Resources and pressure from shareholders or creditors are important influencing factors and opportunities for enterprises to achieve excellence in Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) value creation. This study constructs multiple networks to characterize the financial relationships among enterprises, shareholders, and creditors, examining their impact and coupling effect on ESG value creation. We find that financial relationship networks are crucial for ESG value creation, with local and global network characteristics affecting ESG outcomes in opposing ways and varying across ESG dimensions. Notably, the ESG value effect of the shareholder network is more significant than that of the creditor network. Increasing interaction between shareholder and creditor relations in multiple networks positively impacts ESG value creation, similar to the effect in a single network. Financing constraints play an indirect role in the relationship, with the value creation impact depending on agency costs. For enterprises with low market competitiveness, the ESG value effect of multiple financial networks is more pronounced than for those with high market competitiveness. This study provides a decision reference for enterprises to build relationship networks with shareholders and creditors and to fulfill the positive ESG governance role of the network.
GrimesMWilliamsTZhaoE. Beyond hybridity: accounting for the values complexity of all organizations in the study of mission and mission drift. Acad Manage Rev2020; 45: 234–238.
3.
JiaXLiBLiuZ,et al.The green effects of fund market–analysis based on institutional investors’ preference. Kybernetes2023; 52: 495–517.
4.
QiLWangLLiW. Do mutual fund networks affect corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2020; 27: 1040–1050.
5.
De PontesLRêgoL. Impact of macroeconomic variables on the topological structure of the Brazilian stock market: a complex network approach. Physica A2022; 604: S0378437122004447.
6.
LuC. Do shareholder networks influence insider trading? Evidence from China. Emerg Mark Financ Trade2023; 59: 772–785.
7.
AtkinsJDoniFGasperiniA, et al.Exploring the effectiveness of sustainability measurement: which ESG metrics will survive COVID-19?J Bus Ethics2023; 185: 629–646.
8.
GrosmanALeiponenA. Organizational transparency and power in firm ownership networks. J Comp Econ2018; 46: 1158–1177.
9.
WangL. Transmission effects of ESG disclosure regulations through bank lending networks. J Account Res2023; 61: 935–978.
10.
HuangCLiS. Shareholders link network, information advantage and firm performance. Nankai Bus Rev2019; 22: 75–88.
11.
GuoHSunYQiuX. Cross-shareholding network and corporate bond financing cost in China. N Am Econ Financ2021; 57: 101423.
12.
HuangCJiangQ. Shareholder link network and corporate innovation. Nanaki Econ Stud2021; 2: 67–87.
13.
TianKYouZTianX. Non-controlling shareholders’ network power and corporate risk-taking. Collect Essay Financ Econ2021; 9: 60–70.
14.
BajoECrociEMarinelliN. Institutional investor networks and firm value. J Bus Res2020; 112: 65–80.
15.
MaQYangWHeJ. A complex network model for credit and debt relationships analysis of bank–firm system. In: Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Computing, Networks and Internet of Things, Sanya, China, 24–26 April 2020, pp. 185–190. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
16.
BianYWangYXuL. Systemic risk contagion in reconstructed financial credit network within banking and firm sectors on DebtRank based model. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc2020; 1: 8885657.
17.
HaoQShenJLeeC. Risk contagion of bank–firm loan network: evidence from China. Eurasian Bus Rev2023; 13: 341–361.
18.
ZhouY. Social networks and SMEs’ bank loans: an embeddedness perspective. China Soft Sci2017; 9: 86–96.
19.
ZhouZLuoZDuanS. Network embeddedness, information sharing and SME credit financing. China Soft Sci2015; 5: 119–128.
20.
YuanYYinX. Embeddedness in the acquisition of loans for small and medium-sized enterprises from the perspective of Hangzhou municipality. In: 2012 International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, Sanya, China, 20–21 October 2012, pp. 92–94. New York: IEEE.
21.
SassonAFjeldstadØ. Information-mediated network effects: network composition and customer benefit in the presence of information asymmetry. Strateg Organ2009; 7: 355–386.
22.
IyerRPeydroJda-Rocha-LopesS, et al.Interbank liquidity crunch and the firm credit crunch: evidence from the 2007–2009 crisis. Rev Financ Stud2014; 27: 347–372.
23.
ZhangCHuangHShiC, et al.Spatial pattern and driving factors for interprovincial water use in China: based on SNA and LMDI. Energy Environ2024; 5: 2198–2227.
24.
BurtRReagansRVolvovskyH. Network brokerage and the perception of leadership. Soc Networks2021; 65: 33–50.
25.
YangAUysalNTaylorM. Unleashing the power of networks: shareholder activism, sustainable development and corporate environmental policy. Bus Strateg Environ2018; 27: 712–727.
26.
NahapietJGhoshalS. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manage Rev1998; 23: 242–266.
DuruAIyengarRZampelliE. The dynamic relationship between CEO duality and firm performance: the moderating role of board independence. J Bus Res2016; 69: 4269–4277.
31.
BarnettMDimitrovVGaoF. The nail that sticks out: corporate social responsibility and shareholder proposals. Rev Account Stud2024; 29: 1575–1618.
32.
LiJZhangYWangL. Information transmission between large shareholders and stock volatility. N Am Econ Financ2021; 58: 101551.
33.
WangCQuanX. The effect of R&D alliance diversity and network position on firm innovation performance: evidence from the emerging biotechnology industry. Sci Technol Soc2017; 22: 407–424.
UzziBGillespieJ. Knowledge spillover in corporate financing networks: embeddedness and the firm’s debt performance. Strateg Manage J2002; 23: 595–618.
36.
WuYZhangCYunP, et al.Time–frequency analysis of the interaction mechanism between European carbon and crude oil markets. Energy Environ2021; 32: 1331–1357.
37.
HuangHKersteinJWangC, et al.Firm climate risk, risk management, and bank loan financing. Strateg Manage J2022; 43: 2849–2880.
38.
HittMHoskissonRJohnsonR, et al.The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Acad Manage J1996; 39: 1084–1119.
39.
AllenFQianMXieJ. Implicit benefits and financing. J Financ Intermed2022; 52: 101000.
40.
IurkovVBenitoG. Domestic alliance networks and regional strategies of MNEs: a structural embeddedness perspective. J Int Bus Stud2018; 49: 1033–1059.
41.
BerndsenRLeónCRenneboogL. Financial stability in networks of financial institutions and market infrastructures. J Financ Stab2018; 35: 120–135.
42.
PfefferJSalancikG. The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. SSRN Electronic J2003; 23: 123–133.
43.
KhanNAnwarMLiS, et al.Intellectual capital, financial resources, and green supply chain management as predictors of financial and environmental performance. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 19755–19767.
44.
ZhaiSXuHTangW, et al.Bank connection and corporate innovation: evidence from Chinese listed firms in manufacturing industries. Account Res2018; 7: 50–56.
45.
DattaSIskandar-DattaMSinghV. Product market power, industry structure, and corporate earnings management. J Bank Financ2013; 37: 3273–3285.
46.
ZhangHHongJ. Spatial location competition and capital market pricing efficiency. Account Res2022; 4: 22–40.
47.
SalehMMaigoshiZ. The nexus of ESG and environmental sustainability: does gender diversity make a difference in Asian companies?Environ Dev Sustain.Epub ahead of print;2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04498-5
48.
ZhouGLiuLLuoS. Sustainable development, ESG performance and company market value: mediating effect of financial performance. Bus Strateg Environ2022; 31: 3371–3387.
49.
FiggeFHahnT. Sustainable value added—measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol Econ2004; 48: 173–187.
50.
MilanaEUlrichF. Do open innovation practices in firms promote sustainability?Sustain Dev2022; 30: 1718–1732.
51.
XieXZhuQ. How can green innovation solve the dilemmas of “harmonious coexistence”?Manage World2021; 37: 128–149.
52.
SchalteggerSHansenEGLüdeke-FreundF. Business models for sustainability: origins, present research, and future avenues. Organ Environ2015; 29: 3–10.
53.
ZhuWHuXWuY, et al.Relationship between SMEs’ ESG performance and value creation in China: the moderating role of government subsidies. J Asia Pac Econ2024; 1: 1–24.
54.
LiuJ. Research on the influence mechanism of carbon information disclosure quality on enterprise value creation based on ESG value management concept. PhD Thesis, Hefei University of Technology, China, 2022.
55.
FreemanLC. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Networks1978; 1: 215–239.
56.
XingLXueMHuM. Dynamic simulation and assessment of the coupling coordination degree of the economy–resource–environment system: case of Wuhan city in China. J Environ Manage2019; 230: 474–487.
57.
HeCGengXTanC, et al.Fintech and corporate debt default risk: influencing mechanisms and heterogeneity. J Bus Res2023; 164: 113923.
58.
JohannesPLefebvreV. Higher agency costs in smaller firms? The role of size and reporting requirements in agency conflicts. Eur Manag Rev.2024; 1: 1–27.
VillenaVDhanorkarS. How institutional pressures and managerial incentives elicit carbon transparency in global supply chains. J Oper Manag2020; 66: 697–734.
61.
ChithamboLTingbaniIAgyapongG, et al.Corporate voluntary greenhouse gas reporting: stakeholder pressure and the mediating role of the chief executive officer. J Oper Manag2020; 29: 1666–1683.
62.
WongWBattenJAhmadA, et al.Does ESG certification add firm value?Financ Res Lett2021; 39: 101593.
63.
SinghMFairclothS. The impact of corporate debt on long term investment and firm performance. Appl Econ2005; 37: 875–883.
64.
MaJLiuYZhaoL, et al.Research on the mechanism and application of spatial credit risk contagion based on complex network model. Manag Decis Econ2024; 45: 1180–1193.
65.
SalehMEleyanDMaigoshiZ. Moderating effect of CEO power on institutional ownership and performance. EuroMed J Bus2024; 19: 442–461.
66.
McWilliamsASiegelD. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?Strateg Manage J2000; 21: 603–609.
67.
RenneboogLTer HorstJZhangC. Socially responsible investments: institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. J Bank Financ2008; 32: 1723–1742.
68.
ZhangYLiangY. Collusion or monitoring? Connected institutional investors and stock price crash risk in China. Syst Res Behav Sci2023; 40: 901–923.
69.
WangWLiuQLiangJ, et al.Coevolution spreading in complex networks. Phys Rep2019; 820: 1–51.
70.
WangMXuC. The bank claims, internal governance and corporate innovation—evidence from 2006–2015 technology intensive A listed firms. Account Res2018; 3: 42–49.
71.
CaoGGengWZhangJ, et al.Social network, financial constraint, and corporate innovation. Eurasian Bus Rev2023; 13: 667–692.
72.
ObengVAhmedKMiglaniS. Integrated reporting and earnings quality: the moderating effect of agency costs. Pac-Basin Financ J2020; 60: 101285.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
