Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether investor views regarding the benefits of corporate environmental responsibility moderate the influence of environmental performance and assurance information on their judgments. Specifically, the authors examine the effects of two broad views: environmental responsibility is more important than financial performance, regardless of investment returns (i.e. environmental responsibility importance) and positive environmental performance will increase investment returns (i.e. environmental performance return).

Nonprofessional investors completed an online study where environmental performance (high or low) and assurance on environmental performance information (present or absent) were varied. Participants’ corporate environmental responsibility views were assessed using a series of questions adapted from Cheah et al.’s (2011) study.

Environmental performance and assurance information had a greater influence on the investment judgments of investors with strong environmental responsibility views. In contrast, participants’ environmental performance return views did not moderate the influence of environmental performance and assurance information on their judgments. Supplemental analysis indicates that these contrasting results are due to the fact that the two investor views have differing influences on the relative importance that investors place on financial vs environmental performance information.

This study presented participants with summarized financial and environmental performance information to maintain scale compatibility between financial and environmental measures. However, the information was presented in a format similar to those used by online brokerages.

This study suggests that financial statement preparers should consider investors’ views regarding the importance and value of environmental performance information when making decisions to disclose and obtain assurance on this information.

Standard setters should consider individual differences among investors when developing guidance regarding the disclosure and assurance of environmental performance information.

There is limited prior research which examines how investors’ views of the importance of environmental performance information may influence investment judgments. This research indicates that the strength of investors’ environmental responsibility importance moderates the previously reported influence of environmental performance and assurance information on investment judgments.

This paper aims to examine the influence of sustainability assurance report format (separate versus combined with financial information assurance) and level (limited versus reasonable) on nonprofessional investors’ judgments.

This study uses a 2 × 2 between-participants experiment with 436 US nonprofessional investors. The authors manipulate sustainability assurance report format and level to identify differences in judgments of information credibility, investment desirability and investment amount.

This study finds that sustainability assurance level influences participants’ judgments only when the financial and sustainability assurance reports are presented separately. Specifically, participants assess sustainability performance information as more credible and make higher investment judgments when presented with a separate limited, as opposed to reasonable, assurance sustainability report.

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board expressed concerns regarding whether assurance reports accompanying emerging forms of extended external reporting (EER) effectively communicate the level of assurance provided by the independent practitioner. The result that assurance level does not influence investor judgments in the combined reporting format appears contrary to the idea that integrated reporting should provide connectivity between financial and sustainability information. The finding that investors make higher investment and credibility judgments with limited assurance is inconsistent with the intent of sustainability assurance professional guidance and recent research results. Together, the findings suggest that investors may not be able to distinguish between differing levels of sustainability assurance when this information is presented in a combined report format.

Standard setters should consider how sustainability assurance report format and assurance level impact nonprofessional investor judgments.

Research on the effects of EER assurance report format is sparse. The results indicate that even slight changes in assurance report wording may cause investors to perceive that a limited assurance report conveys a higher assurance level than a reasonable assurance report.

Despite the increasing demand for socially responsible investments (SRIs) and the importance of information intermediaries in providing corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance information through SRI screens, relatively little is known about the relationship between nonprofessional investors’ views regarding SRI, their use of SRI screens and their actual SRI behavior. This study aims to distinguish between investor views about the importance of corporate environmental responsibility (environmental performance importance views) and whether they view environmentally responsible firms as yielding higher returns (environmental performance return views). It examines the association between these views, SRI screen use and reported SRI holdings.

Nonprofessional investor participants completed an online survey about their SRI investment views, screen use and investment behavior. The survey yielded 201 usable responses.

The strength of participants’ environmental performance importance and environmental performance return views is positively associated with their use of SRI screens and the proportion of their portfolios held in SRIs. SRI screen use only partially mediates the association between investors’ environmental performance importance and return views and their SRI holdings.

The study does not precisely address what types of SRI screens nonprofessional investors may be using. It does not control for investors’ specific experience with SRIs, nor does it examine how or why investors come to believe that environmental responsibility may improve a company’s return potential.

The fact that SRI screen use only partially mediates the association between investors’ views and their SRI holdings suggests that either reliable, unfiltered CSR information is important for nonprofessional investors or some investors are choosing SRIs without obtaining adequate relevant information.

The study’s findings confirm earlier research findings which show an association between investors’ pro-environmental views and their decision to invest in SRIs (Williams, 2007; Nilsson, 2008) and suggest that nonprofessional investors are becoming aware of the positive relation between environmental performance and firm value (Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Clarkson et al., 2013; Hawn et al., 2014; Matsumura et al., 2014).

This study simultaneously examines the influence of environmental performance importance (an “alternative” investment perspective) and environmental performance return (a “traditional” investment perspective) on investors’ SRI behavior.

The aim of this paper is to identify the best marketing communications for policy messages that makes these messages acceptable and fair to the public. Within the context of the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax, this paper examines how framing messages through the alternative perspective of tribalism can increase individual support towards the corresponding policy.

The paper uses a mixed methods approach. Study 1 uses a qualitative content analysis process based on grounded theory to identify the themes that surround 331 public comments on a transportation policy. Study 2 follows with two 2x2 quantitative factorial experiments to test specific hypotheses.

If messages are framed to address the collective losses of the political tribe for collective good, then they generate more favorable attitudes towards the policy, as opposed to the self-interest perspective.

This paper focuses on two political tribes: the collective good and self-interest. Additional research needs to address the other socially symbolic political tribes to develop the empirical research on the theory of tribalism.

The marketing of public policy based on traditional segmentation is limiting. Policy messages can be more salient if they are framed for the political consumption of the socially symbolic tribe.

A key contribution is that the paper is the first to use a mixed methods approach, with two studies that examine the effects of framing policy from a tribalism perspective.

Data visualizations in some form or another have served as decision-support tools for many centuries. In conjunction with advancements in information technology, data visualizations have become more accessible and more efficient to generate. In fact, virtually all enterprise resource planning and human resource (HR) information system vendors offer off-the-shelf data visualizations as part of decision-support dashboards as well as stand-alone images and displays for reporting. Plus, advances in programing languages and software such as Tableau, Microsoft Power BI, R, and Python have expanded the possibilities of fully customized graphics. Despite the proliferation of data visualization, relatively little is known about how to design data visualizations for displaying different types of HR data to different user groups, for different purposes, and with the overarching goal of improving the ways in which users comprehend and interpret data visualizations for decision-making purposes. To understand the state of science and practice as they relate to HR data visualizations and data visualizations in general, we review the literature on data visualizations across disciplines and offer an organizing framework that emphasizes the roles data visualization characteristics (e.g., display type, features), user characteristics (e.g., experience, individual differences), tasks, and objectives (e.g., compare values) play in user comprehension, interpretation, and decision-making. Finally, we close by proposing future directions for science and practice.