Disclosure of Sustainability Practices in Annual Reports and the Funding Cost of Cooperative Financial Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the level of disclosure of information representing sustainability practices from the stakeholders’ perspective and its relationship with the funding cost of cooperative financial organizations. The level of disclosure was measured using 46 information indicators representing sustainability practices from the stakeholders’ perspective, identified in the annual reports of cooperative financial organizations (CFOs) listed in the World Cooperative Monitor 2023, totaling 155 observations. The relationship between disclosure and the cost of financing was analyzed using a random effects estimator with cluster-robust standard errors. The results demonstrate a negative relationship between the disclosure of sustainability practices and the funding cost. When disaggregated by sustainability pillar, the results show that disclosure in the social, environmental, and cultural pillars is negatively associated with funding cost, while the economic pillar shows no statistically significant effect. This suggests that disclosing sustainability-related information from the stakeholders’ perspective reduces the cost of funding and enhances the legitimacy of CFO managers, setting them apart from traditional banks. This study examines the relationship between sustainability disclosure and funding cost in CFOs by adapting validated indicators and applying a robust econometric approach. Unlike existing literature focused on traditional banks, it empirically investigates how sustainability disclosure affects information asymmetry, funding costs, and managerial legitimacy within the cooperative financial sector.
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 | 0.023 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".