Against the backdrop of recurrent global crises, economic uncertainty, and mounting environmental and social pressures, corporate resilience—defined as a firm’s capability to withstand external systemic shocks—has emerged as a critical determinant of long-term sustainability. This study empirically exames the effect of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) performance on corporate resilience in China’s A-share market, using the COVID-19 pandemic as a natural experiment to identify causal effects. The sample comprises 651 A-share listed firms, excluding financial institutions, real estate firms, and ST/*ST companies, over the period from January 20, 2020, when the pandemic was officially announced in China, to June 30, 2024. ESG performance is measured as the average of 2018–2019 ratings issued by three major domestic agencies, thereby capturing firms’ pre-shock conditions and mitigating concerns of reverse causality. Corporate resilience is evaluated along two dimensions: resistance, measured by the severity of losses in net income, revenue, and stock price, and recovery, measured by the time required for ROA, EBIT, stock price, and Tobin’s Q to return to pre-shock levels. To ensure the robustness of the findings, this study employs linear regression models with industry-clustered robust standard errors, an instrumental-variable approach using R&D intensity and analyst coverage as instruments, and a Cox accelerated failure time model to estimate recovery duration. The empirical results indicate that stronger pre-shock ESG performance significantly enhances corporate resistance and shortens recovery time. Mechanism analyses further reveal that ESG strengthens corporate resilience by improving total factor productivity, alleviating financing constraints, and enhancing corporate reputation. These findings remain robust to multicollinearity diagnostics and a range of additional robustness tests. Overall, this study provides empirical evidence of the value of ESG in strengthening corporate resilience and offers important implications for firms, policymakers, and investors.

Whilst there is increasing research attention on predicting financial distress, the existing literature is subject to two specific limitations. The first is that a firm can experience a financial distress event (e.g., loan default, bankruptcy) more than once, yet most studies that model corporate financial distress prediction treat financial distress as occurring only once. This approach leads to an inefficient use of data with all subsequent events being ignored and subsequently a decrease in statistical power. Second, to account for the lack of independence between observations of repeated event data, the extant research utilising hazard analysis either has a separate analysis for successive distressed events or relies upon robust standard errors. In addition to a much smaller sample, a separate analysis yields the models that can be used to predict the survival of a distressed firm rather than the survival of a firm generally. The method of robust standard errors, while innocuous to one-time event data, ignores the possible downward bias in coefficient estimates for repeated event data. To address these two limitations, we treat financial distress as repeated events and apply more advanced methods (generalised estimating equations, random effects, fixed effects, and a hybrid approach) to account for the lack of independence between observations in discrete time hazard analysis. These different approaches are applied to a sample of listed companies in China over the 2007‒2021 period. We find that variables that are not statistically significant in models based on one-time events data become statistically significant in the models based on repeated events data, and that coefficient estimates are larger in their magnitude with more advanced methods than with the method of robust standard errors. We also find that among the advanced methods, a hybrid approach achieves substantially better out-of-sample prediction, particularly over a long-term horizon than other approaches. Our results remain robust in tests of robustness.