Popular in Professional

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Pharmacy

Cytotoxic Activity and Anti-Migratory Effect of Berberine-Phytantriol Liquid Crystalline on Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of Technology Sydney Kamal Dua

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Education

The Financially Material Effects of Mandatory Non-Financial Disclosure

View more insights in Professional - Finance

View more figures from Oregon State University

View the page of Brian Gibbons

Read the Study

Institutional investors argue that principles-based disclosure regimes lack adequate non-financial E&S information. Brian Gibbons finds that disclosing E&S info attracts long-term investors and impacts firms’ decisions.

Image courtesy of interviewee. December 14, 2023

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses a study on Environmental and Social (ENS) disclosure, which refers to non-financial reporting by companies to external stakeholders about issues such as climate change impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and workforce composition. While the U.S. currently lacks mandatory non-financial disclosure requirements, many countries have enacted such regulations, prompting debate on their necessity and effectiveness in providing critical information to investors.

The primary argument is that ENS disclosures can be financially material. The study notes that while companies in the U.S. are only mandated to disclose information that could impact short-term financial performance, there is a significant call for more comprehensive disclosures to help investors make informed long-term decisions.

The research uses data from countries with mandatory ENS disclosure to analyze its effects on institutional investment and firm behaviors. Key findings include:
1. **Increased Institutional Ownership**: Following the introduction of disclosure regulations, institutional ownership in firms rises by about 1%. This video video suggests that institutional investors do indeed prioritize companies with better transparency regarding ENS matters.
2. **Shifts in Firm Investment Policies**: Firms also adjust their investment strategies, with a notable 5% increase in research and development expenditures on innovative projects post-disclosure. This video video indicates a pivot toward longer-term investment without decreasing overall spending.
3. **Increased Equity Issuance**: There is a 15% increase in equity issuance among firms mandated to disclose, suggesting that better disclosure reduces adverse selection problems in financing.

Overall, the study concludes that ENS disclosures are financially material, address information asymmetry in markets, and help attract a specific type of environmentally and socially conscious investor. It argues for the importance of standardized disclosure regulations to mitigate these issues and enhance market efficiency. The insights highlight the transformative potential of non-financial disclosures for both investors and companies.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.185 --> 00:02.405
So the study first, let's perhaps define,

00:02.665 --> 00:03.805
ENS disclosure.

00:04.385 --> 00:07.445
So, ENS disclosures cover companies reporting to

00:07.445 --> 00:09.845
outside stakeholders, on a number of topics.

00:10.425 --> 00:13.405
So these can include how climate change can affect sort

00:13.405 --> 00:15.925
of assets in place, perhaps the reporting

00:15.925 --> 00:18.805
of greenhouse gas emission outputs or, or targets

00:19.265 --> 00:20.645
or reporting on workforce

00:20.675 --> 00:22.205
composition, these types of things.

00:22.705 --> 00:25.045
Um, so in, in the study, I refer to this, this type

00:25.045 --> 00:27.725
of disclosure as, non-financial disclosure

00:27.725 --> 00:29.445
because it's not the type of information

00:29.445 --> 00:32.325
that you usually find in standard accounting statements.

00:32.705 --> 00:34.565
So sort of the backdrop, the context is

00:34.565 --> 00:36.885
that over the past few years, there's been a big

00:37.435 --> 00:40.805
ongoing debate, both in the US and worldwide,

00:40.825 --> 00:44.045
but especially among policymakers here in the US at the SEC,

00:44.545 --> 00:45.765
on whether the current set

00:45.765 --> 00:47.725
of financial disclosure requirements,

00:47.725 --> 00:50.685
in the US provides adequate disclosure on companies

00:50.685 --> 00:52.125
environmental and social policies.

00:52.865 --> 00:56.285
So although we don't have mandatory non-financial disclosure

00:56.285 --> 00:58.525
here in the us, dozens of

00:58.585 --> 01:01.005
of countries do in some shape or form.

01:01.185 --> 01:04.085
So, for example, since 2010,

01:04.085 --> 01:06.485
listed companies in South Africa have been required

01:06.545 --> 01:09.725
to create an annual report detailing non-financial

01:09.725 --> 01:13.205
information on greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption,

01:13.895 --> 01:14.965
labor practices,

01:15.105 --> 01:16.925
and how all this information relates

01:17.025 --> 01:19.525
to financial information that they're reporting.

01:20.065 --> 01:23.445
So, so currently here in the US we rely on this financial

01:23.685 --> 01:26.645
materiality standard that says if there's something

01:26.645 --> 01:30.165
that a air quotes reasonable investor would consider

01:30.165 --> 01:31.925
important in their investment decision making,

01:32.435 --> 01:34.685
then a company should disclose it.

01:35.685 --> 01:38.825
And most of the time, this is just taken to mean anything

01:38.825 --> 01:40.665
that might affect the company's near term

01:40.975 --> 01:42.105
financial performance.

01:42.925 --> 01:44.105
So one school

01:44.105 --> 01:47.625
of thought in this debate on making non-financial disclosure

01:48.145 --> 01:50.465
mandatory says, Hey, if it matters to investors,

01:51.095 --> 01:54.345
then this material materiality standard requires

01:54.345 --> 01:56.865
that companies should already be disclosing it.

01:57.005 --> 01:58.385
So nothing really needs to change.

01:58.415 --> 01:59.905
Like we don't need to burden companies

01:59.905 --> 02:03.225
with any more disclosure mandates to expand access

02:03.225 --> 02:04.465
to this type of information.

02:05.205 --> 02:06.665
And you can understand this concern

02:06.665 --> 02:09.185
because disclosure costs are real, and,

02:09.285 --> 02:10.865
and they can be large, especially for,

02:11.165 --> 02:12.185
for smaller companies.

02:13.005 --> 02:15.505
But then on the flip flip side,

02:15.555 --> 02:17.465
major institutional investors are, are,

02:17.535 --> 02:18.865
have been raising the red flag.

02:19.255 --> 02:21.985
They're arguing what companies are disclosing out there in

02:21.985 --> 02:23.345
terms of this environmental

02:23.345 --> 02:25.945
and social information lacks consistency.

02:26.375 --> 02:27.545
It's not comparable,

02:28.045 --> 02:30.425
and maybe most importantly, it's not really enforceable.

02:31.005 --> 02:33.145
And so they don't have the information needed

02:33.165 --> 02:34.345
to really assess risks

02:34.445 --> 02:37.265
and make smart decisions for the long run.

02:37.765 --> 02:39.745
And, and some policy makers are sympathetic

02:39.745 --> 02:41.105
to these, to these complaints.

02:41.605 --> 02:44.465
So the crux of this debate hangs on the issue of whether

02:45.025 --> 02:47.385
ENS disclosures are financially material.

02:48.505 --> 02:52.045
And the key here is that even though this info doesn't need

02:52.045 --> 02:53.325
to necessarily meet the standard

02:53.385 --> 02:55.645
of directly impacting financial earnings

02:55.645 --> 02:58.445
of a company in the short term, it could still sway

02:58.765 --> 03:01.445
Investor behavior, especially those investing

03:01.445 --> 03:03.525
with environmental and social goals in mind.

03:04.225 --> 03:07.405
So if that's the case, what I argue in the paper is

03:07.405 --> 03:09.245
that such an outcomes should be considered

03:09.245 --> 03:11.685
to be financially material as well when they get

03:11.685 --> 03:13.245
that information, if their,

03:13.245 --> 03:14.485
if their decisions are being changed.

03:14.985 --> 03:18.605
So my research tackles this question of, of materiality,

03:18.635 --> 03:20.565
both for investors and for companies.

03:21.105 --> 03:23.085
And as I mentioned before, around 30

03:23.145 --> 03:25.925
or so countries have mandatory non-financial

03:25.925 --> 03:26.965
disclosure in some form.

03:27.545 --> 03:29.045
So I use the implementation

03:29.045 --> 03:31.005
of those disclosure rules over time

03:31.625 --> 03:33.285
as a quasi natural experiment

03:33.285 --> 03:35.925
and look at what happened to both institutional investment

03:36.585 --> 03:37.805
and firm decision making

03:37.905 --> 03:40.845
as these rules were rolled out over the past 20 years or so.

03:41.385 --> 03:42.965
So there's this classic problem in finance

03:42.965 --> 03:44.245
called adverse selection.

03:44.545 --> 03:47.045
Uh, probably most listeners are aware of it.

03:47.395 --> 03:49.725
It's like walking into a market not knowing if the milk

03:49.725 --> 03:51.045
you're buying is fresh or spoiled.

03:51.125 --> 03:52.325
'cause you don't have the info about

03:52.325 --> 03:54.165
how long is it's been sort of sitting there on the shelf.

03:54.825 --> 03:56.085
So if that's the case, you might just

03:56.085 --> 03:57.125
skip the milk altogether.

03:57.465 --> 04:00.445
So this uncertainty causes investors in financial markets

04:00.545 --> 04:02.165
to also pull back from companies

04:02.665 --> 04:04.445
and then leads to higher cost of capital,

04:04.445 --> 04:07.125
higher borrowing costs, higher costs of,

04:07.125 --> 04:10.245
of issuing equity for companies, which then in turn leads

04:10.245 --> 04:11.725
to missed investment opportunities.

04:12.505 --> 04:15.725
So reia back in 2001 talked about

04:15.725 --> 04:17.885
how disclosure can help alleviate,

04:18.035 --> 04:19.365
this adverse selection problem.

04:20.145 --> 04:21.965
So in this setting, we're taking

04:21.965 --> 04:23.885
what we already know about financial disclosure

04:24.225 --> 04:26.005
and applying it to non-financial disclosure.

04:26.385 --> 04:28.645
So we already know that if financial disclosure quality

04:28.645 --> 04:31.725
improves adverse selection problems are eliminated or,

04:31.925 --> 04:35.005
or at least mitigated, and firms will then material change

04:35.005 --> 04:37.885
their financing and investment choices as a consequence.

04:39.005 --> 04:40.545
So if environmental

04:40.565 --> 04:42.505
and social disclosures matter to investors

04:43.245 --> 04:45.225
and help them make better projections

04:45.225 --> 04:48.665
of a company's cash flows or understand long-term risks,

04:48.805 --> 04:51.185
or even keep a closer eye on how managers are,

04:51.185 --> 04:54.345
are managing the firm, then more transparency could actually

04:54.345 --> 04:56.825
lower the cost of capital for firms,

04:56.925 --> 04:58.865
by reducing these adverse selection issues.

04:59.165 --> 05:01.785
So it's, it's all about making investments less

05:01.785 --> 05:03.145
of a gamble for outside investors.

05:04.415 --> 05:05.425
Christensen and,

05:05.425 --> 05:07.985
and others brought up a another angle a few years ago,

05:08.375 --> 05:11.305
they said, Hey, what if the act of disclosing this type

05:11.305 --> 05:14.505
of information itself pulls in a certain type of investor,

05:15.245 --> 05:17.545
firms that are open about their environmental

05:17.565 --> 05:19.545
and social policies might attract investors

05:20.045 --> 05:21.265
who care about the same issues.

05:21.775 --> 05:24.065
Okay, so Fama and French also talked about this back in

05:24.065 --> 05:27.505
2007, calling this idea sort of a clientele effect.

05:27.655 --> 05:28.945
It's like changing the crowd

05:28.945 --> 05:30.505
that's in interested in your company.

05:31.205 --> 05:33.425
And this isn't really small potatoes we're talking about

05:33.425 --> 05:35.305
here for investors with these types of preferences.

05:35.965 --> 05:39.665
Um, for example, iShares has a very large, the name

05:39.665 --> 05:42.425
of its ESG Aware ETF, that invest in US companies,

05:43.045 --> 05:45.745
and they don't even invest in any firms

05:45.905 --> 05:47.545
that don't disclose carbon emissions.

05:47.735 --> 05:49.185
Okay? So there's big pools of capital

05:49.185 --> 05:51.625
that you're missing if you're, if you're not disclosing.

05:52.085 --> 05:54.865
So the impact of ENS disclosure isn't just about reducing

05:54.915 --> 05:58.005
these information asymmetry or adverse selection problems.

05:58.545 --> 06:01.605
It could also be about attracting a whole new investor base

06:01.605 --> 06:03.045
that cares about these type of things.

06:03.795 --> 06:06.325
Okay? So these, these classic adverse selection problems

06:06.455 --> 06:09.685
apply to non-financial information has led to some,

06:10.035 --> 06:11.885
some really, I think, fascinating research

06:11.905 --> 06:13.125
on ESG disclosures.

06:13.825 --> 06:16.085
Um, so that's sort of the classical background.

06:16.425 --> 06:19.645
Now we're applying it to, non-financial information,

06:19.645 --> 06:20.845
these ESG disclosures.

06:21.305 --> 06:22.845
So researchers have been looking at

06:22.945 --> 06:24.805
how voluntary ENS disclosure

06:24.825 --> 06:27.685
and policies, can affect investors

06:27.745 --> 06:29.805
and firms for, for really over a decade now.

06:29.905 --> 06:32.925
So researchers like L Goul and co-authors and

06:32.985 --> 06:35.565
and Chava, in 2011

06:35.625 --> 06:40.285
and 2014 observed that better EENS policies are associated

06:40.285 --> 06:41.485
with a lower cost of equity.

06:41.985 --> 06:44.885
Um, so what they and others have shown is sort of a big deal

06:44.885 --> 06:47.245
because it suggests, though it doesn't prove

06:47.755 --> 06:50.285
that transparency in these matters can make a firm more

06:50.285 --> 06:52.405
attractive to outside investors.

06:53.745 --> 06:54.835
Then there's also evidence

06:54.835 --> 06:58.595
that disclosing ENS information does attract investors

06:58.735 --> 07:00.595
who have specific ENS preferences.

07:01.295 --> 07:03.275
So studies by researchers like,

07:03.555 --> 07:05.555
seraphim in 2015 highlighted

07:05.555 --> 07:08.195
that better voluntary disclosure policies do in fact

07:08.225 --> 07:09.835
attract ENS investors.

07:10.665 --> 07:13.035
However, when disclosures are voluntary,

07:13.035 --> 07:15.795
when firms are just making them on their own,

07:15.805 --> 07:17.955
there can be sort of problems with causality.

07:18.615 --> 07:21.715
So when firms are choosing to disclose voluntarily,

07:22.025 --> 07:25.355
it's only the firms that expect the benefits of transparency

07:26.215 --> 07:28.675
to exceed the costs that are gonna choose to disclose,

07:28.675 --> 07:31.435
or maybe firms that are doing good in the first

07:31.435 --> 07:32.555
place, right?

07:32.775 --> 07:36.595
Or perhaps these firms already have, shareholders,

07:36.615 --> 07:39.115
environmentally minded shareholders that push them

07:39.115 --> 07:42.395
to disclose, and in fact, the relationship works in,

07:42.395 --> 07:45.035
in reverse, whereas shareholders pushing for disclosure,

07:45.095 --> 07:46.915
not disclosures, attracting shareholders.

07:47.975 --> 07:49.035
So it's problematic

07:49.035 --> 07:52.115
to draw strong conclusions when disclosure's voluntary,

07:52.255 --> 07:54.115
and that's part of the advantage of using

07:55.075 --> 07:56.355
mandatory disclosure regulations

07:56.375 --> 07:58.195
as a setting like I do in this paper.

07:58.505 --> 08:00.955
Another recent work that actually focuses on the effects

08:01.055 --> 08:03.035
of mandatory disclosure regulations.

08:03.295 --> 08:05.035
Uh, but most of these studies have focused on

08:05.055 --> 08:08.035
how the disclosure mandate improves the quality

08:08.035 --> 08:09.195
of the disclosure itself.

08:09.335 --> 08:10.675
So it does forcing companies

08:10.695 --> 08:12.355
to disclose on environmental stuff,

08:12.715 --> 08:14.675
actually make them disclose on environmental stuff.

08:15.095 --> 08:17.315
Um, INU and Seraphim did this in 2017.

08:17.705 --> 08:20.275
There's also, a strain of the literature that shows

08:20.415 --> 08:23.435
how these disclosures create positive environmental

08:23.455 --> 08:25.435
and social outcomes like reduced pollution,

08:26.065 --> 08:27.475
improve workplace safety,

08:28.095 --> 08:30.275
or decreased investment in corrupt countries.

08:30.455 --> 08:32.435
So my work's really building on this foundation

08:32.455 --> 08:36.195
of adverse selection, disclosure, quality material effects,

08:36.855 --> 08:39.315
and explores how these dynamics play out in the real world

08:39.315 --> 08:41.755
across lots of different disclosure regulations when

08:41.755 --> 08:43.555
disclosure is in fact mandatory.

08:43.815 --> 08:46.435
But in this paper, I lean on the carrots

08:46.435 --> 08:48.435
and sticks database for information about

08:48.625 --> 08:50.275
non-financial reporting standards.

08:50.865 --> 08:51.955
It's a pretty cool resource.

08:52.135 --> 08:54.435
It is originally put together from a joint project

08:54.435 --> 08:57.885
between KPMG, the Global Reporting Initiative,

08:57.905 --> 09:01.245
or GRI, the United Nations Environmental Program

09:01.505 --> 09:03.485
and the Center for Corporate Governance in Africa.

09:03.985 --> 09:07.325
And what it does is it compiles ENS disclosure policies

09:07.325 --> 09:09.725
and regulations from over 130 countries

09:09.725 --> 09:10.925
in 40 different languages.

09:11.385 --> 09:14.085
So you can think about it as an ever, ever-evolving snapshot

09:14.085 --> 09:15.085
of how different countries

09:15.425 --> 09:17.405
and institutions are approaching ENS

09:17.405 --> 09:18.725
reporting around the globe.

09:18.785 --> 09:21.125
So this is really an excellent resource for researchers.

09:21.205 --> 09:23.765
I mean, especially I I don't speak 40 languages,

09:23.825 --> 09:24.845
to read through all these rules.

09:24.945 --> 09:26.365
So it's super great that they have

09:26.365 --> 09:27.565
that, compiled for us.

09:28.105 --> 09:30.965
So from that data set, I narrow in on mandatory

09:31.685 --> 09:33.845
national disclosure regulations that apply broadly

09:34.025 --> 09:35.445
to publicly traded companies

09:35.865 --> 09:37.845
and observe how different outcomes evolve

09:37.895 --> 09:39.045
after they're implemented.

09:39.705 --> 09:41.765
Um, there are a few, there are a few caveats

09:41.765 --> 09:43.445
with using this broad dataset,

09:43.665 --> 09:45.125
and the biggest challenge is really

09:45.125 --> 09:47.125
that the dataset doesn't capture every nuance

09:47.125 --> 09:49.685
of the regulations or the subtle ways

09:49.685 --> 09:52.245
that companies interpret, these rules.

09:52.785 --> 09:54.525
So each country has its own approach

09:54.545 --> 09:56.445
to rolling out ENS disclosure rules,

09:56.555 --> 09:58.685
including what's covered,

09:58.785 --> 10:00.005
and enforcement of those rules.

10:00.105 --> 10:02.285
So some countries might be really detailed in their

10:02.285 --> 10:04.965
reporting requirements and strict in their enforcement,

10:04.965 --> 10:06.485
while others may not be all right.

10:06.485 --> 10:09.525
So this data gives some idea of, of what the rule is,

10:09.585 --> 10:11.765
but doesn't go into very deep detail.

10:12.025 --> 10:14.965
So effectively, researchers, including myself,

10:14.975 --> 10:16.045
treat the rules mostly

10:16.105 --> 10:18.805
as interchangeable when in reality they can look quite

10:18.805 --> 10:19.845
different from place to place.

10:20.665 --> 10:21.725
Um, all across the world.

10:21.725 --> 10:23.765
However, countries are, are working on new sets

10:23.785 --> 10:27.565
of more detailed standardized ENS reporting requirements,

10:27.945 --> 10:30.525
that align with disclosure recommendations by

10:31.335 --> 10:34.295
institutions like the task force on climate

10:34.295 --> 10:35.655
related financial disclosure.

10:36.355 --> 10:40.455
Um, so for example, companies in 27 EU member states will

10:40.455 --> 10:43.935
have to be compliant with this TFCD standards due

10:43.935 --> 10:47.015
to the eus new corporate sustainability reporting directive

10:47.015 --> 10:48.855
that was adopted early in 2023.

10:49.275 --> 10:51.775
And then the uk, China, the US, are also trying

10:51.775 --> 10:53.695
to closely align their disclosure frameworks

10:53.695 --> 10:55.135
to the TFCD standards.

10:55.675 --> 10:57.615
So I suspect in the next round of research

10:57.615 --> 11:00.335
that investigates the impact of this new new set

11:00.335 --> 11:02.975
of disclosure standards, they'll have much more comparable

11:03.115 --> 11:04.815
and consistent rules to examine.

11:05.435 --> 11:07.935
So my research, starts by examining

11:07.955 --> 11:10.975
how ENS disclosure affects institutional ownership.

11:11.625 --> 11:13.975
Since these are the groups most strongly pushing

11:14.075 --> 11:16.615
for increased ENS disclosure requirements, I wanted

11:16.615 --> 11:17.775
to see first whether or not

11:18.495 --> 11:20.855
mandated changes change their investing decisions.

11:21.485 --> 11:23.655
Okay, so, so, I find that

11:23.655 --> 11:25.535
after a new disclosure, rule,

11:25.535 --> 11:28.815
an ENS disclosure rule kicks in institutional ownership

11:29.095 --> 11:32.255
increases by around 1% relative to similar firms that are,

11:32.255 --> 11:33.535
that are not forced to disclose.

11:34.195 --> 11:36.375
And this is a big deal because it's the first time we've

11:36.375 --> 11:38.935
seen causal evidence that institutional investors actually

11:39.255 --> 11:41.055
increase investments in firms with better

11:41.735 --> 11:42.935
ENS disclosure quality.

11:43.835 --> 11:46.255
Um, this is the result across all institutional investors,

11:46.355 --> 11:47.815
by the way, not just investors

11:47.885 --> 11:49.735
with specific ENS preferences.

11:49.835 --> 11:51.535
So I'll touch on those results in a second,

11:51.995 --> 11:54.485
but this result demonstrates that, these types

11:54.485 --> 11:55.965
of investors, institutional investors,

11:55.985 --> 11:58.725
aren't just engaging in cheap talk by asking

11:58.785 --> 12:00.365
for stricter disclosure requirements,

12:00.665 --> 12:01.845
but not really acting on them.

12:02.075 --> 12:03.725
They actually do care about the information

12:03.745 --> 12:05.765
and it materially affects their decision making.

12:06.785 --> 12:07.885
So next I look at

12:07.905 --> 12:11.085
how ENS disclosure impacts firm investment policies.

12:11.585 --> 12:14.845
So here it's hypothetically, sort of a bit of a toss up

12:14.845 --> 12:16.565
or a tug of war on one side.

12:16.585 --> 12:19.685
Better disclosure can lower the cost of external financing,

12:19.835 --> 12:20.965
like I talked about before,

12:21.235 --> 12:24.005
with this adverse selection problem, enabling the firms

12:24.105 --> 12:27.705
to take on more profitable, pro profitable projects,

12:27.705 --> 12:29.665
if they're getting more outside investment for cheaper.

12:30.605 --> 12:33.145
On the flip side, there's the cost of complying

12:33.145 --> 12:36.945
with these disclosures, which may limit the cash firms

12:37.265 --> 12:39.065
actually have on hand to invest in new projects.

12:39.085 --> 12:41.385
So it's not initially clear,

12:41.405 --> 12:43.465
how firms will respond in terms of their investments

12:43.465 --> 12:45.265
after being mandated to disclose.

12:46.525 --> 12:47.825
In, interestingly, I find

12:47.825 --> 12:49.865
that firms ramp up their investments in

12:49.865 --> 12:51.105
innovation post disclosure.

12:51.285 --> 12:52.345
So we're talking about

12:52.345 --> 12:54.865
around a 5% increase in RD expenditures,

12:54.865 --> 12:56.545
which is a pretty significant jump.

12:57.285 --> 12:59.225
Um, overall investment doesn't change.

12:59.225 --> 13:02.225
However, firms are just shifting the mix of their projects,

13:02.285 --> 13:04.985
to more long-term innovative projects without actually

13:04.985 --> 13:08.025
cutting down on total investment spending or increasing.

13:08.765 --> 13:11.785
Um, there's been some work recently, some sort

13:11.785 --> 13:15.825
of follow-up work, by valier and co-authors and Bratton

13:15.825 --> 13:17.545
and co-authors that follow up on these results

13:17.545 --> 13:19.865
and dig even deeper into what types of r

13:19.865 --> 13:21.825
and d companies that are mandated

13:21.825 --> 13:23.105
to disclose actually are undertaking.

13:23.565 --> 13:26.265
And they're showing that a lot of the RD

13:26.265 --> 13:27.585
this effect can be explained

13:27.605 --> 13:29.385
by increases in green innovation.

13:30.085 --> 13:31.665
And I think that's an important finding.

13:31.935 --> 13:34.185
It's sort of in line with both my result here

13:34.605 --> 13:36.545
and probably what you'd expect from companies

13:36.545 --> 13:39.345
who are perhaps lagging behind on green innovation.

13:39.365 --> 13:41.225
The, the disclosure sort of out stem.

13:41.455 --> 13:46.015
Okay, and they have to catch up next, I look at,

13:46.015 --> 13:47.255
firm's financing decisions.

13:47.755 --> 13:49.695
So after disclosing environmental

13:49.715 --> 13:53.015
and social info, I find that firms are issuing more equity,

13:53.515 --> 13:56.775
about 15% more, than average to be,

13:56.795 --> 13:57.815
to be a little bit more precise.

13:58.275 --> 14:01.695
So combined with this previous result showing an average

14:02.135 --> 14:04.935
increase in overall institution institutional investment,

14:05.685 --> 14:07.855
this increased equity issuance suggests

14:07.855 --> 14:11.615
that these disclosures may reduce this general adverse

14:11.855 --> 14:13.535
selection problem that that might be going on.

14:14.635 --> 14:17.215
But when I dive deeper to investigate the mechanism

14:17.215 --> 14:20.175
behind these results, I find that classic measures

14:20.175 --> 14:22.655
of adverse selection, like bid as spreads,

14:22.955 --> 14:24.575
are actually unaffected on average.

14:25.275 --> 14:27.895
Um, instead it seems to be that the change

14:27.955 --> 14:31.255
of the investor base towards investors with environmental

14:31.275 --> 14:34.335
and social preferences, who also by the way, tend

14:34.335 --> 14:36.535
to be longer, longer term oriented investors,

14:36.565 --> 14:39.095
they're not trading in and out of stocks.

14:39.095 --> 14:42.935
They're buying and holding this change in the investor base

14:43.065 --> 14:45.015
leads firms to change their own behavior.

14:45.555 --> 14:48.455
So firms with the largest jumps in these types of investors

14:48.995 --> 14:53.085
pre to post disclosure then also see the largest jumps in

14:53.085 --> 14:55.085
long-term r and d and new share issuance.

14:56.145 --> 14:58.045
So, so we have this sort of trio

14:58.345 --> 15:01.565
of financially material effects in response to disclosure,

15:01.905 --> 15:04.085
one, external investors' preferences and,

15:04.085 --> 15:05.245
and their decision making change.

15:05.865 --> 15:07.765
Two companies are shifting their,

15:07.775 --> 15:09.725
their internal investments,

15:09.805 --> 15:12.005
towards more long-term projects and r and d

15:12.745 --> 15:15.845
and three companies are raising more equity from

15:16.045 --> 15:17.085
external, investors.

15:17.865 --> 15:20.645
So all three of these effects are occurring primarily due

15:20.645 --> 15:24.365
to these shifts in institutional clientele towards ownership

15:24.635 --> 15:27.125
from investors with EENS preferences

15:27.225 --> 15:29.045
and longer term investment horizons.

15:30.025 --> 15:32.285
So I think the takeaway from this is pretty straightforward.

15:32.965 --> 15:35.085
ENS information is financially material.

15:35.465 --> 15:38.525
So despite arguments to the contrary, a lack

15:38.525 --> 15:41.645
of ENS disclosure creates information based frictions.

15:42.265 --> 15:44.205
And the evidence from the impact

15:44.205 --> 15:46.285
of all these disclosure regulations

15:46.345 --> 15:49.005
and rules from around the world supports the view that

15:49.515 --> 15:52.605
more rules based disclosure standards, more prescriptive,

15:53.065 --> 15:55.365
standards, can meaningfully reduce these,

15:55.415 --> 15:57.925
these ENS related information frictions,

15:58.135 --> 16:00.405
which then has material effects on both investors

16:00.745 --> 16:01.485
and companies.

00:00 - So the study first, let's perhaps define, ENS disclosure. So, ENS disclosures cover companies reporting to outside stakeholders, on a number of topics. So these can include how climate change can affect sort of assets in place, perhaps the reporting

00:15 - of greenhouse gas emission outputs or, or targets or reporting on workforce composition, these types of things. so in, in the study, I refer to this, this type of disclosure as, non-financial disclosure because it's not the type of information that you usually find in standard accounting statements. So sort of the backdrop, the context is that over the past few years, there's been a big ongoing debate, both in the US and worldwide,

00:40 - but especially among policymakers here in the US at the SEC, on whether the current set of financial disclosure requirements, in the US provides adequate disclosure on companies environmental and social policies. So although we don't have mandatory non-financial disclosure here in the us, dozens of of countries do in some shape or form. So, for example, since 2010, listed companies in South Africa have been required

01:06 - to create an annual report detailing non-financial information on greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, labor practices, and how all this information relates to financial information that they're reporting. So, so currently here in the US we rely on this financial materiality standard that says if there's something that a air quotes reasonable investor would consider important in their investment decision making, then a company should disclose it.

01:35 - And most of the time, this is just taken to mean anything that might affect the company's near term financial performance. So one school of thought in this debate on making non-financial disclosure mandatory says, Hey, if it matters to investors, then this material materiality standard requires that companies should already be disclosing it. So nothing really needs to change. Like we don't need to burden companies

01:59 - with any more disclosure mandates to expand access to this type of information. And you can understand this concern because disclosure costs are real, and, and they can be large, especially for, for smaller companies. But then on the flip flip side, major institutional investors are, are, have been raising the red flag. They're arguing what companies are disclosing out there in

02:21 - terms of this environmental and social information lacks consistency. It's not comparable, and maybe most importantly, it's not really enforceable. And so they don't have the information needed to really assess risks and make smart decisions for the long run. And, and some policy makers are sympathetic to these, to these complaints. So the crux of this debate hangs on the issue of whether

02:45 - ENS disclosures are financially material. And the key here is that even though this info doesn't need to necessarily meet the standard of directly impacting financial earnings of a company in the short term, it could still sway Investor behavior, especially those investing with environmental and social goals in mind. So if that's the case, what I argue in the paper is that such an outcomes should be considered to be financially material as well when they get

03:11 - that information, if their, if their decisions are being changed. So my research tackles this question of, of materiality, both for investors and for companies. And as I mentioned before, around 30 or so countries have mandatory non-financial disclosure in some form. So I use the implementation of those disclosure rules over time as a quasi natural experiment

03:33 - and look at what happened to both institutional investment and firm decision making as these rules were rolled out over the past 20 years or so. So there's this classic problem in finance called adverse selection. probably most listeners are aware of it. It's like walking into a market not knowing if the milk you're buying is fresh or spoiled. 'cause you don't have the info about how long is it's been sort of sitting there on the shelf.

03:54 - So if that's the case, you might just skip the milk altogether. So this uncertainty causes investors in financial markets to also pull back from companies and then leads to higher cost of capital, higher borrowing costs, higher costs of, of issuing equity for companies, which then in turn leads to missed investment opportunities. So reia back in 2001 talked about how disclosure can help alleviate,

04:18 - this adverse selection problem. So in this setting, we're taking what we already know about financial disclosure and applying it to non-financial disclosure. So we already know that if financial disclosure quality improves adverse selection problems are eliminated or, or at least mitigated, and firms will then material change their financing and investment choices as a consequence. So if environmental and social disclosures matter to investors

04:43 - and help them make better projections of a company's cash flows or understand long-term risks, or even keep a closer eye on how managers are, are managing the firm, then more transparency could actually lower the cost of capital for firms, by reducing these adverse selection issues. So it's, it's all about making investments less of a gamble for outside investors. Christensen and, and others brought up a another angle a few years ago,

05:08 - they said, Hey, what if the act of disclosing this type of information itself pulls in a certain type of investor, firms that are open about their environmental and social policies might attract investors who care about the same issues. Okay, so Fama and French also talked about this back in 2007, calling this idea sort of a clientele effect. It's like changing the crowd that's in interested in your company. And this isn't really small potatoes we're talking about

05:33 - here for investors with these types of preferences. for example, iShares has a very large, the name of its ESG Aware ETF, that invest in US companies, and they don't even invest in any firms that don't disclose carbon emissions. Okay? So there's big pools of capital that you're missing if you're, if you're not disclosing. So the impact of ENS disclosure isn't just about reducing these information asymmetry or adverse selection problems. It could also be about attracting a whole new investor base

06:01 - that cares about these type of things. Okay? So these, these classic adverse selection problems apply to non-financial information has led to some, some really, I think, fascinating research on ESG disclosures. so that's sort of the classical background. Now we're applying it to, non-financial information, these ESG disclosures. So researchers have been looking at how voluntary ENS disclosure

06:24 - and policies, can affect investors and firms for, for really over a decade now. So researchers like L Goul and co-authors and and Chava, in 2011 and 2014 observed that better EENS policies are associated with a lower cost of equity. so what they and others have shown is sort of a big deal because it suggests, though it doesn't prove that transparency in these matters can make a firm more attractive to outside investors.

06:53 - Then there's also evidence that disclosing ENS information does attract investors who have specific ENS preferences. So studies by researchers like, seraphim in 2015 highlighted that better voluntary disclosure policies do in fact attract ENS investors. However, when disclosures are voluntary, when firms are just making them on their own, there can be sort of problems with causality.

07:18 - So when firms are choosing to disclose voluntarily, it's only the firms that expect the benefits of transparency to exceed the costs that are gonna choose to disclose, or maybe firms that are doing good in the first place, right? Or perhaps these firms already have, shareholders, environmentally minded shareholders that push them to disclose, and in fact, the relationship works in, in reverse, whereas shareholders pushing for disclosure, not disclosures, attracting shareholders.

07:47 - So it's problematic to draw strong conclusions when disclosure's voluntary, and that's part of the advantage of using mandatory disclosure regulations as a setting like I do in this paper. Another recent work that actually focuses on the effects of mandatory disclosure regulations. but most of these studies have focused on how the disclosure mandate improves the quality of the disclosure itself.

08:09 - So it does forcing companies to disclose on environmental stuff, actually make them disclose on environmental stuff. INU and Seraphim did this in 2017. There's also, a strain of the literature that shows how these disclosures create positive environmental and social outcomes like reduced pollution, improve workplace safety, or decreased investment in corrupt countries. So my work's really building on this foundation

08:32 - of adverse selection, disclosure, quality material effects, and explores how these dynamics play out in the real world across lots of different disclosure regulations when disclosure is in fact mandatory. But in this paper, I lean on the carrots and sticks database for information about non-financial reporting standards. It's a pretty cool resource. It is originally put together from a joint project between KPMG, the Global Reporting Initiative,

08:57 - or GRI, the United Nations Environmental Program and the Center for Corporate Governance in Africa. And what it does is it compiles ENS disclosure policies and regulations from over 130 countries in 40 different languages. So you can think about it as an ever, ever-evolving snapshot of how different countries and institutions are approaching ENS reporting around the globe. So this is really an excellent resource for researchers.

09:21 - I mean, especially I I don't speak 40 languages, to read through all these rules. So it's super great that they have that, compiled for us. So from that data set, I narrow in on mandatory national disclosure regulations that apply broadly to publicly traded companies and observe how different outcomes evolve after they're implemented. there are a few, there are a few caveats

09:41 - with using this broad dataset, and the biggest challenge is really that the dataset doesn't capture every nuance of the regulations or the subtle ways that companies interpret, these rules. So each country has its own approach to rolling out ENS disclosure rules, including what's covered, and enforcement of those rules. So some countries might be really detailed in their

10:02 - reporting requirements and strict in their enforcement, while others may not be all right. So this data gives some idea of, of what the rule is, but doesn't go into very deep detail. So effectively, researchers, including myself, treat the rules mostly as interchangeable when in reality they can look quite different from place to place. all across the world. However, countries are, are working on new sets

10:23 - of more detailed standardized ENS reporting requirements, that align with disclosure recommendations by institutions like the task force on climate related financial disclosure. so for example, companies in 27 EU member states will have to be compliant with this TFCD standards due to the eus new corporate sustainability reporting directive that was adopted early in 2023. And then the uk, China, the US, are also trying to closely align their disclosure frameworks

10:53 - to the TFCD standards. So I suspect in the next round of research that investigates the impact of this new new set of disclosure standards, they'll have much more comparable and consistent rules to examine. So my research, starts by examining how ENS disclosure affects institutional ownership. Since these are the groups most strongly pushing for increased ENS disclosure requirements, I wanted to see first whether or not

11:18 - mandated changes change their investing decisions. Okay, so, so, I find that after a new disclosure, rule, an ENS disclosure rule kicks in institutional ownership increases by around 1% relative to similar firms that are, that are not forced to disclose. And this is a big deal because it's the first time we've seen causal evidence that institutional investors actually increase investments in firms with better ENS disclosure quality.

11:43 - this is the result across all institutional investors, by the way, not just investors with specific ENS preferences. So I'll touch on those results in a second, but this result demonstrates that, these types of investors, institutional investors, aren't just engaging in cheap talk by asking for stricter disclosure requirements, but not really acting on them. They actually do care about the information

12:03 - and it materially affects their decision making. So next I look at how ENS disclosure impacts firm investment policies. So here it's hypothetically, sort of a bit of a toss up or a tug of war on one side. Better disclosure can lower the cost of external financing, like I talked about before, with this adverse selection problem, enabling the firms to take on more profitable, pro profitable projects, if they're getting more outside investment for cheaper.

12:30 - On the flip side, there's the cost of complying with these disclosures, which may limit the cash firms actually have on hand to invest in new projects. So it's not initially clear, how firms will respond in terms of their investments after being mandated to disclose. In, interestingly, I find that firms ramp up their investments in innovation post disclosure. So we're talking about

12:52 - around a 5% increase in RD expenditures, which is a pretty significant jump. overall investment doesn't change. However, firms are just shifting the mix of their projects, to more long-term innovative projects without actually cutting down on total investment spending or increasing. there's been some work recently, some sort of follow-up work, by valier and co-authors and Bratton and co-authors that follow up on these results and dig even deeper into what types of r

13:19 - and d companies that are mandated to disclose actually are undertaking. And they're showing that a lot of the RD this effect can be explained by increases in green innovation. And I think that's an important finding. It's sort of in line with both my result here and probably what you'd expect from companies who are perhaps lagging behind on green innovation. The, the disclosure sort of out stem.

13:41 - Okay, and they have to catch up next, I look at, firm's financing decisions. So after disclosing environmental and social info, I find that firms are issuing more equity, about 15% more, than average to be, to be a little bit more precise. So combined with this previous result showing an average increase in overall institution institutional investment, this increased equity issuance suggests that these disclosures may reduce this general adverse

14:11 - selection problem that that might be going on. But when I dive deeper to investigate the mechanism behind these results, I find that classic measures of adverse selection, like bid as spreads, are actually unaffected on average. instead it seems to be that the change of the investor base towards investors with environmental and social preferences, who also by the way, tend to be longer, longer term oriented investors, they're not trading in and out of stocks.

14:39 - They're buying and holding this change in the investor base leads firms to change their own behavior. So firms with the largest jumps in these types of investors pre to post disclosure then also see the largest jumps in long-term r and d and new share issuance. So, so we have this sort of trio of financially material effects in response to disclosure, one, external investors' preferences and, and their decision making change. Two companies are shifting their,

15:07 - their internal investments, towards more long-term projects and r and d and three companies are raising more equity from external, investors. So all three of these effects are occurring primarily due to these shifts in institutional clientele towards ownership from investors with EENS preferences and longer term investment horizons. So I think the takeaway from this is pretty straightforward. ENS information is financially material.

15:35 - So despite arguments to the contrary, a lack of ENS disclosure creates information based frictions. And the evidence from the impact of all these disclosure regulations and rules from around the world supports the view that more rules based disclosure standards, more prescriptive, standards, can meaningfully reduce these, these ENS related information frictions, which then has material effects on both investors and companies.

Faculti AI can make mistakes