Concave and convex effects of ESG performance on corporate sustainable development: Evidence from China

Abstract

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 ESG-CSD 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.

Keywords

ESG; corporate sustainable development; quantile regression; double-edged effect

References

1. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25345-6
   View in Google Scholar
2. Amor-Esteban, V., Galindo-Villardón, M. P., & García-Sánchez, 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1732
   View in Google Scholar
3. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117051
   View in Google Scholar
4. Arora, L., Kumar, S., & Verma, P. (2018). The anatomy of sustainable growth rate of Indian manufacturing firms. Global Business Review, 19, 1050–1071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918773002
   View in Google Scholar
5. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2937
   View in Google Scholar
6. Avramov, D., Cheng, S., Lioui, A., & Tarelli, A. (2022). Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty. Journal of Financial Economics, 145(2), 642–664. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.009
   View in Google Scholar
7. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2024.01.002
   View in Google Scholar
8. Basu, R., Naughton, J. P., & Wang, C. (2022). The regulatory role of credit ratings and voluntary disclosure. Accounting Review, 97(2), 25–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2018-0286
   View in Google Scholar
9. Buchinsky, M. (1995). Estimating the asymptotic covariance matrix for quantile regression models a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Econometrics, 68(2), 303–338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01652-G
   View in Google Scholar
10. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129458
    View in Google Scholar
11. Carnini Pulino, S., Ciaburri, M., Magnanelli, B. S., & Nasta, L. (2022). Does ESG disclosure influence firm performance? Sustainability, 14, 7595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137595
    View in Google Scholar
12. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104519
    View in Google Scholar
13. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.011
    View in Google Scholar
14. Chen, Z., & Xie, G. (2022). ESG disclosure and financial performance: Moderating role of ESG investors. International Review of Financial Analysis, 83, 102291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102291
    View in Google Scholar
15. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0506
    View in Google Scholar
16. Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37(4), 633–648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.003
    View in Google Scholar
17. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0199-0
    View in Google Scholar
18. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102143
    View in Google Scholar
19. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103439
    View in Google Scholar
20. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.02.007
    View in Google Scholar
21. Fieller, E. C. (1954). Some problems in interval estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B16, 175–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00159.x
    View in Google Scholar
22. Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337–359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-5720(90)90022-Y
    View in Google Scholar
23. Ge, G., Xiao, X., Li, Z., & Dai, Q. (2022). Does ESG performance promote high-quality development of enterprises in China? The mediating role of innovation input. Sustainability, 14, 3843. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073843
    View in Google Scholar
24. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568609
    View in Google Scholar
25. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2399
    View in Google Scholar
26. Hahn, R., & Kühnen, 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
    View in Google Scholar
27. Hao, J, & He, F. (2022). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and green innovation: Evidence from China. Finance Research Letters, 48, 102889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.102889
    View in Google Scholar
28. Hao, L., & Naiman, D. Q. (2007). Quantile regression. London: Sage Publications Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985550
    View in Google Scholar
29. Hausman, J. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46, 1251–1271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
    View in Google Scholar
30. Higgins, R. C. (1977). How much growth can a firm afford? Financial Management, 6(3), 7–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3665251
    View in Google Scholar
31. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-05-2021-0099
    View in Google Scholar
32. Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643
    View in Google Scholar
33. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.014
    View in Google Scholar
34. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70177
    View in Google Scholar
35. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.019
    View in Google Scholar
36. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01691-8
    View in Google Scholar
37. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2807
    View in Google Scholar
38. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.103027
    View in Google Scholar
39. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010531
    View in Google Scholar
40. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.800848
    View in Google Scholar
41. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x
    View in Google Scholar
42. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130530
    View in Google Scholar
43. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.01.021
    View in Google Scholar
44. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.064
    View in Google Scholar
45. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1759
    View in Google Scholar
46. Maçãs 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600707076
    View in Google Scholar
47. Maiti, M. (2021). Quantile regression, asset pricing and investment decision. IIMB Management Review, 33, 28–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2021.03.005
    View in Google Scholar
48. Mamilla, R. (2019). A study on sustainable growth rate for firm survival. Strategic Change, 28(4), 273–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2269
    View in Google Scholar
49. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21315/aamjaf2021.17.1.3
    View in Google Scholar
50. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80455-406-720241028
    View in Google Scholar
51. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208536
    View in Google Scholar
52. Pu, G. (2023). A non-linear assessment of ESG and firm performance relationship: Evidence from China. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(1), 2113336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2113336
    View in Google Scholar
53. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2427
    View in Google Scholar
54. Sanoran, K. (2023). Corporate sustainability and sustainable growth: The role of industry sensitivity. Finance Research Letters, 53, 103596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103596
    View in Google Scholar
55. Sasabuchi, S. (1980). A test of a multivariate normal mean with composite hypotheses determined by linear inequalities. Biometrika, 67(2), 429–439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/67.2.429
    View in Google Scholar
56. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.07.001
    View in Google Scholar
57. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
    View in Google Scholar
58. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.969721
    View in Google Scholar
59. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010865
    View in Google Scholar
60. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2023.014
    View in Google Scholar
61. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1900
    View in Google Scholar
62. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1015764
    View in Google Scholar
63. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20294/jgbt.2023.19.1.91
    View in Google Scholar
64. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1440
    View in Google Scholar
65. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934
    View in Google Scholar
66. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105577
    View in Google Scholar
67. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2289
    View in Google Scholar
68. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1499
    View in Google Scholar
69. Zhang, D. (2022). Do heterogenous subsides work differently on environmental innovation? A mechanism exploration approach. Energy Economics, 114, 106233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106233
    View in Google Scholar
70. Zhang, D. (2023). Subsidy expiration and greenwashing decision: Is there a role of bankruptcy risk? Energy Economics, 118, 106530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106530
    View in Google Scholar
71. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154090
    View in Google Scholar