
The recruitment of therapeutics and most importantly COVID-19 vaccines has seen a measurable reduction in transmission, re-infection, severity, hospitalization and mortality associated with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The development and approval of some vaccines and therapeutics undoubtedly signaled renewed hope for public health personnel, the government, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the entire world population. At present, most countries have progressed beyond administering first and second doses to administering COVID-19 vaccine updated boosters to prevent transmission and provide protection. Notably, a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna, also called an “updated” COVID-19 vaccine booster dose, is a formulation that houses the original virus strain and omicron BA.1, which provides broad immunity against COVID-19 including the omicron variant (BA.1) and the Paxlovid drug (Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. This current review outlines the variant of concern (VOC), viral cell entry and pathogenesis, host immunity and viral immune evasion. In addition, we discuss the therapeutic and vaccine treatment approach, WHO and FDA authorization, vaccine storage and vaccine efficacy. In conclusion, bearing in mind the trend of continued mutations as observed on the spike (S) glycoprotein and receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2, which lead to more immune-evasive strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB and XBB.1, researcher and clinician attention should be tailored toward the design and development of variant-specific vaccines for future interventions.
Citation: Daniel Danladi Gaiya, Jonathan Danladi Gaiya, Richard Auta, Aliyu Muhammad, Bege Jonathan, Stella Kuyet Udu, Ekpa Emmanuel, Amina Shehu Bature. The journey so far with SARS-CoV-2 variants: Pathogenesis, immunity and treatments[J]. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2023, 7(4): 222-250. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2023016
[1] | Tao Lin, Mingyue Du, Siyu Ren . How do green bonds affect green technology innovation? Firm evidence from China. Green Finance, 2022, 4(4): 492-511. doi: 10.3934/GF.2022024 |
[2] | Raja Elyn Maryam Raja Ezuma, Nitanan Koshy Matthew . The perspectives of stakeholders on the effectiveness of green financing schemes in Malaysia. Green Finance, 2022, 4(4): 450-473. doi: 10.3934/GF.2022022 |
[3] | Xinyu Fu, Yanting Xu . The impact of digital technology on enterprise green innovation: quality or quantity?. Green Finance, 2024, 6(3): 484-517. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024019 |
[4] | Shahinur Rahman, Iqbal Hossain Moral, Mehedi Hassan, Gazi Shakhawat Hossain, Rumana Perveen . A systematic review of green finance in the banking industry: perspectives from a developing country. Green Finance, 2022, 4(3): 347-363. doi: 10.3934/GF.2022017 |
[5] | Jun Duan, Tingting Liu, Xiaoran Yang, Hua Yang, Yunwei Gao . Financial asset allocation and green innovation. Green Finance, 2023, 5(4): 512-537. doi: 10.3934/GF.2023020 |
[6] | Laura Grumann, Mara Madaleno, Elisabete Vieira . The green finance dilemma: No impact without risk – a multiple case study on renewable energy investments. Green Finance, 2024, 6(3): 457-483. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024018 |
[7] | Liudmila S. Kabir, Zhanna A. Mingaleva, Ivan D. Rakov . Technological modernization of the national economy as an indicator of green finance: Data analysis on the example of Russia. Green Finance, 2025, 7(1): 146-174. doi: 10.3934/GF.2025006 |
[8] | Wen-Tien Tsai . Green finance for mitigating greenhouse gases and promoting renewable energy development: Case study in Taiwan. Green Finance, 2024, 6(2): 249-264. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024010 |
[9] | Mukul Bhatnagar, Sanjay Taneja, Ercan Özen . A wave of green start-ups in India—The study of green finance as a support system for sustainable entrepreneurship. Green Finance, 2022, 4(2): 253-273. doi: 10.3934/GF.2022012 |
[10] | Yangyang Cheng, Zhenhuan Xu . Fiscal policy promotes corporate green credit: Experience from the construction of energy conservation and emission reduction demonstration cities in China. Green Finance, 2024, 6(1): 1-23. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024001 |
The recruitment of therapeutics and most importantly COVID-19 vaccines has seen a measurable reduction in transmission, re-infection, severity, hospitalization and mortality associated with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The development and approval of some vaccines and therapeutics undoubtedly signaled renewed hope for public health personnel, the government, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the entire world population. At present, most countries have progressed beyond administering first and second doses to administering COVID-19 vaccine updated boosters to prevent transmission and provide protection. Notably, a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna, also called an “updated” COVID-19 vaccine booster dose, is a formulation that houses the original virus strain and omicron BA.1, which provides broad immunity against COVID-19 including the omicron variant (BA.1) and the Paxlovid drug (Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. This current review outlines the variant of concern (VOC), viral cell entry and pathogenesis, host immunity and viral immune evasion. In addition, we discuss the therapeutic and vaccine treatment approach, WHO and FDA authorization, vaccine storage and vaccine efficacy. In conclusion, bearing in mind the trend of continued mutations as observed on the spike (S) glycoprotein and receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2, which lead to more immune-evasive strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB and XBB.1, researcher and clinician attention should be tailored toward the design and development of variant-specific vaccines for future interventions.
The survival and advancement of humanity have been significantly impacted recently by the decline of the ecological environment. Enterprises play a critical role as the main actors in this process, serving as a crucial driver in encouraging the sustainable development of the global economy through green innovation. Under the consideration of social responsibility and sustainable development, enterprises aspire to achieve continuous growth and development through green innovation. However, innovative activities often require significant initial cost investments. These costs include establishing research infrastructure and hiring qualified R & D personnel. It is crucial to remember that once the choice is made to start the innovation process, there may be significant opportunity costs involved in stopping (Manez et al., 2009). According to relevant research, continuous innovation may not bring good economic benefits (Demirel et al., 2012; Guarascio et al., 2019; Bianchini et al., 2019). Some studies have also shown that there may be a certain threshold for innovation factors to generate green economic benefits (Wang et al., 2023). This means that enterprises face the characteristics of high sunk costs, irreversibility, long R & D cycles, highly uncertain output and low returns in carrying out sustainable green innovation. Consequently, companies often confront the dual pressure of significant adjustment costs and financing expenses for their R & D investments. Financing restrictions affect both enterprises' decisions about innovation and the results of those efforts, according to research by Garcia-Quevedo et al. (2018). This finding is consistent with the studies conducted by Andersen (2017) and Yu et al. (2021), which suggest that high financing constraints can hinder enterprises' investments in green technologies, consequently weakening their green innovation capabilities. Indeed, since the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015, there has been a growing focus on green finance (hereinafter referred to as GF) from governments, scholars and enterprises (Tolliver et al., 2021). GF represents a distinctive institutional framework for investment and financing, aiming to regulate the financial flows across public, private and non-profit sectors, including banking, microfinance, insurance and investment (Ahmad et al., 2022). By employing market mechanisms to reallocate economic resources, GF can effectively steer capital and resources toward industries that promote resource-saving and environmentally friendly practices. By doing this, it can enable enterprises that are actively involved in green innovation to overcome their capital restrictions (Yu et al., 2021).
In the realm of research on GF and green innovation, some studies have explored the topic through the lens of GF policies and instruments (Yu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; He et al., 2022). Traditionally, these studies have often employed a single indicator to measure the effectiveness of green financial instruments and policies. However, some scholars have argued that policy pilots like green credit and green bonds only represent a portion of the broader concept of GF, and it is challenging to capture the comprehensive development of GF using a single indicator alone (He et al., 2022; Debrah et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2022). Therefore, to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between GF and its impact on enterprise innovation, a comprehensive evaluation of the macro-level development of GF has become a crucial aspect of research (Debrah et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2022). In recent years, there has been a growing body of literature focusing on the comprehensive assessment of macro GF development and its influence on the green innovation of micro-enterprises (Ye et al., 2021; Jiang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022). It is true that existing research primarily focuses on the short-term effects of GF development on green technology innovation or enterprise green innovation, while paying relatively less attention to the long-term sustainability value of enterprise green innovation (Geroski et al., 1997; Bianchini et al., 2019; Antonioli et al., 2021). As a result, not enough attention has been given to the effects of green finance development on firms' sustainable green innovation.
Given the limited number of studies on the comprehensive evaluation of the development level of GF in the existing literature, the majority of attention on corporate green innovation is primarily directed toward short-term innovation output. However, there is insufficient sustained attention given to the ongoing corporate green innovation output (Le Bas, 2015; Guarascio and Tamagni, 2019). Furthermore, existing research rarely establishes a connection between the comprehensive evaluation system of the development level of macro GF and the impact of continuous green innovation in micro-enterprises. Additionally, the analysis of the mechanisms through which the GF level affects the sustainable green innovation of firms needs to be further enhanced. Therefore, undertaking a thorough examination of the mechanisms that influence the growth of GF and the sustainable green innovation of firms has enormous theoretical value and practical significance.
In this study, the relationship between GF development and sustainable green innovation at the enterprise level is especially examined using China as a case study. We use panel data at the micro- and provincial level for A-share listed enterprises in Shanghai and Shenzhen from 2012 to 2020 to conduct this research. The fixed effect model is used to examine how GF development affects enterprises' commitment to sustainable green innovation. We also examine the moderating effects of enterprise debt default risk and enterprise financing risk on the aforementioned impact, as well as the intermediary effect of continuous R & D expenditure.
This study aims to make several contributions. First, it provides a systematic measurement of the level of GF at the macro level, using a multi-dimensional index system. This contributes to enhancing the overall understanding of macro GF development across various sectors of society. Second, from a long-term sustainability perspective, the study examines the impact of GF on corporate green innovation. Additionally, the paper incorporates the development of GF, continuous R & D investment by enterprises, as well as debt default risk and financing risk into an analytical framework for studying continuous green innovation. The study conducts in-depth and detailed analysis to explore the theoretical mechanisms underlying these factors. By establishing a theoretical analysis framework, this study contributes to a better understanding of the theoretical relationship between GF development and enterprise's sustainable green innovation. Additionally, the empirical testing conducted in this paper, using China as an example, examines the impact mechanism and heterogeneity characteristics of macro GF on micro enterprises' sustainable green innovation. This research conducted in a specifically adapted Chinese context helps to uncover and understand the practical characteristics of GF and continuous green innovation in emerging markets. The study provides valuable empirical evidence and policy implications, not only for China but also for other emerging market countries, in building a macro green financial system and promoting continuous green innovation among micro-enterprises.
Enterprise green innovation is pivotal in enhancing competitiveness, cost reduction and brand image enhancement (Zameer et al., 2019). While partial or sporadic green innovation, such as green process innovation or green product innovation, may yield short-term benefits, it lacks long-term strategic significance (Xie et al., 2019). It is only through continuous green innovation that enterprises can achieve sustainable development and foster the coordinated development of environmental resources. However, according to the resource dependence theory, enterprises have limited resources, so achieving sustainable green innovation requires rational allocation of limited resources. At the same time, green innovation is characterized by sunkness, irreversibility, long R & D cycle, highly uncertain output and low returns. If enterprises want to continuously promote green innovation and enhance their competitiveness, they must obtain a large amount of external finance to support green innovation activities. Therefore, GF is becoming an essential tool for fostering the greening of the economy and supporting green innovation inside enterprises (Desalegn, 2022). By utilizing GF, enterprises can access funding support specifically tailored for projects with environmental protection characteristics. This not only broadens the financing avenues available to enterprises but also helps optimize their investment and financing practices. Moreover, GF enhances enterprises' confidence and expectations regarding the direction of environmental regulatory policies (Yu et al., 2021). The support of GF facilitates enterprises in acquiring larger-scale, longer-term and lower-cost external funding. This, in turn, strengthens enterprises' commitment to long-term green technology R & D and encourages a sustained focus on green innovation activities. Moreover, GF serves as a mechanism for resource allocation, incentives and constraints. It provides external motivation for enterprises, thereby promoting ongoing green innovation endeavors.
Hypothesis 1: GF has a favorable effect on enterprises' sustainable green innovation.
Achieving a breakthrough from quantitative change to qualitative change in green technology necessitates the continuous accumulation of knowledge and relevant technology. Continuous investment in research and development (R & D) serves as the fundamental guarantee for this process. Research indicates that the dynamic increase in green innovation returns and the high sunk costs associated with green innovation incentivize enterprises to invest continuously in R & D and adopt sustainable green innovation strategies (Peters, 2009). In other words, while the sunk costs resulting from early R & D investment may impede the exit from green innovation, they also motivate enterprises to persist in R & D investment to attain sustainable green innovation (Peters, 2009; Yu et al., 2022). Continuing R & D investment enables enterprises to accumulate knowledge and technological capabilities, enhancing their internal innovation capacities. This, in turn, supports enterprises in achieving higher levels of green innovation output and sustainable green innovation. On one hand, such practices contribute to market differentiation and enable enterprises to attain a leading position. On the other hand, they also strengthen resilience to risks and enhance industry competitiveness.
GF serves as a crucial external financing channel for enterprises, with its resource allocation function addressing the issue of insufficient investment in green innovation R & D. It helps reduce R & D costs for enterprises and enhances their willingness to allocate funds to R & D (Cui and Peng, 2023). Additionally, GF necessitates a more rigorous environmental information disclosure system. This, on the one hand, reduces the displacement of green innovation funds from production and sales activities, encouraging enterprises to utilize the funds for innovation. On the other hand, investors can make more accurate valuation decisions based on enterprises' environmental performance. This enhances enterprises' motivation to invest in continuous R & D and improves their environmental competitiveness (Hong et al., 2020; Ding et al., 2022). Moreover, with the support of GF, the accumulation of human capital and technical knowledge increases alongside continuous R & D investment. The knowledge updates and technological advancements resulting from green R & D investment provide endogenous support for enterprises' ongoing innovation output.
Hypothesis 2: GF promotes continuous R & D investments, thereby facilitating enterprises' sustainable green innovation.
The core concept of GF entails allocating credit based on environmental constraints. This approach aims to direct capital toward green enterprises, thereby enabling a greater inflow of funding for environmentally friendly projects (Jin et al., 2022). Through the implementation of supportive policies and incentives, financial institutions can offer loans to companies that prioritize environmental governance at lower interest rates. This helps enhance the maturity profile of corporate debt financing and reduces overall financing expenses for such enterprises (Mirza et al., 2023). Furthermore, the advancement of GF exerts pressure on heavily polluting enterprises to transition toward more sustainable practices. Enterprises with high pollution levels may experience increased costs when obtaining GF credit. This, in turn, reduces their debt repayment capacity and ability to bear risks, potentially amplifying operational and financial risks (He et al., 2022). In light of risk factors, external investors may elevate the cost of capital usage or opt to refrain from investing in such enterprises, further adding to the financing expenses incurred by heavily polluting companies.
By utilizing the capital allocation mechanism of environmental information, GF amplifies the investment risk faced by polluting enterprises. This, in turn, reduces their access to financing opportunities while channeling green funds toward industries or enterprises that adhere to green credit rating standards and engage in long-term clean production (Shen and Liao, 2020). Given that financing constraints significantly impact an enterprise's economic decision-making, GF can play a crucial role in regulating actions such as ongoing green innovation. In other words, the level of financing constraints an enterprise faces greatly influences its motivation and willingness to undertake sustained green innovation.
Hypothesis 3: GF can partially alleviate the issue of high financing constraints and facilitate the promotion of the enterprise's sustainable green innovation.
Currently, enterprises are encountering mounting pressure and increasing cash flow issues amid economic transformations and uncertain development environments. These challenges heighten the risk of debt defaults. The consequences of corporate debt default extend beyond employee losses and disruptions in the supply chain. They also pose significant obstacles to the green transformation efforts of enterprises. When confronted with the risk of debt default, enterprise management, driven by concerns over their position and external pressures, often tends to steer clear of risks. Instead, they favor stable projects that can optimize short-term performance, while shelving long-term and innovative endeavors (Wang et al., 2023). Consequently, the ability of enterprises to sustain green innovation is adversely affected when they face the risk of debt default.
The environmental information disclosure system implemented in GF contributes to enhancing investor confidence in corporate financial and non-financial information to a certain degree. As a result, it helps mitigate adverse selection issues between creditors and debtors (Yadav et al., 2016). This improved credibility of information leads to increased investor confidence, subsequently reducing the cost of corporate debt financing. It also alleviates the financial burden on enterprises and elicits a positive response from the capital market. These measures, to some extent, contribute to boosting the cash flow of enterprises and reducing the risk of corporate debt default (Yadav et al., 2016; Du et al., 2017).
In a context where the risk of debt default is significantly reduced and market guidance is provided, the promotion of continuous green innovation among enterprises is greatly facilitated. Taking into account the significant impact of debt default risk on the decision-making behavior of corporate managers and investors, it is likely that debt default risk plays an important role in regulating the economic decisions of GF regarding enterprises' sustainable green innovation. In other words, the influence of GF on enterprises' motivation and willingness to engage in continuous green innovation is largely influenced by the level of debt default risk they face. When debt default risk is lowered, enterprises become more inclined and motivated to pursue sustained green innovation.
Hypothesis 4: GF can partially alleviate the problem of high debt default risk and promote enterprises' sustainable green innovation.
See Figure 1 for the framework diagram of specific theoretical analysis.
The fixed effect model is advantageous in controlling for individual characteristics and time series, relaxing the assumption of serial independence, capturing the effect of individual variation and time covariation and processing the characteristics of panel data. These advantages can all contribute to improving the precision and accuracy of analysis results. Therefore, this paper employs the fixed effect model to empirically test the impact of GF on enterprises' sustainable green innovation, building upon previous theoretical analysis. To do so, the following benchmark model has been constructed:
SGIit=a1+a2GFit+a3xit+δh+λy+γu+εit. | (1) |
The subscript i in the equation represents different entities or individuals, while t represents different years. SGI is the dependent variable in this study, representing enterprises' sustainable green innovation (SGI). GF is the key explanatory variable, representing green finance. xit represents the set of control variables, with detailed control variables and their measurement methods described later in the text. δh denotes individual fixed effects, λy represents time effects, γu represents industry effects and εit represents the random error term.
Building on the theoretical analysis outlined earlier, this study seeks to delve deeper into the intermediary role of continuous R & D investment in the link between GF and enterprises' sustainable green innovation. To this end, the study constructs a mediation model as follows:
CRDIit=a1+a2GFit+a3xit+δh+λy+γu+εit, |
SGIit=a1+a2GFit+a3CRDIit+a4xit+δh+λy+γu+εit. | (2) |
The variable CRDI in the equation serves as the intermediary variable in this study, representing enterprises' continuous R & D investment (CRDI).
Furthermore, incorporating the theoretical framework analysis and referring to the model setting method of Wang et al. (2023b), this study extends equation (1) by including moderation variables of financial constraints and debt default risk, as well as interaction terms between GF and both financial constraints and debt financing risk. As a result, the moderation effect models represented by equations (3) and (4) are obtained, aiming to further examine the moderating role of GF in the relationship between enterprises' sustainable green innovation.
SGIit=a1+a2GFit+a3FCit+a4GFit×FCit+a5xit+δh+λy+γu+εit, | (3) |
SGIit=a1+a2GFit+a3DDRit+a4GFit×DDRit+a5xit+δh+λy+γu+εit. | (4) |
In the formula, FCit is the moderating variable of financing constraints, and DDRit is the moderating variable of debt default risk.
In this study, the dependent variable is the SGI. Following the research methods of He et al. (2017), this study utilizes a before-after comparison of the green innovation output index (OIN) to measure the enterprises' sustainable green innovation. This is the dependent variable of the study, representing corporate green continuous innovation. The calculation formula is detailed below:
SGIt=OINt+OINt−1OINt−1+OINt−2×(OINt+OINt−1) | (5) |
In this study, green finance (GF) is the key explanatory variable. Taking a cue from Lee and Lee's (2022) research, we adopt a comprehensive approach to measure GF by considering its four key dimensions: green credit, green securities, green insurance and green investments. We select appropriate indicators corresponding to each dimension to construct a composite index of GF. The comprehensive evaluation framework for the GF index, including the measurement methods for relevant indicators and their respective weights, is presented in Table 1.
Tier 1 indicators | Tier 2 indicators | Definition of indicators | Indicator direction |
Green Credit | Interest ratio of high energy-consuming industries | High energy-consuming industrial interest/industrial interest | - |
Green Securities | The proportion of the market value of high energy-consuming industries | Value of six high energy-consuming A-shares/total market value of A-shares | - |
Green Investment | The proportion of investment in environmental pollution | Investment in pollution control /GDP | + |
Green Insurance | Agricultural insurance scale ratio | Agricultural insurance income/total agricultural output value | + |
Carbon Finance | Carbon intensity | Carbon dioxide emissions/GDP | - |
The calculation of the composite index of GF involves three steps. In the first step, we apply mathematical transformations to standardize each signal indicator to address measurement issues and enhance comparability and coherence among the indicators. To do this, we classify the indications as either positive or negative, then choose the standardization approach that best fits the indicator's characteristics. The specific calculation process for standardization is shown in equations (6) and (7). In the second step, after standardization of the indicators, we compute the weights for each indicator individually. According to each indicator's relative significance during the evaluation process, weights are assigned to them using the weight matrix (Wj). Finally, in the third step, we calculate the composite index of GF by combining the standardized values of the indicators with their respective weights using equation (8).
Positive indicator:Xs+ij=Xij−min(Xj)max(Xj)−min(Xj), | (6) |
Negative indicator:Xs−ij=max(Xj)−Xijmax(Xj)−min(Xj), | (7) |
GFi=∑Jj=1Wj×Xsij. | (8) |
To offer a lucid and straightforward understanding of the spatiotemporal evolution of GF in different provinces of China, we present kernel density plots of GF levels in 2012 and 2019 in Figure 2. The corresponding figures illustrate the following observations: compared to 2012, the kernel density of 2019 shows a leftward shift in the center, a decrease in kurtosis and an elongation of the tail. The kernel density curve features of the changes in GF indicate an overall decline in the level of GF in China, accompanied by an increasing regional disparity trend.
The following control variables are chosen for this investigation by consulting the current literature: enterprise size (Size) is measured by the logarithm of the enterprises' total assets. Asset-liability ratio (Alr) is measured by the ratio of total liabilities to total assets. Management fee ratio (Mfee) is measured by the ratio of management expense to total assets. Profit volatility (Pvol) is defined as the three-year volatility of the (total earnings before interest and tax)/(total assets ratio). Financial distress (Fina) is the Z-score of enterprise. Property rights type (Prt) is a dummy variable, represented as a dummy variable that equals 1 for state-owned enterprises and 0 for non-state-owned enterprises. The separation rate of two rights of actual controllers (Csep), is measured by the difference between the proportion of control rights and the proportion of ownership of listed enterprises owned by actual controllers. Equity balance (Bal), is calculated as the difference between the shareholding ratios of the second to fifth largest shareholders and the largest shareholder. Board dualization (Dual), is represented as a dummy variable with 1 for firms where the chairman and CEO are the same person and 0 for others. Board size (B size) is the number of directors on the board. The number of senior executives (Enum) is the number of senior executives of enterprise. The institutional environment (Ien) is the overall index of the marketization of Fan Gang.
To clarify, continuous R & D investment (CRDI) serves as an intermediary variable in this study, helping us analyze the relationship between GF and enterprises' sustainable green innovation. Following the approach used by He et al. (2017), we calculate the annual R & D investment of an enterprise in a given year (t) by multiplying the sum of specific R & D expenditures in the current year (t) and the previous year (t−1) by the year-on-year growth rate of the enterprise's R & D expenditure. The calculation formula is presented below:
CRDIt=RDIt+RDIt−1RDIt−1+RDIt−2×(RDIt+RDIt−1) | (9) |
Financial constraint (FC) is one of the moderating variables in this study. Following the approach of Hadlock and Pierce (2010), we adopt the absolute value of the FC index as a measure of external financing constraints for enterprises. The specific calculation method is as follows:
FC=−0.737×Size+0.043×Size2−0.04×Age | (10) |
Debt default risk (DDR) is the second moderating variable in this study. Drawing upon the research by Bharath and Shumway (2008) and Zhai et al. (2022), The standard deviation multiple of the firm's asset value relative to the default point is used to calculate the enterprise debt default risk.
This study is conducted based on panel data from micro-level data of Chinese A-share listed enterprises and macro-level data at the provincial level for the period of 2012–2020. The micro-level data of the enterprises primarily come from the China Stock Market & Accounting Research Database (CSMAR) database. The macro-level data at the provincial level are obtained from the "China Statistical Yearbook", "China Environmental Statistical Yearbook", "China Industrial Statistical Yearbook", "China Insurance Statistical Yearbook", "China Energy Statistical Yearbook" and "China Rural Statistical Yearbook." The study excludes samples with severe data missingness, financial sector samples and ST-classified samples. Table 2 provides descriptive statistics of the pertinent variables employed in this study.
Variable | Number of observations | Mean | Std Dev | Minimum | Maximum |
GF | 14175 | 0.329 | 0.165 | 0.0910 | 0.879 |
SGI | 14175 | 0.343 | 0.900 | 0 | 10.13 |
CRDI | 14175 | 5.326 | 13.52 | 0 | 113.0 |
FC | 14175 | −3.764 | 0.296 | −4.859 | −2.114 |
DDR | 14175 | 0.767 | 2.925 | −119.1 | 7.674 |
Size | 14175 | 22.54 | 1.317 | 19.35 | 26.98 |
Alr | 14175 | 0.462 | 0.193 | 0.0480 | 1.154 |
Pvol | 14175 | 0.0290 | 0.0400 | 0 | 0.394 |
Mfee | 14175 | 0.0850 | 0.0630 | 0.00700 | 0.814 |
Fina | 14175 | 4.077 | 4.434 | −2.418 | 40.85 |
Prt | 14175 | 0.420 | 0.494 | 0 | 1 |
Csep | 14175 | 5.011 | 7.751 | −68.93 | 41.01 |
Bal | 14175 | 0.678 | 0.569 | 0.00500 | 2.745 |
Dual | 14175 | 0.245 | 0.430 | 0 | 1 |
B size | 14175 | 8.754 | 1.793 | 0 | 19 |
Enum | 14175 | 6.756 | 2.587 | 0 | 24 |
Ien | 14175 | 9.409 | 1.513 | 3.360 | 11.49 |
To examine the relationship between GF development and sustainable green innovation in enterprises, this study employs fixed effect multiple regression analysis. The specific regression results are presented in Table 3.
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
GF | 0.347** | 0.378** | 0.378** | 0.369** |
(2.19) | (2.34) | (2.34) | (2.32) | |
Size | 0.243*** | 0.243*** | 0.240*** | |
(5.61) | (5.61) | (5.55) | ||
Alr | −0.108 | −0.108 | −0.090 | |
(−1.12) | (−1.12) | (−0.93) | ||
Pvol | −0.443** | −0.443** | −0.466** | |
(−2.20) | (−2.20) | (−2.30) | ||
Mfee | 0.001 | 0.001 | −0.012 | |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (−0.05) | ||
Fina | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004* | |
(1.51) | (1.51) | (1.73) | ||
Prt | 0.032 | |||
(0.54) | ||||
Csep | 0.001 | |||
(0.28) | ||||
Bal | 0.048 | |||
(1.35) | ||||
Dual | 0.055* | |||
(1.83) | ||||
Bsize | −0.001 | |||
(−0.05) | ||||
Enum | −0.005 | |||
(−0.72) | ||||
Ien | −0.075*** | |||
(−3.31) | ||||
Constant | 0.229*** | −5.199*** | −5.199*** | −4.459*** |
(4.41) | (−5.35) | (−5.35) | (−4.49) | |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.601 | 0.608 | 0.608 | 0.609 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Note: ***, **, and * indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively. |
Column 4 is considered as the benchmark regression for initiating the discussion. With a threshold of significance of 5%, the results of the baseline regression show a substantial positive correlation between GF and firms' sustainable green innovation. This indicates that GF is strongly linked with enterprise sustainable green innovation. This is highly consistent with Hypothesis 1 of theoretical analysis and verifies Hypothesis 1 to a certain extent. As discussed above, GF has a powerful function of economic resource allocation, which can tilt social and economic resources to enterprises' green development projects and enterprises engaged in green technology innovation, and promote the flow of financial resources to sustainable green innovation and green development projects. GF has increased the number of available financing options and helps enterprises get funding for environmentally friendly development initiatives.
Furthermore, GF acts as an essential signal transmission mechanism, allowing enterprises to obtain a clear expectation of environmental regulatory policy direction, which reinforces their motivation for sustainable development and green innovation. Therefore, in the present economic development context that emphasizes green and sustainable development, it is critical for China and other countries to continue promoting GF development, establish a well-regulated GF market, and ensure the alignment and coordination of market development goals with policy planning. This group effort will support the social economy's sustainable growth and aid in resolving a number of environmental and social issues.
The two-step regression method of intermediary effect is adopted for testing, and the test results are shown in Table 4. In addition, to further verify the intermediary effect test results of the two-step regression method, the bootstrap method is used to test the intermediary effect again, and the test results are shown in Table 5.
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
VARIABLES | CRDI | SGI | CRDI | SGI |
GF | 6.405** | 0.251* | 6.240** | 0.245* |
(2.12) | (1.75) | (2.06) | (1.74) | |
Size | 4.454*** | 0.154*** | 4.541*** | 0.150*** |
(6.90) | (3.98) | (7.04) | (3.84) | |
Alr | −0.219 | −0.104 | −0.119 | −0.088 |
(−0.16) | (−1.15) | (−0.09) | (−0.97) | |
Pvol | −6.479** | −0.314* | −6.799*** | −0.331* |
(−2.52) | (−1.68) | (−2.64) | (−1.76) | |
Mfee | 0.766 | −0.014 | 0.789 | −0.028 |
(0.29) | (−0.06) | (0.29) | (−0.12) | |
Fina | 0.100*** | 0.002 | 0.102*** | 0.002 |
(3.40) | (0.72) | (3.45) | (0.94) | |
Prt | −0.623 | 0.044 | ||
(−1.04) | (0.74) | |||
Csep | 0.016 | 0.000 | ||
(0.43) | (0.14) | |||
Bal | 0.739 | 0.033 | ||
(1.43) | (1.05) | |||
Dual | 0.213 | 0.050* | ||
(0.59) | (1.84) | |||
Bsize | −0.272 | 0.005 | ||
(−1.42) | (0.48) | |||
Enum | −0.097 | −0.003 | ||
(−0.75) | (−0.49) | |||
Ien | −0.961*** | −0.056*** | ||
(−3.01) | (−2.69) | |||
CRDI | 0.020*** | 0.020*** | ||
(7.27) | (7.27) | |||
Constant | −97.335*** | −3.256*** | −87.589*** | −2.721*** |
(−6.63) | (−3.78) | (−5.70) | (−3.09) | |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.698 | 0.635 | 0.699 | 0.636 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Coefficient | Standard errors | Z-value | P-value | 95% conf. interval | |
Mediation effect | 0.1261*** | 0.0238 | 5.29 | 0.000 | 0.0794–0.1728 |
Direct effect | 0.0854** | 0.0426 | 2.01 | 0.045 | 0.0020–0.1689 |
By columns 1 and 3 of Table 4, we observe that GF has a significant positive effect on enterprises' continuous R & D investment at a 5% significance level. This finding suggests that GF contributes to the promotion of enterprises' continuous R & D investment. The expectations of stability in green development and the availability of GF can motivate enterprises to invest in R & D. Moreover, market development further encourages enterprises' continuous R & D investment. This is owing to the fact that enterprises must continuously invest in R & D in order to keep their fundamental competitive advantage in a market economy.
Additionally, upon introducing the intermediary variable of continuous R & D investment, columns 2 and 4 of Table 4 in the regression results show that GF still has a significant impact on enterprises' sustainable green innovation at a 10% level, though the significance coefficient is somewhat lower. It's important to note that ongoing R & D investment has a 1% impact on enterprises' sustainable green innovation, suggesting that it acts as a partial mediator in the relationship between GF and sustainable green innovation in businesses. These findings are in alignment with our theoretical Hypothesis 2, which postulated that GF could stimulate sustainable green innovation in enterprises by facilitating continuous R & D investment. In this context, GF serves as an external driver that promotes knowledge generation and technological advances stemming from green R & D investment, thereby enhancing internal support for enterprises' green innovation and contributing to the promotion of sustainable green innovation in enterprises.
Table 5 demonstrates that both the direct and indirect effects are statistically significant, and the confidence interval does not include 0, suggesting that continuous R & D investment functions as a mediator. This outcome aligns with the findings from the stepwise regression test, indicating a reliable and consistent intermediary effect.
To investigate whether financing constraints and debt default risk moderate the impact of GF on enterprises' sustainable green innovation, this study presents the regression results based on Model (3) and Model (4), as shown in Table 6.
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
GF | 0.238* | 0.233* | 0.394** | 0.385** |
(1.68) | (1.67) | (2.43) | (2.41) | |
FC | 2.756*** | 2.727*** | ||
(6.64) | (6.63) | |||
GF*FC | 0.887** | 0.944** | ||
(2.41) | (2.55) | |||
Size | 0.209*** | 0.207*** | 0.252*** | 0.249*** |
(5.12) | (5.06) | (5.71) | (5.66) | |
Alr | −0.121 | −0.111 | −0.079 | −0.061 |
(−1.33) | (−1.20) | (−0.81) | (−0.61) | |
Pvol | −0.128 | −0.143 | −0.439** | −0.461** |
(−0.66) | (−0.74) | (−2.17) | (−2.27) | |
Mfee | −0.408* | −0.409* | 0.046 | 0.034 |
(−1.69) | (−1.70) | (0.19) | (0.14) | |
Fina | −0.001 | −0.001 | 0.004* | 0.005* |
(−0.45) | (−0.26) | (1.71) | (1.93) | |
Prt | 0.032 | 0.034 | ||
(0.59) | (0.58) | |||
Csep | 0.000 | 0.001 | ||
(0.20) | (0.32) | |||
Bal | 0.018 | 0.046 | ||
(0.54) | (1.32) | |||
Dual | 0.040 | 0.056* | ||
(1.44) | (1.87) | |||
Bsize | 0.002 | −0.000 | ||
(0.16) | (−0.02) | |||
Enum | −0.002 | −0.005 | ||
(−0.37) | (−0.76) | |||
Ien | −0.065*** | −0.076*** | ||
(−2.94) | (−3.35) | |||
DDR | 0.008* | 0.009* | ||
(1.79) | (1.79) | |||
GF*DDR | 0.115** | 0.115** | ||
(2.13) | (2.14) | |||
Constant | 6.027*** | 6.530*** | −5.438*** | −4.697*** |
(3.23) | (3.47) | (−5.46) | (−4.64) | |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.629 | 0.629 | 0.610 | 0.611 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
From Table 6, it is apparent that GF has a significant positive relationship with both financing constraints and the interaction term between GF and debt financing. These results are significant at a 5% level or higher, indicating that financing constraints and debt default risk moderate the impact of GF on enterprises' sustainable green innovation. These results are in line with the theoretical hypotheses that were previously expressed, particularly Hypotheses 3 and 4, which contend that GF can help reduce high financing limitations and the danger of debt default while also encouraging businesses to adopt sustainable green innovation.
Furthermore, the results suggest that the promotion effect of GF on sustainable green innovation is more significant for enterprises facing high financing constraints and significant debt default risk. There are several reasons for this. First, GF provides more than just financing support for enterprises; it also reduces financing costs, thus easing their debt pressure. This is particularly beneficial for enterprises struggling with high financing constraints and risks of default.
Second, GF places greater emphasis on the environmental protection and social benefits of green investment and financing, making it more suitable for enterprises that prioritize green innovation. There is a natural synergy between green financial products and green innovation, wherein green financial investment and financing methods can better harness the commercial value of green innovation. Through green resource allocation, technological innovation and green production transformation within the value chain, enterprises can enhance their overall innovation capability and achieve sustainable transformation. Thirdly, under government and societal policy support and promotion, the marketization and influence of GF is growing, providing stronger support for enterprises to promote green innovation. With the help of policy support and promotion of GF, enterprises choose GF as an inevitable choice for achieving green innovation and sustainable development. Financial institutions and investors have also adopted green investment strategies, which amplify the market and social effects of green innovation.
In this study, the concept of sustainable green innovation is further categorized into different types. According to Equation (5), the persistence of the number of green invention patents granted is used to measure substantive sustainable green innovation (SUSGI), while the persistence of the number of green utility patents granted is used to measure strategic sustainable green innovation (STSGI). Additionally, according to Equation (5), collaborative sustainable green innovation (CSGI) is measured by the persistence of the number of collaborative green invention patent applications in a given year as opposed to independent sustainable green innovation (ISGI), which is measured by the persistence of the number of independent green invention patent applications in a given year. Table 7 presents the results, which confirm that the promotion effect of GF, the intermediary role of continuous R & D investment and the heterogeneity mechanism of financing constraints are all observed across the four types of sustainable green innovation. However, it is found that enterprises with higher levels of debt default risk are more likely to engage in substantial and independent types of sustainable green innovation.
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | |
Variables | SUSGI | CRDI | SUSGI | SUSGI | SUSGI | STSGI | CRDI | STSGI | STSGI | STSGI |
GF | 0.190*** | 6.240** | 0.130** | 0.131** | 0.195*** | 0.110** | 6.240** | 0.083** | 0.075* | 0.113** |
(2.80) | (2.06) | (2.24) | (2.19) | (2.88) | (2.41) | (2.06) | (2.02) | (1.83) | (2.47) | |
FC | 1.282*** | 0.705*** | ||||||||
(7.57) | (7.04) | |||||||||
GF*FC | 0.344** | 0.230** | ||||||||
(2.23) | (2.22) | |||||||||
CRDI | 0.010*** | 0.004*** | ||||||||
(10.31) | (6.81) | |||||||||
DDR | 0.004** | 0.001 | ||||||||
(2.23) | (0.27) | |||||||||
GF*DDR | 0.040* | 0.020* | ||||||||
(1.92) | (1.66) | |||||||||
Constant | −1.690*** | −87.589*** | −0.838** | 3.469*** | −1.799*** | −1.717*** | −87.589*** | −1.345*** | 1.123** | −1.728*** |
(−4.28) | (−5.70) | (−2.40) | (4.52) | (−4.42) | (−6.44) | (−5.70) | (−5.29) | (2.36) | (−6.32) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.595 | 0.699 | 0.633 | 0.621 | 0.597 | 0.588 | 0.699 | 0.600 | 0.602 | 0.588 |
Enterprise FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Industry FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Enterprises with high debt default risk face greater market uncertainty and financial pressure, which may explain why they tend to prioritize substantial and independent types of sustainable green innovation. Such innovation adds value to enterprises by demonstrating their technical strength and innovation ability in green products and technologies, improving their business reputation and brand image and helping them secure more financial support and credit lines, consequently reducing the risk of debt default. Additionally, given the increasing marketization and social pressure for sustainable development, substantial and independent types of sustainable green innovation have become an inevitable choice for many enterprises.
Through this process, enterprises can improve their environmental awareness and image of social responsibility, meet the needs of society and the government for green development and enhance their market competitiveness, public trust and brand value, ultimately contributing to the long-term operation and development of the enterprise. Furthermore, in the context of high debt default risk, enterprises undertaking substantial and independent types of sustainable green innovation can access policy and financial support from national and local governments, such as government encouragement and backing for green technology, the environmental protection industry and clean energy. Government support can provide enterprises with financial subsidies, tax incentives and other policy guarantees and preferential measures, thereby reducing the financial and operational risks of their green innovation projects. In summary, enterprises with high debt default risk have a higher motivation to undertake substantial and independent types of sustainable green innovation due to their greater market uncertainty, financial pressure and their potential to access support for their sustainable green projects from governments.
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | |
Variables | ISGI | CRDI | ISGI | ISGI | ISGI | CSGI | CRDI | CSGI | CSGI | CSGI |
GF | 0.219*** | 6.240** | 0.149* | 0.153* | 0.225*** | 0.065** | 6.240** | 0.050** | 0.044* | 0.066*** |
(2.65) | (2.06) | (1.91) | (1.88) | (2.72) | (2.33) | (2.06) | (2.04) | (1.83) | (3.90) | |
FC | 1.426*** | 0.431*** | ||||||||
(6.79) | (7.80) | |||||||||
GF*FC | 0.386** | 0.133** | ||||||||
(2.20) | (2.37) | |||||||||
CRDI | 0.011*** | 0.002*** | ||||||||
(9.30) | (6.92) | |||||||||
DDR | 0.005* | 0.001 | ||||||||
(1.69) | (1.52) | |||||||||
GF*DDR | 0.048* | 0.007*** | ||||||||
(1.94) | (2.60) | |||||||||
Constant | −3.082*** | −87.589*** | −2.096*** | 2.655*** | −3.214*** | −0.248** | −87.589*** | −0.037 | 1.487*** | −0.267*** |
(−6.18) | (−5.70) | (−4.62) | (2.72) | (−6.29) | (−2.02) | (−5.70) | (−0.32) | (5.98) | (−3.95) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.572 | 0.699 | 0.598 | 0.589 | 0.574 | 0.571 | 0.699 | 0.590 | 0.595 | 0.571 |
Enterprise FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Industry FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
To address potential endogeneity bias caused by reverse causality, the benchmark regression results are re-estimated by incorporating an instrumental variable. Following the approach employed by Wang et al. (2023), the model includes an interaction term between the number of fixed telephones per 100 people in each province in 1984 (related to individuals) and the development of GF (related to time) as the instrumental variable. This helps mitigate the endogeneity issue and provides more robust estimates. The number of landlines in 1984 did not directly influence the ongoing green innovation of enterprises from 2012 to 2020, thereby meeting the homogeneity assumption of instrumental variables. The presence of fixed-line telephones in 1984 played a crucial role in facilitating information transmission for the development of the Internet and financial sectors. Furthermore, this satisfies the principle of correlation of instrumental variables. The outcomes of the endogeneity test are presented in Table 8. In Column 8 of Table 8, the results successfully pass the correlation test of instrumental variables, and there is no significant difference between the sign and significance of the estimated coefficient of GF and the benchmark regression.
Instrumental variable method | ||
Phase 1 | Phase 2 | |
GF | 0.5397***(3.71) | |
Phase 1 IV | 0.2725***(143.37) | |
Control variables | YES | YES |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES |
Anderson canon. corr. LM statistic | 8563.802*** | |
Cragg Donald Wald F Statistic | 2.1e+04 | |
Stock-Yogo weak test (10%) | 16.380 | |
Observations | 13023 | 13023 |
To examine the credibility and stability of the regression results, this study conducted robustness tests by adding control variables (such as whether the board and management have financial backgrounds, overseas backgrounds or hold positions in shareholder units, the average age of management and the proportion of male managers), including provincial dummy variables, alternative measurement of the dependent variable (measuring continuous green innovation using the number of green patents obtained) and subsample analysis (excluding the samples from the year 2020 affected by the COVID-19 pandemic).
The results, as displayed in Tables 9 to 12, reveal that the earlier regression results are still significant, indicating that the outcomes are reasonably dependable and the regression results are somewhat robust.
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 0.362** | 6.152** | 0.240* | 0.227 | 0.379** |
(2.30) | (2.03) | (1.71) | (1.63) | (2.39) | |
FC | 2.724*** | ||||
(6.66) | |||||
GF*FC | 0.913** | ||||
(2.49) | |||||
Mfin | 0.026 | −0.135 | 0.029 | 0.029 | 0.024 |
(1.43) | (−0.48) | (1.64) | (1.64) | (1.32) | |
Moversea | −0.008 | −0.348 | −0.001 | −0.014 | −0.007 |
(−0.31) | (−0.94) | (−0.03) | (−0.58) | (−0.29) | |
Cocurp | −0.014 | −0.421 | −0.005 | −0.015 | −0.014 |
(−0.33) | (−0.71) | (−0.15) | (−0.41) | (−0.34) | |
Age | −0.005 | 0.016 | −0.005 | −0.003 | −0.006 |
(−0.91) | (0.18) | (−1.11) | (−0.46) | (−1.10) | |
Male | 0.005** | 0.026 | 0.004** | 0.004** | 0.005** |
(2.41) | (0.90) | (2.49) | (2.31) | (2.50) | |
CRDI | 0.020*** | ||||
(7.32) | |||||
DDR | 0.009* | ||||
(1.85) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.117** | ||||
(2.17) | |||||
Constant | −4.595*** | −90.098*** | −2.809*** | 6.324*** | −4.812*** |
(−4.29) | (−5.52) | (−3.02) | (3.45) | (−4.39) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.610 | 0.699 | 0.636 | 0.630 | 0.611 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 0.384** | 5.144*** | 0.282** | 0.299** | 0.401** |
(2.40) | (3.29) | (2.27) | (2.48) | (2.51) | |
FC | 2.761*** | ||||
(6.66) | |||||
GF*FC | 0.955*** | ||||
(2.60) | |||||
CRDI | 0.020*** | ||||
(7.28) | |||||
DDR | 0.008* | ||||
(1.77) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.119** | ||||
(2.19) | |||||
Constant | −4.515*** | −85.319*** | −2.822*** | 6.578*** | −4.762*** |
(−4.47) | (−14.59) | (−3.17) | (3.47) | (−4.64) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.610 | 0.702 | 0.637 | 0.631 | 0.612 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Province FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 1.933** | 6.240** | 0.990 | 1.015 | 2.023** |
(2.41) | (2.06) | (1.46) | (1.45) | (2.53) | |
FC | 18.663*** | ||||
(6.74) | |||||
GF*FC | 6.944*** | ||||
(3.11) | |||||
CRDI | 0.160*** | ||||
(9.48) | |||||
DDR | 0.030 | ||||
(0.64) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.603* | ||||
(1.91) | |||||
Constant | −33.716*** | −87.589*** | −19.844*** | 41.286*** | −34.506*** |
(−5.49) | (−5.70) | (−3.76) | (3.38) | (−5.51) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 13,999 | 14,173 | 13,999 | 13,999 | 13,999 |
R−squared | 0.675 | 0.699 | 0.721 | 0.701 | 0.677 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 0.318* | 5.443* | 0.205 | 0.148 | 0.328* |
(1.87) | (1.74) | (1.40) | (1.05) | (1.92) | |
FC | 3.057*** | ||||
(6.47) | |||||
GF*FC | 1.121*** | ||||
(2.84) | |||||
CRDI | 0.021*** | ||||
(6.89) | |||||
DDR | 0.014** | ||||
(2.24) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.138** | ||||
(2.20) | |||||
Constant | −4.767*** | −81.855*** | −3.077*** | 6.971*** | −5.104*** |
(−4.19) | (−5.07) | (−3.03) | (3.34) | (−4.40) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 11,875 | 11,875 | 11,875 | 11,875 | 11,875 |
R−squared | 0.617 | 0.682 | 0.645 | 0.641 | 0.620 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Promoting the development of GF is a critical choice for China and nations across the world in the quest of reaching the goal of "peak carbon emissions and carbon neutrality" to boost green and low-carbon economic development. In order to examine the mechanisms and pathways via which GF has an impact on businesses' sustainable green innovation, this study uses China as a case study. Specifically, this study explores the impact of GF on enterprises' continuous R & D investments, financial constraints and debt default risk. Using panel data from the micro-level of Chinese A-share listed enterprises and the macro-level of provincial data from 2012 to 2020, we employ a fixed-effects model to conduct in-depth empirical testing. The results reveal that the development of GF positively affects enterprises' sustainable green innovation. Moreover, enterprises' financing restrictions and debt default risk play moderating roles, influencing the relationship between green financing growth and green innovation. Additionally, enterprises' continuous R & D investment is found to mediate this relationship. Our findings contribute to the theoretical discussions on the impact of GF on enterprises' sustainable green innovation, while also providing practical implications for government policymakers and enterprises.
Our empirical results demonstrate a significant positive effect of GF on enterprises' sustainable green innovation. Our research of the mediation between GF and firms' sustainable green innovation reveals that continuous R & D investment serves as a partial intermediary, suggesting that GF encourages enterprises' sustainable green innovation by increasing their continuous R & D expenditure. Our research of moderation also demonstrates that the debt default risk and financing constraints faced by businesses have a strong moderating effect on the connection between GF and business sustainable green innovation. Specifically, for enterprises facing high financing constraints and significant debt default risk, the promotion impact of GF on their sustainable green innovation is more pronounced.
Moreover, we investigated the impact of GF and the intermediary effect of continuous R & D investment on four types of sustainable green innovation, categorized as strategic, substantive, independent and collaborative. Our findings suggest that the promotion effect of GF, the intermediary effect of continuous R & D investment and the heterogeneous mechanism of financing constraints are evident across the four types of continuous green innovation. It's interesting to note that businesses with a larger risk of debt failure are more inclined to pursue independent, substantial forms of sustainable green innovation.
However, we acknowledge limitations in the depth of result interpretation and the richness of research content in our study. Future research could further investigate the interactive relationship and mechanisms between GF and enterprises' sustainable green innovation, incorporating data from other countries and employing qualitative research methods. Overall, our study contributes important insights into understanding the effect of GF on enterprises' sustainable green innovation and has significant implications for policymakers and enterprises striving toward sustainable development.
The conclusions of our study have significant policy ramifications, particularly for emerging nations. Based on our findings, we suggest the following policy recommendations: First, nations should actively promote the further development of GF, providing external financial support to enterprises engaged in sustainable green innovation. This will assist in facilitating the transition to a green economy and empower the achievement of "carbon peaking" and "carbon neutrality" goals. Regulation on GF can also be improved to ensure funding flows toward enterprises involved in green innovation activities and green transformation. Second, GF can facilitate enterprises in sustaining their R & D investments, thereby supporting sustainable green innovation. Nations can create a conducive socio-economic environment for enterprises to sustain their R & D investments. This will enable enterprises to excel in sustainable green innovation and drive the transition toward a green economy. Last, our results highlight that GF plays a more significant role in supporting sustainable green innovation activities of enterprises that face high financing constraints and debt default risks. Therefore, nations can focus on the development status of enterprises that encounter difficulties in green transformation and face financial constraints. Targeted policies can be formulated to guide these specific types of enterprises toward sustained green innovation, facilitating their transition to a green economy.
In summary, our study contributes to the ongoing research on the role of GF in supporting enterprises' sustainable green innovation. The policy recommendations outlined here can assist emerging nations in their efforts toward achieving "carbon peaking" and "carbon neutrality" goals while enabling sustainable economic growth.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
This work was supported by the General Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 72074035]; Basic Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [grant number 2020CDJSK01PT20, 2022CDJSKPY12].
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Lauer SA, Grantz KH, Bi Q, et al. (2020) The incubation period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from publicly reported confirmed cases: Estimation and application. Ann Intern Med 172: 577-582. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-0504 ![]() |
[2] |
Dai L, Gao GF (2021) Viral targets for vaccines against COVID-19. Nat Rev Immunol 21: 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00480-0 ![]() |
[3] |
Townsend JP, Hassler HB, Wang Z, et al. (2021) The durability of immunity against reinfection by SARS-CoV-2: a comparative evolutionary study. Lancet Microbe 2: e666-e675. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00219-6 ![]() |
[4] |
Choi JY, Smith DM (2021) SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Yonsei Med J 62: 961-968. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2021.62.11.961 ![]() |
[5] |
Petersen E, Ntoumi F, Hui DS, et al. (2022) Emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern omicron (B.1.1.529)—highlights Africa's research capabilities, but exposes major knowledge gaps, inequities of vaccine distribution, inadequacies in global COVID-19 response and control efforts. Int J Infect Dis 114: 268-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.11.040 ![]() |
[6] |
Alsaadi E, Jones IM (2019) Membrane binding proteins of coronaviruses. Future Virol 14: 275-286. https://doi.org/10.2217/fvl-2018-0144 ![]() |
[7] |
Walls AC, Park Y, Tortorici MA, et al. (2020) Structure, function and antigenicity of the SAR-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. Cell 180: 281-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058 ![]() |
[8] |
Chukwudozie OS, Gray CM, Fagbayi TA, et al. (2021) Immuno-informatics design of a multimeric epitope peptide based vaccine targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. PloS One 16: e0248061. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248061 ![]() |
[9] |
Amanat F, Krammer F (2020) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: Status report. Immunity 52: 583-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.03.007 ![]() |
[10] |
Tosta E (2021) The protective immunity induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination: a critical appraisal. Explor Immunol 1: 199-225. https://doi.org/10.37349/ei.2021.00014 ![]() |
[11] |
Sumon TA, Hussain MA, Hasan MT, et al. (2021) A revisit to the research updates of drugs, vaccines, and bioinformatics approaches in combating COVID-19 pandemic. Front Mol Biosci 7: 585899. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2020.585899 ![]() |
[12] |
Garg M, Maralakunte M, Kumar Y, et al. (2021) Vaccine-induced immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 infections. Explor Immunol 1: 356-373. https://doi.org/10.37349/ei.2021.00024 ![]() |
[13] |
Sonani B, Aslam F, Goyal A, et al. (2021) COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised patients. Clin Rheumatol 40: 797-798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-020-05547-w ![]() |
[14] |
Pollard AJ, Bijker EM (2021) Publisher correction: A guide to vaccinology: from basic principles to new developments. Nat Rev Immunol 21: 129. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00497-5 ![]() |
[15] |
Peng Y, Mentzer AJ, Liu G, et al. (2020) Broad and strong memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells induced by SARS-CoV-2 in UK convalescent individuals following COVID-19. Nat Immunol 21: 1336-1345. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-020-0782-6 ![]() |
[16] |
Kim YI, Casel MAB, Choi YK (2022) Transmissibility and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variants in animal models. J Microbiol 60: 255-267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12275-022-2033-z ![]() |
[17] |
Chemaitelly H, Yassine HM, Benslimane FM, et al. (2021) mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants and severe COVID-19 disease in Qatar. Nat Med 27: 1614-1621. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01446-y ![]() |
[18] | (2021) WHOTracking SARS-CoV-2 variants. World Health Organization. Available from: https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ |
[19] |
Chaillon A, Smith DM, et al. (2021) Phylogenetic analyses of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.1.7 lineage suggest a single origin followed by multiple exportation events versus convergent evolution. Clin Infect Dis 73: 2314-2317. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab265 ![]() |
[20] |
Davies NG, Abbott S, Barnard RC, et al. (2021) Estimated transmissibility and impact of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England. Science 372: eabg3055. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg3055 ![]() |
[21] |
Subissi L, von Gottberg A, Thukral L, et al. (2022) An early warning system for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. Nat Med 28: 1110-1115. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg3055 ![]() |
[22] |
Graham MS, Sudre CH, May A, et al. (2021) Changes in symptomatology, reinfection, and transmissibility associated with the SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7: an ecological study. Lancet Public Health 6: e335-e345. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00055-4 ![]() |
[23] |
Chavda VP, Patel AB, Vaghasiya DD, et al. (2022) SARS-CoV-2 variants and vulnerability at the global level. J Med Virol 94: 2986-3005. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27717 ![]() |
[24] |
Meng B, Kemp SA, Papa G, et al. (2021) Recurrent emergence of SARS-CoV-2 spike deletion H69/V70 and its role in the Alpha variant B.1.1.7. Cell Rep 35: 109292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109292 ![]() |
[25] |
Starr TN, Greaney AJ, Hilton SK, et al. (2020) Deep mutational scanning of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain reveals constraints on folding and ACE2 binding. Cell 182: 1295-1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.012 ![]() |
[26] |
Collier DA, De Marco A, Ferreira IA, et al. (2022) Author correction: Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 to mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies. Nature 608: E24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05103-3 ![]() |
[27] |
Dagan N, Barda N, Kepten E, et al. (2021) BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a nationwide mass vaccination setting. N Engl J Med 384: 1412-1423. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2101765 ![]() |
[28] |
Barbra AD, Gerlovin H, Madenci AL, et al. (2022) Comparative effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines in U.S. veterans. N Engl J Med 386: 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2115463 ![]() |
[29] |
McNamara LA, Wiegand RE, Burke RM, et al. (2022) Estimating the early impact of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme on COVID-19 cases, emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and deaths among adults aged 65 years and older: an ecological analysis of national surveillance data. Lancet 399: 152-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02226-1 ![]() |
[30] |
George NI, Locke ER, O'Hare AM, et al. (2022) COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness against infection or death in a national US health care system: A target trial emulation study. Ann Intern Med 175: 352-361. https://doi.org/10.7326/m21-3256 ![]() |
[31] |
Mahase E (2021) Covid-19: Novavax vaccine efficacy is 86% against UK variant and 60% against South African variant. BMJ 372: n296. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n296 ![]() |
[32] |
Mark WT, Self WH, Gaglani M, et al. (2022) Effectiveness of mRNA vaccination in preventing COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation and death—United States, March 2021–January 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 71: 459-465. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7112e1 ![]() |
[33] |
Khan A, Zia T, Suleman M, et al. (2021) Higher infectivity of the SARS-CoV-2 new variants is associated with K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y mutants: An insight from structural data. J Cell Physiol 236: 7045-7057. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.30367 ![]() |
[34] |
William NW, Ip S, Cooper JA, et al. (2022) Association of COVID-19 vaccines ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 with major venous, arterial, or thrombocytopenic events: A population-based cohort study of 46 million adults in England. PLoS Med 19: e1003926. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003926 ![]() |
[35] |
Andeweg SP, Vennema H, Veldhuijzen I, et al. (2023) Elevated risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants compared with Alpha variant in vaccinated individuals. Sci Transl Med 15: eabn4338. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.abn4338 ![]() |
[36] |
Boehm E, Kronig I, Neher RA, et al. (2021) Novel SARS-CoV-2 variants: the pandemics within the pandemic. Clin Microbiol Infect 27: 1109-1117. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cmi.2021.05.022 ![]() |
[37] |
Kustin T, Harel N, Finkel U, et al. (2021) Evidence for increased breakthrough rates of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in BNT162b2-mRNA-vaccinated individuals. Nat Med 27: 1379-1384. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01413-7 ![]() |
[38] |
Liu J, Liu Y, Xia H, et al. (2021) BNT162b2-elicited neutralization of B.1.617 and other SARS-CoV-2 variants. Nature 596: 273-275. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03693-y ![]() |
[39] |
Xie X, Liu Y, Liu J, et al. (2021) Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 spike 69/70 deletion, E484K and N501Y variants by BNT162b2 vaccine-elicited sera. Nat Med 27: 620-621. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01270-4 ![]() |
[40] |
Singh H, Dahiya N, Yadav M, et al. (2022) Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 new variants and their clinical significance. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2022: 7336309. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022%2F7336309 ![]() |
[41] | (2021) FDAFact sheet for health care providers emergency use authorization (EUA) of bamlanivimab and etesevimab. US Food and Drug Administration. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/145802/download |
[42] |
Wang Z, Schmidt F, Weisblum Y, et al. (2021) mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants. Nature 592: 616-622. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03324-6 ![]() |
[43] |
Prete CA, Buss LF, Buccheri R, et al. (2022) Reinfection by the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant in blood donors in Manaus, Brazil. BMC Infect Dis 22: 127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07094-y ![]() |
[44] |
Banho CA, Sacchetto L, Campos GRF, et al. (2022) Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Gamma lineage introduction and COVID-19 vaccination on the epidemiological landscape of a Brazilian city. Commun Med 2: 41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-022-00108-5 ![]() |
[45] |
Buss LF, Prete CA, Abrahim CMM, et al. (2021) Three-quarters attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the Brazilian Amazon during a largely unmitigated epidemic. Science 371: 288-292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe9728 ![]() |
[46] |
Sabino EC, Buss LF, Carvalho MPS, et al. (2021) Resurgence of COVID-19 in Manaus, Brazil, despite high seroprevalence. Lancet 397: 452-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00183-5 ![]() |
[47] |
Volz E, Mishra S, Chand M, et al. (2021) Assessing transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England. Nature 593: 266-269. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03470-x ![]() |
[48] |
Lucas C, Vogels CBF, Yildirim I, et al. (2021) Impact of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants on mRNA vaccine-induced immunity. Nature 600: 523-529. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04085-y ![]() |
[49] |
Collier DA, Ferreira IATM, Kotagiri P, et al. (2021) Age-related immune response heterogeneity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine BNT162b2. Nature 596: 417-422. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03739-1 ![]() |
[50] |
Wang P, Casner RG, Nair MS, et al. (2021) Increased resistance of SARS-CoV-2 variant P.1 to antibody neutralization. Cell Host Microbe 29: 747-751. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.01.433466 ![]() |
[51] |
Firouzabadi N, Ghasemiyeh P, Moradishooli F, et al. (2023) Update on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines on different variants of SARS-CoV-2. Int Immunopharmacol 117: 109968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2023.109968 ![]() |
[52] | (2021) WHOClassification of omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern. World Health Organization. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-omicron-(b.1.1.529)-sars-cov-2-variant-of-concern |
[53] |
Lauring AS, Malani PN (2021) Variants of SARS-CoV-2. JAMA 326: 14181. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.14181 ![]() |
[54] |
Alkhatib M, Svicher V, Salpini R, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 variants and their relevant mutational profiles: Update summer 2021. Microbiol Spectr 9: e0109621. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01096-21 ![]() |
[55] | Cascella M, Rajnik M, Aleem A, et al. (2023) Features, evaluation, and treatment of coronavirus (COVID-19). StatPearls . Tampa: StatPearls Publishing. |
[56] |
Harvey WT, Carabelli AM, Jackson B, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 variants, spike mutations and immune escape. Nat Rev Microbiol 19: 409-424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-021-00573-0 ![]() |
[57] |
Fisman DN, Tuite AR (2021) Progressive increase in virulence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants in Ontario, Canada. CMAJ 193: E1619-E1625. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.211248 ![]() |
[58] |
King KL, Wilson S, Napolitano JM, et al. (2022) SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern Alpha and Delta show increased viral load in saliva. PloS One 17: e0267750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267750 ![]() |
[59] | (2021) CDC, SARS-CoV-2 variant classifications and definitions. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-classifications.html |
[60] |
Kannan SR, Spratt AN, Cohen AR, et al. (2021) Evolutionary analysis of the Delta and Delta Plus variants of the SARS-CoV-2 viruses. J Autoimmun 124: 102715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2021.102715 ![]() |
[61] |
Planas D, Veyer D, Baidaliuk A, et al. (2021) Reduced sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 variant delta to antibody neutralization. Nature 596: 276-280. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03777-9 ![]() |
[62] |
Tchesnokova V, Kulasekara H, Larson L, et al. (2021) Acquisition of the L452R mutation in the ACE2-binding interface of spike protein triggers recent massive expansion of SARS-CoV-2 variants. J Clin Microbiol 59: e0092121. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00921-21 ![]() |
[63] |
Sheikh A, Mcmenamin J, Taylor B, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness. Lancet 397: 2461-2462. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01358-1 ![]() |
[64] |
Bernal JL, Andrews N, Gower C, et al. (2021) Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant. N Engl J Med 385: 585-594. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2108891 ![]() |
[65] |
Mohsin M, Mahmud S (2022) Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern: A review on its transmissibility, immune evasion, reinfection, and severity. Medicine 101: e29165. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000029165 ![]() |
[66] |
Ntoumi FPE, Hui DS, Abubakar A, et al. (2022) Emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern omicron (B.1.1.529)—highlights Africa's research capabilities, but exposes major knowledge gaps, inequities of vaccine distribution, inadequacies in global COVID-19 response and control efforts. Int J Infect Dis 114: 268-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.11.040 ![]() |
[67] |
Rio C, Malani PN (2022) COVID-19 in 2022—The beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?. JAMA 327: 2389-2390. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.9655 ![]() |
[68] |
Yamasoba D, Kimura I, Nasser H, et al. (2022) Virological characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 spike. Cell 185: 2103-2115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.04.035 ![]() |
[69] |
Lassaunière R, Polacek C, Frische A, et al. (2022) Neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant (BA.1) 1 to 18 weeks after the second and third doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. JAMA Network Open 5: e2212073. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12073 ![]() |
[70] |
Cao Y, Yisimayi A, Jian F, et al. (2022) BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 escape antibodies elicited by Omicron infection. Nature 608: 593-602. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04980-y ![]() |
[71] | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) Variant United States. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep (2021) 70: 1731-1734. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7050e1 |
[72] |
Wolter N, Jassat W, Walaza S, et al. (2021) Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in South Africa. Lancet 399: 437-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(22)00017-4 ![]() |
[73] |
Tegally H, Moir M, Everatt J, et al. (2022) Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 omicron lineages BA.4 and BA.5 in South Africa. Nat Med 28: 1785-1790. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01911-2 ![]() |
[74] |
Callaway E (2021) Heavily mutated omicron variant puts scientists on alert. Nature 600: 21. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03552-w ![]() |
[75] |
Liu L, Iketani S, Guo Y, et al. (2022) Striking antibody evasion manifested by the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Nature 602: 676-681. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04388-0 ![]() |
[76] |
Hoffmann M, Krüger N, Schulz S, et al. (2022) The Omicron variant is highly resistant against antibody-mediated neutralization: Implications for control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cell 185: 447-456.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.12.032 ![]() |
[77] |
Jiang S, Hillyer C, Du L, et al. (2020) Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronaviruses. Trends Immunol 41: 355-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2020.03.007 ![]() |
[78] |
Watanabe Y, Allen JD, Wrapp D, et al. (2020) Site-specific glycan analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike. Science 369: 330-333. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb9983 ![]() |
[79] |
Zhou H, Ni WJ, Huang W, et al. (2022) Advances in pathogenesis, progression, potential targets and targeted therapeutic strategies in SARS-CoV-2-induced COVID-19. Front Immunol 13: 834942. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.834942 ![]() |
[80] |
De Abajo FJ, Rodríguez-Martín S, Lerma V, et al. (2020) Use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and risk of COVID-19requiring admission to hospital: a case-population study. Lancet 395: 1705-1714. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31030-8 ![]() |
[81] |
Hoffmann M, Kleine-Weber H, Schroeder S, et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Cell 181: 271-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052 ![]() |
[82] |
Xu H, Zhong L, Deng J, et al. (2020) High expression of ACE2 receptor of 2019-nCoV on the epithelial cells of oral mucosa. Int J Oral Sci 12: 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-020-0074-x ![]() |
[83] |
Lu S, Ye Q, Singh D, et al. (2021) The SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid phosphoprotein forms mutually exclusive condensates with RNA and the membrane-associated M protein. Nat Commun 12: 502. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20768-y ![]() |
[84] |
Mandala VS, McKay MJ, Shcherbakov AA, et al. (2020) Structure and drug binding of the SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein transmembrane domain in lipid bilayers. Nat Struct Mol Biol 27: 1202-1208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-00536-8 ![]() |
[85] |
Peng Y, Du N, Lei Y, et al. (2020) Structures of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and their perspectives for drug design. EMBO J 39: e105938. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.2020105938 ![]() |
[86] |
Ricci D, Etna MP, Rizzo F, et al. (2021) Innate immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection: From cells to soluble mediators. Int J Mol Sci 22: 7017. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22137017 ![]() |
[87] |
Schultze JL, Aschenbrenner AC (2021) COVID-19 and the human innate immune system. Cell 184: 1671-1692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.029 ![]() |
[88] |
Gu W, Gan H, Ma Y, et al. (2022) The molecular mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 evading host antiviral innate immunity. Virol J 19: 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-022-01783-5 ![]() |
[89] |
Wauters E, Van Mol P, Garg AD, et al. (2021) Discriminating mild from critical COVID-19 by innate and adaptive immune single-cell profiling of bronchoalveolar lavages. Cell Res 31: 272-290. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41422-020-00455-9 ![]() |
[90] |
Zhang S, Wang L, Cheng G, et al. (2022) The battle between host and SARS-CoV-2: Innate immunity and viral evasion strategies. Mol Ther 30: 1869-1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2022.02.014 ![]() |
[91] |
Paludan SR, Mogensen TH (2022) Innate immunological pathways in COVID-19 pathogenesis. Sci Immunol 7: eabm5505. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.abm5505 ![]() |
[92] |
Thorne LG, Reuschl AK, Zuliani-Alvarez L, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 sensing by RIG-I and MDA5 links epithelial infection to macrophage inflammation. EMBO J 40: e107826. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.2021107826 ![]() |
[93] |
Cheemarla NR, Watkins TA, Mihaylova VT, et al. (2021) Dynamic innate immune response determines susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and early replication kinetics. J Exp Med 218: e20210583. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20210583 ![]() |
[94] |
Shah VK, Firmal P, Alam A, et al. (2020) Overview of immune response during SARS-CoV-2 infection: Lessons from the past. Front Immunol 11: 1949. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01949 ![]() |
[95] |
Li H, Liu L, Zhang D, et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2 and viral sepsis: observations and hypotheses. Lancet 395: 1517-1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30920-X ![]() |
[96] |
Mehta P, McAuley DF, Brown M, et al. (2020) COVID-19: consider cytokine storm syndromes and immunosuppression. Lancet 395: 1033-1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30628-0 ![]() |
[97] |
Karki R, Sharma BR, Tuladhar S, et al. (2021) Synergism of TNF-α and IFN-g triggers inflammatory cell death, tissue damage, and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 infection and cytokine shock syndromes. Cell 184: 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.025 ![]() |
[98] |
Leisman DE, Ronner L, Pinotti R, et al. (2020) Cytokine elevation in severe and critical COVID-19: a rapid systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparison with other inflammatory syndromes. Lancet Respir Med 8: 1233-1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(20)30404-5 ![]() |
[99] |
Contoli M, Papi A, Tomassetti L, et al. (2021) Blood interferon-α levels and severity, outcomes, and inflammatory profiles in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Front Immunol 12: 648004. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.648004 ![]() |
[100] |
Chen G, Wu D, Guo W, et al. (2020) Clinical and immunological features of severe and moderate coronavirus disease 2019. J Clin Invest 130: 2620-2629. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci137244 ![]() |
[101] |
Lau SKP, Lau CCY, Chan KH, et al. (2013) Delayed induction of proinflammatory cytokines and suppression of innate antiviral response by the novel Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: implications for pathogenesis and treatment. J Gen Virol 94: 2679-2690. https://doi.org/10.1099/vir.0.055533-0 ![]() |
[102] |
Pereda R, González D, Rivero HB, et al. (2020) Therapeutic effectiveness of interferon alpha 2b treatment for COVID-19 patient recovery. J Interferon Cytokine Res 40: 578-588. https://doi.org/10.1089/jir.2020.0188 ![]() |
[103] |
Yang Y, Shen C, Li J, et al. (2020) Plasma IP-10 and MCP-3 levels are highly associated with disease severity and predict the progression of COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol 146: 119-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.027 ![]() |
[104] |
Schreiber G (2020) The role of type I interferons in the pathogenesis and treatment of COVID-19. Front Immunol 11: 595739. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.595739 ![]() |
[105] |
Sui L, Zhao Y, Wang W, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 membrane protein inhibits type I interferon production through ubiquitin-mediated degradation of TBK1. Front Immunol 12: 662989. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.662989 ![]() |
[106] |
Li A, Zhao K, Zhang B, Hua R, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 NSP12 protein is not an interferon-β antagonist. J Virol 95: e0074721. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00747-21 ![]() |
[107] |
Konno Y, Kimura I, Uriu K, et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2 ORF3b is a potent interferon antagonist whose activity is increased by a naturally occurring elongation variant. Cell Rep 32: 108185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108185 ![]() |
[108] |
Geng H, Subramanian S, Wu L, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 ORF8 forms intracellular aggregates and inhibits IFNγ-induced antiviral gene expression in human lung epithelial cells. Front Immunol 12: 679482. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.679482 ![]() |
[109] |
Wang W, Zhou Z, Xiao X, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 nsp12 attenuates type I interferon production by inhibiting IRF3 nuclear translocation. Cell Mol Immunol 18: 945-953. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41423-020-00619-y ![]() |
[110] |
Lei J, Hilgenfeld R (2017) RNA-virus proteases counteracting host innate immunity. FEBS Lett 591: 3190-3210. https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.12827 ![]() |
[111] |
Prescott L (2022) SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro whole human proteome cleavage prediction and enrichment/depletion analysis. Comput Biol Chem 98: 107671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2022.107671 ![]() |
[112] |
Wang D, Fang L, Shi Y (2016) Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus 3C-like protease regulates its interferon antagonism by cleaving NEMO. J Virol 90: 2090-2101. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.02514-15 ![]() |
[113] |
Gaglia MM, Covarrubias S, Wong W, et al. (2012) A common strategy for host RNA degradation by divergent viruses. J Virol 86: 9527-9530. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01230-12 ![]() |
[114] |
Zhang K, Miorin L, Makio T, et al. (2021) Nsp1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 disrupts the mRNA export machinery to inhibit host gene expression. Sci Adv 7: eabe7386. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe7386 ![]() |
[115] |
Finkel Y, Gluck A, Nachshon A, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 uses a multipronged strategy to impede host protein synthesis. Nature 594: 240-245. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03610-3 ![]() |
[116] |
Lo MW, Woodruff TM (2020) Complement: Bridging the innate and adaptive immune systems in sterile inflammation. J Leukoc Biol 108: 339-351. https://doi.org/10.1002/JLB.3MIR0220-270R ![]() |
[117] |
Hsu JCC, Laurent-Rolle M, Pawlak JB, et al. (2021) Translational shutdown and evasion of the innate immune response by SARS-CoV-2 NSP14 protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118: e2101161118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101161118 ![]() |
[118] |
Noris M, Remuzzi G (2013) Overview of complement activation and regulation. Sem Nephr 33: 479-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semnephrol.2013.08.001 ![]() |
[119] |
Ali YM, Ferrari M, Lynch NJ, et al. (2021) Lectin pathway mediates complement activation by SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Front Immunol 12: 714511. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.714511 ![]() |
[120] |
Holter JC, Pischke SE, de Boer E, et al. (2020) Systemic complement activation isassociated with respiratory failure in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117: 25018-25025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010540117 ![]() |
[121] | Gao T, Hu M, Zhang X, et al. (2020) Highly pathogenic coronavirus N protein aggravates lung injury by MASP-2-mediated complement over-activation. medRxiv . Preprint. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.29.20041962 |
[122] |
Yu J, Yuan X, Chen H, et al. (2020) Direct activation of the alternative complement pathway by SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins is blocked by factor D inhibition. Blood 136: 2080-2089. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2020008248 ![]() |
[123] |
Wen W, Chen C, Tang J, et al. (2022b) Efficacy and safety of three new oral antiviral treatment (molnupiravir, fluvoxamine and Paxlovid) for COVID-19: a meta-analysis. Ann Med 54: 516-523. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2034936 ![]() |
[124] |
Bernal AJ, da Silva MMG, Musungaie DB, et al. (2022) Molnupiravir for oral treatment of Covid-19 in nonhospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 386: 509-520. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2116044 ![]() |
[125] |
Gandhi RT, Malani PN, Del Rio C (2022) COVID-19 therapeutics for nonhospitalized patients. JAMA 327: 617-618. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.0335 ![]() |
[126] | (2021) Pfizer Inc.Pfizer's novel COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment candidate reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 89% in interim analysis of phase 2/3 EPIC-HR study. Pfizer Inc.. Available from: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizers-novel-covid-19-oral-antiviral-treatment-candidate |
[127] |
Mahase E (2021b) Covid-19: Pfizer's paxlovid is 89% effective in patients at risk of serious illness, company reports. BMJ 375: n2713. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2713 ![]() |
[128] |
Seftel D, Boulware DR (2021) Prospective cohort of fluvoxamine for early treatment of Coronavirus disease 19. Open Forum Infect Dis 8: ofab050. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab050 ![]() |
[129] |
Calusic M, Marcec R, Luksa L, et al. (2022) Safety and efficacy of fluvoxamine in COVID-19 ICU patients: An open label, prospective cohort trial with matched controls. Br J Clin Pharmacol 88: 2065-2073. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15126 ![]() |
[130] |
Gottlieb RL, Vaca CE, Paredes R, et al. (2022) Early Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe Covid-19 in Outpatients. N Engl J Med 386: 305-315. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2116846 ![]() |
[131] |
Jason DG, Lye DCB, Hui DS, et al. (2020) Remdesivir for 5 or 10 days in patients with severe COVID-19. N Engl J Med 383: 1827-1837. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2015301 ![]() |
[132] |
Spinner CD, Gottlieb RL, Criner GJ, et al. (2020) Effect of remdesivir vs standard care on clinical status at 11 days in patients with moderate COVID-19: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 324: 1048-1057. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.16349 ![]() |
[133] |
Vegivinti CTR, Evanson KW, Lyons H, et al. (2022) Efficacy of antiviral therapies for COVID-19: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Infect Dis 22: 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07068-0 ![]() |
[134] | Wang L, Zhou T, Zhang Y, et al. (2021) Antibodies with potent and broad neutralizing activity against antigenically diverse and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants. BioRxiv . Preprint. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.25.432969 |
[135] |
Wang Q, Bowen A, Valdez R, et al. (2023) Antibody response to omicron BA.4-BA.5 bivalent booster. N Engl J Med 388: 567-569. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2213907 ![]() |
[136] |
Eric JH, Angulo FJ, McLaughlin JM, et al. (2021) Impact and effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths following a nationwide vaccination campaign in Israel: an observational study using national surveillance data. Lancet 397: 1819-1829. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00947-8 ![]() |
[137] |
Thompson MG, Stenehjem E, Grannis S, et al. (2021) Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines in ambulatory and inpatient care settings. N Engl J Med 385: 1355-1371. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2110362 ![]() |
[138] |
Vasileiou E, Simpson CR, Shi T, et al. (2021) Interim findings from first-dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospital admissions in Scotland: a national prospective cohort study. Lancet 397: 1646-1657. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00677-2 ![]() |
[139] |
Al Kaabi N, Zhang Y, Xia S, et al. (2021) Effect of 2 inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on symptomatic COVID-19 infection in adults: A randomized clinical trial: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 326: 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.8565 ![]() |
[140] |
Offit PA (2023) Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines—A cautionary tale. N Engl J Med 388: 481-483. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp2215780 ![]() |
[141] |
Link-Gelles R, Ciesla AA, Fleming-Dutra KE, et al. (2022) Effectiveness of bivalent mRNA vaccines in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection—Increasing Community Access to testing program, United States, September-November 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 71: 1526-1530. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7148e1 ![]() |
[142] |
Zeng B, Gao L, Zhou Q, et al. (2022) Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 20: 200. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02397-y ![]() |
[143] |
Fiolet T, Kherabi Y, MacDonald CJ, et al. (2022) Comparing COVID-19 vaccines fortheir characteristics, efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern: a narrative review. Clin Microbiol Infect 28: 202-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2021.10.005 ![]() |
[144] | Graña C, Ghosn L, Evrenoglou T, et al. (2022) Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12: CD015477. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015477 |
[145] |
Scovino AM, Dahab EC, Vieira GF, et al. (2022) SARS-CoV-2's variants of concern: A brief characterization. Front Immunol 13: 834098. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.834098 ![]() |
[146] |
Xu S, Sun M (2022) COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness during Omicron BA.2 pandemic in Shanghai: A cross-sectional study based on EMR. Medicine 101: e31763. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000031763 ![]() |
[147] |
Shkoda AS, Gushchin VA, Ogarkova DA, et al. (2022) Sputnik V effectiveness against hospitalization with COVID-19 during Omicron dominance. Vaccines 10: 938. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10060938 ![]() |
[148] | Zheng C, Shao W, Chen X, et al. (2022) Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in real-world: a literature review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis 11: 2383-2392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.11.009 |
[149] |
Cerqueira-Silva T, Andrews JR, Boaventura VS, et al. (2022) Effectiveness of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil: a test-negative, case-control study. Lancet Infect Dis 22: 791-801. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00140-2 ![]() |
[150] |
Negahdaripour M, Shafiekhani M, Moezzi SMI, et al. (2021) Administration of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients. Int Immunopharmacol 99: 108021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2021.108021 ![]() |
[151] |
Zhao J, Zhao S, Ou J, et al. (2020) COVID-19: Coronavirus vaccine development updates. Front Immunol 11: 602256. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.602256 ![]() |
[152] |
Chen Y, Shen H, Huang R, et al. (2021) Serum neutralising activity against SARS-CoV-2 variants elicited by CoronaVac. Lancet Infect Dis 21: 1071-1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00287-5 ![]() |
[153] |
Olu-Abiodun O, Abiodun O, Okafor N, et al. (2022) COVID-19 vaccination in Nigeria: A rapid review of vaccine acceptance rate and the associated factors. PloS One 17: e0267691. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267691 ![]() |
[154] |
Wu Z, Hu Y, Xu M, et al. (2021) Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) in healthy adults aged 60 years and older: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 clinical trial. Lancet Infect Dis 21: 803-812. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30987-7 ![]() |
[155] |
Jafari A, Pouya FD, Niknam Z, et al. (2022) Current advances and challenges in COVID-19 vaccine development: from conventional vaccines to next-generation vaccine platforms. Mol Biol Rep 49: 4943-4957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-022-07132-7 ![]() |
[156] |
Trimpert J, Dietert K, Firsching TC, et al. (2021) Development of safe and highly protective live-attenuated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates by genome recoding. Cell Rep 36: 109493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109493 ![]() |
[157] |
Jeyanathan M, Afkhami S, Smaill F, et al. (2020) Immunological considerations for COVID-19 vaccine strategies. Nat Rev Immunol 20: 615-632. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00434-6 ![]() |
[158] |
Li M, Wang H, Tian L, et al. (2022) COVID-19 vaccine development: milestones, lessons and prospects. Signal Transduct Target Ther 7: 146. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-022-00996-y ![]() |
[159] |
Folegatti PM, Ewer KJ, Aley PK, et al. (2020) Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 396: 467-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31604-4 ![]() |
[160] |
Zhang Z, Shen Q, Chang H, et al. (2022) Vaccines for COVID-19: A systematic review of immunogenicity, current development, and future prospects. Front Immunol 13: 843928. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.843928 ![]() |
[161] |
Sah R, Shrestha S, Mehta R (2021) AZD1222 (Covishield) vaccination for COVID-19: Experiences, challenges, and solutions in Nepal. Travel Med Infect Dis 40: 101989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.101989 ![]() |
[162] |
Naskalska A, Dabrowska A, Nowak P, et al. (2018) Novel coronavirus-like particles targeting cells lining the respiratory tract. PloS One 13: e0203489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203489 ![]() |
[163] |
Ward BJ, Gobeil P, Séguin A, et al. (2021) Phase 1 randomized trial of a plant-derived virus-like particle vaccine for COVID-19. Nat Med 27: 1071-1078. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01370-1 ![]() |
[164] |
Fang E, Liu X, Li M, et al. (2022) Advances in COVID-19 mRNA vaccinedevelopment. Signal Transduct Target Ther 7: 94. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-022-00950-y ![]() |
[165] |
Collier ARY, Miller J, Hachmann NP, et al. (2023) Immunogenicity of the BA.5 bivalent mRNA vaccine boosters. New Engl J Med 388: 565-567. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2213948 ![]() |
[166] |
Vogel AB, Kanevsky I, Che Y, et al. (2021) BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2. Nature 592: 283-289. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03275-y ![]() |
[167] |
Li M, Li Y, Li S, et al. (2022) The nano delivery systems and applications of mRNA. Eur J Med Chem 227: 113910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2021.113910 ![]() |
[168] |
Gooch KE, Smith TRF, Salguero FJ, et al. (2021) One or two dose regimen of the SARS-CoV-2 synthetic DNA vaccine INO-4800 protects against respiratory tract disease burden in nonhuman primate challenge model. Vaccine 39: 4885-4894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.06.057 ![]() |
[169] |
Kaur SP, Gupta V (2020) COVID-19 vaccine: a comprehensive status report. Virus Res 288: 198114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2020.198114 ![]() |
[170] |
Tebas P, Yang S, Boyer JD, et al. (2021) Safety and immunogenicity of INO-4800 DNAvaccine against SARS-CoV-2: A preliminary report of an open-label, Phase 1 clinical trial. EClinical Medicine 31: 100689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100689 ![]() |
[171] |
Brocato RL, Kwilas SA, Kim RK, et al. (2021) Protective efficacy of a SARS-CoV-2 DNA vaccine in wild-type and immunosuppressed Syrian hamsters. NPJ Vaccines 6: 16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41541-020-00279-z ![]() |
[172] |
Mallory RM, Formica N, Pfeiffer S, et al. (2022) Safety and immunogenicity following a homologous booster dose of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine (NVX-CoV2373): a secondary analysis of a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Infect Dis 22: 1565-1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00420-0 ![]() |
[173] |
Krammer F (2020) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in development. Nature 586: 516-527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2798-3 ![]() |
[174] |
Sinclair AH, Taylor MK, Weitz JS, et al. (2023) Reasons for receiving or not receiving bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccinations among adults—United States, November 1–December 10, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 72: 73-75. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7203a5 ![]() |
1. | Hanzi Chen, Yue Liu, Zirui Wang, Can Industrial Digitalization Boost a Consumption-Driven Economy? An Empirical Study Based on Provincial Data in China, 2024, 19, 0718-1876, 2377, 10.3390/jtaer19030115 | |
2. | Cristina Ortega-Rodríguez, Julio Vena-Oya, Jesús Barreal, Barbara Józefowicz, How to finance sustainable tourism: Factors influencing the attitude and willingness to pay green taxes among university students, 2024, 6, 2643-1092, 649, 10.3934/GF.2024025 | |
3. | Yue Liu, Shan Huang, Zirui Wang, Lichang Zhang, Research on the moderate range of enterprise financialization and R&D innovation from a nonlinear perspective, 2024, 32, 2688-1594, 1923, 10.3934/era.2024088 | |
4. | Gulinaer Yusufu, Zhi Lu, Pengyu Chen, Can pilot free trade zones policy force the green transformation of enterprises? Evidence from listed companies in China, 2024, 19, 1932-6203, e0301393, 10.1371/journal.pone.0301393 | |
5. | Jiafeng Gu, Digital economy, peer influence, and persistent green innovation of firms: a mixed embeddedness perspective, 2024, 31, 1614-7499, 13883, 10.1007/s11356-024-32024-7 | |
6. | Yingjie Song, Jie Dong, Impact of climate policy uncertainty on corporate green investment: examining the moderating role of financing constraints, 2024, 11, 2296-7745, 10.3389/fmars.2024.1456079 | |
7. | Asheetu Bhatia Sarin, Shivangi Sharma, 2024, chapter 13, 9798369313268, 265, 10.4018/979-8-3693-1326-8.ch013 | |
8. | Jiajia He, Zhenghui Li, Labor Mobility Networks and Green Total Factor Productivity, 2024, 12, 2079-8954, 157, 10.3390/systems12050157 | |
9. | Zimei Huang, Zhenghui Li, The impact of digital economy on the financial risk ripple effect: evidence from China, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 8920, 10.3934/math.2024435 | |
10. | Patrizia Gazzola, Carlo Drago, Enrica Pavione, Noemi Pignoni, Sustainable Business Models: An Empirical Analysis of Environmental Sustainability in Leading Manufacturing Companies, 2024, 16, 2071-1050, 8282, 10.3390/su16198282 | |
11. | Huaijia Zhu, Bo Chen, Shiwei Chang, Huaiqi Zhu, The impact of financing efficiency in defense industry base on non‐technological innovation: Evidence from China, 2024, 45, 0143-6570, 3775, 10.1002/mde.4212 | |
12. | Vitor Miguel Ribeiro, Pioneering paradigms: unraveling niche opportunities in green finance through bibliometric analysis of nation brands and brand culture, 2024, 6, 2643-1092, 287, 10.3934/GF.2024012 | |
13. | Yue Liu, Yixian Wen, Yulan Xiao, Lichang Zhang, Shan Huang, Identification of the enterprise financialization motivation on crowding out R&D innovation: evidence from listed companies in China, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 5951, 10.3934/math.2024291 | |
14. | Wanyu Zhang, Yan Zhao, Fansheng Meng, ESG performance and green innovation of Chinese enterprises: Based on the perspective of financing constraints, 2024, 370, 03014797, 122955, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122955 | |
15. | Min Zhang, Chengrong Li, Jinshan Zhang, Hongwei Chen, How Green Finance Affects Green Total Factor Productivity—Evidence from China, 2023, 16, 2071-1050, 270, 10.3390/su16010270 | |
16. | Zhongzhe Ouyang, Ke Liu, Min Lu, Bias correction based on AR model in spurious regression, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 8439, 10.3934/math.2024410 | |
17. | Ke Liu, Ran Du, Bo Xu, Jiaxin He, Zhaoping Wang, Measurement, dynamic evolution and pollution emission effects of the coupling of green finance and digital technology-evidence from China, 2024, 12, 2296-665X, 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1395302 | |
18. | Bingxue Han, Ze Yang, Jiayi Zhou, Yuan Wang, How does social responsibility practice promote corporate green innovation? Based on the Mediating Effects Model of Double Chains, 2025, 4, 29497531, 100197, 10.1016/j.igd.2024.100197 | |
19. | Shaozhou Qi, Mengyu Jia, Xiaoxiao Zhou, Teng Zhang, Green finance and “greenization” of enterprise’s technology: based on evolutionary game theory and empirical test in China, 2025, 0003-6846, 1, 10.1080/00036846.2025.2452537 | |
20. | Baolin MA, Yongxin LI, Bo ZHOU, Yaode JIAN, Cheng ZHANG, Jin AN, The green development mechanism of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei coordinated development strategy in China: Novel evidence of green finance, 2025, 10590560, 103941, 10.1016/j.iref.2025.103941 | |
21. | Meng Kui Hu, Daisy Mui Hung Kee, 2025, Chapter 13, 978-981-96-4268-7, 299, 10.1007/978-981-96-4269-4_13 | |
22. | Hong Wu, Xuewei Wen, Xifeng Wang, Xuelian Yu, A Study on the Spatiotemporal Coupling Characteristics and Driving Factors of China’s Green Finance and Energy Efficiency, 2025, 13, 2079-8954, 394, 10.3390/systems13050394 | |
23. | Pilar Portillo-Tarragona, Eva Llera-Sastresa, Sabina Scarpellini, Darío Benito-Bentué, A case study of financing zero-emission power-to-gas technologies in Spain, 2025, 95, 09571787, 101965, 10.1016/j.jup.2025.101965 |
Tier 1 indicators | Tier 2 indicators | Definition of indicators | Indicator direction |
Green Credit | Interest ratio of high energy-consuming industries | High energy-consuming industrial interest/industrial interest | - |
Green Securities | The proportion of the market value of high energy-consuming industries | Value of six high energy-consuming A-shares/total market value of A-shares | - |
Green Investment | The proportion of investment in environmental pollution | Investment in pollution control /GDP | + |
Green Insurance | Agricultural insurance scale ratio | Agricultural insurance income/total agricultural output value | + |
Carbon Finance | Carbon intensity | Carbon dioxide emissions/GDP | - |
Variable | Number of observations | Mean | Std Dev | Minimum | Maximum |
GF | 14175 | 0.329 | 0.165 | 0.0910 | 0.879 |
SGI | 14175 | 0.343 | 0.900 | 0 | 10.13 |
CRDI | 14175 | 5.326 | 13.52 | 0 | 113.0 |
FC | 14175 | −3.764 | 0.296 | −4.859 | −2.114 |
DDR | 14175 | 0.767 | 2.925 | −119.1 | 7.674 |
Size | 14175 | 22.54 | 1.317 | 19.35 | 26.98 |
Alr | 14175 | 0.462 | 0.193 | 0.0480 | 1.154 |
Pvol | 14175 | 0.0290 | 0.0400 | 0 | 0.394 |
Mfee | 14175 | 0.0850 | 0.0630 | 0.00700 | 0.814 |
Fina | 14175 | 4.077 | 4.434 | −2.418 | 40.85 |
Prt | 14175 | 0.420 | 0.494 | 0 | 1 |
Csep | 14175 | 5.011 | 7.751 | −68.93 | 41.01 |
Bal | 14175 | 0.678 | 0.569 | 0.00500 | 2.745 |
Dual | 14175 | 0.245 | 0.430 | 0 | 1 |
B size | 14175 | 8.754 | 1.793 | 0 | 19 |
Enum | 14175 | 6.756 | 2.587 | 0 | 24 |
Ien | 14175 | 9.409 | 1.513 | 3.360 | 11.49 |
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
GF | 0.347** | 0.378** | 0.378** | 0.369** |
(2.19) | (2.34) | (2.34) | (2.32) | |
Size | 0.243*** | 0.243*** | 0.240*** | |
(5.61) | (5.61) | (5.55) | ||
Alr | −0.108 | −0.108 | −0.090 | |
(−1.12) | (−1.12) | (−0.93) | ||
Pvol | −0.443** | −0.443** | −0.466** | |
(−2.20) | (−2.20) | (−2.30) | ||
Mfee | 0.001 | 0.001 | −0.012 | |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (−0.05) | ||
Fina | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004* | |
(1.51) | (1.51) | (1.73) | ||
Prt | 0.032 | |||
(0.54) | ||||
Csep | 0.001 | |||
(0.28) | ||||
Bal | 0.048 | |||
(1.35) | ||||
Dual | 0.055* | |||
(1.83) | ||||
Bsize | −0.001 | |||
(−0.05) | ||||
Enum | −0.005 | |||
(−0.72) | ||||
Ien | −0.075*** | |||
(−3.31) | ||||
Constant | 0.229*** | −5.199*** | −5.199*** | −4.459*** |
(4.41) | (−5.35) | (−5.35) | (−4.49) | |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.601 | 0.608 | 0.608 | 0.609 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Note: ***, **, and * indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively. |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
VARIABLES | CRDI | SGI | CRDI | SGI |
GF | 6.405** | 0.251* | 6.240** | 0.245* |
(2.12) | (1.75) | (2.06) | (1.74) | |
Size | 4.454*** | 0.154*** | 4.541*** | 0.150*** |
(6.90) | (3.98) | (7.04) | (3.84) | |
Alr | −0.219 | −0.104 | −0.119 | −0.088 |
(−0.16) | (−1.15) | (−0.09) | (−0.97) | |
Pvol | −6.479** | −0.314* | −6.799*** | −0.331* |
(−2.52) | (−1.68) | (−2.64) | (−1.76) | |
Mfee | 0.766 | −0.014 | 0.789 | −0.028 |
(0.29) | (−0.06) | (0.29) | (−0.12) | |
Fina | 0.100*** | 0.002 | 0.102*** | 0.002 |
(3.40) | (0.72) | (3.45) | (0.94) | |
Prt | −0.623 | 0.044 | ||
(−1.04) | (0.74) | |||
Csep | 0.016 | 0.000 | ||
(0.43) | (0.14) | |||
Bal | 0.739 | 0.033 | ||
(1.43) | (1.05) | |||
Dual | 0.213 | 0.050* | ||
(0.59) | (1.84) | |||
Bsize | −0.272 | 0.005 | ||
(−1.42) | (0.48) | |||
Enum | −0.097 | −0.003 | ||
(−0.75) | (−0.49) | |||
Ien | −0.961*** | −0.056*** | ||
(−3.01) | (−2.69) | |||
CRDI | 0.020*** | 0.020*** | ||
(7.27) | (7.27) | |||
Constant | −97.335*** | −3.256*** | −87.589*** | −2.721*** |
(−6.63) | (−3.78) | (−5.70) | (−3.09) | |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.698 | 0.635 | 0.699 | 0.636 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Coefficient | Standard errors | Z-value | P-value | 95% conf. interval | |
Mediation effect | 0.1261*** | 0.0238 | 5.29 | 0.000 | 0.0794–0.1728 |
Direct effect | 0.0854** | 0.0426 | 2.01 | 0.045 | 0.0020–0.1689 |
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
GF | 0.238* | 0.233* | 0.394** | 0.385** |
(1.68) | (1.67) | (2.43) | (2.41) | |
FC | 2.756*** | 2.727*** | ||
(6.64) | (6.63) | |||
GF*FC | 0.887** | 0.944** | ||
(2.41) | (2.55) | |||
Size | 0.209*** | 0.207*** | 0.252*** | 0.249*** |
(5.12) | (5.06) | (5.71) | (5.66) | |
Alr | −0.121 | −0.111 | −0.079 | −0.061 |
(−1.33) | (−1.20) | (−0.81) | (−0.61) | |
Pvol | −0.128 | −0.143 | −0.439** | −0.461** |
(−0.66) | (−0.74) | (−2.17) | (−2.27) | |
Mfee | −0.408* | −0.409* | 0.046 | 0.034 |
(−1.69) | (−1.70) | (0.19) | (0.14) | |
Fina | −0.001 | −0.001 | 0.004* | 0.005* |
(−0.45) | (−0.26) | (1.71) | (1.93) | |
Prt | 0.032 | 0.034 | ||
(0.59) | (0.58) | |||
Csep | 0.000 | 0.001 | ||
(0.20) | (0.32) | |||
Bal | 0.018 | 0.046 | ||
(0.54) | (1.32) | |||
Dual | 0.040 | 0.056* | ||
(1.44) | (1.87) | |||
Bsize | 0.002 | −0.000 | ||
(0.16) | (−0.02) | |||
Enum | −0.002 | −0.005 | ||
(−0.37) | (−0.76) | |||
Ien | −0.065*** | −0.076*** | ||
(−2.94) | (−3.35) | |||
DDR | 0.008* | 0.009* | ||
(1.79) | (1.79) | |||
GF*DDR | 0.115** | 0.115** | ||
(2.13) | (2.14) | |||
Constant | 6.027*** | 6.530*** | −5.438*** | −4.697*** |
(3.23) | (3.47) | (−5.46) | (−4.64) | |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.629 | 0.629 | 0.610 | 0.611 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | |
Variables | SUSGI | CRDI | SUSGI | SUSGI | SUSGI | STSGI | CRDI | STSGI | STSGI | STSGI |
GF | 0.190*** | 6.240** | 0.130** | 0.131** | 0.195*** | 0.110** | 6.240** | 0.083** | 0.075* | 0.113** |
(2.80) | (2.06) | (2.24) | (2.19) | (2.88) | (2.41) | (2.06) | (2.02) | (1.83) | (2.47) | |
FC | 1.282*** | 0.705*** | ||||||||
(7.57) | (7.04) | |||||||||
GF*FC | 0.344** | 0.230** | ||||||||
(2.23) | (2.22) | |||||||||
CRDI | 0.010*** | 0.004*** | ||||||||
(10.31) | (6.81) | |||||||||
DDR | 0.004** | 0.001 | ||||||||
(2.23) | (0.27) | |||||||||
GF*DDR | 0.040* | 0.020* | ||||||||
(1.92) | (1.66) | |||||||||
Constant | −1.690*** | −87.589*** | −0.838** | 3.469*** | −1.799*** | −1.717*** | −87.589*** | −1.345*** | 1.123** | −1.728*** |
(−4.28) | (−5.70) | (−2.40) | (4.52) | (−4.42) | (−6.44) | (−5.70) | (−5.29) | (2.36) | (−6.32) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.595 | 0.699 | 0.633 | 0.621 | 0.597 | 0.588 | 0.699 | 0.600 | 0.602 | 0.588 |
Enterprise FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Industry FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | |
Variables | ISGI | CRDI | ISGI | ISGI | ISGI | CSGI | CRDI | CSGI | CSGI | CSGI |
GF | 0.219*** | 6.240** | 0.149* | 0.153* | 0.225*** | 0.065** | 6.240** | 0.050** | 0.044* | 0.066*** |
(2.65) | (2.06) | (1.91) | (1.88) | (2.72) | (2.33) | (2.06) | (2.04) | (1.83) | (3.90) | |
FC | 1.426*** | 0.431*** | ||||||||
(6.79) | (7.80) | |||||||||
GF*FC | 0.386** | 0.133** | ||||||||
(2.20) | (2.37) | |||||||||
CRDI | 0.011*** | 0.002*** | ||||||||
(9.30) | (6.92) | |||||||||
DDR | 0.005* | 0.001 | ||||||||
(1.69) | (1.52) | |||||||||
GF*DDR | 0.048* | 0.007*** | ||||||||
(1.94) | (2.60) | |||||||||
Constant | −3.082*** | −87.589*** | −2.096*** | 2.655*** | −3.214*** | −0.248** | −87.589*** | −0.037 | 1.487*** | −0.267*** |
(−6.18) | (−5.70) | (−4.62) | (2.72) | (−6.29) | (−2.02) | (−5.70) | (−0.32) | (5.98) | (−3.95) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.572 | 0.699 | 0.598 | 0.589 | 0.574 | 0.571 | 0.699 | 0.590 | 0.595 | 0.571 |
Enterprise FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Industry FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Instrumental variable method | ||
Phase 1 | Phase 2 | |
GF | 0.5397***(3.71) | |
Phase 1 IV | 0.2725***(143.37) | |
Control variables | YES | YES |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES |
Anderson canon. corr. LM statistic | 8563.802*** | |
Cragg Donald Wald F Statistic | 2.1e+04 | |
Stock-Yogo weak test (10%) | 16.380 | |
Observations | 13023 | 13023 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 0.362** | 6.152** | 0.240* | 0.227 | 0.379** |
(2.30) | (2.03) | (1.71) | (1.63) | (2.39) | |
FC | 2.724*** | ||||
(6.66) | |||||
GF*FC | 0.913** | ||||
(2.49) | |||||
Mfin | 0.026 | −0.135 | 0.029 | 0.029 | 0.024 |
(1.43) | (−0.48) | (1.64) | (1.64) | (1.32) | |
Moversea | −0.008 | −0.348 | −0.001 | −0.014 | −0.007 |
(−0.31) | (−0.94) | (−0.03) | (−0.58) | (−0.29) | |
Cocurp | −0.014 | −0.421 | −0.005 | −0.015 | −0.014 |
(−0.33) | (−0.71) | (−0.15) | (−0.41) | (−0.34) | |
Age | −0.005 | 0.016 | −0.005 | −0.003 | −0.006 |
(−0.91) | (0.18) | (−1.11) | (−0.46) | (−1.10) | |
Male | 0.005** | 0.026 | 0.004** | 0.004** | 0.005** |
(2.41) | (0.90) | (2.49) | (2.31) | (2.50) | |
CRDI | 0.020*** | ||||
(7.32) | |||||
DDR | 0.009* | ||||
(1.85) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.117** | ||||
(2.17) | |||||
Constant | −4.595*** | −90.098*** | −2.809*** | 6.324*** | −4.812*** |
(−4.29) | (−5.52) | (−3.02) | (3.45) | (−4.39) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.610 | 0.699 | 0.636 | 0.630 | 0.611 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 0.384** | 5.144*** | 0.282** | 0.299** | 0.401** |
(2.40) | (3.29) | (2.27) | (2.48) | (2.51) | |
FC | 2.761*** | ||||
(6.66) | |||||
GF*FC | 0.955*** | ||||
(2.60) | |||||
CRDI | 0.020*** | ||||
(7.28) | |||||
DDR | 0.008* | ||||
(1.77) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.119** | ||||
(2.19) | |||||
Constant | −4.515*** | −85.319*** | −2.822*** | 6.578*** | −4.762*** |
(−4.47) | (−14.59) | (−3.17) | (3.47) | (−4.64) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.610 | 0.702 | 0.637 | 0.631 | 0.612 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Province FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 1.933** | 6.240** | 0.990 | 1.015 | 2.023** |
(2.41) | (2.06) | (1.46) | (1.45) | (2.53) | |
FC | 18.663*** | ||||
(6.74) | |||||
GF*FC | 6.944*** | ||||
(3.11) | |||||
CRDI | 0.160*** | ||||
(9.48) | |||||
DDR | 0.030 | ||||
(0.64) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.603* | ||||
(1.91) | |||||
Constant | −33.716*** | −87.589*** | −19.844*** | 41.286*** | −34.506*** |
(−5.49) | (−5.70) | (−3.76) | (3.38) | (−5.51) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 13,999 | 14,173 | 13,999 | 13,999 | 13,999 |
R−squared | 0.675 | 0.699 | 0.721 | 0.701 | 0.677 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 0.318* | 5.443* | 0.205 | 0.148 | 0.328* |
(1.87) | (1.74) | (1.40) | (1.05) | (1.92) | |
FC | 3.057*** | ||||
(6.47) | |||||
GF*FC | 1.121*** | ||||
(2.84) | |||||
CRDI | 0.021*** | ||||
(6.89) | |||||
DDR | 0.014** | ||||
(2.24) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.138** | ||||
(2.20) | |||||
Constant | −4.767*** | −81.855*** | −3.077*** | 6.971*** | −5.104*** |
(−4.19) | (−5.07) | (−3.03) | (3.34) | (−4.40) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 11,875 | 11,875 | 11,875 | 11,875 | 11,875 |
R−squared | 0.617 | 0.682 | 0.645 | 0.641 | 0.620 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Tier 1 indicators | Tier 2 indicators | Definition of indicators | Indicator direction |
Green Credit | Interest ratio of high energy-consuming industries | High energy-consuming industrial interest/industrial interest | - |
Green Securities | The proportion of the market value of high energy-consuming industries | Value of six high energy-consuming A-shares/total market value of A-shares | - |
Green Investment | The proportion of investment in environmental pollution | Investment in pollution control /GDP | + |
Green Insurance | Agricultural insurance scale ratio | Agricultural insurance income/total agricultural output value | + |
Carbon Finance | Carbon intensity | Carbon dioxide emissions/GDP | - |
Variable | Number of observations | Mean | Std Dev | Minimum | Maximum |
GF | 14175 | 0.329 | 0.165 | 0.0910 | 0.879 |
SGI | 14175 | 0.343 | 0.900 | 0 | 10.13 |
CRDI | 14175 | 5.326 | 13.52 | 0 | 113.0 |
FC | 14175 | −3.764 | 0.296 | −4.859 | −2.114 |
DDR | 14175 | 0.767 | 2.925 | −119.1 | 7.674 |
Size | 14175 | 22.54 | 1.317 | 19.35 | 26.98 |
Alr | 14175 | 0.462 | 0.193 | 0.0480 | 1.154 |
Pvol | 14175 | 0.0290 | 0.0400 | 0 | 0.394 |
Mfee | 14175 | 0.0850 | 0.0630 | 0.00700 | 0.814 |
Fina | 14175 | 4.077 | 4.434 | −2.418 | 40.85 |
Prt | 14175 | 0.420 | 0.494 | 0 | 1 |
Csep | 14175 | 5.011 | 7.751 | −68.93 | 41.01 |
Bal | 14175 | 0.678 | 0.569 | 0.00500 | 2.745 |
Dual | 14175 | 0.245 | 0.430 | 0 | 1 |
B size | 14175 | 8.754 | 1.793 | 0 | 19 |
Enum | 14175 | 6.756 | 2.587 | 0 | 24 |
Ien | 14175 | 9.409 | 1.513 | 3.360 | 11.49 |
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
GF | 0.347** | 0.378** | 0.378** | 0.369** |
(2.19) | (2.34) | (2.34) | (2.32) | |
Size | 0.243*** | 0.243*** | 0.240*** | |
(5.61) | (5.61) | (5.55) | ||
Alr | −0.108 | −0.108 | −0.090 | |
(−1.12) | (−1.12) | (−0.93) | ||
Pvol | −0.443** | −0.443** | −0.466** | |
(−2.20) | (−2.20) | (−2.30) | ||
Mfee | 0.001 | 0.001 | −0.012 | |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (−0.05) | ||
Fina | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004* | |
(1.51) | (1.51) | (1.73) | ||
Prt | 0.032 | |||
(0.54) | ||||
Csep | 0.001 | |||
(0.28) | ||||
Bal | 0.048 | |||
(1.35) | ||||
Dual | 0.055* | |||
(1.83) | ||||
Bsize | −0.001 | |||
(−0.05) | ||||
Enum | −0.005 | |||
(−0.72) | ||||
Ien | −0.075*** | |||
(−3.31) | ||||
Constant | 0.229*** | −5.199*** | −5.199*** | −4.459*** |
(4.41) | (−5.35) | (−5.35) | (−4.49) | |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.601 | 0.608 | 0.608 | 0.609 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Note: ***, **, and * indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively. |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
VARIABLES | CRDI | SGI | CRDI | SGI |
GF | 6.405** | 0.251* | 6.240** | 0.245* |
(2.12) | (1.75) | (2.06) | (1.74) | |
Size | 4.454*** | 0.154*** | 4.541*** | 0.150*** |
(6.90) | (3.98) | (7.04) | (3.84) | |
Alr | −0.219 | −0.104 | −0.119 | −0.088 |
(−0.16) | (−1.15) | (−0.09) | (−0.97) | |
Pvol | −6.479** | −0.314* | −6.799*** | −0.331* |
(−2.52) | (−1.68) | (−2.64) | (−1.76) | |
Mfee | 0.766 | −0.014 | 0.789 | −0.028 |
(0.29) | (−0.06) | (0.29) | (−0.12) | |
Fina | 0.100*** | 0.002 | 0.102*** | 0.002 |
(3.40) | (0.72) | (3.45) | (0.94) | |
Prt | −0.623 | 0.044 | ||
(−1.04) | (0.74) | |||
Csep | 0.016 | 0.000 | ||
(0.43) | (0.14) | |||
Bal | 0.739 | 0.033 | ||
(1.43) | (1.05) | |||
Dual | 0.213 | 0.050* | ||
(0.59) | (1.84) | |||
Bsize | −0.272 | 0.005 | ||
(−1.42) | (0.48) | |||
Enum | −0.097 | −0.003 | ||
(−0.75) | (−0.49) | |||
Ien | −0.961*** | −0.056*** | ||
(−3.01) | (−2.69) | |||
CRDI | 0.020*** | 0.020*** | ||
(7.27) | (7.27) | |||
Constant | −97.335*** | −3.256*** | −87.589*** | −2.721*** |
(−6.63) | (−3.78) | (−5.70) | (−3.09) | |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.698 | 0.635 | 0.699 | 0.636 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Coefficient | Standard errors | Z-value | P-value | 95% conf. interval | |
Mediation effect | 0.1261*** | 0.0238 | 5.29 | 0.000 | 0.0794–0.1728 |
Direct effect | 0.0854** | 0.0426 | 2.01 | 0.045 | 0.0020–0.1689 |
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
GF | 0.238* | 0.233* | 0.394** | 0.385** |
(1.68) | (1.67) | (2.43) | (2.41) | |
FC | 2.756*** | 2.727*** | ||
(6.64) | (6.63) | |||
GF*FC | 0.887** | 0.944** | ||
(2.41) | (2.55) | |||
Size | 0.209*** | 0.207*** | 0.252*** | 0.249*** |
(5.12) | (5.06) | (5.71) | (5.66) | |
Alr | −0.121 | −0.111 | −0.079 | −0.061 |
(−1.33) | (−1.20) | (−0.81) | (−0.61) | |
Pvol | −0.128 | −0.143 | −0.439** | −0.461** |
(−0.66) | (−0.74) | (−2.17) | (−2.27) | |
Mfee | −0.408* | −0.409* | 0.046 | 0.034 |
(−1.69) | (−1.70) | (0.19) | (0.14) | |
Fina | −0.001 | −0.001 | 0.004* | 0.005* |
(−0.45) | (−0.26) | (1.71) | (1.93) | |
Prt | 0.032 | 0.034 | ||
(0.59) | (0.58) | |||
Csep | 0.000 | 0.001 | ||
(0.20) | (0.32) | |||
Bal | 0.018 | 0.046 | ||
(0.54) | (1.32) | |||
Dual | 0.040 | 0.056* | ||
(1.44) | (1.87) | |||
Bsize | 0.002 | −0.000 | ||
(0.16) | (−0.02) | |||
Enum | −0.002 | −0.005 | ||
(−0.37) | (−0.76) | |||
Ien | −0.065*** | −0.076*** | ||
(−2.94) | (−3.35) | |||
DDR | 0.008* | 0.009* | ||
(1.79) | (1.79) | |||
GF*DDR | 0.115** | 0.115** | ||
(2.13) | (2.14) | |||
Constant | 6.027*** | 6.530*** | −5.438*** | −4.697*** |
(3.23) | (3.47) | (−5.46) | (−4.64) | |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.629 | 0.629 | 0.610 | 0.611 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | |
Variables | SUSGI | CRDI | SUSGI | SUSGI | SUSGI | STSGI | CRDI | STSGI | STSGI | STSGI |
GF | 0.190*** | 6.240** | 0.130** | 0.131** | 0.195*** | 0.110** | 6.240** | 0.083** | 0.075* | 0.113** |
(2.80) | (2.06) | (2.24) | (2.19) | (2.88) | (2.41) | (2.06) | (2.02) | (1.83) | (2.47) | |
FC | 1.282*** | 0.705*** | ||||||||
(7.57) | (7.04) | |||||||||
GF*FC | 0.344** | 0.230** | ||||||||
(2.23) | (2.22) | |||||||||
CRDI | 0.010*** | 0.004*** | ||||||||
(10.31) | (6.81) | |||||||||
DDR | 0.004** | 0.001 | ||||||||
(2.23) | (0.27) | |||||||||
GF*DDR | 0.040* | 0.020* | ||||||||
(1.92) | (1.66) | |||||||||
Constant | −1.690*** | −87.589*** | −0.838** | 3.469*** | −1.799*** | −1.717*** | −87.589*** | −1.345*** | 1.123** | −1.728*** |
(−4.28) | (−5.70) | (−2.40) | (4.52) | (−4.42) | (−6.44) | (−5.70) | (−5.29) | (2.36) | (−6.32) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.595 | 0.699 | 0.633 | 0.621 | 0.597 | 0.588 | 0.699 | 0.600 | 0.602 | 0.588 |
Enterprise FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Industry FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | |
Variables | ISGI | CRDI | ISGI | ISGI | ISGI | CSGI | CRDI | CSGI | CSGI | CSGI |
GF | 0.219*** | 6.240** | 0.149* | 0.153* | 0.225*** | 0.065** | 6.240** | 0.050** | 0.044* | 0.066*** |
(2.65) | (2.06) | (1.91) | (1.88) | (2.72) | (2.33) | (2.06) | (2.04) | (1.83) | (3.90) | |
FC | 1.426*** | 0.431*** | ||||||||
(6.79) | (7.80) | |||||||||
GF*FC | 0.386** | 0.133** | ||||||||
(2.20) | (2.37) | |||||||||
CRDI | 0.011*** | 0.002*** | ||||||||
(9.30) | (6.92) | |||||||||
DDR | 0.005* | 0.001 | ||||||||
(1.69) | (1.52) | |||||||||
GF*DDR | 0.048* | 0.007*** | ||||||||
(1.94) | (2.60) | |||||||||
Constant | −3.082*** | −87.589*** | −2.096*** | 2.655*** | −3.214*** | −0.248** | −87.589*** | −0.037 | 1.487*** | −0.267*** |
(−6.18) | (−5.70) | (−4.62) | (2.72) | (−6.29) | (−2.02) | (−5.70) | (−0.32) | (5.98) | (−3.95) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.572 | 0.699 | 0.598 | 0.589 | 0.574 | 0.571 | 0.699 | 0.590 | 0.595 | 0.571 |
Enterprise FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Industry FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Instrumental variable method | ||
Phase 1 | Phase 2 | |
GF | 0.5397***(3.71) | |
Phase 1 IV | 0.2725***(143.37) | |
Control variables | YES | YES |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES |
Anderson canon. corr. LM statistic | 8563.802*** | |
Cragg Donald Wald F Statistic | 2.1e+04 | |
Stock-Yogo weak test (10%) | 16.380 | |
Observations | 13023 | 13023 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 0.362** | 6.152** | 0.240* | 0.227 | 0.379** |
(2.30) | (2.03) | (1.71) | (1.63) | (2.39) | |
FC | 2.724*** | ||||
(6.66) | |||||
GF*FC | 0.913** | ||||
(2.49) | |||||
Mfin | 0.026 | −0.135 | 0.029 | 0.029 | 0.024 |
(1.43) | (−0.48) | (1.64) | (1.64) | (1.32) | |
Moversea | −0.008 | −0.348 | −0.001 | −0.014 | −0.007 |
(−0.31) | (−0.94) | (−0.03) | (−0.58) | (−0.29) | |
Cocurp | −0.014 | −0.421 | −0.005 | −0.015 | −0.014 |
(−0.33) | (−0.71) | (−0.15) | (−0.41) | (−0.34) | |
Age | −0.005 | 0.016 | −0.005 | −0.003 | −0.006 |
(−0.91) | (0.18) | (−1.11) | (−0.46) | (−1.10) | |
Male | 0.005** | 0.026 | 0.004** | 0.004** | 0.005** |
(2.41) | (0.90) | (2.49) | (2.31) | (2.50) | |
CRDI | 0.020*** | ||||
(7.32) | |||||
DDR | 0.009* | ||||
(1.85) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.117** | ||||
(2.17) | |||||
Constant | −4.595*** | −90.098*** | −2.809*** | 6.324*** | −4.812*** |
(−4.29) | (−5.52) | (−3.02) | (3.45) | (−4.39) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.610 | 0.699 | 0.636 | 0.630 | 0.611 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 0.384** | 5.144*** | 0.282** | 0.299** | 0.401** |
(2.40) | (3.29) | (2.27) | (2.48) | (2.51) | |
FC | 2.761*** | ||||
(6.66) | |||||
GF*FC | 0.955*** | ||||
(2.60) | |||||
CRDI | 0.020*** | ||||
(7.28) | |||||
DDR | 0.008* | ||||
(1.77) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.119** | ||||
(2.19) | |||||
Constant | −4.515*** | −85.319*** | −2.822*** | 6.578*** | −4.762*** |
(−4.47) | (−14.59) | (−3.17) | (3.47) | (−4.64) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 | 14,173 |
R−squared | 0.610 | 0.702 | 0.637 | 0.631 | 0.612 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Province FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 1.933** | 6.240** | 0.990 | 1.015 | 2.023** |
(2.41) | (2.06) | (1.46) | (1.45) | (2.53) | |
FC | 18.663*** | ||||
(6.74) | |||||
GF*FC | 6.944*** | ||||
(3.11) | |||||
CRDI | 0.160*** | ||||
(9.48) | |||||
DDR | 0.030 | ||||
(0.64) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.603* | ||||
(1.91) | |||||
Constant | −33.716*** | −87.589*** | −19.844*** | 41.286*** | −34.506*** |
(−5.49) | (−5.70) | (−3.76) | (3.38) | (−5.51) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 13,999 | 14,173 | 13,999 | 13,999 | 13,999 |
R−squared | 0.675 | 0.699 | 0.721 | 0.701 | 0.677 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
Variables | SGI | CRDI | SGI | SGI | SGI |
GF | 0.318* | 5.443* | 0.205 | 0.148 | 0.328* |
(1.87) | (1.74) | (1.40) | (1.05) | (1.92) | |
FC | 3.057*** | ||||
(6.47) | |||||
GF*FC | 1.121*** | ||||
(2.84) | |||||
CRDI | 0.021*** | ||||
(6.89) | |||||
DDR | 0.014** | ||||
(2.24) | |||||
GF*DDR | 0.138** | ||||
(2.20) | |||||
Constant | −4.767*** | −81.855*** | −3.077*** | 6.971*** | −5.104*** |
(−4.19) | (−5.07) | (−3.03) | (3.34) | (−4.40) | |
Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Observations | 11,875 | 11,875 | 11,875 | 11,875 | 11,875 |
R−squared | 0.617 | 0.682 | 0.645 | 0.641 | 0.620 |
Enterprise/Industry/Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |