The relationship between corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance and its value has garnered increasing attention in recent times. However, the utilization of ESG scores by rating agencies, a critical intermediary in the linkage between ESG performance and value, presents challenges to ESG research and investment as a result of inherent subjectivity, hysteresis, and discrepant coverage. Fortunately, news can provide an objective, timely, and socially relevant perspective to augment prevailing rating frameworks and alleviate their shortcomings. This study endeavors to scrutinize the influence of ESG-related news on the Chinese stock market, to showcase its efficacy in supplementing the appraisal of ESG performance. The study's findings demonstrate that (1) the stock market is significantly impacted by ESGrelated news; (2) ESG-related news with different attributes (sentiments and sources) have notably diverse effects on the stock market; and (3) the heterogeneity among enterprises (industries and ownership structures) affects their ability to withstand ESGrelated news shocks. This study contributes novel insights to the comprehensive and objective assessment of corporate ESG performance and the management of its media image by providing a vantage point on ESG-related news.

When examining corporate governance in China, it is crucial to recognize the unique socioeconomicstructures and legal systems at play. The mechanisms of corporate governance theorized in the West might not necessarily have the same impact in China. In particular, given China’s distinct feature of the domestic economy and its socio-political structure, the results of introducing a hostile takeover system might not align with common anticipations that scholars and policymakers in China and elsewhere broadly share. In greater detail, this paper highlights the significant market imperfections in the Chinese economy, stemming from information asymmetry, imperfect product markets, and capital-market inefficiency. These market imperfections suggest that an active hostile takeover regime might not function effectively in China, as its disciplinary mechanism operates successfully in other advanced countries. Additionally, this paper underscores that due to China’s distinctive features—including its state-owned corporate landscape, the dominance of controlling shareholders in private corporations’ ownership structures, and its unique brand of socialism—the introduction of an active takeover regime could produce unintended consequences in the Chinese economy. Overall, challenging the prevailing perspective, I posit that within the Chinese hostile takeover framework, corporate governance is not as influential as one might assume.

Despite nearly twenty years of privatization, mixed-ownership reform has been the mainstay of SOE reform in China in recent years. This raises the question of whether the financial performance of mixed-ownership firms (Mixed firms) is better than private-owned enterprises (POEs). Although Mixed firms suffer more from government intervention, unclear property rights, and interest conflicts between state shareholders and private shareholders, they can also benefit from the external resources controlled by the state. Therefore, the performance of Mixed firms is still unclear. Collecting data from the Chinese A-share listed market, we divide the firms into POEs, Mixed firms controlled by the state (MixedSOEs), and Mixed firms controlled by the private sectors (MixedPOEs). Measuring profitability using ROA and ROE, we find that on average, POEs perform better than Mixed firms, and MixedPOEs have a higher profitability than MixedSOEs. Within Mixed firms, more state shares are related to lower profitability, and more private shares are related to higher profitability. Using the NBS survey data, we further find that on average, SOEs exhibit the lowest profitability, with MixedSOEs and MixedPOEs in the middle, and POEs have the highest profitability. We try to address the endogeneity challenge in several ways and get similar results. Overall, our analysis provides new evidence on the financial performance of mixed-ownership firms.

Research has argued that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) should bear more social responsibility than other listed firms, because their own goals include maintaining social stability and promoting social welfare. In contrast with the privatization of SOEs observed in other countries, in China, some listed firms’ major shareholders have become SOEs in recent years. This transition offers a good opportunity to investigate the impact of ownership change on firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR). Using the propensity score matching difference-in-differences method, we document that the CSR performance of these firms does not improve when their ownership structure changes, and it can even worsen. Our results remain robust to a series of tests. Further investigating the underlying economic mechanism, we uncover those political connections, bank financing, and government subsidies play critical roles in determining the negative effect of ownership structure change on public firms, which is consistent with the soft budget constraint framework. In an additional analysis, we find that CSR performance is poor for manufacturing industry firms after ownership structure change. After calculating the frequency of keywords appearing in the annual reports of such firms, we find them to be satisfied with their new SOE background after ownership structure change. Our paper provides a possible explanation for the phenomenon of SOEs becoming major shareholder of listed firms.

The Chinese earnings yield differential relative to the U.S. switches from negative to positive around 2009, with the aggregate variation masking substantial cross-sector variation. Changes in sectoral composition and (changing) growth expectations are not important determinants of the variation in China-U.S. valuation differentials. Instead, changes in ownership structure, and most importantly cross-sectional and temporal variation in financial openness, are the key contributors. In addition, we show that IPOs in the banking sector and its internationalization played a critical role in the (relative) valuation change.

While previous research has delved into the relationship between political uncertainty and the aggregate cross-border flows of capital, there remains a notable gap in our understanding of how political uncertainty affects firm ownership structure within foreign direct investment (FDI) projects, specifically concerning the intensive margin. In this study, we commence by introducing a stylized model, wherein a risk-averse foreign investor teaming up with a local producer is concerned about the political risk associated with the provision of public goods by the local government. Our analysis demonstrates that the foreign investor, acting as a residual claimant, allocates a greater proportion of revenues to the local partner when local policy conditions are more uncertain. This strategic decision indirectly locks in local government commitment to the international joint venture, thereby mitigating the negative influence of political uncertainty. Subsequently, we test our theoretical framework by employing a unique dataset that encompasses city-level political turnovers and firm-level incentive structures in the context of China. The results unveil robust evidence substantiating that uncertainty arising from local political turnover significantly affects the revenue-sharing agreements between foreign investors and their local partners within the international joint production.

In the era of digital economy, although the production (labor) tools of enterprises are digitalized, intelligent, and networked, and new characteristics and scenarios have emerged in enterprise operation and labor methods, the human capital possessed by workers has become the driving force for the sustainable development of entrepreneurial enterprises. Workers who master digital technology play a decisive role in the sustainable and healthy development of entrepreneurial enterprises. The article points out that in the era of digital economy, human capital is a key factor for economic growth and development. In the fields of mixed ownership and private economy, the employment system will gradually "retire", and modern partnership systems will prevail; The modern partnership system can motivate partners to collaborate and innovate, which is an upgrade of the manager system; The article briefly introduces the advantages and disadvantages of the dual ownership structure and the dynamic equity distribution mechanism of start-up companies; And the achievements made by Xiaomi Group, Huawei Company, and Midea Group in implementing a business partnership system.

Using data on Chinese firms with the unique state ownership structure of stateowned enterprises (SOEs), we examine whether institutional investors can help reduce the required returns on equity for SOEs or non-SOEs, and if so, the underlying channels. We find that an increase in the shareholdings of institutions, especially independent institutions, can reduce the required returns. This effect is more prominent in non-SOEs than in SOEs, indicating that state ownership may limit the effect by which institutional investors reduce the required returns. In addition, institutional investors promote corporate social responsibility in invested firms and may thereby reduce the required returns on equity.

We examine whether family firms differ from nonfamily firms in their corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting practice. Using a sample of Chinese firms, we find that, compared to nonfamily firms, family firms are more likely to have a system in place that guides the establishment and development of their CSR activities. Family firms are also more likely to adopt the GRI guidelines, and they disclose significantly more information about their CSR practice. The findings are consistent with the notion that family firms are more long-term oriented, and as a result, they are more concerned about firm reputation and use CSR disclosure as a means to establish and maintain a good reputation and to legitimize their behavior. We further find that the positive relation between family firms and CSR disclosure exists mainly in those firms with relative high state ownership, which helps mitigate government expropriation risk. Our research contributes to the limited literature on the relation between family firms and CSR practice. We also contribute to the literature on the impact of government expropriation risk and its interaction with firm ownership structure on firm behavior.

This paper compares Chinese firms’ IPO performance both in the short- and the long-run on domestic and overseas markets and investigates what factors determine the IPO destinations of Chinese firms. We find China’s domestic IPO market performs well over both time horizons, while some listings in the overseas market perform well in the long run except for small- and mid-cap listings in the US. Analysis based on a capital asset pricing model reveals IPO premiums and short-term returns are less affected by three common risk factors, while longer term returns are mainly driven by market fundamentals. Investigation of the drivers for Chinese firms’ IPO destinations using the binary choice model shows that firm specifics, institutional setups, and market characteristics influence the choice of IPO destinations. The prospect of a high IPO premium and strong trading in IPO shares are substantial drivers for firms to list their shares onshore. On the other hand, indicators of market size and profitability appear to have the highest predictive power for the likelihood of overseas listings, followed by firm’s ownership structure, IPO offering size and IPO underwriting costs. Institutional setups have the least predictive power for overseas listings. These results are in general robust to domestic delisting and IPO suspension events.