Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose This study investigates how CEO green human capital drives environmental social responsibility (ESR) performance among Chinese listed construction firms, addressing the strategic importance of green transformation under China’s dual-carbon strategy and its alignment with global sustainable development goals in high-carbon sectors. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on upper echelons theory and imprinting theory, this study constructs a theoretical framework linking CEO green human capital to ESR performance. Empirical analysis is conducted using panel data from Chinese listed construction firms spanning 2008 to 2024, incorporating comprehensive endogeneity controls, mediation analysis and moderation tests to ensure robustness and validity of findings. Findings Four principal findings emerge. CEO green experience significantly elevates ESR performance, with green-experienced firms scoring approximately 1.6185 units higher on the Environmental Performance index, a comprehensive measure of corporate environmental responsibility performance. Second, green strategic orientation, green innovation performance and ESG environmental scores serve as significant mediating channels. Third, the positive effect is amplified among high-power and longer-tenured CEOs, firms with greater female managerial representation and regions with stronger public environmental concern. Fourth, CEO green experience generates positive spillovers to firm market value via enhanced ESR performance. Originality/value This study pioneers the integration of green human capital into construction sector ESR research by extending upper echelons theory and imprinting theory to the environmental domain. The findings offer novel empirical guidance for executive selection and green-transition governance in high-carbon industries, contributing a systematic understanding of how CEO-level characteristics shape corporate environmental responsibility trajectories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: