CHAPTER -5

IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING POLICY

5.1 Analysis of environmental accounting policy

Environmental accounting refers to the identification, measurement and communication

of the data on environmentally responsible performance of a business entity to facilitate
economic decision-making. It identifies the resources used by a business and measures
and communicates costs of its impact on the environment. In other words, it is the
process of accounting for any costs and benefits that arises out of the resulting change in
environment due to the change to a firm‘s product and processes of production. The costs
include costs to clean up or remediate contaminated sites, environmental fines, penalties
and taxes, purchase of pollution prevention technologies and waste management costs.
Simply, environmental accounting is all about making environment related costs more
transparent with corporate accounting system and reporting. The concept of
environmental accounting was first adopted by Norway in the early 1970s. In India, the
application of environmental accounting is limited to certain industries such as oil and
petroleum, cement, power and electronics, natural gas, steel, engineering and textile
industries

The various laws pertinent to environmental protection in the country are listed below
under two different heads:

1. Directly related to the protection of environment

(i) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

(ii) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977

(iii) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

(iv) The Forest Conservation Act, 1980

(v) The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

2. Indirectly related to the protection of environment

(i) The provision in the Constitution (Article 51A)

(ii) The Factories Act, 1948

124
 (iii) Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989

(iv) Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

(v) The Motor Vehicle Act, 1991

(vi) Indian Penal Code

(vii) The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995

(viii) Indian Fisheries Act, 1987

In 2011, the Securities and Exchange Board of India mandates listed companies to
report on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) initiatives undertaken by
them, according to the key principles enunciated in the 'National Voluntary
Guidelines on Social, Environmental and Economic Responsibilities of Business.'

The Companies act 2013 emphasizes on corporate social responsibility that makes it
mandatory for certain class of profitable enterprises to spend money on social welfare
activities. It is mandatory for companies with net worth of more than Rs 500 crore, or
turnover of Rs 1,000 crore to adopt a CSR policy. Also it provides that the companies
are required to give more disclosures besides Company‘s general state of affair and
financial performance regarding conservation of energy and environmental protection.

Also, The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests has issued various instructions
in to prepare environment statements. It is mandatory in the country to get an
environmental clearance for all new projects that concerns both the Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests and the corresponding State Government department of
environment. There are various guidelines in this regard and all such projects are
expected to obtain environmental and antipollution clearance before they are actually
set up.

125
5.2 Cost benefit analysis

For the purpose of current study the data is collected from 5 company‘s respondents.
Those who are working in marble companies or nearby who can be as stakeholders
for or marble business are included in the current study. the profile of the respondents
are as under:

Table-5.1: Company wise respondents

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent

Valid Mumal Marbles 150 20.0 20.0 20.0

Chandna Marbles 150 20.0 20.0 40.0

R.K. Marble 150 20.0 20.0 60.0

Bapu Marble 150 20.0 20.0 80.0

Evershine Marble 150 20.0 20.0 100.0

Total 750 100.0 100.0

160

140 150 150 150 150 150

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Mumal Marbles Chandna R.K. Marble Bapu Marble Evershine Marble
Marbles

Figure-5.1: Company wise respondents

126
The company wise respondents selected for the study includes equal respondents from all
the top 5 selected companies Mumal marbles, Chandana marbles. RK marbles, Bapu
marbles, and Evershine marbles, 20% respectively. The equal proportion of respondents
is taken so that the views of one particular marble companies respondent will not make a
very high impact on the result of the study.
Further, the respondent selected for the study includes different category of respondents
as shown in table- 5.2 as under:

Table-5.2: Employee / stakeholders

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent

Valid Managers 250 33.3 33.3 33.3

Stakeholders 500 66.7 66.7 100.0

Total 750 100.0 100.0

500

500
450
400
350 250
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Managers Stakeholders

Figure -5.2: Employee / stakeholders

127
It is clear from the figure 5.2 that the respondent selected for the study includes two
categories of respondents managers and stakeholders. As per the objective of the
study the 250 managers from each company and 500 stakeholders from which
company is selected that totals 33.3% Weight age for managers and 66.6% Weight
age for stakeholders
The category wise respondents are shown in table 5.3 as under:

Table-5.3: Category of respondents

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent

Valid Manager 204 27.2 27.2 27.2

Financial Professional 176 23.5 23.5 50.7

Others 370 49.3 49.3 100.0

Total 750 100.0 100.0

370
400

350

300
204
250 176

200

150

100

50

0
Manager Financial Professional Others

Figure -5.3: Category of respondents

The category of respondent is divided into 3 parts that include managers financial
professional and others. the highest number of respondents includes others that is
equivalent to 49.3%, followed by managers 27.2 percent and financial professional

128
is 23.5%. this classification shows that overall the views of manager and financial
professionals is given equal weight age for the purpose of study. For the purpose of
environment the views of not only respondent working in company are important but
the views of other stakeholders are also important and that is why are close to 50-
50% ratio is included in the study.
The experience wise respondents are as under:

Table-5.4: Experience of respondents

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent

Valid Above 15 year 405 54.0 54.0 54.0

5- 15 year 209 27.9 27.9 81.9

> 5 years 136 18.1 18.1 100.0

Total 750 100.0 100.0

450
405
400

350

300

250
209
200

150 136

100

50

0
Above 15 year 5- 15 year > 5 years

Figure -5.4: Experience of respondents

The experience wise respondents are classified into three categories. below 5 years, 5
to 15 years, and above 15 years. the classification reveals that the highest experience
of the respondent is above 15 years the stands for 54%, followed by 5 to 15 years (

129
27.9 percent) and below 5 years were only 18.1 %. This classification revealed that
the maximum respondents were having experience and we can rely upon the
information provided by the respondents.
Qualification wise respondents are presented as under:

Table-5.5: Qualification of respondents

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent

Valid Graduate 210 28.0 28.0 28.0

Post graduate 283 37.7 37.7 65.7

Professional Degree 168 22.4 22.4 88.1

Others 89 11.9 11.9 100.0

Total 750 100.0 100.0

Others 89

Professional Degree 168

Post graduate 283

Graduate 210

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure-5.5: Qualification of respondents

As per the qualification the respondents are classified into four categories graduate
postgraduate professional degree and others. The respondent selected for the study
includes highest 37.7 percent respondents having qualification of postgraduate degree

130
followed by 28% respondents having graduate and 22.4 percent having professional
degree. Others only 11.9% and also includes stakeholders residing nearby by the
marble mines. This classification again proves the importance of the study is more
than 88 % of the respondents were qualified enough to provide their views
inappropriate format for the study.

5.3 Application to companies

As per the objective of the study the satisfaction with the environmental reporting
practices of the marble companies were gathered end the collected data revealed their
satisfaction to analyze the same one temple T test is conducted with the following
hypothesis:

H0= Satisfaction of the respondents has any significant difference with environmental
reporting practices of marble industry.

To analyze the above hypothesis the data collected were used for the purpose of one
sample T test with the help of SPSS software air with mean value as a test value. the
following results were obtained:

Table-5.6 One Sample t Test

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Sat_ER 750 2.1733 .84552 .03087
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 2.5
95% Confidence Interval
Sig. (2- Mean of the Difference
T df
tailed) Difference
Lower Upper
Sat_ER -10.581 749 .000 -.32667 -.3873 -.2661

The result of one sample T test reveal that significant difference profound for the
satisfaction of environmental reporting practices bye the selected marble companies
(p <0.05). further the views of respondent on the negative side as the mean of the
responses is below test value 2.5. does it may be revealed that all there is is a
significant difference in the views of respondent yet they were not satisfied with
environmental reporting practices.

131
To measure that the view of respondent differ for the purpose of their satisfaction on
a particular ground for a particular environment reporting had and to measure that
what reflect the satisfaction of respondents, the data were gathered on 12 different
points of Environmental reporting and analyze for the purpose of identification of the
variable that drive satisfaction of the respondent. For this purpose following
hypothesis was developed:

H02: Variables configuring satisfaction has insignificant effect on satisfaction of the

respondents from environmental reporting of marble companies.

To analyze the above hypothesis and to measure II that weather II there is any
variable that can have a impact over overall satisfaction of respondents, the above
views were analyzed with the help of SPSS software and the results are as under:

Table-5.7: Multiple regression analysis

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Sat_ER 2.1733 .84552 750

ER_1 2.3707 1.26942 750

ER_2 2.5867 1.22167 750

ER_3 2.4160 1.17620 750

ER_4 2.3920 1.03912 750

ER_5 2.6013 .96660 750

ER_6 2.5787 1.07580 750

ER_7 2.7400 .96418 750

ER_8 2.6000 1.06027 750

ER_9 2.7613 1.10966 750

ER_10 2.4560 1.02313 750

ER_11 2.2093 .99942 750

ER_12 2.2040 1.01904 750

132
 ER_1

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent

Valid 1.00 224 29.9 29.9 29.9

2.00 251 33.5 33.5 63.3

3.00 113 15.1 15.1 78.4

4.00 97 12.9 12.9 91.3

5.00 65 8.7 8.7 100.0

Total 750 100.0 100.0

ER_2

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent

Valid 1.00 163 21.7 21.7 21.7

2.00 233 31.1 31.1 52.8

3.00 161 21.5 21.5 74.3

4.00 137 18.3 18.3 92.5

5.00 56 7.5 7.5 100.0

Total 750 100.0 100.0

ER_3
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 1.00 180 24.0 24.0 24.0
2.00 294 39.2 39.2 63.2
3.00 91 12.1 12.1 75.3
4.00 154 20.5 20.5 95.9
5.00 31 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 750 100.0 100.0

133
 ER_4
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 1.00 141 18.8 18.8 18.8
2.00 327 43.6 43.6 62.4
3.00 150 20.0 20.0 82.4
4.00 111 14.8 14.8 97.2
5.00 21 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 750 100.0 100.0

ER_5
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 1.00 88 11.7 11.7 11.7
2.00 256 34.1 34.1 45.9
3.00 312 41.6 41.6 87.5
4.00 55 7.3 7.3 94.8
5.00 39 5.2 5.2 100.0
Total 750 100.0 100.0

ER_6
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 1.00 70 9.3 9.3 9.3
2.00 398 53.1 53.1 62.4
3.00 110 14.7 14.7 77.1
4.00 122 16.3 16.3 93.3
5.00 50 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 750 100.0 100.0

134
 ER_7
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 1.00 27 3.6 3.6 3.6
2.00 355 47.3 47.3 50.9
3.00 189 25.2 25.2 76.1
4.00 144 19.2 19.2 95.3
5.00 35 4.7 4.7 100.0
Total 750 100.0 100.0

ER_8
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 1.00 69 9.2 9.2 9.2
2.00 366 48.8 48.8 58.0
3.00 169 22.5 22.5 80.5
4.00 88 11.7 11.7 92.3
5.00 58 7.7 7.7 100.0
Total 750 100.0 100.0

ER_9
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 1.00 93 12.4 12.4 12.4
2.00 222 29.6 29.6 42.0
3.00 277 36.9 36.9 78.9
4.00 87 11.6 11.6 90.5
5.00 71 9.5 9.5 100.0
Total 750 100.0 100.0

135
 ER_10
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 1.00 101 13.5 13.5 13.5
2.00 361 48.1 48.1 61.6
3.00 176 23.5 23.5 85.1
4.00 69 9.2 9.2 94.3
5.00 43 5.7 5.7 100.0
Total 750 100.0 100.0

ER_11
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 1.00 184 24.5 24.5 24.5
2.00 331 44.1 44.1 68.7
3.00 151 20.1 20.1 88.8
4.00 62 8.3 8.3 97.1
5.00 22 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 750 100.0 100.0

ER_12
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 1.00 177 23.6 23.6 23.6
2.00 371 49.5 49.5 73.1
3.00 97 12.9 12.9 86.0
4.00 82 10.9 10.9 96.9
5.00 23 3.1 3.1 100.0
Total 750 100.0 100.0

136
 Correlations
Sat_ER ER_1 ER_2 ER_3 ER_4 ER_5 ER_6 ER_7 ER_8 ER_9 ER_10 ER_11 ER_12
Sat_ER 1.000 -.054 -.071 .025 -.061 -.026 .061 .172 .034 -.016 .050 .112 -.029
ER_1 -.054 1.000 .052 .010 -.009 .012 .028 .018 .024 .081 -.104 -.022 -.093
ER_2 -.071 .052 1.000 .048 .064 .047 -.051 -.150 -.037 .061 -.032 -.132 -.010
ER_3 .025 .010 .048 1.000 .115 -.117 .054 -.136 -.102 .104 -.052 .017 -.031
ER_4 -.061 -.009 .064 .115 1.000 -.037 -.091 .046 .093 .000 .093 -.056 .000
ER_5 -.026 .012 .047 -.117 -.037 1.000 .040 -.037 .025 -.007 .052 .020 -.023
Pearson
ER_6 .061 .028 -.051 .054 -.091 .040 1.000 -.014 .008 -.017 .038 -.016 -.080
Correlation
ER_7 .172 .018 -.150 -.136 .046 -.037 -.014 1.000 .086 .117 .042 .022 -.057
ER_8 .034 .024 -.037 -.102 .093 .025 .008 .086 1.000 -.013 .123 .011 -.044
ER_9 -.016 .081 .061 .104 .000 -.007 -.017 .117 -.013 1.000 -.069 .033 -.027
ER_10 .050 -.104 -.032 -.052 .093 .052 .038 .042 .123 -.069 1.000 -.046 -.011
ER_11 .112 -.022 -.132 .017 -.056 .020 -.016 .022 .011 .033 -.046 1.000 .042
ER_12 -.029 -.093 -.010 -.031 .000 -.023 -.080 -.057 -.044 -.027 -.011 .042 1.000
Sat_ER . .071 .025 .244 .048 .235 .047 .000 .174 .335 .084 .001 .216
ER_1 .071 . .079 .391 .402 .374 .218 .314 .256 .013 .002 .271 .006
ER_2 .025 .079 . .093 .041 .100 .080 .000 .155 .047 .193 .000 .387
Sig. (1-tailed)
ER_3 .244 .391 .093 . .001 .001 .069 .000 .003 .002 .076 .324 .200
ER_4 .048 .402 .041 .001 . .156 .006 .105 .005 .498 .005 .063 .500
ER_5 .235 .374 .100 .001 .156 . .138 .157 .245 .428 .078 .291 .264

137
 ER_6 .047 .218 .080 .069 .006 .138 . .347 .416 .319 .151 .331 .014
ER_7 .000 .314 .000 .000 .105 .157 .347 . .009 .001 .126 .274 .058
ER_8 .174 .256 .155 .003 .005 .245 .416 .009 . .359 .000 .381 .113
ER_9 .335 .013 .047 .002 .498 .428 .319 .001 .359 . .030 .183 .234
ER_10 .084 .002 .193 .076 .005 .078 .151 .126 .000 .030 . .102 .379
ER_11 .001 .271 .000 .324 .063 .291 .331 .274 .381 .183 .102 . .126
ER_12 .216 .006 .387 .200 .500 .264 .014 .058 .113 .234 .379 .126 .
Sat_ER 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_1 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_2 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_3 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_4 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_5 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
N ER_6 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_7 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_8 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_9 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_10 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_11 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
ER_12 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750

138
 Variables Entered/Removeda

Variables Variables
Model Method
Entered Removed

Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <= .050,

1 ER_7 .
Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <= .050,

2 ER_11 .
Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

a. Dependent Variable: Sat_ER

Model Summary

Std. Error Change Statistics

R Adjusted
Model R of the R Square Sig. F
Square R Square F Change df1 df2
Estimate Change Change
1 .172a .29 .28 .83353 .029 22.703 1 748 .000
b
2 .203 .41 .39 .82905 .012 9.104 1 747 .003
a. Predictors: (Constant), ER_7
b. Predictors: (Constant), ER_7, ER_11

ANOVAc

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 15.773 1 15.773 22.703 .000a

1 Residual 519.693 748 .695

Total 535.467 749

Regression 22.031 2 11.016 16.027 .000b

2 Residual 513.436 747 .687

Total 535.467 749

a. Predictors: (Constant), ER_7

b. Predictors: (Constant), ER_7, ER_11
c. Dependent Variable: Sat_ER

139
 Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Correlations
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model T Sig.
Std. Zero- Toler
B Beta Partial Part VIF
Error order ance
(Constant) 1.761 .092 19.193 .000
1
ER_7 .151 .032 .172 4.765 .000 .172 .172 .172 1.000 1.000
(Constant) 1.565 .112 13.957 .000
2 ER_7 .148 .031 .169 4.723 .000 .172 .170 .169 1.000 1.000
ER_11 .091 .030 .108 3.017 .003 .112 .110 .108 1.000 1.000
a. Dependent Variable: Sat_ER

Excluded Variablesc
Collinearity Statistics
Partial
Model Beta In t Sig. Minimum
Correlation Tolerance VIF
Tolerance
ER_1 -.057a -1.578 .115 -.058 1.000 1.000 1.000
a
ER_2 -.047 -1.282 .200 -.047 .977 1.023 .977
a
ER_3 .050 1.369 .171 .050 .981 1.019 .981
a
ER_4 -.069 -1.910 .057 -.070 .998 1.002 .998
a
ER_5 -.020 -.558 .577 -.020 .999 1.001 .999
a
1 ER_6 .064 1.773 .077 .065 1.000 1.000 1.000
a
ER_8 .020 .542 .588 .020 .993 1.007 .993
a
ER_9 -.036 -.996 .320 -.036 .986 1.014 .986
a
ER_10 .043 1.204 .229 .044 .998 1.002 .998
a
ER_11 .108 3.017 .003 .110 1.000 1.000 1.000
a
ER_12 -.019 -.524 .600 -.019 .997 1.003 .997
b
ER_1 -.054 -1.518 .129 -.055 .999 1.001 .999
b
ER_2 -.033 -.902 .367 -.033 .961 1.041 .961
b
ER_3 .048 1.316 .188 .048 .981 1.019 .981
b
ER_4 -.063 -1.750 .081 -.064 .995 1.005 .995
b
ER_5 -.022 -.624 .533 -.023 .998 1.002 .998
2 b
ER_6 .066 1.831 .068 .067 1.000 1.000 .999
b
ER_8 .019 .517 .605 .019 .992 1.008 .992
b
ER_9 -.040 -1.095 .274 -.040 .985 1.015 .985
b
ER_10 .049 1.356 .176 .050 .996 1.004 .996
b
ER_12 -.024 -.658 .511 -.024 .995 1.005 .995
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), ER_7
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), ER_7, ER_11
c. Dependent Variable: Sat_ER

140
 Collinearity Diagnosticsa

Condition Variance Proportions

Model Dimension Eigenvalue
Index (Constant) ER_7 ER_11
1 1.943 1.000 .03 .03
1
2 .057 5.858 .97 .97
1 2.812 1.000 .01 .01 .02
2 2 .141 4.464 .01 .29 .73
3 .047 7.731 .98 .70 .25
a. Dependent Variable: Sat_ER

The final Regression model with 2 independent variables (ER_7 and ER_11) explains
almost 39% of the variance of Satisfaction from environmental disclosure conducted
by marble companies. Also, the standard errors of the estimate has been reduced to
.82905, which means that at 95% level, the margin of errors for any predicted value
of have reduced the error including the second variable. The 02 regression
coefficients, plus the constraints are significant at 0.05 levels .The impact of multi
colinerarity in the 02 variables is substantial.

ANOVA Analysis

The ANOVA analysis provides the statistical test for overall model fit in terms of F
Ratio. The total sum of squares (535.467) is the squared error that would accrue if the
mean of Job Satisfaction has been used to predict the dependent variable. Using the
values of ER_7 and ER_11 this errors can be reduced by 4.12% (22.031/535.467).
This reduction is deemed statistically significant with the F ratio of 16.027 and
significance at level of 0.000. With the above analysis it can be concluded that only
02 variables i.e., Marble companies should disclose total expenditure on Economic
factors (ER_7) and Top management support is required for framing policies, laws
and regulations related to sustainable accounting and reporting (ER_11) explains the
Satisfaction of respondents from environmental reporting practices of marble
companies.

141
5.4 Performance appraisal

To measure that the view of respondent differ for the purpose of satisfaction with the
current environment accounting practices of the company, their satisfaction on a
particular ground for a particular current environment reporting were analyzed for this
purpose following hypothesis was developed:

H03: Variables configuring satisfaction has insignificant effect on marble company wise
data of environmental reporting.

To analyze the above hypothesis and to measure that weather The perception of
respondents relates to you better for a particular company respondents view were
analyzed with the help of ANOVA method of SPSS software and the results are as
under:

Table-5.8
Measuring Performances –ANOVA Analysis
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Std. Std. Interval for Mean
N Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Mumal 150 2.3067 1.29504 .10574 2.0977 2.5156 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.3667 1.21742 .09940 2.1702 2.5631 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.3600 1.24394 .10157 2.1593 2.5607 1.00 5.00
ER_1
Bapu 150 2.4867 1.28876 .10523 2.2787 2.6946 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.3333 1.30906 .10688 2.1221 2.5445 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.3707 1.26942 .04635 2.2797 2.4617 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.5867 1.24882 .10197 2.3852 2.7882 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.6267 1.22363 .09991 2.4292 2.8241 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.4933 1.18007 .09635 2.3029 2.6837 1.00 5.00
ER_2
Bapu 150 2.6533 1.20951 .09876 2.4582 2.8485 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.5733 1.25504 .10247 2.3708 2.7758 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.5867 1.22167 .04461 2.4991 2.6742 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.4533 1.20729 .09857 2.2585 2.6481 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.4133 1.15965 .09469 2.2262 2.6004 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.2733 1.12862 .09215 2.0912 2.4554 1.00 5.00
ER_3
Bapu 150 2.4800 1.17422 .09587 2.2906 2.6694 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.4600 1.21307 .09905 2.2643 2.6557 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.4160 1.17620 .04295 2.3317 2.5003 1.00 5.00

142
 Mumal 150 2.3933 1.02908 .08402 2.2273 2.5594 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.3933 1.07377 .08767 2.2201 2.5666 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.4133 1.07558 .08782 2.2398 2.5869 1.00 5.00
ER_4
Bapu 150 2.3600 1.00522 .08208 2.1978 2.5222 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.4000 1.02322 .08355 2.2349 2.5651 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.3920 1.03912 .03794 2.3175 2.4665 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.5467 .93827 .07661 2.3953 2.6980 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.6467 1.05000 .08573 2.4773 2.8161 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.6333 .93706 .07651 2.4821 2.7845 1.00 5.00
ER_5
Bapu 150 2.6333 .97221 .07938 2.4765 2.7902 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.5467 .93827 .07661 2.3953 2.6980 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.6013 .96660 .03530 2.5320 2.6706 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.5267 1.06624 .08706 2.3546 2.6987 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.5933 1.07502 .08777 2.4199 2.7668 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.5800 1.08232 .08837 2.4054 2.7546 1.00 5.00
ER_6
Bapu 150 2.6800 1.11319 .09089 2.5004 2.8596 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.5133 1.04744 .08552 2.3443 2.6823 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.5787 1.07580 .03928 2.5015 2.6558 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.7667 .95127 .07767 2.6132 2.9201 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.7467 .99789 .08148 2.5857 2.9077 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.6600 .95419 .07791 2.5061 2.8139 1.00 5.00
ER_7
Bapu 150 2.7667 .97221 .07938 2.6098 2.9235 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.7600 .95313 .07782 2.6062 2.9138 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.7400 .96418 .03521 2.6709 2.8091 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.5667 1.05815 .08640 2.3959 2.7374 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.5600 1.01980 .08327 2.3955 2.7245 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.6667 1.10318 .09007 2.4887 2.8447 1.00 5.00
ER_8
Bapu 150 2.6267 1.07782 .08800 2.4528 2.8006 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.5800 1.05085 .08580 2.4105 2.7495 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.6000 1.06027 .03872 2.5240 2.6760 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.7600 1.10933 .09058 2.5810 2.9390 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.7933 1.15449 .09426 2.6071 2.9796 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.6733 1.05230 .08592 2.5036 2.8431 1.00 5.00
ER_9
Bapu 150 2.8333 1.14351 .09337 2.6488 3.0178 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.7467 1.09414 .08934 2.5701 2.9232 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.7613 1.10966 .04052 2.6818 2.8409 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.4267 1.01232 .08266 2.2633 2.5900 1.00 5.00
ER_10
Chandna 150 2.4533 1.08428 .08853 2.2784 2.6283 1.00 5.00

143
 R.K. Marble 150 2.4800 1.02138 .08340 2.3152 2.6448 1.00 5.00
Bapu 150 2.5000 .98819 .08068 2.3406 2.6594 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.4200 1.01842 .08315 2.2557 2.5843 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.4560 1.02313 .03736 2.3827 2.5293 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.2133 1.00058 .08170 2.0519 2.3748 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.1933 .96026 .07841 2.0384 2.3483 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.1867 1.02575 .08375 2.0212 2.3522 1.00 5.00
ER_11
Bapu 150 2.2267 1.01099 .08255 2.0636 2.3898 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.2267 1.01099 .08255 2.0636 2.3898 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.2093 .99942 .03649 2.1377 2.2810 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.2133 1.02706 .08386 2.0476 2.3790 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.1800 1.01048 .08251 2.0170 2.3430 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.2133 1.02051 .08332 2.0487 2.3780 1.00 5.00
ER_12
Bapu 150 2.2133 1.02051 .08332 2.0487 2.3780 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.2000 1.02976 .08408 2.0339 2.3661 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.2040 1.01904 .03721 2.1310 2.2770 1.00 5.00
Mumal 150 2.1533 .80882 .06604 2.0228 2.2838 1.00 5.00
Chandna 150 2.2267 .87582 .07151 2.0854 2.3680 1.00 5.00
R.K. Marble 150 2.1667 .88550 .07230 2.0238 2.3095 1.00 5.00
Sat_ER
Bapu 150 2.1533 .84135 .06870 2.0176 2.2891 1.00 5.00
Evershine 150 2.1667 .82264 .06717 2.0339 2.2994 1.00 5.00
Total 750 2.1733 .84552 .03087 2.1127 2.2339 1.00 5.00

ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 2.861 4 .715 .443 .778
ER_1 Within Groups 1204.093 745 1.616
Total 1206.955 749
Between Groups 2.240 4 .560 .374 .827
ER_2 Within Groups 1115.627 745 1.497
Total 1117.867 749
Between Groups 4.168 4 1.042 .752 .557
ER_3 Within Groups 1032.040 745 1.385
Total 1036.208 749
Between Groups .232 4 .058 .053 .995
ER_4 Within Groups 808.520 745 1.085
Total 808.752 749

144
 Between Groups 1.512 4 .378 .403 .806
ER_5 Within Groups 698.287 745 .937
Total 699.799 749
Between Groups 2.619 4 .655 .564 .689
ER_6 Within Groups 864.240 745 1.160
Total 866.859 749
Between Groups 1.240 4 .310 .332 .856
ER_7 Within Groups 695.060 745 .933
Total 696.300 749
Between Groups 1.240 4 .310 .275 .894
ER_8 Within Groups 840.760 745 1.129
Total 842.000 749
Between Groups 2.125 4 .531 .430 .787
ER_9 Within Groups 920.153 745 1.235
Total 922.279 749
Between Groups .701 4 .175 .167 .955
ER_10 Within Groups 783.347 745 1.051
Total 784.048 749
Between Groups .208 4 .052 .052 .995
ER_11 Within Groups 747.927 745 1.004
Total 748.135 749
Between Groups .128 4 .032 .031 .998
ER_12 Within Groups 777.660 745 1.044
Total 777.788 749
Between Groups .560 4 .140 .195 .941
Sat_ER Within Groups 534.907 745 .718
Total 535.467 749

ANOVA for respondents on the basis of difference in their views on each selected
variables of Current environment reporting practices found insignificant fit. The
difference between Environmental reporting were found insignificant Indifference as
for all the variables selected for the study the difference insignificant (p>.005), with
comfort that the current environment reporting practices are similar in all the five
selected companies without major differences

145
5.5 Conclusion and suggestion

As per the above Analysis the chapter presents views of respondents on

environmental accounting practices in selected marble companies. For this purpose,
this chapter has extended to demographic profile of the respondents on the ground of
companies, categories, experience and their qualifications. The current chapter
discusses the view of respondents for environmental reporting by the various marble
companies selected for the study. they were being asked about practices of marble
company is regarding sustainability report, sustainable accounting reporting,
reporting of Sustainable items in their financial records, disclosure of total
expenditure on environmental factors social factors and economic factors, current
and past expenditure of Sustainable items and their disclosure requirements with the
Awareness of the stakeholders as per government laws and regulations and providing
the details for the purpose of making mandatory practices of environmental
accounting father the role of managers and company's official were analysed with
the help of statistical package for Social Sciences by using multiple regression and
ANOVA method. The result revealed two variables that are important for disclosing
environmental items for accounting reporting of environmental reporting. Further it
was found that the views of respondents of all the companies are also similar and
there is no difference in the views regarding environmental accounting and reporting
of marble companies

146