绿色官员对企业社会责任表现的影响

近年来，人类的生存环境愈加恶劣，自然资源日益减少。在这样的背景下，面对企业不佳的社会关系以及不断曝出的治理丑闻，人们对公司的环境、社会与道德要求也越来越高。政治与经济紧密相连，政府在管理社会的同时，不可避免地对企业活动产生深远影响。在中华人民共和国现行的行政权力分散化体系中，省级及以下地方政府扮演着中央政府与地方企业之间沟通协调的重要角色。这些地方政府通过其监管机制，约束地方企业的环境污染行为，同时借助激励政策，推动企业采纳生态友好的商业战略和投资方向。这种以地方政府为主导的治理框架，为地区环境保护和企业绿色转型提供了必要的条件和强大的动力。

尽管现有文献广泛探讨了地方官员更替对环境绩效的影响，以及企业高层管理背景对企业的影响，但鲜有研究聚焦于政府官员的环保背景如何影响企业的社会责任。为此，本文利用2011年至2022年A股上市公司的面板数据，特别关注企业注册地政府市长是否具备与环保相关的学习或工作经历，并将其作为核心解释变量。本篇选取华证指数的企业ESG评级结果作为衡量企业社会责任表现的代理变量，旨在检验具有绿色背景的官员对企业社会责任绩效产生的具体影响。在此基础上对ESG进一步细化，检验了绿色官员对企业环境（E）、社会（S）、治理（G）分项的影响，分析官员的环保背景具体从什么方面影响了企业的社会责任表现。此外，本文还从企业产权性质、是否属于重污染行业以及地区市场化水平三个维度进行了深入的异质性分析，以更全面地揭示政府官员环保背景对企业社会责任的多维影响。

实验数据表明，绿色官员显著促进了企业社会责任表现的提升。经过一系列稳健性检验，包括延长解释变量的滞后期限、采用PSM倾向得分匹配法、替换被解释变量指标以及剔除直辖市样本等，该结论依然稳健可靠。这种正向影响在非国有企业以及市场化程度较低地区的企业样本中表现尤为突出，绿色官员对企业环境分项（E）的正向影响在非重污染行业的企业样本中更加显著。同时，绿色官员对企业环境、社会维度的分项表现有显著的正向影响。本研究进一步从环境监管强度和环保支持程度两个维度探讨了影响机制，结果显示，地方政府官员主要通过强化环境规制来推动企业的社会责任表现，而在环保支持方面，并未观察到类似的显著特征。

本文贡献有下：其一，本研究通过手工收集关键数据，从ESG细分项、企业异质性等多维度层面深入剖析了地方官员后天积累的绿色环保经验与企业社会责任表现之间的潜在联系，不仅拓展了地方官员对微观企业行为影响的研究范畴，还为公司社会责任表现研究领域注入了新的视角，为政府官员后天经历的相关研究新的思考路径与研究方向；其二，本研究成果将为政府部门改进政府绿色人才引进政策、促进环境保护和经济协调发展的战略实施提供理论依据。

In recent years, the living environment of human beings has become more and more severe, and the natural resources have been reduced day by day. In this context, faced with the poor social relations of enterprises and the continuous exposure of governance scandals, people's environmental, social and moral requirements of companies are increasingly high. Politics and economy are closely linked, and government, while managing society, inevitably has a profound impact on business activities. In the current decentralized system of administrative power in the People's Republic of China, local governments at the provincial level and below play an important role in communication and coordination between the central government and local enterprises. These local governments, through their regulatory mechanisms, restrict the environmental pollution behavior of local enterprises, while encouraging enterprises to adopt eco-friendly business strategies and investment directions through incentive policies. This local government-led governance framework provides the necessary conditions and strong impetus for regional environmental protection and the green transformation of enterprises.

Although the existing literature has extensively explored the impact of local official turnover on environmental performance and the impact of senior management background on firms, few studies have focused on how the environmental background of government officials affects corporate social responsibility. To this end, this paper uses the panel data of A-share listed companies from 2011 to 2022, paying special attention to whether the mayors of the government where the enterprises are registered have learning or work experience related to environmental protection, and takes it as the core explanatory variable. This paper selects the corporate ESG rating results of CSI as a proxy variable to measure corporate social responsibility performance, aiming to test the specific impact of officials with green background on corporate social responsibility performance. On this basis, the ESG is further refined, and the impact of green officials on the environmental (E), social (S) and governance (G) of enterprises is tested, and the specific aspects of the environmental background of officials affect the CSR performance of enterprises are analyzed. In addition, this paper also conducts an in-depth heterogeneity analysis from three dimensions: the nature of enterprise property rights, whether it belongs to a heavily polluting industry, and the level of regional marketization, in order to more comprehensively reveal the multi-dimensional impact of government officials' environmental protection background on corporate social responsibility.

Experimental data show that green officials significantly promote the improvement of corporate social responsibility performance. After a series of robustness tests, including extending the lag time of explanatory variables, adopting PSM propensity score matching method, replacing the indicators of explained variables and eliminating the samples of municipalities, the conclusion is still robust and reliable. This positive effect is particularly prominent in the samples of non-state-owned enterprises and enterprises from regions with a low degree of marketization, and the positive effect of green officials on the enterprise environment sub-item (E) is more significant in the samples of enterprises from non-heavily polluting industries. At the same time, green officials have a significant positive impact on the performance of enterprises' environmental and social dimensions. This study further explored the influence mechanism from the two dimensions of environmental regulation intensity and environmental protection support. The results showed that local government officials mainly promoted corporate social responsibility performance by strengthening environmental regulation, while no similar significant characteristics were observed in environmental protection support.

Contributions to this article are as follows: First, through the manual collection of key data, this study deeply analyzed the potential relationship between local officials' accumulated green experience and CSR performance from multiple dimensions such as ESG subdivision and corporate heterogeneity, which not only expanded the research scope of local officials' influence on micro corporate behavior, but also injected a new perspective into the research field of CSR performance. It is a new thinking path and research direction for the related research of the acquired experience of government officials. Second, the results of this study will provide a theoretical basis for the government departments to improve the government's green talent introduction policy and promote the implementation of the strategy of environmental protection and economic coordinated development.

[1] 黄世忠.支撑 ESG 的三大理论支柱[J].财会月刊,2021(19):3-10.
[2] 中国工商银行绿色金融课题组,张红力,周月秋等.ESG 绿色评级及绿色指数研究[J].金融论坛,2017,22(09):3-14.
[3] 郭 峰 , 石 庆 玲 . 官 员 更 替 、 合 谋 震 慑 与 空 气 质 量 的 临 时 性 改 善 [J]. 经济研究,2017,52(07):155-168.
[4] 刘诗园 , 杜 江 . 地 方 官 员 更 替 、 政 治 关 联 与 企 业 绿 色 创 新 [J]. 经济经纬,2021,38(04):93-102.
[5] Galbreath J. Drivers of green innovations: The impact of export intensity, women leaders, and absorptive capacity[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2019, 158: 47-61.
[6] 田 丹 , 于 奇 . 高 层 管 理 者 背 景 特 征 对 企 业 绿 色 创 新 的 影 响 [J]. 财 经 问 题 研究,2017(06):108-113.
[7] 王鸿儒,陈思丞,孟天广.高管公职经历、中央环保督察与企业环境绩效——基于A 省企业层级数据的实证分析[J].公共管理学报,2021,18(01):114-125+173.
[8] Cho C H, Jung J H, Kwak B, et al. Professors on the board: Do they contribute to society outside the classroom?[J]. Journal of business ethics, 2017, 141: 393-409.
[9] 纪志宏,周黎安,王鹏等.地方官员晋升激励与银行信贷——来自中国城市商业银行的经验证据[J].金融研究,2014(01):1-15.
[10] 田文佳,余靖雯,龚六堂.晋升激励与工业用地出让价格——基于断点回归方法的研究[J].经济研究,2019,54(10):89-105.
[11] 张军,高远.官员任期、异地交流与经济增长——来自省级经验的证据[J].经济研究,2007,(11):91-103.
[12] 杨 海 生 , 罗 党 论 , 陈 少 凌 . 资 源 禀 赋 、 官 员 交 流 与 经 济 增 长 [J]. 管理世界,2010(05):17-26.
[13] 张尔升.地方官员的企业背景与经济增长——来自中国省委书记、省长的证据[J].中国工业经济,2010(03):129-138.
[14] 杨凡.官员教育和职业背景与公司发展实证研究[J].投资研究,2017,36(06):149-159.
[15] 石凡,王克明.地方政府官员环保考核压力与上市公司 ESG 表现[J].财经问题研究,2023,(06):116-129.
[16] Zheng S, Kahn M E, Sun W, et al. Incentives for China's urban mayors to mitigate pollution externalities: The role of the central government and public environmentalism[J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 2014, 47: 61-71.
[17] Kahn M E, Li P, Zhao D. Water pollution progress at borders: the role of changes in China's political promotion incentives[J]. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2015, 7(4): 223 -242.
[18] 黄溶冰,赵谦,王丽艳.自然资源资产离任审计与空气污染防治:“和谐锦标赛”还是“环保资格赛”[J].中国工业经济,2019(10):23 -41.
[19] 余泳泽,孙鹏博,宣烨.地方政府环境目标约束是否影响了产业转型升级?[J].经济研究,2020,55(08):57-72.
[20] 周黎安.晋升锦标赛文献评述与研究展望[J].经济管理学刊,2022,1(01):1-34.
[21] 王芳,曹一鸣,陈硕.反思环境库兹涅茨曲线假说[J].经济学(季刊),2020,19(01):81-100.
[22] 王红建,汤泰劼,宋献中.谁驱动了企业环境治理:官员任期考核还是五年规划目标考核[J].财贸经济,2017,38(11):147-161.
[23] 陈秋平,潘越,肖金利.晋升激励、地域偏爱与企业环境表现:来自 A 股上市公司的经验证据[J].中国管理科学,2019,27(08):47-56.
[24] 徐尚昆 , 杨汝岱 . 企 业 社 会 责 任 概 念 范 畴 的 归 纳 性 分 析 [J]. 中 国 工 业 经济,2007(05):71-79.
[25] Friedman M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits[J]. New York Times Magazine, September, 1970, 13: 122 -126.
[26] Hart O, Zingales L. Companies should maximize shareholder welfare not market value[J]. ECGI-Finance Working Paper, 2017 (521).
[27] Friede G, Busch T, Bassen A. ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies[J]. Journal of sustainable finance & investment, 2015, 5(4): 210 -233.
[28] Li Y, Gong M, Zhang X Y, et al. The impact of environmental, social, and governance disclosure on firm value: The role of CEO power[J]. The British Accounting Review, 2018, 50(1): 60 -75.
[29] 邱牧远,殷红.生态文明建设背景下企业 ESG 表现与融资成本[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2019,36(03):108-123.
[30] 周方召,潘婉颖,付辉.上市公司 ESG 责任表现与机构投资者持股偏好——来自中国 A 股上市公司的经验证据[J].科学决策,2020(11):15-41.
[31] Velte P. Women on management board and ESG performance[J]. Journal of Global Responsibility, 2016, 7(1): 98 -109.
[32] Garcia A S, Mendes-Da-Silva W, Orsato R J. Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: Evidence from emerging markets[J]. Journal of cleaner production, 2017, 150: 135 -147.
[33] Harjoto M A, Wang Y. Board of directors network centrality and environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance[J]. CorporateGovernance: The international journal of business in society, 2020, 20(6): 965-985.
[34] 张正勇,吉利.企业家人口背景特征与社会责任信息披露——来自中国上市公司社会责任报告的经验证据[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2013,23(04):131-138.
[35] 郑冠群,宋林,郝渊晓.高管层特征、策略性行为与企业社会责任信息披露质量[J].经济经纬,2015,32(02):111-116.
[36] 罗正英,姜钧乐,陈艳等.行业竞争、高管薪酬与企业社会责任履行[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2018,50(04):153-162+177.
[37] 李心斐,程宝栋,许恒等.高管“海归”背景有助于企业社会责任履行吗?——基于A 股上市公司的经验数据[J].经济管理,2020,42(11):56-72.
[38] 田 翠 香 , 索 蝶 , 甄 立 美 . 企 业 外 部 环 境 成 本 及 其 计 量 初 探 [J]. 中 国 证 券 期货,2012,(06):72-73.
[39] 沈满洪,何灵巧.外部性的分类及外部性理论的演化[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002(01):152-160.
[40] 周守华,陶春华.环境会计:理论综述与启示[J].会计研究,2012(02):3-10+96.
[41] 陈波.中国碳排放权交易市场的构建及宏观调控研究 [J].中国人口·资源与环境,2013,23(11):7-13.
[42] Cai H, Chen Y, Gong Q. Polluting thy neighbor: Unintended consequences of China ׳s pollution reduction mandates[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2016, 76: 86 -104.
[43] Tsang S, Kolk A. The evolution of Chinese policies and governance structures on environment, energy and climate[J]. Environmental Policy and Governance, 2010, 20(3): 180-196.
[44] 吴越,唐薇.政府环境责任的规则变迁及深层法律规制问题研究——基于新《环境保护法》和宪法保护的双重视角[J].社会科学研究,2015(02):20-29.
[45] Hambrick D C, Mason P A. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers[J]. Academy of management review, 1984, 9(2): 193 -206.
[46] Marquis C, Tilcsik A. Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory[J]. The Academy of Management Annals, 2013, 7(1): 195 -245.
[47] Pieper T M, Smith A D, Kudlats J, et al. The persistence of multifamily firms: Founder imprinting, simple rules, and monitoring processes[J]. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 2015, 39(6): 1313 -1337.
[48] 戴维奇 , 刘 洋 , 廖明情 . 烙印效应 : 民 营 企 业 谁 在 “ 不 务 正 业 ” ?[J]. 管理世界,2016(05):99-115+187-188.
[49] 林润辉,谢宗晓,李娅等.政治关联、政府补助与环境信息披露——资源依赖理论视角[J].公共管理学报,2015,12(02):30-41+154-155.
[50] 于连超,张卫国,毕茜等.环境政策不确定性与企业环境信息披露——来自地方环保官员变更的证据[J].上海财经大学学报,2020,22(02):35-50.
[51] Vergne J P. Stigmatized categories and public disapproval of organizations: A mixed-methods study of the global arms industry, 1996 –2007[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2012, 55(5): 1027 -1052.
[52] 卢建词 , 姜 广 省 .CEO 绿 色 经 历 能 否 促 进 企 业 绿 色 创 新 ?[J]. 经济管理,2022,44(02):106-121.
[53] 王凯,张志伟.国内外 ESG 评级现状、比较及展望[J].财会月刊,2022,(02):137-143.
[54] 毕茜, 彭珏, 左永彦 .环 境信息 披露制 度、公 司 治理和环 境信息 披露 [J]. 会计研究,2012(07):39-47+96.
[55] Qian W, Chen X. Corporate environmental disclosure and political connection in regulatory and leadership changes: The case of China[J]. The British Accounting Review, 2021, 53(1): 100935.
[56] 池仁勇,虞晓芬,李正卫.我国东西部地区技术创新效率差异及其原因分析[J].中国软科学,2004,(08):128-131+127.
[57] 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[J].经济研究,2018,53(12):129-143.
[58] 陈璇,钱维.新《环保法》对企业环境信息披露质量的影响分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2018,28(12):76-86.
[59] 倪娟,孔令文.环境信息披露、银行信贷决策与债务融资成本——来自我国沪深两市 A 股重污染行业上市公司的经验证据[J].经济评论,2016,(01):147-156+160.
[60] 樊 纲 , 王 小 鲁 , 马 光 荣 . 中 国 市 场 化 进 程 对 经 济 增 长 的 贡 献 [J]. 经济研究,2011,46(09):4-16.