Research on performance evaluation of J enterprise  under ESG concept

Yuxin Miao

doi:10.54097/srhj1535

Authors

Yuxin Miao

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/srhj1535

Keywords:

ESG, Performance Evaluation, Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP), Topsis Method.

Abstract

This study examines Company J through the lens of sustainability theory, stakeholder theory, and triple bottom line theory, analyzing its current development status while evaluating the necessity and feasibility of implementing an ESG performance assessment framework. The ESG evaluation system is constructed across four dimensions: financial, environmental, social, and governance (ESG), with 18 criterion layers derived into 50 representative third-level indicators. The research employs Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for indicator weighting and topsis method to calculate Company J's comprehensive ESG performance scores from 2020 to 2022. Through systematic evaluation, key factors influencing ESG performance scores and existing challenges are identified. Finally, targeted policy recommendations are proposed based on these findings to help companies improve ESG performance and drive sustainable development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Hakan M E, Paola A A C. The Impact of ESG Ratings on the Systemic Risk of European Blue-Chip Firms[J]. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 2022, 15(4): 153.

[2] Sudipta B, Justin V, Wei W. Walking the walk? Bank ESG disclosures and home mortgage lending[J]. Review of Accounting Studies, 2022, 27(3): 779-821.

[3] Huang X. Research on the Performance and Sustainable Development Evaluation System of Railway Construction Enterprises [J]. Friends of Accounting, 2017(05): 85-90.

[4] Wang X P. Construction of the Performance Evaluation System for Retail Enterprises - Taking Shandong Jiajiayue Group as an Example [J]. Friends of Accounting, 2017(22): 57-61.

[5] Guo L L. The Relationship between Environmental Costs and Enterprise Performance: Evidence from Listed Companies in Heavy-Polluting Industries [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2022, 35(02): 87-102.

[6] Liu J X. The Impact Mechanism of the Symbiosis of Environmental Responsibility Undertaking and Green Innovation on the Performance of Circulation Enterprises [J]. Commercial Economic Research, 2024, (01): 158-161.

[7] Wu D Y. Research on corporate social responsibility management of supply chain[J]. China Soft Science, 2013, 2(2): 55-63.

[8] Matteo R, Jamel C, Salim C. Does a Board Characteristic Moderate the Relationship between CSR Practices and Financial Performance? Evidence from European ESG Firms[J]. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 2021, 14(8): 354.

[9] Song Y, Dong J. Executives’ green experience and corporate ESG performance: Do government subsidies matter[J]. Finance Research Letters, 2024, 69: 105154.

[10] Huang X, Ren Y, Ren X. Legal background executives, corporate governance and corporate ESG performance[J]. Finance Research Letters, 2024, 69: 106120.