The Impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Performance on Corporate Return on Investment: Evidence from China

Main Article Content

Jingyu Luo

Keywords

ESG performance, return on investment, stakeholder theory

Abstract

Improving corporate return on investment and generating returns for shareholders are among the important operating objectives of listed companies. With the development of the stakeholder concept, corporate operations have paid greater attention to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance; however, whether ESG performance can improve return on investment remains to be studied. Using a sample of Chinese A-share listed companies from 2009 to 2023, this study constructs a two-way fixed-effects model to examine the relationship between corporate ESG performance and return on investment. The empirical results show that ESG performance can significantly improve corporate return on investment, and this result remains valid after a series of robustness tests. The heterogeneity analysis finds that the positive effect of corporate ESG performance on corporate return on investment is more significant among non-state-owned enterprises, large firms, and young firms. The mechanism tests show that ESG performance can improve corporate return on investment by increasing total factor productivity and promoting corporate green innovation. This study provides empirical evidence from Chinese listed companies for understanding the economic consequences of ESG performance and also provides a reference for firms seeking to improve operating performance.

Abstract 14 | PDF Downloads 13

References

  • [1]Katsamakas, E., & Sanchez-Cartas, J. M. (2023). A computational model of the competitive effects of ESG. PLOS ONE, 18(7), e0284237.
  • [2]Yu, X., & Xiao, K. (2022). Does ESG Performance Affect Firm Value? Evidence from a New ESG-Scoring Approach for Chinese Enterprises. Sustainability, 14(24), 16940.
  • [3]Bahadır, O., & Akarsu, S. (2024). Does Company Information Environment Affect ESG–Financial Performance Relationship? Evidence from European Markets. Sustainability, 16(7), 2701.
  • [4]Changjiang Zhang, Pin Xu, & Miao Bi. (2022). A review of research on ESG information disclosure by listed companies: Theories, motivations, and effects. Finance and Accounting Communications, (14), 9-15.
  • [5]Linlin Wang, Yonghui Lian, & Jie Dong. (2022). Research on the mechanism through which ESG performance affects firm value. Securities Market Herald, (5), 23-34.
  • [6]Jieying Gao, Dongxiao Chu, Yonghui Lian, et al. (2021). Can ESG performance improve corporate investment efficiency? Securities Market Herald, (11), 24-34+72.
  • [7]Meng Xie, Yiqiu Wang, & Yang Xu. (2024). Research on the economic effects of ESG responsibility fulfillment by listed companies: A long-term and dynamic perspective. Journal of Guangdong University of Finance & Economics, 39(6), 54-72.
  • [8]Ma, J., Gao, D., & Sun, J. (2022). Does ESG performance promote total factor productivity? Evidence from China. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10.
  • [9]Min Wang, & Kaiwen Zhao. (2024). Corporate ESG performance, investment efficiency, and total factor productivity. Finance & Economics of Xinjiang, (5), 43-52.
  • [10]Jialin Fu, & Xiaohong Huang. (2023). How does corporate ESG performance affect total factor productivity? Economic Survey, 40(3), 108-117.
  • [11]Wang, M., Li, Y., Li, J., & Wang, Z. (2021). Green process innovation, green product innovation and its economic performance improvement paths: A survey and structural model. Journal of Environmental Management, 297(1), 113282.
  • [12]Long Xue, Qianyu Zhang, & Xuefeng Li. (2023). Corporate ESG performance and green technology innovation. Finance and Accounting Monthly, 44(8), 135-142.
  • [13]Yongxia Wu, & Fei Shan. (2024). ESG responsibility fulfillment, green innovation, and firm value. Statistics & Decision, 40(7), 178-182.
  • [14]Baohong Zheng, & Qi Liu. (2025). The impact of corporate ESG responsibility fulfillment on total factor productivity. Journal of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications (Social Science Edition), 37(1), 140-151.