While there are broader socio-political, psychological, and structural factors that influence investment decisions (see Harris et al., 2016), in line with the critical approach, this study provides an empirical insight into the notion that financialization, specifically the tendency to prioritise economic over environmental objectives, has a strong bearing on how managers view investment trade-off decisions in relation to sustainability issues. The study empirically investigates this notion by examining the investment trade–off preferences of Australian managers in relation to three decision attributes – economic outcomes (i.e. financial returns), environmental impact (i.e. carbon emissions) and stakeholder pressure to consider environmental issues. We use the discrete choice experimental method to quantify the trade-offs between the above mentioned three attributes. In addition, we also investigate the potential effect of three contingency factors on individual's preferences. Specifically, at the organisational level, we explore the effects of financial and environmental rewards and at the individual level, we explore the effect of environmental consciousness. In line with the financialization hypotheses our results indicate that managers prioritise financial returns over carbon emissions and stakeholder pressures with the preference for financial returns found to be positively associated with rewards for financial performance. However, in line with the pragmatic approach and despite the overall dominance of financial returns, there is evidence that manager's focus on financial returns can be influenced, with the preference for financial returns negatively associated with rewards for environmental performance and environmental consciousness. In addition, while stakeholder pressure was not found to be associated with any of the three contingency factors and, manager's emphasis on carbon emissions was not associated with financial rewards, manager's emphasis on carbon emissions was found to be positively associated with both rewards for environmental performance and environmental consciousness. Therefore, our findings suggest that corporate management have an important role to play, both in respect to the design of performance rewards systems and the recruitment of environmentally conscious managers, in order to promote the sustainability agenda.

尽管有广泛的社会，政治，心理和结构因素会影响投资决策（见Harris等，2016），但与批判性方法一致，本研究对金融化的概念提供了实证见解，尤其是金融化的趋势。优先考虑经济目标而不是环境目标，这与管理者如何看待与可持续性相关的投资权衡决策有很大关系。这项研究通过考察澳大利亚管理者在三个决策属性上的投资权衡偏好来实证研究此概念，这三个决策属性是经济成果（即财务回报），环境影响（即碳排放量）和利益相关者考虑环境问题的压力。我们使用离散选择实验方法来量化上述三个属性之间的权衡。此外，我们还研究了三个或有因素对个人偏好的潜在影响。具体来说，在组织层面上，我们探索财务和环境奖励的效果，而在个人层面上，我们探讨环境意识的效果。与金融化假设相一致，我们的结果表明，经理优先考虑财务回报，而不是碳排放量和利益相关者压力，而对财务回报的偏好与财务绩效的回报呈正相关。然而，按照务实的方法，尽管财务收益总体上占主导地位，但有证据表明，经理人的 对财务收益的关注可能会受到影响，对财务收益的偏好与对环境绩效和环境意识的奖励负相关。此外，虽然未发现利益相关者的压力与三个或有因素有关，并且经理对碳排放的重视与财务回报无关，但发现经理对碳排放的重视与对环境绩效的回报都有正相关关系。和环境意识。因此，我们的研究结果表明，在促进绩效奖励系统的设计和招募具有环境意识的管理人员方面，公司管理都可以发挥重要作用，以促进可持续发展议程。对财务回报的偏好与对环境绩效和环境意识的奖励负相关。此外，虽然未发现利益相关者的压力与三个或有因素有关，并且经理对碳排放的重视与财务回报无关，但发现经理对碳排放的重视与对环境绩效的回报都有正相关关系。和环境意识。因此，我们的研究结果表明，在促进绩效奖励系统的设计和招募具有环境意识的管理人员方面，公司管理都可以发挥重要作用，以促进可持续发展议程。对财务回报的偏好与对环境绩效和环境意识的奖励负相关。此外，虽然未发现利益相关者的压力与三个或有因素有关，并且经理对碳排放的重视与财务回报无关，但发现经理对碳排放的重视与对环境绩效的回报都有正相关关系。和环境意识。因此，我们的研究结果表明，在促进绩效奖励系统的设计和招募具有环境意识的管理人员方面，公司管理都可以发挥重要作用，以促进可持续发展议程。