Investment decisions: The trade-off between economic and environmental objectives
Introduction
There is a large body of literature in the accounting and management disciplines that has examined issues concerning organisational (particularly corporate) responses to the sustainability challenges facing the world at present. These studies are varied and have examined issues pertaining to organisational change (Arjaliès & Mundy, 2013; Narayanan & Adams, 2017), sustainability reporting (Cho, Roberts, & Patten, 2010; Clarkson, Li, Richardson, & Vasvari, 2011), the adoption of environmental initiatives (Anton, Deltas, & Khanna, 2004; Darnall & Edwards, 2006; Darnall, Henriques, & Sadorsky, 2010; Melnyk, Sroufe, & Calantone, 2003; Potoski & Prakash, 2005) and the impact of such initiatives on environmental performance (Daddi, Magistrelli, Frey, & Iraldo, 2011; Darnall, Gallagher, Andrews, & Amaral, 2000; Darnall, Henriques, & Sadorsky, 2008; Khanna & Anton, 2002; King, Lenox, & Terlaak, 2005; Phan, Baird, & Su, 2018). This line of research adopts a pragmatic approach, and emphasises the role of academics and others in engaging with corporations to bring about improvements that may lead to more sustainable outcomes for all stakeholders (Adams & McNicholas, 2007; Adams & Whelan, 2009; Larrinaga-Gonzalez, Carrasco-Fenech, Caro-Gonzalez, Correa-Ruýz, & Paez-Sandubete, 2001).
There is also a broader literature that takes a more critical approach to sustainability reporting and engagement (Gray, Adams, & Owen, 2018). The critical accounting authors argue that managers will only pursue social and environmental sustainability initiatives if they have a positive impact on financial performance and refute the majority of the literature which employs the ‘win-win’ paradigm in which it is argued that “economic, environmental and social sustainability aspects can be achieved simultaneously” (Hahn, Figge, Pinkse, & Preuss, 2010, p. 217). However, in line with Hahn et al. (2010) and Margolis and Walsh (2003) we question this assumption, arguing that trade-offs, representing “compromise situations when a sacrifice is made in one area to obtain benefits in another” (Byggeth & Hochschorner, 2006, p. 1420), are the “rule rather than the exception” (Hahn et al., 2010, p. 217).
Hence, in the context of sustainability issues, we argue that managers will often be forced to make trade-offs. Shepherd, Patzelt, and Baron (2013, p. 1253) maintain that there are “four primary drivers of business decisions regarding sustaining the natural environment: values, economic opportunities, stakeholder pressures, and legislation”. Our study uses the conjoint analysis methodology to uncover the investment trade-off preferences of Australian managers in considering two of these drivers: economic opportunities, assessed in respect to the expected financial returns, and stakeholder pressures, specifically the pressure exerted by stakeholders to consider environmental issues. In addition, a third factor, environmental impact, assessed in respect to the expected level of carbon emissions, is considered. Accordingly, the first objective of the study is to provide an insight into and quantify managers’ preferences for trading-off economic outcomes, environmental impact, and stakeholder pressure to consider environmental issues when making investment decisions.
The examination of managers' investment decision trade-off preferences is considered pertinent for many reasons. First, the literature on trade-offs in the corporate sustainability field is sparse (Hahn et al., 2010) and tends to be qualitative. Hence, our analysis will serve to provide an empirical insight into the relative weights placed on economic outcomes, environmental impact, and stakeholder pressures in choosing between investment projects. Second, the study addresses calls in the literature to “evaluate trade-off situations in corporate sustainability, in order to identify strategies that yield substantial contributions to sustainable development” (Hahn et al., 2010, p. 226). Previous studies have looked at several aspects of managerial decision-making in relation to investment decisions (see for example (Bebbington, Brown, & Frame, 2007), and suggested models that can be utilised for a comprehensive approach which includes sophisticated social and environmental considerations. Work has also been undertaken to explore the possibilities around theorisation of managerial decision making in this area (Harris, Northcott, Elmassri, & Huikku, 2016). These studies are valuable and contribute to multiple facets of sustainable investment decision-making. This study builds on and contributes to this broader area by shedding light on the extent to which managers are prepared to trade-off economic factors for environmental ones and vice versa. The study also addresses calls for research that examines individual managers’ behaviour within the appropriate contextual setting. For example (Harris et al., 2016, p. 1189), state:
“Future studies could adopt a more ontic-level investigation to shed light on the relationship between accounting and strategy, and consequently focus on processes and practices at an individual level. This could enhance our understanding of how in-situ agents understand the contextual field in relation to their own values, duties and obligations and how they come to act in one way rather than another. Such ontic-level analysis using SST may contribute to a better meso-level understanding of SIDM by enabling cross-case comparison”.
Furthermore, in line with the principles of financialization, which maintains that the emphasis on economic returns drives corporate and employee decision making, we provide an empirical insight into the propensity of managers to focus on economic (financial) returns, as opposed to non-financial attributes (carbon emissions and stakeholder pressure to consider environmental issues) when making investment decisions.
In addition, we provide an insight into the tension in the literature between those that take the critical view of corporate engagement in sustainability issues, maintaining that organisations will only pursue social and environmental initiatives that have a positive economic impact, and those that take a more pragmatic stance and focus on the role of the corporation in promoting sustainable outcomes.
Hence, while we anticipate that, in line with the widely reported business case model, managers will prioritise economic outcomes (financial returns) in making trade-off decisions, the second objective of the study is to focus on human agency, considering whether individual's preferences for specific decision attributes, when making investment decisions, can be influenced by specific contingency factors. In particular, we contribute to the literature by examining the influence of two organisational-level factors (the link of rewards to financial performance and the link of rewards to environmental performance) and one individual-level based contingency factor (environmental consciousness). The examination of these associations will contribute to the literature focusing on the factors that influence managers' investment decisions (Kida, Moreno, & Smith, 2001; Sawers, 2005), thereby facilitating the development of strategies to influence managers' decisions.
The focus on the management compensation scheme, specifically the extent to which rewards are linked to financial and environmental performance, is pertinent given the strong evidence in the literature concerning the influence of affective reactions on managers investment decision making (Kida et al., 2001) and of rewards on employee behaviour and actions (Langfield-Smith, Smith, Andon, Thorne, & Hilton, 2018; Pheonix, 2006). This relationship is grounded in agency theory which purports the importance of management compensation systems in aligning the interests of principals and agents (i.e. managers).
The focus on environmental consciousness, operationalised in relation to Shepherd, Kuskova, and Parzelt (2009) ‘respect for nature’ construct (see Section 3), is an important contribution to the literature. While previous studies have examined the link between environmental commitment and the undertaking of specific environmental activities (Gadenne, Kennedy, & McKeiver, 2009; Jiang & Bansal, 2003; Madsen & Ulhøi, 2001; Menguc & Ozanne, 2005), and/or the take-up of environmental management initiatives within organisations (Su, Tung, & Baird, 2017), there is little empirical evidence on the impact of individuals' environmental consciousness on investment trade-off decisions. Accordingly, this analysis addresses calls in the literature to consider the influence of sustainability values, specifically environmental consciousness, on sustainable development (Mabogunje, 2004; Shepherd et al., 2009). Such analysis is also pertinent given ‘values’ represent one of Shepherd, Patzelt, and Baron (2013, p. 1253) four “drivers of business decisions regarding the natural environment” and hence the findings will provide practitioners with an insight into how individual values influence investment decision/s. Our research also contributes in a broad sense to the area of strategic investment decision-making, in the sense that we look beyond financial measures, into non-financial decision attributes and see a role for human agency in decision-making (Alkaraan & Northcott, 2006; Elmassri, Harris, & Carter, 2016; Grant & Nilsson, 2019; Harris et al., 2016).
The study uses the discrete choice experiment/conjoint analysis methodology to provide an insight into the investment decision preferences of managers. Managers are presented with a series of investment decisions with various levels of projected economic outcomes, environmental impact, and stakeholder pressure, and asked to choose between two projects in each instance. Conjoint analysis was used to gain an insight into the following two research questions:
The findings indicate that managers are more likely to focus on economic outcomes (financial returns) when making investment decisions and their preferences are significantly influenced by the hypothesised contingency factors. Specifically, the extent to which rewards are linked to financial (environmental) performance exhibited a positive relationship with the extent to which managers emphasise economic returns (environmental impact) when making investment decisions. Furthermore, environmental consciousness exhibited a positive (negative) relationship with the extent to which managers emphasised environmental impact (economic outcomes) when making investment decisions.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. The next section examines the extant literature on trade-offs in managerial decision making, emphasising the sustainability/corporate responsibility area. Hypotheses regarding the focus of managers in making trade-offs and the likely impact of each of the contingency factors on these trade-off decisions are then developed. Section 3 describes the methodology and Section 4 presents the results of the empirical work. Section 5 concludes the paper, explicates the implications of our findings and suggests avenues for future research.
Section snippets
Trade-offs in decision making in the social environmental literature
While not always discussed explicitly in the social and environmental literature, trade-offs are often inherently present in decision-making in relation to sustainability issues. The critical accounting stream in particular, propagates that corporations will emphasise economic returns to the detriment of the sustainability agenda (Archel, Husillos, & Spence, 2011; O'Dwyer, 2003; Spence, 2007; Tinker & Gray, 2003). The critical accounting stream1
Method
This study uses conjoint analysis and multi-criterion decision making (Hansen & Ombler, 2009) to estimate the weights or preferences for the different outcomes when making an investment decision. Specifically, pairwise ranking of decision alternatives is used to measure the trade-off preferences of managers, using the 1000minds platform and software (www.1000minds.com) which is freely available for academic use and has been widely used in many areas of research (Golana, Hansen, Kaplan, & Tal,
Results and discussion
Our first hypothesis states that when making decisions that require trade-offs between economic outcomes (financial returns), environmental impact (carbon emissions) and stakeholder pressures, managers will place a greater weight on economic outcomes over the other two factors. As shown in Table 2, the mean value respondents placed on financial returns is clearly higher than the values they placed on the other two attributes. This result provides evidence to support our first hypothesis.
The
Conclusion
This paper set out to understand and quantify the trade-off preferences of managers when making decisions that involve multiple criteria. In our case we examined three criteria; namely, financial returns, environmental impact and stakeholder pressure. We also examined the relationship between the trade-off decisions and two organisational factors (financial performance rewards and environmental performance rewards) and one individual attribute (environmental consciousness).
In line with the
References (97)
- et al.
Strategic capital investment decision-making: A role for emergent analysis tools?: A study of practice in large UK manufacturing companies
The British Accounting Review
(2006) - et al.
Financialization as a strategy of workplace control in professional service firms
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
(2012) - et al.
Incentives for environmental self-regulation and implications for environmental performance
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
(2004) - et al.
The institutionalisation of unaccountability: Loading the dice of Corporate Social Responsibility discourse
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(2011) - et al.
The use of management control systems to manage CSR strategy: A levers of control perspective
Management Accounting Research
(2013) - et al.
Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models
Ecological Economics
(2007) - et al.
The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(2002) - et al.
Accounting towards sustainability in production and supply chains
The British Accounting Review
(2014) - et al.
Handling trade-offs in ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement
Journal of Cleaner Production
(2006) - et al.
The language of US corporate environmental disclosure
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(2010)
Does it really pay to be green? Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy
Financialization in the workplace: Hegemonic narratives, performative interventions and the angry knowledge worker
Accounting, Organizations and Society
Do environmental management systems improve business performance in an international setting?
Journal of International Management
Accounting for strategic investment decision-making under extreme uncertainty
The British Accounting Review
Financialization across the Pacific: Manufacturing cost ratios, supply chains and power
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
The temptation of Houston: A case study of financialisation
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Critical accounts and perspectives on financialization
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet
Accounting, Organizations and Society
What is driving corporate environmentalism: Opportunity or threat?
Corporate Environmental Strategy
Analyzing the heterogeneity of farmers' preferences for improvements in dairy cow traits using farmer typologies
Journal of Dairy Science
Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance
Journal of Operations Management
Challenges of the ‘green imperative’: A natural resource-based approach to the environmental orientation–business performance relationship
Journal of Business Research
An accounting revolution? The financialisation of standard setting
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Sustaining diversity in social and environmental accounting research
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Measuring the values that underlie sustainable development: The development of a valid scale
Journal of Economic Psychology
Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: The WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study
Journal of Economic Psychology
Financialisation and the conceptual framework
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
Making a difference: Sustaibability reporting, accountability and organisational change
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Conceptualising future change in corporate sustainability reporting
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior
Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in US business organisations
Academy of Management Journal
Pragmatism and new directions in social and environmental accountability research
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature
Organization Studies
Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness
Academy of Management Journal
Can company-fund managers meetings convey informational benefits? Exploring the rationalisation of equity investment decision making by UK fund managers
Accounting, Organizations and Society
Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration
Accounting, Organizations and Society
Business and sustainability
Financialisation or the management Philosophy of Globalism
Public Finance Quarterly
The use and usefulness of nonfinancial performance measures
Management Accounting Quarterly
Do environmental management systems improve environmental performance? Empirical evidence from Italian companies
Environment, Development and Sustainability
Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management
International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: The role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure
Strategic Management Journal
Environmental Management Systems: Opportunities for improved environmental and business strategy?
Environmental Quality Management
Adopting proactive environmental strategy: The influence of stakeholders and firm size
Journal of Management Studies
Financialization of the Economy
Annual Review of Sociology
Measuring corporate environmental performance: The trade-offs of sustainability ratings
Business Strategy and the Environment
Cited by (9)
A novel approach for optimal hybrid energy decarbonization using multi-criteria decision analysis: Abu Rudeis, Egypt as a case study
2023, Energy Conversion and ManagementFamily business origin and investment preference: An empirical study of imprinting theory
2023, British Accounting ReviewBoard gender diversity and corporate environmental commitment: A subnational perspective
2023, Business Strategy and the EnvironmentHow managerial capabilities of cognitive and behavioural complexity enable dynamic tension between management controls
2023, Qualitative Research in Accounting and ManagementGreen human resource management: the role of positive levers of control and environmental performance measures in managing performance
2023, International Journal of Manpower