Entrepreneurs’ Spirit and Corporate Green Development: The Mediating Role of New-Quality Productivity

Abstract

As a fundamental unit of sustainable economic development, corporate green development is significantly influenced by entrepreneurs’ spirit and new-quality productivity. Therefore, it is crucial to explore the intrinsic connections among entrepreneurs’ spirit, new-quality productivity, and corporate green development. This study leverages data from 17,079 A-share manufacturing companies from 2012 to 2022. It employs a dual-dimensional fixed-effects model to investigate the mechanisms, pathways, and effects of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development, with new-quality productivity serving as a mediating variable. The findings reveal that (1) stability tests using the IV method and Heckman’s two-step method indicate that entrepreneurs’ spirit significantly promotes corporate green development; (2) mediation-effect tests show that new-quality productivity partially mediates the relationship between entrepreneurs’ spirit and corporate green development; and (3) heterogeneity-effect tests demonstrate that the promoting effect of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development is more pronounced in large enterprises compared to small- and medium-sized enterprises, in eastern enterprises compared to those in central and western regions, and in less competitive enterprises compared to more competitive ones. These conclusions not only enrich the research on corporate green development but also aid in the formulation of corporate-green-development strategies, thereby contributing to sustainable economic development.

1. Introduction

In the context of increasing global environmental and resource constraints, green development has become a common goal for governments and enterprises worldwide. With the intensification of resource scarcity and environmental pollution, enterprises face numerous challenges, such as resource shortages, technological bottlenecks, and rising costs. There is a growing emphasis on reducing costs, improving quality, and enhancing efficiency through technological innovation, management optimization, and institutional reform to achieve an organic unity of economic and environmental benefits. As a core force driving technological innovation, management optimization, and institutional reform, entrepreneurial spirit is becoming increasingly important in the context of green development. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development.

Entrepreneurs, as initiators of innovation, participants in risk-taking ventures, and organizers of contractual undertakings, are crucial drivers and beneficiaries of corporate development. In the green-development phase, entrepreneurs play an even more pivotal role, and the influence of entrepreneurs’ spirit becomes more pronounced. The revitalization of entrepreneurs’ spirit significantly impacts the vitality of corporate green development. At the same time, new-quality productivity demands a higher caliber of workers, more advanced means of production, and a broader range of production targets. The quantitative growth, qualitative enhancement, and structural optimization of these three elements lay a crucial foundation for corporate green development.

It is evident that entrepreneurs’ spirit and new-quality productivity significantly influence corporate green development [1,2,3,4,5]. Existing research primarily explores the impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate sustainable development from perspectives such as personal characteristics, historical heritage, and current policies. For instance, as a core element of corporate culture and a key production factor, entrepreneurs’ spirit can enhance innovation capacity, improve production efficiency, and strengthen operational functions [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. However, existing studies have the following shortcomings: First, the research on the action of entrepreneurs’ spirit needs to be strengthened. Secondly, the research on the factors influencing corporate green development needs to be deepened. Third, the research on the antecedents, consequences, paths, and boundaries of new-quality productivity needs to be expanded. Fourth, there is no clear academic explanation of the facilitation mechanism of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development. This study focuses on these questions.

The main contributions of this paper are as follows:

(1)

Using manufacturing enterprises as the sample, this paper quantifies corporate green development from three dimensions: economic, social, and ecological. It analyzes three dimensions of entrepreneurs’ spirit: innovation spirit, risk-taking spirit, and contractual spirit, and examines the impact of new-quality productivity in terms of cultivating new laborers, developing new means of production, and extracting new production targets. This study extends the antecedent research on corporate green development and provides decision-making references for the green development of manufacturing enterprises.

(2)

This paper proposes a new definition of new-quality productivity, emphasizing its goals of high-quality, efficient, and sustainable development. By linking entrepreneurs’ spirit, new-quality productivity, and corporate green development and proposing a new analytical perspective where entrepreneurs’ spirit influences corporate green development directly and indirectly through the mediating role of new-quality productivity, this study enriches the research on the economic consequences of entrepreneurial spirit.

(3)

Regarding empirical research, this paper addresses the issue of endogeneity, adopts new stability-testing methods, and conducts a diverse heterogeneity analysis. This enhances the reliability of the research conclusions and provides large-sample empirical evidence for manufacturing enterprises to promote entrepreneurs’ spirit, exploit new-quality productivity, and accelerate green development.

(4)

This paper constructs the analytical framework of “entrepreneurs’ spirit—new-quality productivity—corporate green development”, which systematically explains the mechanism and effect of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development. And, it applies and extends top echelon theory, situational contingency theory, resource base theory, economic rent theory, and so on, meaning it is able to provide new perspectives and ideas for related academic research.

The structure of the remainder of this paper is arranged as follows: Following the introduction, Section 2 analyzes the direct impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development based on existing relevant research. It elucidates the mediating mechanism of new-quality productivity and proposes corresponding research hypotheses. Section 3 introduces the empirical research design, including the setting and measurement of variables, construction of the baseline regression model, and the sources and processing of sample data. Section 4 presents the empirical results and analysis, covering baseline linear regression analysis, robustness tests, mediation-effect analysis, and heterogeneity-effect analysis. Section 5 provides the research conclusions and managerial recommendations.

2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses

This paper will provide a theoretical analysis based on Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of innovation. Schumpeter emphasized that innovation is not only an innovation at the technological level, but also a completely new way of combining factors and conditions of production, capable of breaking the original economic equilibrium and promoting the development of the economic system to a higher and stronger level.

2.1. The Direct Impact of Entrepreneurs’ Spirit on Corporate Green Development

Entrepreneurs’ spirit is a historical concept that evolves with economic development and changes in social values, embodying traits such as innovation, risk taking, and cooperation [13]. Entrepreneurs, as the core leaders of enterprises, typically reflect the primary will of the decision-making level through their entrepreneurial spirit and promote corporate green development via various information-transmission channels. In the digital economy era, entrepreneurs’ spirit, as an endogenous economic growth factor, has become a driving force for promoting high-quality corporate development [10].

The overall impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development is primarily manifested in three ways: First, it helps establish a green-development concept. The practice and dissemination of entrepreneurs’ spirit can instill a business philosophy that advocates for the growth of entrepreneurs, encouraging enterprises to strengthen technological research and development, expand openness and inclusiveness, and shape a green-development concept that embraces new ideas and knowledge. Entrepreneurs, as pioneers of innovation, bear the significant responsibility of cultivating new types of workers [11]. Entrepreneurs’ spirit is a form of thought, and concepts are a comprehensive reflection of thought. Second, it contributes to cultivating a green-development culture. The aggregation and inheritance of entrepreneurs’ spirit can foster a business culture that esteems entrepreneurs’ efforts, guiding enterprises to advocate for operational responsibility and accountability, emphasize efficiency and performance, and create a green-development culture that is proactive and positive. Entrepreneurs’ spirit is closely linked to corporate culture; it can even be said that entrepreneurs’ spirit is a part of corporate culture [14]. Third, it aids in constructing a green-development model. The promotion and praise of entrepreneurs’ spirit can help build a business model that honors entrepreneurs’ credibility, compelling enterprises to emphasize integrity and ethics, attract talent and capital, and develop a green-development model that prioritizes customer satisfaction and service excellence. Entrepreneurs’ spirit is widely regarded as a core driving force for economic growth, affecting business efficiency and market competitiveness. It helps retain innovative talent, attract innovative capital, foster an innovative atmosphere, improve innovation mechanisms, and promote sustainable corporate development [11]. In summary, the essence of entrepreneurs’ spirit lies in the innovation spirit that nurtures entrepreneurs’ growth, the risk-taking spirit that inspires entrepreneurs’ ventures, and the contractual spirit that safeguards entrepreneurs’ credibility. The impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development is reflected in technological, operational, and institutional aspects.

The specific impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development is primarily manifested in the following ways: First, it facilitates the development of green resources. With the innovation spirit that promotes the healthy growth of entrepreneurs, enterprises can fully utilize increasingly scarce market resources; mobilize the knowledge, technology, and information of various stakeholders; enhance competitive advantages; expand market share; integrate market resources; effectively reduce resource constraints; and develop green resources [1]. Second, it optimizes the green environment. With the risk-taking spirit that encourages proactive entrepreneurs’ spirit, enterprises can boldly face a more dynamic market environment, quickly identify and respond to potential risks, seize market opportunities, gain market reputation, manage the market environment, promptly resolve environmental constraints, and establish a green environment. Third, it supports green demand. With the contractual spirit that helps entrepreneurs maintain credibility, enterprises can best meet increasingly diverse market demands; properly handle the interests of employees, customers, and partners; clarify strategic positioning; explore market potential; adapt to market demands; strive to overcome demand constraints; and support green demand. Based on the above analysis, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. 

Entrepreneurs’ spirit promotes corporate green development.

2.2. The Indirect Impact of Entrepreneurs’ Spirit on Corporate Green Development

2.2.1. The Promotive Role of Entrepreneurs’ Spirit on New-Quality Productivity

Productivity is the human capacity to transform nature and create wealth, which determines production relations, and together, they drive the continuous evolution of production methods. The elements constituting productivity at the physical level are represented by labor, machinery, and materials. These correspond to workers with certain production skills, labor materials primarily consisting of production tools, and labor objects introduced into the production process, which sequentially answer who transforms nature, how nature is transformed, and what is transformed. At the non-physical level, productivity is embodied in science and technology, education, culture, management, and other factors.

New-quality productivity should be understood as modern productivity, main-lined by the cultivation of new types of labor, the development of new types of labor materials, and the extraction of new types of labor objects, marked by the comprehensive development of science and technology, education, culture, and management, aiming toward high-quality, efficient, and sustainable production. It is built on the foundation of existing productive forces and makes a qualitative leap through continuous reform, transformation, and innovation. It carries three signs of the times: Firstly, achieving high-quality production through the acquisition of new knowledge, mastery of new technologies, and the development of new ideas. Secondly, facilitating efficient production by optimizing production processes, reducing production costs, and allocating production resources effectively. Thirdly, ensuring sustainable production by assuming social responsibility, focusing on environmental ecology, and supporting the dual-carbon economy.

Entrepreneurs’ spirit can increase the supply of new laborers, promote the improvement in new means of production, and facilitate the expansion of new production targets. It can also advance the optimal combination of these three elements, thus promoting the development of new-quality productivity [5]. The impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate new-quality productivity is primarily reflected in the following aspects: First, entrepreneurs’ spirit plays a crucial role in the cultivation of new laborers. As leaders, entrepreneurs establish a corporate culture centered on lifelong learning, inspiring employees’ learning potential and motivation [15]. By continuously introducing new educational models and knowledge-dissemination mechanisms, such as training programs, online open courses, and shared laboratories, entrepreneurs drive the diversification of employee skills, improve knowledge structures, and enhance workers’ professional competitiveness, thereby establishing an efficient labor model. Second, entrepreneurs’ spirit plays a key role in the development of new means of production. Driven by digital transformation, traditional means of production have gradually evolved into new forms, such as big data and cloud computing [16]. For example, the application of the Internet of Things allows enterprises to precisely monitor production processes, reducing resource waste. Entrepreneurs integrate digital resources into production processes, achieving the automation, informatization, and intelligentization of production, which improves efficiency, reduces operational costs, and optimizes product and service quality. Third, entrepreneurs’ spirit holds a central position in the extraction of new production targets. New production targets are no longer limited to physical goods but have expanded to include services, knowledge, information, data, and other intangible items [17]. Through the use of digital platforms, entrepreneurs innovate business models, continuously optimize market strategies, and open up new customer segments. This allows them to provide more personalized products to consumers, meeting increasingly diverse demands.

In summary, entrepreneurs, as pioneers leading enterprises, inherently possess a desire for innovation, a propensity for risk taking, and a sense of contractual obligation. By continuously injecting entrepreneurs’ talent, ideas, responsibility, and resources into their ventures, they achieve breakthroughs in new technologies, processes, and products, all of which serve corporate green development. At the 2024 National Entrepreneurs’ Day and China Entrepreneurs’ Annual Conference held in Zhengzhou, Chen Jianbin, the head of the preparatory group for the China Entrepreneur Museum, stated that entrepreneurs are the backbone of driving new-quality productivity. Ge Jian, Chairman of Zhongji Holdings Group, emphasized that the spirit of outstanding entrepreneurs is a crucial force in promoting new-quality productivity.

2.2.2. The Promotive Role of New-Quality Productivity in Corporate Green Development

New-quality productivity is not only high-quality productivity but also green productivity, characterized by at least two essential features: First, “new” is an intrinsic driver. “New” manifests as novelty and innovation. Novelty includes new types of laborers (e.g., talent capable of utilizing modern technology), new production tools (e.g., artificial intelligence and big data platforms), and new production objects (e.g., data). Innovation encompasses technological innovation, business model innovation, management innovation, and institutional innovation, all of which create a conducive environment for productivity development. Second, “quality” is an external mission. “Quality” manifests as state and high quality [17]. The quality state breaks the simple, partial iteration of traditional production factors. It relies on the revolutionary breakthroughs of modern production factors, such as data, characterized by low marginal costs, high penetration, and strong integration. These features continuously optimize and upgrade production tools, methods, and processes. High quality represents the shift in economic growth models from extensively factor-driven to intensively innovation-driven, significantly improving production processes and product quality and driving new social demands with new technologies and products.

New-quality productivity imposes new demands on laborers, production tools, and production objects, aligning with the objective needs of corporate green development. It provides a material impetus and practical assurance for corporate green development in the following ways: First, the cultivation of new types of laborers enhances the learning capabilities of employees. It promotes talent development within enterprises, injecting a continuous stream of active labor into corporate green development. Second, the application of new production tools improves production efficiency and product quality, drives industrial upgrading, and provides advanced production tools for corporate green development. Third, the emergence of new production objects stimulates customer demand, enriches consumer experiences, and expands market boundaries, adding substantial materialized labor to corporate green development.

Given that entrepreneurs’ spirit can promote new-quality productivity within enterprises, and new-quality productivity, in turn, can drive corporate green development, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2. 

New-quality productivity partially mediates the relationship between entrepreneurs’ spirit and corporate green development.

3. Empirical Research Design

3.1. Variable Setting and Measurement

3.1.1. Response Variable: Corporate Green Development

Corporate green development (EGD) refers to the measures undertaken by enterprises under certain conditions to improve economic efficiency, assume social responsibility, and protect the ecological environment through technological innovation, clean production, energy conservation, emission reduction, resource optimization, cost reduction, and quality improvement. This leads to the coordinated development of the economy, society, and environment, enhancing market competitiveness and fostering a high-quality sustainable development model. It also strengthens the enterprise’s expectations and confidence regarding the external environment, capital markets, and macro policies. Drawing on the comprehensive indicator system of corporate green development constructed by [18], which encompasses three dimensions: economic profit, social value, and environmental benefit, this study uses the entropy-weight method to calculate the corporate-green-development index.

3.1.2. Explanatory Variable: Entrepreneurs’ Spirit

Entrepreneurs’ spirit (ES) refers to the collection of qualities, character, abilities, responsibilities, culture, psychology, and capital manifested by the personalized characteristics of entrepreneurs. As a core element of corporate culture, entrepreneurs’ spirit is a crucial production factor for enterprises. Based on the studies of Dong Xiaohong and Lü Jing [12], Guo Ruizhao [19], and Xia Han [20], entrepreneurs’ spirit is divided into three dimensions: the innovation spirit that advocates for entrepreneurs’ growth (the technical aspect), the risk-taking spirit that esteems entrepreneurs’ ventures (the operational aspect), and the contractual spirit that honors entrepreneurs’ credibility (the institutional aspect).

Following the approach of Li Hongbin et al. [21], the innovation spirit is measured by the logarithm of the total number of patents applied for by the enterprise in the current year. The risk-taking spirit is measured by the shareholding ratio of the management, as suggested by Li Qi et al. [22]. The contractual spirit is measured by the absolute amount of employee compensation payable, as per Yu Donghua et al. [23]. Based on these measures, the entropy-weight method is used to calculate the entrepreneurs’ spirit index.

3.1.3. Mediating Variable: New-Quality Productivity

New-quality productivity (NP), although a qualitative leap from traditional productivity, still relies on the three elements of laborers, production tools, and production objects, as well as their optimal combination. Drawing on the research of Song Jia et al. [24]. Zhang Xiue et al. [25], this study constructs an index for new-quality productivity from two dimensions: labor (active labor, materialized labor) and production tools (hard technology, soft technology), as shown in

Table 1. Evaluation index system for the level of new-quality productivity in enterprises.

Criterion Layer	Objective Layer	Indicator	Calculation	Nature
Labor	Active labor	Proportion of employees with postgraduate degrees	Number of employees with postgraduate degrees/total number of employees	+
		Proportion of R&D personnel	Number of R&D personnel/total number of employees	+
	Materialized labor	Manufacturing cost ratio	(Cash outflow + non-cash costs − labor payments − employee wages)/(cash outflow + non-cash costs)	+
		Proportion of fixed assets	Fixed assets/total assets	+
		Profitability	Total profit/total number of employees	+
Production tools	Hard technology	Digitalization	Wu Fei et al. (2021) [26]	+
		Patent applications	ln(patent applications + 1)	+
		Green patent applications	ln(green patent applications + 1)	+
		Proportion of intangible assets	Intangible assets/total assets	+
	Soft technology	Total asset turnover	Operating income/average total assets	+
		Reciprocal of equity multiplier	Net assets/total assets	+

Note: Non-cash costs include depreciation of fixed assets + amortization of intangible assets + provision for assets.

. Based on these dimensions, the entropy-weight method is used to calculate the new-quality productivity index.

3.1.4. Control Variables: Basic Characteristics of Enterprises

Considering certain characteristics at the enterprise level, non-policy and non-technical factors that significantly impact corporate green development are selected as control variables. These include the following: (1) Enterprise size (Size): represents the total assets of the enterprise. (2) Enterprise age (Age): represents the difference between the observation year and the year the enterprise was established. (3) Financial leverage (Lev.): represents the asset–liability ratio. (4) Sales Growth (Gro.): represents the growth rate of operating income. (5) Board Size (BS): represents the number of board members. (6) Ownership Concentration (OC): represents the shareholding ratio of the largest shareholder. (7) Proportion of independent directors (PID): represents the proportion of independent directors. (8) CEO Duality (Dual.): represents a dummy variable indicating whether the same person holds the CEO and board chair positions. The setting and measurement of each variable are detailed in

Table 2. Variable setting and measurement.

Variable Type	Variable Name	Variable Symbol	Variable Definition and Measurement
Response variable	Corporate green development	EGD	Economic profit, social value, and environmental benefit, calculated using the entropy-weight method
Explanatory variable	Entrepreneurs’ spirit	ES	Innovation spirit, risk-taking spirit, and contractual spirit, calculated using the entropy-weight method
Mediating variable	New-quality productivity	NP	Labor and production tools, as shown in Table 1, calculated using the entropy-weight method
Control variables	Enterprise size	Size	ln(total assets of the enterprise)
	Enterprise age	Age	ln(observation year − year of establishment)
	Financial leverage	Lev.	Asset–liability ratio
	Sales Growth	Gro.	Increment in operating income/operating income of the previous year
	Board Size	BS	ln(number of board members + 1)
	Ownership Concentration	OC	Shareholding ratio of the top ten shareholders
	Proportion of independent directors	PID	Number of independent directors/number of board members
	CEO Duality	Dual.	One if CEO and board chair positions are held by the same person; zero otherwise

.

3.2. Construction of the Baseline Regression Model

Before examining the impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development, the applicability of the fixed-effects model (FE) and the random-effects model (RE) was compared. The Hausman test statistic for the two models was 138.22, with Pro > chi2 = 0.0000, indicating that the FE captures individual heterogeneity in the data better than the RE. The FE eliminates all individual-specific effects that do not vary over time through differencing operations, thereby reducing unobserved heterogeneity in the model and providing more accurate statistical results. Therefore, the direct effect of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development is modeled using the FE, as shown in model (1):

$$EG{D}_{i,t}={\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_{1}E{S}_{i,t}+{\alpha }_{k+1}Contro{l}_{k,i,t}+u_i+v_t+{\epsilon }_{i,t}$$

(1)

In the equation, $i$ represents the enterprise; $t$ represents the year; $k(k=1\sim 8)$ represents the number of control variables; $EGD$ represents corporate green development; $ES$ represents entrepreneurs’ spirit; $Contro{l}_k$ represents the collective term for control variables; $u$ represents the individual fixed effect; $v$ represents the time-fixed effect; and $\epsilon$ represents the random error term. When ${\alpha }_1$ is significantly positive, it indicates that $ES$ has a significant promoting effect on $EGD$.

3.3. Sample Data Source and Processing

Considering data availability, the sample consists of A-share listed manufacturing enterprises from 2012 to 2022. To ensure the accuracy of the research conclusions, the collected data were processed as follows: Excluded 3622 ST and *ST enterprises, resulting in 39,842 observations being removed, and deleted enterprises with missing variables and those that did not have continuous data from 2012 to 2022. After data cleaning, the final sample comprised 2310 enterprises with 13,079 observations. The data were sourced from CNRDS, with enterprise data primarily obtained from the CSMAR and WIND databases.

The primary reasons for selecting manufacturing enterprises are as follows: Manufacturing enterprises are the main force behind China’s strategy to become a manufacturing powerhouse.

Manufacturing enterprises are the fundamental basis for China’s rapid transition to green development. All regression results control for individual fixed effects and time-fixed effects. To ensure data stability and avoid issues such as multicollinearity and heteroscedasticity, absolute indicators like enterprise size and enterprise age are log-transformed. To prevent the influence of outliers, the data undergo 2% winsorization. The descriptive statistics of each indicator are presented in

Table 3. Descriptive statistics results.

Variable	N	Mean	p50	SD	Min	Max
EGD	13,079	0.080	0.012	0.096	0.006	0.514
ES	13,079	0.065	0.035	0.0650	0	0.674
Size	13,079	22.190	22.02	1.165	17.95	27.62
Age	13,079	18.520	18.000	5.834	3.000	66.000
Gro.	13,079	0.211	0.109	3.805	−0.927	429.000
Lev.	13,079	0.405	0.397	0.197	0.008	4.596
BS	13,079	2.230	2.303	0.168	1.609	2.944
OC	13,079	0.570	0.574	0.142	0.088	1.012
PID	13,079	0.375	0.333	0.055	0.143	0.667
Dual.	13,079	0.306	0	0.461	0	1.000

.

As shown in Table 3, the mean Enterprise Green Development (EGD) and its range are significantly different, with the mean being close to the minimum value. The distribution is right-skewed, possibly due to differences in the technological content (high vs. low) of the sample enterprises. Similarly, the mean entrepreneurs’ spirit (ES) and its range are also significantly different, with the mean being close to the minimum value. This distribution is also right-skewed, possibly due to the differing ownership structures (state-owned vs. non-state-owned) of the sample enterprises.

Among the control variables, those with small differences between the mean and range are Size, BS, and PID, with the first two roughly following a normal distribution while the latter is slightly right-skewed. Variables with relatively small differences between the mean and range include OC and Dual, with the former roughly following a normal distribution and the latter slightly right-skewed. Variables with larger differences between the mean and range include Lev. and Age, both of which are relatively close to the minimum value and slightly right-skewed. The variable with the largest difference is Gro., which is close to the minimum value and severely right-skewed. Overall, the distribution of the control variables is generally consistent with the distribution of the response variables.

4. Empirical Results and Analysis

Using the OLS method, individual and time-dual fixed-effects method, instrumental variable method, and Heckman two-step method, we explore the impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit (ES) on the green development of enterprises (EGD). In particular, selectivity bias is controlled using the international frontier Heckman two-step method [27,28], which is very effective for robustness testing (endogeneity testing) and makes the empirical results more reliable.

4.1. Baseline Regression Analysis

Model (1) examines the baseline effect of entrepreneurs’ spirit (ES) on the green development of enterprises (EGD), as shown in

Table 4. Baseline regression analysis.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Variables	EGD	EGD	EGD	EGD
ES	0.071 ***	0.073 ***	0.076 ***	0.069 ***
	(5.55)	(5.61)	(5.61)	(5.08)
Size			0.002 ***	0.001
			(2.73)	(0.78)
Age			0.001 ***	0.000 **
			(5.24)	(2.31)
Gro.			0.000	0.000
			(−0.92)	(−0.83)
Lev.			−0.009 *	−0.017 ***
			(−1.84)	(3.38)
BS			0.011 *	0.015 **
			(1.78)	(2.37)
OC			0.008	0.005
			(1.37)	(0.74)
PID			0.010	0.007
			(0.52)	(0.37)
Dual.			0.004 **	0.003 *
			(1.97)	(1.72)
Constant	0.075 ***	0.076 ***	−0.022	0.023
	(63.58)	(10.24)	(−0.99)	(0.94)
u	No	Yes	No	Yes
v	No	Yes	No	Yes
Adjusted R2	0.002	0.036	0.006	0.037
F	30.76	13.38	9.277	11.70
N	13,079	13,079	13,079	13,079

Note: *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Values in parentheses are t-values.

. Column (1) does not include any control variables and does not control for individual and time-dual fixed effects, with the regression coefficient $\alpha =0.071$ significant at the 1% level. Column (2) does not include any control variables but controls for individual and time-dual fixed effects, with the regression coefficient $\alpha =0.073$ significant at the 1% level. Column (3) includes all control variables but does not control for individual and time-dual fixed effects, with the regression coefficient $\alpha =0.076$ significant at the 1% level. Column (4) includes all control variables and controls for individual and time-dual fixed effects, with the regression coefficient $\alpha =0.069$ significant at the 1% level. All four tests confirm hypothesis H₁, indicating that entrepreneurial spirit effectively promotes the green development of enterprises.

4.2. Robustness Tests

Some models and data sources may lead to endogeneity issues. Generally, endogeneity arises from reciprocal causation between variables, omitted variables or selection bias, and data source or measurement bias, which can affect the stability and reliability of research findings. Due to limitations in our capability, data access, and space, this paper only discusses reciprocal causation and variable selection.

4.2.1. Instrumental Variable Method: Mitigating Reverse Causality

The higher the level of green development in an enterprise, the better its technological innovation and operating environment, which may enhance the entrepreneurs’ spirit. Thus, there may be a reverse causality between entrepreneurs’ spirit and the green development of enterprises. To mitigate the adverse effects of reverse causality on the research results, it is necessary to identify suitable instrumental variables (IVs) for testing.

Drawing on the research by Liu Li and Yang Hongrui [29], we use the one-period lagged explanatory variable as an instrumental variable. The one-period lagged entrepreneurs’ spirit (L.ES) is highly correlated with the current-period entrepreneurs’ spirit (ES) but is exogenous to the current period of the green development of enterprises (EGD) and may have a minimal impact. Therefore, it satisfies the conditions for an instrumental variable, namely, being correlated with the explanatory variable and exogenous to the response variable.

Using the Hausman test and the Two-Stage Least Squares (TSLS) method, we perform the following steps: First, we treat ES as the response variable and L.ES as the explanatory variable and substitute them into a linear regression equation similar to Model (1) for the first-stage OLS estimation, obtaining the fitted values of ES, denoted as $\widehat{ES}$. Next, we treat EGD as the response variable and the fitted values of ES, $\widehat{ES}$, as the explanatory variable and substitute them into Model (1) for the second-stage OLS estimation. The results are presented in

Table 5. Instrumental variable method.

	First Stage	Second Stage
Variables	ES	EGD
L.ES (IV)	0.783 ***
	(181.60)
$\widehat{ES}$		0.105 ***
		(5.30)
Size	0.006 ***	0.000
	(20.53)	(0.14)
Age	0.000	0.000
	(0.27)	(−0.83)
Gro.	−0.006 ***	−0.017 ***
	(−3.84)	(−3.00)
Lev.	0.000	0.001 ***
	(−1.33)	(2.94)
BS	−0.001	0.017 **
	(−0.28)	(2.38)
OC	−0.008 ***	−0.004
	(−3.73)	(−0.59)
PID	−0.001	0.012
	(−0.18)	(0.55)
Dual.	0.001 **	0.002
	(2.39)	(0.80)
Constant	−0.109 ***	0.029
	(−14.00)	(1.04)
u	Yes	Yes
v	Yes	Yes
Adjusted R2	0.796	0.036
F	848.3	9.227
N	9998	9998

Note: **, and *** denote significance at the 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Values in parentheses are t-values.

.

As shown in Table 5, in the first stage, the lagged one-period entrepreneurs’ spirit (L.ES) is regressed on the current-period entrepreneurs’ spirit (ES), with an estimated coefficient of 0.783, which is significant at the 1% level. This indicates that the lagged one-period entrepreneurs’ spirit has strong predictive power for the current-period entrepreneurs’ spirit. In the second stage, the fitted value $\widehat{ES}$ is regressed on EGD, with an estimated coefficient of 0.105, which is significant at the 1% level. This demonstrates that $\widehat{ES}$ has a significant positive effect on EGD, thereby proving the robustness of the previous conclusions.

4.2.2. Heckman Two-Step Method: Mitigating Sample Selection Bias

Referring to the approach used by Gao Zhilin et al. [30], we employ the Heckman two-step method for testing. First Step: In the probit model, we generate a dummy variable ES dum from the median entrepreneurs’ spirit. If the value is greater than the median, it is assigned 1; otherwise, it is assigned 0. This dummy variable is used as the response variable. We select government subsidies (Sub.) as an exogenous instrumental variable that significantly affects entrepreneurs’ spirit. Using the regression results, we calculate the inverse Mills ratio (IMR). Second Step: we incorporate the IMR as a control variable into Model (1) for OLS estimation. The results are presented in

Table 6. Heckman two-step method.

	First Stage	Second Stage
Variables	ES_dum	EGD
Sub.	1.758 **
	(2.42)
ES		0.063 ***
		(4.53)
IMR		0.043 ***
		(3.71)
Size	0.379 ***	0.008 ***
	(37.64)	(3.79)
Age	−0.006 ***	0.000
	(−3.60)	(1.61)
Gro.	0.004	0.000
	(1.10)	(−0.81)
Lev.	0.017 *	−0.016 ***
	(1.77)	(−3.11)
BS	0.248 ***	0.020 ***
	(3.41)	(2.98)
OC	2.054 ***	0.050 ***
	(31.07)	(3.72)
PID	−0.058	0.001
	(−0.27)	(0.06)
Dual.	0.099 ***	0.006 ***
	(4.98)	(2.79)
Constant	−9.702 ***	−0.200 ***
	(−32.91)	(−3.10)
u	Yes	Yes
v	Yes	Yes
Adjusted R2		0.0380
F		11.55
N	21,985	12,848

Note: *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Values in parentheses are t-values.

.

As shown in Table 6, in the first step, government subsidies (Sub.) were regressed on the entrepreneurs’ spirit dummy variable (ES_dum), resulting in an estimated coefficient of 1.758, which is significant at the 5% level. This indicates that the calculated IMR has strong corrective properties. In the second step, the IMR was included in the main regression equation to regress on EGD, with the estimated coefficients for ES and IMR being 0.063 and 0.043, respectively, both significant at the 1% level. The significant regression effect of the IMR indicates the presence of a “sample selection effect” (selection bias), affirming that the use of the Heckman two-step method is appropriate while also proving that the previous conclusions are robust.

4.2.3. Other Robustness Tests

Due to limitations in space, data sources, and our own capabilities, we conduct other robustness tests from two aspects.

First aspect: We replace the measurement methods of the response variable and the explanatory variable, as shown in

Table 7. Replacement of measurement methods for response and explanatory variables.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Variables	EGD1	EGD2	EGD3	EGD	EGD	EGD
ES	0.017 ***	0.172 **	0.068 ***
	(16.62)	(2.57)	(38.71)
ES1				0.017 ***
				(2.73)
ES2					0.012 **
					(2.31)
ES3						0.184 ***
						(7.67)
Size	0.004 ***	−0.025 ***	0.009 ***	0.000	0.001	−0.003 ***
	(65.76)	(−5.89)	(78.70)	(0.00)	(1.44)	(−2.66)
Age	0.000 **	0.002 *	0.000 ***	0.000 *	0.000 **	0.000 *
	(2.24)	(1.92)	(6.32)	(1.84)	(2.06)	(1.73)
Gro.	0.000	−0.001	−0.000 ***	0.000	0.000	0.000
	(−0.79)	(−0.67)	(−2.75)	(−0.82)	(−0.84)	(−0.72)
Lev.	−0.001 ***	−0.077 ***	−0.001 *	−0.019 ***	−0.018 ***	−0.017 ***
	(−3.12)	(−3.20)	(−1.88)	(−3.81)	(−3.70)	(−3.40)
BS	0.002 ***	0.073 **	−0.001	0.013 **	0.014 **	0.015 **
	(3.18)	(2.34)	(−1.07)	(1.97)	(2.25)	(2.35)
OC	0.001 **	0.0170	0.002 **	0.009	0.008	0.007
	(2.22)	(0.56)	(2.34)	(1.48)	(1.26)	(1.17)
PID	0.007 ***	0.004	0.008 ***	0.008	0.008	0.008
	(4.66)	(0.05)	(3.50)	(0.44)	(0.45)	(0.43)
Dual.	0.000	0.014	0.001 ***	0.004 **	0.004 **	0.004 **
	(0.71)	(1.55)	(3.14)	(2.32)	(2.11)	(1.97)
Constant	−0.092 ***	0.707 ***	−0.193 ***	0.042 *	0.0120	0.097 ***
	(−48.89)	(5.91)	(−61.38)	(1.65)	(0.48)	(3.70)
u	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
v	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Adjusted R2	0.425	0.035	0.456	0.036	0.036	0.039
F	206.9	11.13	234.1	11.30	11.25	12.44
N	13,079	13,079	13,079	13,079	13,079	13,079

Note: *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Values in parentheses are t-values.

. Columns (1) to (3) represent the response variable EGD replaced by three dimensions: economic performance (EGD₁), social performance (EGD₂), and ecological performance (EGD₃), reconsidering the impact of ES on EGD. The regression coefficients are 0.017, 0.172, and 0.068, respectively, passing the significance tests at the 1%, 5%, and 1% levels. Columns (4) to (6) represent the explanatory variable ES replaced by three dimensions: innovative spirit (ES₁), risk-taking spirit (ES₂), and contractual spirit (ES₃), reconsidering the impact of ES on EGD. The regression coefficients are 0.017, 0.012, and 0.184, respectively, passing the significance tests at the 1%, 5%, and 1% levels. H₁ is confirmed once again.

Second aspect: Changing the observation periods of response and explanatory variables. As shown in

Table 8. Changing the observation periods of response and explanatory variables.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Variables	EGD	EGD	L1. EGD	L2. EGD
ES			0.064 ***	0.059 ***
			(3.72)	(3.03)
L1. ES	0.082 ***
	(5.30)
L2. ES		0.077 ***
		(4.60)
Size	0.001	0.001	−0.001	−0.002 **
	(0.74)	(0.60)	(−0.54)	(−2.06)
Age	0.001 ***	0.001 ***	0.001 ***	0.001 ***
	(2.91)	(3.26)	(3.61)	(4.08)
Gro.	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	(−0.82)	(−0.84)	(−1.01)	(−0.94)
Lev.	−0.018 ***	−0.017 ***	−0.016 ***	−0.011 *
	(−3.12)	(−2.77)	(−2.86)	(−1.76)
BS	0.017 **	0.017 **	0.021 ***	0.029 ***
	(2.37)	(2.14)	(2.88)	(3.67)
OC	−0.005	−0.009	0.000	0.002
	(−0.70)	(−1.15)	(0.06)	(0.29)
PID	0.012	0.010	0.011	0.013
	(0.54)	(0.44)	(0.51)	(0.55)
Dual.	0.002	0.002	0.002	0.000
	(0.88)	(0.82)	(0.80)	(0.08)
Constant	0.018	0.018	0.032	0.041
	(0.63)	(0.59)	(1.15)	(1.36)
u	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
v	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Adjusted R2	0.036	0.040	0.031	0.031
F	9.227	8.774	7.897	6.956
N	9998	8323	9998	8323

Note: *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Values in parentheses are t-values.

: Columns (1) to (2) indicate that the explanatory variable ES lagged by one and two periods, reconsidering the impact of ES on EGD. The regression coefficients are 0.082 and 0.077, respectively, both passing the significance test at the 1% level. Columns (3) to (4) indicate that the response variable EGD lagged by one and two periods, reconsidering the impact of ES on EGD. The regression coefficients are 0.064 and 0.059, respectively, both passing the significance test at the 1% level. H₁ is confirmed once again.

4.3. Mediation Effect Analysis

Building on Model (1) and following the methodology of Jiang Ting (Jiang ,2022) [31], the mediating effect of new-quality productivity is tested in two steps: First, examining the impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit and new-quality productivity on corporate green development. Second, assessing the impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on new-quality productivity. The mediation test models are constructed sequentially as Model (2) and Model (3):

$$EG{D}_{i,t}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}E{S}_{i,t}+{\beta }_{2}N{P}_{i,t}+{\beta }_{k+2}Contro{l}_{k,i,t}+u_i+v_t+{\epsilon }_{i,t}$$

(2)

$$N{P}_{i,t}={\gamma }_0+{\gamma }_{1}E{S}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_{k+1}Contro{l}_{k,i,t}+u_i+v_t+{\epsilon }_{i,t}$$

(3)

In these models, $NP$ represents new-quality productivity, and the other symbols are consistent with those used previously. The total effect of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development is represented as ${\beta }_1+{\gamma }_1\cdot {\beta }_2={\alpha }_1$. Here, ${\beta }_1$ denotes the direct effect of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development; if both ${\beta }_2$ and ${\gamma }_1$ are significant, then ${\gamma }_1\cdot {\beta }_2$ represents the indirect effect of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development through the mediating variable.

When ${\beta }_1$, ${\beta }_2$, and ${\gamma }_1$ are all significantly positive, and ${\beta }_1$ is less than${\alpha }_1$ or ${\gamma }_1\cdot {\beta }_2$ is significant, then $NP$ partially mediates the effect between $ES$ and $EGD$. Furthermore, if ${\beta }_1$ approaches zero, $NP$ acts as a complete mediator.

The mediation effect of entrepreneurs’ spirit (ES) on corporate green development (EGD) through new-quality productivity (NP) is tested using Model (2) and Model (3), as shown in

Table 9. Mediation effect of new-quality productivity.

	(1)	(2)
Variables	EGD	NP
ES	0.057 ***	0.142 ***
	(5.23)	(17.13)
NP	0.084 ***
	(2.68)
Size	0.001	0.022 ***
	(0.78)	(41.00)
Age	0.000 **	0.000
	(2.31)	(−1.39)
Gro.	−0.000	−0.000
	(−0.83)	(−0.43)
Lev.	−0.017 ***	0.014 ***
	(−3.38)	(4.38)
BS	0.015 **	0.020 ***
	(2.37)	(5.13)
OC	0.005	−0.013 ***
	(0.74)	(−3.47)
PID	0.007	0.049 ***
	(0.37)	(4.35)
Dual.	0.003 *	0.002 **
	(1.72)	(2.02)
Constant	0.023	−0.490 ***
	(0.94)	(−12.91)
u	Yes	Yes
v	Yes	Yes
Adjusted R2	0.037	0.362
F	11.702	128.064
N	13,079	10,073

Note: *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Values in parentheses are t-values.

.

Column (1) shows the mediation effect of new-quality productivity. The regression coefficient ${\beta }_1$ is 0.057 and ${\beta }_2$ is 0.084, both significant at the 1% level. Compared to ${\alpha }_1$ in column (4) of Table 5, which is 0.069, ${\beta }_1$ decreased slightly, indicating that new-quality productivity partially mediates the relationship between entrepreneurs’ spirit and corporate green development. Column (2) shows the impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on new-quality productivity. The regression coefficient ${\gamma }_1$ is 0.142, significant at the 1% level. Since ${\alpha }_1={\beta }_1+{\gamma }_1\cdot {\beta }_2$ holds, this further confirms the mediating role of new-quality productivity.

4.4. Heterogeneity Analysis

To further examine whether the impact of entrepreneurs’ spirit on corporate green development exhibits heterogeneity effects, a grouped regression analysis was conducted. The grouping indicators were directly incorporated into the baseline model and interacted with the explanatory variables, as shown in Model (4):

$$EG{D}_{i,t}={\omega }_0+{\omega }_{1}E{S}_{i,t}\cdot D_j+{\omega }_{k+1}Contro{l}_{k,i,t}+u_i+v_t+{\epsilon }_{i,t}$$

(4)

In the model, $D_j$ represents the $j$-th grouping variable. If the value is greater than the average, it is assigned a value of 1; if it is less than the average, it is assigned a value of 0.

Sample companies can typically be grouped based on various criteria such as size (large, small, and medium), development stage (growth and maturity), ownership (state-owned and non-state-owned), asset operation (heavy asset and light asset), financial leverage (low leverage and high leverage), technological content (low and high), industry competition (strong and weak), and geographical distribution (eastern, central, and western regions). This paper only discusses size, geographical distribution, and industry competition. The heterogeneity-effect results obtained using Model (4) are shown in

Table 10. Heterogeneity analysis.

	(1)		(2)		(3)
	Large Enterprises	Small and Medium Enterprises	Eastern Region	Central and Western Regions	Strong Industry Competition	Weak Industry Competition
Variables	EGD	EGD	EGD	EGD	EGD	EGD
ES	0.115 ***	0.037 *	0.084 ***	0.031	0.062 ***	0.076 ***
	(5.42)	(1.96)	(5.58)	(0.97)	(2.85)	(4.34)
Size	0.002	−0.006 **	0.002 **	−0.002	0.001	0.001
	(1.62)	(−2.03)	(2.03)	(−1.16)	(0.72)	(0.53)
Age	0.000	0.001 **	0.001 ***	0.000	0.000	0.000 **
	(0.42)	(2.17)	(3.08)	(−0.54)	(1.26)	(2.16)
Gro.	0.000	0.001	0.000	−0.001	0.000	−0.001
	(−0.75)	(0.48)	(−0.81)	(−0.51)	(−0.76)	(−0.44)
Lev.	−0.015 **	−0.020 ***	−0.015 ***	−0.028 ***	−0.023 ***	−0.013 **
	(−2.13)	(−2.89)	(−2.59)	(−2.81)	(−2.92)	(−2.11)
BS	0.009	0.029 ***	0.006	0.024 **	0.011	0.018 **
	(1.06)	(2.76)	(0.78)	(2.17)	(1.12)	(2.23)
OC	0.008	−0.0120	0.006	0.004	0.008	0.004
	(1.04)	(−1.15)	(0.81)	(0.30)	(0.82)	(0.53)
PID	−0.021	0.053 *	−0.002	0.024	−0.018	0.026
	(−0.86)	(1.70)	(−0.10)	(0.74)	(−0.63)	(1.03)
Dual.	0.002	0.004	0.003	0.003	0.008 ***	0.000
	(0.86)	(1.40)	(1.41)	(0.70)	(2.74)	(−0.15)
Constant	0.026	0.109	0.000	0.083 *	0.0520	−0.001
	(0.73)	(1.64)	(0.01)	(1.90)	(1.39)	(−0.05)
u	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
v	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Adjusted R2	0.037	0.050	0.043	0.056	0.036	0.036
F	6.796	7.667	10.00	5.767	5.106	8.307
N	7148	5931	9469	3610	5221	7858
Chow Test	4.17 **			6.61 ***

Note: *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Values in parentheses are t-values.

.

As shown in Table 10, the regression coefficient for large enterprises is 0.115 (significant at the 1% level), which is higher than the regression coefficient for the full sample (0.069; see Table 3). In contrast, the regression coefficient for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is 0.037 (significant at the 10% level), which is lower than the full sample’s regression coefficient. This indicates that entrepreneurs’ spirit has a greater impact on the green development of large enterprises. This may be because the organizational structure and management processes of large enterprises are relatively well-developed, facilitating the influence of entrepreneurs’ spirit on their green development.

The regression coefficient for enterprises in the eastern region is 0.084 (significant at the 1% level), which is higher than the regression coefficient for the full sample. In contrast, the regression coefficient for enterprises in the central and western regions is 0.031 (not significant), which is lower than the full sample’s regression coefficient. This indicates that entrepreneurs’ spirit has a greater impact on the green development of enterprises in the eastern region. This may be due to the higher level of economic development and relatively advanced financial markets in the eastern region, which facilitate the influence of entrepreneurs’ spirit on the green development of enterprises.

The regression coefficient for enterprises with weak competitive positions is 0.076 (significant at the 1% level), which is slightly higher than the regression coefficient for the full sample. In contrast, the regression coefficient for enterprises with strong competitive positions is 0.062 (significant at the 1% level), which is slightly lower than the full sample’s regression coefficient. This suggests that entrepreneurs’ spirit has a greater impact on the green development of enterprises with weak competitive positions. Enterprises with weaker competitive positions may have more room for the influence of entrepreneurs’ spirit on their green development.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1. Research Conclusions

This study selected 17,079 A-share listed manufacturing enterprises from 2012 to 2022 as the research sample to deeply explore the intrinsic mechanism, transmission paths, and supporting models of entrepreneurs’ spirit on the green development of enterprises. The following conclusions were drawn:

Entrepreneurs’ spirit significantly enhances the level of green development in enterprises. This conclusion is verified through multiple rounds of robustness tests, including tests for reverse causality and sample selection bias.

The entrepreneurs’ spirit has a significant positive impact on new-quality productivity, which in turn shows a significant positive impact on the green development of enterprises. New-quality productivity plays a partial mediating role between entrepreneurs’ spirit and green development, indicating that entrepreneurs’ spirit further promotes green development by enhancing new-quality productivity.

The promoting effect of entrepreneurs’ spirit on green development shows significant heterogeneity. Specifically, large enterprises benefit more than small and medium-sized enterprises; enterprises in the eastern region benefit more than those in the central and western regions; and enterprises with weak competitive positions benefit more than those with strong competitive positions. These differences reveal the varying influence of entrepreneurs’ spirit across different types of enterprises and their effectiveness in different regions and competitive environments.

5.2. Management Recommendations

Based on the above research conclusions, the following management recommendations are proposed:

Vigorously cultivate entrepreneurs’ spirit to stimulate green-development vitality. Establish platforms for the research and exchange of entrepreneurs’ spirit. Promote extensive cooperation between academic institutions and enterprises. Conduct widespread publicity of entrepreneurs’ spirit and exemplary entrepreneurs, especially in fields such as R&D innovation, green low-carbon initiatives, and new energy development. Increase efforts in attracting and training entrepreneurs’ talent to provide high-quality entrepreneurial resources for green development.

Meticulously cultivate new-quality productivity to enhance green-development momentum. Promote technological, business model, and management innovations, with a focus on artificial intelligence, environmental protection, and new energy sectors. Clarify the development direction of new-quality productivity and utilize low-carbon policy tools and green finance to guide efforts. Create efficient green industrial clusters and build a high-quality industrial chain ecosystem, forming growth poles for new-quality productivity and shaping new dynamics and potential for green development.

Deeply understand and scientifically grasp the concept of green development to uncover enterprise-green-development potential. Firmly establish and practice the concept that “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets” and unwaveringly pursue an eco-priority development path. Steadily strengthen the front, middle, and back ends of the industrial chain, forming a comprehensive industrial chain system covering asset operation, capital management, commercial management, digital industry, and green ecology. Transform digitalization achievements into innovation dividends that improve quality and efficiency.