The Pathways Through Corporate Governance Mechanisms Influence Corporate ESG Performance

Ningbo Chen

doi:10.54097/1t9r0c78

Authors

Ningbo Chen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/1t9r0c78

Keywords:

Corporate governance, ESG performance, influence pathways.

Abstract

As the concept of sustainable development deepens, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) has become a key framework for evaluating corporate non-financial performance. Among these, governance (G) is not only a core dimension of ESG but also an intrinsic mechanism driving environmental (E) and social (S) performance. This paper aims to systematically examine the theoretical pathways through which corporate governance influences corporate ESG performance. By reviewing relevant domestic and international literature, this paper first elaborates on theoretical foundations such as stakeholder theory and resource dependence theory. It then analyzes the direct pathways through which corporate governance influences ESG performance across four dimensions: equity structure, board governance, executive incentives, and information disclosure. Subsequently, it explores indirect pathways mediated by variables such as reduced agency costs, enhanced risk management capabilities, and the cultivation of a social responsibility culture. The paper concludes by summarizing existing research limitations and outlining future directions, suggesting deepening studies on configuration effects, innovating G-dimension measurement methods, and conducting cross-institutional comparative analyses to build a more integrated theoretical framework. This work provides theoretical foundations and practical insights for enterprises to optimize governance structures and enhance overall ESG performance.

References

[1] Adams R B, Ferreira D. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 2009, 94 (2): 291 - 309.

[2] Ananzeh H. Corporate governance and the quality of CSR disclosure: lessons from an emerging economy. Society and Business Review, 2022, 17 (2): 280 - 306.

[3] Chen C, Firth M, Cao D N, et al. Ownership structure, corporate governance, and fraud: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2006, 12 (3): 424 - 448.

[4] Cucari N, Esposito De Falco S, Orlando B. Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2018, 25 (3): 250 - 266.

[5] Dhaliwal D S, Li O Z, Tsang A, et al. Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 2011, 86 (1): 59 - 100.

[6] Du X, Liu Z. Ownership structure and corporate ESG performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 2022, 12 (4): 1234 - 1256.

[7] Dyck A, Lins K V, Roth L, et al. Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 2019, 131 (3): 693 - 714.

[8] Freeman R E. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, 1984.

[9] Garel A, Petit-Romec A. Investor rewards to environmental responsibility: Evidence from the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2021, 68: 101948.

[10] Gibson R, Krueger P, Riand N, et al. ESG Rating Disagreement and Stock Return. Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series, 2019.

[11] He X, Xiao T, Chen Y. Executive compensation tied to ESG performance and corporate innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 2023, 183 (3): 785 - 805.

[12] Jensen M C, Meckling W H. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 1976, 3 (4): 305 - 360.

[13] Jizi M, Salama A, Dixon R, et al. corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 2014, 125 (4): 601 - 615.

[14] Liao L, Lin T, Zhang Y. Corporate board and corporate social responsibility assurance: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 2018, 150 (1): 211 - 225.

[15] Trevino L K, Nelson K A. Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. John Wiley & Sons, 2021.

[16] Wong J B, Zhang Q. Board ESG committees and corporate environmental performance. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 2022, 34 (2): 89 - 102.

[17] Gao Yue. A Brief Analysis of ESG Rating Development from a Corporate Governance Perspective. Journal of Economic Research, 2023, (8): 1 - 3.

[18] Guo Mingjie, Xiao Xingguo. The Impact of Corporate Governance Structure on ESG Disclosure Quality: A Configuration Study Based on High-Tech Enterprises. Productivity Research, 2024, (10): 107 - 113.

[19] Song Yulu, Ma Fuhui, Han Xianfeng. The Influence of ESG Performance on Corporate Green Governance Performance: The Dual Role of Dynamic Capabilities and Green Development. Ecological Economics, 2025. Online first.

[20] Yang Zheng, Li Yonggang. The Significance of Environmental, Social Responsibility, and Corporate Governance (ESG) for Corporate Valuation and Value. 2022.