Analyzing the effect of ESG ratings on spatial heterogeneity of firms’ total factor productivity based on improved K-means algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Answering the spatial relationship between ESG ratings and total factor productivity of enterprises can provide a reference for the high-quality development of macroeconomy and the sustainable and healthy development of enterprises.In this paper, the improved K-means algorithm-PCA-K-means is used to measure the principal component data corresponding to the economic development level of 26 central cities, based on which and cluster analysis is conducted to classify the regions and city types of East, Central and West China.Furthermore, benchmark regression and spatial heterogeneity analyses were conducted using a fixed-effects model.The study shows that ESG ratings have a significant positive relationship on firm-wide factors.Observing the PCA-K-means clustering results, it can be found that there is no significant positive effect between the economic development speed and the ESG ratings of enterprises, which indicates that there is a difference in the impact of ESG ratings on the total factor productivity of enterprises in different regions.Therefore, the spatial heterogeneity analysis shows that the correlation coefficients of ESG rating performance in the central and western regions are 0.0163 and 0.0275, respectively, and ESG rating performance has a greater impact on enterprises in the central and western regions compared with the eastern region.The effect of ESG rating on total factor productivity of enterprises in resource-dependent cities and old industrial bases is not significant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".