Author
Listed:
- Gongtao Ni
(Faculty of Management Science, Dhonburi Rajabhat University, Bangkok 10600, Thailand)
- Jirapong Ruanggoon
(Faculty of Management Science, Dhonburi Rajabhat University, Bangkok 10600, Thailand)
- Worasak Klongthong
(School of Business, GlobalNxt University, Kuala Lumpur 59200, Malaysia)
Abstract
This study examines how ESG performance, innovation performance, and policy support relate to organizational resilience in China’s real estate industry. Drawing on the Resource-Based View, Institutional Theory, and Configurational Theory, organizational resilience is conceptualized through recovery and resistance capacities. Fixed-effects regression, robustness tests, and heterogeneity analyses are applied using panel data from 80 Chinese A-share-listed real estate firms from 2015–2024 (800 firm-year observations). The findings show that ESG performance is positively associated with accounting-based recovery, particularly Return on Equity, but negatively affects market-based recovery in the baseline models, reflected in Tobin’s Q. Additional analysis reveals a U-shaped relationship between ESG performance and Tobin’s Q, suggesting that initial market valuation penalties may decline as ESG engagement deepens. Innovation performance shows limited baseline effects but becomes more relevant in alternative specifications related to recovery and leverage. Policy support, measured through tax rebates (TAX), did not show significant direct effects on organizational resilience in the baseline models. However, robustness analyses using green expenditure intensity (GEx) suggest possible indirect and conditional policy-related mechanisms associated with sustainability-oriented investment behavior. Overall, organizational resilience is shaped by heterogeneous interactions among ESG, innovation, and policy-related factors.
Suggested Citation
Gongtao Ni & Jirapong Ruanggoon & Worasak Klongthong, 2026.
"Organizational Resilience in China’s Real Estate Industry: The Roles of ESG, Innovation Performance, and Policy Support,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-26, July.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:14:p:7121-:d:1989339
Download full text from publisher
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:18:y:2026:i:14:p:7121-:d:1989339. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address
(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.