3.1.3. Content Distribution of ESEP Information

In order to investigate the distribution of ESEP information content of sample companies, this study sorts out the distribution of ESEP information content based on the ESEP management evaluation system designed above (see Figure 4). As can be seen from Figure 3, on the whole, ESEP information content in the energy industry is relatively comprehensive, and the disclosure level of indicators that are represented by C1-management system, C2-management culture, C3-management system, and C4-clauses and policies reaches more than 90%. However, from the perspective of the disclosure quantity of each index, there are still problems such as the lack of standardization, systematization and comparability of ESEP information content. For example, the disclosure level of quantitative information of C18-ESEP influence, C17-ecological environment construction, C15-resource recycling and other indicators is low, and the disclosure is not scientific enough.

#### *3.2. Evaluation Analysis of Cloud Model of Each Company*

According to the ESEP evaluation framework constructed above, this study adopts the comprehensive evaluation cloud model to conduct equivalent evaluation of each sample company. The brief evaluation steps are as follows:

(1) AHP-EW method is selected to determine the factor subset of each index weight. (1) Firstly, on the basis of fully combing and referring to the ideas and methods of AHP, the subjective weight is obtained according to the operation steps of AHP; (2) Secondly, on the basis of obtaining relevant index data, the objective weight is obtained according to the operation steps of the entropy weight method (Formulas (1)–(4)). After getting the

subjective weight by AHP and the objective weight by entropy weight method, calculating according to Formula (5), the comprehensive weight of SHEE management evaluation of mineral resource-based listed companies can be obtained.

(2) According to the data value range of each index, determine the evaluation grade theory domain. By referring to relevant literature, this paper divides each indicator into five grades, which are used to evaluate the level of a company in a certain index: I-alert level, II-improvement level, III-transition level, IV-acceptable level, V-claimable level. Specific index levels are divided as follows: Taking index X1 (degree of perfection of mechanism system) as an example, the level I interval is [1, 1.5], the level II interval is [1.5, 2.5], the level III interval is [2.5, 3.5], the level IV interval is [3.5, 4.5], and the level V interval is [4.5, 5]. In the same way, all index grades can be obtained according to the Formula (10).

(3) According to Formula (6), the evaluation level corresponding to each indicator is represented by the corresponding cloud parameters (*Ex*, *En*, *He*). Taking indicator X1 (degree of perfection of mechanism system) as an example, the parameters of level I interval cloud model are (*Ex*, *En*, *He*) = (1, 0.17, 0.05). The parameters of the II level interval cloud model are (*Ex*, *En*, *He*) = (2, 0.17, 0.05). The parameters of level III interval cloud model are (*Ex*, *En*, *He*) = (3, 0.17, 0.05). The parameters of IV level interval cloud model were (*Ex*, *En*, *He*) = (4, 0.17, 0.05). The parameters of the V level interval cloud model were (*Ex*, *En*, *He*) = (5, 0.17, 0.05); Similarly, according to Formula (10), cloud parameter matrices of all indicators at all levels can be obtained.

(4) Taking the screened indicator data and acquired cloud digital characteristic values as parameters, and the X-conditional cloud generator in the model is used to input the algorithm program into Matlab2014 software for calculation, so as to obtain the membership degree of an experiment. In order to improve the accuracy and credibility of the data, the number of experiments was set as K = 2000, and the final membership degree could be obtained according to Formula (7). Due to space limitations, the membership calculation results of SINOPEC in 2017 are taken as an example (see Table 4).


**Table 4.** Membership degree of each index of SINOPEC ESEP management in 2017.

Comprehensive evaluation results vector are obtained by computing Formula (8): {0.0000, 0.0000, 0.4582, 0.4657, 0.0761}, based on the principles of maximum membership degree, corresponding to the maximum membership degree of evaluation grade as a result of comprehensive evaluation, that is, the comprehensive evaluation results for IV SINOPEC in 2017 indicate that its ESEP management level is at an acceptable level.

Similarly, the evaluation cloud level of all sample companies can be obtained, and the company level can be visualized after quantitative processing, as shown in Figure 5.

**Figure 5.** Comprehensive membership evaluation results of each company.

Figure 6 shows that the ESEP management level of most listed companies in the energy industry is between level II and III, indicating that the ESEP management level of most companies is between "transition level" and "improvement level". Further statistics on the number of samples at all levels showed that 1.32% (S = 5) of the samples belonged to class V, indicating that their ESEP management level reached the "claimable level"; 15.87% (S = 60) of the samples belonged to level IV, indicating that the ESEP management level reached the "acceptable level"; 56.611% (S = 214) of the samples belonged to level III, indicating that their ESEP management level reached the "transition level" level; 24.07% (S = 91) of the samples belonged to level II, indicating that their ESEP management level was at the "improvement level"; 2.11% (S = 8) of the samples belong to level I, indicating that their ESEP management level is at the "alert level". Further research shows that different industries have different 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 of 2018 ESEP management benchmarking enterprise respectively for China Shenhua (V), SINOPEC (IV), China Yangtze Power (IV), Shenzhen Gas (IV), Grandblue Environment (IV), etc. Some studies have found that the internationalization of the board of directors would enhance the tendency of listed companies' green business behavior [39], and the incentives of championships would also have a positive impact on the CEOs of listed companies to take environmental responsibility [40]. In the future, it can try to improve the level of energy saving and environmental protection practices of listed companies by guiding the internationalization of their boards of directors and actively carrying out ESEP activities in bidding competitions.

**Figure 6.** Evaluation cloud map of target layer and criterion layer. (**a**) Evaluation grade cloud scale; (**b**) ESEP comprehensive evaluation cloud chart.
