Political connections and corporate ESG performance
Abstract
With the popularization of the concept of sustainable development, corporate ESG performance has attracted more and more attention from all walks of life. However, there is still a lack of in-depth discussion on what factors affect corporate ESG performance, especially in a political and economic system like China. This article takes A-share listed companies as a sample to empirically analyze the impact of political connections on corporate ESG performance. The study found that political connections can promote corporate ESG performance by increasing media attention and reducing financing constraints. Further research found that this promotion performance is more significant in non-state-owned enterprises. This article combines the national conditions with Chinese characteristics, enriches the research on the factors that promote corporate ESG performance from the government perspective, and deepens the research on the role and consequences of political connections.
References
1. Blank H, Sgambati G, Truelson Z. Best Practices in ESG Investing. The Journal of Investing. 2016; 25(2): 103-112. doi: 10.3905/joi.2016.25.2.103
2. Wang B, Yang M. Research on the impact mechanism of ESG performance on corporate value-Empirical evidence from my country’s A-share listed companies. Soft Science. 2022; 36(6): 78-84.
3. Quan J, Li Z. The Nature of Property Rights, Institutional Investors’ Shareholding and Corporate Social Responsibility Investment. Investment Research. 2020; 39(2): 147-158.
4. Wang K, Zhang Z. The current situation, comparison and prospect of ESG ratings at home and abroad. Accounting Monthly. 2022; 2: 137-143.
5. Bebchuk L, Cohen A, Ferrell A. What Matters in Corporate Governance? Review of Financial Studies. 2008; 22(2): 783-827. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhn099
6. Yu M, Pan H. Political Relations, Institutional Environment and Bank Loans to Private Enterprises. Management World. 2008; 179(8): 9-21,39,187.
7. Tian L, Ye Y. Political connections and corporate performance: Promote or inhibit?—Analysis from the perspective of capital structure of Chinese listed companies. Economic Science. 2013; (6): 89-100.
8. Li W, Wang P, Xu Y. Charitable donations, political connections and debt financing - resource exchange behavior between private enterprises and the government. Nankai Management Review. 2015; 18(1): 4-14.
9. Nie J. Political Connection and Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Empirical Evidence Based on my country’s Heavy Pollution Industries. Finance and Economics. 2018; 3: 65-72.
10. Yan R, Chen J. Research on the impact of executive political connections on corporate green innovation: Based on the perspective of government-business-society interaction. Humanities Magazine. 2022; 7: 105-116.
11. de Villiers C, Naiker V, van Staden CJ. The Effect of Board Characteristics on Firm Environmental Performance. Journal of Management. 2011; 37(6): 1636-1663. doi: 10.1177/0149206311411506
12. Luo X, Liu W. Political connections and penalties for corporate environmental violations: Patronage or supervision—Evidence from the IPE database. Journal of Shanxi University of Finance and Economics. 2019; 41(10): 85-99.
13. Jia M, Zhang Z. Does the political connection of executives affect corporate philanthropic behavior? Management World. 2010; 199(4): 99-113,187.
14. Yu H, Song C, Song Z. Impact of government ownership on private sector enterprises’ environmental responsibility: empirical evidence from Chinese listed firms. International Journal of Emerging Markets. 2022; 19(1): 170-190. doi: 10.1108/ijoem-08-2021-1249
15. He Y, Xiao M. Political connections, media reports and corporate social responsibility information disclosure - Empirical analysis from Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share data. Journal of Harbin University of Commerce (Social Science Edition). 2020; 171(2): 93-102.
16. Lu D, Wang Y, Wang C, et al. Political connection and internal control implementation of private listed companies. China Industrial Economics. 2013; 308(11): 96-108.
17. Hu Y, Wang C, Xiao G, et al. The agency cost of political connections: Evidence from China’s File 18. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal. 2020; 64: 101426. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101426
18. Detomasi DA. The Political Roots of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 2007; 82(4): 807-819. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9594-y
19. Kostovetsky L. Political capital and moral hazard. Journal of Financial Economics. 2015; 116(1): 144-159. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.12.003
20. Qian Y, Roland G. Federalism and the Soft Budget Constraint. American Economic Review. 1998; 88(5): 1143-1162.
21. Jin H, Qian Y, Weingast BR. Regional decentralization and fiscal incentives: Federalism, Chinese style. Journal of Public Economics. 2005; 89(9-10): 1719-1742. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.11.008
22. Li H, Zhou LA. Political turnover and economic performance: the incentive role of personnel control in China. Journal of Public Economics. 2005; 89(9-10): 1743-1762. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.06.009
23. Zhao F, Ma G. Review and Prospect of Research on Political Connections. Economic Review. 2011; 3: 151-160.
24. Tang PM, Yam KC, Koopman J. Feeling proud but guilty? Unpacking the paradoxical nature of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2020; 160: 68-86. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.004
25. Tröster C, Van Quaquebeke N. When Victims Help Their Abusive Supervisors: The Role of LMX, Self-Blame, and Guilt. Academy of Management Journal. 2021; 64(6): 1793-1815. doi: 10.5465/amj.2019.0559
26. Greenwood R, Raynard M, Kodeih F, et al. Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. Academy of Management Annals. 2011; 5(1): 317-371. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2011.590299
27. Li X, Xiao X. Institutional escape or innovation drive?—Institutional constraints and foreign direct investment of private enterprises. Management World. 2017; 10: 99-112,129,188.
28. Li Y, Ye F. The relationship between institutional pressure, green environmental protection innovation practice and enterprise performance—Based on the perspective of new institutionalism theory and ecological modernization theory. Science of Science Research. 2011; 29(12): 1884-1894.
29. Fan JPH, Wong TJ, Zhang T. Politically connected CEOs, corporate governance, and Post-IPO performance of China’s newly partially privatized firms. Journal of financial economics. 2007; 84(2): 330-357.
30. Zhang Q, Ding R, Chen D, et al. The effects of mandatory ESG disclosure on price discovery efficiency around the world. International Review of Financial Analysis. 2023; 89: 102811.
31. Tao W, Jin Z. Research on the relationship between corporate social responsibility information disclosure, media attention and corporate financial performance. Journal of Management. 2012; 9(8): 1225-1232.
32. He G, Liu Y, Chen F. Research on the impact of environment, society, and governance (ESG) on firm risk: An explanation from a financing constraints perspective. Finance Research Letters. 2023; 58: 104038.
33. Pew Tan H, Plowman D, Hancock P. Intellectual capital and financial returns of companies. Journal of Intellectual capital. 2007; 8(1): 76-95.
34. Johnson R, Erasmus PD, Mans-Kemp N. Assessing the business case for environmental, social and corporate governance practices in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences. 2019; 22(1): 1-13.
Copyright (c) 2024 Ying Hu, Hui Cheng, Heng Li
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submit a Paper
