IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i6p2309-d1354927.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Green Technology Innovation and Enterprise Performance: An Analysis Based on Causal Machine Learning Models

Author

Listed:
  • Xuanai Huang

    (School of Economics and Management, Changsha University of Science & Technology, Changsha 417000, China)

  • Yaozhong Wang

    (School of Economics and Management, Changsha University of Science & Technology, Changsha 417000, China)

  • Ying Chen

    (School of Finance and Economics, Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University, Guangzhou 510665, China)

  • Zunguo Hu

    (School of Economics and Management, Changsha University of Science & Technology, Changsha 417000, China)

Abstract

As increasingly stringent environmental regulations are put into effect, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) concepts are being seamlessly integrated into the core of corporate innovation strategies. Due to the quasi-public product perspective of green innovation, the performance of enterprises as a result of green innovation activities exhibits significant heterogeneity. This heterogeneity exists not only between corporate value and financial performance but also among individual enterprises. This paper is based on a sample of 1510 listed Chinese companies examined from 2013 to 2020 and uses machine learning algorithms and quasi-natural experiments to precisely estimate the causal relationship and mechanisms between green innovation and corporate performance. The findings elucidate several critical aspects of green innovation within the corporate sphere: Firstly, rather than attracting green incentives from financial markets, green innovation activities inadvertently stifle the enhancement of corporate value. Secondly, these activities markedly bolster corporate financial performance, primarily by diminishing operational costs, which in turn elevates the return on assets (ROA). Lastly, of all corporate characteristics examined, enterprise size and equity concentration stand out as key determinants influencing the variability in outcomes of green innovation performance. The above findings provide information on the significant implications of enhancing green technology innovation systems and green incentive mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuanai Huang & Yaozhong Wang & Ying Chen & Zunguo Hu, 2024. "Green Technology Innovation and Enterprise Performance: An Analysis Based on Causal Machine Learning Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2309-:d:1354927
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2309/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2309/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    2. Kee-Hong Bae & Wei Wang, 2012. "What's in a “China” Name? A Test of Investor Attention Hypothesis," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 41(2), pages 429-455, June.
    3. Shadbegian, Ronald J. & Gray, Wayne B., 2005. "Pollution abatement expenditures and plant-level productivity: A production function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 196-208, August.
    4. Jing-Wen Huang & Yong-Hui Li, 2017. "Green Innovation and Performance: The View of Organizational Capability and Social Reciprocity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(2), pages 309-324, October.
    5. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    6. Eva Coll-Martínez & Malia Kedjar & Patricia Renou-Maissant, 2022. "(Green) Knowledge spillovers and regional environmental support: do they matter for the entry of new green tech-based firms?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(1), pages 119-161, August.
    7. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 610-619, November.
    8. Gupta, Shreekant & Goldar, Bishwanath, 2005. "Do stock markets penalize environment-unfriendly behaviour? Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 81-95, January.
    9. Pástor, Ľuboš & Stambaugh, Robert F. & Taylor, Lucian A., 2022. "Dissecting green returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 403-424.
    10. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 3, pages 53-66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Josh Ederington, 2010. "Should Trade Agreements Include Environmental Policy?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 84-102, Winter.
    12. Christian Soltmann & Tobias Stucki & Martin Woerter, 2015. "The Impact of Environmentally Friendly Innovations on Value Added," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 457-479, November.
    13. Darwin Choi & Zhenyu Gao & Wenxi Jiang, 2020. "Attention to Global Warming," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(3), pages 1112-1145.
    14. Patricia Renou-Maissant & Eva Coll-Martinez & Malia Kedjar, 2022. "(Green) knowledge spillovers and regional environmental support: do they matter for the entry of new green tech-based firms?," Post-Print hal-03637672, HAL.
    15. Parthiban David & Matt Bloom & Amy J. Hillman, 2007. "Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 91-100, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Huiban, Jean-Pierre & Mastromarco, Camille & Musolesi, Antonio & Simioni, Michel, 2016. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on production technology: new insights from frontier analysis," Working Papers MOISA 235162, Institut National de la recherché Agronomique (INRA), UMR MOISA : Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs : CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France.
    2. Böhringer, Christoph & Moslener, Ulf & Oberndorfer, Ulrich & Ziegler, Andreas, 2012. "Clean and productive? Empirical evidence from the German manufacturing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 442-451.
    3. Gonseth, Camille & Cadot, Olivier & Mathys, Nicole A. & Thalmann, Philippe, 2015. "Energy-tax changes and competitiveness: The role of adaptive capacity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 127-135.
    4. Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2018. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on production technology: a nonparametric approach," SEEDS Working Papers 0918, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Sep 2018.
    5. Huang, Youxing & Xu, Qi & Zhao, Yanping, 2021. "Short-run pain, long-run gain: Desulfurization investment and productivity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "Development and Utilization of Energy-related Technologies, Economic Performance and the Role of Policy Instruments," KOF Working papers 16-419, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    7. Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
    8. Wunhong Su & Chun Guo & Xiaobao Song, 2022. "Media coverage, Environment Protection Law and environmental research and development: evidence from the Chinese-listed firms," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 6953-6983, May.
    9. Johan Brolund & Robert Lundmark, 2017. "Effect of Environmental Regulation Stringency on the Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Oberndorfer, Ulrich & Moslener, Ulf & Böhringer, Christoph & Ziegler, Andreas, 2008. "Clean and Productive? Evidence from the German Manufacturing Industry," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-091, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Phu Nguyen-Van & Tuyen Tiet & Quoc Tran-Nam, 2024. "Synergy in environmental compliance, innovation and export on SMEs' growth," Working Papers hal-04441426, HAL.
    12. Francesco Crespi & Claudia Ghisetti & Francesco Quatraro, 2015. "Taxonomy of Implemented Policy Instruments to Foster the Production of Green Technologies and Improve Environmental and Economic Performance. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 90," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58131, April.
    13. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "Competitiveness and ecological impacts of green energy technologies: firm-level evidence for the DACH region," KOF Working papers 16-420, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    14. Stanley Kam Sing Wong, 2013. "Environmental Requirements, Knowledge Sharing and Green Innovation: Empirical Evidence from the Electronics Industry in China," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 321-338, July.
    15. Francesco Crespi & Claudia Ghisetti & Francesco Quatraro, 2015. "Environmental and innovation policies for the evolution of green technologies: a survey and a test," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 343-370, December.
    16. Xie, Rong-hui & Yuan, Yi-jun & Huang, Jing-jing, 2017. "Different Types of Environmental Regulations and Heterogeneous Influence on “Green” Productivity: Evidence from China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 104-112.
    17. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Jean-Pierre Ponssard & Bernard Sinclair Desgagné & Louis-Georges Soler, 2016. "The agro-food industry, public health, and environmental protection: investigating the Porter hypothesis in food regulation," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 127-140, September.
    18. Girod, Bastien & Stucki, Tobias & Woerter, Martin, 2017. "How do policies for efficient energy use in the household sector induce energy-efficiency innovation? An evaluation of European countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 223-237.
    19. Nusrate Aziz & Belayet Hossain & Laura Lamb, 2022. "Does green policy pay dividends?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(2), pages 147-172, April.
    20. Shaun Larcom & Ferdinand Rauch & Tim Willems, 2017. "The Benefits of Forced Experimentation: Striking Evidence from the London Underground Network," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(4), pages 2019-2055.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2309-:d:1354927. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.