The Impact of Environmental Protection Investment and Equity Balance Degree on Economic Performance and Eco-Autonomy: An Empirical Study of China’s A-Share Listed Companies
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
2.1. Influence of Enterprise’s EPI on Its Economic Performance
2.2. The Moderating Role of Equity Balance Degree on EPI
3. Methods and Data
3.1. Data Sources
3.2. Measurement of Main Variables
- (1)
- Explained variables (Economic performance)
- (2)
- Explanatory variables (EPI)
- (3)
- Moderating variable (Equity Balance Degree)
- (4)
- Control variables
3.3. Model Design
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Correlation Analysis
4.3. Analysis of Multiple Regression
4.3.1. Full-Sample Multiple Regression Analysis
4.3.2. Multiple Regression Analysis for Grouped Samples
4.3.3. Multiple Regression Analysis with the Introduction of Equity Balance Degree
4.3.4. Multiple Regression Analysis of Grouped Samples with the Introduction of Equity Balance Degree
4.4. Robustness Test
5. Discussion
6. Policy Implications
7. Limitations
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wei, P.; Wang, J.; Lu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y. High-quality development in China: Measurement system, spatial pattern, and improvement paths. Habitat Int. 2021, 118, 102458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akbar, A.; Jiang, X.F.; Qureshi, M.A.; Akbar, M. Does corporate environmental investment impede financial performance of Chinese enterprises? The moderating role of financial constraints. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 58007–58017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- O’Riordan, T. Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict; Zed Books: London, UK, 1994; pp. 789–791. [Google Scholar]
- Bréthaut, C.; Pflieger, G. Governance of a Transboundary River: The Rhône; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, L.; Ren, G.; He, B.; Zheng, M. Environmental regulation, environmental decentralization, and enterprise environmental protection investment: Evidence from China. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 821488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, L.; Qin, H.; Gan, Q.; Su, J. Internal control quality, enterprise environmental protection investment and finance performance: An empirical study of China’s a-share heavy pollution industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aslaksen, I.; Synnestvedt, T. Ethical investment and the incentives for corporate environmental protection and social responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2003, 10, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Li, G. Environmental decentralization, environmental protection investment, and green technology innovation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 29, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, T.; Feng, Q. Evolutionary game of environmental investment under national environmental regulation in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 53432–53443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peng, B.; Zhao, Y.; Elahi, E.; Wan, A. Investment in environmental protection, green innovation, and solid waste governance capacity: Empirical evidence based on panel data from China. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2023, 66, 1229–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Chandio, A.A.; He, G. Dual performance of environmental regulation on economic and environmental development: Evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 29, 3116–3130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, K.C.; Wang, D.; Lu, Y.; Chang, W.; Ren, G.; Liu, L.; Zhou, X. Environmental regulation, promotion pressure of officials, and enterprise environmental protection investment. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 724351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fan, Y.; Wu, S.; Lu, Y.; Zhao, Y. Study on the effect of the environmental protection industry and investment for the national economy: An input-output perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 1093–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Sun, X.; Song, M. Environmental regulation, resource misallocation, and ecological efficiency. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2021, 57, 410–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, Y.; Niu, C.; He, H. Political connection and environmental protection investment: A study based on ownership difference. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shabbir, M.S.; Wisdom, O. The relationship between corporate social responsibility, environmental investments and financial performance: Evidence from manufacturing companies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 39946–39957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Halme, M.; Niskanen, J. Does corporate environmental protection increase or decrease shareholder value? The case of environmental investments. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2001, 10, 200–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Qin, H.; Xia, W.X.; Gan, Q.X.; Li, L.; Su, J.F.; Yu, X. Resource slack, environmental management maturity and enterprise environmental protection investment: An enterprise life cycle adjustment perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 309, 127339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, J. Can the green merger and acquisition strategy improve the environmental protection investment of listed company? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 86, 106470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Wang, X.; Su, S.; Su, Y. How green technological innovation ability influences enterprise competitiveness. Technol. Soc. 2019, 59, 101136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Q.; Sun, T. Comprehensive evaluation of benefits from environmental investment: Take China as an example. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 15292–15304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olkiewicz, M.; Olkiewicz, A.; Wolniak, R.; Wyszomirski, A. Effects of Pro-Ecological Investments on an Example of the Heating Industry—Case Study. Energies 2021, 14, 5959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Sheng, J.; Huang, F. China’s future investments in environmental protection and control of manufacturing industry: Lessons from developed countries. Nat. Hazards 2015, 77, 1889–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, M.Y.; Cui, Y.N. Research on the impact path of China’s environmental protection investment on green development-based on the perspective of industrial structure upgrading. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 11, 1328231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L.; Lei, Z. How environmental regulation affect corporate green investment: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Tuwaijri, S.A.; Christensen, T.E.; Hughes Ii, K.E. The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Account. Organ. Soc. 2004, 29, 447–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, M. How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate sustainability: Corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry. J. Environ. Manag. 2005, 76, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zahid, R.A.; Khan, M.K.; Anwar, W.; Maqsood, U.S. The role of audit quality in the ESG-corporate financial performance nexus: Empirical evidence from Western European companies. Borsa Istanb. Rev. 2022, 22, S200–S212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, M.L.; Salomon, R.M. Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2012, 33, 1304–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahid, R.A.; Saleem, A.; Maqsood, U.S.; Sági, J. Moderating role of audit quality in ESG performance and capital financing dynamics: Insights in China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 26, 12031–12060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, Q.; Salman, A.; Parveen, S. Evaluating the effects of environmental management practices on environmental and financial performance of firms in Malaysia: The mediating role of ESG disclosure. Heliyon 2022, 8, e12486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ullah, S.; Ahmad, T.; Lyu, B.; Sami, A.; Kukreti, M.; Yvaz, A. Integrating external stakeholders for improvement in green innovation performance: Role of green knowledge integration capability and regulatory pressure. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2023, 16, 640–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, S.L.; Ahuja, G. Does It Pay to be Green? An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Emission Reduction and Firm Performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 1996, 5, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.E. America’s Green Strategy. Sci. Am. 1991, 264, 168–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, J.; Blanco-González-Tejero, C.; Sendra, F.J. The spatial difference-in-difference measurement of policy effect of environmental protection interview on green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 191, 122511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sueyoshi, T.; Goto, M. Can environmental investment and expenditure enhance financial performance of US electric utility firms under the clean air act amendment of 1990? Energy Policy 2009, 37, 4819–4826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai, H.; Hu, Y.; Li, K. Impacts of environmental regulation on firm productivity: Evidence from China’s Top 1000 Energy-Consuming Enterprises Program. Appl. Econ. 2021, 53, 830–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, P.R.; Moser, D.V. Managers’ green investment disclosures and investors’ reaction. J. Account. Econ. 2016, 61, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujii, H.; Iwata, K.; Kaneko, S.; Managi, S. Corporate environmental and economic performance of Japanese manufacturing firms: Empirical study for sustainable development. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pekovic, S.; Grolleau, G.; Mzoughi, N. Environmental investments: Too much of a good thing? Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 197, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.R.; Wang, J.; Lou, W. Effect of equity checks and balances on corporate social responsibility: A moderated mediating effect. Cross Cult. Strateg. Manag. 2023, 30, 527–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panda, A.; Ray, K.K. Equity market performance: The role of environmental protection and corporate social responsibility efforts. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2023, 6, 739–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, Y.; Ho, K.C.; Yan, C.; Gozgor, G. Public environmental concern, CEO turnover, and green investment: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Energy Econ. 2021, 100, 105379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borghesi, R.; Houston, J.F.; Naranjo, A. Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests. J. Corp. Financ. 2014, 26, 164–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.L.; Chen, H.H.; Li, Y.; Chen, Q.X. The role of equity balance and executive stock ownership in the innovation efficiency of renewable energy enterprises. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2019, 5, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Zhou, B.; Tian, X. Political connections and green innovation: The role of a corporate entrepreneurship strategy in state-owned enterprises. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 146, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, J.; Sadowski, B.M.; Zeng, X.; Dou, S.; Xiong, J.; Song, Q.; Li, S. Picking winners in strategic emerging industries using government subsidies in China: The role of market power. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 394, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type | Name | Code | Variable Definition |
---|---|---|---|
Explained variable | Economic Performance | ROA | Return on total enterprise assets |
Explanatory variable | Environmental Protection Investment | EPI | Amount of EPI/operating income |
Moderator variable | Equity Balance Degree | EBD | The ratio of shareholdings of two-to-five shareholders/The ratio of shareholdings of the first largest shareholder |
Control variable | The size of the firm | Size | Natural logarithm of total assets of the enterprise at year-end |
Type of firm | Typ | 1 for heavy polluters, 0 otherwise | |
Nature of equity | State | State-owned enterprises are assigned 1; Private enterprises are assigned 0 | |
Age of the firm | Age | Natural logarithm of the number of years the company has been listed | |
Growth capacity | Growth | Growth rate of main operating income | |
Solvency | Lev | Asset–liability ratio | |
Operating capacity | Oc | Operating income/current assets | |
Monetary funds | Cash | Money funds/total assets × 100% | |
Yearly variable | Year | Annual dummy variable for the year in which the sample firm is located | |
Nature of the industry | Ind | Industry dummy variable for the industry in which the sample firms are located |
Variable | Obs | Mean | Std | Min | Max | Median |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ROA | 7601 | 0.0400 | 0.0475 | −0.108 | 0.201 | 0.0337 |
EPI | 7601 | 0.264 | 0.466 | 0.000534 | 2.909 | 0.101 |
EBD | 7601 | 2.951 | 4.102 | 0.0362 | 25.94 | 1.419 |
Size | 7601 | 23.04 | 1.268 | 20.48 | 26.85 | 22.93 |
Typ | 7601 | 0.397 | 0.489 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
State | 7601 | 0.507 | 0.500 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Age | 7601 | 2.530 | 0.607 | 0.693 | 3.367 | 2.639 |
Growth | 7601 | 0.138 | 0.285 | −0.442 | 1.475 | 0.0957 |
Lev | 7601 | 0.491 | 0.171 | 0.106 | 0.854 | 0.497 |
Oc | 7601 | 1.439 | 1.209 | 0.0242 | 24.19 | 1.127 |
Cash | 7601 | 0.150 | 0.0971 | 0.00231 | 0.798 | 0.129 |
Variable | ROA | EPI | |
---|---|---|---|
State 1 | N | 3857 | 3857 |
Mean | 0.0359 | 0.279 | |
SD | 0.0438 | 0.482 | |
Min | −0.108 | 0.000534 | |
Max | 0.201 | 2.909 | |
Median | 0.0292 | 0.103 | |
State 0 | N | 3744 | 3744 |
Mean | 0.0441 | 0.249 | |
SD | 0.0506 | 0.448 | |
Min | −0.108 | 0.000534 | |
Max | 0.201 | 2.909 | |
Median | 0.0389 | 0.0995 |
Variable | ROA | EPI | EBD | Size | Typ | State | Age | Growth | Lev | Oc | Cash |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ROA | 1 | ||||||||||
EPI | −0.118 | 1 | |||||||||
EBD | −0.0644 | −0.00930 | 1 | ||||||||
Size | −0.00170 | 0.0306 | −0.0712 | 1 | |||||||
Typ | 0.0597 | 0.0454 | −0.0649 | 0.0152 | 1 | ||||||
State | −0.0866 | 0.0323 | −0.249 | 0.261 | 0.0729 | 1 | |||||
Age | −0.102 | −0.00740 | −0.0595 | 0.388 | 0.0605 | 0.370 | 1 | ||||
Growth | 0.276 | −0.0592 | 0.0323 | 0.00800 | −0.0169 | −0.108 | −0.114 | 1 | |||
Lev | −0.423 | 0.0338 | −0.00210 | 0.482 | −0.0666 | 0.157 | 0.272 | −0.0115 | 1 | ||
Oc | 0.0816 | −0.0877 | −0.0914 | 0.112 | 0.211 | 0.176 | 0.157 | 0.0279 | 0.0943 | 1 | |
Cash | 0.232 | −0.160 | −0.00810 | −0.160 | −0.103 | −0.0302 | −0.162 | 0.0284 | −0.292 | −0.209 | 1 |
Variables | (1) ROA | (2) ROA |
---|---|---|
L.EPI | −0.00948 *** (−9.118) | −0.0175 *** (−6.463) |
L.EPI2 | 0.00351 *** (3.209) | |
Size | 0.0119 *** (24.73) | 0.0119 *** (24.81) |
Typ | −0.00170 (−1.167) | −0.00157 (−1.085) |
State | −0.00603 *** (−5.469) | −0.00597 *** (−5.418) |
Age | 0.00302 *** (2.733) | 0.00290 *** (2.625) |
Growth | 0.0445 *** (19.71) | 0.0446 *** (19.74) |
Lev | −0.148 *** (−39.38) | −0.148 *** (−39.48) |
Oc | 0.00391 *** (7.736) | 0.00379 *** (7.502) |
Cash | 0.0586 *** (9.358) | 0.0572 *** (9.123) |
Constant | −0.184 *** (−18.18) | −0.183 *** (−18.09) |
Year | Control | Control |
Ind | Control | Control |
Inflection point | 2.493 | |
Observations | 6910 | 6910 |
R-squared | 0.382 | 0.383 |
Variables | ROA | |
---|---|---|
State-Owned Enterprises | Private Enterprises | |
L.EPI | −0.0170 *** (−5.155) | −0.0192 *** (−4.571) |
L.EPI2 | 0.00565 *** (4.722) | 0.00170 (0.983) |
Size | 0.00941 *** (16.04) | 0.0151 *** (18.43) |
Typ | −0.00256 (−1.330) | 0.00147 (0.714) |
Age | 0.00177 (1.106) | 0.00235 (1.502) |
Growth | 0.0444 *** (13.13) | 0.0424 *** (14.46) |
Lev | −0.138 *** (−29.75) | −0.167 *** (−27.61) |
Oc | 0.00155 *** (3.686) | 0.0136 *** (11.76) |
Cash | 0.0530 *** (6.231) | 0.0634 *** (6.884) |
Constant | −0.129 *** (−9.838) | −0.258 *** (−15.45) |
Year | Control | Control |
Ind | Control | Control |
Inflection point | 1.5044 | 5.6471 |
Observations | 3504 | 3406 |
R-squared | 0.393 | 0.410 |
Variables | (1) ROA | (2) ROA |
---|---|---|
EPI | −0.00695 *** (−7.174) | −0.00683 *** (−7.002) |
EBD | −0.000571 *** (−5.338) | −0.000567 *** (−5.345) |
EPIB | 0.000428 ** (2.141) | |
Size | 0.0115 *** (25.24) | 0.0115 *** (25.26) |
Typ | −0.00279 ** (−2.010) | −0.00283 ** (−2.036) |
State | −0.00714 *** (−6.613) | −0.00718 *** (−6.648) |
Age | 0.00359 *** (3.652) | 0.00360 *** (3.669) |
Growth | 0.0424 *** (20.19) | 0.0424 *** (20.21) |
Lev | −0.147 *** (−41.36) | −0.147 *** (−41.31) |
Oc | 0.00395 *** (7.888) | 0.00392 *** (7.830) |
Cash | 0.0562 *** (9.768) | 0.0558 *** (9.692) |
Constant | −0.174 *** (−18.01) | −0.174 *** (−18.05) |
Year | Control | Control |
Ind | Control | Control |
Observations | 7601 | 7601 |
R-squared | 0.377 | 0.377 |
Variables | State-Owned Enterprises | Private Enterprises | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
ROA | ROA | ROA | ROA | |
EPI | −0.00215 ** (−2.022) | −0.00185 * (−1.712) | −0.0115 *** (−7.557) | −0.0120 *** (−7.788) |
EBD | −0.000316 * (−1.649) | −0.000337 * (−1.722) | −0.000614 *** (−4.809) | −0.000580 *** (−4.647) |
EPIB | 0.000297 (1.131) | 0.000883 *** (3.308) | ||
Size | 0.00918 *** (16.39) | 0.00920 *** (16.38) | 0.0146 *** (18.79) | 0.0146 *** (18.82) |
Typ | −0.00382 ** (−2.059) | −0.00386 ** (−2.081) | 0.000556 (0.279) | 0.000583 (0.293) |
Age | 0.00162 (1.114) | 0.00166 (1.141) | 0.00335 ** (2.434) | 0.00337 ** (2.445) |
Growth | 0.0409 *** (13.08) | 0.0409 *** (13.07) | 0.0407 *** (14.83) | 0.0408 *** (14.90) |
Lev | −0.139 *** (−31.32) | −0.139 *** (−31.24) | −0.164 *** (−28.58) | −0.164 *** (−28.60) |
Oc | 0.00190 *** (4.250) | 0.00189 *** (4.200) | 0.0132 *** (12.50) | 0.0132 *** (12.46) |
Cash | 0.0553 *** (6.796) | 0.0550 *** (6.744) | 0.0603 *** (7.291) | 0.0599 *** (7.248) |
Constant | −0.124 *** (−9.914) | −0.125 *** (−9.933) | −0.246 *** (−15.49) | −0.246 *** (−15.51) |
Year | Control | Control | Control | Control |
Ind | Control | Control | Control | Control |
Observations | 3857 | 3857 | 3744 | 3744 |
R-squared | 0.380 | 0.380 | 0.404 | 0.405 |
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. |
© 2024 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
Sun, Y.; Zhang, K.; Li, X. The Impact of Environmental Protection Investment and Equity Balance Degree on Economic Performance and Eco-Autonomy: An Empirical Study of China’s A-Share Listed Companies. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7581. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177581
Sun Y, Zhang K, Li X. The Impact of Environmental Protection Investment and Equity Balance Degree on Economic Performance and Eco-Autonomy: An Empirical Study of China’s A-Share Listed Companies. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7581. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177581
Chicago/Turabian StyleSun, Ying, Kexin Zhang, and Xuyang Li. 2024. "The Impact of Environmental Protection Investment and Equity Balance Degree on Economic Performance and Eco-Autonomy: An Empirical Study of China’s A-Share Listed Companies" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7581. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177581