ESP-4581

Published

2026-02-28

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 2 (2026): Publishing

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Zhihong Ju, Byambakhorloo Sukhbaatar, Minghui Li

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Zhihong Ju, Byambakhorloo Sukhbaatar, & Minghui Li. (2026). How Does ESG Performance Shape Firm Value through Stakeholder Cognition and Attention?Evidence from China’s A-Share Listed Firms. Environment and Social Psychology, 11(2), ESP-4581. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i2.4581

How Does ESG Performance Shape Firm Value through Stakeholder Cognition and Attention?Evidence from China’s A-Share Listed Firms

Zhihong Ju

Graduate School, University of Finance and Economics, Ulaanbaatar, 13381, Mongolia;Liaoning University of International Business and Economics,Dalian,116052,China

Byambakhorloo Sukhbaatar

University of Finance and Economics, Ulaanbaatar, 13381, Mongolia.

Minghui Li

Liaoning University of International Business and Economics,Dalian,116052,China


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i2.4581


Keywords: ESG performance; firm value; AMO model; stakeholder theory; sustainable development; China

Abstract

Against the background of China’s accelerated green transition and the increasing institutionalization of ESG disclosure under the dual-carbon goals, sustainability information has become a salient cue in capital market evaluation while still operating under conditions of information asymmetry. Within this context, this study examines how ESG performance shapes firm value through stakeholder cognition and attention by incorporating insights from environmental psychology. Using an unbalanced panel of non-financial A-share listed firms from 2011 to 2024 (31,198 firm-year observations), fixed-effects regressions show that ESG performance is positively associated with Tobin’s Q. Consistent with environmental psychology, ESG engagement enhances stakeholders’ environmental cognition by increasing the salience and interpretability of sustainability signals, which in turn influences evaluative judgments and market responses. Mediation results indicate that ESG significantly strengthens green innovation cognition (LnGreen_inn), and this cognition is positively priced by the market; introducing cognition attenuates the direct ESG effect, indicating partial mediation. Overall, the findings suggest that ESG creates value not mechanically but by shaping stakeholders’ cognitive processing and attention allocation toward firms’ environmental responsibility and long-term growth quality in China’s emerging capital market.

References

[1]. 1.Bates, T. W., Kahle, K. M., & Stulz, R. M. (2009). Why do U.S. firms hold so much more cash than they used to? Journal of Finance, 64(5), 1985–2021.

[2]. 2.Kaplan, S. N., & Zingales, L. (1997). Do investment–cash flow sensitivities provide useful measures of financing constraints? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(1), 169–215.

[3]. 3.Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.

[4]. 4.Tobin, J. (1969). A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 1(1), 15–29.

[5]. 5.Berg, F., Koelbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344.

[6]. 6.Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124.

[7]. 7.Rajan, R. G., & Zingales, L. (1995). What do we know about capital structure? Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1421–1460.

[8]. 8.Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.

[9]. 9.Altman, E. I. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589–609.

[10]. 10.Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

[11]. 11.Giese, G., Lee, L.-E., Melas, D., Nagy, Z., & Nishikawa, L. (2019). Foundations of ESG investing. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 45(5), 69–83.

[12]. 12.Opler, T. C., Pinkowitz, L., Stulz, R. M., & Williamson, R. (1999). The determinants and implications of corporate cash holdings. Journal of Financial Economics, 52(1), 3–46.

[13]. 13.Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

[14]. 14.Al Amosh, H., Khatib, S. F. A., & Ananzeh, H. (2022). ESG impact on financial performance: Evidence from the Levant countries. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 23(3), 493–513.

[15]. 15.Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.

[16]. 16.Li, Y., Gong, M., Zhang, X.-Y., & Koh, L. (2018). The impact of ESG disclosure on firm value: The role of CEO power. British Accounting Review, 50(1), 60–75.

[17]. 17.Boulhaga, M., Bouri, A., Elamer, A. A., & Ibrahim, B. A. (2023). ESG ratings and firm performance: The moderating role of internal control quality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(4), 1414–1429.

[18]. 18.El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C. Y., & Mishra, D. (2011). Does CSR affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406.

[19]. 19.Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2023). Stock price reactions to ESG news: The role of ESG ratings and disagreement. Review of Accounting Studies, 28(3), 1500–1530.

[20]. 20.Agnese, P., Carè, R., Cerciello, M., & Taddeo, S. (2022). Reconsidering the impact of ESG practices on firm profitability. Management Decision, 60(13), 78–101.

[21]. 21.Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of CSR. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.

[22]. 22.Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2020). The influence of firm size on the ESG score. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 333–360.

[23]. 23.Ferrell, A., Liang, H., & Renneboog, L. (2016). Socially responsible firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 122(3), 585–606.

[24]. 24.Adeneye, Y. B., Kammoun, I., & Ab Wahab, S. N. A. (2023). Capital structure and speed of adjustment: The impact of ESG performance. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14(5), 945–977.

[25]. 25.Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59–100.

[26]. 26.Chung, K. H., & Pruitt, S. W. (1994). A simple approximation of Tobin’s q. Financial Management, 23(3), 70–74.

[27]. 27.Marquis, C., & Qian, C. (2014). CSR reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1), 127–148.

[28]. 28.DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

[29]. 29.Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3), 405–440.

[30]. 30.Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23.

[31]. 31.Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233.

[32]. 32.Jaffe, A. B., & Palmer, K. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(4), 610–619.

[33]. 33.Gallego-Álvarez, I., Prado-Lorenzo, J.-M., & García-Sánchez, I.-M. (2011). CSR and innovation: A resource-based theory. Management Decision, 49(10), 1709–1727.

[34]. 34.Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.

[35]. 35.Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724.

[36]. 36.Zhu, L., He, X., & Gao, H. (2020). Does “green” have economic value? Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Foreign Economics & Management, 42(7), 121–136.

[37]. 37.Giese, G., Lee, L.-E., Melas, D., Nagy, Z., & Nishikawa, L. (2019). Foundations of ESG investing. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 45(5), 69–83.



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com