Figure 1
The line graph illustrates the relationship between “E S G score” and a predicted outcome. The horizontal axis is labeled “E S G score” and ranges from “0” to “95” in increments of “10” units. The vertical axis is labeled “Linear Prediction” and ranges from “0.06” to “0.14” in increments of “0.02” units. The graph displays three separate lines, each with vertical error bars representing confidence intervals. A legend at the bottom identifies the lines as “L S 1”, “L S 2”, and “L S 3”. All three lines originate from the same starting point of “0.076” when the “E S G score” is “0”. The first line, “L S 1”, rises steeply, passing through “0.100” at an “E S G score” of “40” and reaching “0.133” at an “E S G score” of “95”. The second line, “L S 2”, increases steadily, passing through “0.087” at an “E S G score” of “40” and reaching “0.102” at an “E S G score” of “95”. The third line, “L S 3”, shows a slight upward trend, passing through “0.080” at an “E S G score” of “40” and reaching “0.085” at an “E S G score” of “95”. Note: All numerical values are approximate.Impact of ESG performance on trade credit across the three institutional environments. Note: This figure reports the moderating effects of institutional environment (grouped as LS1, LS2 and LS3) on the relationship between ESGSCORE and trade credit. Specifically, LS1 comprises countries with the weakest legal systems and the highest levels of corruption; LS2 includes countries with moderate institutional factors; and LS3 consists of countries with the strongest legal systems and the lowest corruption levels