IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i11p5072-d1669847.html

Is the ESG Performance of State-Owned Enterprises Becoming a Pivotal Role?—Based on the Empirical Evidence from Chinese Listed Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Xintong Fang

    (School of Accounting, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Xiaodan Zhang

    (School of Accounting, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Deshuai Hou

    (School of Accounting, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

Abstract

The fundamental principles of “sustainable development” and “green” promoted by ESG align with the concept of “green and sustainable” development. Enhancing enterprise ESG is a methodical endeavor that necessitates enterprises to possess ESG investment capabilities, coordinate many stakeholders, and leverage the influence of prominent market players. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) possess a specific level of support within a nation’s economy. SOEs serve as a fundamental pillar of China’s socialist economic system with distinctive characteristics, significantly influencing business conduct and reinforcing corporate value orientation. Consequently, the capacity of SOEs to assume a strategic leadership role in enhancing supply chain ESG performance is of paramount importance for the general elevation of ESG standards among Chinese enterprises. Limited research has investigated the transmission effect of the ESG performance among chain enterprises from a supply chain viewpoint, particularly regarding the pivotal role of SOEs in enhancing the ESG performance of these entities. This article examines the influence of SOEs’ ESG performance on the ESG performance of supply chain enterprises, focusing on the spillover effects of SOEs’ ESG performance within the supply chain context. It investigates how SOEs lead upstream and downstream enterprises in enhancing their ESG performance, aiming to address the existing cognitive gap in this area and provide substantial evidence for pertinent theories and practices. This article, employing an empirical research methodology, discovers that the ESG performance of state-owned supply chain core enterprises significantly enhances the ESG performance of enterprises in a supply chain, while non-state-owned supply chain core enterprises do not exhibit this effect. Furthermore, research indicates that this effect is asymmetric: when the supply chain core enterprise is a SOE and the enterprises in the supply chain are non-state-owned, the leading effect is more pronounced, and this effect is more powerful for upstream enterprises. The heterogeneity test reveals that the impact of the ESG performance is more pronounced in larger state-owned supply chain core enterprises that have been publicly listed for an extended duration and operate in highly competitive markets. The conclusions of this essay address the deficiencies of current research and provide significant practical implications for the development of green supply chains in the contemporary era.

Suggested Citation

  • Xintong Fang & Xiaodan Zhang & Deshuai Hou, 2025. "Is the ESG Performance of State-Owned Enterprises Becoming a Pivotal Role?—Based on the Empirical Evidence from Chinese Listed Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-29, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:5072-:d:1669847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/5072/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/5072/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuel Drempetic & Christian Klein & Bernhard Zwergel, 2020. "The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 333-360, November.
    2. Sadok El Ghoul & Omrane Guedhami & Yongtae Kim, 2017. "Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(3), pages 360-385, April.
    3. Dan Daugaard & Ashley Ding, 2022. "Global Drivers for ESG Performance: The Body of Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, February.
    4. Amihud, Yakov, 2002. "Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 31-56, January.
    5. Goss, Allen & Roberts, Gordon S., 2011. "The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1794-1810, July.
    6. Richard Lambert & Christian Leuz & Robert E. Verrecchia, 2007. "Accounting Information, Disclosure, and the Cost of Capital," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 45(2), pages 385-420, May.
    7. X. D. Xu & S. X. Zeng & H. L. Zou & Jonathan J. Shi, 2016. "The Impact of Corporate Environmental Violation on Shareholders' Wealth: a Perspective Taken from Media Coverage," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 73-91, February.
    8. Tang, Jinghua & Wang, Xiaoming & Liu, Qigui, 2023. "The spillover effect of customers' ESG to suppliers," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    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. Cheung, Yan-Leung & Tan, Weiqiang & Wang, Wenming, 2020. "Where do banks value corporate social responsibility more? Evidence on the role of national culture," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    2. Arru Brunella & Delrio Federico & Furesi Roberto & Pulina Pietro & Fabio Albino Madau, 2025. "Role of environmental, social and governance disclosure in business profitability and cost of debt: An analysis of small Southern Italian agri‐food businesses," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 856-895, July.
    3. Wang, Fengrong & Mbanyele, William & Muchenje, Linda, 2022. "Economic policy uncertainty and stock liquidity: The mitigating effect of information disclosure," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    4. Jorgensen, Bjorn & Li, Jing & Sadka, Gil, 2012. "Earnings dispersion and aggregate stock returns," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-20.
    5. Guo, Shijun & Hu, Fang, 2025. "Catalyzing transparency: Proactive enforcement of information disclosure and its impact on stock price synchronicity," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1).
    6. Gary McCormick & Dan W. French, 2016. "Effects of frequent information disclosure: the case of daily net asset value reporting for closed-end investment companies," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 107-122, January.
    7. Servaes, Henri & Amiraslani, Hami & Lins, Karl & Tamayo, Ane, 2017. "A Matter of Trust? The Bond Market Benefits of Corporate Social Capital during the Financial Crisis," CEPR Discussion Papers 12321, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Rouine, Ibtissem & Ammari, Aymen & Bruna, Maria Giuseppina, 2022. "Nonlinear impacts of CSR performance on firm risk: New evidence using a panel smooth threshold regression," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(PB).
    9. Liu, Chengyun & Su, Kun & Zhang, Miaomiao, 2021. "Water disclosure and financial reporting quality for social changes: Empirical evidence from China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    10. Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez & Nazim Hussain & Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero & Emiliano Ruiz‐Barbadillo, 2019. "Impact of disclosure and assurance quality of corporate sustainability reports on access to finance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 832-848, July.
    11. Wang, Kai & Li, Tingting & San, Ziyao & Gao, Hao, 2023. "How does corporate ESG performance affect stock liquidity? Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    12. Haifeng Zhang & Zhuo Zhang & Ekaterina Steklova, 2020. "Do Companies Need Financial Flexibility for Sustainable Development?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, February.
    13. Gao, Wenlian & Zhu, Feifei, 2015. "Information asymmetry and capital structure around the world," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 131-159.
    14. Adrian, Christofer & Garg, Mukesh & Viet Pham, Anh & Phang, Soon-Yeow & Truong, Cameron, 2022. "Policy and oversight of corporate political activities and the cost of equity capital," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    15. David Ardia & Keven Bluteau & Kris Boudt & Koen Inghelbrecht, 2020. "Climate change concerns and the performance of green versus brown stocks," Working Paper Research 395, National Bank of Belgium.
    16. Francesco Gangi & Jérôme Méric & Rémi Jardat & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Business for society," Post-Print hal-02382307, HAL.
    17. Qian, Shuitu & Yu, Wenzhe, 2024. "Green finance and environmental, social, and governance performance," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PA), pages 1185-1202.
    18. Aanchal Singh & Prakash Singh & Samik Shome, 2022. "ESG–CFP Linkages: A Review of Its Antecedents and Scope for Future Research," Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, , vol. 15(1), pages 48-69, June.
    19. Konstantin Ignatov & Markus Rudolf, 2023. "Sentimental Sustainability: Does What Companies Say Tell More Than What Companies Do?," Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 221-252, November.
    20. Fu, Renhui & Kraft, Arthur & Zhang, Huai, 2012. "Financial reporting frequency, information asymmetry, and the cost of equity," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 132-149.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:17:y:2025:i:11:p:5072-:d:1669847. 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.