Does ESG performance bring to enterprises’ green innovation? Yes, evidence from 118 countries

Abstract

Research background: The sustainable development and innovation economics theory and related literature place a lot of emphasis on the relationship between environment, society, and governance (ESG) and green innovation.

Purpose of the article: The purpose of this paper is to understand what the factors are that influence green innovation and why there is a big disparity in green innovation capabilities between nations. In addition, this paper aims to investigate the impact of ESG performance of green innovation by using unbalanced panel data covering 118 sample countries during the period of 1999–2019.

Methods: Panel fixed effect model; Instrumental variable (IV) method; First-differencing (FD) method; Kinky least-squares (KLS) approach.

Findings & value added: ESG performance provides evidence for its positive and significant impact on such innovation. Among the ESG factors, governance seems to have the most important influence on green innovation. Moreover, the positive influence of ESG performance is more evident in higher income and wealthy nations. Furthermore, we also conclude that ESG performance can affect green innovation through FDI, human capital, financial development and trade openness. These conclusions hold up after a number of robustness tests and taking into account any potential endogenous issues. Overall, policymakers should pay close attention to the findings.

Keywords

environment, society, and governance (ESG), Green innovation, Sustainable development

References

1. Ahmed, S. U., Ahmed, S. P., & Hasan, I. (2018). Why banks should consider ESG risk factors in bank lending? Banks and Bank Systems, 13(3), 71–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21511/bbs.13(3).2018.07
   View in Google Scholar
2. Bai, J. (2009). Panel data models with interactive fixed effects. Econometrica, 77(4), 1229–1279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA6135
   View in Google Scholar
3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
   View in Google Scholar
4. Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634–647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979
   View in Google Scholar
5. Bu, M. L., Qiao, Z. Z., & Liu, B. B. (2020). Voluntary environmental regulation and firm innovation in China. Economic Modelling, 89, 10–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.12.020
   View in Google Scholar
6. Cai, Y., Pan, C. H., & Statman, M. (2016). Why do countries matter so much in corporate social performance? Journal of Corporate Finance, 41, 591–609. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.09.004
   View in Google Scholar
7. Chen, J. K., Abbas, J., Najam, H., Liu, J. N., Abbas, J. (2022). Green technological innovation, green finance, and financial development and their role in green total factor productivity: Empirical insights from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 382, 135131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135131
   View in Google Scholar
8. Clemens, M. A., Radelet, S., Bhavnani, R. R., & Bazzi, S. (2012). Counting chickens when they hatch: Timing and the effects of aid on growth. Economic Journal, 122(561), 590–617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02482.x
   View in Google Scholar
9. Cornell, B. (2020). ESG preferences, risk and return. European Financial Management, 27(1), 12–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eufm.12295
   View in Google Scholar
10. Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
    View in Google Scholar
11. Di Giuli, A., & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal Financial Economics, 111(1), 158–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.10.002
    View in Google Scholar
12. Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2019). The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 333–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1
    View in Google Scholar
13. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549–560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557825
    View in Google Scholar
14. Du, K., Cheng, Y., & Yao, X. (2021). Environmental regulation, green technology innovation, and industrial structure upgrading: The road to the green transformation of Chinese cities. Energy Economics, 98, 105247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105247
    View in Google Scholar
15. Feng, Y., Wang, X., & Liang, Z. (2021). How does environmental information disclosure affect economic development and haze pollution in Chinese cities? The mediating role of green technology innovation. Science of The Total Environment, 775, 145811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145811
    View in Google Scholar
16. Fu, Q., Chen, Y. E., Jang, C. L., & Chang, C. P. (2020). The impact of international sanctions on environmental performance. Science of The Total Environment, 745, 141007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141007
    View in Google Scholar
17. Fu, Q., Gong, Q., Zhao, X. X., & Chang, C. P. (2022). The effects of international sanctions on green innovations. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 29(1), 141–164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2022.17782
    View in Google Scholar
18. Guloglu, B., Tekin, R. B., & Saridogan E. (2012). Economic determinants of technological progress in G7 countries: A re-examination. Economics Letters, 116(3), 604–608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.06.012
    View in Google Scholar
19. Hao, L. N., Umar, M., Khan, Z., & Ali, W. (2021). Green growth and low carbon emission in G7 countries: How critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and human capital is? Science of The Total Environment, 752, 141853. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141853
    View in Google Scholar
20. Hastalona, D., & Sadalia, I. (2021). Literature review ESG and sustainability finance. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal, 4(3), 3548–3557. doi: 10.33258/birci.v4i3.2122.
    View in Google Scholar
21. Hoang, K. (2022). Silent but deadly: Political corruption and voluntary ESG disclosure in the United States. Managerial and Decision Economics, 43(7), 2775–2793. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3562
    View in Google Scholar
22. Hsu, C. C., Quang-Thanh, N., Chien, F., Li, L., & Mohsin, M. (2021). Evaluating green innovation and performance of financial development: Mediating concerns of environmental regulation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(40), 57386–57397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14499-w
    View in Google Scholar
23. Huang, S., Lu, J., Chau, K. Y., & Zheng, H. (2020). Influence of ambidextrous learning on eco-innovation performance of startups: Moderating effect of top management’s environmental awareness. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1976. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01976
    View in Google Scholar
24. Jha, A., & Cox, J. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and social capital. Journal of Banking Finance, 60, 252–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.08.003
    View in Google Scholar
25. Kiviet, J. F. (2013). Identification and inference in a simultaneous equation under alternative information sets and sampling schemes. Econometrics Journal, 16(1), S24–S59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2012.00386.x
    View in Google Scholar
26. Kiviet, J. F. (2023). Instrument-free inference under confined regressor endogeneity and mild regularity. Econometrics and Statistics, 25, 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosta.2021.12.008
    View in Google Scholar
27. Lewbel, A. (2012). Using heteroscedasticity to identify and estimate mismeasured and endogenous regressor models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 30(1), 67–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2012.643126
    View in Google Scholar
28. Liang, H., & Renneboog, L. (2017). On the foundations of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Finance, 72(2), 853–910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12487
    View in Google Scholar
29. Liu, C. Y., Gao, X. Y., Ma, W. L., & Chen, X. T. (2020). Research on regional differences and influencing factors of green technology innovation efficiency of China’s high-tech industry. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 369, 112597. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2019.112597
    View in Google Scholar
30. Long, H., Feng, G. F., Gong, Q., & Chang, C. P. (2023). ESG performance and green innovation: An investigation based on quantile regression. Business Strategy and the Environment. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3410
    View in Google Scholar
31. Mooneeapen, O., Abhayawansa, S., & Khan, N. M. (2022). The influence of the country governance environment on corporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 13(4), 953–985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2021-0298
    View in Google Scholar
32. Shi, Y., & Yang, C. (2022). How does multidimensional R&D investment affect green innovation? Evidence from China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 947108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947108
    View in Google Scholar
33. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/270723
    View in Google Scholar
34. Song, M., Tao, J., & Wang, S. (2015). FDI, technology spillovers and green innovation in China: Analysis based on data envelopment analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 228(1), 47–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1442-0
    View in Google Scholar
35. Sun, H., Edziah, B. K., Sun, C., & Kporsu, A. K. (2019). Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 135, 111002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111002
    View in Google Scholar
36. Tan, Y., & Zhu, Z. (2022). The effect of ESG rating events on corporate green innovation in China: The mediating role of financial constraints and managers’ environmental awareness. Technology in Society, 68, 101906. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc. 2022.101906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101906
    View in Google Scholar
37. Tang, K., Qiu, Y., & Zhou, D. (2020). Does command-and-control regulation promote green innovation performance? Evidence from China’s industrial enterprises. Science of the Total Environment, 712, 136362. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019. 136362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136362
    View in Google Scholar
38. Van Beveren, I., & Vandenbussche, H. (2010). Product and process innovation and firms’ decision to export. Journal of economic policy reform, 13(1), 3–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870903546267
    View in Google Scholar
39. Wang, Q. J., Feng, G. F., Chen, Y. E., Wen, J., & Chang, C. P. (2019). The impacts of government ideology on innovation: What are the main implications? Research Policy, 48(5), 1232–1247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.12.009
    View in Google Scholar
40. Wang, Q. J., Feng, G. F., Wang, H. J., & Chang, C. P. (2021). The impacts of democracy on innovation: Revisited evidence. Technovation, 108, 102333. doi: 10.1016/j.te chnovation.2021.102333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102333
    View in Google Scholar
41. Wang, Q. J., Wang, H. J., Feng, G. F., & Chang, C. P. (2023). Impact of digital transformation on performance of environment, social, and governance: Empirical evidence from China. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12573
    View in Google Scholar
42. Wen, J., Li, L., Zhao, X., Jiao, C., & Li, W. (2022). How government size expansion can affect green innovation—An empirical analysis of data on cross-country green patent filings. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127328
    View in Google Scholar
43. Wen, J., Zhao, X. X., & Chang, C. P. (2021). The impact of extreme events on energy price risk. Energy Economics, 99, 105308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105308
    View in Google Scholar
44. Wu, B., & Flynn, A. (1995). Sustainable development in China: Seeking a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. Sustainable Development, 3(1), 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3460030102
    View in Google Scholar
45. Zhang, F., Yang, Y. W., Ahmad, M., & Shao, J. J. (2022). Would the urban environmental legislation realize the Porter hypothesis? Empirical evidence based on panel data of Chinese prefecture cities. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 944383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.944383
    View in Google Scholar
46. Zheng, J., Khurram, M. U., & Chen, L. (2022). Can green innovation affect ESG ratings and financial performance? Evidence from Chinese GEM listed companies. Sustainability, 14, 8677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148677
    View in Google Scholar
47. Zheng, M., Feng, G. F., Wen, J., & Chang, C. P. (2020). The influence of FDI on domestic innovation: An investigation using structural breaks. Prague Economic Papers, 29(4), 403–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.739
    View in Google Scholar