Does Digital Finance Improve Corporate ESG Performance? An Intermediary Role Based on Financing Constraints
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
3. Research Design
3.1. Modeling Variable Definitions and Data Sources
3.2. Variable Definitions and Data Sources
3.2.1. Core Explanatory Variable—Level of Digital Financial Development
3.2.2. Core Interpreted Variable—Enterprise ESG Performance
3.2.3. Intermediary Variable—Financing Constraints
3.2.4. Control Variables
3.2.5. Data Sources
3.3. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
3.4. Relevance Analysis
4. Empirical Results
4.1. Basic Regression Results
4.2. Intermediary Effects Regression Results Robustness Test
4.3. Robustness Test
4.3.1. Replace Digital Finance Development City-Level Indicators
4.3.2. Subsample Regression
4.3.3. Replace ESG Rating Indicator
4.3.4. Intermediary Role of Cash Flow
4.4. Endogeneity Test
4.4.1. Instrumental Variables Method
4.4.2. System GMM
5. Heterogeneity Analysis
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Xue, Y.; Jiang, C.; Guo, Y.; Liu, J.; Wu, H.; Hao, Y. Corporate Social Responsibility and High-quality Development: Do Green Innovation, Environmental Investment and Corporate Governance Matter? Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2022, 58, 3191–3214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbanyele, W.; Huang, H.; Li, Y.; Muchenje, L.T.; Wang, F. Corporate social responsibility and green innovation: Evidence from mandatory CSR disclosure laws. Econ. Lett. 2022, 212, 110322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shalhoob, H.; Hussainey, K. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Disclosure and the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Sustainability Performance. Sustainability 2023, 15, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Chen, J.; Liu, Z.; Hao, Z. Digital Inclusive Finance, Financing Constraints, and Technological Innovation of SMEs—Differences in the Effects of Financial Regulation and Government Subsidies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, F.; Fahad, S.; Yan, S.; Zhang, Y. Digital Transformation and Corporate Environmental Green Innovation Nexus: An Approach towards Green Innovation Improvement. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, D.; Fu, M.; Ye, L.; Shao, W. Can Digital Inclusive Finance Help Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises Deleverage in China? Sustainability 2023, 15, 6625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aqabna, S.; Aga, M.; Jabari, H.N. Firm Performance, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Impact of Earnings Management during COVID-19: Evidence from MENA Region. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, F.; Li, Y.; Cao, L.; Hu, L.; Xu, B. Institutional Shareholders and Firm ESG Performance: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.J.; Yoo, J.W. How does the Degree of Competition in an Industry Affect a Company’s Environmental Management and Performance? Sustainability 2023, 15, 7675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Elahi, E.; Khalid, Z.; Sun, X.; Sun, F. Environmental, Social and Governance Performance: Analysis of CEO Power and Corporate Risk. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mackey, A.; Mackey, T.B.; Barney, J.B. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 817–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flammer, C.; Hong, B.; Minor, D. Corporate governance and the rise of integrating corporate social responsibility criteria in executive compensation: Effectiveness and implications for firm outcomes. Strateg. Manag. J. 2019, 40, 1097–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavin, J.F.; Montecinos-Pearce, A.A. Heterogeneous Firms and Benefits of ESG Disclosure: Cost of Debt Financing in an Emerging Market. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahid, R.M.A.; Taran, A.; Khan, M.K.; Chersan, I.-C. ESG, dividend payout policy and the moderating role of audit quality: Empirical evidence from Western Europe. Borsa Istanb. Rev. 2023, 23, 350–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-C.; Hung, M.; Wang, Y. The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on firm profitability and social externalities: Evidence from China. J. Account. Econ. 2018, 65, 169–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallentin, S. Governmentalities of CSR: Danish Government Policy as a Reflection of Political Difference. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 127, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Huang, S. The effects of digital finance and financial constraint on financial performance: Firm-level evidence from China’s new energy enterprises. Energy Econ. 2022, 112, 106158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, Y.; Qiao, Z.; Xie, G. Corporate resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of digital finance. Pac. Basin Finance J. 2022, 74, 101791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, Y.; Shi, L.; Zhang, S. Digital finance and corporate bankruptcy risk: Evidence from China. Pac.-Basin Finance J. 2022, 72, 101731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, G.; Li, B.; Cheng, Y. Does digital transformation matter for corporate risk-taking? Finance Res. Lett. 2022, 49, 103107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbasi, K.; Alam, A.; Du, M.; Huynh, T.L.D. FinTech, SME efficiency and national culture: Evidence from OECD countries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 163, 120454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, J. Research on the Impact of Digital Finance Development on ESG Performance of Enterprises. Acad. J. Bus. Manag. 2022, 4, 136–142. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, W.; Wu, H.; Feng, Y. Can digital financial technology relieve the financing constraints of private enterprises? Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 2021, 41, 3129–3146. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, K.; Cheng, X.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Hu, J. The impacts of ESG performance and digital finance on corporate financing efficiency in China. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2023, 30, 516–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Liu, Y. Influence of digital finance and green technology innovation on China’s carbon emission efficiency: Empirical analysis based on spatial metrology. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 838, 156463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, F.; Wang, J.Y.; Wang, F.; Kong, T.; Cheng, Z.Y. Measuring the Development of China’s Digital Inclusive Finance: Index Compilation and Spatial Characteristics. Economics 2020, 4, 1401–1418. [Google Scholar]
- Ren, B.; Li, L.; Zhao, H.; Zhou, Y. The financial exclusion in the development of digital finance—A study based on survey data in the Jingjinji rural area. Singap. Econ. Rev. 2018, 63, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, M.; Zhang, R.; Chai, S.; Li, Q.; Sun, R.; Chu, W. Can Green Finance Policies Stimulate Technological Innovation and Financial Performance? Evidence from Chinese Listed Green Enterprises. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Jin, D.; Liu, Y.; Wan, Q. Digital finance, corporate financialization and enterprise operating performance: An empirical research based on Chinese A-share non-financial enterprises. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 23, 231–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Yu, Y.; Gong, D.; Wang, X. A Study on the Impact of Market Feedback on Corporate Environmental Information Disclosure—An Empirical Study Based on the Central Environmental Protection Inspectors. J. Nanjing Tech. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2021, 20, 75–80. [Google Scholar]
- Azmi, W.; Hassan, M.K.; Houston, R.; Karim, M.S. ESG activities and banking performance: International evidence from emerging economies. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 2021, 70, 101277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, F.; Du, H.; Yu, B. Corporate ESG performance and manager misconduct: Evidence from China. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2022, 82, 102201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leong, C.K.; Yang, Y.C. Market competition and firms’ social performance. Econ. Model. 2020, 91, 601–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, W.; Luo, Y.; Wang, X.; Xiao, L. Controlling shareholder pledging and corporate ESG behavior. Res. Int. Bus. Finance 2022, 61, 101655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyu, Y.; Ji, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhan, Z. Can Fintech Alleviate the Financing Constraints of Enterprises?—Evidence from the Chinese Securities Market. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, F.; Gu, X.; Jagtiani, J. A Survey of Fintech Research and Policy Discussion. Rev. Corp. Finance 2021, 1, 259–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, C.-Y.; Chou, D.-W.; Lo, H.-C. Do financial constraints matter when firms engage in CSR? N. Am. J. Econ. Finance 2017, 39, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y. The Impact of Financial System on Carbon Intensity: From the Perspective of Digitalization. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, C.; Masron, T.A. Impact of Digital Finance on Energy Efficiency in the Context of Green Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, Z.; Ye, B. Analyses of Mediating Effects: The Development of Methods and Models. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 22, 731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadlock, C.J.; Pierce, J.R. New Evidence on Measuring Financial Constraints: Moving Beyond the KZ Index. Rev. Finance Stud. 2010, 23, 1909–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable Type | Variable Name | Variable Symbol | Explanation |
---|---|---|---|
Interpreted variable | Enterprise ESG performance | esg | According to the ESG rating of Hua Zheng, it is divided into nine grades of C–AA and is given a score of 1–8 |
Explanatory variable | Digital finance | Index | Peking University Digital inclusive finance Index takes logarithm (province level) |
Control variable | Scale | Size | Natural logarithm of total assets at the end of the year |
Asset–liability ratio | Lev | Total liabilities/total assets | |
Corporate profitability | ROA | Net profit/total assets | |
Tobin Q | TobinQ | The ratio of the market value of an enterprise’s shares to the replacement cost of the asset represented by the shares | |
Firm age | FirmAge | The difference between the year of observation and the year of establishment | |
Institutional investors’ shareholding ratio | INST | Total institutional investor holdings/circulating share capital | |
Percentage of shareholding of the largest shareholder | Top1 | Number of shares held by the largest shareholder/total number of shares | |
Gross domestic product per city | gdp | Logarithm of the gross domestic product per city |
Variable | Obs | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Index | 32,818 | 5.518 | 0.543 | 3.487 | 6.129 |
esg | 32,818 | 4.158 | 1.101 | 1 | 8 |
SA | 32,818 | −3.8 | 0.251 | −4.42 | −3.152 |
Size | 32,818 | 22.154 | 1.287 | 19.951 | 25.994 |
Lev | 32,818 | 0.416 | 0.208 | 0.056 | 0.889 |
ROA | 32,818 | 0.043 | 0.064 | −0.22 | 0.208 |
TobinQ | 32,818 | 2.031 | 1.284 | 0.865 | 8.171 |
FirmAge | 32,818 | 2.014 | 0.952 | 0 | 3.332 |
INST | 32,818 | 0.372 | 0.239 | 0 | 0.87 |
Top1 | 32,818 | 0.342 | 0.148 | 0.09 | 0.729 |
gdp | 32,818 | 6.687 | 1.082 | 3.973 | 8.371 |
esg | Index | SA | Size | Lev | ROA | TobinQ | FirmAge | INST | Top1 | gdp | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
esg | 1 | ||||||||||
Index | 0.020 *** | 1 | |||||||||
SA | 0.081 *** | −0.316 *** | 1 | ||||||||
Size | 0.182 *** | 0.103 *** | −0.082 *** | 1 | |||||||
Lev | −0.065 *** | −0.041 *** | −0.125 *** | 0.518 *** | 1 | ||||||
ROA | 0.231 *** | −0.022 *** | 0.097 *** | −0.041 *** | −0.401 *** | 1 | |||||
TobinQ | −0.106 *** | 0.071 *** | 0.043 *** | −0.371 *** | −0.250 *** | 0.141 *** | 1 | ||||
FirmAge | −0.113 *** | 0.028 *** | −0.446 *** | 0.426 *** | 0.401 *** | −0.299 *** | −0.085 *** | 1 | |||
INST | 0.071 *** | −0.035 *** | −0.077 *** | 0.469 *** | 0.245 *** | 0.025 *** | 0.330 *** | 0.050 *** | 1 | ||
Top1 | 0.100 *** | −0.082 *** | 0.126 *** | 0.187 *** | 0.044 *** | 0.141 *** | −0.127 *** | −0.085 *** | 0.330 *** | 1 | |
gdp | 0.049 *** | 0.378 *** | −0.032 *** | 0.058 *** | −0.019 *** | 0.017 *** | 0.013 ** | 0.026 *** | −0.073 *** | 0.003 | 1 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | esg | esg | esg | esg |
Index | 0.281 *** | 0.117 *** | 0.200 *** | 0.0568 ** |
(0.0621) | (0.0591) | (0.117) | (0.0342) | |
Size | 0.275 *** | 0.276*** | 0.0941 *** | |
(0.00993) | (0.00994) | (0.00552) | ||
Lev | −0.821 *** | −0.825 *** | −0.108 *** | |
(0.0481) | (0.0481) | (0.0299) | ||
ROA | 1.324 *** | 1.317 *** | 7.630 *** | |
(0.109) | (0.109) | (0.0892) | ||
TobinQ | −0.0154 ** | −0.0160 *** | −0.0531 *** | |
(0.0063) | (0.00603) | (0.00418) | ||
FirmAge | −0.245 *** | −0.245 *** | 0.0139 ** | |
(0.0111) | (0.0111) | (0.00628) | ||
INST | 0.127 *** | 0.124 *** | 0.0957 *** | |
(0.0341) | (0.0341) | (0.0218) | ||
Top1 | 0.235 *** | 0.232 *** | 0.0455 | |
(0.0630) | (0.0630) | (0.0342) | ||
gdp | −0.0125 | −0.0167 | 0.0200 *** | |
(0.0119) | (0.0137) | (0.00578) | ||
Constant | 2.625 *** | −2.206 *** | −2.583 *** | 0.360 ** |
(0.334) | (0.337) | (0.531) | (0.182) | |
year | YES | YES | YES | YES |
industry | YES | YES | YES | YES |
N | 32818 | 32,818 | 32,818 | 32,818 |
R2 | 0.0838 | 0.2775 | 0.2775 | 0.4962 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
---|---|---|---|
esg | SA | esg | |
Index | 0.319 *** | 0.0216 *** | 0.305 *** |
(6.22) | (7.06) | (6.07) | |
SA | 0.265 *** | ||
(1.39) | |||
Size | 0.0978 *** | 0.0587 *** | 0.283 *** |
(22.66) | (41.16) | (37.42) | |
Lev | −0.910 *** | −0.0665 *** | −0.797 *** |
−0.102 *** | (−8.44) | (−19.46) | |
ROA | 7.504 *** | −0.473 *** | 2.556 *** |
(87.46) | (−21.40) | (21.99) | |
TobinQ | −0.0549 *** | 0.0362 *** | −0.0348 *** |
(−14.23) | (31.46) | (−5.70) | |
FirmAge | 0.0173 *** | −0.147 *** | −0.200 *** |
(3.37) | (−90.14) | (−21.06) | |
INST | −0.027 | 0.0160 * | 0.163 *** |
(−0.83) | (2.49) | (5.23) | |
Constant | 0.194 | −4.650 *** | −2.995 *** |
(1.31) | (−95.18) | (−10.38) | |
year | YES | YES | YES |
industry | YES | YES | YES |
N | 32,818 | 32,818 | 32,818 |
R2 | 0.1994 | 0.4060 | 0.2 |
(1) | (2) | |
---|---|---|
Variables | Subsample1_esg | Subsample2_esg |
Index | 0.142 | 0.699 *** |
(−0.0612) | (0.178) | |
Constant | −1.680 *** | −7.225 *** |
(0.417) | (0.972) | |
Controls | YES | YES |
year | YES | YES |
industry | YES | YES |
N | 14,676 | 18,142 |
R2 | 0.2816 | 0.2743 |
Lower Limit of Confidence Interval | Upper Limit of Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|
_bs_1 | −0.0065479 | −0.0022115 |
_bs_2 | −0.2368439 | −0.2055353 |
(1) | (2) | |
---|---|---|
Index | - | 0.053 ** (0.021) |
IP | 0.027 *** (0.0002) | - |
Size | 0.062 *** (0.003) | 0.229 *** (0.007) |
Lev | −0.219 *** (0.015) | −0.565 *** (0.041) |
ROA | −0.524 *** (0.045) | 2.932 *** (0.119) |
TobinQ | 0.039 *** (0.002) | −0.067 *** (0.006) |
FirmAge | 0.035 *** (0.003) | −0.186 *** (0.009) |
INST | −0.153 *** (0.013) | 0.161 *** (0.034) |
Top1 | −0.157 *** (0.018) | 0.017 (0.047) |
gdp | −0.018 *** (0.003) | 0.010 (0.007) |
Constant | 2.64 *** (0.056) | −0.733 *** (0.153) |
year | YES | YES |
industry | YES | YES |
N | 27,915 | 27,915 |
R2 | 0.48 | 0.121 |
(1) | |
---|---|
Variables | SYS-GMM |
Index | - |
LIndex | 0.614 *** (8.51) |
Controls | YES |
Constant | 4.275 ** (2.445) |
N | 18,618 |
AR(1) | 0.367 |
AR(2) | 0.596 |
Hansen | 0.117 |
(1) | (2) | |
---|---|---|
Variables | Firmownership | Regioneconomy |
Index × Dum | 0.432 *** | 0.06 *** |
(−0.28) | (−0.025) | |
Index | −0.375 * | 0.014 * |
(−0.33) | (−0.257) | |
Constant | −0.69 | −2.336 |
(−2.77) | (−0.578) | |
Controls | YES | YES |
year | YES | YES |
industry | YES | YES |
N | 32,818 | 32,818 |
R2 | 0.4102 | 0.2960 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ning, Y.; Zhang, Y. Does Digital Finance Improve Corporate ESG Performance? An Intermediary Role Based on Financing Constraints. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10685. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310685
Ning Y, Zhang Y. Does Digital Finance Improve Corporate ESG Performance? An Intermediary Role Based on Financing Constraints. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10685. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310685
Chicago/Turabian StyleNing, Yuxin, and Yihan Zhang. 2023. "Does Digital Finance Improve Corporate ESG Performance? An Intermediary Role Based on Financing Constraints" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 10685. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310685
APA StyleNing, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Does Digital Finance Improve Corporate ESG Performance? An Intermediary Role Based on Financing Constraints. Sustainability, 15(13), 10685. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310685