中国电力企业、可持续发展目标和ESG耦合

中国电力企业、可持续发展目标和ESG耦合: Comparison

Please note this is a comparison between Version 1 by Shao Chaofeng and Version 3 by Camila Xu.

As a sustainable development evaluation that takes into account economic, environmental, social, and governance benefits, the 作为一项兼顾经济、环境、社会和治理效益的可持续发展评估，ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) framework is an investment philosophy that pursues long-term value growth and adheres to a corporate governance mindset focusing on the big picture and a comprehensive approach. The ESG evaluation system is based on ESG information disclosed by enterprises or provided by third parties and is based on three perspectives of the environment, social responsibility, and corporate governance. Coupling both ESG and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) from three aspects of evaluation methods, evaluation indexes, and evaluation results characterization has significant positive significance for improving corporate sustainable development.框架是一种追求长期价值增长的投资理念，坚持着眼于大局和综合方法的公司治理思维。ESG评价体系以企业披露或第三方提供的ESG信息为基础，基于环境、社会责任和公司治理三个视角。

corporate sustainability
ESG
sustainability index
sustainable development indicator framework

1. Introduction 简介

Sustainable development strategies have become one of the key development strategies for all industries and sectors around the world. China set a peak carbon-neutral target in 可持续发展战略已成为全球所有行业和部门的关键发展战略之一。中国设定了2020 (referred to as the double carbon target) and is committed to forming a new energy structure by 2030 with a focus on non-fossil energy and natural gas ^[1]. Under the double carbon target, China’s power industry, as its main energy-consuming sector, was the first to be included in the carbon emissions trading target, and the first compliance cycle for the power generation industry in the national carbon market was also officially launched in 年碳中和达峰目标（简称双碳目标），并致力于到2030年形成以非化石能源和天然气为重点的新能源结构[1]。在双碳目标下，我国电力行业作为其主要耗能行业率先纳入碳排放交易目标，2021, making the green and low-carbon transformation of the power industry imperative ^[2]年全国碳市场发电行业首个履约周期也正式启动，电力行业绿色低碳转型势在必行[2]. As independently operated economic entities, the sustainability level of power enterprises directly restricts the development level of the entire power industry while significantly affecting the sustainability of national economic and social development ^[3]. In the current environment of energy scarcity, enhancing the competitiveness and achieving the sustainable development of electric power enterprises have become urgent. Therefore, the sustainable development performance of electric power enterprises is of great concern. The realization of such sustainable development requires the establishment of a set of effective evaluation mechanisms in order to assess the sustainable development performance of each enterprise and understand and analyze the performance of an enterprise to facilitate the enterprise’s sustainable development management and provide reference advice to stakeholders.电力企业作为独立经营的经济主体，其可持续性水平直接制约着整个电力行业的发展水平，同时显著影响国民经济和社会发展的可持续性[3]。在当前能源稀缺的环境下，增强电力企业竞争力、实现可持续发展已迫在眉睫。因此，电力企业的可持续发展绩效备受关注。实现这种可持续发展需要建立一套有效的评价机制，以评估每个企业的可持续发展绩效，了解和分析企业的绩效，以促进企业的可持续发展管理，并为利益相关者提供参考建议。

As a sustainable development evaluation that takes into account economic, environmental, social, and governance benefits, the 作为一项考虑经济、环境、社会和治理效益的可持续发展评估，ESG framework is an investment philosophy that pursues long-term value growth and adheres to a corporate governance mindset focusing on the big picture and a comprehensive approach ^[4]. The 框架是一种追求长期价值增长的投资理念，并坚持着眼于大局和综合方法的公司治理思维[4]。ESG evaluation system is based on 评价体系以企业披露或第三方提供的ESG information disclosed by enterprises or provided by third parties and is based on three perspectives of the environment, social responsibility, and corporate governance. The ESG evaluation system, serving as a tool for measuring corporate sustainability performance, has received much attention from stakeholders in recent years. The ESG framework provides tools and methods for integrating governance considerations into enterprise-level sustainability. As tools and methods, ESG scores provide readily available data on corporate sustainability performance, and ESG scores, ESG ratings, and ESG evaluation systems are widely used in the literature to measure the sustainability performance of firms ^[5]. Some scholars have directly adopted existing 信息为基础，基于环境、社会责任和公司治理三个视角。ESG评估体系作为衡量企业可持续发展绩效的工具，近年来受到利益相关者的广泛关注。ESG框架提供了将治理考虑因素纳入企业级可持续性的工具和方法。作为工具和方法，ESG评分提供了有关企业可持续发展绩效的现成数据，ESG评分、ESG评级和ESG评估系统在文献中广泛用于衡量企业的可持续发展绩效[5]。一些学者直接将现有的ESG rating systems, such as those produced by Bloomberg ^[5] and 评级系统，例如彭博社[5]和摩根士丹利资本国际（Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI), into their studies ^[6].CI）制定的评级系统[6]。

2. Corporate Sustainability Performance Evaluation企业可持续发展绩效评估

An important extension of the concept of sustainable development is the concept of corporate sustainability. Corporate sustainability is the application of the concept of sustainable development at the corporate level ^[7]. Due to the complexity of sustainability, researchers have proposed theories such as environmental sustainability, eco-efficiency, business ethics, and the three bottom lines in an attempt to define corporate sustainability, which has led to the development of different frameworks for corporate sustainability performance constructed based on various theories. Researchers have developed many methodological frameworks in order to make corporate sustainability more easily quantifiable ^[8][9][10]. Initial sustainability assessments focused on the evaluation of single dimensions of sustainability, such as corporate environmental performance ^[11][12], as well as corporate social performance ^[13]. Measurement frameworks based on the environmental dimension cover indicators that measure corporate emissions of pollutants, resource use, erosion of biodiversity, and climate-warming impacts ^[14]. The measurement framework for the social dimension covers indicators for employees, supply chain management, equity, occupational health, and human rights ^[15]. In the economic dimension, the measurement framework measures the profitability, operating capacity, growth capacity, and credit-worthiness of a business with financial indicators, aiming to maximize wealth ^[16]. The shortcomings of one-dimensional measurement frameworks are not limited to their measurement of only one aspect of corporate sustainability ^[17]可持续发展概念的一个重要延伸是企业可持续性的概念。企业可持续性是可持续发展概念在企业层面的应用[11]。由于可持续性的复杂性，研究人员提出了环境可持续性、生态效率、商业道德和三条底线等理论，试图定义企业可持续性，这导致了基于各种理论构建的企业可持续发展绩效的不同框架的发展。研究人员开发了许多方法框架，以使企业可持续性更容易量化[12，13，14]。最初的可持续性评估侧重于评估可持续性的单一维度，例如企业环境绩效[15，16]以及企业社会绩效[17]。基于环境维度的测量框架涵盖了衡量企业污染物排放、资源使用、生物多样性侵蚀和气候变暖影响的指标[18]。社会维度的衡量框架涵盖了员工、供应链管理、公平、职业健康和人权的指标[19]。在经济方面，衡量框架通过财务指标衡量企业的盈利能力、经营能力、增长能力和信誉度，旨在实现财富最大化[20]。一维衡量框架的缺点不仅限于衡量企业可持续性的一个方面[21]; there are also problems such as a lack of standardization techniques ^[12] and a lack of measurement of specific companies or sectors ^[18]. Triple performance was proposed to systematically measure the performance of the three perspectives of sustainability, and many researchers and institutions have conducted extensive and in-depth research on corporate sustainability based on triple performance ^[19]. The first edition of 还存在诸如缺乏标准化技术[16]和缺乏对特定公司或部门的衡量[22]等问题。提出三重绩效来系统衡量可持续发展三个视角的绩效，许多研究人员和机构基于三重绩效对企业可持续发展进行了广泛而深入的研究[23]。GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (的可持续发展报告指南（G1) was published by the Global Reporting Initiative and applied triple bottom line theory to provide a core framework for the measurement of an organization’s economic, environmental, and social performance ^[20].）的第一版由全球报告倡议组织发布，并应用三重底线理论为衡量组织的经济，环境和社会绩效提供了核心框架[24]。 Specifically for the evaluation of sustainability in the power generation sector, 特别是对于发电部门的可持续性评估，Qazi sought to analyze the impact of reform measures, such as structural transformation, institutional development, and policy advancement, on the sustainability of Pakistan’s power sector by using different indicators to measure the developmental performance of Pakistan’s power generation, transmission, and distribution sectors ^[3]试图通过使用不同的指标来衡量巴基斯坦发电，输电和配电部门的发展绩效，来分析改革措施（如结构转型，制度发展和政策推进）对巴基斯坦电力部门可持续性的影响[3]. Wang applied the material element extension approach to economic, environmental, technological, and social aspects to establish a sustainability evaluation framework to assess and analyze the sustainability of five Chinese power generation industries ^[21]. 王将物质元素扩展方法应用于经济，环境，技术和社会方面，建立了可持续性评估框架，以评估和分析五个中国发电行业的可持续性[25]。邓小平构建了基于数据包络分析（Deng constructed a data envelopment analysis (DEA), hierarchical analysis (AHP), and dynamic evaluation system based on data envelopment analysis (DEA) to determine the economic sustainability performance of Chinese nuclear-related enterprises ^[22]. ）、层次分析（AHP）和动态评价体系，以确定中国核相关企业的经济可持续性绩效[26]。Gopal assessed the degree of sustainability and trends in the power sector in India using 使用对应于三个维度的11 indicators corresponding to three dimensions: economic, environmental, and social ^[23]. 个指标评估了印度电力部门的可持续性程度和趋势：经济，环境和社会[27]。Simone assessed the sustainability performance of the Brazilian power sector based on the 根据全球报告倡议组织（Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) energy sector indicators by applying the directed distance function (DDF) as specified by data envelopment analysis (DEA) ^[24].RI）能源部门指标，应用数据包络分析（DEA）指定的定向距离函数（DDF）评估了巴西电力部门的可持续性绩效[28]。

3. Application of ESG in Corporate SustainabilityESG在企业可持续发展中的应用

The above literature has generally considered three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social. In recent years, with the rise of responsible investment, governance, serving as a new dimension of sustainable development, has received the attention of many researchers ^[25][26]. Whether at the sectoral, national, or international levels or at the corporate level, governance is key to achieving sustainable development ^[27]. The 上述文献通常考虑了可持续发展的三个方面：经济、环境和社会。近年来，随着责任投资的兴起，治理作为可持续发展的新维度，受到了许多研究人员的关注[29，30]。无论是在部门、国家或国际层面，还是在公司层面，治理都是实现可持续发展的关键[31]。ESG framework provides tools and methods for integrating governance factors into sustainable development at the corporate level. 框架提供了将治理因素纳入企业层面可持续发展的工具和方法。ESG scores provide readily available data on corporate sustainability performance, and ESG scores and ESG evaluation systems are widely used in the literature to measure corporate sustainability performance ^[5]. Some scholars have directly used existing 分数提供了有关企业可持续发展绩效的现成数据，ESG分数和ESG评估系统在文献中广泛用于衡量企业可持续发展绩效[5]。一些学者直接使用现有的ESG evaluation systems, such as those offered by 评估系统，例如彭博社（Bloomberg (Bloomberg) ^[5], ）[5]，摩根士丹利资本国际（Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) ^[6][28], Thomson CI）[6，32]，汤森路透[33，34]和Reuters ^[29][30], and Refinitiv ^[30], for their studies. Some researchers have also adopted measurement frameworks similar to international measurement methods, adapting specific indicators in the evaluation framework based on the research context ^[31][32].[34]提供的评估系统进行研究。一些研究人员还采用了类似于国际测量方法的测量框架，根据研究背景调整评估框架中的特定指标[35，36]。 The ESG framework can analyze and assess the ability of companies to incorporate environmental, social, and governmental sustainability principles into their policies ^[33]. However, as more and more companies, NGOs, and other organizations begin to offer their own views on the composition of indicators and the number of rating and ranking products continues to expand, several problems have emerged with regard to using the 框架可以分析和评估公司将环境，社会和政府可持续发展原则纳入其政策的能力[37]。然而，随着越来越多的公司、非政府组织和其他组织开始对指标的构成提出自己的看法，评级和排名产品的数量不断扩大，在使用ESG framework for measuring corporate sustainability performance. First, the differences in the 框架衡量企业可持续发展绩效方面出现了一些问题。首先，由于ESG evaluation frameworks belonging to different organizations cannot be underestimated because the specific connotations of ESG are not clearly defined. The shortcomings of evaluation frameworks are reflected in various aspects, such as topic selection, indicator selection, weight positioning, evaluation methods, and data sources ^[34][35][36]. The 的具体内涵没有明确定义，因此不能低估属于不同组织的ESG评估框架的差异。评价框架的不足体现在主题选择、指标选择、权重定位、评价方法、数据来源等多方面[7，38，39]。ESG evaluation frameworks also suffer from problems such as a lack of transparency ^[37], substitutability between criteria ^[38], and failure to meet all stakeholders’ expectations ^[39]. Although the development of the 评估框架还存在缺乏透明度[40]，标准之间的可替代性[41]以及未能满足所有利益相关者的期望[42]等问题。尽管中国ESG rating system in China occurred later than in Western and developed countries and the advanced techniques of 评级体系的发展时间晚于西方和发达国家，并且可以利用国外先进的ESG evaluation abroad can be utilized, the divergence of ESG rating agencies still exists. Min Liu analyzed the ESG rating data of Chinese A-share-listed companies based on SynTao Green Finance, Sino-Securities Index CASVI, 评估技术，但ESG评级机构的分歧仍然存在。刘敏分析了基于商道纵横绿色金融、中证指数CASVI、WIND ESG, FTSE Russell, and Rankins (six Chinese ESG rating agencies) and found that the six rating agencies had a low correlation, although quantitative disclosure could reduce the disagreements between the rating systems ^[40]、富时罗素和兰金斯（六家中国ESG评级机构）的中国A股上市公司的ESG评级数据，发现这六家评级机构的相关性较低，尽管定量披露可以减少评级系统之间的分歧[43]. The basic question “which indicators or measures are the best” is not easy to answer, as they still lack uniform definitions and evaluation criteria ^[35]. However, the indisputable fact is that the comprehensive 哪些指标或措施是最好的”这个基本问题并不容易回答，因为它们仍然缺乏统一的定义和评价标准[38]。然而，不争的事实是，全面的ESG evaluation framework has gained general acceptance. The second problem in the existing 评估框架已经获得了普遍接受。现有ESG evaluation frameworks is whether ESG evaluation can determine the true level of corporate sustainable performance. 评估框架的第二个问题是ESG评估能否确定企业可持续绩效的真实水平。Escrig-Olmedo et al. divided the sustainability principles in the evaluation into four categories and carried out a comparative descriptive analysis based on publicly available information. They found that ESG rating agencies have incorporated the new criteria into their assessment models but have not fully integrated sustainability principles into their corporate sustainability assessment process ^[41]. More studies have analyzed existing sustainability evaluation frameworks in terms of strong and weak sustainability. Weak sustainability allows for adaptation to environmental issues without sacrificing economic growth and relinquishing power and control ^[42]. Landrum argued that current corporate sustainability and evaluation practices revolve around weak sustainability ^[43]. This implies that businesses are not truly sustainable and that the productivity of businesses is not changing in order to meet human needs ^[43]. Strong sustainability entails that economic and social relationships are closely related, but maintaining the economy is equally as important of a sustainability dimension as the environment and society ^[43]. 等人将评估中的可持续性原则分为四类，并根据公开信息进行了比较描述性分析。他们发现，ESG评级机构已将新标准纳入其评估模型，但尚未将可持续发展原则完全纳入其企业可持续发展评估过程[44]。更多的研究从强可持续性和弱可持续性的角度分析了现有的可持续性评估框架。弱可持续性允许在不牺牲经济增长和放弃权力和控制的情况下适应环境问题[8]。兰德鲁姆认为，当前的企业可持续性和评估实践围绕着弱可持续性[45]。这意味着企业不是真正可持续的，企业的生产力不会为了满足人类的需求而改变[45]。强大的可持续性意味着经济和社会关系密切相关，但维持经济在可持续性方面与环境和社会同样重要[45]。ESG studies consider the economic benefits of corporate sustainability as an additional result of its environmental, social, and governance performance ^[44], failing to view corporate sustainability in terms of the sustainability economy and, therefore, failing to actually meet the definition of strong sustainability. Third, 研究将企业可持续发展的经济效益视为其环境，社会的额外结果AL，以及治理绩效[46]，未能从可持续发展经济的角度看待企业可持续性，因此未能真正满足强可持续性的定义。第三，ESG evaluation focuses greatly on the non-financial performance of enterprises, such as the environmental, economic, and social elements, but lacks an evaluation of economic aspects ^[45]. The economic performance of corporate sustainability is considered an additional result of its environmental, social, and governance performance, and a significant amount of research on 评估主要关注企业的非财务绩效，如环境、经济和社会要素，但缺乏对经济方面的评价[47]。企业可持续发展的经济绩效被认为是其环境、社会和治理绩效的附加结果，在文献中可以找到大量关于企业经济绩效中的ESG in corporate economic performance can be found in the literature. However, the relationship between 研究。然而，ESG and economic performance has not been uniformly addressed, and various relationships have been found, such as a significant positive correlations ^[46][47], negative correlations ^[48][49], non-significant relationships ^[42], and indirect relationships ^[50]与经济表现之间的关系尚未得到统一处理，并且已经发现了各种关系，例如显着的正相关[9，48]，负相关[10，49]，非显着关系[8]和间接关系[50]. However, whichever framework is adopted, common problems, such as a lack of standardization, reliability issues, and structural failures, cannot be ignored. 但是，无论采用哪种框架，常见问题都不容忽视，例如缺乏标准化，可靠性问题和结构故障。建立一个普遍接受的框架来衡量企业可持续发展绩效是一项艰巨的任务，因为可持续发展的概念涵盖了来自不同科学领域的各种复杂术语和组成部分[51]。因此，通过Establishing a universally accepted framework to measure corporate sustainability performance is a difficult task because the concept of sustainability encompasses a variety of complex terms and components from different scientific fields ^[51]. Therefore, measuring the true sustainability level of a firm through ESG evaluation requires optimization of the existing 评估来衡量企业的真实可持续发展水平需要优化现有的ESG evaluation frameworks.评估框架。

4. ESG Integration with Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)与可持续发展目标（SDG）的整合

The use of 如果企业可持续发展评估中仅包括治理因素，则使用ESG frameworks to measure corporate sustainability performance would not be as prevalent as it is today if only governance factors were included in corporate sustainability evaluations. In 2015, the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development identified 17 goals and 169框架来衡量企业可持续发展绩效就不会像今天这样普遍。2015年，联合国（UN）2030年可持续发展议程确定了可持续发展目标（SDG）的17个目标和169个子目标，不仅强调了企业在实现可持续发展过程中的重要作用[52]，而且对企业可持续性评估具有深远的影响，包括纳入许多人权， sub-goals of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which not only emphasize the important role of business in the process of achieving sustainable development ^[52] but also have far-reaching implications for corporate sustainability evaluation, including the inclusion of many human rights, cultural, and ethical factors in the assessment of sustainable development ^[53]. 可持续发展评估中的文化和伦理因素[53]。ESG evaluation acts as a tool for the implementation of the SDGs at the enterprise level and contributes to a better understanding of the contribution of organizational commitment to the SDGs. Some studies have used 评估是企业层面实施可持续发展目标的工具，有助于更好地了解组织承诺对可持续发展目标的贡献。一些研究使用ESG frameworks to link corporate sustainability to the SDGs and have demonstrated the feasibility of using the ESG framework to measure corporate sustainability levels based on measuring corporate contribution to the SDGs through aspects of ESG ^{[54][55][56][57]}. 框架将企业可持续性与可持续发展目标联系起来，并证明了使用ESG框架来衡量企业可持续性水平的可行性，该框架基于通过ESG的各个方面衡量企业对可持续发展目标的贡献[54，55，56，57]。DeMates and和 Phadke first used a mapping approach to map 30 首先使用映射方法将 30 个 SASB ESG categories to 17 SDGs, linking corporate sustainability activities to the SDGs类别映射到 17 个 SDG，将企业可持续发展活动与 SDG ^[57].联系起来 [57]。Betti mapped 将30 个SASB ESG issues to SDGs and found that some ESG issues were more relevant to SDGs and their goals than others issues ^[54]. Similarly, 问题映射到可持续发展目标，发现一些ESG问题与其他问题更相关[54]。同样，Consolandi mapped将 SASB ESG questions to SDGs to examine how healthcare companies contribute to SDG 问题映射到可持续发展目标，以研究医疗保健公司如何为可持续发展目标 3 ^[55].做出贡献 [55]。Khaled mapped/linked 将SDGs to 与Refinitiv ESG scores to contribute to the emerging research on SDGs, helping companies to identify and prioritize what is most relevant to their sustainable business practices based on the most relevant SDGs and indicators ^[56]. In terms of 分数映射/链接，以促进新兴的SDG研究，帮助公司根据最相关的SDG和指标确定和优先考虑与其可持续业务实践最相关的内容[56]。在ESG–-SDG relationships, the current research is limited to linking ESG topics to elements of the SDGs. There is a lack of research on linking the SDG indexes and the method of building the index base for ESG evaluation.关系方面，目前的研究仅限于将ESG主题与SDG的要素联系起来。关于SDG指数的衔接和ESG评估指数基础的构建方法缺乏研究。