高管纵向兼任对企业ESG表现的影响研究
Research on the Impact of Vertical Concurrent Appointment of Executives on Corporate ESG Performance
DOI: 10.12677/wer.2026.154056, PDF,   
作者: 桑晨阳:广西大学中国–东盟经济学院/经济学院/中国–东盟金融合作学院,广西 南宁
关键词: 高管纵向兼任ESG表现公司治理委托代理Vertical Concurrent Appointment of Executives ESG Performance Corporate Governance Principal-Agent
摘要: 在“双碳”目标推进、ESG理念融入资本市场的背景下,ESG已成为衡量企业高质量发展的核心标尺,而公司治理则是决定ESG实践深度的关键变量。高管纵向兼任是我国集团化上市公司的普遍治理安排,兼具协同监督与利益输送双重属性,但其对ESG这类长期非财务绩效的作用逻辑尚未得到系统阐释。文章依托双重代理理论与制度同构理论,从资源挤占、策略扭曲、效率损耗三个维度拆解高管纵向兼任抑制企业ESG表现的传导路径,指出治理边界模糊等四大现实挑战,提出规范兼任管理、完善治理机制、提升披露质量、健全监管体系、推动差异化创新五方面优化路径,为优化集团治理、夯实企业可持续发展根基提供理论参考与实践路径。
Abstract: Against the backdrop of advancing the “dual carbon” goal and the integration of ESG concepts into the capital market, ESG has become a core benchmark for measuring high-quality corporate development, while corporate governance is the key variable determining the depth of ESG practices. Vertical concurrent appointment of executives is a prevalent governance arrangement for group listed companies in China, with dual attributes of collaborative supervision and interest transfer. However, its functional logic for long-term non-financial performance, such as ESG, has not been systematically clarified. Grounded in the dual agency theory and institutional isomorphism theory, this paper dissects the transmission paths through which vertical concurrent appointment of executives suppresses corporate ESG performance from three dimensions: resource crowding-out, strategic distortion, and efficiency loss. It identifies four major practical challenges, including ambiguous governance boundaries, and puts forward optimization approaches from five aspects: standardizing the management of concurrent appointments, improving internal governance mechanisms, enhancing information disclosure quality, perfecting the regulatory system, and promoting differentiated innovation. The findings provide theoretical references and practical guidance for optimizing group governance and consolidating the foundation of corporate sustainable development.
文章引用:桑晨阳. 高管纵向兼任对企业ESG表现的影响研究[J]. 世界经济探索, 2026, 15(4): 554-564. https://doi.org/10.12677/wer.2026.154056

参考文献

[1] 陈仕华, 马超. 企业间高管联结与慈善行为一致性——基于汶川地震后中国上市公司捐款的实证研究[J]. 管理世界, 2011(12): 87-95.
[2] Elkington, J. (1994) Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. California Management Review, 36, 90-100.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41165746
[3] Gillan, S.L., Koch, A. and Starks, L.T. (2021) Firms and Social Responsibility: A Review of ESG and CSR Research in Corporate Finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, Article 101889.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101889
[4] 袁蓉丽, 江纳, 刘梦瑶. ESG研究综述与展望[J]. 财会月刊, 2022(17): 128-134.
[5] Berg, F., Kölbel, J.F. and Rigobon, R. (2022) Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. Review of Finance, 26, 1315-1344.
https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
[6] 孙俊秀, 谭伟杰, 郭峰. 中国主流ESG评级的再评估[J]. 财经研究, 2024, 50(5): 4-18.
[7] Christensen, D.M., Serafeim, G. and Sikochi, A. (2022) Why Is Corporate Virtue in the Eye of the Beholder? The Case of ESG Ratings. The Accounting Review, 97, 147-175.
https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2019-0506
[8] 潘红波, 韩芳芳. 纵向兼任高管、产权性质与会计信息质量[J]. 会计研究, 2016(7): 19-26.
[9] 韩金红, 余珍. 纵向兼任高管与企业投资效率——基于“监督效应”和“掏空效应”分析[J]. 审计与经济研究, 2019, 34(4): 66-74.
[10] 曙光, 马忠. 母子公司间高管纵向兼任与上市公司资本配置效率[J]. 经济与管理研究, 2022, 43(1): 125-144.
[11] 王建琼, 林宝专, 文旭松. 纵向兼任高管、内部控制与会计信息质量关系——基于不同股权结构下的研究[J]. 江汉学术, 2021, 40(2): 43-52.
[12] 宋衍蘅, 毕煜晗, 文雯. “监督效应” vs “掏空效应”: 高管纵向兼任与审计决策[J]. 中央财经大学学报, 2022(11): 52-64.
[13] 张晓燕, 叶婷婷. 纵向兼任高管与企业创新绩效——基于“监督效应”与“掏空效应”的分析[J]. 武汉金融, 2020(6): 62-69.
[14] 胡韬, 李丹, 郭紫明. 高管兼任与企业创新——来自集团型上市公司及其子公司的经验证据[J]. 投资研究, 2020, 39(9): 34-64.
[15] Cai, Y. and Sevilir, M. (2012) Board Connections and M&A Transactions. Journal of Financial Economics, 103, 327-349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.05.017
[16] 郑杲娉, 薛健, 陈晓. 兼任高管与公司价值: 来自中国的经验证据[J]. 会计研究, 2014(11): 24-29.
[17] 张桂玲, 线婷婷, 王林江. 纵向兼任高管、产权性质与企业投资效率[J]. 中央财经大学学报, 2020(2): 51-66.
[18] Ferris, S.P., Jagannathan, M. and Pritchard, A.C. (2003) Too Busy to Mind the Business? Monitoring by Directors with Multiple Board Appointments. The Journal of Finance, 58, 1087-1111.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00559
[19] 闫珍丽, 梁上坤, 包甜甜. 高管纵向兼任与财务报告稳健性[J]. 会计研究, 2024(2): 74-82.
[20] 张长江, 杨昱琪, 兰凯. 董事会独立性、代理成本与上市公司ESG绩效[J]. 会计之友, 2023(23): 51-57.
[21] Dyck, A., Lins, K.V., Roth, L. and Wagner, H.F. (2019) Do Institutional Investors Drive Corporate Social Responsibility? International Evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 131, 693-714.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.08.013
[22] Lyu, S.S., Yang, M.Z. and Zhang, Q.C. (2024) Top Management Team Heterogeneity, Top Management Incentives, and ESG Performance: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies. Sustainability, 16, Article 8036.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188036
[23] 孙冬, 杨硕, 赵雨萱, 等. ESG表现、财务状况与系统性风险相关性研究——以沪深A股电力上市公司为例[J]. 中国环境管理, 2019, 11(2): 37-43.
[24] Cheng, Z. and Han, L. (2025) Environmental and Social Governance Performance and Enterprise Total Factor Productivity. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 30, 1411-1428.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2974
[25] 樊燕萍, 成凯旋, 王汇铢, 张正普. ESG评级分歧对企业债务融资成本的影响研究[J]. 会计之友, 2025(14): 80-87.
[26] Zhang, B., Marita, V., Veijalainen, J., Wang, S. and Kotkov, D. (2016) The Issue Arena of a Corporate Social Responsibility Crisis—The Volkswagen Case in Twitter. Studies in Media and Communication, 4, 32-43.
https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v4i2.1746
[27] Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976) Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x
[28] 邱牧远, 殷红. 生态文明建设背景下企业ESG表现与融资成本[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2019, 36(3): 108-123.
[29] Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Publishing.
[30] North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511808678
[31] Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984) Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258434
[32] 文雯, 宋建波. 高管海外背景与企业社会责任[J]. 管理科学, 2017, 30(2): 119-131.
[33] 陈欣, 纳超洪. 上市公司董事长纵向兼任利与弊[EB/OL]. 2026-03-11.
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1859362738643478960&wfr=spider&for=pc, 2026-06-25.
[34] 闫珍丽, 梁上坤, 袁淳. 高管纵向兼任、制度环境与企业创新[J]. 经济管理, 2019, 41(10): 90-107.
[35] 胡楠, 薛付婧, 王昊楠. 管理者短视主义影响企业长期投资吗?——基于文本分析和机器学习[J]. 管理世界, 2021, 37(5): 139-156+11+19-21.
[36] 彭小珈, 王亚蕾. 管理者短视是否抑制企业ESG表现[J]. 会计之友, 2024(16): 120-127.
[37] 陈梦雅, 李娟, 杨萍. 纵向高管兼任与企业社会责任信息披露[J]. 池州学院学报, 2023, 37(4): 50-54.
[38] 郑贵华, 康程淇, 朱兆阳. ESG表现如何影响企业绿色创新泡沫?——基于中国上市公司的证据[J]. 长春工程学院学报(社会科学版), 2026, 27(2): 34-41.
[39] Liu, G.R., Qian, H., Wu, Q. and Han, F. (2024) Research on the Masking Effect of Vertical Interlock on ESG Greenwashing in the Context of Sustainable Enterprise Development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31, 196-209.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2562
[40] 宋献中, 李光宇. 企业ESG管理体系构建: 理论与实践[J]. 财务与会计, 2026(3): 4-12.