IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i15p6602-d1448247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Study on ESG Evaluation of Chinese Energy Enterprises Based on High-Quality Development Goals—A Case Study of Listed Company Data

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoyan Xu

    (School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China)

  • Hong Zhao

    (School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China)

Abstract

The high-quality development of energy is the basis for and premise of achieving the high-quality development of the economy, and energy enterprises, as the main body of the microeconomy, are the “carrier” of its success. The national strategy of dual carbon and energy security requires energy enterprises to achieve sustainable development. In the context of global sustainable development, ESG is an evaluation technology that comprehensively measures the environmental sustainability, social value and governance ability of enterprises and improves the sustainable development ability of enterprises by focusing on the non-financial performance of enterprises and the co-creation and sharing of stakeholder value. As an important energy producer and consumer, China has not yet established an ESG evaluation system for energy enterprises that is in line with international standards and national conditions. Therefore, this paper constructs an ESG evaluation model framework of energy enterprises and studies the high-quality development performance evaluation of energy enterprises under the sustainable development strategy from the two dimensions of theoretical enrichment and empirical analysis. The model framework includes a factor structure model, performance evaluation index system, index weight model and performance evaluation model. First, integrating the new development concept and the safe development concept, the ESG connotation of China’s energy enterprises was defined by localization. Second, using the Delphi method, an ESG evaluation system with 3 sub-target layers, 14 criteria layers and 40 index layers was constructed. Third, the weights of each index in the ESG evaluation system were established by using an AHP–entropy combination weighting method. Fourth, based on the statistical data of 2021, 79 key pollutant energy enterprises listed in China were selected. The TOPSIS method was used to establish an evaluation model to empirically evaluate the comprehensive level of ESG and the performance of the E, S and G dimensions of the sample companies, and the evaluation results were analyzed. The results show that the weight ratio of E, S and G is relatively balanced; and the weight of social responsibility ranks first at the target level, environmental response ranks first at the criterion level and energy supply guarantee ranks first at the index level. The overall ESG performance of the sample companies is average, and the G performance is not ideal. The ESG synthesis and the performance of all dimensions are significantly polarized, and the development of different dimensions of E, S and G is mostly unbalanced and uncoordinated. The results demonstrate the following: (1) Using the Delphi method, the ESG structural dimension model of energy enterprises is constructed by selecting evaluation indicators reflecting the concepts of innovation, coordination, green, open, sharing and safety, which enriches the connotation and extension theory of ESG. (2) The AHP–entropy combination weighting method model can scientifically obtain the weights of indicators at each level in the ESG evaluation system. (3) The proposed ESG evaluation index system can effectively measure the high-quality development level of energy enterprises. This research can provide regulatory authorities with sustainable development policy suggestions for strengthening the top-level design of ESG; building an ESG-healthy ecosystem; and integrating ESG investment with energy security, carbon-neutral goals and corporate strategies to promote the high-quality development of enterprises.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoyan Xu & Hong Zhao, 2024. "An Empirical Study on ESG Evaluation of Chinese Energy Enterprises Based on High-Quality Development Goals—A Case Study of Listed Company Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-22, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:15:p:6602-:d:1448247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/15/6602/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/15/6602/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Baldini & Lorenzo Dal Maso & Giovanni Liberatore & Francesco Mazzi & Simone Terzani, 2018. "Role of Country- and Firm-Level Determinants in Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosure," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 79-98, June.
    2. Özge Sahin & Karoline Bax & Claudia Czado & Sandra Paterlini, 2022. "Environmental, Social, Governance scores and the Missing pillar—Why does missing information matter?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1782-1798, September.
    3. Ronald Hill & Thomas Ainscough & Todd Shank & Daryl Manullang, 2007. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Socially Responsible Investing: A Global Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 165-174, January.
    4. Florian Berg & Julian F Kölbel & Roberto Rigobon, 2022. "Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings [Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: theory and empirical evidence]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 26(6), pages 1315-1344.
    5. Samuel Drempetic & Christian Klein & Bernhard Zwergel, 2020. "The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 333-360, November.
    6. Pedersen, Lasse Heje & Fitzgibbons, Shaun & Pomorski, Lukasz, 2021. "Responsible investing: The ESG-efficient frontier," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 572-597.
    7. Luluk Widyawati, 2021. "Measurement concerns and agreement of environmental social governance ratings," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 1589-1623, April.
    8. Jeremy Galbreath, 2013. "ESG in Focus: The Australian Evidence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 529-541, December.
    9. Manuel Branco & Lúcia Rodrigues, 2008. "Factors Influencing Social Responsibility Disclosure by Portuguese Companies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 685-701, December.
    10. Avramov, Doron & Cheng, Si & Lioui, Abraham & Tarelli, Andrea, 2022. "Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 642-664.
    11. Aydin Aslan & Lars Poppe & Peter Posch, 2021. "Are Sustainable Companies More Likely to Default? Evidence from the Dynamics between Credit and ESG Ratings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    12. Aaron K. Chatterji & Rodolphe Durand & David I. Levine & Samuel Touboul, 2016. "Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1597-1614, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lestari, Jenjang Sri & Frömmel, Michael, 2024. "Socially responsible investments: doing good while doing well in developed versus emerging markets?," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    2. Caterina Lucarelli & Sabrina Severini, 2024. "Anatomy of the chimera: Environmental, Social, and Governance ratings beyond the myth," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 4198-4217, July.
    3. Wang, Jianli & Wang, Shaolin & Dong, Minghua & Wang, Hongxia, 2024. "ESG rating disagreement and stock returns: Evidence from China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Zou, Jin & Yan, Jingzhou & Deng, Guoying, 2023. "ESG rating confusion and bond spreads," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Luo, Deqing & Shan, Xun & Yan, Jingzhou & Yan, Qianhui, 2023. "Sustainable investment under ESG volatility and ambiguity," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    6. Fiordelisi, Franco & Ricci, Ornella & Santilli, Gianluca, 2023. "Environmental engagement and stock price crash risk: Evidence from the European banking industry," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Tobias Bauckloh & Stefan Schaltegger & Sebastian Utz & Sebastian Zeile & Bernhard Zwergel, 2023. "Active First Movers vs. Late Free-Riders? An Empirical Analysis of UN PRI Signatories’ Commitment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(3), pages 747-781, January.
    8. Schoonjans, Eline, 2024. "From diversity to sustainability: Environmental and social spillover effects of board gender quotas," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 314-331.
    9. Benuzzi, Matteo & Klaser, Klaudijo & Bax, Karoline, 2024. "Which ESG+F dimension matters most to retail investors? An experimental study on financial decisions and future generations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    10. Staněk Gyönyör, Lucie & Horváth, Matúš, 2024. "Does ESG affect stock market dependence? An empirical exploration of S&P 1200 companies shows the divergent nature of E–S–G pillars," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    11. Jian Zhou & Xiaodong Lei & Jianglong Yu, 2024. "ESG rating divergence and corporate green innovation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 2911-2930, May.
    12. Luo, Di & Farag, Hisham, 2024. "ESG and aggregate disagreement," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    13. Torsten Ehlers & Ulrike Elsenhuber & Kumar Jegarasasingam & Eric Jondeau, 2022. "Deconstructing ESG Scores: How to Invest with Your own Criteria," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 22-23, Swiss Finance Institute.
    14. Liu, Xiangqiang & Yang, Qingqing & Wei, Kai & Dai, Peng-Fei, 2024. "ESG rating disagreement and idiosyncratic return volatility: Evidence from China," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(PB).
    15. Dunbar, Kwamie & Treku, Daniel & Sarnie, Robert & Hoover, Jack, 2023. "What does ESG risk premia tell us about mutual fund sustainability levels: A difference-in-differences analysis," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    16. Vu, Thanh Nam & Junttila, Juha-Pekka & Lehkonen, Heikki, 2024. "ESG news and long-run stock returns," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. Yu, Haixu & Liang, Chuanyu & Liu, Zhaohua & Wang, He, 2023. "News-based ESG sentiment and stock price crash risk," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. Sofia Brito-Ramos & Maria Céu Cortez & Florinda Silva, 2022. "Do sustainability signals diverge? An analysis of labeling schemes for socially responsible investments ," Working Papers hal-04064367, HAL.
    19. Alessi, Lucia & Ossola, Elisa & Panzica, Roberto, 2023. "When do investors go green? Evidence from a time-varying asset-pricing model," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    20. Diana Elena VASIU, 2024. "Esg Rates Divergence On The Emerging Markets In The European Union," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 19(2), pages 274-289, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:15:p:6602-:d:1448247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.