在全球可持续发展与“双碳”目标深化的背景下，企业环境、社会与治理（ESG）表现成为衡量长期价值的重要标尺。中国作为全球第二大经济体，在ESG体系建设中呈现出政策驱动与市场机制交织的特征：政策层面，2020年“双碳”目标与2022年《上市公司环境信息披露指引》修订形成制度刚性约束，推动A股ESG披露率从2015年的12%跃升至2023年的42%；市场层面，稳定型机构投资者持股比例年均增长17.3%，媒体ESG报道量复合增长率达24.6%。一方面，中央政府通过顶层设计强化制度刚性，将生态文明建设纳入国家治理现代化框架，构建起环境信息披露、绿色金融改革等政策矩阵；另一方面，资本市场主体通过机构投资者参与和媒体监督等市场化路径，推动ESG实践从被动合规向主动治理转型，这种政策与市场的二元驱动模式，在国有企业与非国有企业间形成差异化实践图景：前者倚重行政力量推动标准化披露，后者则依赖市场声誉机制实现ESG价值转化。当前治理体系面临的核心矛盾在于，政策工具的刚性约束难以完全适配不同行业特性与企业禀赋，而市场力量的治理效能受制于信息不对称与短期逐利倾向，亟待构建更具弹性的协同治理框架。

本文以2015—2023年中国A股上市公司为样本，基于机构投资者与媒体关注视角，探究市场力量与政策环境交互作用下ESG表现的驱动机制。研究发现，机构投资者持股比例对企业ESG表现具有显著正向影响，且稳定型机构投资者持股比例对企业ESG表现的正向影响显著强于交易型机构投资者；媒体关注度对企业ESG表现具有显著正向影响，且媒体积极报道对企业ESG表现的正向影响显著强于媒体消极报道；机构投资者与媒体关注的协同效应对企业ESG表现产生显著正向影响，但国有企业因政策刚性约束弱化协同路径；融资约束缓解是核心中介机制。异质性分析表明，产权性质、行业污染程度与地区差异显著影响治理路径选择，机构投资者与媒体关注对企业ESG表现的协同作用在非国有企业、高污染行业与东部地区更为显著。

基于上述研究结论，本文提出以下建议：政府应通过构建差异化ESG治理框架，强化政策工具与市场机制的协同效能，推动企业ESG实践与可持续发展战略深度融合；机构投资者应优化ESG评估模型，深化ESG整合策略，从“被动规避风险”转向“主动创造价值”；媒体应强化ESG议题的专业化报道能力，探索媒体—资本—企业的协同治理模式，激活ESG生态价值；企业要将ESG治理纳入战略核心，进一步引入稳定型机构投资者，开展长期战略合作，并强化媒体关系管理，探索与媒体、机构投资者共同治理的合作框架。

Against the backdrop of global sustainable development and the deepening of the "dual-carbon" goal, corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance has become an important yardstick for measuring long-term value. As the world's second-largest economy, China's ESG system construction is characterized by the interweaving of policy-driven and market mechanisms. At the policy level, the 2020 “dual-carbon” target and the 2022 revision of “Guidelines on Environmental Information Disclosure for Listed Companies” have formed a system of rigid constraints, which has pushed the ESG disclosure rate of A-share companies from 12% in 2015 to 42% in 2023. At the market level, the shareholding ratio of stabilized institutional investors has increased by 17.3% per annum; the compounded growth rate of media ESG reports has reached 24.6%. On the one hand, the central government strengthens institutional rigidity through top-level design, incorporates the construction of ecological civilization into the framework of national governance modernization, and builds up a matrix of policies, such as environmental information disclosure and green financial reform; on the other hand, capital market entities promote the transformation of ESG practices from passive compliance to active governance through market-oriented paths such as the participation of institutional investors and media supervision, and this duality-driven mode of policy and market in the This dichotomy between policy and market drives a differentiated practice picture between SOEs and non-SOEs: the former relies on administrative forces to promote standardized disclosure, while the latter relies on market reputation mechanisms to realize ESG value transformation. The core contradiction facing the current governance system is that the rigid constraints of policy tools make it difficult to fully adapt to different industry characteristics and corporate endowments, while the governance effectiveness of market forces is constrained by information asymmetry and short-term profit-seeking tendencies, so it is urgent to build a more flexible and synergistic governance framework.

This paper takes A-share listed companies in China from 2015 to 2023 as a sample and constructs a three-dimensional analysis path of "institutional investors-media attention-corporate ESG" to explore the driving mechanism of ESG performance under the interaction of market power and policy environment. We investigate the driving mechanism of ESG performance under the interaction of market forces and policy environment. The study finds that stable institutional investors significantly improve corporate ESG performance through long-term governance participation, and the increase of their shareholding ratio has a significant positive impact on corporate ESG performance, while trading institutions weaken governance effectiveness due to short-term arbitrage tendency; media attention promotes corporate ESG performance through the dual mechanism of monitoring pressure and information transmission, and the strength of media sentiment tendency is significantly higher than that of quantitative indicators; there is a "one-way" relationship between institutional investors and media attention, and there is a "one-way" relationship between institutional investors and media attention. There is a "governance multiplier effect" between institutional investors and media attention, and the synergistic and complementary effects of the two can enhance the ESG performance of enterprises, and the alleviation of financing constraints is the core intermediary mechanism, but the synergistic path is weakened in state-owned enterprises due to the rigid constraints of the policy and the synergistic effect is more significant in non-state-owned enterprises and high-pollution industries. Heterogeneity analysis shows that the degree of marketization, the intensity of industry regulation, and regional resource endowment differences significantly affect the choice of governance paths, and the contribution of institutional investors and media attention to the ESG performance of firms is more pronounced in non-state-owned enterprises, high-pollution industries, and the eastern region.

This study breaks through the single perspective of traditional ESG research, reveals the logic of dynamic balance between policy and market under the emerging market system, and provides data support and practical inspiration for the construction of an ESG governance system with Chinese characteristics. Based on the results of the study, this paper puts forward the following recommendations: the government should build a differentiated ESG governance framework, strengthen the synergistic effectiveness of policy tools and market mechanisms, and promote the in-depth integration of corporate ESG practices and sustainable development strategies; institutional investors should optimize the ESG assessment model, deepen the ESG integration strategy, and shift from "passive risk avoidance" to "active risk avoidance"; and institutional investors should optimize the ESG assessment model and deepen the ESG integration strategy. Institutional investors should optimize ESG assessment models, deepen ESG integration strategies, and shift from "passive risk avoidance" to "active value creation"; the media should strengthen the professional reporting capacity of ESG issues, explore the synergistic governance model of media-capital-corporate, and activate the ecological value of ESG; and corporations should integrate ESG governance into the core of their strategies and further introduce stable institutions. Enterprises should incorporate ESG governance into the core of their strategies, further introduce stable institutional investors, carry out long-term strategic cooperation, strengthen media relationship management, and explore a cooperative framework of joint governance with the media and institutional investors.

[1]孙帆,黄天鉴.机构投资者委派董事对企业ESG表现的影响研究——兼论不同类型机构委派董事的差异[J/OL].证券市场导报,1-10[2025-03-25].

[2]余静文,欧阳益知,王兆霖.债券市场对外开放与企业ESG表现：基于债券通的研究[J].世界经济研究,2024,(12):118-132+135.

[3]陈晶璞,李艳萍.媒体关注度视角的环境绩效与财务绩效关系研究——基于中国上市公司的经验证据[J].财会通讯,2014,(27):106-108.

[4]何丽梅,朱红.机构投资者视角的社会责任信息决策有用性研究[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2012,(05):114-120.

[5]尹筑嘉,阳欣珈,陈为,等.共同机构投资者抱团能提升企业社会责任吗?——基于信息效应和治理效应的研究[J/OL].系统工程理论与实践,1-20[2025-03-25].

[6]张伟伟,张景静,赵宇.ESG信息摩擦与收益可预测性：ESG评级分歧的新证据[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2024,34(12):98-107.

[7]李笑冲,王静,黄银,等.境外机构投资者持股对企业ESG表现的影响研究[J/OL].科研管理,1-18[2025-03-25].

[8]杨波,赵攀雨,彭昊雯.高管新闻报道的媒体情绪能影响企业ESG表现吗?——基于A股上市公司的实证研究[J].东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2024,26(06):72-86+148.

[9]顾海峰,马远冰.机构投资者持股会影响企业风险承担吗——基于中国A股上市公司的证据[J/OL].金融经济学研究,1-17[2025-03-25].

[10]曾婉晴,杨永忠.会计信息质量、机构投资者持股与企业价值[J].财会通讯,2024,(21):25-28.

[11]卢盛峰,郭珈汝,黄坤.地方政府债务管理体制改革与企业ESG表现——基于双重机器学习模型的因果推断[J].财经问题研究,2024,(11):76-88.

[12]庄雷,李凰.投资者偏好、ESG表现与企业绿色创新[J].生态经济,2025,41(03):86-94.

[13]于明涛,厉笑萌.ESG表现对企业跨国并购绩效的影响研究——基于融资约束和整合能力的视角[J].武汉金融,2024,(10):31-38+22.

[14]游战武,欧阳鹂,唐洋.媒体关注、ESG表现与企业价值创造——基于A股重污染行业的经验数据[J].湖南财政经济学院学报,2024,40(05):63-73.

[15]孙秀峰,王金丽,张文龙.家族涉入、机构投资者与企业社会责任履行——基于fsQCA的分析[J].大连理工大学学报(社会科学版),2024,45(05):54-64.

[16]倪志兴,陈嘉滢,李增福.社保基金投资与企业ESG表现[J].金融经济学研究,2024,39(06):108-123.

[17]沈玥.ESG表现与企业违约风险——基于媒体关注度的声誉保护效应[J].时代经贸,2024,21(08):107-112.

[18]强国令,冯萧.控股股东股权质押与企业ESG表现：“强化治理”还是“利益侵占”[J].财会月刊,2024,45(15):58-65.

[19]金丹红,刘春燕.企业社会责任对财务绩效的影响研究——基于媒体关注和融资约束的中介效应[J].对外经贸,2024,(07):70-74.

[20]王怀明,李聪.机构投资者、媒体关注与企业ESG表现的影响关系[J].中国乡镇企业会计,2025,(04):107-109.

[21]何德旭,申程程,徐子尧.企业数字化、ESG表现与高质量发展[J].经济学动态,2024,(07):21-37.

[22]牛舒扬.媒体视角下ESG表现对企业财务绩效的影响[J].中国乡镇企业会计,2024,(06):133-135.

[23]李天悦.ESG表现、媒体关注和债务融资成本的影响研究[J].经济研究导刊,2024,(09):112-115.

[24]孙帆,杜勇,王晓萱.共同机构投资者的研究脉络及其展望[J].华东经济管理,2025,39(03):83-91.

[25]王丹妮.数字化转型、媒体关注度对企业ESG表现的影响研究[J].企业改革与管理,2024,(08):3-6.DOI:10.13768/j.cnki.cn11-3793/f.2024.0394.

[26]刘晓慧,陈艳.ESG表现与企业创新——基于绿色金融改革的调节作用[J].统计与决策,2024,40(07):183-188.

[27]王高翔.产业政策影响了企业ESG表现吗？[J].财会通讯,2024,(08):26-30.

[28]郭檬楠,田雨薇.生态环保审计能提高企业ESG表现吗？[J].审计研究,2024,(02):35-46.

[29]张辉,油永华.ESG表现如何影响企业高质量发展?——兼论媒体关注的调节作用[J].河北科技大学学报(社会科学版),2024,24(02):19-27.

[30]邓楚瑶,林志军,张启迪.机构投资者持股会影响企业ESG表现吗?——来自中国上市公司的证据[J].湖南师范大学自然科学学报,2024,47(03):120-127+136.

[31]阳镇,王越.海归高管会改善企业ESG表现吗？[J].上海对外经贸大学学报,2024,31(02):88-110.

[32]何诚颖,吕越,冯鲍.企业ESG表现对股价波动的影响——基于市场参与者行为的分析[J].财贸经济,2025,46(02):103-122.

[33]付业林,喻寅昀,张帆顺,等.考虑偏好差异的企业环境、社会和公司治理(ESG)综合排序[J].系统科学与数学,2024,44(02):342-354.

[34]王凯,丁宁,高皓,等.机构投资者网络团体如何影响企业ESG表现？[J].研究与发展管理,2024,36(01):14-26.

[35]宋岩,吴佳璇.数字化转型与企业ESG表现——基于媒体关注度与高管过度自信的双重视角[J].重庆社会科学,2024,(01):88-100.

[36]谭琳,刘江涛.大股东并存与企业ESG表现[J].当代财经,2024,(06):84-97.陈汉明,耿在强.上市公司ESG表现与企业绩效关系研究——基于媒体关注度和高管年龄双重视角[J].现代商业,2025,(02):115-118.

[37]黄哲,吕江林,朱小能.企业数字化转型抑制了机构投资者羊群行为吗[J].财会月刊,2023,44(22):125-135.

[38]文雯,施嘉妮,张晓亮.国有机构投资者能提升企业ESG表现吗——来自“国家队”持股的经验证据[J].金融与经济,2023,(08):17-27+42.

[39]范云朋,孟雅婧,胡滨.企业ESG表现与债务融资成本——理论机制和经验证据[J].经济管理,2023,45(08):123-144.

[40]刘成,徐向真.企业ESG表现、机构投资者与组织韧性[J].武汉金融,2023,(08):50-58.

[41]王浩宇.资本市场开放会提高企业可持续发展能力吗？——基于企业ESG表现的研究[J].财经问题研究,2023,(07):116-129.

[42]钟顺云.媒体关注度对企业ESG表现的影响研究——基于上市企业的经验证据[J].商业观察,2025,11(03):96-102.

[43]石华军,张冶秋.分析师关注、媒体报道与企业ESG表现——来自中国制造业的证据[J].甘肃金融,2023,(06):21-27+78.

[44]徐天丽.共同机构投资者持股与企业投资决策[D].上海财经大学,2023.

[45]刘剑锋.国有股东持股对ESG表现的影响研究[D].中央财经大学,2023.

[46]周静.媒体关注与重污染行业上市公司ESG表现研究[J].中国林业经济,2023,(03):46-52.

[47]雷雷,张大永,姬强.共同机构持股与企业ESG表现[J].经济研究,2023,58(04):133-151.

[48]何青,庄朋涛.共同机构投资者如何影响企业ESG表现？[J].证券市场导报,2023,(03):3-12.

[49]张宏亮,周宇彤,王靖宇.机构投资者持股与企业创新质量——基于非线性视角的研究[J].南京审计大学学报,2023,20(01):49-59.

[50]谢诗蕾,周波兰.ESG绩效、投资者关注与企业信息披露质量——基于年报文本挖掘的分析[J].中国注册会计师,2022,(10):54-61.

[51]白雄,朱一凡,韩锦绵.ESG表现、机构投资者偏好与企业价值[J].统计与信息论坛,2022,37(10):117-128.

[52]王蓉.企业ESG表现与非效率投资水平研究[J].企业经济,2022,41(06):89-100.

[53]吴春贤,朱生霞.共同机构投资者持股与企业商业信用供给[J].金融发展研究,2024,(12):43-56.

[54]金缦.机构投资者的ESG偏好对绿色创新价值的影响[J].金融理论与实践,2022,(01):65-75.

[55]全晶晶.机构投资者持股与企业社会责任信息披露[J].经济问题,2022,(01):39-46.

[56]袁业虎,熊笑涵.上市公司ESG表现与企业绩效关系研究——基于媒体关注的调节作用[J].江西社会科学,2021,41(10):68-77.

[57]袁雅静,李向前.机构投资者持股与企业社会责任的非线性关系——基于美国1699家公司数据的分析[J].现代财经(天津财经大学学报),2021,41(01):78-97.

[58]周方召,潘婉颖,付辉.上市公司ESG责任表现与机构投资者持股偏好——来自中国A股上市公司的经验证据[J].科学决策,2020,(11):15-41.

[59]Du J ,Zhu R ,Ye Q .Managers' overconfidence, institutional investors' shareholding, and corporate ESG performance[J].Finance Research Letters,2025,72106594-106594.

[60]Guo X ,Pang W .The impact of digital transformation on corporate ESG performance[J].Finance Research Letters,2025,72106518-106518.

[61]Drobetz W ,Ghoul E S ,Guedhami O , et al.Entrepreneurial finance and sustainability: Do institutional investors impact the ESG performance of SMEs?[J].Journal of Business Venturing Insights,2024,22e00498-e00498.

[62]Ma W ,Wu J ,Wu J .Corporate litigation risk, institutional investor shareholding and corporate ESG performance[J].International Review of Economics and Finance,2024,95103448-103448.

[63]Liu Y ,Jin M X ,Ly C K , et al.The relationship between heterogeneous institutional investors’ shareholdings and corporate ESG performance: Evidence from China[J].Research in International Business and Finance,2024,71102457-102457.

[64]Rong X ,Kim I M .ESG and the Cost of Debt: Role of Media Coverage[J].Sustainability, 2024, 16(12):4993-4993.

[65]Xu X ,Zhang C .How does stock market react to environmental penalty announcements?[J].Environmental science and pollution research international,2024,31(29):41873-41892.

[66]Sun Y ,Zhao Z .Responsible investment: Institutional shareholders and ESG performance[J].Pacific-Basin Finance Journal,2024,85102357-.

[67]Silanes D LF ,McCaheryJ ,PudschedlP .Institutional Investors and ESG Preferences[J].Corporate Governance: An International Review,2024,32(6):1060-1086.

[68]Arduino R F ,Buchetti B ,Harasheh M .The veil of secrecy: Family firms’ approach to ESG transparency and the role of institutional investors[J].Finance Research Letters,2024,62(PB): 105243-.

[69]Wei F ,Zhou L .Do state-owned enterprises prefer capital from private enterprises with better ESG performance? Evidence from China's mixed ownership reforms[J].Finance Research Letters,2024, 62(PA):105067-.

[70]FengJ ,TangS ,ZhongJ .Can corporate environmental, social, and governance performance influence foreign institutional investors to hold shares? Evidence from China[J].Business Strategy and the Environment,2024,33(5):4310-4330.

[71]Shailesh R ,Kuldeep S ,Jagjeevan K .Firm's value and ESG: the moderating role of ownership concentration and corporate disclosures[J].Asian Review of Accounting,2024,32(1):70-90.

[72]Jin C ,Monfort A ,Chen F , et al.Institutional investor ESG activism and corporate green innovation against climate change: Exploring differences between digital and non-digital firms[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,2024,200123129-.

[73]Dong X .Research on the Impact of Media Attention on Corporate ESG Performance-based on the Mediating Effect of Green Innovation[J].Academic Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 2024,6(1):1-6.

[74]ZhouY ,ChenL ,ZhangY , et al."Environmental disclosure greenwashing" and corporate value: The premium effect and premium devalue of environmental information[J].Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,2023,31(3):2424-2438.

[75]ianwei X ,Shuxin L .The impact of corporate environmental responsibility on green technology innovation: An empirical analysis of listed companies in China's construction industry[J].Energy & Buildings,2023,301

[76]Shanglei C ,Mengjun C ,Qiang L , et al.Exploring the nexus between ESG disclosure and corporate sustainable growth: Moderating role of media attention[J].Finance Research Letters,2023,58(PC):

[77]SunZ ,WangW ,WangW , et al.How does digital transformation affect corporate social responsibility performance? From the dual perspective of internal drive and external governance [J].Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,2023,31(2): 1156-1176.

[78]Jinlin Z ,Yaohui J ,Yadong C , et al.Green bond issuance and corporate ESG performance:Steps toward green and low-carbon development[J].Research in International Business and Finance, 2023,66