0.62 0.62 0.57 0.89
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 0.35 0.35 0.52 0.52 0.94
Britannia Industries Ltd. 0.77 0.77 1.03 2.3 2.82
Tata Motors Ltd. 2.39 2.44 2.39 2.39 2.39
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. 1.27 1.45 1.26 1.87 1.89
Tata Steel Ltd. 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68
NTPC Ltd. 3.1 3.06 4.4 4.93 4.79
UltraTech Cement Ltd. 3.05 3.43 3.34 3.38 3.32
Tech Mahindra Ltd. 2.6 3.31 3.09 3.14 3.41
Nestle India Ltd. 2.43 2.43 2.73 2.73 2.94
Wipro Ltd. 1.9 2.36 3.04 2.92 2.63
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. 2.49 2.46 2.48 2.37 2.48
JSW Steel Ltd. 6.92 5.66 5.67 4.06 4.39
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. 1.18 2.20 2.21 2.15 2.17
Grasim Industries Ltd. 0.9 1.45 2.17 3.05 3.28
Cipla Ltd. 0.68 1.23 3.37 2.10 2.14
Hindalco Industries Ltd. 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56
Adani Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. 3.07 3.11 4.42 6.14 6.64
Bajaj Auto Ltd. 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09
Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. 0.85 1.4 1.42 1.42 1.46
Tata Consumer Products Ltd. 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11
Britannia Industries Ltd. 0.77 0.77 1.03 2.3 2.82
Coal India Ltd 3.70 3.48 3.38 1.52 3.42
Eicher Motors Ltd. 0.48 0.48 1.89 1.87 1.56
Appolo Hospital 0.07 1.44 1.44 4.15 4.2
Hero MotoCorp Ltd. 1.35 2 2 2 2
UPL Ltd. 1.27 1.85 1.75 1.32 0.61
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. 4.07 6.02 5.97 4.16 4.41
Shree Cement Ltd. 6.49 4.43 5.4 5.61 4.99
 GOVERNANCE SCORE
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Reliance Industries Ltd. 4.4 4.58 4.78 4.46 4.29
Infosys Ltd. 5.71 5.87 5.98 6 6.58
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 3.56 3.77 4.6 4.57 4.69
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 4.72 4.28 4.29 4.84 4.85
ITC Ltd. 4.72 4.28 4.29 4.84 4.85
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 4.75 4.55 5.16 5.26 5.5
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 3.63 3.65 3.7 3.68 3.78
Bharti Airtel Ltd. 4.54 5.13 4.53 4.84 5.23
Asian Paints 4.48 4.44 4.27 4.99 5.22
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 3.95 4.05 4.02 4.15 4.23
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 5.17 5.27 5.37 5.27 5.27
HCL Technologies Ltd. 2 2 2 2 2
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 3.74 3.74 4.02 4.04 4.06
Britannia Industries Ltd. 3.58 3.57 3.55 3.85 3.69
Tata Motors Ltd. 3.89 4.04 4.08 4.63 4.86
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. 4.23 4.54 5.02 4.58 4.82
Tata Steel Ltd. 4.1 4.16 4.35 4.54 4.43
NTPC Ltd. 4.45 4.45 4.89 4.56 4.66
UltraTech Cement Ltd. 4.48 3.86 3.91 3.85 4.7
Tech Mahindra Ltd. 4.05 3.96 4.05 4.57 4.54
Nestle India Ltd. 5.23 5.08 4.99 4.44 4.56
Wipro Ltd. 3.45 3.89 4.25 5.97 5.97
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. 3.67 3.58 3.74 3.68 3.54
JSW Steel Ltd. 3.91 4.09 4.19 4.09 3.99
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. 5.08 4.99 5.31 5.79 5.79
Grasim Industries Ltd. 4.15 3.82 3.98 4.24 3.86
Cipla Ltd. 5.09 5.53 5.74 5.78 5.65
Hindalco Industries Ltd. 4 3.55 3.26 3.88 3.38
Adani Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. 3.74 4.18 4.21 4.23 4.11
Bajaj Auto Ltd. 3.15 3.59 3.25 3.2 3.25
Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. 0.84 0.65 1.01 1.05 1.56
Tata Consumer Products Ltd. 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11
Britannia Industries Ltd. 3.58 3.57 3.55 3.85 3.69
Coal India Ltd 4.38 4.55 5.54 4.07 3.79
Eicher Motors Ltd. 3.98 4.03 4.83 4.66 4.66
Appolo Hospital 4.27 4.35 4.44 4.19 4.28
Hero MotoCorp Ltd. 4.23 4.47 4.23 4.16 4.16
UPL Ltd. 3.33 3.24 3.21 3.33 3.47
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. 3.93 4.96 4.53 4.25 4.17
Shree Cement Ltd. 2 2 2 2 2