There is growing interest in the relationship between digitalization and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance, but existing research focuses on the one-way relationship and ignores the two-way mechanism. Based on a sample of 3335 listed companies in China in 2020, this study adopts a spatial simultaneous equation model to investigate the bidirectional mechanism between companies’ digitalization and ESG performance. The results show that digitalization and ESG performance have a significant positive two-way mechanism; digitalization enhances ESG performance, while ESG performance promotes digitalization. The results also indicate a significant positive intra-industry spillover effect for both digitization and ESG performance. Further research shows that the relationship between digitization and ESG performance does not differ depending on the definition of spatial weights, however, the spillover effects do differ depending on the definition of spatial weights.
AertsW.CormierD.MagnanM. (2006). Intra-industry imitation in corporate environmental reporting: An international perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(3), 299–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2006.03.004
2.
AhmadN.MobarekA.RoniN. N. (2021). Revisiting the impact of ESG on financial performance of FTSE350 UK firms: Static and dynamic panel data analysis. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1900500. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1900500
3.
AlarussiA. S.AlhaderiS. M. (2018). Factors affecting profitability in Malaysia. Journal of Economics Studies, 45(3), 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/jes-05-2017-0124
AlkaraanF.AlbitarK.HussaineyK.VenkateshV. (2022). Corporate transformation toward Industry 4.0 and financial performance: The influence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121423
6.
AmbaM. C. O.MbratanaT.Le GalloJ. (2023). Spatial panel simultaneous equations models with error components. Empirical Economics, 65(3), 1149–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-023-02368-z
AydoğmuşM.GülayG.ErgunK. (2022). Impact of ESG performance on firm value and profitability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(S2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2022.11.006
9.
BaiX.HanJ.MaY.ZhangW. (2022). ESG performance, institutional investors’ preference and financing constraints: Empirical evidence from China. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(S2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2022.11.013
10.
BaltagiB. H.DengY. (2015). EC3SLS estimator for a simultaneous system of spatial autoregressive equations with random effects. Econometric Reviews, 34(6–10), 659–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2014.956030
11.
BroccardoL.TruantE.DanaL.-P. (2023). The interlink between digitalization, sustainability, and performance: An Italian context. Journal of Business Research, 158, 113621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113621
12.
CardinaliP. G.De GiovanniP. (2022). Responsible digitalization through digital technologies and green practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(4), 984–995. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2249
13.
CetteG.NevouxS.PyL. (2022). The impact of ICTs and digitalization on productivity and labor share: Evidence from French firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 31(8), 669–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2020.1849967
14.
ChenL.KhurramM. U.GaoY.AbedinM. Z.LuceyB. (2023a). ESG disclosure and technological innovation capabilities of the Chinese listed companies. Research in International Business and Finance, 65, 101974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2023.101974
15.
ChenY.LiR.SongT. (2023b). Does TMT internationalization promote corporate digital transformation? A study based on the cognitive process mechanism. Business Process Management Journal, 29(2), 309–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/bpmj-06-2021-0376
16.
ChenZ.XieG. (2022). ESG disclosure and financial performance: Moderating role of ESG investors. International Review of Financial Analysis, 83, 102291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102291
17.
DuQ.DengD.WoodJ. (2022). Differences in distance and spatial effects on cross-border E-commerce and international trade: An empirical analysis of China and one-belt one-road countries. Journal of Global Information Management, 30(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.20220301.oa6
18.
EllerR.AlfordP.KallmünzerA.PetersM. (2020). Antecedents, consequences, and challenges of small and medium-sized enterprise digitalization. Journal of Business Research, 112, 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.004
19.
FanS.ChenJ.HanH. (2023). Ownership concentration and accounting information consistency—evidence from Chinese listed companies. Asian Review of Accounting, 31(1), 86–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/ara-01-2022-0012
FiandrinoS.DevalleA.CantinoV. (2019). Corporate governance and financial performance for engaging socially and environmentally responsible practices. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/srj-12-2017-0276
22.
Galindo-MartínM.-Á.Castaño-MartínezM.-S.Méndez-PicazoM.-T. (2019). Digital transformation, digital dividends and entrepreneurship: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 101, 522–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.014
23.
GanT.YangH.LiangW. (2021). How do urban haze pollution and economic development affect each other? Empirical evidence from 287 Chinese cities during 2000–2016. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102642
24.
GangiF.VarroneN.DanieleL. M.CosciaM. (2022). Mainstreaming socially responsible investment: Do environmental, social and governance ratings of investment funds converge?Journal of Cleaner Production, 353, 131684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131684
25.
GaoY.LiY.ZhaoC.WangY. (2022). Risk spillover analysis across worldwide ESG stock markets: New evidence from the frequency-domain. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 59, 101619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2021.101619
GriffithD. A. (2021). Interpreting Moran eigenvector maps with the Getis-Ord G i statistic. The Professional Geographer, 73(3), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2021.1878908
28.
GuJ. (2016). Spatial diffusion of social policy in China: Spatial convergence and neighborhood interaction of vocational education. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 9(4), 503–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-015-9161-3
29.
GuJ. (2021). Spatiotemporal context and firm performance: The mediating effect of strategic interaction. Growth and Change, 52(1), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12460
30.
GuJ. (2022a). Importance of neighbors in rural households’ conversion to cleaner cooking fuels: The impact and mechanisms of peer effects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379(4), 134776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134776
31.
GuJ. (2022b). Sharing economy, technological innovation and carbon emissions: Evidence from Chinese cities. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(3), 100228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100228
32.
GuJ. (2022c). Spatiotemporal dynamics of the patent race: Empirical evidence from listed companies in China. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 30(1), 106–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2020.1830813
33.
GuJ. (2023a). Commercialization of academic patents in Chinese universities: Antecedents and spatial spillovers. Heliyon, 9(3), Article e14601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14601
34.
GuJ. (2023b). Does the commercialization of academic patents spatially converge? Empirical evidence from China. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2023.2215126
35.
GuJ. (2023c). The impacts of the low-carbon city policy on urban air pollution in China. Energy and Environment, 0958305X2311516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231151680
36.
HeF.MaY.ZhangX. (2020). How does economic policy uncertainty affect corporate Innovation? Evidence from China listed companies. International Review of Economics and Finance, 67, 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2020.01.006
37.
HilpertU. (2021). Regional selectivity of innovative progress: Industry 4.0 and digitization ahead. European Planning Studies, 29(9), 1589–1605. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1963047
38.
HübelB.ScholzH. (2020). Integrating sustainability risks in asset management: The role of ESG exposures and ESG ratings. Journal of Asset Management, 21(1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-019-00139-z
39.
HutchinsonR.MaherH.LaubierR. d.CharanyaT. (2022). The five digital building blocks of a corporate sustainability agenda. Boston Consulting Group.
40.
ItaniO. S.GoadE. A.JaramilloF. (2019). Building customer relationships while achieving sales performance results: Is listening the holy grail of sales?Journal of Business Research, 102, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.048
41.
JiaY.SuJ.CuiL.WuL.Hua TanK. (2023). Platform business model innovation in the digitalization era: A “driver-process-result” perspective. Journal of Business Research, 160, 113818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113818
42.
KimS. W.AchanaF.PetrouS. (2019). A bootstrapping approach for generating an inverse distance weight matrix when multiple observations have an identical location in large health surveys. International Journal of Health Geographics, 18(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-019-0189-5
43.
KwilinskiA.LyulyovO.PimonenkoT. (2023). Unlocking sustainable value through digital transformation: An examination of ESG performance. Information, 14(8), 444. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14080444
44.
La RosaF.BerniniF. (2022). ESG controversies and the cost of equity capital of European listed companies: The moderating effects of ESG performance and market securities regulation. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 30(5), 641–663. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijaim-03-2022-0047
45.
LauridsenJ.SánchezM. M.BechM. (2010). Public pharmaceutical expenditure: Identification of spatial effects. Journal of Geographical Systems, 12(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-010-0117-5
46.
LeN.NgoP. T. H. (2022). Intra-industry spillover effects: Evidence from bankruptcy filings. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 49(7–8), 1113–1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12581
47.
LearyM. T.RobertsM. R. (2014). Do peer firms affect corporate financial policy. The Journal of Finance, 69(1), 139–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12094
48.
LeeY. Y.FalahatM. (2019). The impact of digitalization and resources on gaining competitive advantage in international markets: Mediating role of marketing, innovation and learning capabilities. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(11), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1281
49.
LiK.LuL.MittooU. R.ZhangZ. (2015). Board independence, ownership concentration and corporate performance—Chinese evidence. International Review of Financial Analysis, 41, 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2015.05.024
50.
LiW.PangW. (2023). The impact of digital inclusive finance on corporate ESG performance: Based on the perspective of corporate green technology innovation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 30(24), 65314–65327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27057-3
51.
LiX.LiJ.WuX. (2020). University spillovers, spatial distance, and firm innovation: Evidence at Chinese listed firms. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 56(7), 1504–1519. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496x.2019.1625765
52.
LiY.ZhangX. T. (2018). How does firm life cycle affect board structure? Evidence from China’s listed privately owned enterprises. Management and Organization Review, 14(2), 305–341. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2017.55
53.
LiangH.TeoJ. (2021). Peer effects of commitment to ESG goals – how stakeholders affect one another in the ecosystem. CESifo Forum, 22(3), 26–29.
54.
LinY.FuX.FuX. (2021). Varieties in state capitalism and corporate innovation: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Corporate Finance, 67, 101919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101919
55.
LinY.LuZ.WangY. (2023). The impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices on investment efficiency in China: Does digital transformation matter?Research in International Business and Finance, 66, 102050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2023.102050
56.
LiuM.ZhouC.LuF.HuX. (2021). Impact of the implementation of carbon emission trading on corporate financial performance: Evidence from listed companies in China. PLoS One, 16(7), Article e0253460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253460
57.
LuoC.WeiD.HeF. (2023). Corporate ESG performance and trade credit financing – evidence from China. International Review of Economics and Finance, 85, 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.01.021
58.
LvH.-Q.HuangC.-Y. (2021). Research on spatial dependence and influencing factors of Korean intra-industry trade of agricultural products: From South Korea’s agricultural trade data. Journal of Korea Trade, 25(3), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.35611/jkt.2021.25.3.116
59.
MaH.JiaX.WangX. (2022). Digital transformation, ambidextrous innovation and enterprise value: Empirical analysis based on listed Chinese manufacturing companies. Sustainability, 14(15), 9482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159482
MontemariM.TaranY.SchaperS.NielsenC.ThomsenP.SortJ. (2022). Business model innovation or business model imitation - that is the question (pp. 1–15). Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2034780
62.
Moro-ViscontiR. (2022) Digitalization and ESG-driven valuation. In Moro-ViscontiR. (Ed.), The valuation of digital intangibles (pp. 685–764). Palgrave Macmillan.
63.
NekhiliM.BoukadhabaA.NagatiH.ChtiouiT. (2019). ESG performance and market value: The moderating role of employee board representation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(14), 3061–3087. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1629989
64.
ObukhovaA. S.KolmykovaT. S.SerebryakovaN. A.GoncharovA. Y.AstapenkoE. O. (2022) Trends in digital transformation of the Russian insurance market. In PopkovaE. G. (Ed.), Imitation market modeling in digital economy: Game theoretic (pp. 46–53). Springer.
65.
PanduruD. A.ScarlatC. (2022). Digitalization and strategic changes in Romanian retail fuel networks: A qualitative study. Information, 13(9), 416. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13090416
66.
PavlovaI.WhitworthJ.de BoyrieM. E. (2022). The Sell-in-May effect in ESG indices. Managerial Finance, 48(8), 1221–1239. https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-12-2021-0590
67.
PuckerK. P. (2021). Overselling sustainability reporting. Harvard Business Review, 99(3), 134–143.
68.
Rangel-PérezC.FernándezM.LópezB. (2023). Study on the strategic influence of corporate social responsibility in the world’s most digitised banks. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(1), 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100029
69.
RenX.ZengG.ZhaoY. (2023). Digital finance and corporate ESG performance: Empirical evidence from listed companies in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 79, 102019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102019
70.
SchallmoD.WilliamsC. A.BoardmanL. (2017). Digital transformation of business models-best practice, enablers, and roadmap. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(08), 1740014. https://doi.org/10.1142/s136391961740014x
71.
ShangY.RazaS. A.HuoZ.ShahzadU.ZhaoX. (2023). Does enterprise digital transformation contribute to the carbon emission reduction? Micro-Level evidence from China. International Review of Economics and Finance, 86, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.02.019
72.
SinghP. K. (2022). Accelerating digital transformation with ESG compliance initiatives. Supply Chain Management Review, 26(6), 12–15.
73.
SinghS.KhareA.PandeyS. K.SharmaD. P. (2021). Industry and community peers as drivers of corporate social responsibility in India: The contingent role of institutional investors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 126316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126316
74.
SouillardB. (2022). Intra-industry spillovers of profit shifting and investments in tax havens. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 204, 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.09.021
75.
ŠtaffenováN.KucharčíkováA. (2021). Digitalization and human capital. Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(1), 40–52.
76.
SuX.WangS.LiF. (2023). The impact of digital transformation on ESG performance based on the mediating effect of dynamic capabilities. Sustainability, 15(18), 13506. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813506
77.
SuY.LiZ.YangC. (2021). Spatial interaction spillover effects between digital financial technology and urban ecological efficiency in China: An empirical study based on spatial simultaneous equations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8535. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168535
78.
TamimiN.SebastianelliR. (2017). Transparency among S&P 500 companies: An analysis of ESG disclosure scores. Management Decision, 55(8), 1660–1680. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-01-2017-0018
ToumiN. B. F.KhemiriR.MakniY. F. (2022). Board directors' home regions and CSR disclosure: Evidence from France. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 23(2), 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1108/jaar-02-2021-0032
81.
WangS.EsperançaJ. P. (2023). Can digital transformation improve market and ESG performance? Evidence from Chinese SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 419, 137980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137980
82.
XieQ. (2017). Firm age, marketization, and entry mode choices of emerging economy firms: Evidence from listed firms in China. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.01.001
83.
XuC.ChenX.DaiW. (2022). Effects of digital transformation on environmental governance of mining enterprises: Evidence from China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16474. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416474
84.
XueL.ZhangQ.ZhangX.LiC. (2022). Can digital transformation promote green technology innovation?Sustainability, 14(12), 7497. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127497
YangF.LiX. (2023). Corporate financialization, ESG performance and sustainability development: Evidence from Chinese-listed companies. Sustainability, 15(4), 2978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042978
87.
YangK.LeeL.-f. (2017). Identification and QML estimation of multivariate and simultaneous equations spatial autoregressive models. Journal of Econometrics, 196(1), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2016.04.019
88.
YouW.LvZ. (2018). Spillover effects of economic globalization on CO2 emissions: A spatial panel approach. Energy Economics, 73, 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.05.016
89.
YuF.DuH.LiX.CaoJ. (2023). Enterprise digitalization, business strategy and subsidy allocation: Evidence of the signaling effect. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 190, 122472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122472
YuX.ZhangP.ZhengY. (2015). Corporate governance, political connections, and intra-industry effects: Evidence from corporate scandals in China. Financial Management, 44(1), 49–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12064
92.
YukhnoA. S. (2022) ICT governance and ESG factors: A new agenda for the boards of directors. In ZavyalovaE. B.PopkovaE. G. (Eds.), Industry 4.0 (pp. 39–50). Palgrave Macmillan.
93.
ZainullinS.ZainullinaO. (2021). Scientific review digitalization of corporate culture as a factor influencing ESG investment in the energy sector. International Review, 2021(1–2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.5937/intrev2102132z
94.
ZhangH.GaoS.ZhouP. (2023b). Role of digitalization in energy storage technological innovation: Evidence from China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 171, 113014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113014
95.
ZhangD.WangC.DongY. (2023a). How does firm ESG performance impact financial constraints? An experimental exploration of the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Development Research, 35(1), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-021-00499-6
96.
ZhangX.GangZ.DongX. (2020). Effects of government healthcare expenditure on economic growth based on spatial Durbin model: Evidence from China. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 49(2), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v49i2.3091
97.
ZhangZ.BhattacharjeeA.MarquesJ.MaitiT. (2021). Spatio-temporal patterns in Portuguese regional fertility rates: A Bayesian approach for spatial clustering of curves. Journal of Official Statistics, 37(3), 611–653. https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2021-0028
98.
ZhaoQ.LiX.LiS. (2023). Analyzing the relationship between digital transformation strategy and ESG performance in large manufacturing enterprises: The mediating role of green innovation. Sustainability, 15(13), 9998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139998
99.
ZhongY.ZhaoH.YinT. (2023). Resource bundling: How does enterprise digital transformation affect enterprise ESG development?Sustainability, 15(2), 1319. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021319
100.
ZhouG.LiuL.LuoS. (2022). Sustainable development, ESG performance and company market value: Mediating effect of financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(7), 3371–3387. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3089
