火力发电企业作为高能耗、高排放行业，其环境、社会和公司治理（ESG）信息披露质量直接影响企业可持续发展和社会责任履行水平。在我国“双碳”目标和日益严格的环境监管政策下，提升火力发电企业ESG信息披露质量已成为行业亟待解决的问题。然而，目前我国ESG信息披露尚缺乏统一标准，不同企业在披露内容、深度和透明度上存在较大差异，特别是火力发电行业整体披露质量参差不齐。因此，科学评价火力发电企业ESG信息披露质量并探究优化路径，对推动行业绿色发展、提升企业竞争力具有重要意义。

本文基于国内外ESG信息披露研究，结合火力发电行业特点，构建了涵盖环境、社会和公司治理三大维度的ESG信息披露质量评价体系。该体系细化为多个指标，并采用评分法量化企业披露质量，同时运用层次分析法确定权重，以确保评价的科学性和客观性。在案例分析中，选取内蒙华电为案例企业，评估其2021—2023年ESG信息披露质量的变化情况，揭示信息披露的进步与不足。研究表明，内蒙华电的ESG信息披露质量水平得到了有效提升，完整性和深度显著提高，特别是在环境和公司治理方面取得长足进展，但社会维度信息披露质量仍需加强。

此外，本文运用模糊集定性比较分析法，识别出火力发电企业实现高质量ESG信息披露的五条典型路径。其中内蒙华电所在的路径可单独细分为“治理驱动型路径”，其强调通过高股权集中度和盈利能力的边缘支持提升ESG信息披露质量。在高效治理和财务稳健性的推动下，企业在外部监督较弱情况下仍保持信息披露内容的完整性和深度。对此，内蒙华电未来应强化公司治理、增强盈利能力、提升研发强度、优化信息披露机制，并提升外部环境应对能力，以实现ESG信息披露质量的全面提升。最后，本文从企业、行业及政策制定者和监管机构三方面提出相应的建议，以期推动企业ESG信息披露质量持续优化，为“双碳”目标和可持续发展贡献更多科学支持。

As a high energy-consuming and high-emission sector, the thermal power generation industry’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) information disclosure quality directly affects both its sustainable development and fulfillment of social responsibility. Under China’s “dual carbon” goals and increasingly stringent environmental regulations, improving ESG disclosure quality has become an urgent issue for the industry. However, ESG disclosure in China currently lacks unified standards, resulting in significant variation among enterprises in terms of disclosure content, depth, and transparency—particularly within the thermal power sector, where overall disclosure quality remains uneven. Therefore, scientifically evaluating ESG disclosure quality and exploring optimization paths are crucial for promoting green development and enhancing corporate competitiveness in the industry.

Based on a comprehensive review of domestic and international ESG disclosure research and tailored to the characteristics of the thermal power industry, this study constructs an ESG information disclosure quality evaluation system encompassing three dimensions: environmental, social, and governance. The system is refined into multiple indicators, and a scoring method is applied to quantify disclosure performance. Additionally, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is employed to determine indicator weights, ensuring scientific rigor and objectivity. Using Inner Mongolia Huadian as a case study, the paper evaluates the company’s ESG disclosure quality from 2021 to 2023, revealing both improvements and existing shortcomings. The findings show that the ESG information disclosure quality of Inner Mongolia Huadian has been effectively improved, with significant advancements in completeness and depth, particularly in environmental and governance dimensions. However, disclosure in the social dimension still requires further enhancement.

Furthermore, this study utilizes the fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) method to identify five typical configuration paths that enable thermal power enterprises to achieve high-quality ESG disclosure. Among them, the path associated with Inner Mongolia Huadian can be classified as a “governance-driven” model, which emphasizes improving disclosure quality through strong ownership concentration and marginal support from profitability. This configuration demonstrates that, even under weak external oversight, enterprises can maintain comprehensive and in-depth disclosures through effective governance and sound financial performance. Based on this analysis, it is recommended that Inner Mongolia Huadian continue to strengthen corporate governance, enhance profitability, increase R&D investment, optimize disclosure mechanisms, and improve responsiveness to external environmental pressures to achieve more comprehensive ESG disclosure.

Finally, the study offers targeted recommendations for enterprises, industry stakeholders, policymakers, and regulatory authorities, aiming to promote continuous improvement in ESG disclosure quality and provide scientific support for the realization of China's dual carbon goals and sustainable development.

[1]Entezarian M R,Hassani H,Unger S.Information content measurement of ESG factors via entropy and its impact on society and security[J].Information,2021,12(10):391.

[2]Sharma P, Panday P, Dangwal R C. Determinants of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) disclosure: a study of Indian companies[J]. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 2020, 17(1): 22-35.

[3]Saat M M, Khatib S F A, Chu P. Navigating the impact: A comprehensive analysis of ESG disclosure consequences through systematic review[J]. Wiley Online Library, 2024, 33(2): 145-160.

[4]Krueger P, Sautner Z, Tang D Y. The effects of mandatory ESG disclosure around the world[J]. Journal of Accounting Research, 2024, 62(3):875-900.

[5]Zhou X, Nian S. Sustainable Pathways: ESG Disclosure Performance and Optimization in China[J]. Sustainability, 2024,16(11):4630.

[6]Frost G R,Wilmshurst T.D. Corporate Environmental Reporting: A test of legitimacy theory[J].Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2000 (13):10-26.

[7]Mohammad Wan, Masliza Wan,Wasiuzzaman Shaista. Environmental, Social and Goverance (ESG)disclosure, competitive advantage and performance of firms in Malay-sia[J]. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2021,2.

[8]Jorden Dye, Murdoch McKinnon, Connie Van der Byl. Green Gaps: Firm ESG Disclo-sure and Financial Institutions’Reporting Requirements[J].Journal of Sustainability Re-search, 2021,3(1).

[9]R.Hahn,M.Kühnen.Determinants of Sustainability Reporting:A Review of Re-sults,Trends, Theory,and Opportunities in an Expanding Field of Research[J].Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013(21):5-21.

[10]G.Michelon,S.Pilonato,F.Ricceri.CSR Reporting Practices and the Quality of Disclo-sure:An Empirical Analysis[J].Critical Perspectives on Account,2015(33):59-78.

[11]E.P.Hopkins.The effect of financial statement classifification of hybrid financial instru-ments on financial analysts’stock price judgments[J].Journal of Accounting Re-search,1996(34):33-50.

[12]N.J.Chauvey,S.Giordano-Spring,H.C.Cho,M.D.Patten.The normativity and legitimacy of CSR disclosure:Evidence from France[J].Journal of Business Ethics,2015(130):789-803.

[13]罗伯特·菲利普·韦伯(Robert Philip Weber).内容分析法导论[M].李明,译.上海:上海人民出版社.2019:1.

[14]A.ROMOLINI,S.FISSI,E.GORI.Quality Disclosure in Sustainability Reporting:Evidence From Universities[J].Transylvanian Review of Administrative Scienc-es,2015(11):196-218.

[15]R.Gjergji,L.Vena,S.Sciascia,A.Cortesi.The effects of environmental,social and govern-ance disclosure on the cost of capital in small and medium enterprises:The role of fami-ly business status[J].Business Strategy and the Environment,2021(30):683-693.

[16]M.Michael,T.Patrizia,M.Valentina.Accounting,ESG dynamics and the pandemic:when the quality of disclosure becomes crucial to sustainable success[J].Corporate Govern-ance:The International Journal of Business in Society,2024(24):509-540.

[17]Maria Baldini, Dal Maso L, Liberatore G, et al. Role of Country-and Firm-Level Deter-minants in Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosure[J].Journal of Business Ethics, 2018,150(1): 79-98.

[18]Zeng S X, Xu X D, Yin H T, et al. Factors that drive Chinese listed companies involun-tary disclosure of environmental information[J].Journal of Business Eth-ics,2012,109(3):309-321.

[19]PY Yu, Van Luu B, Chen CH,Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures[J].Research In International Business And Finance, 2020(52):101-106.

[20]Hoang, K. Silent but deadly: Political corruption and voluntary ESG disclosure in the United States[J].Managerial And Decision Economics, 2022(2):196-203

[21]Khan A, Muttakin M B, Siddiqui J. Corporate governance and corporate social responsi-bility disclosures: evidence from an emerging economy[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2013,114(2):207-223.

[22]Knox Simon, Maklan Stan and French Paul. Corporate Social Responsibility: Exploring Stakeholder Relationships and Programme Reporting across Leading FTSE Compa-nies[J].Journal of Business Ethics, 2005,61(1):7-28.

[23]Fontana S, D'Amico E, Coluccia D, et al. Does environmental performance affect com-panies’environmental disclosure? [J].Measuring Business Excellence, 2015.19(7):42-57.

[24]Talbot D,Boiral O.GHG Reporting and Impression Management: An Assessment of Sus-tainability Reports from the Energy Sector [J]. Journal of Business Eth-ics,2018,147(2):367-383.

[25]Reboredo Juan C, Sowaity Samih M. A. Environmental, Social, and Governance Infor-mation Disclosure and Intellectual Capital Efficiency in Jordanian Listed Firms[J]. Sus-tainability, 2021,14(1).

[26]Dorfleitner G, Halbritter G, Nguyen M. Measuring the level and risk of corporate re-sponsibility-An empirical comparison of different ESG rating approaches[J].Journal of Asset Management, 2015,16(7):450-466.

[27]Songhe X ,Hui Y ,Yuxuan H , et al.How can Chinese companies improve the quality of their corporate social responsibility information disclosure? A cross-level confgurational approach[J].Journal of Cleaner Production,2023,398.

[28]Shi J ,Zhang C ,Wen J , et al.Research on improving the key indicators of enterprise ESG rating[J].Procedia Computer Science,2024,24(2):912-919.

[29]张砚,申明蕊,李小勇,等.中外上市林业企业ESG信息披露状况比较[J].世界林业研究,2024,37(06):72-78.

[30]刘江伟.公司可持续性与ESG披露构建研究[J].东北大学学报(社会科学版),2022,24(05):104-111.

[31]郑阳.吉利汽车ESG信息披露探索实践及经验启示[J].国际会计前沿,2023,12(2):195-201.

[32]李佳琳,韩鑫雨,陈璐莹.矿业企业ESG体系构建研究[J].国际会计前沿,2024,13(1):65-76.

[33]胡健梅,王树锋.基于ESG披露的企业绿色治理财务绩效研究[J].可持续发展,2023,13(5):1539-1548.

[34]李梦雨.上市公司ESG信息披露与企业绩效研究——基于2010~2020年A股上市公司数据[J].电子商务评论,2024,13(3):7765-7776.

[35]陈璐莹,阿依江•赛力克,胡慧达.我国上市公司ESG信息披露问题与对策研究[J].国际会计前沿,2022,11(4):203-207.

[36]王蓉.成本—收益视角下ESG信息披露与企业价值关系研究[J].上海对外经贸大学学报,2022,29(04):74-86.

[37]常琳,李思桥,赵昕.互联网行业社会责任/ESG信息披露实践研究[J].信息通信技术与政策,2023,49(04):73-81.

[38]李宗泽,李志斌.企业ESG信息披露同群效应研究[J].南开管理评论,2023,26(05):126-138.

[39]白牧蓉,张嘉鑫.上市公司ESG信息披露制度构建路径探究[J].财会月刊,2022(07):90-99.

[40]刘金彬.公司环境会计信息披露模式的创新研究[J].会计之友,2016(14):31-35.

[41]黄珺,汪玉荷,韩菲菲等.ESG信息披露:内涵辨析、评价方法与作用机制[J].外国经济与管理,2023(6):3-18.

[42]席龙胜,王岩.企业ESG信息披露与股价崩盘风险[J].经济问题,2022(8):57-64.

[43]朱荣,赵友叶,孙嫚.审计委员会履职能力与ESG信息披露质量[J].会计之友,2023(18):28-37.

[44]沈洪涛,黄珍,郭肪汝.告白还是辩白——企业环境表现与环境信息披露关系研究[J].南开管理评论,2014(2):56-63+73.

[45]冯波,朱杨慧,李强.企业环境信息披露质量评价体系构建[J].财会月刊,2014(8):7-10.

[46]徐杰,陈明禹.我国石化行业环境绩效及其影响因素研究——基于企业环境责任信息披露的分析框架[J].产业经济评论,2017(6):104-113.

[47]吴海霞,陈利斯.食品安全信息披露影响因素分析[J].西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版),2018(4):152-160.

[48]陈智,冯慧,杨金凤等.快递业ESG信息披露质量评价——以顺丰控股为例[J].财会月刊,2022(12):120-127.

[49]胡海川,张心灵.公司治理与信息披露质量的关系分析[J].统计与决策,2013(22):182-185.

[50]吕靖烨,董潇.我国火力发电上市公司碳信息披露影响因素研究[J].煤炭经济研究,2021,41(09):77-84.

[51]黄世忠,叶丰滢.欧洲可持续发展报告准则解读:《一般披露》准则[J].财会月刊,2023(22):3-8.

[52]柳学信,吴鑫玉,孔晓旭.上市公司 ESG表现与股票收益——基于股价中企业特质信息含量视角[J].会计之友,2023(10):85-93.

[53]谭卓瑛.H公司IPO信息披露质量提升对策研究[D].南昌大学,2021.

[54]姜玉玮.上市银行ESG信息披露质量评价与提升对策研究[D].南京工业大学,2024.

[55]王珺雅.云南白药环境会计信息披露质量影响因素及提升路径[D].天津商业大学,2022.

[56]刘畅.M公司ESG信息披露质量评价与提升对策研究[D].长江大学,2024.

[57]杜运周,李佳,刘秋辰,等.复杂动态视角下的组态理论与QCA方法:研究进展与未来方向[J].管理世界,2021,37(3):180-197,12-13.

[58]张明,杜运周.组织与管理研究中QCA方法的应用:定位、策略和方向[J].管理学报,2019,16(9):1312-1323.

[59]杜亭亭.机构持股的专利结构治理效应:创新生态视角[J].科技进步与对策,2024,41(03):34-43.

[60]安娟娟,胡嘉仪.环境会计信息披露评价及影响因素研究——基于煤炭行业上市公司[J].经济研究导刊,2021(32):126-128.

[61]操琳琳,孙俊华.制药行业上市公司环境会计信息披露质量及影响因素研究[J].池州学院学报,2021,35(02):82-88.

[62]黄雅捷.钢铁行业环境会计信息披露影响因素研究[J].湖北经济学院学报(人文社会科学版),2021,18(10):64-67.

[63]张司飞,陈勇岐.“专精特新”中小企业创新绩效提升路径研究[J].科学学研究,2024,42(04):873-884+896.

[64]袁业虎,熊笑涵.上市公司ESG表现与企业绩效关系研究——基于媒体关注的调节作用[J].江西社会科学,2021,41(10):68-77.

[65]Skaaning S E. Assessing the robustness of crisp-set and fuzzy-set QCA results[J]. Socio-logical Methods & Research, 2011, 40(2): 391-408.

[66]Ragin C C. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy Sets [M]. ResearchGate, 2008.

[67]Schneider C Q, Wagemann C. Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets [J]. Comparative Sociology, 2012, 9(3): 397-418.

[68]Fiss P C. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organiza-tion research [J]. Sociological Methods & Research, 2011, 40(4): 675-695.

[69]Greckhamer T, Furnari S, Fiss P C, et al. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy Sets: Theoretical Advances and Methodological Innovations [J]. Organizational Research Methods, 2018, 21(3): 443-463.