IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i4p3090-d1061802.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promote or Crowd Out? The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure Methods on Enterprise Value

Author

Listed:
  • Anrong Gao

    (School of Economic & Management, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541006, China)

  • Tianren Xiong

    (School of Economic & Management, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541006, China)

  • Yuxi Luo

    (School of Economic & Management, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541006, China
    Pearl River-Xijiang River Economic Belt Development Institute, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China)

  • Defeng Meng

    (School of Economic & Management, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541006, China
    Pearl River-Xijiang River Economic Belt Development Institute, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China)

Abstract

Environmental information disclosure is a concrete practice for enterprises to actively implement the concept of green and sustainable development, which has great significance for enterprises to gain long-term competitive advantages. The academic world has widely discussed the relationship between environmental information disclosure and the economic performance of enterprises, but how the heterogeneity of environmental information disclosure methods affects the enterprise value has not been explored. This paper aims to answer two questions: (1) what is the impact of Ecomark and ESG on enterprise value? and (2) how does the interaction between Ecomark and ESG influence enterprise value? Utilizing the listed Japanese electrical equipment manufacturing enterprises dataset from 2008 to 2021, we employed the fixed panel linear regression model to confirm the relationship between Ecomark and ESG in enterprise value, and further used a moderating effect model to verify the existence of the crowd-out effect of ESG performance on Ecomark through enterprise value. In addition, a robustness check scheme was designed and performed to test the model settings, outliers and endogeneity issues. The main findings show that the obtaining of Ecomark certification and good ESG performance can help to improve enterprise value, but they may be altered regarding the heterogeneity of environmental information disclosure methods, further causing differences in enterprises’ time and economic cost burdens. Such differences increase the attractiveness of ESGs to investors, thereby crowding out the impact of Ecomark on enterprise value. Our conclusion reveals the mechanism of the heterogeneity of environmental information disclosure methods towards enterprise value, which offers a valuable reference for investors to evaluate enterprise value and paves the way for enterprise decision-makers and authorities to optimize their environmental information disclosure.

Suggested Citation

  • Anrong Gao & Tianren Xiong & Yuxi Luo & Defeng Meng, 2023. "Promote or Crowd Out? The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure Methods on Enterprise Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3090-:d:1061802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3090/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3090/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lei Ruan & Heng Liu, 2021. "Environmental, Social, Governance Activities and Firm Performance: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Alexandre Sanches Garcia & Renato J. Orsato, 2020. "Testing the institutional difference hypothesis: A study about environmental, social, governance, and financial performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3261-3272, December.
    3. Nicole Darnall & Hyunjung Ji & Kazuyuki Iwata & Toshi H. Arimura, 2022. "Do ESG reporting guidelines and verifications enhance firms' information disclosure?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1214-1230, September.
    4. Stephen Bond & Anke Hoeffler & Jonathan Temple, 2001. "GMM Estimation of Empirical Growth Models," Economics Papers 2001-W21, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    5. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian & Hicks, Robert L., 2002. "Can Eco-Labels Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 339-359, May.
    6. Brouhle, Keith & Khanna, Madhu, 2012. "Determinants of participation versus consumption in the Nordic Swan eco-labeled market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 142-151.
    7. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    8. Shameek Konar & Mark A. Cohen, 2001. "Does The Market Value Environmental Performance?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(2), pages 281-289, May.
    9. Dingzu Zhang & Luqi Liu, 2022. "Does ESG Performance Enhance Financial Flexibility? Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-22, September.
    10. Yamaguchi, Keiko, 2008. "Reexamination of stock price reaction to environmental performance: A GARCH application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 345-352, December.
    11. Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero & María Ángeles Fernández-Izquierdo & María Jesús Muñoz-Torres, 2016. "The Effect of Environmental, Social and Governance Consistency on Economic Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    12. YAGI Michiyuki & MANAGI Shunsuke, 2013. "Competition and Innovation: An inverted-U relationship using Japanese industry data," Discussion papers 13062, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    13. Hua Tang, 2022. "The Effect of ESG Performance on Corporate Innovation in China: The Mediating Role of Financial Constraints and Agency Cost," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Bohyun Yoon & Jeong Hwan Lee & Ryan Byun, 2018. "Does ESG Performance Enhance Firm Value? Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    15. Beck, Nathaniel & Katz, Jonathan N., 1995. "What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 634-647, September.
    16. Andrew King & Michael Lenox, 2002. "Exploring the Locus of Profitable Pollution Reduction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 289-299, February.
    17. Silvia Ruiz-Blanco & Silvia Romero & Belen Fernandez-Feijoo, 2022. "Green, blue or black, but washing–What company characteristics determine greenwashing?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 4024-4045, March.
    18. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    19. Hidemichi Fujii & Kazuyuki Iwata & Shinji Kaneko & Shunsuke Managi, 2013. "Corporate Environmental and Economic Performance of Japanese Manufacturing Firms: Empirical Study for Sustainable Development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 187-201, March.
    20. Remmer Sassen & Anne-Kathrin Hinze & Inga Hardeck, 2016. "Impact of ESG factors on firm risk in Europe," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(8), pages 867-904, November.
    21. Gupta, Shreekant & Goldar, Bishwanath, 2005. "Do stock markets penalize environment-unfriendly behaviour? Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 81-95, January.
    22. Glen Dowell & Stuart Hart & Bernard Yeung, 2000. "Do Corporate Global Environmental Standards Create or Destroy Market Value?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(8), pages 1059-1074, August.
    23. Takeda, Fumiko & Tomozawa, Takanori, 2008. "A change in market responses to the environmental management ranking in Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 465-472, October.
    24. Stephen Bond & Anke Hoeffler, 2001. "GMM Estimation of Empirical Growth Models," Economics Series Working Papers 2001-W21, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    25. Iwata, Hiroki & Okada, Keisuke, 2011. "How does environmental performance affect financial performance? Evidence from Japanese manufacturing firms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1691-1700, July.
    26. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1977. "The Maximum Likelihood and the Nonlinear Three-Stage Least Squares Estimator in the General Nonlinear Simultaneous Equation Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 955-968, May.
    27. Akira Hibiki & Shunsuke Managi, 2010. "Environmental Information Provision, Market Valuation, and Firm Incentives: An Empirical Study of the Japanese PRTR System," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 382-393.
    28. Elsayed, Khaled & Paton, David, 2005. "The impact of environmental performance on firm performance: static and dynamic panel data evidence," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 395-412, September.
    29. Michael Cappucci, 2018. "The ESG Integration Paradox," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 30(2), pages 22-28, June.
    30. Eliwa, Yasser & Aboud, Ahmed & Saleh, Ahmed, 2021. "ESG practices and the cost of debt: Evidence from EU countries," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    31. Takahashi, Hidenori & Yamada, Kazuo, 2021. "When the Japanese stock market meets COVID-19: Impact of ownership, China and US exposure, and ESG channels," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    32. Dylan Rassier & Dietrich Earnhart, 2010. "Does the Porter Hypothesis Explain Expected Future Financial Performance? The Effect of Clean Water Regulation on Chemical Manufacturing Firms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 353-377, March.
    33. Tatsuya Kato, 2022. "The Effects of Corporate Governance on ESG-related Information Disclosure: Evidence from Japanese Firms," Monetary and Economic Studies, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan, vol. 40, pages 67-100, November.
    34. Tatsuya Kato, 2022. "The Effects of Corporate Governance on ESG-related Information Disclosure: Evidence from Japanese Firms," IMES Discussion Paper Series 22-E-04, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weizhou Su & Nieping Wei & Zihan Yuan & Sidai Guo, 2023. "The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure on the Efficiency of Enterprise Capital Allocation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Qian Zhang & Linfang Tan & Da Gao, 2024. "Leading Sustainability: The Impact of Executives’ Environmental Background on the Enterprise’s ESG Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Rongjiang Cai & Tao Lv & Cheng Wang & Nana Liu, 2023. "Can Environmental Information Disclosure Enhance Firm Value?—An Analysis Based on Textual Characteristics of Annual Reports," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-21, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markus Hang & Jerome Geyer‐Klingeberg & Andreas W. Rathgeber, 2019. "It is merely a matter of time: A meta‐analysis of the causality between environmental performance and financial performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 257-273, February.
    2. Iwata, Hiroki & Okada, Keisuke, 2011. "How does environmental performance affect financial performance? Evidence from Japanese manufacturing firms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1691-1700, July.
    3. Kimitaka Nishitani & M.B. Haider & Katsuhiko Kokubu, 2014. "Corporate Environmental Initiatives and Shareholder Value: Focusing on the Role of Environmental Information and Its Credibility," Discussion Paper Series DP2014-13, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    4. Iwata, Hiroki & Okada, Keisuke, 2010. "How does environmental performance affect financial performance? Evidence from Japanese manufacturing firms," MPRA Paper 27721, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Lee, Ki-Hoon & Min, Byung & Yook, Keun-Hyo, 2015. "The impacts of carbon (CO2) emissions and environmental research and development (R&D) investment on firm performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Faria, João Ricardo & Tindall, Greg & Terjesen, Siri, 2022. "The Green Tobin's q: theory and evidence," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    7. Kimitaka Nishitani & Shinji Kaneko & Satoru Komatsu & Hidemichi Fujii, 2011. "Firm's reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and economic performance: analyzing effects through demand and productivity," IDEC DP2 Series 1-1, Hiroshima University, Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC).
    8. Kimitaka Nishitani & Katsuhiko Kokubu, 2012. "Why Does the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Enhance Firm Value? The Case of Japanese Manufacturing Firms," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(8), pages 517-529, December.
    9. Oberndorfer, Ulrich & Schmidt, Peter & Wagner, Marcus & Ziegler, Andreas, 2013. "Does the stock market value the inclusion in a sustainability stock index? An event study analysis for German firms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 497-509.
    10. Garcés-Ayerbe, Concepción & Cañón-de-Francia, Joaquín, 2017. "The Relevance of Complementarities in the Study of the Economic Consequences of Environmental Proactivity: Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Innovation Efforts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 21-30.
    11. Surender Kumar & Pritika Dua, 2022. "Environmental management practices and financial performance: evidence from large listed Indian enterprises," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 65(1), pages 37-61, January.
    12. Rassier, Dylan G. & Earnhart, Dietrich, 2015. "Effects of environmental regulation on actual and expected profitability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 129-140.
    13. Andreas Ziegler, 2012. "Is it Beneficial to be Included in a Sustainability Stock Index? A Panel Data Study for European Firms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(3), pages 301-325, July.
    14. Joaquín Cañón-de-Francia & Concepión Garcés-Ayerbe, 2019. "Factors and Contingencies for the “It Pays to Be Green Hypothesis”. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Financial Crisis as Contexts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Ruiqian Li & Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, 2018. "Impacts of Industrial Heterogeneity and Technical Innovation on the Relationship between Environmental Performance and Financial Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-25, May.
    16. Urs von Arx & Andreas Ziegler, 2008. "The Effect of CSR on Stock Performance: New Evidence for the USA and Europe," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 08/85, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    17. Sergio Manrique & Carmen-Pilar Martí-Ballester, 2017. "Analyzing the Effect of Corporate Environmental Performance on Corporate Financial Performance in Developed and Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-30, October.
    18. Shreekant Gupta & Bishwanath Goldar & Shubham Dang, 2019. "Environmental Performance And Capital Markets--Evidence From India," Working papers 303, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    19. Suhong Li & Thomas Ngniatedema & Fang Chen, 2017. "Understanding the Impact of Green Initiatives and Green Performance on Financial Performance in the US," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 776-790, September.
    20. Wayne Fu & Che‐Ping (Jack) Su, 2021. "The implications of efficiency differences in sustainable development: An empirical study in the consumer product industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 2489-2504, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3090-:d:1061802. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.