The short board effect of ESG rating and corporate green innovation activities

被引:0
|
作者
Zhu, Fuxian [1 ]
Xu, Xiaoli [1 ]
Sun, Jiachang [2 ]
机构
[1] Xinjiang Univ, Dept Econ & Management, Urumqi, Xinjiang, Peoples R China
[2] Xinjiang Univ, Dept Comp Sci, Urumqi, Xinjiang, Peoples R China
来源
PLOS ONE | 2024年 / 19卷 / 03期
关键词
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0299795
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
This article aims to investigate whether differences in ESG ratings have an impact on corporate green innovation behavior. A high-order fixed effects model was established using panel data from Chinese companies from 2009 to 2022 to empirically test the impact of ESG rating divergence in the Chinese market on corporate green innovation behavior.The study demonstrates that ESG rating disparity raises the quantity but lowers the quality of businesses' green innovation efforts because of the short board effect. After a series of robustness tests, the results are still valid.The mechanism investigation reveals that both an external pressure channel and an internal strategy adjustment channel are responsible for the impact of ESG rating disparity on green innovation efforts. The asymmetry of corporate green innovation activities is exacerbated by managers' self-interest, whereas the asymmetry of green innovation is mitigated by the caliber of government. According to the heterogeneity analysis, the divergence of a business's ESG rating between large-scale, non-heavy polluting, and places with strong environmental regulations can effectively slow down the asymmetric behavior of enterprise innovation activities. Additional investigation reveals that the phenomenon of ESG rating divergence spreads across industries and geographical areas. The short board effect of ESG rating divergence can be effectively mitigated by improving the quality of enterprise information disclosure and speeding up the digital transformation of businesses. The research conclusion provides marginal contributions on how to improve China's ESG rating system and how enterprises can identify ESG rating differences and make scientific decisions.
引用
收藏
页数:24
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Board Networks and Corporate Innovation
    Chang, Ching-Hung
    Wu, Qingqing
    [J]. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2021, 67 (06) : 3618 - 3654
  • [42] Do ESG ratings promote corporate green innovation? A quasi-natural experiment based on SynTao Green Finance?s ESG ratings
    Wang, Juxian
    Ma, Mengdi
    Dong, Tianyi
    Zhang, Zheyuan
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 87
  • [43] The impact of green finance on the peer effect of corporate ESG information disclosure
    Liang, Zhidong
    Yang, Xiao
    [J]. FINANCE RESEARCH LETTERS, 2024, 62
  • [44] Government subsidy and corporate green innovation - Does board governance play a role?
    Xia, Li
    Gao, Shuo
    Wei, Jiuchang
    Ding, Qiying
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2022, 161
  • [45] Corporate board network and green technological innovation: a view of guanxi culture in China
    Shao, Yanmin
    Xu, Kunliang
    [J]. INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION, 2024,
  • [46] Are women greener? Board gender diversity and corporate green technology innovation in China
    Chu, Shaner
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF ECONOMICS & FINANCE, 2024, 93 : 1001 - 1020
  • [47] Environmental cooperation system, ESG performance and corporate green innovation: Empirical evidence from China
    Shi, Qiang
    Chen, Gang
    Huang, Dawei
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 14
  • [48] The spillover effect of customers' ESG performance on suppliers' green innovation quality
    Sun, Yani
    Shen, Yuezhe
    Tan, Qingmei
    [J]. CHINA JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, 2024, 17 (03)
  • [49] The Effect of Corporate Environmental Commitment on Green Product Innovation
    Chang, Ching-Hsun
    [J]. PICMET '12: PROCEEDINGS - TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 2012, : 1144 - 1151
  • [50] The nonlinear effect of green innovation on the corporate competitive advantage
    Yu-Shan Chen
    Ke-Chiun Chang
    [J]. Quality & Quantity, 2013, 47 : 271 - 286