*3.3. Evaluation and Analysis of Each Indicator Cloud Model*

Based on the screening index data, this study uses cloud generator in the cloud model, inputs the algorithm program operations into Matlab2014 software, sets all samples of each target cloud characteristic parameters (see Table 4), and sets cloud characteristic parameters of the criterion layer and target layer in turn by fuzzy arithmetic according to the Formula (8) (see Table 5).



After calculating, the cloud characteristic parameters of ESEP management are (2.7598, 0.0019, 0.1199). Based on the cloud characteristic parameters obtained above, combine with the cloud evaluation scale (Formula (6)), and use the forward cloud generator in the model to input the algorithm program into Matlab2014 software for calculation, so as to get the evaluation cloud map of target layer and criterion layer (see Figure 6).

As can be seen from Figure 6, the expected value of the comprehensive cloud of energy saving and environmental protection evaluation of listed companies in the energy industry *Ex* = 2.7598 falls between the "improvement level" and the "transition level", and it is more inclined to the "transition level". It can be seen that the energy conservation and environmental protection management of the energy industry is at the level between the "improvement level" and the "transition level". In addition, the entropy *En* of the evaluation result cloud is much smaller than that of the evaluation cloud, so it can be concluded that the evaluation result has a small range and good stability, reflecting that there is little difference between listed companies in energy conservation and environmental protection management, which may be caused by the fact that most companies are weak in energy conservation and environmental protection management. The result shows that *He* is relatively large, reflecting that cloud thickness is larger than the evaluation cloud, indicating that the energy conservation and environmental protection management of each company needs to be improved.

Similarly, cloud model graphs of B1-ESEP governance framework, B2-ESEP management implementation process, B3-ESEP governance efficiency, B4-ESEP public welfare and other criteria can be obtained, as shown in Figure 7.

**Figure 7.** Evaluation cloud chart. (**a**) ESEP governance framework; (**b**) ESEP implementation process; (**c**) ESEP governance effectiveness; (**d**) ESEP charity and others.

This study further visualized *Ex* and its standard deviation in cloud model parameters for each indicator. It can be seen from Figure 8 that the cloud expectation value of most indicators fluctuated up and down the dividing line of level II~III, among which C2- management culture had the highest expectation value. This is followed by C3-management

system, C4-clauses and policies, C1-institutional system, C8-energy efficiency management, and C9-tackling climate change management, indicating that most listed companies perform better in these aspects. It is worth noting that the C18-ESEP influence, C17-ecological environment construction, C16-greenhouse gas emissions, C14-energy consumption, and C13-waste emissions are weak. This indicates that the C18-ESEP influence, C17-ecological environment construction, C16-greenhouse gas emissions, C14-energy consumption, and C13-waste emissions are the key to further improving energy conservation and environmental protection management.

**Figure 8.** Expected value of each index cloud model.

This study further analyzes the original data of companies of all levels to clarify the focus of improvement of companies at all levels. The specific results are shown in Table 6.

#### *3.4. Limitations*

In the construction of the ESEP index system and quantitative research, this study strives to be scientific and rigorous, but there are still some deficiencies due to the limitations of many factors, and the specific limitations are as follows.

(1) The evaluation framework system and its indicators need to be further supplemented and modified. Due to the restriction of data availability, the index system itself cannot fully guarantee that it covers all the evaluation indicators reflecting ESEP management level, especially the evaluation of ESEP management performance. With the deepening of people's understanding of ESEP management, related evaluation indicators would be further expanded.

(2) The method of data acquisition needs to be further expanded. The ESEP management evaluation information in this paper mainly comes from the social responsibility report, sustainable development report, CSMAR database and company website issued by listed companies, which may lead to incomplete ESEP management information.

(3) The rationality of the evaluation results needs to be further verified. As some companies have adopted non-disclosure or selective disclosure in ESEP management, the evaluation results of this study may not fully represent the ESEP management level of these companies, and more comprehensive information can be collected by further combining questionnaire survey and other methods in subsequent research.


**Table 6.** Analysis of representative companies at each level.

#### **4. Conclusions and Suggestions**

#### *4.1. Conclusions*

(1) The analysis results of the status quo of ESEP information indicate that the amount of ESEP information released shows a steady increasing trend, but the release rate is still low. Only 42.44% (N = 59) of energy enterprises released ESEP-related information reports (S = 378) from 2006 to 2017. The different nature of the industry leads to a great difference in the release rate of ESEP information, among which the release rate of the gas production and supply industry is the lowest (25.57% on average in recent 3 years). ESEP information content still has huge deficiencies in comparability, systematization and standardization. ESEP information content covers a wide range of areas, but quantitative information disclosure is less common.

(2) The results of cloud level analysis of all companies indicate that the energy conservation and environmental protection management level of most listed companies in the energy industry belongs to "III level-transition level" and "II level-improvement level", and only 17.19% of the sample enterprises are in the "IV level-acceptable level" and "V level-claim level". Further research shows that different industries have differences in ESEP management levels. The ESEP management levels from high to low are the coal mining and washing industry, oil and natural gas extraction industry, gas production and supply industry, water production and supply industry, power and heat production and supply industry. Among them, the coal mining and washing industry, oil and gas industry, electricity, heat production and supply industry, gas production and supply industry, water production and supply industry ESEP management benchmarking enterprise respectively for China Shenhua (V), SINOPEC (IV), China Yangtze Power (IV), Shenzhen Gas (IV), Grandblue Environment (IV), etc.

(3) Analysis results of cloud level of each indicator indicate that the expectation of most energy conservation and environmental protection management indexes fluctuates from level II to Level IV. C2-ESEP management culture, C3-ESEP management system, C4-ESEP clauses and policies, C1-ESEP institutional system, C8-energy efficiency management, C9-tackling climate change and other aspects perform well (reaching the "transition level" or above). In terms of C18-ESEP influence, C17-ecological environment construction, C16-greenhouse gas emissions, C14-energy consumption situation, and C13-discharge of three wastes, the performance is relatively weak (below the "transition level"). Further research shows that C17-ecological environment construction, C16- ecological environment construction, C15-greenhouse gas emissions, C14- energy consumption situation, and C13-discharge of three wastes are the key to further improve ESEP management level of level III to level IV enterprises. C2-ESEP management culture, C3-ESEP management system, C4-ESEP clauses and policies, C1-ESEP institutional system, C8-energy efficiency management and C9-tackling climate change are the key points in the construction of I~II level enterprises.

#### *4.2. Suggestions*

Based on the research conclusions, this study proposes the following improvement strategies for ESEP management.

(1) Strengthen the standards and supervision of ESEP information disclosure. At present, there is no systematic and authoritative framework and standard for enterprise's ESEP management disclosure, which leads to poor comparability, consistency and comprehensiveness of ESEP information disclosed by listed companies. As can be seen from the above results, there are some problems in ESEP management, such as low release rate of ESEP information and less quantitative disclosure of released content. In view of this, the government should establish and improve the relevant legal system to further regulate ESEP information disclosure. For example, enterprises can further improve ESEP management by setting minimum disclosure standards, standardizing disclosure formats, introducing authentication evaluation, including information disclosure in enterprise assessment, and imposing sanctions for false information.

(2) Actively carrying out ESEP management evaluation is an important measure to improve China's ESEP management level, but at present, no institution or scholar has conducted a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of ESEP management. Therefore, it is suggested that relevant departments establish a systematic, comprehensive, scientific, standardized, forward-looking and effective ESEP management evaluation system, actively carry out ESEP management evaluation work (such as establishing an ESEP management statistics system, etc.) and regularly release the evaluation results, so as to track and analyze the overall and sub-industry ESEP management status and change trend. It is expected to provide basic support for in-depth implementation of "energy conservation and emission reduction" and continuous improvement of the sustainable development capacity of enterprises.

(3) Give play to the exemplary role of benchmarking enterprises. As benchmarking enterprise of ESEP management coal mining and washing industry, oil and gas industry, electricity, heat production and supply industry, gas production and supply industry, water production and supply industry, China Shenhua, SINOPEC, China Yangtze Power, Shenzhen Gas, Grandblue Environment to enterprise are directional leaders in ESEP management reform and development. Relevant organizations should carry out ESEP management model selection activities, actively promote the ESEP management experience of model enterprises, promote these enterprises to maintain and improve ESEP management model image, and then influence and drive enterprises to improve ESEP management levels.

(4) Guide enterprises to continuously improve key links. Governance efficiency index is the core content of ESEP management, as well as the link that is most weak and most needs to improve. ESEP information disclosure of listed companies currently, including ESEP management influence, ESEP special investment, occupational disease incidence and other aspects, is respectively weak, and these weak links should be direction of further efforts for listed companies to improve their ESEP management level in the future. In view of this, it is feasible to increase the ESEP management impact by increasing the quality and quantity of awards/honors/papers/patents and to guide enterprises to increase ESEP special investment through green credit, green securities and other economic policies.

**Author Contributions:** S.L.: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing-Original draft preparation. Y.W.: Methodology, Software. Y.Z.: Visualization, Investigation, Supervision, Software, Validation. J.G. and J.Z.: Writing-Reviewing and Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was supported by the Key Research Project of Natural Science in Colleges and Universities of Anhui Department of Education in 2020 [grant number KJ2020A0302], and the Open Research Grant of Joint National-Local Engineering Research Centre for Safe and Precise Coal Mining [grant number EC2021009].

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
