Environmental, Social and Governance Performance on Brand Value in the Context of “Dual Carbon”: The Mediating Effect of R&D Innovation

Abstract

As an important asset of an enterprise, brand value reflects its competitive position in the market. With the proposed goal of “carbon peak” and “carbon neutrality”, the development of enterprises is paying more and more attention to ESG performance (that is, the performance of enterprises in environmental, social and governance aspects), and the attention of brand management is slowly shifting away from traditional products and markets into being green and sustainable. In order to verify the relationship between ESG performance and brand value, this study takes Chinese A-share listed enterprises from 2012 to 2021 as research samples to reveal the mechanism of ESG performance’s impact on brand value. The results show that ESG performance can significantly improve brand value, indicating that the investment in ESG will ultimately affect brand value. The mediation mechanism analysis shows that R&D innovation plays a mediating role in the relationship between the two. A heterogeneity analysis shows that the ESG performance of state-owned enterprises and large enterprises has a stronger promoting effect on brand value, while small enterprises do not show heterogeneity. The research results provide new evidence to reveal the impact of ESG performance on brand management, and have reference significance for ESG construction, brand marketing innovation, and corporate green innovation.

1. Introduction

Achieving carbon peaking and carbon neutrality will require a profound systemic change in society. China will strive to achieve the goal of “carbon peak” by 2030 and “carbon neutrality” by 2060 (that is, the “double carbon” goal), which fully shows that China adheres to the sustainable economic development model and undertakes the mission of building a community with a shared future for mankind. Achieving the goal of “dual carbon” has been written into China’s “14th Five-Year Plan”, but it is a long way to go.

To achieve the goal of “double carbon” is not only a national strategy, but also an important opportunity for enterprises and the market. In the current economic environment, the innovation investment of enterprises is increasing, scientific and technological innovation is booming, the market competition is more intense, and the brand effect is more complex. In this context, corporate environmental responsibility, social responsibility, and governance performance (“ESG”) is increasingly valued. The ESG concept and China’s new development concept have gradually become an important basis for monitoring the behavior of enterprises and measuring investment opportunities. As the intangible assets of enterprises, the brand has a great impact on the production and operation of enterprises and their future development. In the fierce market competition, brand value is almost a symbol of competitive advantage. With the increasing attention of consumers and investors to brands, enterprises need to update brand marketing concepts and build and enhance brand value through continuous efforts and investments [1,2]. In order to promote the realization of the “double carbon” goal, as the main body of economic development, enterprises need to look at themselves. In the process of making corporate decisions, enterprises should not only pay attention to financial indicators, but also pay attention to the performance of corporate environmental responsibility, social responsibility and governance, and take ESG performance as an important indicator to measure the brand value of enterprises.

There is an inextricable relationship between brand value and ESG performance. However, with the increasing popularity of the ESG concept and the complexity of brand effect, the existing research on the relationship between ESG performance and brand value is still insufficient in depth and breadth. ESG performance is highly consistent with sustainable economic and social development, and is an important tool for sustainable development. Studying how it affects corporate brand value and verifying its action path has important theoretical and practical significance for improving listed enterprises’ attention to the ESG concept, promoting the improvement of corporate brand value, and thus promoting the sustainable development of enterprises and even of society.

ESG performance involves aspects of a company’s environment, social performance, and corporate governance. Different from previous scholars, this study not only studies corporate social responsibility, but also takes its own governance level into consideration, such as the study in [3]. Good ESG performance can improve the overall social image and reputation of the brand, attract more investors for the enterprise, and thus guide the improvement of brand value. Good ESG performance is closely related to brand value, but ESG management of enterprises needs to pay a certain cost and energy, and the performance of different enterprises will be different. In this case, this study comprehensively understands the impact of ESG performance on brand value using mediating variables that are different from those of previous scholars and by analyzing the impact path of ESG performance on brand value. In addition, this study will also conduct a robustness analysis, by controlling some variables and combining the studies of [4,5], considering the differences among enterprises in different industries, regions, and sizes, so as to study the performance of different enterprises on this transmission path.

This study may have some contributions. The first is to broaden the scope of brand value research. The study of brand value in the context of “dual carbon” verifies the positive impact of ESG performance on brand value. This conclusion is helpful for enterprises to make better brand marketing decisions, build brand image, and improve market influence. The second is to study the intrinsic mechanism of ESG performance on brand value, and find the mediating effect of R&D innovation on the relationship between them. This conclusion enriches the literature on factors influencing brand value, and provides reference for enterprises to adhere to the ESG concept and brand marketing innovation. Thirdly, it expands the research field of ESG performance. Prior to this, there were few studies linking ESG with brand, and most of them were about corporate innovation, corporate value, and other issues. As an important core asset of an enterprise, brand value has a great relationship with innovation, investment, marketing, and other fields. This study links ESG performance with brand value, which helps to focus on and value brand value while companies achieve sustainable development. Fourthly, different from previous studies, this study analyzes the heterogeneity of ESG performance on brand value from two perspectives of ownership nature and enterprise size, and it is found that ESG performance of state-owned enterprises and large enterprises has a stronger promoting effect on brand value, while small enterprises do not show heterogeneity. This conclusion has a certain reference value for enterprises and even government decision-making.

2. Research Assumptions

2.1. ESG Performance and Brand Value

ESG is an acronym for environment (E), social responsibility (S) and corporate governance (G). The concept of ESG can be traced back to the theory of corporate social responsibility in the 1940s. In the late 1980s, the book Our Common Future published by the United Nations derived the theory of sustainable development [6]. Later, the theory of social responsibility was gradually combined with the theory of sustainable development, and the environment, social responsibility, and corporate governance were gradually taken as a whole, which laid the theoretical foundation for the emergence and development of the ESG concept. In recent years, with the enhancement of the awareness of sustainable development, the ESG performance of enterprises has attracted increasing attention, and ESG is transforming from a concept to a soft power of enterprises [7], and has an impact on the long-term sustainable operation of enterprises [8]. The ESG concept coincides with China’s new development concept and has become an important method to promote high-quality economic development [9].

In the context of achieving the goal of “dual carbon”, good ESG performance can be regarded as the commitment and practice of enterprises to environmental protection, social responsibility, and good governance, which will convey a positive signal and enhance the recognition and trust of consumers and investors for corporate brands [10], thus promoting the improvement of corporate brand value. According to the signal transmission theory and stakeholder theory, ESG performance can be used as a signal to convey the management ability and moral values of enterprises in environmental, social, and governance aspects to the outside world. These signals are received by stakeholders inside and outside the enterprise, improve the relationship between the enterprise and stakeholders [3], indirectly affect the brand credibility, brand trust and reputation [11], brand image [12], etc., and promote the improvement of brand value from various aspects such as products, personnel, and finance [13]. Therefore, ESG performance can be viewed as a resource that is harder to replace, enhancing a brand’s competitive advantage and market position, and ultimately increasing brand value.

All in all, good ESG performance shows excellent social performance, can unleash the full potential of its brand reputation, and has a significant impact on the development of green enterprises [14]. Through good ESG performance, enterprises can convey positive signals to the outside world, reduce the negative impact of production and operation activities on the environment [15,16], meet the needs and expectations of stakeholders, accumulate and utilize social and environmental capital, thereby improving brand recognition, trust and market competitiveness, and thus enhance brand value. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed in this study:

H1. 

ESG performance is positively correlated with brand value.

2.2. ESG Performance and R&D Innovation

From the perspective of the stakeholder theory, good ESG performance provides enterprises with a better reputation and image, obtains higher social recognition, enhances the cooperative relationship with stakeholders, and enables enterprises to increase investment in research and development. From the perspective of the sustainable development theory, good ESG performance can realize the unity of economic, social, and environmental benefits, and is an important guarantee for enterprises to maintain competitive advantages, reduce business risks, and promote sustainable development [17]. Studies by relevant scholars have shown that good ESG performance of enterprises can not only reduce corporate risks [18], but also significantly improve corporate green innovation [19,20]. The research points out that the launch of the “dual carbon” policy will further promote the R&D and innovation of enterprises [21]. Emissions trading policies can encourage enterprises to pay attention to their own behavior, improve ESG performance, and significantly promote research and development innovation; motivated by the “dual carbon” goal, enterprises have carried out digital transformation, which in turn forces enterprises to improve their ESG performance and further enhance their innovation level [22]. Some scholars further pointed out that good ESG performance has a positive impact on enterprises’ green innovation [23], which is conducive to improving the quality of innovation [24], promoting technological innovation [25] and realizing green collaborative innovation [26].

In this way, if ESG performance is regarded as a reflection of corporate values and business philosophy, then good ESG performance indicates the degree of concern and commitment to the environment, society, and governance, and also reflects the long-term development strategy and competitive advantage of the company. Therefore, the performance of ESG will directly affect the decision-making and resource allocation of R&D innovation. Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:

H2. 

There is a positive correlation between ESG performance and R&D innovation.

2.3. The Mediating Role of R&D Innovation

In the context of our country’s commitment to the goal of “double carbon”, the community is paying more and more attention to the sustainable development of enterprises. Some scholars have discussed the relationship between ESG performance and R&D innovation. Good ESG performance can improve innovation performance through resource effect [27,28], and formulate ecological innovation strategies for enterprises [29], thus promoting sustainable development. On the other hand, scholars emphasize that the R&D innovation index is an important factor in exploring enterprise ESG disclosure [30,31]. Other studies have linked R&D innovation with enterprise brand value. Relevant scholars believe that in order to maintain market competitiveness and enhance brand competitiveness, enterprises will invest more resources in R&D [32,33], which will help enterprises to have R&D innovation, to accelerate digital transformation, and to enhance their brand value. From the perspective of innovation itself, substantive innovation plays a more significant role in promoting brand growth [34]. For the survival and sustainable development of enterprises, enterprises must carry out R&D activities to achieve substantive innovation, and R&D innovation plays an important role in maintaining the relationship between ESG performance and brand. In order to improve ESG performance, enterprises will increase R&D investment and promote enterprise innovation [35]. Through R&D and innovation, enterprises can improve their innovation ability, product quality, and service level, promote the development of technology transformation and commercialization capabilities, and thus promote the improvement of corporate brand value.

In short, in the relationship between ESG performance and brand value, R&D and innovation act as a bridge to deliver and amplify the impact of ESG performance, influence stakeholders’ perception and evaluation of the brand, and ultimately influence the growth and value improvement of the brand. Therefore, R&D innovation plays an important mediating role between ESG performance and brand value. Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:

H3. 

R&D innovation plays a mediating role in the impact of ESG performance on brand value.

3. Research Design

3.1. Sample and Data

This study selects Chinese A-share listed enterprises from 2012 to 2021 as research samples to study the impact of ESG performance on brand value. The data used in this study are mainly from three databases, among which ESG performance is from the Huateng ESG rating of Wind database, brand value is from the Top 500 Chinese brands ranking of World Brand Lab, and R&D innovation and control variables are from the Guotai ‘an database. During data pre-processing, this paper excluded listed enterprises with an abnormal financial status such as finance and enterprises with serious data loss during the observation period, and finally obtained 70 enterprise data with a total of 700 observed values. In order to avoid the influence of extreme data, this study carried out indentation treatment for continuous variables. In addition, Microsoft Excel 2021 was used to process the original data to form the panel data needed for the study, and finally Stata 17 was used for empirical analysis.

3.2. Definition of Variable

3.2.1. Explained Variable

The explained variable of this study is brand value (BV), which measures the value and influence of corporate brands. The brand value data published by World Brand Lab over the years will be used as the measurement index. World Brand Lab refers to the internationally common brand value evaluation method, and combined with the current economic and competitive environment, uses the adjusted “present value of income method” to evaluate and analyze various indicators affecting the brand, which fully considers the enterprise’s own operating conditions and brand income.

3.2.2. Explanatory Variable

The explanatory variable in this study is ESG performance, which measures the performance of enterprises in environmental, social, and governance aspects. A number of institutions at home and abroad have formed a relatively complete evaluation system, including Wind China Securities ESG, Bloomberg ESG, Shangdao Ronglu, and so on. Based on the integrity of the available data, this study chooses to use the ESG index system of China Securities, and assigns its 9 grades from AAA, AA to CC, and C to 9, 8 to 2, and 1. The higher the score, the better the ESG performance.

3.2.3. Intervening Variable

This study uses R&DI funds as an Intervening variable to measure the level of investment in R&D. In previous studies, some scholars used the number of patents to measure enterprise innovation, but due to the lack of data, this study uses the R&D innovation funds of enterprises to measure enterprise innovation, which can more directly reflect the level of enterprise R&D innovation. This variable will be used as an Intervening variable between the explanatory variable and the explained variable to explain the influence path of ESG performance on brand value.

3.2.4. Control Variables

In order to reduce the interference of other variable factors, this study refers to the views of relevant scholars. Internal variables such as the equity balance degree (Balance), board size (Board), independent directors ratio (Indep), average age of managers (TMTage), and management shareholding ratio (Mshare) are taken as control variables. At the same time, this study will control the individual enterprises and the year. These variables are used to control other factors that may affect brand value, thereby reducing their interference in the relationship between the explanatory and the explained variables.

The specific variables are described as follows: Balance is measured by the ratio of shares held by the second largest shareholder and the first largest shareholder, which defines the controlling power of the first shareholder over the enterprise. The larger the ratio, the more dispersed the equity of the enterprise. Board is measured by the number of board members. The board of directors can reflect the level of corporate governance. If the scale is large, it can learn from the strengths of others and help enterprises make more perfect decisions, while if the number is too large, the decision-making efficiency will be reduced. Appropriate board size can improve the efficiency of internal governance and has positive significance for the promotion of enterprise brand value and sustainable development. Indep can guide corporate decision-making in a more objective and impartial manner, and can influence corporate decision-making and value enhancement by influencing corporate governance, thus affecting brand value. TMTage refers to the average age of the senior management of an enterprise. The leadership and decision-making styles of the managers at different ages will be different, which will have a certain influence on the shaping of the enterprise brand and the promotion of brand value. Mshare refers to the proportion of enterprise shares held by management members. The management members who hold shares are directly related to the interests of the enterprise, and they will invest more actively in brand management and development, maintain brand image and reputation, and thus enhance the value of the brand.

By controlling these potential interfering factors, this study can more accurately analyze the impact of ESG performance on brand value, and reveal the significant role of ESG performance in the formation of brand value.

Table 1. Definition of variables.

	The Variable Name	The Variable Symbol	The Variable Meaning
Explained variable	Brand value	BV	The value and influence of corporate brands
Explanatory variable	ESG performance	ESG	ESG performance score, from the sum of four quarterly scores
Intervening variable	R&D investment	R&DI funds	The natural logarithm of R&D investment
Control variables	Equity balance degree	Balance	The ratio of the number of shares held by the second largest shareholder to the first largest shareholder
	Board size	Board	The number of board members
	Independent directors ratio	Indep	The ratio of the number of independent directors in the total number of directors
	Age of managers	TMTage	Average age of managers
	Management shareholding ratio	Mshare	Managerial shareholding ratio

shows the variables used in this study.

3.3. Model Construction

This study constructs three regression models to examine H1, H2, and H3. The regression model constructed in this study is as follows:

In this study, Model 1 is constructed to verify the impact of ESG performance on brand value.

$$B{V}_{it}={\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_1\text{·}ES{G}_{it}+\Sigma Controls+\Sigma Year+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(1)

Model 2 was constructed to verify the impact of ESG performance on R&D innovation.

$$R\&D{I}_{it}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_1\text{·}ES{G}_{it}+\Sigma Controls+\Sigma Year+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(2)

On the basis of models 1 and 2, Model 3 is constructed to verify the mediating role of R&D innovation.

$$B{V}_{it}={\gamma }_0+{\gamma }_1\text{·}ES{G}_{it}+{\gamma }_2\text{·}R\&D{I}_{it}+\Sigma Controls+\Sigma Year+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(3)

Among them, $B{v}_{it}$ is the explained variable; $ES{G}_{it}$ is the explanatory variable; $R\&D{I}_{it}$ is the intermediary variable, which uses the enterprise ‘t’ in the year ‘i’; $\Sigma Control$ represents the number of control variables; $\Sigma Year$ is the year fixed effect; and ${\epsilon }_{it}$ is the random error term of the model. In addition, $\mathrm{i}$ and $\mathrm{t}$ represent individuals and years.

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables.

	N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Minimum	Maximum
ESG	700	18.564	3.698	10.000	25.000
BV	700	425.503	562.857	22.345	3037.545
R&DI funds	700	18.981	1.784	15.211	23.540
Balance	700	0.349	0.298	0.013	0.962
Board	700	8.993	1.825	6.000	15.000
Indep	700	0.384	0.073	0.300	0.646
TMTage	700	50.929	2.811	45.380	57.815
Mshare	700	3.461	9.602	0.000	42.009

shows the results of the descriptive statistics. As can be seen from the table, the mean value of the brand value (BV) is 425.503, and there is a large difference between the maximum value and the minimum value, indicating that the difference between the sample enterprises is obvious. The mean value of the ESG performance is 18.564, and the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value is 15, indicating that the performance of different enterprises in ESG is very different and there are obvious differences. The average value of R&DI funds is 18.981, with a small difference between the maximum value and the minimum value, which indicates that the overall level of R&D innovation of the research samples is relatively stable, which is conducive to the further development of the research.

4.2. Correlation Analysis

As shown in

Table 3. Correlation analysis results.

	BV	ESG	R&DI Funds	Balance	Board	Indep	TMTage	Mshare
BV	1.000
ESG	0.325 ***	1.000
R&DI funds	0.400 ***	0.197 ***	1.000
Balance	−0.019	0.006	0.021	1.000
Board	0.036	0.001	−0.109 ***	−0.052	1.000
Indep	0.194 ***	0.227 ***	0.192 ***	0.080 **	−0.390 ***	1.000
TMTage	0.353 ***	0.1400 ***	0.137 ***	−0.112 **	0.099 ***	0.282 ***	1.000
Mshare	−0.092 **	−0.030	0.102 ***	0.348 ***	−0.150 ***	−0.028	−0.156 ***	1.000

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

, when other variables are not controlled, the correlation coefficient between the ESG performance and brand value (BV) is 0.3253, which is a positive correlation and significant at the significance level of 1%, indicating that ESG performance has a positive significance for brand value.

In Table 3, the intermediary variable R&DI funds has a significant positive correlation with ESG performance and brand value at the level of 1%, respectively, which preliminarily explains the relationship between the intermediary variable, the explanatory variable, and the explained variable. In terms of other control variables, it can be seen from the correlation coefficient and significance level that there is also a certain correlation, and the choice of control variables is also reasonable.

In addition, the correlation coefficient between variables did not exceed 0.5, and it can be seen from

Table 4. The results of the collinearity test.

Variable	VIF	1/VIF
Indep	1.43	0.699
Board	1.29	0.776
TMTage	1.19	0.841
Mshare	1.19	0.843
Balance	1.16	0.860
ESG	1.07	0.933
Mean VIF	1.22

that the VIF value of each variable was less than 10, and the tolerance was greater than 0.1, indicating that there was no multicollinearity problem between variables. All in all, the selection of variables in this study is appropriate and scientific.

4.3. Regression Analysis

The data in this study is the panel data of enterprises from 2012 to 2021, so this paper analyzes the results according to mixed regression, fixed effect, and random effect in turn. As can be seen from

Table 5. Baseline regression results.

	OLS	RE	FE
ESG	40.216 ***	23.313 ***	21.550 ***	10.129 ***
	(5.349)	(4.325)	(4.425)	(3.579)
Balance	41.378	228.116 ***	289.531 ***	166.845 **
	(69.234)	(86.829)	(95.361)	(75.685)
Board	7.735	−55.089 ***	−64.367 ***	−43.967 ***
	(11.888)	(11.376)	(11.928)	(9.570)
Indep	457.689	784.612 ***	799.217 ***	402.694
	(311.892)	(293.847)	(306.855)	(244.982)
TMTage	57.506 ***	46.081 ***	43.455 ***	−22.798 ***
	(7.412)	(7.343)	(7.809)	(7.116)
Mshare	−2.450	−8.909 ***	−9.851 ***	−8.884 ***
	(2.168)	(2.943)	(3.339)	(2.641)
N	700	700	700	700
R2	0.196	0.212	0.213	0.519
Year				YES

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

, the coefficients of ESG performance in the results of the three regression models are all greater than 0, indicating that ESG performance has a promoting effect on enterprise brand value. In order to make the analysis results more accurate, the Hausmann test was used to select the fixed effects or random effects regression model. As can be seen from

Table 6. The results of the Hausmann test.

chi2 (8) = (bB)’[(V_bV_B)^(1)](bB) = 34.30
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

, the p value of the Hausmann test is less than 0.05, and it is more reasonable to use the fixed effect model in this study. Then, the year variable is added to the fixed effect model to consider the time effect, and the p-value of the result is less than 0.01, which proves that the bidirectional fixed effect model can be selected for demonstration in this study. In addition, the goodness of fit R² of the bidirectional fixed effect model is 0.519, indicating a good fitting effect, and the p value is less than 0.01, indicating a good significance level of the model as a whole. Therefore, the bidirectional fixed effect model is selected for empirical analysis in this study.

In the regression results in column 4 of Table 5, the regression coefficient between ESG performance and brand value (BV) is 10.129, which is significant at the 1% level, indicating that ESG performance has a significant impact on brand value. The level of an enterprise’s ESG performance affects its own brand value, assuming H1 is established. This may be an enterprise with good ESG performance. The improvement of environmental performance, the enhancement of corporate governance ability, and the fulfillment of social responsibility has shown a good corporate image to shareholders, the public, and the society, won the appreciation of the public and the recognition of investors, enhanced the reputation and credibility of the enterprise, gave full play to the positive role of signal transmission, and further promoted the improvement of brand value.

In terms of control variables, equity Balance is positively correlated with brand value at the significance level of 1%. This may be because enterprises with a high degree of checks and balances are better able to achieve the effectiveness and transparency of corporate governance. When corporate governance is good, enterprises are better able to comply with social and environmental norms and show their sustainable development image to the outside world, which will help improve the corporate brand image and increase the brand value. Board size (Board), management age (TMTage) and management share (Mshare) are significantly negatively correlated with brand value. This may be because when the management is older or holds too high a proportion of shares, it may cause conflicts of interest, coupled with insufficient flexibility, resulting in insufficient investment in brand building, which in turn affects the value of the brand.

In summary, hypotheses H1 and H2 in this study are valid.

4.4. Mediation Effect Analysis

In order to verify whether R&D innovation (R&DI funds) has a mediating effect in the process of ESG performance affecting brand value (BV), the step-by-step regression method was used to analyze the mediating effect.

As shown in

Table 7. Results of step-by-step regression.

	BV	R&DI Funds	BV
ESG	10.12922 ***	0.051 ***	8.138 **
	(3.579)	(0.010)	(14.296)
R&DI funds			39.085 ***
			(3.634)
Balance	166.845 **	0.764 ***	136.979 *
	(75.685)	(0.213)	(76.078)
Board	−43.966 ***	0.067 **	−46.590 ***
	(9.570)	(0.027)	(9.569)
Indep	402.694	0.861	369.037
	(244.982)	(0.688)	(244.011)
TMTage	−22.7984 ***	0.010	−23.183 ***
	(7.116)	(0.020)	(7.081)
Mshare	−8.883 ***	0.001	−8.932 ***
	(2.641)	(0.007)	(2.627)
N	700.000	700.000	700.000
R2	0.519	0.329	0.525
Year	YES	YES	YES

* p < 0.1,** p < 0.05,*** p < 0.01.

, the first step is the regression analysis of the ESG performance of the explanatory variable on the brand value (BV) of the explained variable, and the second is the regression analysis of the ESG performance of the explanatory variable on R&DI funds of the intermediary variable. The third is the regression analysis of the explanatory variable ESG performance and the intermediate variable R&D innovation (R&DI funds) on the explained variable brand value (BV).

As can be seen from the results in column 1, the explained variable is brand value (BV), and the explanatory variable is ESG performance, whose regression coefficient is 10.129, greater than 0, and significant at the 1% level, indicating that the ESG performance of enterprises has a significant promoting effect on brand value. As can be seen from the results in column 2, the explained variable is R&D innovation, that is, the intermediary variable of this study, and the core explanatory variable is ESG performance, whose regression coefficient is 0.051, greater than 0, and significant at the 1% level, indicating that ESG performance has a certain positive impact on the R&D innovation of enterprises. Enterprises with better ESG performance generally have higher R&D innovation. They have a strong sense of innovation. It can be seen from the results in column 3 that the regression coefficient of R&D innovation is 39.085, which is greater than 0, and significant at the 1% level, indicating that R&D innovation does have a positive impact on the enterprise brand value. The regression coefficient of the ESG performance is 8.138, which is greater than 0, but smaller than the regression coefficient of the first column (10.129), which indicates the existence of an intermediary effect. The better the ESG performance, the higher the R&D innovation, and the higher the brand value of the enterprise. R&D innovation is an important factor for the ESG’s performance in boosting brand value.

In the influence of ESG performance on brand value, the ratio of indirect effect brought by R&D innovation to the direct effect of ESG performance on brand value is 0.051 × 39.085 ÷ 10.129 = 0.197, and H3 is valid.

4.5. Robustness Test

ESG performance and brand value (BV) may have endogenous problems, which may affect the regression results. Therefore, this study selected the ESG performance of the same industry and province in the same year as the instrumental variable, used the two-stage least square method to perform regression on the original model, and tested the endogeneity between the ESG performance and brand value. The results are shown in

Table 8. Results of the endogeneity test.

	First Stage	Second Stage
	ESG	BV
ESG		46.496 ***
		(11.406)
ESG3	2.680 ***
	(0.193)
Balance	−0.175	41.407
	(0.435)	(68.956)
Board	0.077	6.672
	(0.075)	(11.962)
Indep	10.451 ***	383.270
	(1.922)	(332.831)
TMTage	0.040	56.789 ***
	(0.047)	(7.471)
Mshare	0.042 ***	−2.457
	(0.014)	(2.159)

* p < 0.1,** p < 0.05,*** p < 0.01.

. The coefficient between the ESG performance and brand value is positive, and the positive correlation is stronger at the 1% level, assuming that H1 is further verified and passes the endogeneity test.

The influence of the ESG performance on brand value (BV) may have a certain lag. This paper will explain that the variables lag by one stage and two stages, and conduct regression again. According to the regression results of column 1 and column 2 in

Table 9. Robustness test results.

	(1) BV	(2) BV	Another BV
ESG	46.606 ***	12.250 ***	35.019 ***
	(14.775)	(3.841)	(13.024)
Balance	186.176 **	184.623 **	166.834 **
	(78.901)	(82.005)	(75.736)
Board	−35.620 ***	−24.529 **	−43.848 ***
	(9.767)	(10.034)	(9.577)
Indep	582.318 **	747.551 ***	413.732 *
	(252.073)	(262.250)	(244.997)
TMTage	−23.079 ***	−24.443 ***	−22.599 ***
	(7.803)	(8.583)	(7.117)
Mshare	−7.626 ***	−7.736 ***	−8.886 ***
	(2.749)	(2.776)	(2.645)

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

, the coefficients of ESG performance are both positive, 46.606 and 12.250, respectively, and are more significant at the 1% level. It shows that the core conclusion of this paper is still robust and credible.

In this study, the ESG performance used in the benchmark regression model was replaced by the median ESG performance for each quarter, and the brand value (BV) was unchanged. The regression results were shown in column 3 of Table 9. After the regression was conducted again, the conclusion that the ESG performance improves brand value was found robust.

Referring to the views of relevant scholars, this study used the Bootstrap test to test the mediating effect again, and conducted 500 sample tests on the mediating effect of the ESG performance, R&DI funds, and brand value (BV), respectively. The results are shown in

Table 10. The results of Bootstrap mediation effect test.

	Coefficient	Standard Error	95% Confidence Interval
Indirect effect	8.115	2.143	4.275	13.106
Direct effect	32.100	5.530	21.108	43.030

. According to the test results, the 95% confidence interval does not contain 0, and the bootstrap mediation effect is established, and the test results are consistent with the empirical analysis results of this study.

4.6. Expand Analysis

In the context of promoting the “dual carbon” goal and sustainable development, state-owned enterprises will take the initiative to pay attention to ESG performance and practice the ESG concept due to their political and social responsibilities. Non-state-owned enterprises are more likely to be affected by their own production and operation conditions, and to fulfill ESG responsibilities in order to enhance their brand image. According to the stakeholder theory, the stakeholders of state-owned enterprises have higher expectations and think that it is their duty to carry out ESG responsibilities. On the other hand, stakeholders of non-state-owned enterprises pay more attention to interests and enhance their influence and visibility through ESG performance [4]. Therefore, this study speculates that, because of their political nature, the ESG performance of state-owned enterprises has a greater impact on brand value than that of non-state-owned enterprises. In order to verify the above speculation, the sample enterprises are grouped and fixed effect regression is performed on them, respectively. The results are shown in

Table 11. Results of heterogeneity analysis of ownership nature and firm size.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	BV	BV	BV	BV
ESG	14.28 ***	28.83 ***	2.158	35.35 ***
	(−4.506)	(−7.399)	(−1.975)	(−8.397)
Balance	526.2 ***	109.3	35.57	1072 ***
	(−96.67)	(−158.4)	(−39.03)	(−234.7)
Board	−2.418	−84.73 ***	−0.197	−108.5 ***
	(−15.71)	(−16.61)	(−7.092)	(−18.84)
Indep	120.4	729.0 *	148.9	599.9
	(−474.4)	(−409.4)	(−166.1)	(−502.3)
TMTage	54.78 ***	31.36 **	25.12 ***	54.13 ***
	(−7.407)	(−13.57)	(−3.111)	(−18.2)
Mshare	−14.66 ***	−70.54	−1.454	−41.37 ***
	(−2.506)	(−121.5)	(−1.168)	(−11.76)
Constant	−2823 ***	−1163	−1223 ***	−2313 **
	(−420.2)	(−730.5)	(−190.5)	(−927.5)
Observations	316	383	350	349
R2	0.33	0.213	0.199	0.337

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

(1), (2). In the group of non-state-owned enterprises, the coefficient of the ESG performance is 14.28 and passes the 1% significance test; in the group of state-owned enterprises, the coefficient is 28.83 and the correlation is stronger, which is consistent with the inference.

The influence of enterprise size on the brand value is relatively significant, and the ESG performance of enterprises of different sizes is different to some extent, and the impact on brand value is also significantly different. According to the stakeholder theory, larger enterprises are more likely to be valued by stakeholders, have more market resources and investment, and have more strength to compete in the market through ESG performance. On the other hand, smaller enterprises have a weaker financing ability, pay more attention to survival and development, and are more cautious in the allocation and utilization of limited resources, so they attach less importance to the ESG concept [5]. Therefore, this study speculates that the ESG performance of larger enterprises has more impact on brand value than that of smaller enterprises. In order to verify this hypothesis, this study referred to relevant research methods, and took the median size of the firm as 23.505. Variables larger than the median were taken as 1, and those smaller than the median were taken as 0, and then grouped for fixed effect analysis.

As shown in Table 11 (3), (4), the regression coefficient between the ESG performance and brand value of large enterprises is 35.35, and is correlated at the significance level of 1%, while the correlation coefficient of small enterprises is not significant, which is consistent with the inference.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Research Conclusions

Based on the background of the “dual carbon” goal and taking the road of sustainable development, this study conducted an empirical analysis of 700 observational data of more than 70 A-share listed enterprises from 2012 to 2021. In this study, the ESG rating data is used to measure the ESG performance of enterprises, and the brand value is measured by data published by World Brand Lab. The two-way fixed effect model is established to test the influence mechanism of the ESG performance on brand value, and further verify the intermediary effect of R&D innovation.

This study draws the following conclusions: Firstly, the better the ESG performance of an enterprise, the higher its brand value, and the investment in ESG will eventually affect the brand value. The possible reasons are as follows: enterprises take the initiative to assume social responsibilities, actively participate in environmental governance, win the recognition and appreciation of the government and the public, form a benign cooperative relationship with stakeholders, promote the green innovation of enterprises, and ultimately enhance the brand value of enterprises. Therefore, enterprises can increase their investment in ESG performance, establish brand image and enhance brand value. Secondly, R&D innovation plays an intermediary role in the relationship between the two. The possible reasons are as follows: good ESG performance establishes a responsible, green, sustainable, and reliable corporate image, which can attract more cooperation and investment, and obtain more resources, which creates conditions for enterprises to increase investment in research and development. At the same time, the R&D and innovation of enterprises are closely related to the research and development of new products and technological innovation, and the new research and development results can enhance the competitiveness of enterprises, and then have an impact on the brand value. Thirdly, the ESG performance of state-owned enterprises and larger enterprises has a stronger promoting effect on brand value, while smaller enterprises do not show heterogeneity. The possible reason is that large state-owned enterprises usually have more resources and influence, and are better able to implement ESG policies and drive ESG improvement and innovation. However, this does not mean that small and medium-sized non-state-owned enterprises are at a disadvantage in terms of ESG performance. Regardless of the size of enterprises, as long as they can actively improve ESG performance, improve information disclosure and transparency, and gradually win the trust of investors and consumers, they can promote the improvement of brand value.

5.2. Policy Suggestions and Managerial Implications

Based on the above research conclusions, in order to promote the maintenance and promotion of the brand value, this study puts forward the following suggestions: Firstly, enterprises should strengthen their ESG information disclosure and promote brand marketing innovation. In the context of the national call to achieve “dual carbon”, enterprises need to integrate ESG concepts into corporate strategy and brand marketing. By automatically disclosing ESG information, enterprises can enhance their brand image and reputation, promote communication and cooperation with investors, promote cross-border cooperation and innovation, carry out brand marketing practices, and enhance brand competitiveness and market position. This is not only conducive to the sustainable development of enterprises, but is also in line with the expectations and needs of the economic society for corporate social responsibility. Secondly, enterprises should focus on R&D and innovation. Enterprises should appropriately increase R&D investment, cultivate high-quality R&D teams, and improve the quality of green innovation and green collaborative innovation. Focusing on R&D innovation is crucial to driving brand marketing innovation. Through R&D and innovation, enterprises can develop products and services with competitive advantages, and promote technological upgrading and transformation and upgrading. This will not only help companies achieve sustainable development, but also meet the needs of consumers and enhance the value and competitiveness of the brand. Thirdly, non-state-owned enterprises and smaller enterprises should attach great importance to the concept of ESG and strengthen green innovation and practice. These companies, often with limited resources, can take positive actions to improve ESG performance, thereby building a good brand image and increasing brand value. In addition, they can also seek government support and policy incentives to continuously improve ESG performance, increase the trust and support of investors and consumers, and thus promote their brand value.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study summarizes the shortcomings and prospects. Firstly, the selected samples have certain limitations. The data sources of different variables selected in this study are different, the time span is large, the information disclosure of enterprises is not mandatory, and the sample size is small, which may affect the universality of the research conclusions. In the future, with the advancement of time and the strengthening of enterprise information disclosure awareness, more samples can be collected for more complete research and analysis. Then, the research question is not in-depth. This study explores the role of R&D innovation in the process of ESG performance affecting the brand value, but there may be other influencing factors in the process of mediating effect transmission. In the future, on the basis of fully considering various influencing factors, the number of intermediary variables can be appropriately increased, and the model can be built to conduct a more in-depth regression analysis, so as to comprehensively explain the action path between the ESG performance and brand value, so as to obtain more in-depth research results. Thirdly, this study studies the performance of ESG on the brand value from the overall level, and does not further analyze the impact from the three levels of E, S, and G, which may lead to other possible conclusions. It is hoped that the research and analysis in this aspect can be improved in the future, so as to obtain more valuable management enlightenment.