Relevance of ESG Information in B2B Relationships: Experimental Evidence from Firms in Germany

Last registered on February 16, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Relevance of ESG Information in B2B Relationships: Experimental Evidence from Firms in Germany
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013045
Initial registration date
February 15, 2024

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
February 16, 2024, 4:57 PM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
February 16, 2024, 5:17 PM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Yuhan Liu
Affiliation
University of Mannheim
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Daniela Zipperer
PI Affiliation
University of Mannheim
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Jannis Bischof
PI Affiliation
University of Mannheim
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Davud Rostam-Afschar
PI Affiliation
University of Mannheim
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-02-19
End date
2025-09-20
Keywords
Behavior, Environment & Energy, Firms & Productivity, Other
Additional Keywords
Supply chain, ESG disclosure, Firm performance, Environmental performance, Discrete choice experiment
JEL code(s)
M4, Q5, C9, L14
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We investigate which accounting information is considered relevant for supply chain contracting using a discrete choice experiment in a survey of firm representatives in Germany. Prior evidence on the role of ESG information in the firm's choices of suppliers is limited to public firms. We extend and compare choices both for public and private firms. We also examine the relative importance of financial and non-financial performance in the initiation decisions. Finally, we explore the private/public company status and different ESG communication channels as moderating factors.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bischof, Jannis et al. 2024. "Relevance of ESG Information in B2B Relationships: Experimental Evidence from Firms in Germany." AEA RCT Registry. February 16. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13045-1.2
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2024-03-18
Intervention End Date
2024-09-20

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Respondents’ choices in the choice experiment
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We conduct a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). It is a survey-based experimental design where participants are presented with series of hypothetical scenarios, the so-called choice tasks. Participants are asked to choose between two or more options (alternatives). Each alternative consists of a set of characteristics (attributes) with a minimum of two types (attribute levels). In our experiment, the respondent acting on behalf of her firm is asked with which firm she would prefer to start a new business relationship. The two alternatives presented are two firm profiles. Additionally, we include “indifferent” as an opt-out option. The firm profiles differ on two attributes (financial KPI and CO2 emissions). Each attribute has several attribute levels. The attribute “financial KPI” consists of two attribute levels (decrease in profit and weak equity; increase in profit and stable equity). The attribute “CO2 emissions” consists of seven attribute levels (reduction less than industry average, learnt through contract negotiation; reduction less than industry average, learnt through public report, e.g., firm website; reduction less than industry average, learnt through audited information; reduction more than industry average, learnt through contract negotiation; etc.). Two attributes with two and seven levels respectively, leads to 14 (= 7 * 2) firm profiles. Since each choice task consists of two firm profiles, this adds up to 91 (=14! /[(14 – 2)! * 2!]) profile pairs.
One respondent receives in total four choice tasks. We aim to quantify the part- worth utility attached to each attribute level.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
computer
Randomization Unit
hypothetical firm profile pairs
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Each respondent receives 4 out of 91 hypothetical firm profile pairs. There are 14 firm profiles in total.
Sample size: planned number of observations
1500
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Not applicable.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Based on simulated effect size: A statistical significance level of 0.025 and a statistical power of 0.8 requires a minimum of 1367 observations to discern the main effect. (See details in Analysis Plan)
Supporting Documents and Materials

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information