of of users.  Environmental decision; no action outcome Type 1 + Type 3 of users.

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 = 52.1 + 31.4 only in the number of additional cases that have been included in Table II. The number of respondents that would take a no action decision was 62.6 Type 1 + Type 2 total op posed to 37.4 Type 2 + Type 4 total that would take an action decision. The majority of respondents once again chose a wait-and-see attitude. A summary of the findings determining the environmental event material significance and decision outcome are as follows:  Environmental decision; event significance Type 3 + Type 4 83.5 of users.  Environmental decision; no action outcome Type 1 + Type 3

65.7 of users.

2604  Economic decision; event significance Type 3 + Type 4 84.8 of users.  Economic decision; no action outcome Type 1 + Type 3

62.6 of users.

The results for the event described are conclusive and suggest that further consideration be given by preparers and regulators to environmental disclosures in the 5 - 10 range. The no action decision outcome reflects the need for more research on the decision process of users. Whilst statistical significance testing of the results may provide a level of certainty that descriptive statistics do not offer it is felt that the overwhelming results render further testing unnecessary. Conclusion Dierkes and Antal 1985 have suggested that whilst there is confusion regarding the best approach for deciding what and how to describe 2605 environmental events, asking users of reports is considered as the most likely method to result in outcomes in terms of decision-making. The intention in this study was to investigate the relationship between event significance materiality and a decision context. Regulations require certain levels of disclosure for economic events, and a suggestion from an Inquiry Victoria Parliament, Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, 1999 is that the accounting profession consider lower threshold levels for disclosing environmental events. Studies have considered the issue of material significance but have emphasised user preference rather than an experimental model which would indicate the relationships between decision-making and the material significance of events disclosed. The limitations of the experimental research approach have been discussed along with the ability of the findings to be generalised, the specific contextual nature of the vignette and that the event described in the vignette is in - isolation.