Sustainability report disclosure moderating effect on investment decision, financial accounting variables and share price relationship: A case of Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this article is to examine the mitigating effects of the publication of the sustainability-report on investment decisions and the share-price relationship. In addition, we examine whether the sustainabilityــreport indirectly effects the financial-accounting variables’ valueــrelevance. We regress GLS with random effects using a balanced sample of 240 observations from the first quarter of 2014 to the last quarter of 2018, including all banks listed in Saudi Arabia. According to the results, the direct coefficient between sustainability reporting, investment decisions and share prices is negatively significant before and after including moderation interaction variable. While the moderated interaction coefficient of the publication of the sustainability-report on the relationship between investment decisions and share prices is positively significant. The direct coefficient between the financial accounting variables and the share-price is positive and significant. Whereas the moderate interaction coefficient of sustainabilityــreport publication on financial accounting variables and share-price is negatively significant. These results suggest that sustainability-reporting information is considered for the benefit of investors and sustainability reporting data is used to supplement accounting information in decision making. The findings also display that investors appreciate the other and complementary disclosures of the financial information provided by the sustainability-report and that this disclosure has had a positive impact on the share-price.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".