Environmental issues have attracted national attention and are becoming a focus at many firms. This paper examines the relation between stock price reactions to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and environmental information. We include alternative information sources in a test of the value relevance of environmental data. We find some evidence that chemical firms with more extensive environmental disclosures included in their 10-K reports had a less negative reaction to SARA, while firms with greater exposure to Superfund costs (based on EPA data) had a more negative market reaction. A primary contribution of our research is the finding that both financial statement environmental disclosures and estimated Superfund costs have incremental value relevance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1995. Exposure draft: Proposed Statement of Position: Environmental Remediation Liabilities. New York: AICPA.
2.
BarthM.McNicholsM.. 1994. “Estimation and Market Valuation of Environmental Liabilities Relating to Superfund Sites.”Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement): 177–209.
3.
BarthM.McNicholsM.WilsonG.. 1995. “Determinants of Firms' Decisions to Disclose and Accrue Information about Environmental Liabilities.”Working paper. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University.
4.
BernardV.1987. “Cross-Sectional Dependence and Problems in Inference in Market Based Accounting Research.”Journal of Accounting Research25: 1–48.
5.
BlacconiereW.PattenD.. 1994. “Environmental Disclosures, Regulatory Costs, and Changes in Firm Value.”Journal of Accounting and Economics18: 357–377.
6.
BowenR.CastaniasR.DaleyL.. 1983. “Intra-Industry Effects of the Accident at Three Mile Island.”Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis18: 87–111.
7.
BrownS.WarnerJ.. 1985. “Using Daily Returns: The Case of Event Studies.”Journal of Financial Economics14: 3–31.
8.
CahanS.ChavisB.ElmendorfR.. 1997. “Earnings Management of Chemical Firms in Response to Political Costs from Environmental Legislation.”Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance12: 37–63.
9.
CampbellK.SefcikS.SoderstromN.. 1996. “Disclosure of Private Information and Reduction of Uncertainty: Environmental Liabilities in the Chemical Industry.”Working paper. University of Washington.
10.
CollinsD.RozeffM.DhaliwalD.. 1981. “The Economic Determinants of the Market Reaction to Proposed Mandatory Accounting Changes in the Oil and Gas Industry: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.”Journal of Accounting and Economics3: 37–71.
11.
DemskiJ.FelthamG.. 1994. “Market Response to Financial Reports.”Journal of Accounting and Economics17: 3–40.
12.
DowdellT.GovindarajS.JainP. C.. 1992. “The Tylenol Incident, Ensuing Regulation, and Stock Prices.”Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis27: 283–301.
13.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. The Superfund Program: Ten Years of Progress. Washington, D.C.: EPA.
HealyP.PalepuK.. 1993. “The Effect of Firms' Financial Disclosure Strategies on Stock Prices.”Accounting Horizons7: 1–11.
19.
HillJ.SchneeweisT.. 1983. “The Effect of Three Mile Island on Electric Utility Stock Prices: A Note.”Journal of Finance38: 1285–1292.
20.
HolthausenR.1994. “Discussion of Estimation and Market Valuation of Environmental Liabilities Relating to Superfund Sites.”Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement): 211–219.
21.
HughesJ.MargatW.RicksW.. 1986. “The Economic Consequences of the OSHA Cotton Dust Standards: An Analysis of Stock Price Behavior.”Journal of Law and Economics29: 29–60.
22.
Investor Responsibility Research Center. 1992a. Institutional Needs for Corporate Environmental Information. Washington, D.C.: IRRC.
23.
Investor Responsibility Research Center. 1992b. Corporate Environmental Profiles Directory: Executive Summary and Findings. Washington, D.C.: IRRC.
24.
JohnsonM.1995. “The Disclosure and Valuation of Environmental Capital Expenditures.”Working paper. University of Michigan.
25.
LangM.LundholmR.. 1993. “Cross Sectional Determinants of Analyst Ratings of Corporate Disclosures.”Journal of Accounting Research31: 246–271.
26.
NorthcutD.1996. “Environmental Accounting Choices in Firms Subject to Superfund Cleanup Costs.”Working paper. University of Chicago.
27.
Price Waterhouse. 1992. Accounting for Environmental Compliance: Crossroad of GAAP, Engineering, and Government. New York: Price Waterhouse.
28.
Price Waterhouse. 1994. Progress on the Environmental Challenge: A Survey of Corporate America's Environmental Accounting and Management. New York: Price Waterhouse.
29.
RussellM.ColglazierE.TonnB.. 1992. “The U.S. Hazardous Waste Legacy.”Environment34 (6): 12–15, 34–39.
ShaneP.1995. “An Examination of the Shareholder Wealth Effects of Environmental Regulation.”Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance10 (New Series): 485–520.
32.
SkinnerD.1994. “Why Firms Voluntarily Disclose Bad News?”Journal of Accounting Research32: 38–60.
33.
TinkerT.1985. Paper Profits: A Social Critique of Accounting. New York: Praeger.
34.
VerrecchiaR.1983. “Discretionary Disclosure.”Journal of Accounting and Economics5: 179–194.
