Concave and Convex Effects of ESG Performance on Corporate Sustainable Development : Evidence from China

• Autorzy: XueHui Zhang , Le Miao , Guoying Mu , Kun-Shan Wu
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Research background: Corporate sustainable development (CSD) is essential to a company's success and survival. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) are regarded as major factors in measuring the impact of CSD. Companies that perform well in terms of ESG can maintain a competitive advantage and achieve sustainable development. Poor management of ESG performance and involvement in controversial activity can harm a company's credibility and reputation in the market, as well as negatively impact sustainable development.
Purpose of the article: Drawing on the stakeholder and signaling theories, this paper investigates the curvilinear nexus between ESG performance and CSD.
Methods: Empirical studies were conducted on a sample of 697 Chinese listed manufacturing firms that disclosed ESG information from 2010 to 2020, with a total of 5699 firm-year observations. Quantile regression analysis and the U-test were used to examine the curvilinear ESGCSD relationship. This technique was supplemented by conducting instrumental variables tests and propensity score matching to address concerns relating to the potential existence of endogeneity problems.
Findings & value added: The results of the quantile regression estimation confirm the concave-convex (inverted U-shaped and U-shaped) ESG-CSD relationship via the U-test. The relationships between the environmental and social components and CSD follow an inverted U-shaped or half-inverted U-shaped pattern, while the relationship between the governance component and CSD exhibits a concave-convex pattern. A concave ESG-CSD nexus is evident in environmentally sensitive industries, whereas a half concave-convex ESG-CSD nexus is confirmed in non-environmentally sensitive industries. This study improves scholars' understanding of ESG performance and provides a comprehensive perspective on the double-edged effects (positive and negative consequences) of ESG practices. The instrumentalization of ESG practices for management to seek personal gain has a negative impact on CSD, while ESG practices that add value for stakeholders have a positive impact. These findings provide empirical evidence for Chinese publicly listed manufacturing firms to effectively conduct ESG practices. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Enterprise sustainable development; Companies development factors; Quantile regression

PL

Rozwój zrównoważony przedsiębiorstwa; Czynniki rozwoju przedsiębiorstwa; Regresja kwantylowa

• Czasopismo: Oeconomia Copernicana
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: 15
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 595--636

Twórcy

autor

XueHui Zhang

• Inner Mongolia University of Technology, China

autor

Le Miao

• Inner Mongolia University of Technology, China

autor

Guoying Mu

• Inner Mongolia University of Technology, China

autor

Kun-Shan Wu

• Tamkang University, Taiwan

Bibliografia

• Ammar Zahid, R. M., Saleem, A., & Maqsood, U. S. (2023). ESG performance, capital financing decisions, and audit quality: Empirical evidence from Chinese state-owned enterprises. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 44086-44099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25345-6.
• Amor-Esteban, V., Galindo-Villardon, M. P., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2018). Useful information for stakeholder engagement: A multivariate proposal of an industrial corporate social responsibility practices index. Sustainable Development, 26(6), 620-637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1732.
• Anton, S. G. (2021). The impact of temperature increase on firm profitability. Empirical evidence from the European energy and gas sectors. Applied Energy, 295, 117051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117051.
• Arora, L., Kumar, S., & Verma, P. (2018). The anatomy of sustainable growth rate of Indian manufacturing firms. Global Business Review, 19, 1050-1071. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0972150918773002.
• Arvidsson, S., & Dumay, J. (2022). Corporate ESG reporting quantity, quality and performance: Where to now for environmental policy and practice? Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 1091-1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2937.
• Avramov, D., Cheng, S., Lioui, A., & Tarelli, A. (2022). Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty. Journal of Financial Economics, 145(2), 642-664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.009.
• Bagh, T., Fuwei, J., & Khan, M. A. (2024). Corporate ESG investments and firm's value under the real-option framework: Evidence from two world-leading economies. Borsa Istanbul Review, 24(2), 324-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2024.01.002.
• Basu, R., Naughton, J. P., & Wang, C. (2022). The regulatory role of credit ratings and voluntary disclosure. Accounting Review, 97(2), 25-50. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2018-0286.
• Buchinsky, M. (1995). Estimating the asymptotic covariance matrix for quantile regression models a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Econometrics, 68(2), 303-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0304-4076(94)01652-G.
• Cao, S., Nie, L., Sun, H., Sun, W., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2021). Digital finance, green technological innovation and energy-environmental performance: Evidence from China's regional economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 327, 129458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129458.
• Carnini Pulino, S., Ciaburri, M., Magnanelli, B. S., & Nasta, L. (2022). Does ESG disclosure influence firm performance? Sustainability, 14, 7595. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su14137595.
• Chai, S., Cao, M., Li, Q., Ji, Q., & Liu, Z. (2023). Exploring the nexus between ESG disclosure and corporate sustainable growth: Moderating role of media attention. Finance Research Letters, 58, 104519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104519.
• Chang, B. G., & Wu, K. S. (2021). The nonlinear relationship between financial flexibility and enterprise risk-taking during the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan's semiconductor industry. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(2), 307-333. https://doi.org/ 10.24136/oc.2021.011.
• Chen, Z., & Xie, G. (2022). ESG disclosure and financial performance: Moderating role of ESG investors. International Review of Financial Analysis, 83, 102291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102291.
• Christensen, D. M., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2022). Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings. Accounting Review, 97(1), 147-175. https://doi.org/10. 2308/tar-2019-0506.
• Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37(4), 633-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.003.
• Connelly, B. L., Ketchen, D. J., & Slater, S. F. (2011). Toward a "theoretical toolbox" for sustainability research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 86-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0199-0.
• de la Fuente, G., Ortiz, M., & Velasco, P. (2022). The value of a firm's engagement in ESG practices: Are we looking at the right side? Long Range Planning, 55(4), 102143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102143.
• Deng, X., Li, W., & Ren, X. (2023). More sustainable, more productive: Evidence from ESG ratings and total factor productivity among listed Chinese firms. Finance Research Letters, 51, 103439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103439.
• El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388-2406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.02.007.
• Fieller, E. C. (1954). Some problems in interval estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B16, 175-185.
• Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337-359. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0090-5720(90)90022-Y.
• Ge, G., Xiao, X., Li, Z., & Dai, Q. (2022). Does ESG performance promote highquality development of enterprises in China? The mediating role of innovation input. Sustainability, 14, 3843. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su14073843.
• Gu, Y., Yang, Y., & Wang, J. (2020). Research on employee sense of gain: The development of scale and influence mechanism. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 568609. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568609.
• Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1177-1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2399.
• Hahn, R., & Kuhnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005.
• Hao, J, & He, F. (2022). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and green innovation: Evidence from China. Finance Research Letters, 48, 102889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.102889.
• Hao, L., & Naiman, D. Q. (2007). Quantile regression. London: Sage Publications Inc.
• Hausman, J. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46, 1251-1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827.
• Higgins, R. C. (1977). How much growth can a firm afford? Financial Management, 6(3), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 3665251.
• Jonwall, R., Gupta, S., & Pahuja, S. (2023). Socially responsible investment behavior: A study of individual investors from India. Review of Behavioral Finance, 15(6), 865-888. https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-05-2021-0099.
• Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643.
• Kuo, L., & Chang, B. G. (2021). The affecting factors of circular economy information and its impact on corporate economic sustainability-Evidence from China. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 986-997. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.spc.2021.02.014.
• L´opez, B., & Monfort, A. (2017). Creating shared value in the context of sustainability: The communication strategy of MNCs. In Corporate governance and strategic decision making (pp. 119-135). InTech. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70177.
• Lahouel, B. B., Zaied, Y. B., Managi, S., & Taleb, L. (2022). Re-thinking about U: The relevance of regime-switching model in the relationship between environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 140, 498-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.019.
• Lazar, N., & Chithra, K. (2022). Role of culture in sustainable development and sustainable built environment: A review. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(5), 5991-6031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01691-8.
• Lee, M. S. (2023). The relationship between green innovation and sustainable growth in Korean companies: Moderated mediation effect of ESG score by industry. Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2807.
• Li, W., Padmanabhan, P., & Huang, C. H. (2024). ESG and debt structure: Is the nature of this relationship nonlinear? International Review of Financial Analysis, 91, 103027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.103027.
• Li, X., Liu, G., Fu, Q., Abdul Rahman, A. A., Meero, A., & Sial, M.S. (2022). Does corporate social responsibility impact on corporate risk-taking? Evidence from emerging economy. Sustainability, 14, 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010531.
• Liao, Y., Qiu, X., Wu, A., Sun, Q., Shen, H., & Li, P. (2022). Assessing the impact of green innovation on corporate sustainable development. Frontiers in Energy Research, 9, 800848. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.800848.
• Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x.
• Litvinenko, V., Bowbriсk, I., Naumov, I., & Zaitseva, Z. (2022). Global guidelines and requirements for professional competencies of Natural Resource Extraction Engineers: Implications for ESG principles and sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 338, 130530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130530.
• Luo, C., Wei, D., & He, F. (2023). Corporate ESG performance and trade credit financing - Evidence from China. International Review of Economics and Finance, 85, 337-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.01.021.
• Ma, A., Rm, A., B. B., & Bosek-Rak, D. (2022). Do institutional investors encourage firm to social disclosure? The stakeholder salience perspective. Journal of Business Research, 142, 674-682. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.064.
• Maas, S., Schuster, T., & Hartmann, E. (2014). Pollution prevention and service stewardship strategies in the third-party logistics industry: Effects on firm differentiation and the moderating role of environmental communication. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(1), 38-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1759.
• Macas Nunes, P., Neves Sequeira, T., & Serrasqueiro, Z. (2007). Firms' leverage and labour productivity: A quantile approach in Portuguese firms. Apply Economics, 39(14), 1783-1788. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00036840600707076.
• Maiti, M. (2021). Quantile regression, asset pricing and investment decision. IIMB Management Review, 33, 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2021.03.005.
• Mamilla, R. (2019). A study on sustainable growth rate for firm survival. Strategic Change, 28(4), 273-277. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jsc.2269.
• Muhmad, S. N., Ariff, A. M., Majid, N. A., & Kamarudin, K. A. (2021). Product market competition, corporate governance and ESG. Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting & Finance, 17(1), 63-91. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamjaf2021.17.1.3.
• Naseer, M. M., & Bagh, T. (2024). Building a sustainable future: The impact of corporate social responsibility on firms' sustainable development. In A. I. Hunjra & K. Hussainey (Eds.). The Emerald handbook of ethical finance and corporate social responsibility (pp. 623-646). Emerald. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/978-1-80455-406-720241028.
• Oprean-Stan, C., Oncioiu, I., Iuga, I. C., & Stan, S. (2020). Impact of sustainability reporting and inadequate management of ESG factors on corporate performance and sustainable growth. Sustainability, 12, 8536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208536.
• Pu, G. (2023). A non-linear assessment of ESG and firm performance relationship: Evidence from China. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(1), 2113336. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2113336.
• Qureshi, M. A., Kirkerud, S., Theresa, K., & Ahsan, T. (2019). The impact of sustainability (environmental, social, and governance) disclosure and board diversity on firm value: The moderating role of industry sensitivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1199-1214. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2427.
• Sanoran, K. (2023). Corporate sustainability and sustainable growth: The role of industry sensitivity. Finance Research Letters, 53, 103596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103596.
• Sasabuchi, S. (1980). A test of a multivariate normal mean with composite hypotheses determined by linear inequalities. Biometrika, 67(2), 429-439. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2335486.
• Saygili, E., Arslan, S., & Birkan, A.O. (2022). ESG practices and corporate financial performance: Evidence from Borsa Istanbul. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(3), 525-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.07.001.
• Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010.
• Teng, X., Ge, Y., Wu, K. S., Chang, B. G., Kuo, L., & Zhang, X. (2022). Too little or too much? Exploring the inverted U-shaped nexus between voluntary environmental, social and governance and corporate financial performance. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 969721. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.969721.
• Teng, X., Wang, Y., Wang, A., Chang, B. G., & Wu, K. S. (2021). Environmental, social, governance risk and corporate sustainable growth nexus: Quantile regression approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 10865. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010865.
• Teng, X., Wu, K.S., Kuo, L., & Chang, B. G. (2023). Investigating the double-edged sword effect of environmental, social and governance practices on corporate risk-taking in the high-tech industry. Oeconomia Copernicana, 14(2), 511-549. https://doi.org/ 10.24136/oc.2023.014.
• Trumpp, C., & Guenther, T. (2017). Too little or too much? Exploring U-shaped relationships between corporate environmental performance and corporate financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1900.
• Wang, N., Li, D., Cui, D., & Ma, X. (2022). Environmental, social, governance disclosure and corporate sustainable growth: Evidence from China. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1015764. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1015764.
• Wang, X., & Jin, S. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance performance and corporate sustainable development in China. Journal of Global Business and Trade, 19(1), 91-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.20294/jgbt.2023.19.1.91.
• Wang, Z., Hsieh, T. S., & Sarkis, J. (2018). CSR performance and the readability of CSR reports: Too good to be true? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 66-79. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/csr.1440.
• White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817-838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934.
• Wu, H., Xue, Y., Hao, Y., & Ren, S. (2021). How does internet development affect energy-saving and emission reduction? Evidence from China. Energy Economics, 103, 105577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105577.
• Wu, K. S., & Chang, B. G. (2022). The concave-convex effects of environmental, social and governance on high-tech firm value: Quantile regression approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1527-1545. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2289.
• Yu, H. C., & Tsai, B. Y. (2018). Environmental policy and sustainable development: An empirical study on carbon reduction among Chinese enterprises. Corporate Society Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 1019-1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1499.
• Zhang, D. (2022). Do heterogenous subsides work differently on environmental innovation? A mechanism exploration approach. Energy Economics, 114, 106233. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106233.
• Zhang, D. (2023). Subsidy expiration and greenwashing decision: Is there a role of bankruptcy risk? Energy Economics, 118, 106530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106530.
• Zhao, S., Cao, Y., Feng, C., Guo, K., & Zhang, J. (2022). How do heterogeneous R&D investments affect Chinas green productivity: Revisiting the Porter hypothesis. Science of The Total Environment, 825, 154090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154090.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24136/oc.2972