Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 7, pp 6625–6635 | Cite as

Environmental performance of Chinese listing manufacturing enterprise: from investment perspective

  • Dan Hu
  • Chenpeng FengEmail author
  • Liang Liang
  • Peng Wu
  • Yuneng Du
Research Article


With decades of high-speed economic miracle, China inevitably encountered with environmental pressure and sustainable development problem. As the main carrier of the environmental responsibility, Chinese government set series of regulations and standards to supervise and guide enterprise to fulfill this challenge emission reduction task. Based on data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach, this paper focuses on air pollutant highly emission manufacturing tycoons to figure out “whether the yearly billions environmental input really worth it?” during 2014 to 2016. Unlike previous studies mainly from consumption perspective and got macro-regional evidence, we choose micro-enterprise to analyze individual environmental performance and draw general conclusions. Possible suggestions are also proposed for various industries and some salient enterprises.


Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Sustainable development Environmental performance Corporate social responsibility (CSR) Manufacturing industry 



This research is supported by the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Science (No. JS2016JYRW0076), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71601062, 71701049), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2017M620257).


  1. Adams CA, Hill WY, Roberts CB (1998) Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: legitimating corporate behaviour? Br Account Rev 30(1):1–21Google Scholar
  2. Aguinis H, Glavas A (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research agenda. J Manag 38(4):932–968Google Scholar
  3. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 30(9):1078–1092Google Scholar
  4. Bansal P, Roth K (2000) Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad Manag J 43(4):717–736Google Scholar
  5. Basu K, Palazzo G (2008) Corporate social responsibility: a process model of sensemaking. Acad Manag Rev 33(1):122–136Google Scholar
  6. Bretholt A, Pan JN (2013) Evolving the latent variable model as an environmental DEA technology. Omega 41(2):315–325Google Scholar
  7. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. 2012
  8. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444Google Scholar
  9. Chung YH, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manag 51(3):229–240Google Scholar
  10. Connelly BL, Tihanyi L, Certo ST, Hitt MA (2010) Marching to the beat of different drummers: the influence of institutional owners on competitive actions. Acad Manag J 53(4):723–742Google Scholar
  11. Cook WD, Seiford LM (2009) Data envelopment analysis (DEA)—thirty years on. Eur J Oper Res 192(1):1–17Google Scholar
  12. Crane A (2000) Corporate greening as amoralization. Organ Stud 21(4):673–696Google Scholar
  13. Deckop JR, Merriman KK, Gupta S (2006) The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. J Manag 32(3):329–342Google Scholar
  14. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Hernandez-Sancho F (2004) Environmental performance: an index number approach. Resour Energy Econ 26(4):343–352Google Scholar
  15. Fӓre R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Pasurka C (1989) Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat 71(1):90–98Google Scholar
  16. Fӓre R, Grosskopf S, Tyteca D (1996) An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms—application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecol Econ 18(2):161–175Google Scholar
  17. Galbreath J (2010) Corporate governance practices that address climate change: an exploratory study. Bus Strateg Environ 19(5):335–350Google Scholar
  18. Gomes EG, Lins MPE (2008) Modelling undesirable outputs with zero sum gains data envelopment analysis models. J Oper Res Soc 23(2):163–178Google Scholar
  19. Han X, Hansen E (2012) Corporate social responsibility implementation in the global forest sector. J Corp Citizenship 2012(47):101–118Google Scholar
  20. Ho SSM, Wong KS (2001) A study of corporate disclosure practice and effectiveness in Hong Kong. J Int Financ Manag Acc 12(1):75–102Google Scholar
  21. Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 37(12):5167–5172Google Scholar
  22. Jayanthakumaran K, Verma R, Liu Y (2012) CO2, emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy 42(1):450–460Google Scholar
  23. Johnson RA, Greening DW (1999) The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Acad Manag J 42(5):564–576Google Scholar
  24. Kanashiro P, Rivera J (2017) Do chief sustainability officers make companies greener? The moderating role of regulatory pressures. J Bus Ethics 1:1–15Google Scholar
  25. King AA, Lenox MJ (2001) Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance: an empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. J Ind Ecol 5(1):105–116Google Scholar
  26. Li N, Toppinen A, Tuppura A, Puumalainen K, Hujala M (2011) Determinants of sustainability disclosure in the global forest industry. Electron J Bus Ethics Organ Stud 16(1):33–40Google Scholar
  27. Long X, Chen B, Park B (2018a) Effect of 2008’s Beijing Olympic games on environmental efficiency of 268 China’s cities. J Clean Prod 172:1423–1432Google Scholar
  28. Long X, Luo Y, Sun H, Tian G (2018b) Fertilizer using intensity and environmental efficiency for China’s agriculture sector from 1997 to 2014. Nat Hazards 92(3):1573–1591Google Scholar
  29. Long X, Oh K, Cheng G (2013) Are stronger environmental regulations effective in practice? The case of China’s accession to the WTO. J Clean Prod 39:161–167Google Scholar
  30. Long X, Sun M, Cheng F, Zhang J (2017) Convergence analysis of eco-efficiency of China’s cement manufacturers through unit root test of panel data. Energy 134:709–717Google Scholar
  31. Long X, Wu C, Zhang J, Zhang J (2018c) Environmental efficiency for 192 thermal power plants in the Yangtze River Delta considering heterogeneity: a metafrontier directional slacks-based measure approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82:3962–3971Google Scholar
  32. Long X, Zhao X, Cheng F (2015) The comparison analysis of total factor productivity and eco-efficiency in China’s cement manufactures. Energy Policy 81:61–66Google Scholar
  33. Ministry of Environmental Protection of P.R. China. 2017
  34. Ministry of Environmental Protection of (2014) P.R. China. Annual Statistic Report on the Environment in China of 2013. China Environmental. Science PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Molinos-Senante M, Maziotis A, Sala-Garrido R (2015) Assessing the relative efficiency of water companies in the English and welsh water industry: a metafrontier approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:16987–16996Google Scholar
  36. Peters GF, Romi AM (2015) The association between sustainability governance characteristics and the assurance of corporate sustainability reports. Audit J Pract Theory 34(1):163–198Google Scholar
  37. Seiford LM, Zhu J (2002) Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 142(1):16–20Google Scholar
  38. Song M, Chen Y, An Q (2018) Spatial econometric analysis of factors influencing regional energy efficiency in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:13745–13759Google Scholar
  39. Song M, Wang S, Liu W (2014) A two-stage DEA approach for environmental efficiency measurement. Environ Monit Assess 186(5):3041–3051Google Scholar
  40. Trotman AJ, Trotman KT (2015) Internal audit’s role in GHG emissions and energy reporting: evidence from audit committees, senior accountants, and internal auditors. Audit J Pract Theory 34(1):199–230Google Scholar
  41. Tyteca D (1996) On the measurement of the environmental performance of firms—a literature review and a productive efficiency perspective. J Environ Manag 46(3):281–308Google Scholar
  42. Wang B, Zhao J, Wu Y, Zhu C, He Y, Wei Y (2018a) Allocating on coal consumption and CO2 emission from fair and efficient perspective: empirical analysis on provincial panel data of China. Environ Sci Pollut Res.
  43. Wang S, Qiu S, Ge S, Peng Z (2018b) Benchmarking Toronto wastewater treatment plants using DEA window and Tobit regression analysis with a dynamic efficiency perspective. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:32649–32659. Google Scholar
  44. Wei J, Zhao X, Sun X (2017) The evaluation model of the enterprise energy efficiency based on DPSR. Environ Sci Pollut Res.
  45. Wolfe A, Howes HA (2010) Measuring environmental performance: theory and practice at Ontario hydro. Environ Qual Manag 2(4):355–366Google Scholar
  46. Wu J, An Q, Yao X, Wang B (2014) Environmental efficiency evaluation of industry in China based on a new fixed sum undesirable output data envelopment analysis. J Clean Prod 74(7):96–104Google Scholar
  47. Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2008) Measuring environmental performance under different environmental DEA technologies. Energy Econ 30(1):1–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementHefei University of TechnologyHefeiChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Process Optimization and Intelligent Decision-making (Ministry of Education)HefeiChina
  3. 3.School of Economics and ManagementFuzhou UniversityFuzhouChina
  4. 4.College of Economics and ManagementAnhui Agricultural UniversityHefeiChina

Personalised recommendations