Companies celebrated for strong financial performance may actually be inefficient once their environmental impact is taken into account, according to new research from the University of Surrey. 

The study, published in the European Journal of Operational Research, shows that firms that appear highly efficient at generating revenue can perform far worse when their environmental footprint are included in the calculation.  

To tackle this problem, researchers developed a new way to measure “sustainable corporate efficiency”, combining traditional financial metrics with environmental data such as energy consumption, carbon emissions and revenues generated from environmentally friendly products and services.  

Dr Menelaos Tasiou, co-author of the study and Senior Lecturer in Finance at the University of Surrey, said: “Businesses have long been judged on how efficiently they turn resources into profit. But if those profits come with large environmental costs, the picture changes completely. What we show is that true efficiency means generating revenue while also reducing the environmental damage caused by production. In other words, profitability alone can mask how wasteful a business really is when environmental costs are considered. “ 

The research analysed more than 2,800 publicly listed companies across 61 countries between 2010 and 2022, creating one of the largest global datasets measuring how sustainable companies are, when both financial performance and environmental impact are assessed together.  

The team combined company financial records, in alignment with the green economy (defined as a low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive economy), with environmental disclosures such as energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. They then applied a machine learning technique known as Convexified Efficiency Analysis Trees (CEAT) to estimate how efficiently companies convert resources into revenue while minimising pollution.  

Unlike older approaches, the method models the reality that production creates both desirable outputs, such as revenue, and undesirable ones, such as emissions. This allows companies to be compared on how well they balance profit with environmental performance.  

The results found a moderate link between financial efficiency and environmental efficiency, meaning many firms that are strong financially are not necessarily good at managing their environmental impact.  

The study also found large differences across industries and countries. Firms operating in sectors with high emissions, such as manufacturing and energy, often lagged behind leaders that were better at reducing carbon intensity while maintaining revenue.  

Dr Tasiou continued: “Measuring efficiency in this broader way can help investors, regulators and policymakers identify companies that are genuinely prepared for a low carbon economy. Stronger management capability plays a key role. Firms with more capable management teams were more likely to balance profitability with environmental responsibility, suggesting that leadership decisions can strongly influence sustainable performance.  

“As governments push towards net zero and investors scrutinise environmental performance more closely, companies that fail to integrate sustainability into their operations risk falling behind.” 

To get people to pay attention, you have to make it engaging. But what makes content engaging often comes at the cost of detail – shaping what people learn and what they think they’ve learned. The result: People can come away with the wrong idea, even when what they read isn’t factually wrong.

That tension sits at the core of research from Marta Serra-Garcia, a behavioral economist at the University of California San Diego’s Rady School of Management. The study, published in the American Economic Review, examines how incentives in the online attention economy shape the way scientific information is communicated – and what readers ultimately take away from it.

A trade-off in the attention economy

You don’t need bad actors for people to get the wrong idea. Incomplete information can be enough.

Crucially, the research finds that attention-grabbing summaries are not more likely to be factually inaccurate. Instead, they tend to include less information – especially key details about how studies were conducted.

“This is not a simple story that clickbait is bad,” said Serra-Garcia, associate professor of economics and strategy and Phyllis and Daniel Epstein Chancellor’s Endowed Faculty Fellow at UC San Diego’s Rady School. “You need to get people’s attention in order for them to learn something, and it’s good to encourage curiosity. Yet there’s a trade-off: Material designed to engage can also unintentionally contribute to the kinds of misunderstandings that can fuel misinformation.”

The finding comes from a large, multi-stage experimental study in which freelance writers produced nearly 600 summaries of actual scientific research, and more than 3,700 participants were then tested on what they learned from them.

Why “in mice” matters

In one study used in the experiment, a compound in broccoli reduced cancer cell growth – in mice. Leave out those last two words, and the finding can sound far more directly relevant to human health than it actually is.

“Why can’t we say ‘in mice’?” Serra-Garcia said. “It’s not very hard to add. It’s two words. But once you say ‘in mice,’ maybe fewer people will click.”

Study results were consistent. Summaries written to attract attention were shorter, easier to read and more engaging – but included less detailed information, especially about sample sizes and methods.

Given the option to seek out more information, most readers did not. That mirrors real-world behavior: Studies of social media use suggest most content is shared without users ever clicking through to read more.

Among those who relied on summaries alone in Serra-Garcia’s study, knowledge dropped by about 6-7 percentage points. Readers were also more likely to draw incorrect conclusions – such as assuming findings applied to humans or reflected firm medical guidance.

Inside the experiments

To isolate these effects, Serra-Garcia conducted a multi-stage experimental study. In the first stage, 149 freelance writers produced nearly 600 summaries of the same set of studies – covering topics such as cancer, sleep, vaccines and climate – under different instructions: to inform readers accurately, or to attract attention by encouraging clicks or shares. 

In the second stage, more than 3,700 participants read those summaries under different conditions, including whether they could click through for more information.

The results held across experiments: Attention-driven summaries increased engagement and prompted some readers to learn more – but left many others with less complete understanding.

AI and the attention economy

The same pattern emerged when a human wasn’t doing the writing. In additional tests, when a large language model was prompted to attract attention, it also produced less detailed summaries – suggesting the effect is driven less by who creates the content than by the objective it’s optimized for.

For Serra-Garcia, the findings point to an ongoing challenge for researchers, journalists and institutions alike.

“How do you make science engaging and important to readers,” she said, “without missing the essentials that convey the full picture?” 

The research was funded in part by National Science Foundation grant no. 2343858. 

Read the full study: “The Attention – Information Trade-off.” 

In a study involving a real-world grocery store, in-aisle displays meant to boost product visibility were in fact associated with reduced sales and purchase-related behaviors, with results amplified for shopping cart users.

Mathias Streicher of Austria’s Department of Management and Marketing presents these findings in the open-access journal PLOS One.

Retailers often place extra product displays directly in aisles in an effort to boost visibility and enhance sales. However, in-aisle displays could increase spatial crowding, which occurs when people feel restricted in their freedom of movement and has been linked with purchase-avoidance tendencies. To help clarify if in-aisle displays result in more purchases, Streicher conducted several experiments with a partnering grocery store.

First, they tracked weekly sales for an aisle containing household, baby and pet staples over a six-week period during which five product-display stands were placed mid-aisle. The stands were then removed for six weeks. Comparison of sales data showed that in fact, sales increased after removal of the in-aisle displays, with the average weekly percentage of total store revenue from that aisle rising from 4.33 to 4.83 percent.

A second in-store experiment in the same aisle showed that people using shopping carts also stopped and physically handled products—behavior previously linked with sales—about 7.05 times more often when in-aisle displays were absent than when they were present. Non-cart shoppers also touched products more often when displays were removed, but the effect was smaller (3.81 times).

Finally, in an online experiment, 200 participants imagined using a shopping cart or basket while viewing photographs of the same aisle from the in-store experiments, with or without in-aisle displays. They tended to rate the aisle with displays as more crowded and reported lower levels of perceived control for aisles with displays than those without, with effects amplified for imagined cart versus basket use.

Together, these findings suggest retailers might seek strategies to boost product exposure without also increasing crowding – especially for cart shoppers who may experience greater crowding effects – and that excessive use of in-aisle fixtures will likely dampen sales at the aggregate level rather than increasing it. 

Further research could address some of this study’s limitations, such as by considering the effects of human crowding, promotional offers on products, and seasonal influences on shopping behaviors.

Streicher adds: “The research shows that adding merchandise into store aisles can actually reduce overall sales by making the environment feel crowded and harder to navigate. Importantly, this negative effect is even stronger for shoppers using carts, as they experience greater spatial constraints and reduced control while shopping.”