Abstract：As China’s manufacturing industry and economic volume reached the first and second place respectively in 2010, stable development of economy has become a major strategy of China, where maintaining the sustainable development of enterprises is becoming particularly crucial. In this context, a rapidly increasing number of listed companies in China have started to issue sustainability reports and environment, social and governance (ESG) ratings since last decade. This fact implies that green economy and sustainable development are not only valued by advanced countries but also by developing economies. China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) proposed the “green credit guidelines” (GCG) in 2012, and issued the “notice on submitting green credit statistic” in 2013. The implement of the “key evaluation indicators for green credit” by CBRC in 2014 represents a further progression of regulatory system as well as a formal application of green credit policy, with the main purpose of promoting green transformation by adjusting the credit structure. However, can green credit policy really promote the green transformation of companies, or facilitate the incremental investment towards green innovation and sustainable development? This paper employs 4,516 annual observations of China’s Growth Enterprise Market (GEM) listed companies from 2010 to 2019 as research samples, combing the regression models of difference in difference (DID) and fixed effect (FE) to examine the impact mechanism of GCG on green innovation and ESG performance. We aim at investigating whether GCG can induce green innovation behavior, as well as exploring the internal mechanism between green innovation and ESG scores. Our research findings are as follows: (1) In fact, GCG has inhibited the green innovation of China’s GEM listed companies; (2) Green innovation of GEM listed companies has an internal mechanism for improving ESG performance; (3) Both political connection strength (PCS) and regional innovation capability (RIC) of GEM listed companies can moderate the positive effect of green innovation on ESG performance. Particularly, the connectedness shows the dynamic patterns by two stage general moment method (GMM) regression with instrumental variables, highlighting the risk of PCS and RIC are the shock transmitters from green innovation to sustainable development (ESG) of GEM listed companies.The general direction of green credit policy is advocating environmental protection, green transformation, as well as sustainable development for enterprises. However, GCG have a negative impact on the green innovation and sustainable development performance of China’s GEM listed companies, which provides new practical inspiration and reflections for deepening the green transformation strategy of China’s manufacturing industry. As for those emerging markets and products, it is a wiser transition to the new business mode, especially considering new investment trends such as green and sustainable performance considerations. Stakeholders of GEM listed companies will confront with the dual pressures from social and environmental regulations, thus they should give priority to adopting long-term and green-development strategies, attaching more importance to the social value of listed companies. Meanwhile, the government also needs to promote entrepreneurial companies to abandon traditional business strategy and adopt new development strategies to balance the economic, social and environmental benefits. Therefore, China’s GEM listed companies have to make new strategic decisions, not only to pursue the new products that can meet the marketing requirements but also to accommodate new investment trends and financial policies. Furthermore, investors have also begun to measure the financial value of ESG indicators in their lending strategies, while expecting financial institutions to surpass their main function of maximizing profits from emerging industries. In general, both banks and professional investment institutions should fully adopt the sustainable investment strategies and firmly believe that improving society and environment is more important than pursuing short-term profits. That is, investors should focus more on the sustainable financial performance.The main contributions of this research can be summarized from the following aspects (1) In terms of theoretical thinking, although existing studies found that the financing structure can affect the innovation activities of enterprises, the internal mechanism is still not yet clear, especially for the impact mechanism on sustainable development performance, our paper provides broader space and practical reference for future researches in related fields. This paper further explores the mechanism of GCG affecting ESG performance of innovation-driven startups in view of green innovation, which enriches and expands the sustainable development theory. (2) In terms of research methodology, we manually acquired the patent data, employing the number of green patents authorized to measure the quantity of green innovation and employing the number of forward citations of green patents to measure the quality of green innovation, with an attempt at filling up the gaps on previous quantitative researches of innovation. (3) In terms of policy practice, this paper analyzes the mechanism of green credit policy on sustainable development indicators from the perspective of green innovation, providing a new practical enlightenment and decision-making support. Our study also contributes to a better understanding of the ESG practices for GEM listed companies and startups in emerging countries based on the green credit scenario.
陈立峰, 郑健壮. 绿色信贷政策能否促进企业绿色创新？[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2023, 53(8): 42-62.
Chen Lifeng, Zheng Jianzhuang. Can Green Credit Policy Promote Enterprise Green Innovation? A Study of China’s 730 GEM Listed Companies. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2023, 53(8): 42-62.
1 Wang E.， Liu X. & Wu J. et al.， “Green credit， debt maturity， and corporate investment—evidence from China，” Sustainability， Vol. 11， No. 3 （2019）， https：//pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cd25/62a2525a368d91136fe9609f3c7b666deb72.pdf. 2 Ling S.， Han G. & An D. et al.， “The impact of green credit policy on technological innovation of firms in pollution-intensive industries： evidence from China，” Sustainability， Vol. 12， No. 11 （2020）， https：//pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bb6b/cb8a3f35b8c53de2e9b2ba1324e57c5f1a36.pdf. 3 Zheng J. Z.， Khurram M. & Chen L. F.， “Can green innovation affect ESG ratings and financial performance？ evidence from Chinese GEM listed companies，” Sustainability， Vol. 14， No. 14 （2022）， https：//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8677. 4 李维安、张耀伟、郑敏娜等： 《中国上市公司绿色治理及其评价研究》，《管理世界》2019年第5期，第126-133，160页。 5 方先明、那晋领： 《创业板上市公司绿色创新溢酬研究》，《经济研究》2020年第10期，第106-123页。 6 Johnstone N.， Hascic I. & Popp D.， “Renewable energy policies and technological innovation： evidence based on patent counts，” Environmental & Resource Economics， Vol. 45， No. 1 （2010）， pp. 133-155. 7 Guo Q.， Zhou M. & Liu N. et al.， “Spatial effects of environmental regulation and green credits on green technology innovation under low-carbon economy background conditions，” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health， Vol. 16， No. 17 （2019）， https：//europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi？accid=PMC6747161&blobtype=pdf. 8 Chen H.， Liu C. & Xie F. et al.， “Green credit and company R&D level： empirical research based on threshold effects，” Sustainability， Vol. 11， No. 7 （2019）， https：//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1918. 9 丁杰、胡蓉： 《区域性环境规制与绿色信贷政策的有效性——基于重污染企业信贷融资视角》，《软科学》2020年第12期，第61-67页。 10 王馨、王营： 《绿色信贷政策增进绿色创新研究》，《管理世界》2021年第6期，第173-188，11页。 11 操群、许骞： 《金融“环境、社会和治理”（ESG）体系构建研究》，《金融监管研究》2019年第4期，第95-111页。 12 Zhang Q.， Loh L. & Wu W.， “How do environmental， social and governance initiatives affect innovative performance for corporate sustainability？” Sustainability， Vol. 12， No. 8 （2020）， https：//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3380. 13 Freeman R. E.， Strategic Management： A Stakeholder Perspective， New York： Harpercollins College Div， 1984. 14 Colquitt L. L. & Hoyt R. E.， “Determinants of corporate hedging behavior： evidence from the life insurance industry，” Journal of Risk and Insurance， Vol. 64， No. 4 （1997）， pp. 649-671. 15 Boyle E. J.， Higgins M. M. & Rhee G. S.， “Stock market reaction to ethical initiatives of defense contractors： theory and evidence，” Critical Perspectives on Accounting， Vol. 8， No. 6 （1997）， pp. 541-561. 16 Aras G. & Crowther D.， “Governance and sustainability an investigation into the relationship between corporate governance and corporate sustainability，” Management Decision， Vol. 46， No. 3 （2008）， pp. 433-448. 17 Jahn J. & Brühl R.， “How friedman’s view on individual freedom relates to stakeholder theory and social contract theory，” Journal of Business Ethics， Vol. 153， No. 1 （2018）， pp. 41-52. 18 Lee S. P. & Isa M.， “Environmental， social and governance （ESG） practices and performance in Shariah firms： agency or stakeholder theory？” Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance， Vol. 16， No. 2 （2020）， pp. 1-34. 19 Xie J.， Nozawa W. & Yagi M. et al.， “Do environmental， social， and governance activities improve corporate financial performance？” Business Strategy Environ， Vol. 28， No. 2 （2019）， pp. 286-300. 20 Yee-Lo K. & Kwan C. L.， “The effect of environmental， social， governance and sustainability initiatives on stock value—examining market response to initiatives undertaken by listed companies，” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management， Vol. 24， No. 6 （2017）， pp. 606-619. 21 顾雷雷、王鸿宇： 《社会信任、融资约束与企业创新》，《经济学家》2020年第11期，第39-50页。 22 Gioia D. A. & Corley K. G.， “Being good versus looking good： business school rankings and the circean transformation from substance to image，” Academy of Management Learning & Education， Vol. 1， No. 1 （2002）， pp. 107-120. 23 Drempetic S.， Klein C. & Zwergel B.， “The influence of firm size on the ESG score： corporate sustainability ratings under review，” Journal of Business Ethics， Vol. 167， No. 2 （2020）， pp. 333-360. 24 Brooks C. & Oikonomou I.， “The effects of environment， social and governance disclosures and performance on firm value： a review of the literature in accounting and finance，” British Accounting Review， Vol. 50， No. 1 （2018）， pp. 1-15. 25 Dalal K. K. & Thaker N.， “ESG and corporate financial performance： a panel study of Indian companies，” The IUP Journal of Corporate Governance， Vol. 18， No. 1 （2019）， pp. 44-60. 26 Clementino E. & Perkins R.， “How do companies respond to environmental， social and governance （ESG） ratings？ evidence from Italy，” Journal of Business Ethics， Vol. 171， No. 2 （2021）， pp. 379-397. 27 García F.， González-Bueno J. & Guijarro F. et al.， “Forecasting the environmental， social， and governance rating of firms by using corporate financial performances： a rough set approach，” Sustainability， Vol. 12， No. 8 （2020）， https：//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3324/html. 28 Hall B. H. & Harhoff D.， “Recent research on the economics of patents，” Annual Review of Economics， Vol. 4， No. 1 （2012）， pp. 541-565. 29 Dang J. & Motohashi K.， “Patent statistics： a good indicator for innovation in China？ patent subsidy program impacts on patent quality，” China Economic Review， Vol. 35， No. 1 （2015）， pp. 137-155. 30 Zhang X. & Xu B.， “R&D internationalization and green innovation？ evidence from Chinese resource enterprises and environmental enterprises，” Sustainability， Vol. 11， No. 24 （2019）， https：//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7225. 31 牛海鹏、张夏羿、张平淡： 《我国绿色金融政策的制度变迁与效果评价——以绿色信贷的实证研究为例》，《管理评论》2020年第8期，第3-12页。 32 邱牧远、殷红： 《生态文明建设背景下企业ESG表现与融资成本》，《数量经济技术经济研究》2019年第3期，第108-123页。 33 余维臻、陈立峰、刘锋： 《后发情境下创业企业如何成为“独角兽”——颠覆性创新视角的探索性案例研究》，《科学学研究》2021年第7期，第1267-1276页。 34 Alexopoulos I.， Kostas K. & Dimitris T.， “Environmental and financial performance. Is there a win-win or a win-loss situation？ evidence from the greek manufacturing，” Journal of Cleaner Production， Vol. 197 （2018）， pp. 1275-1283. 35 解学梅、朱琪玮： 《企业绿色创新实践如何破解“和谐共生”难题？》，《管理世界》2021年第1期，第128-149，9页。 36 Ardito L.， Messeni A. & Pascucci F. et al.， “Inter-firm R&D collaborations and green innovation value： the role of family firms’ involvement and the moderating effects of proximity dimensions，” Business Strategy and the Environment， Vol. 28， No. 1 （2019）， pp. 185-197. 37 Mazzucato M. & Semieniuk G.， “Public financing of innovation： new questions，” Oxford Review of Economic Policy， Vol. 33， No. 1 （2017）， pp. 24-48. 38 谢婷婷、刘锦华： 《绿色信贷如何影响中国绿色经济增长？》，《中国人口·资源与环境》2019年第9期，第83-90页。 39 陆菁、鄢云、王韬璇： 《绿色信贷政策的微观效应研究——基于技术创新与资源再配置的视角》，《中国工业经济》2021年第1期，第174-192页。 40 谢乔昕、张宇： 《绿色信贷政策、扶持之手与企业创新转型》，《科研管理》2021年第1期，第124-134页。 41 曹廷求、张翠燕、杨雪： 《绿色信贷政策的绿色效果及影响机制——基于中国上市公司绿色专利数据的证据》，《金融论坛》2021年第5期，第7-17页。 42 Yoon B.， Lee J. & Byun R.， “Does ESG performance enhance firm value？ evidence from Korea，” Sustainability， Vol. 10， No. 10 （2018）， https：//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3635. 43 Oltra V. & Jean M. S.， “Sectoral systems of environmental innovation： an application to the French automotive industry，” Technological Forecasting and Social Change， Vol. 76， No. 4 （2009）， pp. 567-583. 44 Saunila M.， Ukko J. & Rantala T.， “Sustainability as a driver of green innovation investment and exploitation，” Journal of Cleaner Production， Vol. 179 （2018）， pp. 631-641. 45 Polonsky M. J. & Jevons C. P.， “Global branding and strategic CSR： an overview of three types of complexity，” International Marketing Review， Vol. 26， No. 3 （2009）， pp. 327-347. 46 Dyer J. H. & Hatch N. W.， “Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers： creating advantage through network relationships，” Strategic Management Journal， Vol. 27， No. 8 （2006）， pp. 701-719. 47 鲁喜凤： 《机会创新性、知识获取对企业绩效的影响研究——以科技型企业为例》，《情报科学》2017年第5期，第160-164页。 48 刘强、王伟楠、陈恒宇： 《〈绿色信贷指引〉实施对重污染企业创新绩效的影响研究》，《科研管理》2020年第11期，第100-112页。 49 陈爽英、傅锋、井润田： 《政治关联对研发投资的影响：促进还是抑制》，《科研管理》2020年第1期，第184-192页。 50 黄丽英、何乐融： 《高管政治关联和企业创新投入——基于创业板上市公司的实证研究》，《研究与发展管理》2020年第2期，第11-23页。 51 李新春、肖宵： 《制度逃离还是创新驱动？——制度约束与民营企业的对外直接投资》，《管理世界》2017年第10期，第99-112，129-188页。 52 王惠、王树乔、苗壮等： 《研发投入对绿色创新效率的异质门槛效应——基于中国高技术产业的经验研究》，《科研管理》2016年第2期，第63-71页。 53 宋帅邦： 《中国区域创新能力评价研究》，《技术经济与管理研究》2020年第12期，第118-123页。 54 Asheim B. T. & Coenen L.， “Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems： comparing nordic clusters，” Research Policy， Vol. 34， No. 8 （2005）， pp. 1173-1190. 55 Cornaggia J.， Mao Y. & Tian X. et al.， “Does banking competition affect innovation？” Journal of Financial Economics， Vol. 115， No. 1 （2015）， pp. 189-209． 56 尹子擘、孙习卿、邢茂源： 《绿色金融发展对绿色全要素生产率的影响研究》，《统计与决策》2021年第3期，第139-144页。 57 孙群英、朱震锋、曹玉昆： 《低碳经济视域下中国省级区域绿色创新能力评价分析——以黑龙江省为例》，《林业经济》2019年第11期，第34-42页。 58 Liu S.， Yu Q. & Zhang L. et al.， “Does intellectual capital investment improve financial competitiveness and green innovation performance？ evidence from renewable energy companies in China，” Mathematical Problems in Engineering， Vol. 13 （2021）， https：//downloads.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2021/9929202.pdf. 59 罗知、齐博成： 《环境规制的产业转移升级效应与银行协同发展效应——来自长江流域水污染治理的证据》，《经济研究》2021年第2期，第174-189页。 60 张媛媛、袁奋强、陈利馥： 《区域产业依存度能改变绿色信贷政策对企业创新投资的影响吗——来自准自然实验的证据》，《宏观经济研究》2021年第3期，第120-135页。 61 Freeman R. E.， Wicks A. C. & Parmar B.， “Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited，” Organization Science， Vol. 15， No. 3 （2004）， pp. 364-369. 62 Park B. I.， Chidlow A. & Choi J.， “Corporate social responsibility： stakeholders influence on MNEs’ activities，” International Business Review， Vol. 23， No. 5 （2014）， pp. 966-980. 63 张会丽、陆正飞： 《控股水平、负债主体与资本结构适度性》，《南开管理评论》2013年第5期，第142-151页。 64 顾乃康、周艳利： 《卖空的事前威慑、公司治理与企业融资行为——基于融资融券制度的准自然实验检验》，《管理世界》2017年第2期，第120-134页。 65 Li P.， Zhou R. & Xiong Y.， “Can ESG performance affect bond default rate？ evidence from China，” Sustainability， Vol. 12， No. 7 （2020）， https：//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2954. 66 Allison H. L.， “2021 A climate for change： meeting investor demand for climate and ESG information at the SEC，” 2021-08-12， https：//www.sec.gov/news/speech/. 67 齐绍洲、林屾、崔静波： 《环境权益交易市场能否诱发绿色创新？——基于我国上市公司绿色专利数据的证据》，《经济研究》2018年第12期，第129-143页。 68 朱益宏、周翔、张全成： 《私营企业家政治关联催化了投机行为还是技术创新》，《科研管理》2016年第4期，第77-84页。 69 Bertrand M. & Schoar A.， “Managing with style： the effect of managers on firm policies，” The Quarterly Journal of Economics， Vol. 118， No. 4 （2003）， pp. 1169-1208. 70 叶青、李增泉、李光青： 《富豪榜会影响企业会计信息质量吗？——基于政治成本视角的考察》，《管理世界》2012年第1期，第104-120页。 71 陈国进、丁赛杰、赵向琴等： 《中国绿色金融政策、融资成本与企业绿色转型——基于央行担保品政策视角》，《金融研究》2021年第12期，第75-95页。 72 张璇、李子健、李春涛： 《银行业竞争、融资约束与企业创新——中国工业企业的经验证据》，《金融研究》2019年第10期，第98-116页。 73 Calik E. & Bardudeen F.， “A measurement scale to evaluate sustainable innovation performance in manufacturing organizations，” Procedia CIRP， Vol. 40， No. 1 （2016）， pp. 449-454. 74 Hagedoorn J. & Cloodt M.， “Measuring innovative performance： is there an advantage in using multiple indicators？” Research Policy， Vol. 32， No. 8 （2003）， pp. 1365-1379. 75 Gunarathne N.， “Sustainable innovation measurement： approaches and challenges，” in Bocken N.， Ritala P. & Albareda L. et al. （eds.）， Innovation for Sustainability： Business Transformations Towards a Better World， Cham： Springer International Publishing， 2019， pp. 233-251. 76 Angrist J. D. & Krueger A. B.， “Instrumental variables and the search for identification： from supply and demand to natural experiments，” Journal of Economic Perspectives， Vol. 15， No. 4 （2001）， pp. 69-85. 77 Arellano M. & Bover O.， “Another look at the instrumental estimation of error-components models，” Journal of Econometrics， Vol. 68， No. 1 （1995）， pp. 29-51. 78 Roodman D.， “How to do xtabond2： an introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata，” The Stata Journal， Vol. 9， No. 1 （2009）， pp. 86-136. 79 Escrig-Olmedo E.， Fernández-Izquierdo M. A. & Ferrero-Ferrero I. et al.， “Rating the raters： evaluating how ESG rating agencies integrate sustainability principles，” Sustainability， Vol. 11， No. 3 （2019）， https：//pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2826/aa4d3c8c034d5e5af67542047e75ecac4508.pdf.
2023, Vol. 53 
