75 
68企业社会创新与企业社会责任均属于企业社会行动范畴，但前者强调创新性主动解决社会问题，后者则更多是常规性被动响应。现有研究认为，ESG基金有利于企业履行社会责任，但其对企业社会创新的影响及其内在机制仍有待进一步澄清。本文基于制度逻辑理论的能动视角，基于2008—2022年沪深A股上市公司样本，实证检验了ESG基金持股对企业社会创新的影响。研究发现：（1）ESG基金持股显著抑制企业社会创新，这是由于在市场逻辑主导下，企业更倾向于以常规社会行动回应ESG基金所代表的社会福利逻辑压力，从而挤占了创新性投入；（2）组织场域中金融逻辑可以发挥不同的调节作用。高管金融背景虽不利于企业社会创新，但能够削弱ESG基金的负面效应；散户舆论关注对社会创新的直接作用不显著，却会强化ESG基金的抑制作用；（3）进一步研究表明，ESG基金的抑制效应在市场逻辑主导区域较弱，而在政府逻辑主导区域更强。本文不仅丰富了企业社会创新、混合金融实践与制度复杂性相关研究，也为提升ESG基金效能、推动“商业向善”与可持续发展目标的实现提供了实践启示。
ESG基金能否促进企业社会创新？——基于制度逻辑理论的能动视角
摘要
参考文献
3 杜勇, 谢瑾, 陈建英. CEO金融背景与实体企业金融化[J]. 中国工业经济, 2019, (5): 136-154.
7 纪光欣, 岳琳琳. 德鲁克社会创新思想及其价值探析[J]. 外国经济与管理, 2012, 34(9): 1-6.
9 刘德鹏, 贾良定, 刘畅唱, 等. 从自利到德行: 商业组织的制度逻辑变革研究[J]. 管理世界, 2017, (11): 94-111.
15 王涛, 罗开帆, 于超. 制度复杂性下的企业ESG实践: 研究综述与展望[J]. 外国经济与管理, 2025, 47(4): 21-39.
17 肖红军, 阳镇. 新中国70年企业与社会关系演变: 进程、逻辑与前景[J]. 改革, 2019, (6): 5-19.
18 徐超, 吴玲萍, 孙文平. 外出务工经历、社会资本与返乡农民工创业——来自CHIPS数据的证据[J]. 财经研究, 2017, 43(12): 30-44.
20 姚加权, 张锟澎, 郭李鹏, 等. 人工智能如何提升企业生产效率?——基于劳动力技能结构调整的视角[J]. 管理世界, 2024, 40(2): 101-116,133.
21 Adomako S, Tran M D. Local embeddedness, and corporate social performance: The mediating role of social innovation orientation[J]. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2022, 29(2): 329-338. DOI:10.1002/csr.2203
22 Alonso-Martínez D, González-Álvarez N, Nieto M. The influence of financial performance on corporate social innovation[J]. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2019, 26(4): 859-871. DOI:10.1002/csr.1726
23 Amel-Zadeh A, Serafeim G. Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey[J]. Financial Analysts Journal, 2018, 74(3): 87-103. DOI:10.2469/faj.v74.n3.2
24 Arslan B, Vasudeva G, Hirsch E B. Public-private and private-private collaboration as pathways for socially beneficial innovation: Evidence from antimicrobial drug development tasks[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2024, 62(2): 554-582.
25 Barber B M, Morse A, Yasuda A. Impact investing[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2021, 139(1): 162-185. DOI:10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.07.008
26 Battilana J, Lee M. Advancing research on hybrid organizing–insights from the study of social enterprises[J]. Academy of Management Annals, 2014, 8(1): 397-441. DOI:10.5465/19416520.2014.893615
27 Battilana J, Sengul M, Pache A C, et al. Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2015, 58(6): 1658-1685. DOI:10.5465/amj.2013.0903
28 Beckman C M, Rosen J, Estrada-Miller J, et al. The social innovation trap: Critical insights into an emerging field[J]. Academy of Management Annals, 2023, 17(2): 684-709. DOI:10.5465/annals.2021.0089
29 Berk J B, van Binsbergen J H. The impact of impact investing[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2025, 164: 103972. DOI:10.1016/j.jfineco.2024.103972
30 Besharov M L, Smith W K. Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2014, 39(3): 364-381. DOI:10.5465/amr.2011.0431
31 Boulongne R, Durand R, Flammer C. Impact investing in disadvantaged urban areas[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2024, 45(2): 238-271. DOI:10.1002/smj.3544
32 Candi M, Melia M, Colurcio M. Two birds with one stone: The quest for addressing both business goals and social needs with innovation[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2019, 160(4): 1019-1033. DOI:10.1007/s10551-018-3853-y
33 Cao Q L, Ju M, Li J L, et al. Managerial myopia and long-term investment: Evidence from China[J]. Sustainability, 2023, 15(1): 708.
34 Carberry E J, Bharati P, Levy D L, et al. Social movements as catalysts for corporate social innovation: Environmental activism and the adoption of green information systems[J]. Business & Society, 2019, 58(5): 1083-1127.
35 Casasnovas G, Jones J. Who has a seat at the table in impact investing? Addressing inequality by giving voice[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2022, 179(4): 951-969. DOI:10.1007/s10551-022-05154-6
36 Cerqueti R, Ciciretti R, Dalò A, et al. ESG investing: A chance to reduce systemic risk[J]. Journal of Financial Stability, 2021, 54: 100887. DOI:10.1016/j.jfs.2021.100887
37 Dyck A, Lins K V, Roth L, et al. Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2019, 131(3): 693-714. DOI:10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.08.013
38 Fu J S, Yan S P. Institutional complexity and social innovation: The case of Chinese social enterprises[J]. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 2025, 36(1): 85-97. DOI:10.1007/s11266-024-00696-x
39 Gautier A, Pache A C, Santos F. Making sense of hybrid practices: The role of individual adherence to institutional logics in impact investing[J]. Organization Studies, 2023, 44(9): 1385-1412. DOI:10.1177/01708406231181693
40 Geczy C, Jeffers J S, Musto D K, et al. Contracts with (social) benefits: The implementation of impact investing[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2021, 142(2): 697-718. DOI:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.006
41 Goodman J, Halme M, Juntunen J K. Sustainability-oriented innovation for system-level impact[J]. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2026, 12(1): 136-162. DOI:10.5465/amd.2024.0035
42 Greenwood R, Díaz A M, Li S X, et al. The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses[J]. Organization Science, 2010, 21(2): 521-539. DOI:10.1287/orsc.1090.0453
43 Gupta D, Kopytov A, Starmans J. The pace of change: Socially responsible investing in private markets[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2026, 39(1): 30-78. DOI:10.1093/rfs/hhaf083
44 He X M, Cui L, Meyer K E. How state and market logics influence firm strategy from within and outside? Evidence from Chinese financial intermediary firms[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2022, 39(2): 587-614. DOI:10.1007/s10490-020-09739-5
45 Hehenberger L, Mair J, Metz A. The assembly of a field ideology: An idea-centric perspective on systemic power in impact investing[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2019, 62(6): 1672-1704. DOI:10.5465/amj.2017.1402
46 Hockerts K, Hehenberger L, Schaltegger S, et al. Defining and conceptualizing impact investing: Attractive nuisance or catalyst?[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2022, 179(4): 937-950. DOI:10.1007/s10551-022-05157-3
47 Jay J. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2013, 56(1): 137-159. DOI:10.5465/amj.2010.0772
48 Karwowski M, Raulinajtys-Grzybek M. The application of corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions for mitigation of environmental, social, corporate governance (ESG) and reputational risk in integrated reports[J]. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2021, 28(4): 1270-1284. DOI:10.1002/csr.2137
49 Khan H, Amankwah-Amoah J, Lee R, et al. Breaking barriers: How do the marketing capabilities of emerging-market micro-multinationals drive social innovation?[J]. Management International Review, 2024, 64(4): 701-726. DOI:10.1007/s11575-024-00538-4
50 Kim S, Schifeling T. Good corp, bad corp, and the rise of B corps: How market incumbents’ diverse responses reinvigorate challengers[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2022, 67(3): 674-720. DOI:10.1177/00018392221091734
51 Kim S, Yoon A. Analyzing active fund managers’ commitment to ESG: Evidence from the United Nations principles for responsible investment[J]. Management Science, 2023, 69(2): 741-758. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2022.4394
52 Kräussl R, Oladiran T, Stefanova D. A review on ESG investing: Investors’ expectations, beliefs and perceptions[J]. Journal of Economic Surveys, 2024, 38(2): 476-502. DOI:10.1111/joes.12599
53 Lowry M, Wang P L, Wei K D. Are all ESG funds created equal? Only some funds are committed[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2026, 39(1): 79-113. DOI:10.1093/rfs/hhaf084
54 Marti E, Fuchs M, DesJardine M R, et al. The impact of sustainable investing: A multidisciplinary review[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2024, 61(5): 2181-2211. DOI:10.1111/joms.12957
55 Nwoba A C, Kusi S, Adebajo A, et al. MNCs’ corporate social innovation in emerging markets: Antecedents, outcomes, and boundary conditions[J]. Management International Review, 2024, 64(3): 365-396. DOI:10.1007/s11575-024-00541-9
56 Pache A C, Santos F. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2013, 56(4): 972-1001. DOI:10.5465/amj.2011.0405
57 Pillai K G, Nair S R, Zahoor N, et al. Driving social innovation in bottom-of-the-pyramid markets through international social alliances: The role of legitimacy[J]. Management International Review, 2024, 64(3): 567-595. DOI:10.1007/s11575-024-00547-3
58 Reay T, Hinings C R. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics[J]. Organization Studies, 2009, 30(6): 629-652. DOI:10.1177/0170840609104803
59 Rousselière D, Bouchard M J, Rousselière S. How does the social economy contribute to social and environmental innovation? Evidence of direct and indirect effects from a European survey[J]. Research Policy, 2024, 53(5): 104991. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2024.104991
60 Saka-Helmhout A, Álamos-Concha P, Polo-Barceló C, et al. Corporate social innovation by multinationals: A framework for future research[J]. International Business Review, 2024, 33(5): 102273. DOI:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2024.102273
61 Saka-Helmhout A, Chappin M M H, Rodrigues S B. Corporate social innovation in developing countries[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2022, 181(3): 589-605. DOI:10.1007/s10551-021-04933-x
62 Schuessler E S, Lohmeyer N, Ashwin S. “We can’t compete on human rights”: Creating market-protected spaces to institutionalize the emerging logic of responsible management[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2023, 66(4): 1071-1101. DOI:10.5465/amj.2020.1614
63 Smets M, Jarzabkowski P, Burke G T, et al. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2015, 58(3): 932-970. DOI:10.5465/amj.2012.0638
64 Tabares S, Dionisio M, Parida V. Leveraging corporate social innovation by hybrid organizations: A strategic perspective from B corps in Latin America[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2025, 186: 114945. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114945
65 van Wijk J, Zietsma C, Dorado S, et al. Social innovation: Integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory[J]. Business & Society, 2019, 58(5): 887-918.
66 Wagner M. Corporate social performance and innovation with high social benefits: A quantitative analysis[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2010, 94(4): 581-594. DOI:10.1007/s10551-009-0339-y
67 Wei D L, Luo C H, Lu J J. CEOs with a financial background and corporate risk-taking[J]. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 2025, 36(2): 266-291.
68 Wu X J, Tan X X, Wang X Q. The institutional logics perspective in management and organizational studies[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2023, 167: 114183. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114183
69 Xiao S F, Roh T, Ghauri P N, et al. MNCs’ social innovation in emerging markets: A stakeholder perspective[J]. Management International Review, 2024, 64(4): 633-670. DOI:10.1007/s11575-024-00537-5
70 Yan J, Gu X, Xie Z T. CEO cultural and financial backgrounds and corporate innovation[J]. Finance Research Letters, 2024, 66: 105670. DOI:10.1016/j.frl.2024.105670
71 Yan S P, Almandoz J, Ferraro F. The impact of logic (in)compatibility: Green investing, state policy, and corporate environmental performance[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2021, 66(4): 903-944. DOI:10.1177/00018392211005756
72 Zhao E Y, Lounsbury M. An institutional logics approach to social entrepreneurship: Market logic, religious diversity, and resource acquisition by microfinance organizations[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2016, 31(6): 643-662. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.09.001
引用本文
郑若愚, 刘志阳, 刘建一. ESG基金能否促进企业社会创新？——基于制度逻辑理论的能动视角[J]. 外国经济与管理, 2026, 48(6): 113-134.
导出参考文献，格式为：
