Common ownership and investor‐focused disclosure: Evidence from ESG financial materiality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, we investigate whether information demands made by common agents, specifically common institutional owners, drive firms to adopt a reporting framework that enhances the comparability and financial materiality of environmental, social, and governance information. Using a sample of 3659 unique US firms from 2015 to 2021, we collected data on the adoption of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board's reporting framework—identifying first movers, followers, and non‐adopting firms—and their levels of common institutional ownership. Our results are robust across changes in the levels of common institutional ownership, various combinations of fixed effects, and the application of an instrumental variable approach. Our findings support the idea that investors' demand drives comparability and financial materiality in sustainability reporting and that common ownership enhances such disclosure by alleviating the concern over the proprietary costs of revealing sensitive information. Our study offers new insights into patterns of intra‐industry disclosure behavior and a better understanding of how a group of increasingly significant market participants (i.e., common institutional owners) influences firms' commitment to investor‐focused 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".