Host: 上海立信会计金融学院

  • ISSN 2096-9554
  • CN 31-2074/F
Volume 38 Issue 5
Sep.  2024
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Article Navigation >  Accounting and Economic Research  > 2024  >  38(5): 44-62
Shi Qingmei, Gao Yashan, Zhang Sainan. 2024. From Control Absence to Responsibility Deficiency: A Study on the Impact of Dual-no Control on Corporate ESG Performance. Accounting and Economic Research, 38(5): 44-62.
Citation: Shi Qingmei, Gao Yashan, Zhang Sainan. 2024. From Control Absence to Responsibility Deficiency: A Study on the Impact of Dual-no Control on Corporate ESG Performance. Accounting and Economic Research, 38(5): 44-62.
shu

From Control Absence to Responsibility Deficiency: A Study on the Impact of Dual-no Control on Corporate ESG Performance

  • 1.

    School of Audit, Henan University of Economics and Law, Zhengzhou Henan 450046, China

  • 2.

    School of Accounting, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian Liaoning 116025, China

  • Received Date: 2024-05-10
    Available Online: 2025-10-22
  • Publish Date: 2024-09-25
    Abstract
  • Dual-no control has attracted significant attention due to divergent perspectives on its governance effects, making it particularly important to examine the economic consequences arising from this governance model. This study selects A-share listed companies on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges from 2009 to 2023 as the sample and employs the PSM-DID method to investigate the impact of dual-no control on corporate ESG performance. The findings reveal that dual-no control exerts a significant inhibitory effect on corporate ESG performance, with suppressive effects observed across all three dimensions: environmental, social, and governance. Management myopia and operational risk play partial mediating roles. Moderating effect analysis indicates that internal governance levels, external oversight intensity, and resource allocation efficiency moderate the inhibitory effect. The study provides a theoretical basis for understanding how to promote the healthy development of corporate ESG practices and optimize internal governance structures, as well as policy insights for external regulatory agencies to strengthen supervision and improve relevant laws and regulations, thereby supporting enterprise sustainable development.

     

    • FullText(HTML)
  • loading
    • References(52)
  • [1]
    毕立华, 罗党论. 2021. 无实际控制人与中小投资者保护——来自中国资本市场的经验证据. 金融经济学研究 (6): 113−129.
    [2]
    柴斌锋, 张溶窈, 万谍. 2024. 环境不确定性与企业ESG表现. 系统工程理论与实践 (5): 1−23.
    [3]
    陈峻, 孙琳琳, 鲍婧. 2022. 审计监督、客户议价能力与上市公司财务违规. 审计研究 (3): 92−103.
    [4]
    陈晓珊, 刘洪铎. 2023. 机构投资者持股与公司ESG表现. 金融论坛 (9): 58−68.
    [5]
    崔也光, 王守杰, 王肇. 2023. 企业参与碳交易能够提升ESG表现吗? ——基于数字化转型的调节效应分析. 财务研究 (5): 57−68.
    [6]
    戴静雯, 许荣, 祝天琪, 陆超. 2024. 共同机构所有权与企业诉讼风险. 金融研究 (4): 94−112.
    [7]
    邓博夫, 董雅浩, 吉利. 2023. 诉讼风险与法定代表人身份转出——基于第二类代理问题的检验. 南开管理评论 (2): 108−119.
    [8]
    干胜道, 王杭, 陈彦琼. 2020. 无实际控制人上市公司高管薪酬粘性探讨. 改革 (3): 150−159.
    [9]
    高明华, 杜雯翠. 2013. 外部监管、内部控制与企业经营风险——来自中国上市公司的经验证据. 南方经济 (12): 63−72.
    [10]
    何涌, 刘思敏. 2022. 金融科技、经营风险与企业成长——“预防性储蓄”还是“投资效应”? 经济与管理研究 (6): 48−67.
    [11]
    胡楠, 薛付婧, 王昊楠. 2021. 管理者短视主义影响企业长期投资吗? ——基于文本分析和机器学习. 管理世界 (5): 139−156, 11, 19−21.
    [12]
    赖黎, 唐芸茜, 夏晓兰, 马永强. 2019. 董事高管责任保险降低了企业风险吗? ——基于短贷长投和信贷获取的视角. 管理世界 (10): 160−171. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5502.2019.10.014
    [13]
    李井林, 阳镇, 陈劲, 甘小梅. 2024. 混合所有制改革与企业ESG表现: 国企与民企的比较研究. 科研管理 (1): 1−14.
    [14]
    李培功, 沈艺峰. 2010. 媒体的公司治理作用: 中国的经验证据. 经济研究 (4): 14−27.
    [15]
    李平, 梁孝成. 2022. 行政审批制度改革对中国农产品加工企业全要素生产率影响研究. 产业经济评论 (4): 124−138.
    [16]
    李万福, 林斌, 宋璐. 2011. 内部控制在公司投资中的角色: 效率促进还是抑制? 管理世界 (2): 81−99, 188.
    [17]
    李志斌, 李敏诗, 许莲艳, 缪申培. 2024. 风险投资与企业ESG表现. 科学决策 (4): 1−21.
    [18]
    钱爱民, 吴春天, 朱大鹏. 2023. 民营企业混合所有制能促进实体经济“脱虚返实”吗. 南开管理评论 (1): 134−147.
    [19]
    沈红波, 寇宏, 张川. 2010. 金融发展、融资约束与企业投资的实证研究. 中国工业经济 (6): 55−64.
    [20]
    石青梅, 王梦圆, 孙梦娜. 2022. 双无控制与内控重大缺陷研究. 审计与经济研究 (6): 49−59.
    [21]
    孙明睿, 马融, 马文杰. 2024. 金融科技与企业ESG表现. 财经研究 (5): 1−17.
    [22]
    汤旭东, 张星宇, 杨玲玲. 2024. 监管型小股东与企业ESG表现——来自投服中心试点的证据. 数量经济技术经济研究 (4): 173−192.
    [23]
    田昆儒, 李颜苏, 薛坤坤. 2024a. 实际控制人缺失与内部人机会主义减持. 证券市场导报 (2): 22−32.
    [24]
    田昆儒, 李颜苏, 薛坤坤. 2024b. 无实际控制人与盈余价值相关性. 经济管理 (6): 143−163.
    [25]
    王晔, 王世鹏, 刘琳. 2021. 无实际控制人对上市公司研发强度与成长性的影响研究. 经济问题 (12): 53−58,119.
    [26]
    王治, 彭百川, 郭晶晶, 谭欢. 2023. 低碳转型能否提升企业环境−社会−治理表现? ——基于“低碳城市试点”的准自然实验. 财经理论与实践 (1): 139−145.
    [27]
    王竹泉, 王贞洁, 李静. 2017. 经营风险与营运资金融资决策. 会计研究 (5): 60−67, 97. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2886.2017.05.010
    [28]
    巫强, 姚雨秀. 2023. 企业数字化转型与供应链配置: 集中化还是多元化. 中国工业经济 (8): 99−117.
    [29]
    吴友, 刘嘉. 2024. 资本市场开放是否有利于企业ESG表现. 上海经济研究 (3): 73−88.
    [30]
    肖红军, 沈洪涛, 周艳坤. 2024. 客户企业数字化、供应商企业ESG表现与供应链可持续发展. 经济研究 (3): 54−73.
    [31]
    谢红军, 吕雪. 2022. 负责任的国际投资: ESG与中国OFDI. 经济研究 (3): 83−99.
    [32]
    徐妍, 王艳艳. 2024. 绿色信贷政策提升了企业ESG表现吗? ——来自A股上市公司的经验证据. 产业经济研究 (2): 59−72.
    [33]
    尹海员, 陈佰翻. 2023. 上市公司监事会行权素养、监管激励与股价崩盘风险. 会计研究 (8): 103−119. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2886.2023.08.008
    [34]
    章琳一, 张洪辉. 2020. 无控股股东、内部人控制与内部控制质量. 审计研究 (1): 96−104. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-4239.2020.01.013
    [35]
    赵景文, 于增彪. 2005. 股权制衡与公司经营业绩. 会计研究 (12): 59−64, 96. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2886.2005.12.011
    [36]
    周冬华, 黄沁雪. 2021. 共同所有权与会计信息可比性——来自中国资本市场的经验证据. 会计与经济研究 (4): 3−22.
    [37]
    邹静娴, 贾珅, 邱雅静, 邱晗. 2020. 经营风险与企业杠杆率. 金融研究 (12): 20−39.
    [38]
    Bacon, N., M. Wright, M. Meuleman, and L. Scholes. 2012. The impact of private equity on management practices in European buyouts: Short-termism and Anglo American effects? Industrial Relations 51(S1): 605−626.
    [39]
    Cai, X., Y. Lu, M. Wu, and L. Yu. 2016. Does environmental regulation drive away inbound foreign direct investment? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Journal of Development Economics 123: 73−85. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.08.003
    [40]
    Denis, D. J., and V. Sibilkov. 2010. Financial constraints, investment, and the value of cash holdings. The Review of Financial Studies 23(1): 247−269. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhp031
    [41]
    Fan, Z., Y. Chen, and Y. Mo. 2024. Management myopia and corporate ESG performance. International Review of Financial Analysis 92, 103071.
    [42]
    Fang, M., H. Nie, and X. Shen. 2023. Can enterprise digitization improve ESG performance? Economic Modelling 118, 106101.
    [43]
    Holmström, B. 1999. Managerial incentive problems: A dynamic perspective. The Review of Economic studies 66(1): 169−182. doi: 10.1111/1467-937X.00083
    [44]
    Husted, B. W., and J. M. de Sousa-Filho. 2017. The impact of sustainability governance, country stakeholder orientation, and country risk on environmental, social, and governance performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 155: 93−102.
    [45]
    Jang, G. Y., H. G. Kang, and W. Kim. 2022. Corporate executives’ incentives and ESG performance. Finance Research Letters 49, 103187. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2022.103187
    [46]
    Minetti, R., P. Murro, and M. Paiella. 2015. Ownership structure, governance, and innovation. European Economic Review 80: 165−193. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.09.007
    [47]
    Qin, J., J. Liu, and D. Deng. 2023. Absence of ultimate controller and investment efficiency: Evidence from China. PLoS ONE 18(6), e0287615.
    [48]
    Sajko, M., C. Boone, and T. Buyl. 2021. CEO greed, corporate social responsibility, and organizational resilience to systemic shocks. Journal of Management 47(4): 957−992. doi: 10.1177/0149206320902528
    [49]
    Shleifer, A., and R. W. Vishny. 1997. A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance 52(2): 737−783. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x
    [50]
    Sreedevi, R., and H. Saranga. 2017. Uncertainty and supply chain risk: The moderating role of supply chain flexibility in risk mitigation. International Journal of Production Economics 193: 332−342. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.07.024
    [51]
    Yang, H. 2024. No actual controller, distribution of power in the executive team, and digital transformation of enterprises. International Journal of Social Sciences and Public Administration 2(1): 94−104. doi: 10.62051/ijsspa.v2n1.13
    [52]
    Zhou, Z., Z. Liu, and H. Fan. 2024. Non-actual controller and enterprise technology innovation. Annals of Operations Research.
    • Relative Articles
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(4)  / Tables(7)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML
    Article views (14) PDF downloads(1) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related
    Link 

    Copyright © 会计与经济研究备案序号: 沪ICP备09005481号-4

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return