The Effect of Sustainability Information Disclosure on the Cost of Equity Capital: An Empirical Analysis Based on Gartner Top 50 Supply Chain Rankings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While disclosing financial information has been widely proved to reduce the financing cost of a company, the impact of non-financial information, such as sustainability information, disclosing on the financing cost of the company is still in debate. The goal of this paper is to explore the impact of disclosing sustainability-related information on the cost of equity for firms. The paper first introduces the concept of sustainability information disclosure, and then exhibits its benefit through exploring its impact on reducing a firm’s financing cost. It uses the Gartner supply chain top 50 rankings to construct the experiment environment to test for the effect of sustainability information disclosure on the cost of equity capital. The study uses the Gartner top 50 supply chain rankings from 2013 to 2017 to construct the experiment environment, and test for the sustainability information disclosure’s impact on reducing the cost of equity capital. The regressions, which are based on the 350 firm-year sample of the United States and the 604 global firm-year sample, indicate that sustainability information disclosure significantly reduced the cost of equity capital. This paper uses a fixed effect regression method to analyze the impact of sustainability information disclosure. According to the regression result, the sustainability information disclosure variable has a significant negative coefficient. The result is robust under many settings. Thus, the paper finds that sustainability information disclosure significantly diminishes the cost of equity capital, controlling for ESG information disclosure. It also discusses the implications of the findings and future research directions for sustainability information disclosure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".