Environmental Information Embellishment Behavior and Capital Market Pricing Efficiency--Evidence from Corporate Social Responsibility Reports of A-Share Listed Companies

Abstract

Abstract: The transparency and authenticity of corporate environmental information exert a significant impact on capital market pricing efficiency. However, environmental information embellishment behavior may adversely affect capital market pricing efficiency. Drawing upon comprehensive data from A-share listed companies that have published corporate social responsibility reports between 2008 and 2023, this study examines the impact and mechanism of environmental information embellishment behavior on capital market pricing efficiency. Research indicates that environmental information embellishment behavior significantly undermines capital market pricing efficiency. Mechanism analysis reveals that environmental information embellishment behavior reduces corporate information quality and amplifies investors’ irrational sentiment, thereby diminishing capital market pricing efficiency. The heterogeneity analysis reveals that this negative effect is more pronounced when environmental regulation intensity is weak and in firms with high analyst coverage. Therefore, regulators should promote a shift in environmental information disclosure from quantitative compliance to quality credibility, adopt differentiated regulatory strategies, and enhance the precision and deterrence of supervision.

Key words: environmental information embellishment behavior, capital market pricing efficiency, information quality, investors’ irrational sentiment

CLC Number:

F832.5、X322

Tan Huan, Li Qing-yuan, Wang Zhi, Luo Yun-lei. Environmental Information Embellishment Behavior and Capital Market Pricing Efficiency--Evidence from Corporate Social Responsibility Reports of A-Share Listed Companies[J]. Contemporary Finance & Economics, 2026, 0(8): 125-137.

References

[1] 蔡贵龙, 张亚楠, 徐悦, 等. 投资者-上市公司互动与资本市场资源配置效率——基于权益资本成本的经验证据[J]. 管理世界, 2022, (8): 199-217.
[2] 常莹莹, 曾泉. 环境信息透明度与企业信用评级——基于债券评级市场的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2019, (5): 132-151.
[3] 段瑞焜, 段永嘉, 刘益. 企业数字化能促进环境责任的“少言多行”吗[J]. 当代财经, 2023, (10): 85-96.
[4] 方红星, 林婷, 许东彦. 中国环境信息规制的市场效应——基于股价崩盘风险的实证检验[J]. 财经研究, 2022, (7): 63-78.
[5] 方颖, 郭俊杰. 中国环境信息披露政策是否有效:基于资本市场反应的研究[J]. 经济研究, 2018, (10): 158-174.
[6] 韩国高, 刘田广, 庞明川. 生态环境智慧监测与企业环境信息粉饰[J]. 世界经济, 2025, (7): 3-35.
[7] 胡洁, 于宪荣, 韩一鸣. ESG评级能否促进企业绿色转型?——基于多时点双重差分法的验证[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2023, (7): 90-111.
[8] 黄俊威. 融资融券制度与公司内部人减持—— 一种市场化治理机制的探索[J]. 管理世界, 2020, (11): 143-167.
[9] 黄溶冰, 谢晓君, 周卉芬. 企业漂绿的“同构”行为[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2020, (11): 139-150.
[10] 雷雷, 张大永, 姬强. 共同机构持股与企业ESG表现[J]. 经济研究, 2023, (4): 133-151.
[11] 李四海, 李震. 企业社会责任报告特质信息含量的信号效应研究——基于自然语言处理技术的分析[J]. 中国工业经济, 2023, (1): 114-131.
[12] 李文贵, 路军. 网络平台互动与股价崩盘风险:“沟通易”还是“操纵易”[J]. 中国工业经济, 2022, (7): 178-196.
[13] 李哲. “多言寡行”的环境披露模式是否会被信息使用者摒弃[J]. 世界经济, 2018, (12): 167-188.
[14] 廖佳, 苏冬蔚. 上市公司负面声誉与分析师关注:“趋之若鹜”抑或“避之若浼”[J]. 会计研究, 2021, (8): 38-53.
[15] 罗鉴, 肖芳. 公众环境关注、绿色技术创新与企业ESG表现[J]. 江西财经大学学报, 2025, (5): 23-34.
[16] 宋敏, 周鹏, 司海涛. 金融科技与企业全要素生产率——“赋能”和信贷配给的视角[J]. 中国工业经济, 2021, (4): 138-155.
[17] 宋献中, 胡珺, 李四海. 社会责任信息披露与股价崩盘风险——基于信息效应与声誉保险效应的路径分析[J]. 金融研究, 2017, (4): 161-175.
[18] 孙凡, 孙泽宇. 公共数据开放何以改善资本市场定价效率[J]. 经济管理, 2025, (1): 166-189.
[19] 孙晓华, 车天琪, 马雪娇. 企业碳信息披露的迎合行为:识别、溢价损失与作用机制[J]. 中国工业经济, 2023, (1): 132-150.
[20] 谭松涛, 崔小勇. 上市公司调研能否提高分析师预测精度[J]. 世界经济, 2015, (4): 126-145.
[21] 唐松, 施文, 孙安其. 环境污染曝光与公司价值——理论机制与实证检验[J]. 金融研究, 2019, (8): 133-150.
[22] 唐勇军, 马文超, 夏丽. 环境信息披露质量、内控"水平"与企业价值——来自重污染行业上市公司的经验证据[J]. 会计研究, 2021, (7): 69-84.
[23] 田利辉, 王可第. 社会责任信息披露的"掩饰效应"和上市公司崩盘风险——来自中国股票市场的DID-PSM分析[J]. 管理世界, 2017, (11): 146-157.
[24] 王茂斌, 叶涛, 孔东民. 绿色制造与企业环境信息披露——基于中国绿色工厂创建的政策实验[J]. 经济研究, 2024, (2): 116-134.
[25] 王萍, 刘振亚, 刘波. 党组织参与治理与企业绿色创新:理论研究及实证检验[J/OL]. 江西财经大学学报, 2026-01-13[2026-03-27]. https://doi.org/10.13676/j.cnki.cn36-1224/f.20251209.001.
[26] 巫岑, 饶品贵, 岳衡. 注册制的溢出效应:基于股价同步性的研究[J]. 管理世界, 2022, (12): 177-202.
[27] 许年行, 洪涛, 吴世农, 等. 信息传递模式、投资者心理偏差与股价“同涨同跌”现象[J]. 经济研究, 2011, (4): 135-146.
[28] 游万海, 陈森杰, 陈健永, 等. "多言寡行"环境责任表现对股价崩盘风险的影响——基于投资者情绪的中介效应[J]. 中国管理科学, 2025, (10): 12-23.
[29] 于连超, 董晋亭, 毕茜. 环境法治强化与股价崩盘风险——基于环境法庭设立的准自然实验[J]. 当代财经, 2025, (1): 141-153.
[30] 于蔚, 汪淼军, 金祥荣. 政治关联和融资约束:信息效应与资源效应[J]. 经济研究, 2012, (9): 125-139.
[31] 张德涛, 张景静, 董帅. 环境信息粉饰行为的潜在影响[J]. 世界经济, 2024, (4): 99-128.
[32] Avramov D, Cheng S, Lioui A, et al.Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2022, 145(2): 642-664.
[33] Cen L, Wei K C J, Yang L Y. Disagreement, underreaction, and stock returns[J]. Management Science, 2017, 63(4): 1214-1231.
[34] Chen P Y, Chu Z Z.Mere facade? Is greenwashing behaviour lower in low-carbon corporates?[J]. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2024, 33(5): 4162-4174.
[35] Cohen L, Lou D.Complicated firms[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2012, 104(2): 383-400.
[36] Easley D, López de Prado M M, O’hara M. Flow toxicity and liquidity in a high-frequency world[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2012, 25(5): 1457-1493.
[37] Farooq Y, Wicaksono H.Advancing on the analysis of causes and consequences of green skepticism[J/OL]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 320: 128927.
[38] Hou K, Moskowitz T J.Market frictions, price delay, and the cross-section of expected returns[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2005, 18(3): 981-1020.
[39] Schwertner T, Sohn M.CSR disclosure and investor social preferences: Heterogenous investor responses to media reports on corporate greenwashing[J]. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 2024, 20(5): 843-873.
[40] Song S, Lian J, Skowronski K, et al.Customer base environmental disclosure and supplier greenhouse gas emissions: A signaling theory perspective[J]. Journal of Operations Management, 2024, 70(3): 355-380.