Submitted:
10 October 2023
Posted:
12 October 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Review of Literature and Development of Hypotheses
- Theoretical Underpinning
- Independent Variables
- Dependent Variables
- Affinity Bias and ESG
- Gambler’s Fallacy and ESG
- Herding Behavior and ESG
- Loss Aversion and ESG
- Mental accounting and ESG
- ESG and Over-confidence

- Hypotheses of the Study:
- H1: ESG has a positive effect on the Affinity Bias of individual Pakistan stock market investors.
- H2: ESG has a positive effect on the Gambler's Fallacy of individual Pakistan stock market investors.
- H3: Herding of individual investors in the Pakistan stock market is positively affected by ESG.
- H4: ESG impacts Pakistani stock market investors' loss aversion.
- H5: ESG impacts Pakistani stock market investors' mental accounting.
- H6: ESG impacts Pakistani stock market investors' overconfidence.
3. Research Methodology
4. Analysis and Results of the study
- Structural Model Assessment
5. Discussion
- Theoretical Implications
- Practical Implications
- Limitations and Future Research Directions
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Accountants, T. I. F. of. (2012). Investor demand for environmental, social, and governance disclosures: Implications for professional accountants in business.
- Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
- Ani, N. C. (2020). BEHAVIORAL FINANCE: INVESTOR’S PSYCHOLOGY (Doctoral dissertation).
- Antony, A.; Joseph, A.I. Influence of Behavioural Factors Affecting Investment Decision—An AHP Analysis. Metamorph. A J. Manag. Res. 2017, 16, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aninze, F., El-Gohary, H. and Hussain, J., (2018). The Role of Microfinance to Empower Women: The Case of Developing Countries, International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management, 9(1), pp: 54-78. [CrossRef]
- Arjaliès, D.-L. A Social Movement Perspective on Finance: How Socially Responsible Investment Mattered. J. Bus. Ethic- 2010, 92, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aybars, A. , Ataünal, L., & Gürbüz, A. O. (2019). ESG and financial performance: impact of environmental, social, and governance issues on corporate performance. In Handbook of Research on Managerial Thinking in Global Business Economics, 520–536.
- Barberis, N. and Huang, M. (2001). Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance, 65(4), 1247–1292.
- Bilbao-Terol, A.; Arenas-Parra, M.; Cañal-Fernández, V.; Bilbao-Terol, C. Multi-criteria decision making for choosing socially responsible investment within a behavioral portfolio theory framework: a new way of investing into a crisis environment. Ann. Oper. Res. 2015, 247, 549–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bollen, N.P.B. Mutual Fund Attributes and Investor Behavior. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 2007, 42, 683–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvo, C.; Ivorra, C.; Liern, V. Fuzzy portfolio selection with non-financial goals: exploring the efficient frontier. Ann. Oper. Res. 2014, 245, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiromba, C. Responsible Investment and Its Impact on Investment Decisions: Zimbabwe Scenario. J. Invest. 2019, 29, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clementino, E.; Perkins, R. How Do Companies Respond to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 171, 379–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, G.; Kudryavtsev, A. Investor Rationality and Financial Decisions. J. Behav. Finance 2012, 13, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dick, M.; Wagner, E.; Pernsteiner, H. Founder-Controlled Family Firms, Overconfidence, and Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement: Evidence From Survey Data. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2020, 34, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fin, R. F. F. (2012). Environmental, social, and governance investing from an idea to getting it done. In Finance,. 126(2), 42.
- Fraser, K. Position paper: Defeating the ‘paradigm wars’ in accounting: A mixed-methods approach is needed in the education of PhD scholars. Int. J. Mult. Res. Approaches 2014, 8, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasperini. A. (2020). Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and ESG Factors. Climate Action, 737–749.
- Giannetti, M.; Simonov, A. Which Investors Fear Expropriation? Evidence from Investors' Portfolio Choices. J. Finance 2006, 61, 1507–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guzavicius, A. , Vilkė, R., & Barkauskas, V. (2014). Behavioral finance: Corporate social responsibility approach. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences. 156, 518-523.
- Hussain, J.; Sandhu, N.; El-Gohary, H.; Edwards, D.J. The Reality of Financing Small Tourism Firms: The Case of Indian Tourism SMEs. Int. J. Cust. Relatsh. Mark. Manag. 2020, 11, 64–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts' perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strat. Manag. J. 2014, 36, 1053–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivankova, N.V.; Creswell, J.W.; Stick, S.L. Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice. Field Methods 2006, 18, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jafarkarimi, H.; Saadatdoost, R.; Sim, A.T.H.; Hee, J.M. Behavioral intention in social networking sites ethical dilemmas: An extended model based on Theory of Planned Behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 62, 545–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, J.; Walia, N.; Gupta, S. Evaluation of behavioral biases affecting investment decision making of individual equity investors by fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Rev. Behav. Finance 2019, 12, 297–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, R., Jain, P., & Jain, C. (2015). Behavioral Biases in the Decision Making of Individual Investors. IUP Journal of Management Research, 14(3), 7. 3).
- Jeremy Galbreath. (2012). Page 1 of 20 ANZAM 2012. 1–20.
- Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 263–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Moktadir, A.; Liman, Z.R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Hegemann, K.; Khan, S.A.R. Evaluating sustainable drivers for social responsibility in the context of ready-made garments supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 248, 119231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A. Empirical investigation of herding in cryptocurrency market under different market regimes. Rev. Behav. Finance 2020, 13, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurtz, L. Three Pillars of Modern Responsible Investment. J. Invest. 2020, 29, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukka, K. The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research. Manag. Account. Res. 2010, 21, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahapatra, M. S. , Raveendran, J., & De, A. (2016). Mental Proposing the Role of Accounting and Financial Cognition on Personal Financial Planning: A Study in Indian Context. Journal of Economic Policy and Research, 12(1), 62-73.
- Metawa, N.; Hassan, M.K.; Metawa, S.; Safa, M.F. Impact of behavioral factors on investors’ financial decisions: case of the Egyptian stock market. Int. J. Islam. Middle East. Finance Manag. 2019, 12, 30–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, J. , & Hess, K. (2018). (2018). Investments for Development in Switzerland: A Sub-type of Impact Investing with Strong Growth Dynamics. In Positive Impact Investing. Springer, Cham, 177–195.
- Mouna, A.; Anis, J. A study on small investors’ sentiment, financial literacy and stock returns: evidence for emerging market. Int. J. Account. Econ. Stud. 2014, 3, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, A.W. From sustainability accounting to a green financing system: Institutional legitimacy and market heterogeneity in a global financial centre. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 585–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilsson, J. Investment with a Conscience: Examining the Impact of Pro-Social Attitudes and Perceived Financial Performance on Socially Responsible Investment Behavior. J. Bus. Ethic- 2007, 83, 307–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nkwocha, O.U.; Hussain, J.; El-Gohary, H.; Edwards, D.J.; Ovia, E. Dynamics of Group Lending Mechanism and the Role of Group Leaders in Developing Countries: Evidence from Nigeria. Int. J. Cust. Relatsh. Mark. Manag. 2019, 10, 54–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omopariola, E. , Windapo, A., Edward, D., and El-Gohary, H. (2021). Level of financial performance of selected construction companies in South Africa, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(1), pp. 1–18.
- Parveen, S.; Satti, Z.W.; Subhan, Q.A.; Jamil, S. Exploring market overreaction, investors’ sentiments and investment decisions in an emerging stock market. Borsa Istanb. Rev. 2020, 20, 224–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellinen, A.; Törmäkangas, K.; Uusitalo, O.; Munnukka, J. Beliefs affecting additional investment intentions of mutual fund clients. J. Financial Serv. Mark. 2015, 20, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pompian, M. M. (2017). Risk Tolerance and Behavioral Finance. Investment Management Consultants Association Inc, 1, 1–5.
- PRI, U. (2015). United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment.
- PRINCIPLES, E. (2004). The Equator Principles: an industry approach for financial institutions in determining, assessing, and environmental & social risk in project financing.
- Przychodzen, J.; Gómez-Bezares, F.; Przychodzen, W.; Larreina, M. ESG Issues among Fund Managers—Factors and Motives. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, M.U.; Vo, X.-V. Is a portfolio of socially responsible firms profitable for investors? J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 2019, 10, 191–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riedl, A.; Smeets, P. Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds? J. Finance 2017, 72, 2505–2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sairally, B. S. (2015). Integrating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Factors in Islamic Finance: Towards the Realisation of Maqasid Al-Shari’Ah. ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance, 7(2), 145. http://search.proquest.com/openview/70dbf2bbb93fb0415e956ef5b9cbcd88/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2031957.
- Sarwar, A.; Afaf, G. A comparison between psychological and economic factors affecting individual investor’s decision-making behavior. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2016, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semmann, D.; Milinski, M.; Krambeck, H.-J. Reputation is valuable within and outside one?s own social group. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2005, 57, 611–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandhu, N.; El-Gohary, H. Unveiling the Impact of Psychological Traits on Innovative Financial Decision-making in Small Tourism Businesses. J. Knowl. Econ. 2022, 14, 2284–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shefrin, H. , & Statman, M. (2011). Behavioral finance in the financial crisis: market efficiency, Minsky, and Keynes. Santa Clara University, November.
- Somathilake, H. Factors Influencing Individual Investment Decisions In Colombo Stock Exchange. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. (IJSRP) 2020, 10, 579–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nair, A.S.; Ladha, R. Determinants of non-economic investment goals among Indian investors. Corp. Governance: Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2014, 14, 714–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewardson, A. , Edwards, D., Asamoah, E., Aigbavboa, C.O., Lai, J., & El-Gohary, H., (2023). The Late Payment Epidemic in UK Construction, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, forthcoming.
- Sultana, S. , Zainal, D., & Zulkifli, N. (2017). The influence of environmental, social and governance (ESG) on investment decisions: The Bangladesh perspective. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(November), 155–173.
- Sultana, S.; Zulkifli, N.; Zainal, D. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Investment Decision in Bangladesh. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syed, A.M. Environment, social, and governance (ESG) criteria and preference of managers. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2017, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thaler, D. and. (1995). Financial decision-making in markets and firms: A behavioral perspective. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 9, 385–410.
- Townsend, B. From SRI to ESG: The Origins of Socially Responsible and Sustainable Investing. J. Impact ESG Invest. 2020, 1, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice : A Reference-Dependent Model Author ( s ): Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman Published by : Oxford University Press. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2937956?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents%5Cnhttp://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/4/1039.full.pdf+html.
- Tversky, A. , Slovic, P., & Kahneman, D. (1990). American Economic Association The Causes of Preference Reversal. Source: The American Economic Review, 80(1), 204–217.
- Tversky, D. K. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
- Umar, Z.; Kenourgios, D.; Papathanasiou, S. The static and dynamic connectedness of environmental, social, and governance investments: International evidence. Econ. Model. 2020, 93, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, C. , Zhang, J., Cao, J., Hu, H., & Yu, P. (2019). The influence of environmental background on tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Management, 231, 804–810.
- Widianto, S. , Kautsar, A. P., Sriwidodo, Abdulah, R., & Ramadhina, R. (2021). Pro-environmental behavior of healthcare professionals: a study applying the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 28(3), 219–232.
- Winegarden, W. (2019). ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE (ESG) INVESTING: An Evaluation of the Evidence. 1–28.
- Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Young consumers' intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of planned behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 732–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdin, S.Z.U.; Sultana, N.; Farooq, M.; Shah, S.Z.A. Stock Market Anomalies as Mediators Between Prospect Factors and Investment Decisions and Performance: Findings at the Individual Investor Level. 2017, 6, 21–40. [CrossRef]
| FL | Cronbach's Alpha | rho_A | CR | AVE | VIF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affinity Bias | - | 0.891 | 0.916 | 0.909 | 0.590 | |
| AB-1 | 0.827 | 2.129 | ||||
| AB-2 | 0.798 | 1.920 | ||||
| AB-3 | 0.75 | 1.547 | ||||
| AB-4 | 0.739 | 2.055 | ||||
| AB-5 | 0.737 | 2.173 | ||||
| AB-6 | 0.742 | 2.045 | ||||
| AB-7 | 0.776 | 2.070 | ||||
| Anti-Bribery | 0.898 | 0.941 | 0.928 | 0.762 | ||
| BR-1 | 0.884 | 2.456 | ||||
| BR-2 | 0.906 | 2.640 | ||||
| BR-3 | 0.862 | 2.424 | ||||
| BR-4 | 0.838 | 2.462 | ||||
| Climate Change | 0.850 | 0.855 | 0.89 | 0.579 | ||
| CC-1 | 0.617 | 3.178 | ||||
| CC-2 | 0.647 | 3.278 | ||||
| CE-1 | 0.831 | 3.603 | ||||
| CE-2 | 0.8 | 2.811 | ||||
| CE-3 | 0.791 | 2.900 | ||||
| CE-4 | 0.847 | 3.612 | ||||
| Corruption | 0.907 | 1.063 | 0.927 | 0.762 | ||
| CO-1 | 0.937 | 2.697 | ||||
| CO-2 | 0.825 | 3.068 | ||||
| CO-3 | 0.893 | 2.742 | ||||
| CO-4 | 0.831 | 2.688 | ||||
| Energy Consumptions | 0.93 | 0.978 | 0.954 | 0.875 | ||
| EN-1 | 0.94 | 4.447 | ||||
| EN-2 | 0.945 | 3.349 | ||||
| EN-3 | 0.921 | 3.803 | ||||
| Fair Trade | 0.937 | 0.962 | 0.951 | 0.796 | ||
| FT-1 | 0.909 | 3.473 | ||||
| FT-2 | 0.89 | 3.112 | ||||
| FT-3 | 0.894 | 3.934 | ||||
| FT-4 | 0.871 | 3.141 | ||||
| FT-5 | 0.897 | 3.783 | ||||
| Gamblers Fallacy | 0.893 | 0.982 | 0.875 | 0.596 | ||
| GF-1 | 0.724 | 2.683 | ||||
| GF-2 | 0.642 | 2.561 | ||||
| GF-3 | 0.526 | 1.704 | ||||
| GF-4 | 0.969 | 3.211 | ||||
| GF-5 | 0.909 | 3.739 | ||||
| Herding | 0.901 | 0.906 | 0.920 | 0.590 | ||
| HE-1 | 0.76 | 2.137 | ||||
| HE-2 | 0.806 | 2.192 | ||||
| HE-3 | 0.779 | 2.038 | ||||
| HE-4 | 0.775 | 2.105 | ||||
| HE-5 | 0.749 | 1.900 | ||||
| HE-6 | 0.766 | 1.928 | ||||
| HE-7 | 0.727 | 1.762 | ||||
| HE-8 | 0.781 | 2.074 | ||||
| Loss Aversion | 0.898 | 0.883 | 0.907 | 0.586 | ||
| LA-1 | 0.86 | 2.299 | ||||
| LA-2 | 0.826 | 2.057 | ||||
| LA-3 | 0.791 | 2.252 | ||||
| LA-4 | 0.841 | 2.035 | ||||
| LA-5 | 0.584 | 1.775 | ||||
| LA-7 | 0.765 | 2.281 | ||||
| LA-8 | 0.65 | 2.066 | ||||
| Mental Accounting | 0.908 | 0.946 | 0.920 | 0.624 | ||
| MA-1 | 0.659 | 2.527 | ||||
| MA-2 | 0.737 | 2.762 | ||||
| MA-3 | 0.752 | 2.618 | ||||
| MA-4 | 0.862 | 2.598 | ||||
| MA-5 | 0.851 | 2.314 | ||||
| MA-6 | 0.871 | 2.893 | ||||
| MA-7 | 0.771 | 1.782 | ||||
| Over Confidence | 0.908 | 0.916 | 0.925 | 0.609 | ||
| OC-1 | 0.789 | 2.404 | ||||
| OC-2 | 0.851 | 2.967 | ||||
| OC-3 | 0.819 | 2.318 | ||||
| OC-4 | 0.827 | 2.492 | ||||
| OC-5 | 0.751 | 1.914 | ||||
| OC-6 | 0.664 | 1.615 | ||||
| OC-7 | 0.79 | 2.051 | ||||
| OC-8 | 0.734 | 1.843 | ||||
| Philanthropy | 0.927 | 1.030 | 0.943 | 0.767 | ||
| PH-1 | 0.819 | 2.583 | ||||
| PH-2 | 0.869 | 3.155 | ||||
| PH-3 | 0.875 | 3.112 | ||||
| PH-4 | 0.894 | 2.945 | ||||
| PH-5 | 0.919 | 3.279 | ||||
| Safety | 0.926 | 0.945 | 0.942 | 0.729 | ||
| SA-1 | 0.87 | 2.989 | ||||
| SA-2 | 0.816 | 2.435 | ||||
| SA-3 | 0.832 | 2.619 | ||||
| SA-4 | 0.871 | 2.741 | ||||
| SA-5 | 0.856 | 2.760 | ||||
| SA-6 | 0.875 | 2.768 | ||||
| Water Management | 0.919 | 1.547 | 0.933 | 0.778 | ||
| WM-1 | 0.872 | 3.789 | ||||
| WM-2 | 0.957 | 3.622 | ||||
| WM-3 | 0.821 | 3.834 | ||||
| WM-4 | 0.875 | 3.954 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AffinityBias | 0.768 | |||||||||||||
| AntiBribery | 0.133 | 0.873 | ||||||||||||
| ClimateChange | 0.188 | 0.109 | 0.761 | |||||||||||
| Corruption | -0.032 | 0.038 | 0.031 | 0.873 | ||||||||||
| EnergyConsumptions | 0.128 | 0.112 | 0.390 | 0.058 | 0.935 | |||||||||
| FairTrade | 0.225 | 0.166 | 0.422 | -0.001 | 0.289 | 0.892 | ||||||||
| Gamblers- Fallacy | -0.066 | -0.080 | -0.020 | 0.250 | -0.089 | -0.043 | 0.772 | |||||||
| Herding | 0.340 | 0.085 | 0.202 | -0.070 | 0.126 | 0.188 | -0.071 | 0.768 | ||||||
| Loss-Aversion | 0.093 | 0.066 | 0.203 | -0.028 | 0.217 | 0.220 | -0.034 | 0.014 | 0.766 | |||||
| Mental-Accounting | 0.242 | 0.124 | 0.287 | 0.007 | 0.168 | 0.141 | 0.001 | 0.186 | 0.165 | 0.790 | ||||
| Over -Confidence | 0.227 | 0.163 | 0.356 | -0.116 | 0.214 | 0.283 | -0.160 | 0.244 | 0.163 | 0.199 | 0.780 | |||
| Philanthropy | 0.007 | 0.081 | 0.121 | 0.099 | 0.059 | 0.146 | 0.046 | 0.076 | -0.076 | 0.044 | 0.118 | 0.876 | ||
| Safety | 0.093 | 0.144 | 0.406 | 0.096 | 0.390 | 0.420 | -0.105 | 0.108 | 0.084 | 0.180 | 0.163 | 0.050 | 0.854 | |
| Water Management | 0.044 | 0.166 | 0.221 | 0.144 | 0.160 | 0.194 | 0.086 | 0.004 | -0.044 | 0.129 | -0.018 | 0.127 | 0.259 | 0.882 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affinity Bias | ||||||||||||||
| Anti-Bribery | 0.153 | |||||||||||||
| Climate Change | 0.188 | 0.135 | ||||||||||||
| Corruption | 0.051 | 0.062 | 0.06 | |||||||||||
| Energy Consumptions | 0.105 | 0.113 | 0.434 | 0.087 | ||||||||||
| Fair Trade | 0.212 | 0.188 | 0.463 | 0.053 | 0.3 | |||||||||
| Gamblers Fallacy | 0.050 | 0.047 | 0.051 | 0.196 | 0.145 | 0.054 | ||||||||
| Herding | 0.379 | 0.096 | 0.224 | 0.076 | 0.139 | 0.19 | 0.077 | |||||||
| Loss Aversion | 0.082 | 0.064 | 0.177 | 0.046 | 0.183 | 0.173 | 0.093 | 0.078 | ||||||
| Mental Accounting | 0.256 | 0.123 | 0.268 | 0.05 | 0.144 | 0.125 | 0.051 | 0.17 | 0.138 | |||||
| Over Confidence | 0.230 | 0.185 | 0.399 | 0.108 | 0.225 | 0.303 | 0.129 | 0.26 | 0.145 | 0.182 | ||||
| Philanthropy | 0.034 | 0.092 | 0.127 | 0.136 | 0.058 | 0.156 | 0.06 | 0.077 | 0.089 | 0.062 | 0.117 | |||
| Safety | 0.102 | 0.165 | 0.457 | 0.121 | 0.426 | 0.446 | 0.127 | 0.113 | 0.138 | 0.161 | 0.181 | 0.065 | ||
| Water Management | 0.065 | 0.184 | 0.246 | 0.192 | 0.166 | 0.208 | 0.085 | 0.036 | 0.057 | 0.127 | 0.066 | 0.127 | 0.289 | - |
| SM | EM | |
|---|---|---|
| SRMR | 0.053 | 0.07 |
| d_ULS | 8.985 | 15.454 |
| d_G | 3.115 | 3.222 |
| Chi-Square | 6209.9 | 6389.553 |
| NFI | 0.739 | 0.732 |
| Std. Beta | S.E | t-values | p-values | CILL | CIUL | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESG -> Affinity Bias | 0.235 | 0.076 | 3.007 | 0.003 | 0.130 | 0.348 | Supported |
| ESG -> Gamblers Fallacy | -0.072 | 0.124 | 0.938 | 0.349 | -0.242 | 0.147 | Not Supported |
| ESG -> Herding | 0.241 | 0.080 | 2.911 | 0.004 | 0.120 | 0.367 | Supported |
| ESG -> Loss Aversion | 0.277 | 0.140 | 2.059 | 0.040 | -0.273 | 0.420 | Supported |
| ESG -> Mental Accounting | 0.303 | 0.055 | 5.201 | 0.000 | 0.191 | 0.406 | Supported |
| ESG -> Over Confidence | 0.386 | 0.047 | 8.125 | 0.000 | 0.285 | 0.473 | Supported |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).