Environmental Management Information Disclosure Characteristics of Venture Capital-Backed SMEs: Evidence from China

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jse.202611305

Author(s)

Jia Liu

Affiliation(s)

Shandong University(Weihai), Weihai, Shandong, China

Abstract

In the context of global sustainable development, the relationship between environmental information disclosure and venture capital (VC) has received increasing attention. Based on a sample of 622 VC-backed small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in China from 2019 to 2023, this study manually codes publicly available information and employs descriptive statistics, regression analysis, and multiple imputation to examine the association between environmental disclosure and financing amount as well as financing round. The findings reveal that the overall disclosure rate is only 29.03%, while firms in green industries exhibit a significantly higher disclosure rate (66.67%). After controlling for other factors, environmental disclosure is not significantly associated with either financing amount or financing round. Firm age emerges as the most significant factor affecting financing outcomes. Heterogeneity analysis shows that the financing effects of disclosure are marginally significant in non-green industries and angel rounds. This study uncovers the co-occurrence patterns between environmental disclosure and financing characteristics within the already-funded firm population, providing empirical evidence for understanding the role of ESG information in early-stage VC markets.

Keywords

Environmental Management Information Disclosure; Venture Capital; Small And Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs); Financing Amount; Financing Round

References

[1] Drobetz, W., El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Hackmann, J. P., & Momtaz, P. P. (2024). Entrepreneurial finance and sustainability: Do institutional investors impact the ESG performance of SMEs? Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 22, e00498. [2] Kleinert, S., & Hildebrand, M. (2025). Venture capitalists' decision-making in hot and cold markets: The effect of signals and cheap talk. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 49(2), 571-598. [3] Deng, M., Shao, Q., & Chen, S. (2025). The ESG–financial performance nexus in startups: A multi-level contingency framework in the emerging economy. Sustainability, 17(24), 11197. [4] Zhou, L., & Rahat, B. (2025). How do environmental, social, and governance factors impact entrepreneurial finance? Evidence from European small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, ahead-of-print. [5] Li, Z., Li, F., & Zhao, Y. (2024). The financing effect of environmental information disclosure: Evidence from heavy polluters. Audit & Economics Research, 39(1), 117-127. (in Chinese) [6] Chen, R., et al. (2022). The impact of ESG indices on cost of capital. Scientific Decision Making, (11), 24-40. (in Chinese) [7] Yi, X., & Zhou, Y. (2023). Environmental information disclosure, media attention, and corporate inefficient investment: Based on heavy polluter data. Finance & Accounting Communications, (5), 56-64. (in Chinese) [8] Fu, Y., Chen, J., & Liu, S. (2024). Green innovation effects of carbon information disclosure. East China Economic Management, 38(7), 27-38. (in Chinese) [9] Wang, Y., & Albitar, K. (2025). A novel metric for corporate environmental responsibility and its impact on investment inefficiency. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 30(3), 3003-3030. [10] Cai, R. (2022). Environmental information disclosure quality of listed companies based on annual report text characteristics and its economic consequences. Beijing: Economic Science Press. (in Chinese) [11] Wang, Y., & Tan, X. (2021). Financing constraints, environmental information disclosure quality, and R&D investment. Accounting Friends, (2), 56-64. (in Chinese) [12] Mei, X., Ge, Y., & Zhu, X. (2020). Mechanism of environmental legitimacy pressure on corporate carbon information disclosure. Soft Science, 34(8), 14-20. (in Chinese) [13] Xu, J., Li, F., & Liu, W. (2025). The impact of green finance on corporate greenwashing risk. Frontiers of Engineering Management Technology. (in Chinese) [14] Uong, L. T. N., & Nguyen, N. D. (2025). The disclosure of environmental, social, and governance reports of small and medium-sized enterprises in the emerging market. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science - Economics and Business Administration, 15(3), 107-123. [15] Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374. [16] Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67. [17] Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. [18] Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967. [19] Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2019). The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 333-360. [20] Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. [21] Beck, J., Steinberg, A., Dimmelmeier, A., et al. (2025). Addressing data gaps in sustainability reporting: A benchmark dataset for greenhouse gas emission extraction. Scientific Data, 12, 1497. [22] Li, Q., & Song, J. (2022). Performance expectation gaps and corporate greenwashing behavior. Journal of Nanjing Audit University, 19(3), 51-61. (in Chinese) [23] Lilo, R., Paemurru, E., & Pärl, Ü. (2025). The textual representation of double materiality in ESG reports: Developing a content analysis codebook within a business model perspective. Journal of Business Models, 13(2).