1726 
4290正确把握效率与公平的辩证关系是推进中国式现代化建设强有力的支撑。文章试图从企业劳动要素配置的视角出发，探讨ESG评级的就业效应和收入分配效应，旨在揭示企业在应对ESG评级时如何在效率与公平之间做出抉择。文章以2011—2019年中国A股上市公司为研究对象，重点探讨ESG评级对企业就业变动、员工雇佣效率和工资分配不公平的影响及作用路径，并进一步考察了在调整经营策略时，企业对效率与公平的偏好。研究发现，ESG评级降低了企业就业净增长并倒逼企业改善了员工雇佣效率，但同时也加剧了企业工资分配不公平。路径分析表明，ESG评级虽然通过降低就业创造的路径导致企业就业增长速度收缩，但却从抑制过度雇佣员工和缓解雇佣不足的双重路径改善了员工雇佣效率；ESG评级引发工资分配不公平的核心逻辑在于，其在推动高管薪酬和普通员工工资提升的同时，加剧了高管超额薪酬问题。ESG评级引致的市场压力和监督效应是企业员工雇佣决策和收入分配调整的主要动因；基于公平和效率视角的情境分析发现，ESG评级驱动下的企业经营决策调整更加偏向效率原则。此外，ESG评级能够提高企业资本劳动比，优化劳动力技能结构。文章丰富了ESG评级经济后果的研究，为理解外部监督下的企业适应性行为提供了有益思考。
ESG评级与企业劳动要素配置*——兼论效率和公平的统一性
摘要
参考文献
相关附件
5 刘柏,卢家锐,琚涛. 形式主义还是实质主义:ESG评级软监管下的绿色创新研究[J]. 南开管理评论,2023,(5):16−28.
6 毛其淋,王玥清. ESG的就业效应研究:来自中国上市公司的证据[J]. 经济研究,2023,(7):86−103.
12 谢红军,吕雪. 负责任的国际投资:ESG与中国OFDI[J]. 经济研究,2022,(3):83−99.
13 应千伟,呙昊婧,邓可斌. 媒体关注的市场压力效应及其传导机制[J]. 管理科学学报,2017,(4):32−49.
14 Albuquerque R,Koskinen Y,Zhang C D. Corporate social responsibility and firm risk:Theory and empirical evidence[J]. Management Science,2019,65(10):4451−4469. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2018.3043
15 Bebchuk L A,Tallarita R. The perils and questionable promise of ESG-based compensation[J]. Journal of Corporation Law,2022,48(1):37−75.
16 Beck T,Levine R,Levkov A. Big bad banks? The winners and losers from bank deregulation in the United States[J]. The Journal of Finance,2010,65(5):1637−1667. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01589.x
17 Borghesi R,Houston J F,Naranjo A. Corporate socially responsible investments:CEO altruism,reputation,and shareholder interests[J]. Journal of Corporate Finance,2014,26:164−181. DOI:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.03.008
18 Bushman R M,Smith A J. Transparency,financial accounting information,and corporate governance[J]. Economic Policy Review,2003,9(4):65−87.
19 Davis S J,Haltiwanger J. Gross job creation,gross job destruction,and employment reallocation[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,107(3):819−863. DOI:10.2307/2118365
20 Drempetic S,Klein C,Zwergel B. The influence of firm size on the ESG score:Corporate sustainability ratings under review[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2020,167(2):333−360. DOI:10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1
21 Dyck A,Volchkova N,Zingales L. The corporate governance role of the media:Evidence from Russia[J]. The Journal of Finance,2008,63(3):1093−1135. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01353.x
22 Ferrell A,Liang H,Renneboog L. Socially responsible firms[J]. Journal of Financial Economics,2016,122(3):585−606.
23 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.
24 Garcia A S,Orsato R J. Testing the institutional difference hypothesis:A study about environmental,social,governance,and financial performance[J]. Business Strategy and the Environment,2020,29(8):3261−3272.
25 Goodman-Bacon A. Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing[J]. Journal of Econometrics,2021,225(2):254−277.
26 Goss A,Roberts G S. The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans[J]. Journal of Banking & Finance,2011,35(7):1794−1810.
27 Hong B,Li Z C,Minor D. Corporate governance and executive compensation for corporate social responsibility[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2016,136(1):199−213.
28 Houston J F,Shan H Y. Corporate ESG profiles and banking relationships[J]. The Review of Financial Studies,2022,35(7):3373−3417.
29 Huang D Z X. Environmental,social and governance factors and assessing firm value:Valuation,signalling and stakeholder perspectives[J]. Accounting & Finance,2022,62(S1):1983−2010.
30 Huang J W,Li Y H. Green innovation and performance:The view of organizational capability and social reciprocity[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2017,145(2):309−324.
31 Jung B,Lee W J,Weber D P. Financial reporting quality and labor investment efficiency[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research,2014,31(4):1047−1076. DOI:10.1111/1911-3846.12053
32 Krusell P,Ohanian L E,Rios-Rull J V,et al. Capital-skill complementarity and inequality:A macroeconomic analysis[J]. Econometrica,2000,68(5):1029−1053.
33 Pindyck R S. Irreversible investment,capacity choice,and the value of the firm[J]. American Economic Review,1988,78(5):969−985.
34 Pinnuck M,Lillis A M. Profits versus losses:Does reporting an accounting loss act as a heuristic trigger to exercise the abandonment option and divest employees?[J]. The Accounting Review,2007,82(4):1031−1053.
35 Richardson S. Over-investment of free cash flow[J]. Review of Accounting Studies,2006,11(2):159−189.
36 Riedl A,Smeets P. Why do investors hold socially responsible mutual funds?[J]. The Journal of Finance,2017,72(6):2505−2550. DOI:10.1111/jofi.12547
37 Schuler D A,Cording M. A corporate social performance–corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers[J]. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3):540−558. DOI:10.5465/amr.2006.21318916
本论文包含如下附件：
| 序号 | 标题 | 大小 | 查看/下载 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2011-2019年中国A股上市公司-ESG评级对企业劳动要素配置结构的影响途径（劳动力技能结构维度：员工学历视角） | 551.8 (KB) |  |
| 2 | 2011-2019年中国A股上市公司-ESG评级对企业劳动要素配置结构的影响途径（资本劳动比维度） | 612.4 (KB) | |
| 3 | 2011-2019年中国A股上市公司的的路径分析（ESG评级影响企业员工雇佣的路径分析：基于就业结构分解的视角） | 530.8 (KB) | |
| 4 | 2011-2019年中国A股上市公司的控制变量（企业规模、长期负债率、市值账面比、速动比率、股利支付、经营盈利、机构持股、资本投资效率、产权性质） | 1134.5 (KB) | |
| 5 | 2011-2019年中国A股上市公司的路径分析（ESG评级影响企业工资分配的路径分析：基于薪酬结构分解视角） | 749.4 (KB) | |
| 6 | 2011-2019年中国A股上市公司的企业劳动要素配置（企业就业变动、员工雇佣效率、工资分配不公平） | 865.7 (KB) | |
| 7 | 2011-2019年中国A股上市公司的ESG评级 | 209.8 (KB) | |
| 8 | 数据及程序代码 | 2500.3 (KB) |  |
引用本文
王孝华, 韩晓逸, 魏志华. ESG评级与企业劳动要素配置*——兼论效率和公平的统一性[J]. 财经研究, 2025, 51(5): 50-64.
导出参考文献，格式为：
下一篇：近代中国财政学话语权构建的探索
