Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
In recent years, sustainability reporting has accelerated in business environments as companies see various benefits from disclosing practices related to sustainability initatives. Studies show that companies who profess to be more sustainable, i.e., engaging in activities that reduce their environmental footprint and improve social impact, are rewarded by higher market returns and higher consumer demand. Seeking competitive advantage gleaned from disclosure of sustainable practices, most businesses are choosing to issue stand-alone reports on sustainability intitiatives. There is a growing trend, however, to include some voluntarily disclosure in required Annual Reports through the unaudited components like the MD&A (Management’s Discussion & Analysis). Because prior literature supports the notion that certain types of rhetoric can influence perceptions and judgments in decision making, it is plausible that sustainability rhetoric may also influence certain accounting judgments. Given the substantiated connection between sustainability and ethical behavior, where companies perceived as better corporate citizens are also thought to be more ethical and trustworthy, we question whether perceptions generated by unsubstantiated sustainability rhetoric could influence objectivity in assessments about business risk and financial potential . As the amount of voluntary rhetoric used to demonstrate a commitment to sustainability continues to increase in annual reports, the examination of this question appears warranted. This study examines sustainability rhetoric in two ways. In controlled experiments using both accounting professionals and graduate students, we examine whether perceptions about a client’s commitment to sustainability activities have an impact on judgements related to financial risk assessments. The data suggests that, while accounting students may be influenced by such rhetoric, more accounting professionals are not, perhaps reflecting a higher level of skepticism and objectivity among those with experience. Second, we examine whether the influence of sustainability rhetoric differs for those without accounting backgrounds. Because accounting training emphasizes objectivity and neutrality in making certain judgments like risk assessment, accountants may be less influenced by unsubstantiated rhetoric in decision-making. Thus, in a second experiment, “non-accounting” participants were asked to complete a risk assessment investment task. Preliminary analysis shows that those without accounting training may be influenced by such rhetoric in making risk assessments, supporting the notion that accounting training may increase objectivity. This study contributes to research by broadening the literature in two areas, the effect of rhetoric on decision-making, and the influence of perceptions about sustainability on assessments about business risk and financial potential, especially between those with and without accounting training.