The Impact of Government Subsidies on the Environmental Performance of Agricultural Enterprises
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Research on the Environmental Performance of Enterprises
2.2. Research on the Economic Consequences of Government Subsidies
2.3. Relationship Between Government Subsidies and Environmental Performance of Agricultural Enterprises
2.4. Mediating Effect of EMA
2.5. Mediating Effect of Internal Control Level
3. Methods and Data
3.1. Sample Selection and Data Sources
3.2. Variable Description
3.2.1. Explained Variable
3.2.2. Explanatory Variable
3.2.3. Mechanism Variables
3.2.4. Control Variables
3.3. Model Setting
4. Empirical Results
4.1. The Impact of Government Subsidies on the Environmental Performance of Agricultural Enterprises
4.2. Robustness Test
4.2.1. Instrumental Variables
4.2.2. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) Test
4.2.3. Sample Change
4.2.4. Model Transformation
4.3. Test of Influence Mechanism
4.3.1. Mediating Effect of EMA
4.3.2. Mediating Effect of IC
4.4. Heterogeneity of Government Subsidies
4.4.1. Heterogeneity Analysis of R&D Subsidies
4.4.2. Heterogeneity Analysis of Environmental Protection Subsidy
5. Discussions and Conclusions
5.1. Discussions
5.2. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fuso Nerini, F.; Tomei, J.; To, L.S.; Bisaga, I.; Parikh, P.; Black, M.; Mulugetta, Y. Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan, B.A.; Gao, L.; Ye, Y.; Sun, X.; Connor, J.D.; Crossman, N.D.; Hou, X. China’s response to a national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature 2018, 559, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.; Nozawa, W.; Yagi, M.; Fujii, H.; Managi, S. Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Ma, M.; Dong, T.; Zhang, Z. Do ESG ratings promote corporate green innovation? A quasi-natural experiment based on SynTao Green Finance’s ESG ratings. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2023, 87, 102623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juríčková, Z.; Lušňáková, Z.; Hallová, M.; Horská, E.; Hudáková, M. Environmental impacts and attitudes of agricultural enterprises for environmental protection and sustainable development. Agriculture 2020, 10, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, Y.; Harrison, J.; Chen, L. A framework for the practice of corporate environmental responsibility in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 426–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumol, W.J. On taxation and the control of externalities. Am. Econ. Rev. 1972, 62, 307–322. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1803378 (accessed on 1 June 2025).
- Drempetic, S.; Klein, C.; Zwergel, B. The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 167, 333–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaukat, A.; Qiu, Y.; Trojanowski, G. Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 135, 569–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustafa, G.; Khatri, I. Board Gender Diversity and CSR Performance: Do Societal Harmony/Mastery Orientation and Cultural Tightness-Looseness Matter? Br. J. Manag. 2025, 36, 163–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daddi, T.; Iraldo, F.; Testa, F.; De Giacomo, M.R. The influence of managerial satisfaction on corporate environmental performance and reputation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahab, Y.; Ntim, C.G.; Chen, Y.; Ullah, F.; Li, H.X.; Ye, Z. Chief executive officer attributes, sustainable performance, environmental performance, and environmental reporting: New insights from upper echelons perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velte, P. Do CEO incentives and characteristics influence corporate social responsibility (CSR) and vice versa? A literature review. Soc. Responsib. J. 2020, 16, 1293–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, S.U.; Kraus, S.; Shah, S.A.; Khanin, D.; Mahto, R.V. Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 163, 120481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Zhang, M.; Wang, Z. Technological innovation and environmental performance: Evidence from China. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2024, 124, 1746–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dilla, W.; Janvrin, D.; Perkins, J.; Raschke, R. Do environmental responsibility views influence investors’ use of environmental performance and assurance information? Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2019, 10, 476–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, F.; Hu, Y.; Xu, S. How do environmental subsidies affect the environmental performance of heavily polluting enterprises: Evidence from China. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2023, 36, 2160777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Liu, X.; Liu, W. Do Government Environmental Subsidies Improve Corporate Carbon Performance? Evidence From China. J. Environ. Dev. 2024, 33, 217–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, W.; Rosati, F.; Chai, H.; Feng, T. Market orientation practices enhancing corporate environmental performance via knowledge creation: Does environmental management system implementation matter? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 1899–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, Z. Improving enterprise environmental performance under central environmental protection inspection: An empirical study based on listed industrial enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 459, 142536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, E.; Walker, M.; Zeng, C.C. Do Chinese state subsidies affect voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosure? J. Account. Public Policy 2017, 36, 179–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barman, A.; De, P.K.; Chakraborty, A.K.; Lim, C.P.; Das, R. Optimal pricing policy in a three-layer dual-channel supply chain under government subsidy in green manufacturing. Math. Comput. Simul. 2023, 204, 401–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catozzella, A.; Vivarelli, M. The possible adverse impact of innovation subsidies: Some evidence from Italy. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2016, 12, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y. Do state subsidies increase corporate environmental spending? Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2020, 72, 101592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, D.; Feng, J. Governmental subsidies, corporate environmental investments and firm performance: Evidence based on oil & petroleum industry. Financ. Res. Lett. 2023, 56, 104019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Ren, W.; Xu, Q.; Liu, Z.Y. Decision analysis of supply chains considering corporate social responsibility and government subsidy under different channel power structures. Ann. Oper. Res. 2022, 315, 1841–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, D. Can environmental subsidies promote the green investment of enterprises? Mod. Econ. 2020, 11, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, H.; Zhou, Q. Government R&D Subsidies, Environmental regulation and corporate green innovation performance. Finance Res. Lett. 2024, 69, 106088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, J.M.; Lee, W.; Mortara, L. Do government R&D subsidies stimulate collaboration initiatives in private firms? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 151, 119840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, F.; Wang, L.; Li, X. The effects of government subsidies on new energy vehicle enterprises: The moderating role of intelligent transformation. Energy Policy 2020, 141, 111463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S. Natural extreme events, government subsidies and corporate environment responsibility: Evidence from China’s energy sector. Energy Econ. 2022, 114, 106278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, S.; Sun, H.; Zhang, T. Do environmental subsidies spur environmental innovation? Empirical evidence from Chinese listed firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 173, 121123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.H.; Elmagrhi, M.H.; Ntim, C.G.; Wu, Y. Environmental performance, sustainability, governance and financial performance: Evidence from heavily polluting industries in China. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 2313–2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashraf, N.; Ahmadsimab, A.; Pinkse, J. From animosity to affinity: The interplay of competing logics and interdependence in cross-sector partnerships. J. Manag. Stud. 2017, 54, 793–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, R.; Shen, Y.; Liu, M.; Li, L.; Xia, X.; Luo, K. Can government subsidies improve innovation performance? Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Econ. Model. 2023, 120, 106151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, F.; Guo, X.; Yue, P. Media coverage and corporate ESG performance: Evidence from China. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2024, 91, 103003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chai, S.; Cao, M.; Li, Q.; Ji, Q.; Liu, Z. Exploring the nexus between ESG disclosure and corporate sustainable growth: Moderating role of media attention. Financ. Res. Lett. 2023, 58, 104519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.; Liu, B.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Sun, Q. Does environmental uncertainty increase the likelihood of greenwashing? The roles of government subsidies and media attention. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2025, 32, 2616–2629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, L.; Wei, X.; Wang, W. Does enterprise internal control improve environmental performance—Empirical evidence from China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Zhu, C.; Cheung, Q.; Wu, S.; Zhang, J.; Cao, J. How does digitization enable green innovation? Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 3832–3854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charfeddine, L.; Umlai, M. ICT sector, digitization and environmental sustainability: A systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2022. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 184, 113482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usubiaga-Liaño, A.; Ekins, P. Monitoring the environmental sustainability of countries through the strong environmental sustainability index. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 132, 108281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, X.; Zeng, G.; Sun, X. The peer effect of digital transformation and corporate environmental performance: Empirical evidence from listed companies in China. Econ. Model. 2023, 128, 106515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wedari, L.K.; Moradi-Motlagh, A.; Jubb, C. The moderating effect of innovation on the relationship between environmental and financial performance: Evidence from high emitters in Australia. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 654–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Z. Internal control level and enterprise strategic aggressiveness. Financ. Res. Lett. 2025, 75, 106829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, L.; Gao, S.; Wei, J.; Ding, Q. Government subsidy and corporate green innovation—Does board governance play a role? Energy Policy 2022, 161, 112720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Variable Symbols | Definition of Variables | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental performance | EP | Annual average of environmental (E) scores in ESG ratings of China Securities | 62.763 | 6.303 | 44.000 | 82.230 |
Government subsidies | GS | Ratio of total government subsidies received by enterprises to total assets of agricultural enterprises (%) | 0.912 | 1.106 | 0.000 | 6.733 |
External media attention | EMA | The amount of media coverage a business gets | 3.490 | 9.968 | 0.020 | 165.41 |
Internal control | IC | Enterprise Dib internal control index | 7.339 | 1.208 | 0.000 | 9.978 |
Enterprise size | SIZE | Natural logarithm of total assets | 21.943 | 1.265 | 19.098 | 25.962 |
Years on the market | AGE | The year of establishment of the business up to the current period | 11.326 | 6.364 | 2.000 | 29.000 |
Leverage | LEV | Asset–liability ratio | 0.382 | 0.199 | 0.061 | 0.880 |
Net profit margin on total assets | ROA | Net profit/average balance of total assets | 0.048 | 0.065 | −0.231 | 0.253 |
Concentration of ownership | TOP5 | Shareholdings of the top five shareholders of the enterprise | 0.441 | 0.149 | 0.174 | 0.886 |
Corporate growth | GROWTH | Operating income growth rate | 0.147 | 0.374 | −0.554 | 3.669 |
Variables | EP | EP | EP |
---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
GS | 0.571 *** | 0.574 *** | |
(2.831) | (2.850) | ||
GS2 | −0.097 *** (−3.533) | −0.098 *** (−3.479) | |
SIZE | 1.231 *** | 1.031 *** | 1.030 *** |
(3.846) | (3.710) | (3.721) | |
AGE | −0.015 | −0.015 | −0.158 |
(−0.810) | (−0.810) | (−0.811) | |
LEV | −0.092 * | −0.090 * | −0.090 * |
(−1.720) | (−1.714) | (−1.718) | |
ROA | 2.021 ** | 2.020 ** | 2.136 ** |
(2.081) | (2.076) | (2.078) | |
TOP5 | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.001 |
(−1.443) | (−1.440) | (−1.440) | |
GROWTH | −0.034 * | −0.026 | −0.024 |
(−1.846) | (−1.615) | (−1.611) | |
Industry-FE | NO | NO | YES |
Year-FE | NO | NO | YES |
Hausman test | χ2 = 28.38 p = 0.001 | ||
N | 2128 | 1952 | 1952 |
R2 | 0.181 | 0.199 | 0.244 |
Variables | GS | GS2 | EP | EP | EP | EP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
DIS | −2.366 *** | −12.531 *** | ||||
(−3.610) | (−2.992) | |||||
DIS2 | 0.319 *** | 14.749 *** | ||||
(3.486) | (3.044) | |||||
GS | 0.613 ** (2.317) | 0.649 *** (3.247) | 0.578 *** (2.956) | 0.579 *** (2.956) | ||
GS2 | −0.116 *** (−3.103) | −0.010 *** (−3.481) | −0.098 *** (−3.480) | −0.010 *** (−3.482) | ||
Controls | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Industry/Year | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Industry × Year | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | YES |
LM statistic | 28.056 *** | |||||
Wald F statistic | 21.706 | |||||
N | 1952 | 1952 | 1952 | 1560 | 1464 | 1896 |
R2 | 0.247 | 0.288 | 0.071 | 0.243 | 0.259 | 0.318 |
Variables | EMA | IC | EP |
---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
GS | 2.532 *** | 0.106 *** | 0.320 ** |
(3.651) | (4.301) | (2.025) | |
GS2 | −0.512 *** | −0.017 *** | −0.052 *** |
(−4.333) | (−2.704) | (−2.731) | |
EMA | 0.049 *** | ||
(2.868) | |||
IC | 1.213 *** | ||
(2.904) | |||
Controls | YES | YES | YES |
Industry-FE | YES | YES | YES |
Year-FE | YES | YES | YES |
N | 1952 | 1952 | 1952 |
R2 | 0.076 | 0.257 | 0.292 |
Variables | EP | EP | EP | EP |
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
GS | 0.883 *** | 0.201 | 0.975 *** | 0.220 |
(4.413) | (1.078) | (5.127) | (1.101) | |
GS2 | −0.308 *** | −0.003 | −0.371 *** | −0.005 |
(−4.735) | (−1.148) | (−3.190) | (−1.269) | |
Controls | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Industry-FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Year-FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
N | 1952 | 1952 | 1952 | 1952 |
R2 | 0.247 | 0.243 | 0.241 | 0.248 |
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. |
© 2025 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
Liu, L.; Li, X.; Wang, Z. The Impact of Government Subsidies on the Environmental Performance of Agricultural Enterprises. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167275
Liu L, Li X, Wang Z. The Impact of Government Subsidies on the Environmental Performance of Agricultural Enterprises. Sustainability. 2025; 17(16):7275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167275
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Liangcan, Xiang Li, and Zhanjie Wang. 2025. "The Impact of Government Subsidies on the Environmental Performance of Agricultural Enterprises" Sustainability 17, no. 16: 7275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167275
APA StyleLiu, L., Li, X., & Wang, Z. (2025). The Impact of Government Subsidies on the Environmental Performance of Agricultural Enterprises. Sustainability, 17(16), 7275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167275