“双碳”背景下，为缓解经济高速发展带来的生态环境、民生保障和社会治理等问题，以环境社会治理责任为主的企业ESG表现逐渐成为利益相关者衡量企业可持续发展能力的重要指标。数字技术的发展促使企业ESG表现呈现出驱动因素内生化、责任主体多元化和履行内容多样化的发展趋势，同时企业ESG管理模式也逐渐向数字化和透明化的数字环境、社会和治理（DESG）的模式转变。为满足高质量发展要求，加强技术创新、增强责任意识并获得社会认同感已经成为当下企业可持续发展的内生性需求。企业数字化转型在推动经济发展、加快创新转型、提高治理水平以及提升ESG表现等方面作用巨大。因此，探究数字化转型背景下企业的ESG表现及其相互间作用机制，对于我国企业的管理模式优化、数字化转型和创新驱动发展至关重要。

为了理清数字化转型与企业ESG表现之间的作用关系，本文在文献综述与理论分析的基础上，以我国上市公司年度面板数据为样本，利用Python软件通过文本分析法对企业数字化转型水平进行了测度；构建了数字化转型与企业ESG表现及其子维度之间作用关系的面板多元回归模型；同时，构建了中介效应和调节效应检验模型，从企业内部的创新能力和外部的政府补助以及区域和产权性质差异等方面进行了作用机制检验。结果表明：（1）数字化转型对企业整体的ESG表现、环境、社会和治理表现均具有显著的正向促进作用，且具有累积滞后效应。从子维度的作用效果来看，数字化转型对企业治理责任表现的作用效果最显著，其次是环境责任表现，最后是社会责任表现。（2）从企业创新能力来看，数字化转型提高了企业的创新投入能力和创新产出能力，且创新产出能力在数字化转型提升企业ESG表现的过程中起到正向促进作用，而创新投入能力表现为阻碍作用。（3）区域异质性的检验结果显示：东、中部和东北地区的企业，其数字化转型和企业ESG表现之间存在显著的正相关性，而西部地区这一作用机制不显著；产权异质性的检验结果显示：非国有企业随着数字化转型程度的提高，对于企业的ESG表现也有正向的促进作用；国有企业ESG表现与数字化转型不相关。（4）调节效应检验结果表明，增加政府补助可以推动企业的数字化转型，提高其创新能力，进而提升企业的环境表现和治理表现，对企业社会责任表现的作用效果不显著。

根据上述结论，本文提出了如下对策建议：（1）企业应加快数字化转型，增强ESG责任意识；同时，应理性创新，平衡研发投入和ESG投资。（2）政府要因地制宜，加快不同区域数字化转型与企业ESG的协调发展；还要因企施策，合理把握财政补贴扶持力度。（3）公众和投资者应提高隐私保护意识和法律意识，与媒体合力加强对企业ESG信息披露的监督。以期为合理推动我国企业数字化转型、增强企业ESG责任意识并实现经济高质量发展提供一定的实证经验支撑。

Under the background of "double carbon", in order to alleviate the problems of ecological environment, people's livelihood security and social governance brought about by rapid economic development, the ESG performance of enterprises focusing on environmental and social governance responsibility has gradually become an important indicator for stakeholders to measure the sustainable development ability of enterprises. With the development of digital technology, the ESG performance of enterprises shows a trend of internalization of driving factors, diversification of responsible subjects and diversification of performance contents. At the same time, the ESG management mode of enterprises has gradually changed to a digital and transparent digital environment, society and governance (DESG) mode. In order to meet the requirements of high-quality development, strengthening technological innovation, enhancing the sense of responsibility and gaining a sense of social identity have become the endogenous needs of the sustainable development of enterprises. The digital transformation of enterprises plays a great role in promoting economic development, accelerating innovation transformation, improving governance level and improving ESG performance. Therefore, it is very important to explore the ESG performance of enterprises and its interaction mechanism under the background of digital transformation for the optimization of management mode, digital transformation and innovation-driven development of Chinese enterprises.

In order to clarify the relationship between digital transformation and ESG performance of enterprises, based on literature review and theoretical analysis, this paper takes the annual panel data of listed companies in China as samples and uses Python software to measure the level of digital transformation of enterprises through text analysis. The panel multiple regression model of the relationship between digital transformation and ESG performance and its sub-dimensions is constructed. At the same time, this paper constructs a test model of intermediary effect and regulatory effect, and tests the mechanism from the aspects of internal innovation ability of enterprises, external government subsidies and differences in regional and property rights. The results show that: (1) Digital transformation has a significant positive effect on ESG performance, environmental, social and governance performance of enterprises as a whole, and has a cumulative lag effect. From the perspective of sub-dimensions, digital transformation has the most significant effect on corporate governance responsibility, followed by environmental responsibility, and finally social responsibility. (2) From the perspective of enterprise's innovation ability, digital transformation has improved enterprise's innovation input ability and innovation output ability, and innovation output ability plays a positive role in the process of digital transformation improving enterprise's ESG performance, while innovation input ability is a hindrance. (3) The test results of regional heterogeneity show that there is a significant positive correlation between digital transformation and ESG performance of enterprises in the eastern, central and northeastern regions, while this mechanism is not significant in the western region; The test results of property right heterogeneity show that non-state-owned enterprises have a positive effect on ESG performance with the improvement of digital transformation; ESG performance of state-owned enterprises is not related to digital transformation. (4) The regulatory effect test results show that increasing government subsidies can promote the digital transformation of enterprises, improve their innovation ability, and then improve the environmental performance and governance performance of enterprises, but the effect on corporate social responsibility performance is not significant.

According to the above conclusions, this paper puts forward the following countermeasures and suggestions: (1) Enterprises should speed up digital transformation and enhance ESG responsibility consciousness; At the same time, we should innovate rationally and balance R&D investment and ESG investment. (2) The government should adjust measures to local conditions and accelerate the coordinated development of digital transformation and enterprise ESG in different regions; It is also necessary to rationally grasp the support of financial subsidies due to the policy of enterprises. (3) The public and investors should raise their awareness of privacy protection and law, and work with the media to strengthen the supervision of ESG information disclosure of enterprises. In order to provide some empirical support for reasonably promoting the digital transformation of Chinese enterprises, enhancing the sense of ESG responsibility of enterprises and realizing high-quality economic development.

[1]郭丰,杨上广,金环.数字经济对企业全要素生产率的影响及其作用机制[J/OL].现代财经(天津财经大学学报),2022(09):20-36.

[2]王旭,张晓宁,牛月微.“数据驱动”与“能力诅咒”：绿色创新战略升级导向下企业数字化转型的战略悖论[J].研究与发展管理,2022,34(04):51-65.

[3] HeeKyung K, Regina B, Gu Y S. Perceived ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) and Consumers’ Responses: The Mediating Role of Brand Credibility, Brand Image, and Perceived Quality[J]. Sustainability,2022,14(8):45-65.

[4] Velte P. Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany[J]. Journal of Global Responsibility,2017,8(2):169-178.

[5] Song H, Zhao C, Zeng J. Can environmental management improve financial performance: An empirical study of A-shares listed companies in China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017,141(6):1051-1056.

[6] Li Y, Gong M, Zhang X, et al. The impact of environmental, social, and governance disclosure on firm value: The role of CEO power[J]. The British Accounting Review,2018, 50(1):60-75.

[7] Ruhaya A, Mahmudul M A, Jamaliah S, et al. The impacts of environmental, social, and governance factors on firm performance:Panel study of Malaysian companies[J]. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal,2018,29(2):182-194.

[8] Zein E A S, Consolacion-Segura C, Huertas-Garcia R . The Role of Sustainability in Brand Equity Value in the Financial Sector[J]. Sustainability,2019,12(1):254-254.

[9] Marie S, Taghawi J M, Ole G . Is there a relationship between Morningstar’s ESG ratings and mutual fund performance?[J]. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 2020,10(4):349-370.

[10] Claire P. 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.

[11] Haffke I. The Implications of Digital Business Transformation for Corporate Leadership, the IT Function, and Business-IT Alignment[D].Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2017.

[12] Warner S K, Wäger M. Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal[J]. Long Range Planning,2018,52(3):326-349.

[13] Vial G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda[J]. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,2019,28(2):118-144.

[14] Knudsen D. Elusive boundaries, power relations, and knowledge production: A systematic review of the literature on digitalization in accounting[J]. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,2020,36(18):1441-1441.

[15] Loebbecke C, Picot A. Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda[J]. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,2015,24(3):149-157.

[16] Vargo L S, Lusch F R . Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic[J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2016,44(1):5-23.

[17] Hinings B,Gegenhuber T ,Greenwood R . Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective[J]. Information and Organization,2018,28(1):52-61.

[18] Verhoef P C. Broekhuizen T，Bart Y，et al．Digital Transformation: A Multidisciplinary Reflection and Research Agenda[J]．Journal of Business Research，2021,122 ( 1) : 889~901．

[19] Novikov S. V. Impact of Digital Technologies on Business Processes at High-Tech Enterprises[J]. Russian Engineering Research,2022,42(9):951-953.

[20] Jenner P. Social enterprise sustainability revisited: an international perspective[J]. Social Enterprise Journal,2016,12(1):42-60.

[21] Qureshi A M, Kirkerud S, Theresa K, et al. The impact of sustainability (environmental, social, and governance) disclosure and board diversity on firm value: The moderating role of industry sensitivity[J]. Business Strategy and the Environment,2020,29(3):1199-1214.

[22] Orbik Z, Zozuľaková V. Corporate Social and Digital Responsibility[J]. Management Systems in Production Engineering,2019,27(2):79-83.

[23] Fredrik S, Lars M, Rikard L. Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns[J]. MIS Quarterly,2017,41(1):239-253.

[24] Genni P, Andrea R. The Industry 4.0, the Corporate Social Responsibility and the Impacts of Brand in the Digital Transformation[J]. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2021,13(4):54-67.

[25] Gregory Vial. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda [J]. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,2019,28(2):13-66.

[26] Guifu C, Jing H, Hongwei Y. Urban digital economy development, enterprise innovation, and ESG performance in China[J]. Frontiers in Environmental Science,2022,14 (8):51-78.

[27] Chakib M K, Ahmad A ,Khaled H. Does environmental, social, and governance performance mitigate earnings management practices? Evidence from US commercial banks.[J]. Environmental science and pollution research international,2022,30(8) :20386-20401.

[28] Hajli N. Social commerce constructs and consumer's intention to buy[J]. International Journal of Information Management,2015,35(2):183-191.

[29] Amal A, Sylvain M. Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2018,151(4):1027-1047.

[30] Duque-Grisales E, Aguilera-Caracuel J. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores and Financial Performance of Multilatinas: Moderating Effects of Geographic International Diversification and Financial Slack[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2019, 168(6):1-20.

[31] Wilert P, Suchart T. From ESG to DESG: The Impact of DESG (Digital Environmental, Social, and Governance) on Customer Attitudes and Brand Equity[J]. Sustainability,2022, 14(17):104-128.

[32] Ebru G, Veronica M. Digital transformation maturity assessment: development of the digital transformation capability maturity model[J]. International Journal of Production Research,2022,60(20) :6282-6302.

[33] Cui J. Research on the Impact of Digital Finance Development on ESG Performance of Enterprises[J]. Academic Journal of Business & Management,2022,4.0(11.0):416-439.

[34]许宪春.中国新经济的挑战与建议[J].高科技与产业化,2021,27(03):60-63

[35]张培,张苗苗．动态能力视角下制造企业数字化转型路径——基于步科公司的案例研究[J]．管理学季刊,2021,6 ( 2) :79~100．

[36]钱晶晶,何筠.传统企业动态能力构建与数字化转型的机理研究[J]．中国软科学, 2021( 6) : 135-143．

[37]张夏恒.中小企业数字化转型障碍、驱动因素及路径依赖——基于对377家第三产业中小企业的调查[J].中国流通经济,2020,34(12):72-82.

[38]杜晶晶,胡登峰,张琪.数字化环境下中小企业社会责任重构研究——基于重大突发事件的思考[J].宏观质量研究,2020,8(04):120-128.

[39]肖红军,阳镇,刘美玉.企业数字化的社会责任促进效应：内外双重路径的检验[J].经济管理,2021,43(11):52-69.

[40]吕铁.传统产业数字化转型的趋向与路径[J].人民论坛·学术前沿,2019 (18):13-19.

[41]黄群慧,余泳泽,张松林.互联网发展与制造业生产率提升：内在机制与中国经验[J].中国工业经济,2019(08):5-23.

[42]王子阳,魏炜,朱武祥,廖静秋.商业模式视角下的天虹数字化转型路径探索[J].管理学报,2020,17(12):1739-1750.

[43]黄大禹,谢获宝,邹梦婷,孟祥瑜.数字化转型对企业风险承担水平的影响——作用机制与影响渠道[J].科技进步与对策:1-10[2022-09-11].

[44]易露霞,吴非,徐斯旸．企业数字化转型的业绩驱动效应研究[J]．证券市场导报, 2021, (8) : 15-25.

[45]池毛毛,叶丁菱,王俊晶等．我国中小制造企业如何提升新产品开发绩效——基于数字化赋能的视角[J].南开管理评论,2020,23 ( 3) : 63-75.

[46]吕靖烨,张林辉.技术创新视角下环境规制与经营绩效研究[J].经济与管理, 2021,35 (02):40-46.

[47]邱子迅,周亚虹.数字经济发展与地区全要素生产率——基于国家级大数据综合试验区的分析[J].财经研究,2021,47(07):4-17.

[48]师博,胡西娟.高质量发展视域下数字经济推进共同富裕的机制与路径[J].改革,2022 (08):76-86.

[49]邱洋冬.数字经济发展如何影响企业创新[J].云南财经大学学报,2022, 38(08):61-81.

[50]王锋正,姜涛,郭晓川.政府质量、环境规制与企业绿色技术创新[J].科研管理,2018, 39(01):26-33.

[51]戚聿东,蔡呈伟．数字化对制造业企业绩效的多重影响及其机理研究[J]．学习与探索，2020,(7): 108-119．

[52]胡山,余泳泽.数字经济与企业创新：突破性创新还是渐进性创新?[J].财经问题研究, 2022(01):42-51.

[53]李严琴. ESG表现、绿色技术创新对上市公司长期价值的影响研究[D].重庆工商大学,2022.

[54]李井林,阳镇,陈劲,崔文清.ESG促进企业财务绩效的机制研究——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.

[55]余伟萍,毛振福,赵占恒.环境影响诉求对绿色购买意愿的影响机制研究——消费者CSR内部动机感知的中介作用和自我建构的调节作用[J].财经论丛, 2017(07):86-94.

[56]陈剑,张晨钰.互联网时代的隐私信息、企业策略与政府监管:一个文献综述[J].产业经济评论,2019(06):41-61.

[57]肖红军,李平.平台型企业社会责任的生态化治理[J].管理世界,2019,35(04):120-144.

[58]王文倩,肖朔晨,丁焰.数字赋能与用户需求双重驱动的产业价值转移研究——以海尔集团为案例[J].科学管理研究,2020,38(02):78-83.

[59]聂秀华,吴青.融资渠道、政府补贴与企业创新可持续性——基于动态面板模型的实证分析[J].企业经济,2019(09):60-68.

[60]赵娴,周航.数字化赋能传统百货转型：内涵、路径与借鉴——来自传统百货的转型实践[J].商业经济研究,2021(04):9-12.

[61]吕靖烨,方夕然.企业社会责任、碳排放强度与公司价值[J].煤炭经济研究,2021,41 (08):30-37.

[62]赵宸宇.数字化转型对企业社会责任的影响研究[J].当代经济科学,2022, 44(02):109-116.

[63]车德欣,戴美媛,吴非.企业数字化转型对融资成本的影响与机制研究[J].金融监管研究, 2021(12):56-74.

[64]孙新波,李祎祯,张明超.传统制造业企业智能化发展影响因素研究[J].创新科技,2021,21(01):44-52.

[65]徐子尧,张莉沙.数字化转型与企业费用粘性——基于管理层自利视角的分析[J/OL].金融经济学研究:1-14[2022-10-19].

[66]肖红军,阳镇.平台型企业社会责任治理:理论分野与研究展望[J].西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2020,40(01):57-68.

[67]尚洪涛,吴桐.企业数字化转型、社会责任与企业价值[J].技术经济,2022, 41(07):159-168.

[68]林润辉,谢宗晓,李娅,王川川.政治关联、政府补助与环境信息披露——资源依赖理论视角[J].公共管理学报,2015,12(02):30-41+154-155.

[69]李万福,杜静,张怀.创新补助究竟有没有激励企业创新自主投资-来自中国上市公司的新证据[J].金融研究,2017(10):130-145.

[70]刘虹.加快煤炭数字转型 开创未来发展之路[J].煤炭经济研究,2021, 41(09):1.

[71]申明浩,谭伟杰.数字化与企业绿色创新表现——基于增量与提质的双重效应识别[J].南方经济,2022(09):118-138.

[72]王晓红,栾翔宇,张少鹏.企业研发投入、ESG表现与市场价值——企业数字化水平的调节效应[J/OL].科学学研究:1-16[2022-09-11].

[73]李寿喜,王袁晗.企业数字化转型与企业创新——来自电子制造业的经验证据[J].工业技术经济,2022,41(08):19-26.

[74]王凤燕. 数字化转型背景下企业社会责任生态系统构建研究[D].杭州电子科技大学, 2022.

[75]谭雪.行业竞争、产权性质与企业社会责任信息披露——基于信号传递理论的分析[J].产业经济研究,2017(03):15-28.

[76] Ishak, Ismaniza, Jamaludin, Green Technology Concept and Implementataion: A Brief Review of Current Development[J]. Advanced Science Letters, 2017,23(9):8558-8561.

[77]胡洁,韩一鸣,钟咏.企业数字化转型如何影响企业ESG表现——来自中国上市公司的证据[J/OL].产业经济评论:1-20[2022-11-16].

[78] Feng M, Yu W, Wang X, et al. Green supply chain management and financial performance: The mediating roles of operational and environmental performance[J]. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2018,27(7):811-824.

[79] Tze San Ong."Environmental Innovation, Environmental Performance and Financial Performance: Evidence from Malaysian Environmental Proactive Firms." Sustainability 2019,11 (12):349-365.

[80]张中华,刘泽圻.政府创新补助提高了企业全要素生产率吗?——基于创新和非创新补助影响的比较研究[J].产业经济研究,2022(03):113-127.

[81]王翔,王元地,秦颖.政府补助困境——项目筛选预期与实施效果非兼容性研究[J/OL].软科学:1-10[2022-10-19].

[82]邹萍,李谷成．儒家文化能促进企业社会责任吗? [J].经济评论,2022(2) : 154-170.

[83]吕靖烨,刘蓉.ESG表现、投资效率与企业绩效[J].经济界,2023,No.164(02):47-56.

[84]黄益平,黄卓.中国的数字金融发展:现在与未来[J].经济学(季刊), 2018, 17(04):1489-1502.

[85]陈冬梅,纪永满,肖丹,厉雨,邵天龙,孟威.基于全业务数据的多维度数字化审计体系构建[J].中国内部审计,2020(07):28-35.

[86]袁淳,肖土盛,耿春晓,盛誉.数字化转型与企业分工：专业化还是纵向一体化[J].中国工业经济,2021(09):137-155.

[87]尤济红,王鹏.环境规制能否促进R&D偏向于绿色技术研发?——基于中国工业部门的实证研究[J].经济评论,2016(03):26-38.

[88]黎文靖,郑曼妮.实质性创新还是策略性创新?——宏观产业政策对微观企业创新的影响[J].经济研究,2016,51(04):60-73.

[89]罗宏,陈小运.企业探索型创新与银行信贷决策——基于中国上市公司专利技术分类的经验证据[J].经济管理,2022,44(03):178-195.

[90]高杰英,褚冬晓,廉永辉,郑君.ESG表现能改善企业投资效率吗？[J].证券市场导报, 2021(11):24-34+72.

[91]管考磊,朱海宁.企业数字化转型对税收规避的影响——来自中国上市公司的经验证据[J].证券市场导报,2022(08):30-38.

[92]吕靖烨,刘蓉.双碳背景下重资产配置的环境绩效评价——基于能源工业的面板数据[J/OL].资源开发与市场:2023(04):1-13.