IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i1p354-d473978.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New Energy-Resource Efficiency, Technological Efficiency, and Ecosystems Impact Ratings for the Sustainability of China’s Provinces

Author

Listed:
  • Alina Steblyanskaya

    (School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China)

  • Zhen Wang

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China)

  • Alexander Martynov

    (Environmental and Energy Rating Agency “Interfax-ERA”, 127006 Moscow, Russia)

  • Ai Mingye

    (School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China)

  • Vladimir Artykhov

    (Environmental and Energy Rating Agency “Interfax-ERA”, 127006 Moscow, Russia)

  • Ziming Wang

    (School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China)

  • Vladimir Bocharnikov

    (Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Laboratory Pacific Geographical Institute, Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Science, 690041 Vladivostok, Russia)

  • Alena Kiselik

    (Geographical Faculty, Moscow State University, 119234 Moscow, Russia)

Abstract

This paper concerns the necessity of ecosystem protection and energy efficiency rating development. The article analyzes the experience of the non-commercial Environmental and Energy Rating Agency (Interfax-ERA) ratings concerning the environmental assessment of Russian regions and the transfer of successful knowledge for evaluating 31 Chinese provinces. The theoretical base, quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the energy-resource efficiency (ERE) rating, technological efficiency (TE), and ecosystem impact (EI) ratings are proposed based on the system methodology, developed within the framework of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary study objective is to determine whether the Interfax-ERA rating methodology and considered criteria could be applied in China to assess the provinces’ environmental, technological, and energy efficiency. The research highlights the importance of multifunctional tools for developing experiences and sharing methodological experiences across countries. The study efficiently emphasizes provinces with a high level of energy efficiency and technological innovations as well as the provinces with the deficient level of eco-oriented economy policy. The results show two types of systematic deviations—significantly high-level impact on the ecosystem in the Chinese provinces and considerably high levels of energy and resource efficiency in capitals and business centers.

Suggested Citation

  • Alina Steblyanskaya & Zhen Wang & Alexander Martynov & Ai Mingye & Vladimir Artykhov & Ziming Wang & Vladimir Bocharnikov & Alena Kiselik, 2021. "New Energy-Resource Efficiency, Technological Efficiency, and Ecosystems Impact Ratings for the Sustainability of China’s Provinces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:1:p:354-:d:473978
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/354/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/354/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xu Tang & Benjamin C. McLellan & Simon Snowden & Baosheng Zhang & Mikael Höök, 2015. "Dilemmas for China: Energy, Economy and Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-13, May.
    2. Feng, Jingxuan & Feng, Lianyong & Wang, Jianliang & King, Carey W., 2018. "Modeling the point of use EROI and its implications for economic growth in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 232-242.
    3. Maksim Vasiev & Kexin Bi & Artem Denisov & Vladimir Bocharnikov, 2020. "How COVID-19 Pandemics Influences Chinese Economic Sustainability," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(2), pages 7-22.
    4. Jun Yan & Lianyong Feng & Artem Denisov & Alina Steblyanskaya & Jan-Pieter Oosterom, 2020. "Complexity theory for the modern Chinese economy from an information entropy perspective: Modeling of economic efficiency and growth potential," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Kwon, Wi-Suk & Englis, Basil & Mann, Manveer, 2016. "Are third-party green–brown ratings believed?: The role of prior brand loyalty and environmental concern," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 815-822.
    6. Baofeng Shi & Hufeng Yang & Jing Wang & Jingxu Zhao, 2016. "City Green Economy Evaluation: Empirical Evidence from 15 Sub-Provincial Cities in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-39, June.
    7. Carmelo Reverte, 2009. "Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Ratings by Spanish Listed Firms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 351-366, August.
    8. Wu, Ya & Zhu, Qianwen & Zhu, Bangzhu, 2018. "Comparisons of decoupling trends of global economic growth and energy consumption between developed and developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 30-38.
    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. Alina Steblyanskaya & Xu Qingchao & Svetlana Razmanova & Nikolay Steblyanskiy & Artem Denisov, 2021. "China and Russia Energy Strategy Development: Arctic LNG," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(4), pages 450-460.
    2. Ma, Qiang & Zhang, Mei & Ali, Sher & Kirikkaleli, Dervis & Khan, Zeeshan, 2021. "Natural resources commodity prices volatility and economic performance: Evidence from China pre and post COVID-19," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Nurlan Orazalin & Mady Baydauletov, 2020. "Corporate social responsibility strategy and corporate environmental and social performance: The moderating role of board gender diversity," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1664-1676, July.
    4. Fereshteh Mahmoudian & Johnny Jermias, 2022. "The influence of governance structure on the relationship between pay ratio and environmental and social performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 2992-3013, November.
    5. Ren, Kaipeng & Tang, Xu & Wang, Peng & Willerström, Jakob & Höök, Mikael, 2021. "Bridging energy and metal sustainability: Insights from China’s wind power development up to 2050," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    6. Kalpana Tokas & Kartik Yadav, 2023. "Foreign Ownership and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case of an Emerging Market," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 24(6), pages 1302-1325, December.
    7. Yen-Chiang Chang & Mehran Idris Khan, 2021. "May China Fish in the Arctic Ocean?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    8. Jia Peng & Xianli Hu & Xinyue Fan & Kai Wang & Hao Gong, 2023. "The Impact of the Green Economy on Carbon Emission Intensity: Comparisons, Challenges, and Mitigating Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-21, July.
    9. Xu, Bin & Lin, Boqiang, 2018. "Do we really understand the development of China's new energy industry?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 733-745.
    10. Souhir Khemir, 2010. "Analyse Des Déterminants De La Divulgation Sociétale Dans Les Rapports Annuels Des Entreprises Tunisiennes Cotées," Post-Print hal-00479515, HAL.
    11. Al-Shaer, Habiba & Uyar, Ali & Kuzey, Cemil & Karaman, Abdullah S., 2023. "Do shareholders punish or reward excessive CSR engagement? Moderating effect of cash flow and firm growth," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    12. Siti Maimunah Yahya Senawat & Srihadi Winarningsih Zarkasyi & Ida Farida Abdul Gafur, 2018. "The effects of corporate social responsibility on financial performance on Indonesian public listed tobacco companies," International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, Professor Dr. Bahaudin G. Mujtaba, vol. 4(6), pages 267-279.
    13. Wang, Zhibao & Zhao, Nana & Wei, Wendong & Zhang, Qianwen, 2021. "A differentiated energy Kuznets curve: Evidence from mainland China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    14. Grougiou, Vassiliki & Leventis, Stergios & Dedoulis, Emmanouil & Owusu-Ansah, Stephen, 2014. "Corporate social responsibility and earnings management in U.S. banks," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 155-169.
    15. Rashidah Abdul Rahman & Maha Faisal Alsayegh, 2021. "Determinants of Corporate Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) Reporting among Asian Firms," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, April.
    16. Ali Uyar & Simone Pizzi & Fabio Caputo & Cemil Kuzey & Abdullah S. Karaman, 2022. "Do shareholders reward or punish risky firms due to CSR reporting and assurance?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(5), pages 1596-1620, July.
    17. Joanna Godlewska & Edyta Sidorczuk-Pietraszko, 2019. "Taxonomic Assessment of Transition to the Green Economy in Polish Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-25, September.
    18. Nicola Raimo & Filippo Vitolla & Valentina Minutiello & Arcangelo Marrone & Patrizia Tettamanzi, 2022. "Readability of integrated reports: Evidence from worldwide adopters," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 524-534, May.
    19. Richard Stiebal, 2023. "Use of SASB standards for ESG reporting in Europe: Empirical analysis [Empirická analýza použití SASB standardů pro ESG reporting v Evropě]," Český finanční a účetní časopis, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2023(1), pages 5-23.
    20. Mitzi Cubilla‐Montilla & Ana‐Belén Nieto‐Librero & Ma Purificación Galindo‐Villardón & Ma Purificación Vicente Galindo & Isabel‐María Garcia‐Sanchez, 2019. "Are cultural values sufficient to improve stakeholder engagement human and labour rights issues?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 938-955, July.

    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:13:y:2021:i:1:p:354-:d:473978. 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.