Enterprise Poverty Alleviation and Disagreements between Chinese and Foreign ESG Ratings

Guannan Liu

doi:10.54097/x85y5975

Authors

Guannan Liu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/x85y5975

Keywords:

Poverty Alleviation, ESG Rating, Rating Disagreements.

Abstract

Corporate poverty alleviation is an important manifestation of corporate social responsibility. However, there is currently a lack of research on the impact of corporate poverty alleviation on the disagreements between Chinese and foreign ESG ratings. Through empirical analysis, this paper finds that corporate which participate in poverty alleviation will reduce the differences in ESG ratings between domestic and international agencies. Further research reveals that corporate involvement in poverty alleviation can significantly improve information transparency and reduce financing constraints, thereby reducing the divergence of ESG ratings. In addition, state-owned enterprises and enterprises with high-quality information disclosure that participate in poverty alleviation will more significantly reduce the disagreements. The study offers compelling evidence that China should support the globalization of disclosure regulations and develop an ESG assessment framework that considers both globalization and regional differences.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Yi Xuan, Wu Rong, Xie Zhiming. Property right nature, enterprise targeted poverty alleviation behavior and capital market response [J]. Journal of Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, 2020 (2): 98 - 104.

[2] Liu Liya, Zhou Shupeng. Corporate power for poverty alleviation: evidence from the poverty alleviation results of Chinese listed ompanies [J]. China Finance and Economic Review, 2022 (11), 46 - 67.

[3] Chatterji A K, Durand R, Levine D I, et al. Do ratings of firms converge?Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2016, 37 (8): 1597 − 1614.

[4] Berg F, Kölbel J F, Rigobon R. Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings [J]. Review of Finance, 2022, 26 (6): 1315 − 1344.

[5] Kotsantonis S, Serafeim G. Four things no one will tell you about ESG data [J]. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 2019, 31 (2): 50 − 58.

[6] Abhayawansa S, Tyagi S. Sustainable investing: The black box of environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings [J]. The Journal of Wealth Management, 2021, 24 (1): 49 − 54.

[7] Avramov D, Cheng S, Lioui A, et al. Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty [J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2022, 145 (2): 642 − 664.

[8] Dimson E, Marsh P, Staunton M. Divergent ESG ratings [J]. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 2020, 47 (1): 75 − 87.

[9] Billio M, Costola M, Hristova I, et al. Inside the ESG ratings: (Dis) agreement and performance [J]. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2021, 28 (5): 1426 − 1445.

[10] Ma Wenjie, Yu Bojian. Corporate ownership attributes and differences between Chinese and foreign ESG ratings [J]. Finance and Economics Research Institute, 2023(06): 124 - 136.

[11] Cai Y, Pan C H, Statman M. Why do countries matter so much in corporate social performance? [J]. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2016, 41: 591 − 609.

[12] Hu Haozhi, Zhang Xiuping. The impact of participating in targeted poverty alleviation on enterprise performance [J]. Reform, 2020 (8): 117 - 131

[13] Carroll, A. B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders [J]. Business Horizons, 1991, 7 (8): 39 - 48.