The Paradox of ESG Performance and Audit Fees in the Energy Sector: Mediating and Moderating Effects of Green Innovation, Supply Chain Management, and Media Attention
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6000/2818-3401.2025.03.05Keywords:
ESG performance, audit fees, energy-listed companiesAbstract
The ESG concept, which covers the dimensions of corporate environment, society, and corporate governance, has promoted the transformation of corporate goals from pursuing maximum self-interest to balancing environmental, social, and corporate governance values. The vast majority of current research focuses on how improving corporate ESG performance can reduce audit fees, and there is little literature specifically studying the relationship between ESG performance and audit fees for energy industry companies. This article takes energy-listed companies from 2018 to 2022 as samples to analyze the impact of ESG performance and its environmental, social, and corporate governance dimensions on audit fees in the energy industry. At the same time, this study explores whether ESG performance and its environmental, social, and corporate governance dimensions have an intermediary mechanism for audit fees through green innovation capabilities, supply chain integration management, and shareholder equity, as well as the moderating effect of media attention on the relationship between ESG performance, environmental, social, and corporate dimensions and audit fees. Research has found that: (1) the improvement of ESG performance, environmental performance, social performance, and corporate governance performance of energy companies cannot reduce audit fees; (2) Green innovation capability and supply chain integrated management play an intermediary role between corporate ESG performance and audit fees, supply chain integrated management and shareholder equity play an intermediary role between corporate environmental performance and audit fees, green innovation capability and supply chain integrated management play an intermediary role between corporate social performance and audit fees, and green innovation capability plays an intermediary role between corporate governance performance and audit fees; (3) Media attention has played a positive moderating role in the impact of corporate ESG performance and environmental dimensions on audit fees. The research has improved the ESG performance of energy industry enterprises in specific industries and the relationship between their performance in the environmental, social, and governance dimensions and audit fees. This will further promote energy enterprises to practice ESG concepts and achieve sustainable development.
References
Anas I., Imran A., Mark S. (2024). The silver lining of supply chain complexity: building supply chain resilience and robustness through exploitation and exploration. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, (2), 244-259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2023-0022
Azhar A., Amir I., Farooq M.R., et al. (2022). Going green: Impact of green supply chain management practices on sustainability performance. Frontiers in Psychology.
Chai S.L., Cao M.J., Feng H., et al. (2024). ESG Information Disclosure, Media Attention, and Financial Performance of Enterprises: Heterogeneity Analysis Based on Regional Digitization Level and Industry Environmental Sensitivity. Journal of Xi'an University of Technology, 1-13.
Chen X. (2024). Common ownership along the supply chain and supplier innovations. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 102478-102478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2024.102478
Cheng X.Z. (2006). Literature Review on Supply Chain Issues. Technological Progress and Countermeasures, (10), 196-200.
Danilov G. (2024). The impact of corporate governance on firm performance: panel data evidence from S&P 500 Information Technology. Future Business Journal, (1), 86-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00376-8
Ding Q., Zhang X.X., Lin L. (2023). Progress and Reflection on Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) Standardization at Home and Abroad. China Standardization, (21), 50-55.
Fan Q.Q., Guo W. (2024). Environmental Protection Tax, Innovation Risk, and Enterprise R&D Investment. Finance, Trade, and Economics, 1-16.
Gao J.Y., Chu D.X., Zheng J., et al. (2022). Environmental, social and governance performance: Can it be a stock price stabilizer?. Journal of Cleaner Production, (P2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134705
Gopalakrishnan S., Zhang H. (2019). Client dependence: A boon or bane for vendor innovation? A competitive mediation framework in IT outsourcing. Journal of Business Research, (C), 407-416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.023
Han S., Wang Y., (2024). Reducing dependency: Corporate ESG profiles and customer structure. Managerial and Decision Economics, (6), 4053-4071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4224
Huang R.B., Xu J.N. (2024). Risk Information Disclosure and Analyst Forecast of Key Audit Matters. East China Economic Management, 1-22.
Jan V.U., Rieländer L., Albrecht V.U. (2024). Enhancing the Value of the BfArM’s DiGA Directory: Strategies for Improved Usability and Stakeholder Satisfaction. Studies in health technology and informatics, 320-324.
Jia J.Q., Xia W.Y. (2024). ESG performance, R&D expenses, and audit fees. Journal of Jilin University of Commerce, 40(3), 62-69.
Justyna F., Magdalena M., Anna M. (2021). Energy Sector Risk and Cost of Capital Assessment—Companies and Investors Perspective. Energies, (6), 1613-1613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061613
Khaled A., Belen R., C. W.M. (2024). The impact of digital corporate social responsibility on social entrepreneurship and organizational resilience. Management Decision, (8), 2621-2640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2022-1613
KrollM C., EdingerSchons M.L. (2023). Corporate power and democracy: A business ethical reflection and research agenda. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, (3), 349-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12608
Lang Y.K., Fan B.N., Zeng C.Y., et al. (2024). The driving mechanism and promotion path of digital economy on industrial transition: the mediating role of technological innovation and the regulatory effect of industrial ecology. Scientific Research, 1-18.
Lei Q.H., Zhang Q., Chen H.L. (2024). Does the Shareholding Proportion of Large Shareholders Affect the Horizontal Organizational Structure? Evidence from Listed Companies in China. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, (6), 1106-1117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2023.2270136
Li L.H., Li L. (2024). Digital Transformation, Green Technology Innovation, and Corporate ESG Performance. Statistics and Decision making, (17), 161-166.
Li Z.B., Shao Y.M., Li Z.Z., et al. (2022). ESG Information Disclosure, Media Supervision, and Corporate Financing Constraints. Scientific Decision making, (07), 1-26.
Liao G.P., Huang S.Y., Yang S.H. (2024). Environmental protection investment and ESG performance of enterprises under dual wheel drive: analysis based on moderation effect and threshold effect. Friends of Accounting, (16), 75-84.
Liu J.W., Liang Q.C., Liu H. (2024). The Impact of Dual Motivation of ESG Information Disclosure on Corporate Green Innovation Performance: The Mediating Role of Green Image and the Moderating Role of Value Perception. Technological Progress and Countermeasures, 1-9.
Liu S., Yu J.J., Feng T. (2025). The impact of green innovations on firm’s sustainable operations: Process innovation and recycling innovation. Omega, 103170-103170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2024.103170
Lou Q.R. (2023). ESG Information Disclosure: Legal Reflection and Institutional Construction. Securities Market Guide, (3), 24-34.
Lu E.H., Potter A., Rodrigues S.V., et al. (2018). Exploring sustainable supply chain management: a social network perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, (4), 257-277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-11-2016-0408
Luo Q., Fang F., Zhang Y.F. (2023). The Inhibition of Institutional Investor Clique on the Tunneling Behavior. Mobile Information Systems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4486160
Ma P.P., Zhang M., Wang L.K. (2024). Public Environmental Concern and Enterprise Green Transformation: A Double Review of Government Environmental Regulation and Enterprise Internal Competence. China Population, Resources and Environment, (6), 112-123.
Matarneh S., Piprani Z.A., Ellahi M.R., et al. (2024). Industry 4.0 technologies and circular economy synergies: Enhancing corporate sustainability through sustainable supply chain integration and flexibility. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 103723-103723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2024.103723
Moon G., Lee H., Waggle D. (2019). Long-run equity performance of firms that restate financial statements. Managerial Finance, (1), 92-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-05-2019-0247
Nanaba I.A., Amankwaa C.K., David A., et al. (2024). Unearthing the relationship between supply chain social capital and firm performance: the role of supply chain responsiveness. Benchmarking: An International Journal, (4), 1225-1248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2022-0002
Qiu J., Deng X., Liang R. (2024). Can the enterprise intelligent transformation promote accounting information transparency? Pressure from media attention. Finance Research Letters, 105605. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105605
Rahman U.H., Ali A., Arian A., et al. (2024). Does Corporate Governance and Earning Quality Mitigate Idiosyncratic Risk? Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, (8), 362-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080362
Ren P., Ning C.H., Luo N. (2023). ESG performance, media attention, and audit fees. Friends of Accounting, (11), 127-134.
Shahzad F.M., Xu S., An X., et al. (2024). Effect of stakeholder pressure on environmental performance: Do virtual CSR, green credit, environmental and social reputation matter?. Journal of Environmental Management, 122223-122223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122223
Song J., Pi Y.C., Zhao H. (2024). Research on the Decision usefulness of Characteristic Information Disclosure in New Audit Reports: Based on the Perspective of Text Similarity. Journal of Central University of Finance and Economics, (6), 89-101.
Sun J.X. (2023). Information Technology Promotes the Implementation of ESG Concepts. China Informatization, (4), 28-29.
Tao S., Liu S., Zhou H., et al. (2024). Research on Inventory Sustainable Development Strategy for Maximizing Cost-Effectiveness in Supply Chain. Sustainability, (11). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114442
Wang G., Devine A.R., Sieiro M.G., et al. (2024). Strategic Leaders and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Management, (7), 2675-2714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231164991
Wang J., Wang H. (2024). Environmental regulation and corporate financial risk: The role of credit guarantees. Finance Research Letters, 63105357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105357
Wang L., Rehman U.A., Xu Z., et al. (2023). Green Corporate Governance, Green Finance, and Sustainable Performance Nexus in Chinese SMES: A Mediation Moderation Model. Sustainability, (13). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139914
Wang M.Y., Li Y.M., Liu S.Y. (2024). The impact of product quality risk and market competition risk on green technology innovation and the moderating effect of enterprise management capability. Ecological Economy, 40(9), 48-55.
Wang X.D. (2024). Theory and Practice of China’s New Energy Industry Development from the Perspective of Carbon Peaking and Carbon Neutrality: A Review of “Sustainable Development of China’s New Energy Industry under Carbon Peaking and Carbon Neutrality Goals: An Empirical Study from the Perspective of Enterprise Growth”. International Economic Cooperation, 40(4), 95.
Wang Z.G. (2024). Sustainable Development Audit: Assessing Corporate ESG Performance. Probe - Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, (2), 23-32.
Xu L., Wan J., He X. (2024). How does environmental performance feedback affect corporate environmental investment? The moderating role of environmental regulation. Sustainable Futures, 100255-100255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100255
Xu W., Yao L. (2024). ESG Information Disclosure, Legal Environment, and Corporate Risk. Friends of Accounting, (18), 96-103.
Xu X., Zhao H. (2024). An Empirical Study on ESG Evaluation of Chinese Energy Enterprises Based on High-Quality Development Goals—A Case Study of Listed Company Data. Sustainability, (15), 6602-6602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156602
Yang Z.Q., Peng Y., Shi P.L. (2024). Strategic Purchase and Sale Agreements, Customer Demand Stability, and Enterprise Investment Efficiency: Analysis from the Perspective of Supply Chain Control. Journal of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, 26(4), 107-123.
Ye Y.X., Yang L., Huo B.F., et al. (2023). The impact of supply chain social capital on supply chain performance: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, (5), 1176-1190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-09-2021-0423
Yin, S., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2025). Mechanisms and implementation pathways for distributed photovoltaic grid integration in rural power systems: A study based on multi-agent game theory approach.Energy Strategy Reviews,60, 101801. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2025.101801
Yin, S., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., & Wang, S. (2024). Exploring drivers of behavioral willingness to use clean energy to reduce environmental emissions in rural China: An extension of the UTAUT2 model.Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy,16(4), 045903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0211668
Yin, S., Zhao, Y., Hussain, A., & Ullah, K. (2024). Comprehensive evaluation of rural regional integrated clean energy systems considering multi-subject interest coordination with pythagorean fuzzy information. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 138, 109342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024.109342
Zhang L., Chen H.X., Li Z.S., et al. (2024). How ESG Corporate Governance Dimensions Affect Corporate Value: The Mediating Effect Based on Green Technology Innovation. Friends of Accounting, (13), 31-38.
hang X., Zhao Y., Liu X. (2024). Can fintech promote environmental investment in heavily polluting enterprises? Evidence from China. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 1373685-1373685.
Zhang X.X., Ma Z.M. (2022). ESG and high-quality development of listed companies under the dual carbon target: empirical analysis based on the ESG “101” framework. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 22(5), 101-122.
Zhang Y., Yang Z. (2024). Dynamic incentive contracts for ESG investing. Journal of Corporate Finance, 102614-102614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2024.102614
Zhao Y.H. (2023). Institutional Defects and Improvement Path of ESG Information Disclosure of Listed Companies in China. Social Scientist, (11), 77-83.
Zheng C., Xiao F., Zeng C., et al. (2024). A pathway towards corporate sustainability: Does media attention matter?. Heliyon, (14), e34489-e34489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34489
Zhu Q., Huang Z.S., Koompai S. (2024). Digital transformation as a catalyst for green innovation: An Examination of high-tech enterprises in China’s Yangtze River Delta. Sustainable Futures, 100277-100277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100277
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
