shareholderenvironmentalists 53.7 and environmentalists 49.7. The of of

2600 shareholderenvironmentalists and 37.7 of environmentalists. The trends in the Type 3 and 4 events support the interest of shareholderenvironmentalists and environmentalists in an environmental decision. The intriguing result is the high percentage of shareholders 78.9 that identify the environmental event as significant. With regard to event significance and the environmental decision the cross - tabulation reveals that 83.5 Type 3 + Type 4 total of users believe the event is significant. This is an important finding given that the significance of the event is 6 and that the nature of the event is environmental and would support suggestions from the Inquiry Victoria Parliament, Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, 1999 that environmental disclosures should be quantified at lower levels than those for financial reporting AASB 1031, 2004. Even though a very high number of respondents identified the event as significant material, 65.7 Type 1 + Type 3 total would take a 2601 no action decision. This could mean that whilst respondents feel the event is significant to decision-making they would like to wait and see what the company does with similar events or perhaps they feel that the company‘s actions are positive. The results from the event significance and the economic decision appear in Table II. The cross-tabulation has resulted in a much lower number of missing cases than the environmental decision 92 or 10.5. There were 19 or 7.5 missing shareholders, 33 or 13.8 shareholderenvironmentalists and 40 or 4.6 environmentalists. Interestingly, there is very little difference between the totals for the economic decision and those for the environmental decision. Take in Table II 2602 In the Type 1 situation 16.2 of shareholders, 10.6 of shareholderenvironmentalists and 9.9 of environmentalists consider to be of little concern for the reasons previously mentioned as the event is deemed not materially significant and no action would be taken. As with the environmental decision, the Type 2 occurrence for the economic decision is difficult to interpret but it is very low across all groups. The Type 3 situation identifies 54.7 of shareholders, 52.2 of shareholderenvironmentalists and 46.9 of environmentalists as deeming the event significant but taking no action. The reason for the no action decision in this circumstance is once again difficult to interpret but perhaps the event size and nature does not warrant an immediate action. The Type 4 event is not a confusing outcome and results indicate that 24.4 of shareholders,

33.3 of

shareholderenvironmentalists and 41.5 of environmentalists chose this option. 2603 The significance of the event with regard to the economic decision 86.4 = 50.6 + 34.2 differs from the environmental decision 83.5