我国经济目前已经进入高质量发展阶段，要求企业不仅要追求经济效益，还要对周围环境和利益相关者负责。ESG是从环境（Environment）、社会责任（Social）和公司治理（Government）三个维度来衡量企业可持续发展能力的指标。自从2004年首次被联合国全球契约计划提出以来，ESG已成为一种新的发展趋势，越来越多的企业家开始意识到ESG信息披露的重要性。相关研究表明，企业披露ESG信息，能满足各方需求，促进企业的长远发展。但我国ESG信息披露尚处于起步阶段，较少企业发布ESG报告，总体ESG评分虽有所上升，但普遍不高，和国际先进水平存在较大差距。披露评分较低的企业是在哪些方面做得不够好？这一披露情况会给上市企业带来怎样的效应？这类企业应该采取哪些措施来改善现状？这是本文的研究目的所在。

橡胶和塑料制品业是国民经济中的重要组成部分，产品广泛应用于各种领域，市场前景广阔，但生产过程中产生的污染物容易对周围环境造成严重影响，因此行业内企业的ESG信息披露情况备受社会关注。目前橡胶和塑料制品业ESG信息披露率始终低于全部上市公司ESG信息披露率，说明行业整体对ESG信息披露的重要性认识不足。本文选择橡胶和塑料制品业的领先企业银禧科技作为案例研究对象，在梳理国内外相关文献的基础上，以利益相关者理论、信息不对称理论和委托代理理论为依据，从环境（E）、社会责任（S）和公司治理（G）三个方面分析银禧科技ESG信息披露现状，并从融资约束、投资效率和财务绩效三个角度进行ESG信息披露的效应研究，通过横纵向比较，最终得出以下结论：银禧科技ESG信息披露质量较差，在环境（E）、社会责任（S）和公司治理（G）方面表现不佳，较多信息并未披露，未来仍有很大的提升空间；银禧科技ESG信息披露主要存在披露主观性较强、信息可比性较差、负面信息披露较少和披露前瞻性不足四方面问题；ESG信息披露会产生效应，ESG信息披露质量较差的企业融资约束较大、投资效率较差、财务绩效不佳。最后从企业、投资者和监管部门三个角度提出改进建议，企业应当提高ESG信息披露管理水平，投资者应当提升对ESG信息披露的认知水平，监管部门应当加强对企业ESG信息披露的监督，进而促进我国ESG信息披露的发展。本文希望通过对实际案例的研究，为ESG信息披露的理论体系提供了一定的现实依据，并促使利益相关者加强对企业ESG信息披露的关注，提高企业的披露意识，从而促进企业可持续发展，具有一定的理论和现实意义。

Chinese economy has entered a stage of high-quality development, requiring enterprises not only to pursue economic benefits, but also to be responsible for the surrounding environment and stakeholders. ESG is an indicator to measure the sustainable development ability of enterprises from three dimensions: Environment, Social responsibility and corporate governance. Since it was first proposed by the United Nations Global Compact program in 2004, ESG has become a new development trend, and more and more entrepreneurs are beginning to realize the importance of ESG information disclosure. Relevant studies show that the disclosure of ESG information can meet the needs of all parties and promote the long-term development of enterprises. However, China's ESG information disclosure is still in its infancy, and fewer enterprises release ESG reports. Although the overall ESG score has increased, it is generally not high, and there is a big gap between the international advanced level. Where are companies with low disclosure scores falling short? What effect will this disclosure bring to listed companies? What should such companies do to improve the situation? This is the purpose of this paper.

Rubber and plastic products industry is an important part of the national economy, the products are widely used in various fields, the market prospects are broad, but the pollutants generated in the production process are easy to cause serious impact on the surrounding environment, so the ESG information disclosure of enterprises in the industry has attracted social attention. At present, the ESG information disclosure rate of the rubber and plastic products industry is always lower than the ESG information disclosure rate of all listed companies, indicating that the industry as a whole has insufficient understanding of the importance of ESG information disclosure. This paper chooses Yinxi Technology, a leading enterprise in the rubber and plastic products industry, as the case study object. Based on the review of relevant literatures at home and abroad, based on stakeholder theory, information asymmetry theory and principal-agent theory, the paper analyzes the current situation of ESG information disclosure of Yinxi Technology from three aspects: environment (E), social responsibility (S) and corporate governance (G).The effects of ESG information disclosure are studied from the perspectives of financing constraints, investment efficiency and financial performance. Through horizontal and vertical comparison, the following conclusions are finally drawn: The quality of ESG information disclosure of Yinxi Technology is poor, and its performance is poor in the aspects of environment (E), social responsibility (S) and corporate governance (G). More information is not disclosed, and there is still a great room for improvement in the future. The ESG information disclosure of Yinxi Technology mainly has four problems: strong subjectivity, poor comparability of information, less negative information disclosure and less forward-looking disclosure. ESG information disclosure will produce effects, and enterprises with poor quality of ESG information disclosure have greater financing constraints, poor investment efficiency and poor financial performance. Finally, it puts forward improvement suggestions from the perspectives of enterprises, investors and regulatory authorities. Enterprises should improve the management level of ESG information disclosure, investors should improve the cognition level of ESG information disclosure, and regulatory authorities should strengthen the supervision of enterprise ESG information disclosure, so as to promote the development of ESG information disclosure in China. Through the study of practical cases, this paper hopes to provide a certain realistic basis for the theoretical system of ESG information disclosure, and urge stakeholders to pay more attention to ESG information disclosure of enterprises, improve the awareness of disclosure of enterprises, and thus promote the sustainable development of enterprises, which has certain theoretical and practical significance.

[1]安然,陈艺毛.企业ESG表现、研发投入与出口绩效提升[J].经济纵横,2023(08):98-106.

[2]曹亚勇,于丽丽.政府控制、社会责任与投资效率：2009～2011年上市公司样本[J].改革,2013(07):127-135.

[3]陈承,王宗军,叶云.信号理论视角下企业社会责任信息披露对财务绩效的影响研究[J].管理学报,2019,16(03):408-417.

[4]陈西婵.企业社会责任信息披露、媒体关注与企业绩效[J].财会通讯,2018(03):31-34.

[5]崔兴华,林明裕.FDI如何影响企业的绿色全要素生产率?——基于Malmquist-Luenberger指数和PSM-DID的实证分析[J].经济管理,2019,41(03):38-55.

[6]代文,董一楠.环境信息披露、债权融资与企业投资效率——来自A股重污染上市公司的经验数据[J].财会通讯,2016(12):37-39.

[7]窦欢,曾建光,王鹏.同业竞争、公司治理与投资效率[J].经济与管理研究,2018,39(04):110-122.

[8]高建来,彭雅丽.内源融资、投资活动与企业绩效——基于智能制造企业的实证研究[J].财会通讯,2021(11):79-83+89.

[9]郭毓东,洪扬.环境信息披露、管理层能力与融资约束——基于我国重污染行业上市公司的经验数据[J].武汉金融,2022(11):33-41.

[10]韩金红,姜云燕.社会责任信息披露与企业投资效率——基于新疆上市企业的经验证据[J].财会通讯,2020(08):75-79.

[11]韩静,方洋,刘树园.环境信息披露对投资效率的影响研究——基于重污染行业的分析[J].中国注册会计师,2021(08):50-56.

[12]洪敏,张涛,张柯贤.企业社会责任信息披露与资本配置效率——基于强制性信息披露的准自然实验[J].哈尔滨商业大学学报(社会科学版),2019(04):54-64.

[13]贾娟娟,李健.企业社会责任与财务绩效关系分析及研究方法异质性影响——基于单臂Meta-分析报告[J].中国注册会计师,2022(10):70-77.

[14]姜英兵,崔广慧.企业环境责任承担能够提升企业价值吗?——基于工业企业的经验证据[J].证券市场导报,2019(08):24-34.

[15]孔凡峰.内部控制缺陷与债务成本——基于财务信息质量视角[J].广东商学院学报,2012,27(03):75-82.

[16]李桂荣,温绍涵,王乐娜.不同产权性质的企业履行环境责任对企业价值的影响研究——来自重污染行业上市公司的经验数据[J].河北经贸大学学报,2019,40(05):92-100.

[17]李井林,阳镇,陈劲,崔文清.ESG促进企业绩效的机制研究——基于企业创新的视角[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2021,42(09):71-89.

[18]李井林,阳镇,易俊玲.ESG表现有助于降低企业债务融资成本吗?——来自上市公司的微观证据[J].企业经济,2023,42(02):89-99.

[19]李鑫,廖原.ESG评级体系的差异与优化研究——来自彭博和万得的证据[J].金融监管研究,2023(07):64-77.

[20]李志斌,邵雨萌,李宗泽,李敏诗.ESG信息披露、媒体监督与企业融资约束[J].科学决策,2022(07):1-26.

[21]廉永辉,何晓月,张琳.企业ESG表现与债务融资成本[J].财经论丛,2023(01):48-58.

[22]刘东晓,彭晨宸.政府监管、碳信息披露与融资约束[J].财会通讯,2018(27):17-23+129.

[23]刘京焕,朱泓锟,谢立成.纳税信用评级与中小企业债务融资[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2022(05):44-55+83.

[24]刘俊海.论公司ESG信息披露的制度设计：保护消费者等利益相关者的新视角[J].法律适用,2023(05):18-31.

[25]刘银国,朱龙.公司治理与企业价值的实证研究[J].管理评论,2011,23 (02):45-52.

[26]吕菊,曾华锋.环境信息披露、股权集中度与投资效率关系研究[J].中国物价,2023(06):73-76.

[27]马险峰,王骏娴,秦二娃.上市公司的ESG信披制度[J].中国金融,2016(16):33-34.

[28]潘健平,翁若宇,潘越.企业履行社会责任的共赢效应——基于精准扶贫的视角[J].金融研究,2021(07):134-153.

[29]钱明,徐光华,沈弋.社会责任信息披露、会计稳健性与融资约束——基于产权异质性的视角[J].会计研究,2016(05):9-17+95.

[30]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(03):108-123.

[31]阮刚铭,魏宇方舟,官峰.慈善捐赠、社会资本与融资约束[J].会计与经济研究,2019,33(03): 79-91.

[32]石璋铭,谢存旭.银行竞争、融资约束与战略性新兴产业技术创新[J].宏观经济研究,2015(08):117-126.

[33]谭思铭,张慧颖.企业环境信息披露水平、污染性行业特征与财务绩效[J].天津大学学报(社会科学版),2024,26(01):75-82.

[34]陶克涛,郭欣宇,孙娜.绿色治理视域下的企业环境信息披露与企业绩效关系研究——基于中国67家重污染上市公司的证据[J].中国软科学,2020(02):108-119.

[35]田敏,李纯青,陈艺妮,陶娜,吕美.企业不道德行为对消费者评价的影响——基于道德脱钩的中介和消费者权力的调节[J].管理评论,2021,33(04):180-192.

[36]王凯,张志伟.国内外ESG评级现状、比较及展望[J].财会月刊,2022(02):137-143.

[37]王琳璘,廉永辉,董捷.ESG表现对企业价值的影响机制研究[J].证券市场导报,2022(05): 23-34.

[38]王铭利,陆峰.地域特征、内部治理结构与企业经营绩效研究[J].中国注册会计师,2021(11):73-77.

[39]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.

[40]王双进,田原,党莉莉.工业企业ESG责任履行、竞争战略与财务绩效[J].会计研究,2022(03):77-92.

[41]王雅琴.上市公司治理能力、信息披露质量对财务绩效影响研究[J].价格理论与实践,2022(03):106-109.

[42]王艺明,刘一鸣.慈善捐赠、政治关联与私营企业融资行为[J].财政研究,2018(06):54-69.

[43]吴超鹏,吴世农,程静雅,王璐.风险投资对上市公司投融资行为影响的实证研究[J].经济研究,2012,47(01):105-119+160.

[44]吴红军.环境信息披露、环境绩效与权益资本成本[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014(03):129-138.

[45]吴景泰,刘秋明.投资效率视角下公司治理与企业绩效关系研究[J].会计之友,2019(01):84-89.

[46]吴文洋,唐绅峰,韦施威.社会责任、媒体关注与企业财务风险——基于中国上市公司的经验证据[J].管理学刊,2022,35(01):124-141.

[47]席龙胜,王岩.企业ESG信息披露与股价崩盘风险[J].经济问题,2022(08):57-64.

[48]项东,魏荣建.ESG信息披露、媒体关注与企业绿色创新[J].武汉金融,2022(09):61-71.

[49]徐光华,卓瑶瑶,张艺萌,张佳怡.ESG信息披露会提高企业价值吗?[J].财会通讯,2022(04):33-37.

[50]许林,林思宜,钱淑芳.环境信息披露、绿色技术创新对融资约束的缓释效应[J].证券市场导报,2021(09):23-33.

[51]闫立东.我国ESG评价体系中环境评价应用的建议[J].环境保护,2019,47(07):45-48.

[52]闫一石.管理层能力、内部控制缺陷与融资约束关系的实证研究——基于产权性质和股权激励的调节[J].预测,2020,39(04):24-30.

[53]严武,孔雯.企业社会责任、CEO权力与投资效率[J].金融与经济,2022(11):45-55.

[54]杨皖苏,杨善林.中国情境下企业社会责任与财务绩效关系的实证研究——基于大、中小型上市公司的对比分析[J].中国管理科学,2016,24(01):143-150.

[55]杨毅,弓慧婷.内部控制缺陷披露与债务融资成本——基于内部控制审计与金融生态环境的调节效应[J].财会通讯,2021(17):48-52.

[56]叶陈刚,裘丽,张立娟.公司治理结构、内部控制质量与企业财务绩效[J].审计研究,2016(02):104-112.

[57]余珍,周磊.数字金融如何影响企业股权融资成本?——机制检验、异质性特征与经济后果[J].财会通讯,2022(03):57-60.

[58]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.

[59]张琛,陈彦彤,成飞.管理层讨论与分析中环境信息披露有效性研究——基于所有权性质与媒体治理的视角[J].经济问题,2019(10):121-129.

[60]张会丽,张妮.ESG表现影响企业债务契约吗?——来自我国A股上市公司的经验证据[J].财务研究,2022(06):91-103.

[61]张立民,李琰.持续经营审计意见、公司治理和企业价值——基于财务困境公司的经验证据[J].审计与经济研究,2017,32(02):13-23.

[62]张琳,赵海涛.企业环境、社会和公司治理(ESG)表现影响企业价值吗?——基于A股上市公司的实证研究[J].武汉金融,2019(10):36-43.

[63]张平淡,王纯,张惠琳.推动环境信息披露能改善投资效率吗?[J].中国环境管理,2020,12(05):110-114.

[64]张巧良,孙蕊娟.ESG信息披露模式与投资者决策中的锚定效应[J].财会通讯,2015(29):26-28+129.

[65]张银灵.非控股股东参与、公司治理水平与非效率投资[J].财会通讯,2019(18):43-47.

[66]赵雨豪.我国上市公司ESG信息披露的制度缺陷及完善路径[J].社会科学家,2023(11):77-83.

[67]朱清香,郭欢,李小青.社会责任表现对企业价值的影响机制研究——基于会计稳健性的中介作用[J].预测,2019,38(03):52-57.

[68]Freeman RE. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach[M]. Pitman Pubilshing Inc, 1984.

[69]Abeer Hassan, Xin Guo. The relationships between reporting format, environmental disclosure and environmental performance[J]. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 2017, 18(4): 425-444.

[70]Ali Ahmadi, Abdelfettah Bouri. The relationship between financial attributes, environmental performance and environmental disclosure[J]. Management of Environmental Quality, 2017, 28(4): 490-506.

[71]Anwar Rehana, Malik Jaleel A. When Does Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Affect Investment Efficiency? A New Answer to an Old Question[J]. SAGE Open, 2020, 10(2).

[72]Bahadori Negar, Kaymak Turhan, Seraj Mehdi. Environmental, social, and governance factors in emerging markets: The impact on firm performance[J]. Business Strategy & Development, 2021, 4(4): 411-422.

[73]Beiting Cheng, Ioannis Ioannou, George Serafeim. Corporate social responsibility and access to finance[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2014, 35(1): 1-23.

[74]Benlemlih Mohammed, Bitar Mohammad. Corporate Social Responsibility and Investment Efficiency[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2018, 148(3): 647-671.

[75]Carmelo Cennamo, Pascual Berrone, Luis R. Gomez-Mejia. Does Stakeholder Management Have a Dark Side?[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2009, 89(4): 491-507.

[76]Charl de Villiers, Chris J. van Staden. Shareholders’ requirements for corporate environmental disclosures: A cross country comparison[J]. The British Accounting Review, 2010, 42(4): 227-240.

[77]Chitra Sriyani De Silva Lokuwaduge, Kumudini Heenetigala. Integrating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Disclosure for a Sustainable Development: An Australian Study[J]. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2017, 26(4): 438-450.

[78]Dan Dhaliwal, Chris Hogan, Robert Trezevant, Michael Wilkins. Internal Control Disclosures, Monitoring, and the Cost of Debt[J]. The Accounting Review, 2011, 86(4): 1131-1156.

[79]David Tantow. Urban improvement districts in urban restructuring – first results of the German ESG research initiative[J]. Urban Research & Practice, 2012, 5(3): 342-352.

[80]Eccles Robert G., Lee Linda Eling, Stroehle Judith C. The Social Origins of ESG: An Analysis of Innovest and KLD[J]. Organization & Environment, 2019, 33(4): 108602661988899.

[81]Elena Escrig-Olmedo, María Ángeles Fernández-Izquierdo, Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero, Juana María Rivera-Lirio, María Jesús Muñoz-Torres. Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integrate Sustainability Principles[J]. Sustainability, 2019, 11(3): 915.

[82]Fallatah Yaser. Corporate governance and firm performance and value in Saudi Arabia[J]. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, 2012, 36(6): 10025-10034.

[83]Lin Li. Encouraging Environmental Accounting Worldwide: A Survey of Government Policies and Instruments[J]. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 2001, 8(1): 55-64.

[84]Marlene Plumlee, Darrell Brown, Rachel M. Hayes, R. Scott Marshall. Voluntary environmental disclosure quality and firm value: Further evidence[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2015, 34(4): 336-361.

[85]Michael Spence. Job market signaling[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1973, 87(3): 355-374.

[86]Olaf Weber. Environmental, Social and Governance Reporting in China[J]. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2014, 23(5): 303-317.

[87]Parfitt Claire. ESG Integration Treats Ethics as Risk, but Whose Ethics and Whose Risk? Responsible Investment in the Context of Precarity and Risk-Shifting[J]. Critical Sociology, 2020, 46(4-5): 573-587.

[88]Richard Fairchild, Yilmaz Guney, Yordying Thanatawee. Corporate dividend policy in Thailand: Theory and evidence[J]. International Review of Financial Analysis, 2014(31): 129-151.

[89]Richard Miller. Motivating and Managing Knowledge Workers [J]. Measuring Effectiveness, 2019(3): 22-34.

[90]Sadok El Ghoul, Omrane Guedhami, Chuck C.Y. Kwok, Dev R. Mishra. Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital?[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance, 2011, 35(9): 2388-2406.

[91]Scott Richardson. Over-investment of free cash flow[J]. Review of Accounting Studies, 2006, 11(2-3): 159-189.

[92]Thomas W. Bates. Asset Sales, Investment Opportunities, and the Use of Proceeds[J]. The Journal of Finance, 2005, 60(1): 105-135.

[93]Toni M. Whited, Guojun Wu. Financial Constraints Risk[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2006, 19(2): 531-559.

[94]Xiaopeng Wang, Xueyao Shen, Yongliang Yang. Does Environmental Information Disclosure Make Firms’ Investments More Efficient? Evidence from Measure 2007 of Chinese A-Listed Companies[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(5): 1895.

[95]Xin Deng, Jun-koo Kang, Buen Sin Low. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2013, 110(1): 87-109.

[96]Yogesh Chauhan, Surya Bhushan Kumar. The value relevance of nonfinancial disclosure: Evidence from foreign equity investment[J]. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 2019, 52-53(C): 100595-100595.