Limiting environmental reporting flexibility: investor judgment based on the EU taxonomy

IF 1.9 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Pub Date : 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1007/s11156-024-01297-x
Sandra Chrzan, Christiane Pott
{"title":"Limiting environmental reporting flexibility: investor judgment based on the EU taxonomy","authors":"Sandra Chrzan, Christiane Pott","doi":"10.1007/s11156-024-01297-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This experimental research investigates the effect of different types of environmental information on investor judgment. By examining three experimental cases varying the level of environmental disclosure, we evaluate the investment judgments of professional (Study 1) and private German investors (Study 2). Primarily, we investigate whether traditional, commonly disclosed environmental information affects investor judgments. Furthermore, we explore the effects of linking non-financial reporting elements to quantitative financial measures through the EU taxonomy by adding taxonomy indicators. Specifically, we operationalized the case where companies fall into a category of poor environmental performance by taxonomy classification. We find that only traditional environmental disclosure in combination with standardized taxonomy-aligned information (below average), influences the investment judgment. However, professional investors exhibit a significantly negative response, while private investors show a significantly positive reaction when constraining reporting flexibility through the inclusion of standardized taxonomy measures with poor performance. Consequently, we conclude that the connection between non-financial reporting elements and quantitative standardized financial measures enhances transparency for professional investors. Private investors, on the other hand, reward additional taxonomy-aligned environmental information irrespective of its content. This implies that environmental information generally conveys positive signals to private investors, but uncertainty in investment judgment can be assumed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47688,"journal":{"name":"Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting","volume":"133 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-024-01297-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This experimental research investigates the effect of different types of environmental information on investor judgment. By examining three experimental cases varying the level of environmental disclosure, we evaluate the investment judgments of professional (Study 1) and private German investors (Study 2). Primarily, we investigate whether traditional, commonly disclosed environmental information affects investor judgments. Furthermore, we explore the effects of linking non-financial reporting elements to quantitative financial measures through the EU taxonomy by adding taxonomy indicators. Specifically, we operationalized the case where companies fall into a category of poor environmental performance by taxonomy classification. We find that only traditional environmental disclosure in combination with standardized taxonomy-aligned information (below average), influences the investment judgment. However, professional investors exhibit a significantly negative response, while private investors show a significantly positive reaction when constraining reporting flexibility through the inclusion of standardized taxonomy measures with poor performance. Consequently, we conclude that the connection between non-financial reporting elements and quantitative standardized financial measures enhances transparency for professional investors. Private investors, on the other hand, reward additional taxonomy-aligned environmental information irrespective of its content. This implies that environmental information generally conveys positive signals to private investors, but uncertainty in investment judgment can be assumed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
限制环境报告的灵活性:基于欧盟分类标准的投资者判断
本实验研究调查了不同类型的环境信息对投资者判断的影响。通过研究三个不同环境信息披露程度的实验案例,我们对专业投资者(研究 1)和德国私人投资者(研究 2)的投资判断进行了评估。首先,我们研究了传统的、通常披露的环境信息是否会影响投资者的判断。此外,我们还通过添加分类指标,探讨了通过欧盟分类法将非财务报告要素与定量财务指标联系起来的效果。具体来说,我们通过分类标准将公司归入环境绩效较差的类别。我们发现,只有传统的环境信息披露与标准化的分类标准信息(低于平均水平)相结合,才会影响投资判断。然而,专业投资者的反应明显消极,而私人投资者在通过纳入标准化分类标准来限制报告灵活性时,表现出明显的积极反应。因此,我们得出结论,非财务报告要素与定量标准化财务衡量标准之间的联系提高了专业投资者的透明度。另一方面,私人投资者会奖励与分类标准一致的额外环境信息,而不管其内容如何。这意味着,环境信息一般会向私人投资者传递积极的信号,但可以假设投资判断存在不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
17.60%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting deals with research involving the interaction of finance with accounting, economics, and quantitative methods, focused on finance and accounting. The papers published present useful theoretical and methodological results with the support of interesting empirical applications. Purely theoretical and methodological research with the potential for important applications is also published. Besides the traditional high-quality theoretical and empirical research in finance, the journal also publishes papers dealing with interdisciplinary topics.
期刊最新文献
The endogeneity of profitability and investment Investment bank reputation and issuance fees: evidence from asset-backed securities CEO power and firm risk at the onset of the 2007 financial crisis and the COVID-19 health crisis: international evidence Top management team incentive dispersion and investment efficiency Non-standard monetary policy measures and bank systemic risk in the Eurozone
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1