IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0317191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

ESG rating disagreement and bank loan availability: Evidence from China

Author

Listed:
  • Jidong Qin
  • Meijia Wang

Abstract

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings are receiving increasing attention in credit markets. However, ESG rating disagreement erects obstacles for companies in obtaining capital resources. This study investigates the impact of ESG rating disagreement on bank loan availability uses data of Chinese listed firms from 2014 to 2022, and employs models with multiple regression analyses and fixed effects. We find that greater ESG rating disagreement leads to a decrease in newly obtained bank loans. The mechanism analysis confirms that ESG rating disagreement amplifies information asymmetry and increases operational uncertainty, thereby raising the information and credit risks faced by banks, leading to a decrease in bank loan availability. Heterogeneity analysis reveals that the negative effect of ESG rating disagreement on bank loan availability is more pronounced in firms with poor financing capabilities, poor information environments, and fierce competitive macro environments. Our findings contribute to the literature on ESG rating disagreement from credit markets, which are important for a more comprehensive and objective understanding of ESG rating disagreement.

Suggested Citation

  • Jidong Qin & Meijia Wang, 2025. "ESG rating disagreement and bank loan availability: Evidence from China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-18, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0317191
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317191
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317191&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0317191?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0317191. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.