IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i19p8897-d1766095.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corporate Dual-Organizational Performance and Substantive Green Innovation Practices: A Quasi-Natural Experiment Analysis Based on ESG Rating Events

Author

Listed:
  • Huirong Li

    (Changzhou University Huaide College, Jingjiang 214500, China
    School of Educational Sciences, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China)

  • Li Zhao

    (School of Economics, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

Abstract

Using the “Policy Pressure-Innovation Alignment-Performance Transformation” theory, this paper looks at how ESG ratings, green innovation, and corporate dual-organizational performance are linked. This study uses a multi-period Difference-in-Differences (DID) model in conjunction with a conditional mediation effect model to examine how ESG ratings causally influence substantive green innovation, which in turn improves corporate financial and environmental performance. Regression results show that corporate ESG ratings have a big effect on the performance of both organizations. ESG ratings have a bigger effect on financial performance, while ESG scores have a bigger effect on environmental performance. Looking at the sub-dimensions shows that policy ratings have immediate effects on environmental performance and delayed effects on financial performance. The conclusion that the internalization response of corporate environmental costs is timely, while the market revaluation has a delayed transmission effect, holds true after being tested through parallel trend analysis and synthetic DID testing. More research shows that differences in ESG ratings hurt financial performance but help environmental performance. This means that differences in ESG ratings may lead to more real green innovation activities, which have a direct effect on the environment and, in the end, lead to bigger improvements in environmental performance. The moderating effect test shows that being aware of the environment makes substantive green innovation more focused on quality by making people feel responsible for their actions. Also, environmental management leads to more corporate green patents, which has resource displacement effects and makes green patent innovations less effective. Heterogeneity analysis shows that state-owned businesses use their institutional advantages to improve the “quality-quantity” of substantive green innovation, which helps their corporate green development performance. Declining businesses push for green innovation to fix problems that are already there, but mature businesses don’t like ESG rating policies because they are stuck in their ways, which stops them from making real progress in green innovation. This paper ends with micro-level evidence and theoretical support to solve the “greenwashing” problem of ESG and come up with “harmonious coexistence” policy combinations that work for businesses.

Suggested Citation

  • Huirong Li & Li Zhao, 2025. "Corporate Dual-Organizational Performance and Substantive Green Innovation Practices: A Quasi-Natural Experiment Analysis Based on ESG Rating Events," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-32, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:19:p:8897-:d:1766095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/19/8897/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/19/8897/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fatemi, Ali & Glaum, Martin & Kaiser, Stefanie, 2018. "ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 45-64.
    2. Fatemi, Ali & Fooladi, Iraj & Tehranian, Hassan, 2015. "Valuation effects of corporate social responsibility," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 182-192.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. McPherson, Michael A. & Nieswiadomy, Michael L., 2005. "Environmental Kuznets curve: threatened species and spatial effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 395-407, November.
    6. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Kwok, Chuck C.Y. & Mishra, Dev R., 2011. "Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 2388-2406, September.
    7. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    8. Spence, Michael, 1974. "Competitive and optimal responses to signals: An analysis of efficiency and distribution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 296-332, March.
    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. Ting Qian & Caoyuan Yang, 2023. "State-Owned Equity Participation and Corporations’ ESG Performance in China: The Mediating Role of Top Management Incentives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Amir Gholami & Peter A. Murray & John Sands, 2022. "Environmental, Social, Governance & Financial Performance Disclosure for Large Firms: Is This Different for SME Firms?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Adam Arian & John Sands & Stuart Tooley, 2023. "Industry and Stakeholder Impacts on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Financial Performance: Consumer vs. Industrial Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Frank J. Fabozzi & Peck Wah Ng & Diana E. Tunaru, 2021. "The impact of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance and credit ratings in Japan," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(2), pages 79-95, March.
    5. Ramírez-Orellana, Alicia & Martínez-Victoria, MCarmen & García-Amate, Antonio & Rojo-Ramírez, Alfonso A., 2023. "Is the corporate financial strategy in the oil and gas sector affected by ESG dimensions?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    6. Zeng, Yongliang & Zhao, Xiangfang & Zhu, Yiwen, 2023. "Equity incentives and ESG performance: Evidence from China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PC).
    7. Pedro Verga Matos & Victor Barros & Joaquim Miranda Sarmento, 2020. "Does ESG Affect the Stability of Dividend Policies in Europe?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-15, October.
    8. Amir Gholami & John Sands & Habib Ur Rahman, 2022. "Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosure and Value Generation: Is the Financial Industry Different?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Sakkakom Maneenop & Chaiyuth Padungsaksawasdi & Sirimon Treepongkaruna, 2024. "Co‐opted board, environment, social and governance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 1161-1172, February.
    10. Liu, Xiaoqian & Cifuentes-Faura, Javier & Zhao, Shikuan & Wang, Long, 2024. "The impact of government environmental attention on firms’ ESG performance: Evidence from China," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(PA).
    11. Yuan, Mingqing, 2024. "Beyond green bonds: Stock market reactions to ESG bond announcements and issuances in Japan," MPRA Paper 120943, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Dutordoir, Marie & Strong, Norman C. & Sun, Ping, 2018. "Corporate social responsibility and seasoned equity offerings," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 158-179.
    13. Hyeong Joon Kim & Seongjae Mun & Seung Hun Han, 2023. "Corporate social responsibility and the alignment of CEO and shareholders wealth: Does a strong alignment induce or restrain CSR?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 720-741, March.
    14. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Wang, He & Kwok, Chuck C.Y., 2016. "Family control and corporate social responsibility," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 131-146.
    15. Rezaee, Zabihollah & Dou, Huan & Zhang, Huili, 2020. "Corporate social responsibility and earnings quality: Evidence from China," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. Fiordelisi, Franco & Ricci, Ornella & Santilli, Gianluca, 2023. "Environmental engagement and stock price crash risk: Evidence from the European banking industry," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    17. Bolognesi, Enrica & Burchi, Alberto, 2023. "The impact of the ESG disclosure on sell-side analysts’ target prices: The new era post Paris agreements," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    18. Komath, Muhammed Aslam Chelery & Doğan, Murat & Sayılır, Özlem, 2023. "Impact of corporate governance and related controversies on the market value of banks," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    19. Christian Espinosa-Méndez & Carlos P. Maquieira & José T. Arias, 2023. "The Impact of ESG Performance on the Value of Family Firms: The Moderating Role of Financial Constraints and Agency Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, April.
    20. Muhammad Sani Khamisu & Achuta Ratna Paluri, 2025. "What’s past is prologue: reminiscing research on environment social governance (ESG) disclosures," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(2), pages 320-340, June.

    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:19:p:8897-:d:1766095. 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.