Abstract

۱- Introduction

۲- Literature review and hypothesis development

۳- Research design

۴- Findings

۵- Sensitivity analyses

۶- Discussion and concluding remarks

References

Abstract

This study attempts to broaden our understanding of the value relevance of environmental performance by providing empirical evidence on the moderating role of financial environmental reporting. Previous studies find that firms’ environmental performance can be both positively and negatively associated with market value. Such contradictory findings can be attributed to the fact that environmental performance is associated with future economic benefits and costs. This study suggests that firms with recognized environmental provisions on their balance sheets enable investors to disentangle these opposite effects either by signaling strong future financial performance or by enhancing the reliability of environmental performance information. Regardless of the mechanism by which this moderation effect is invoked, it is hypothesized that capital market participants place a positive and significantly higher value on the environmental performance ratings of firms with recognized environmental provisions than on the ratings of firms without environmental provisions. Utilizing a sample of 692 firm-year observations of French listed firms and employing a linear price-level model that associates the market value of a firm’s equity with its environmental performance, I provide empirical evidence to corroborate this thesis. In addition to contributing to the academic debate on the market valuation implications of environmental performance, this study intends to provide useful insights from a country that can be considered a pioneer of environmental reporting legislation; hence, it provides valuable lessons for other jurisdictions that are in the process of developing their sustainability reporting regulations. Finally, the findings of this study support the calls for more integrated reporting showing that the interaction of financial and non-financial information has market valuation implications.

Introduction 

Although a substantial number of studies have examined the relation between listed firms’ market value and environmental performance, the results to date are inconclusive. Studies such as Johnston, Sefcik, and Soderstrom (2008), Kaspereit and Lopatta (2016) and Middleton (2015) find a positive association between market value and environmental performance, whereas Moneva and Cuellar (2009), Hassel, Nilsson, and Nyquist (2005) and Johnston (2005) find a negative one. The mixed results of previous studies can be attributed to the fact that superior environmental performance is associated with both economic benefits (Albertini, 2014; Koh, Qian, & Wang, 2014) and costs (Hassel et al., 2005; Jensen, 2001; Kitzmueller & Shimshack, 2012), and consequently, investors may face difficulties in disentangling these opposite effects of environmental performance. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Alex Edmans argues that “…investors have a particularly hard time valuing it [A/N: firms’ corporate social responsibility performance]. How do you measure the value of a company’s environmental stewardship? As a result, traditional investors mostly ignore companies’ social responsibility. They only catch on when its effects show up on the bottom line, for everyone to see” (Edmans & Vogel, 2016). The above observation not only confirms the contradictory empirical evidence of previous studies but also emphasizes the usefulness of quantifying firms’ environmental performance for valuation purposes in pecuniary terms.