Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-s7dlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-23T14:03:15.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Collaborative Innovation Effect of ESG Signals: Integrating Signaling and Trust Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2025

Ge Ren ,
Ping Zeng  and
Xi Zhong
Ge Ren
Affiliation:
South China University of Technology, China
Ping Zeng*
Affiliation:
South China University of Technology, China
Xi Zhong*
Affiliation:
Shenzhen University, China
*
Corresponding authors: Xi Zhong (HGzhongxi@163.com) and Ping Zeng (Pzeng@scut.edu.cn)
Corresponding authors: Xi Zhong (HGzhongxi@163.com) and Ping Zeng (Pzeng@scut.edu.cn)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On the basis of signaling and trust theories, we explore the impact of focal firms’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance on their collaborative innovation (co-innovation). We argue that high ESG performance serves as a positive signal that focal firms engage less in opportunistic behavior in the co-innovation process. This, in turn, makes it easier for focal firms to gain the trust of potential external innovation collaborators (collaborators) and ultimately increases the level of co-innovation in focal firms. Guided by signaling and trust theories, we further argue that heavy polluting firm attributes and historical co-innovation alter the impact of ESG signals on collaborators’ trust, which in turn leads to heterogeneity in the positive impact of ESG performance on firms’ co-innovation. Based on empirical data on A-share manufacturing companies listed in China from 2010 to 2021, we obtained empirical evidence to support the above theoretical arguments. This study provides new insights for a refined understanding of the innovation consequences of ESG performance and important implications for shareholders and policymakers to better encourage and guide firms in co-innovation.

摘要

摘要

基于信号理论和信任理论, 本文探讨了企业的环境、社会与治理(ESG)表现对其合作创新的影响。本文提出, 企业ESG水平高是一种积极信号, 表明其在合作创新过程中较少出现机会主义行为。这些企业因此更容易获得潜在外部创新合作者的信任, 从而提高其合作创新水平。进一步的， 重污染企业属性和历史合作创新表现会改变外部潜在创新合作者对企业的信任, 从而导致ESG表现对合作创新的积极影响呈现异质性。来自中国A股制造业上市公司的数据支持上述理论论点。本文为深入理解企业ESG表现的创新后果提供了新的见解, 并对股东和政策制定者更好地鼓励和指导企业合作创新提供了重要启示。

Keywords

collaboratorscollaborative innovationESG performancehistorical collaborative innovationheavy polluting firmESG表现合作创新外部潜在创新合作者重污染企业历史合作创新表现

Information

Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 2025 , pp. 73 - 101
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Association for Chinese Management Research.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Al Nuaimi, F. M. S., Singh, S. K., & Ahmad, S. Z. 2024. Open innovation in SMEs: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(2): 484–504.10.1108/JKM-11-2022-0906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amiraslani, H., Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. 2023. Trust, social capital, and the bond market benefits of ESG performance. Review of Accounting Studies, 28(2): 421–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arora, A., Athreye, S., & Huang, C. 2016. The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Research Policy, 45(7): 1352–1361.10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atif, M., & Ali, S. 2021. Environmental, social and governance disclosure and default risk. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8): 3937–3959.10.1002/bse.2850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, D. G., Vlachos, P. A., Irwin, K., & Morgeson, F. P. 2022. Does ‘how’ firms invest in corporate social responsibility matter? An attributional model of job seekers’ reactions to configurational variation in corporate social responsibility. Human Relations, 75(3): 532–559.10.1177/0018726720971036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becerra, M., & Gupta, A. K. 2003. Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organization Science, 14(1): 32–44.10.1287/orsc.14.1.32.12815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereskin, F. L., Campbell, T. L., II, & Hsu, P. 2016. Corporate philanthropy, research networks, and collaborative innovation. Financial Management, 45(1): 175–206.10.1111/fima.12078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertello, A., Bogers, M. L. A. M., & De Bernardi, P. 2022. Open innovation in the face of the COVID-19 grand challenge: Insights from the Pan-European hackathon “EUvsVirus.” R&D Management, 52(2): 178–192.Google Scholar
Bertello, A., De Bernardi, P., & Ricciardi, F. 2024. Open innovation: Status quo and quo vadis – An analysis of a research field. Review of Managerial Science, 18(2): 633–683.10.1007/s11846-023-00655-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biscotti, A. M., Mafrolla, E., Giudice, M. D., & D’Amico, E. 2018. CEO turnover and the new leader propensity to open innovation: Agency-resource dependence view and social identity perspective. Management Decision, 56(6): 1348–1364.10.1108/MD-04-2017-0392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogers, M., Foss, N. J., & Lyngsie, J. 2018. The “human side” of open innovation: The role of employee diversity in firm-level openness. Research Policy, 47(1): 218–231.10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, W., Müller, T., Rosenbach, D., & Salzmann, A. 2018. Corporate social responsibility, investor protection, and cost of equity: A cross-country comparison. Journal of Banking & Finance, 96(11): 34–55.10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.07.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadstock, D. C., Matousek, R., Meyer, M., & Tzeremes, N. G. 2019. Does corporate social responsibility impact firms’ innovation capacity? The indirect link between environmental & social governance implementation and innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 119(4): 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockman, P., Khurana, I. K., & Zhong, R. I. 2018. Societal trust and open innovation. Research Policy, 47(10): 2048–2065.10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, L. W., Goll, I., Rasheed, A. A., & Crawford, W. S. 2020. Nonmarket responses to regulation: A signaling theory approach. Group & Organization Management, 45(6): 865–891.10.1177/1059601120963693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buell, R. W., Porter, E., & Norton, M. I. 2021. Surfacing the submerged state: Operational transparency increases trust in and engagement with government. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 23(4): 781–802.10.1287/msom.2020.0877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhary, S., Dhir, A., Ferraris, A., & Bertoldi, B. 2021. Trust and reputation in family businesses: A systematic literature review of past achievements and future promises. Journal of Business Research, 137: 143–161.10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, L., Khurram, M. U., Gao, Y., Abedin, M. Z., & Lucey, B. 2023. ESG disclosure and technological innovation capabilities of the Chinese listed companies. Research in International Business and Finance, 65(2): 101974.10.1016/j.ribaf.2023.101974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. 2011. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1): 39–67.10.1177/0149206310388419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. 2001. Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22(2): 251–283.10.1177/0170840601222004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diriker, D., Porter, A. J., Tuertscher, P., Splitter, V., Dobusch, L., von Krogh, G., Whittington, R., & Walgenbach, P. 2023. Orchestrating open innovation through punctuated openness: A process model of open organizing for tackling wicked multi-stakeholder problems. Organization Studies, 44(1): 135–157.10.1177/01708406221094174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. 2020. The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2): 333–360.10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, X. 2015. Is corporate philanthropy used as environmental misconduct dressing? Evidence from Chinese family-owned firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2): 341–361.10.1007/s10551-014-2163-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duque-Grisales, E., & Aguilera-Caracuel, J. 2021. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of multilatinas: Moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(2): 315–334.10.1007/s10551-019-04177-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmghaamez, I. K., Nwachukwu, J., & Ntim, C. G. 2024. ESG disclosure and financial performance of multinational enterprises: The moderating effect of board standing committees. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 29(3): 3593–3638.10.1002/ijfe.2846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, M., Nie, H., & Shen, X. 2023. Can enterprise digitization improve ESG performance? Economic Modelling, 118: 106101.10.1016/j.econmod.2022.106101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fatima, T., & Masood, A. 2024. Impact of digital leadership on open innovation: A moderating serial mediation model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(1): 161–180.10.1108/JKM-11-2022-0872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figenschou, T., Li-Ying, J., Tanner, A., & Bogers, M. 2024. Open innovation in the public sector: A literature review on actors and boundaries. Technovation, 131: 102940.10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flammer, C. 2021. Corporate green bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2): 499–516.10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foege, J. N., Lauritzen, G. D., Tietze, F., & Salge, T. O. 2019. Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing. Research Policy, 48(6): 1323–1339.10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friske, W., Hoelscher, S. A., & Nikolov, A. N. 2023. The impact of voluntary sustainability reporting on firm value: Insights from signaling theory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(2): 372–392.10.1007/s11747-022-00879-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuente, G. D. L., Ortiz, M., & Velasco, P. 2022. The value of a firm’s engagement in ESG practices: Are we looking at the right side? Long Range Planning, 55(4): 102143.10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garavaglia, S., Van Landuyt, B. W., White, B. J., & Irwin, J. 2023. The ESG stopping effect: Do investor reactions differ across the lifespan of ESG initiatives? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2: 101441.Google Scholar
Giakoumelou, A., Salvi, A., Bertinetti, G. S., & Micheli, A. P. 2022. 2008’s mistrust vs 2020’s panic: Can ESG hold your institutional investors? Management Decision, 60(10): 2770–2785.10.1108/MD-12-2021-1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greul, A., West, J., & Bock, S. 2018. Open at birth? Why new firms do (or don’t) use open innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(3): 392–420.10.1002/sej.1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, L., Liu, Z., & Xu, D. 2023. The risk-mitigating role of corporate social responsibility in Chinese listed heavy-polluting companies: An extreme event experience perspective. Energy Economics, 125: 106846.10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, X., Li, S., Song, X., & Tang, Z. 2024. ESG, financial constraint and financing activities: A study in the Chinese market. Accounting & Finance, 64(2): 1637–1663.10.1111/acfi.13196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haneda, S., & Ito, K. 2018. Organizational and human resource management and innovation: Which management practices are linked to product and/or process innovation? Research Policy, 47(1): 194–208.10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasche, N., Linton, G., & Öberg, C. 2017. Trust in open innovation – The case of a med-tech start-up. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(1): 31–49.10.1108/EJIM-10-2015-0111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, F., Du, H., & Yu, B. 2022. Corporate ESG performance and manager misconduct: Evidence from China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 82: 102201.10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennart, J. 1988. A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4): 361–374.10.1002/smj.4250090406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, S., & Smart, P. 2009. Exploring open innovation practice in firm-nonprofit engagements: A corporate social responsibility perspective. R&D Management, 39(4): 394–409.Google Scholar
Hong, Y., Jiang, X., Xu, H., & Yu, C. 2024. The impacts of China’s dual carbon policy on green innovation: Evidence from Chinese heavy-polluting enterprises. Journal of Environmental Management, 350: 119620.10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, K. G., & Li, J. 2019. Adopting knowledge from reverse innovations? Transnational patents and signaling from an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(7): 1–25.10.1057/s41267-019-00241-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, K. G., Li, M., Shen, C. H., & Wang, Y. 2024. Escaping the patent trolls: The impact of non-practicing entity litigation on firm innovation strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 45(10): 1954–1987.10.1002/smj.3606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, Y., Tsui, A. S., & Yu, X. 2021. Beyond bounded rationality: CEO reflective capacity and firm sustainability performance. Management and Organization Review, 17(4): 777–814.10.1017/mor.2021.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, G. F., Jung, J. C., & Makino, S. 2020. Parent firm corporate social responsibility and overseas subsidiary performance: A signaling perspective. Journal of World Business, 55(6): 101141.10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. 1982. Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6): 1306–1317.10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, M. 2019. Corporate governance, ESG, and stock returns around the world. Financial Analysts Journal, 75(4): 103–123.10.1080/0015198X.2019.1654299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschbaum, C., Minardi, A., Rossoni, L., & Da Silva, E. B. 2023. The trade-off between private equity sponsorship, board centrality, and experience as credible signals for IPO performance. Management and Organization Review, 19(3): 462–497.10.1017/mor.2022.55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ko, K., Nie, J., Ran, R., & Gu, Y. 2020. Corporate social responsibility, social identity, and innovation performance in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 63: 101415.10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong, D., Liu, J., Wang, Y., & Zhu, L. 2023. Employee stock ownership plans and corporate environmental engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 189(1): 177–199.10.1007/s10551-023-05334-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong, D., Yang, X., Liu, C., & Yang, W. 2020. Business strategy and firm efforts on environmental protection: Evidence from China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2): 445–464.10.1002/bse.2376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlois, J., BenMahmoud-Jouini, S., & Servajean-Hilst, R. 2023. Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm. Research Policy, 52(1): 104626.10.1016/j.respol.2022.104626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M. T., Raschke, R. L., & Krishen, A. S. 2022. Signaling green! Firm ESG signals in an interconnected environment that promote brand valuation. Journal of Business Research, 138: 1–11.10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, D., Eden, L., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. 2008. Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Partner selection in R&D alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 315–334.10.5465/amj.2008.31767271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenthaler, U. 2011. Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1): 75–93.Google Scholar
Long, H., Feng, G. F., Gong, Q., & Chang, C. P. 2023. ESG performance and green innovation: An investigation based on quantile regression. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(7): 5102–5118.10.1002/bse.3410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, F., Zhu, Z., Zhu, L., & Gao, H. 2022. Political tie hot potato: The contingent effect of China’s anti-corruption policy on cash and innovation. Research Policy, 51(4): 104476.10.1016/j.respol.2022.104476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lungeanu, R., Paruchuri, S., & Tsai, W. 2018. Stepping across for social approval: Ties to independent foundations’ boards after financial restatement. Strategic Management Journal, 39(4): 1163–1187.10.1002/smj.2754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lv, D., Zhu, H., Chen, W., & Lan, H. 2021. Negative performance feedback and firm cooperation: How multiple upward social comparisons affect firm cooperative R&D. Journal of Business Research, 132(2): 872–883.Google Scholar
Ma, Z., Zhang, H., Zhong, W., & Zhou, K. 2020. Top management teams’ academic experience and firms’ corporate social responsibility voluntary disclosure. Management and Organization Review, 16(2): 293–333.10.1017/mor.2019.58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madrid-Guijarro, A., & Garcés-Torres, A. C. 2023. Open innovation in Ecuadorian SMEs: The importance of strategy and the moderating effect of control. Management and Organization Review, 19(3): 533–566.10.1017/mor.2022.28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709–734.10.2307/258792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meira, E., Cunha, F. A. F. D., Orsato, R. J., Miralles-Quirós, M. M., & Miralles-Quirós, J. L. 2023. The added value and differentiation among ESG investment strategies in stock markets. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4): 1816–1834.10.1002/bse.3221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messersmith, J. G., Kim, K. Y., & Patel, P. C. 2018. Pulling in different directions? Exploring the relationship between vertical pay dispersion and high-performance work systems: Pay dispersion and HPWS. Human Resource Management, 57(1): 127–143.10.1002/hrm.21846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mubarak, M. F., & Petraite, M. 2020. Industry 4.0 technologies, digital trust and technological orientation: What matters in open innovation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161(2): 120332.10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestle, V., Täube, F. A., Heidenreich, S., & Bogers, M. 2019. Establishing open innovation culture in cluster initiatives: The role of trust and information asymmetry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146(2): 563–572.10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norheim-Hansen, A. 2015. Are ‘green brides’ more attractive? An empirical examination of how prospective partners’ environmental reputation affects the trust-based mechanism in alliance formation. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4): 813–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palomeras, N., & Wehrheim, D. 2021. The strategic allocation of inventors to R&D collaborations. Strategic Management Journal, 42(1): 144–169.10.1002/smj.3233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkhe, A. 1998. Building trust in international alliances. Journal of World Business, 33(4): 417–437.10.1016/S1090-9516(99)80083-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, L. H., Fitzgibbons, S., & Pomorski, L. 2021. Responsible investing: The ESG-efficient frontier. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2): 572–597.10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, G., Zeng, P., & Song, T. 2022. Corporate fraud as a negative signal: Implications for firms’ innovation performance. Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility, 31(3): 790–808.10.1111/beer.12425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, G., Zeng, P., & Zhong, X. 2024. Differentiation strategies and firms’ environmental, social and governance: The different moderating effects of historical and social performance shortfalls. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(1): 719–740.10.1002/csr.2597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritala, P., & Stefan, I. 2021. A paradox within the paradox of openness: The knowledge leveraging conundrum in open innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 93(2): 281–292.10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.01.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rungsithong, R., & Meyer, K. E. 2020. Trust and knowledge sharing in context: A study of international buyer-supplier relationships in Thailand. Industrial Marketing Management, 88: 112–124.10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.04.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweitzer, M. E., Ho, T., & Zhang, X. 2018. How monitoring influences trust: A tale of two faces. Management Science, 64(1): 253–270.10.1287/mnsc.2016.2586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, C. T., & Hawn, O. V. 2019. Microfoundations of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5): 1609–1642.10.5465/amj.2014.0795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, J., Jiang, Z., & Liu, Z. 2023. Digital technology adoption and collaborative innovation in Chinese high-speed rail industry: Does organizational agility matter? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71: 1–14.Google Scholar
Shi, J., Yu, C., Li, Y., & Wang, T. 2022. Does green financial policy affect debt-financing cost of heavy-polluting enterprises? An empirical evidence based on Chinese pilot zones for green finance reform and innovations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 179(3): 121678.10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, J., Moon, J. J., & Kang, J. 2023. Where does ESG pay? The role of national culture in moderating the relationship between ESG performance and financial performance. International Business Review, 32(3): 102071.10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.102071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, C., & Lee, J. 2016. Citizens’ use of social media in government, perceived transparency, and trust in government. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2): 430–453.10.1080/15309576.2015.1108798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, M. 1973. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3): 355–374.10.2307/1882010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, M. 1974. Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening processes. Vol 84. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Su, W., Peng, M. W., Tan, W., & Cheung, Y. 2016. The signaling effect of corporate social responsibility in emerging economies. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3): 479–491.10.1007/s10551-014-2404-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, Y., Tian, X., Zhang, X., & Zhao, H. 2020. The real effect of partial privatization on corporate innovation: Evidence from China’s split share structure reform. Journal of Corporate Finance, 64(2): 101661.10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, L., Wang, H., & Xia, J. 2020. Stakeholder preservation or appropriation? The influence of target CSR on market reactions to acquisition announcements. Academy of Management Journal, 63(5): 1535–1560.10.5465/amj.2018.0229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasudeva, G., Nachum, L., & Say, G. 2018. A signaling theory of institutional activism: How Norway’s sovereign wealth fund investments affect firms’ foreign acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4): 1583–1611.10.5465/amj.2015.1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan, H., Fu, J., & Zhong, X. 2024. ESG performance and firms’ innovation efficiency: The moderating role of state-owned firms and regional market development. Business Process Management Journal, 30(1): 270–290.10.1108/BPMJ-08-2023-0612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J., Ma, M., Dong, T., & Zhang, Z. 2023. Do ESG ratings promote corporate green innovation? A quasi-natural experiment based on SynTao Green Finance’s ESG ratings. International Review of Financial Analysis, 87(3): 102623.10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, W., Zhang, P., & Tsai, S. 2023. It investment and corporate collaborative innovation: The moderating role of the top management team’s educational background and absorptive capacity. Internet Research, 34(3): 1017–1045.10.1108/INTR-12-2021-0899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyrwich, M., Steinberg, P. J., Noseleit, F., & de Faria, P. 2022. Is open innovation imprinted on new ventures? The cooperation-inhibiting legacy of authoritarian regimes. Research Policy, 51(1): 104409.10.1016/j.respol.2021.104409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, E. P., & Luu, B. V. 2021. International variations in ESG disclosure – Do cross-listed companies care more? International Review of Financial Analysis, 75: 101731.10.1016/j.irfa.2021.101731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeng, J., Ren, J., & Ning, Z. 2022. Mediating effect of corporate social responsibility-based entrepreneurship on environmental improvement: Evidence from 475 heavy-polluting enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 149: 506–517.10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Y., Dong, L., Sun, Y., Ma, Y., & Zhang, N. 2024. Is air pollution the original sin of firms? The impact of air pollution on firms’ ESG scores. Energy Economics, 136: 107704.10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, X., Chen, W., & Ren, G. 2022. The impact of corporate social irresponsibility on emerging-economy firms’ long-term performance: An explanation based on signal theory. Journal of Business Research, 144: 345–357.10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar