ARTICLE

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4 OPEN

Toward sustainable port development: an empirical

analysis of China’s port industry using an ESG
framework
Xiyan Gu 1,2, Yingjun Zhu 3✉ & Jingxia Zhang4
1234567890():,;

In recent years, the issue of sustainable development has become increasingly important in
the port industry. As port policies are altered under decentralization and governance models,
the application of corporate responsibility (CR) is expanding. It is now expected that ports
take on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) responsibilities. This paper focuses on
the application of an ESG framework to the port industry in China, with a specific emphasis on
social responsibilities. By focusing on ESG-focal issues in the port industry, we establish a
model for evaluating the sustainability of ports that takes into account the three dimensions
of environment, society, and governance. An empirical analysis of Shanghai Port in China is
presented to illustrate the application of the framework. The paper highlights the main
contribution of the ESG framework to support sustainable port development and provides
recommendations for promoting the implementation of ESG and sustainable development in
the industry.

1 College of Ocean Science and Engineering, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, China. 2 College of Transport and Communications, Shanghai Maritime

University, Shanghai, China. 3 School of Finance, Shanghai Lixin University of Accounting and Finance, Shanghai, China. 4 Graduate School of Economics,
Shiga University, Shiga, Japan. ✉email: zyj@lixin.edu.cn

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4 1

ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

E
Introduction
nvironmental problems such as pollution, resource deple- Port authorities have decentralized or are restructuring their
tion, and ecological degradation sparked great concern in governance models to varying degrees in response to global
society during the twentieth century. In 1983, the United economic and technological changes, including the landlord port
Nations formed the World Commission on Environment and model (Cariou et al., 2014; Munim et al., 2019), the concession
Development (WCED) in response to environmental and eco- model (Noring, 2019), the PPP model (Wang et al., 2018; Yang
nomic challenges. And, in 1987, the WCED proposed Our et al., 2020), and in some cases of full private ownership (such as
Common Future to the United Nations, which defined sustain- in the UK) (Asgari et al., 2015). Therefore, port officials have
able development as “the development that meets the needs of started to act more like entrepreneurs (Caldeirinha et al., 2018).
current generations without compromising the ability of future This has resulted in port management becoming more company-
generations to meet their own needs” (Roh et al., 2023). centric and market-oriented rather than policy-oriented and port-
With the globalization of the world’s economy, ports have been centric (Woo et al., 2011). To achieve sustainable development,
taking on increasingly diversified functions, and their impact on port companies must take responsibility for the impact of their
economies and societies has been growing. However, the negative operations on the economy, society, and environment. Previous
externalities associated with ports have also become more pro- studies (e.g., Acciaro, 2015; Sun et al., 2017) have highlighted the
minent (Acciaro, 2015), including noise, water and air pollution, importance of corporate commitment in achieving sustainable
destruction of soil and habitat, and threats to human health development in port settings.
(Pavlic et al., 2014; Gupta et al., 2005). The port industry is, also The concept of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance)
beginning to work on sustainability issues. The United Nations responsibility, which stems from the concept of sustainable
Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) presented a development, emphasizes corporations’ responsibility to balance
strategy for sustainable port development in 1993 (UNCTAD, economic, social, and environmental benefits. ESG was first
1993), with the goal of lowering the environmental impact of port introduced in the developed countries of Europe and America
economic activities. Research on the sustainable development of and has since attracted strong interest from scholars.1 ESG aims
ports has boomed, with scholars focusing on technological and to give companies guidance in sustainable development.
management tools necessary to achieve green and sustainable However, during our literature review, we found that there are
development (Aregall et al., 2018; Bjerkan and Seter, 2019; Gupta relatively few studies focusing on port ESG, and the application of
et al., 2005; Styhre et al., 2017) as well as government policies ESG principles in the port industry seems to receive insufficient
(Konstantinos et al., 2022; Lam and Li, 2019; Wang et al., 2021). attention. This is especially true for developing countries like
Additionally, more research started focusing on evaluating and China, where the awareness of ESG came later compared to
balancing the economic, environmental, and social benefits of Western countries. Considering the enormous annual cargo
ports and the surrounding cities (Bottasso et al., 2014; Park and throughput of Chinese ports, particularly coastal ports with a
Seo, 2016). significant share of trade volume and a consistent growth trend
As sustainability theories continue to evolve and enrich, the (Fig. 1), there is a pressing need for continuous involvement from
environmental aspect of port sustainability has increasingly been port management and adjustments to port operational and
stated separately as a new phrase, “Green Ports” (Hua et al., 2020; management strategies to achieve sustainable port development.
Chen et al., 2019; Lawer et al., 2019). The “Green Port” concept This study aims to examine the current application of ESG in
was officially proposed at the 2009 United Nations Climate China’s port industry, with a focus on ESG disclosure by port
Change Conference (Hua et al., 2020). It is described as limiting firms. The primary contribution is the development of a sus-
negative environmental consequences while maintaining eco- tainable development evaluation system for ports, considering the
nomic and social performance (Pavlic et al., 2014). Green ports three aspects of environment, social, and governance, given the
are viewed as a crucial component of sustainable ports (Acciaro, corporate attributes of modern ports. We creatively adapt the
2015; Lu et al., 2016), making the environmental responsibilities CRITIC evaluation method, which uses the objective properties of
of port development more evident. With the continuous research the data in the analysis. The CRITIC evaluation method enabled
on green ports, scholars have found that green ports can also us to compare the intensity of indicators using the entropy weight
achieve sustainable development, social responsibility, and eco- method and to take into account the conflicting nature of indi-
nomic benefits in the long run (Lam and Li, 2019). cators. Finally, we test our model using data from the Port of

160 145.4991
140.07 143.5083139.5083
140 132.01
124.52 127.5
(Unit:100 Million Tons)

117.67
Cargo Throughput

120 107.76
100.41
100 90.47 94.6321 91.8774 94.8002
80.33 81.47 84.55
75.61
80
63.6024 68.8
60
40
20
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year

Cargo throughput Seaport cargo throughput

Fig. 1 Cargo throughput of Chinese ports, 2011–2020. In this figure, the blue bars reflect the cargo throughput of Chinese ports from 2011 to 2020, and
the gray bars represent the cargo throughput of seaports. The unit of cargo throughput is 100 million tons. Data from China Port Yearbook.

2 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4 ARTICLE

Shanghai in China and create guidelines for using an ESG per- (Feng et al., 2022). CSR has gained increased application in the
spective to promote sustainable port development. port industry, particularly with the proliferation of entrepre-
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section “Litera- neurship in recent years (Acciaro, 2015). Ports are assuming
ture review” presents an overview of ESG. Section “Model fra- significant responsibility by reducing their environmental impact,
mework” examines the current status of ESG disclosure in promoting humanitarianism, and funding educational initiatives
Chinese ports and proposes a system for evaluating port sus- for their employees and neighboring communities.
tainability. Section “Methodology” outlines the methodology used However, there is a lack of research on the application of ESG
in the paper. Section “Case study” presents an analysis using the in the port industry. Dos Santos and Pereira (2022) have pointed
Port of Shanghai as an example. The conclusions and limitations out that while several studies have analyzed the ESGP of shipping
are presented in the section “Conclusions”. companies (Tsatsaronis et al., 2022), no studies have evaluated
ESG in port operations. The United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD, 2015) has identified that a port
Literature review that operates sustainably is more likely to garner support from
ESG is a formalization of the concept of “responsible investment” governments, communities, and the public, as well as potential
and “corporate social responsibility (CSR)” (Leins, 2020). These investors in the maritime industry. Therefore, this study seeks to
ideas can be traced back to the social movements in the 1960s and examine the relationship between ESGP and port sustainability
1970s, such as the civil rights movement in the United States, the and develop a model for evaluating port sustainability from an
fight against racial discrimination in South Africa (Tian, 2007), ESG perspective.
and environmental protection movements worldwide (Wang and
Huang, 2021). ESG evolved from these foundations, and in 2004,
it was formally introduced in the United Nations report, “Who Model framework
Cares Wins.” Status of ESG disclosure in the port industry in China. China’s
While many scholars have found a positive relationship port industry is concentrated mainly along its eastern coast, and it
between ESG performance (ESGP) and financial performance is divided into five major clusters based on the National Coastal
(FP) (Busch and Friede, 2018; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Qureshi et al., Port Layout Plan by the Chinese Ministry of Transport. These
2021; Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017), other studies have found clusters are the Bohai Rim Port Cluster, Yangtze River Delta Port
opposing conclusions (Duque-Grisales and Aguilera-Caracuel, Cluster, Southeast Coastal Port Cluster, Pearl River Delta Port
2021), arguing that ESG-driven investment imposes additional Cluster, and Southwest Coastal Port Cluster. In the 2021 World’s
costs (Derwall et al., 2005; Hassel et al., 2005) and negatively Top 100 Container Ports ranking by Lloyd’s List 2021, 24 inland
affects FP. Recent studies have suggested that ESGP has a non- ports in China were featured, which were distributed among the
linear relationship with FP (i.e., Adegbite et al., 2019; Bruna et al., five major port clusters (Fig. 2).
2022) and demonstrated that ESG has a positive effect on inno- Upon reviewing port yearbooks and other relevant information
vation (Liu and Lyu, 2022; Tang, 2022) and sustainable perfor- from the official websites of these 24 ports, we find that as of July
mance (Alsayegh et al., 2020). 2021, 18 listed companies controlled most of the operations at
Despite the growing popularity of responsible investing, there these ports. Further investigation of these 18 companies reveals
are no agreed-upon standards. ESG standard-setting organiza- that 15 of them publicly disclosed their ESG reports as of 2022.
tions include the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International The first four port enterprises to voluntarily disclose an ESG
Standard Organization (ISO), and Sustainability Accounting report were Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG), Tianjin
Standards Board (SASB) et al. Evaluation criteria include the ESG Port Co., LTD, Rizhao Port CO., LTD, and Jiangsu Lianyungang
ratings of Bloomberg (Tamimi and Sebastianelli, 2017), Thomson Port CO., LTD. They all began to issue ESG reports in 2008.
Reuters (Duque-Grisales and Aguilera-Caracuel, 2021), and SIPG’s ESG report is the most comprehensive, containing the
MSCI (Hughes et al., 2021). The lack of clear criteria may lead to most quantitative data among all the enterprises we have
different evaluation results (Scholtens, 2014) and some compa- investigated.
nies may use ESG simply to improve their corporate image There is no standardized label for these ESG reports, as some
(Huang, 2022). To regulate and improve the quality of ESG companies call them CSR reports while others call them
disclosure, some countries and regions have introduced manda- sustainable development reports. The most common standards
tory ESG disclosure. For example, the EU Directive 2014/95/EU used for ESG disclosure by these port enterprises are as follows:
requires large companies to disclose how they operate and (1) global standards, mainly the GRI Standards issued by the
manage in the face of social and environmental challenges, thus Global Sustainability Standards Board (GSSB); (2) Chinese
moving the disclosure of non-financial information (NFI) from national standards, such as Guidance On Social Responsibility
the voluntary to the mandatory domain (Mio et al., 2020). In June Reporting GB/T 36001-2015; (3) standards issued by China’s stock
2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed The ESG Dis- exchanges, including the Report on Corporate Social Responsibility
closure Simplification Act of 2021, which requires listed compa- Compilation Guidelines issued by Shanghai Stock Exchange, the
nies to disclose additional material ESG information (Wen et al., Guidelines on the Social Responsibility of Listed Companies issued
2022). According to the Sustainable Finance and ESG Develop- by Shenzhen Stock Exchange, and the Guidelines on ESG
ment Report, published on the official website of Refinitiv, Reporting issued by Hong Kong Stock Exchange; and (4)
international regulatory policies related to ESG have doubled guidelines compiled by the private sector, such as the Basic
since 2015 with the establishment of the United Nations 2030 Framework of China’s Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement. Guidelines (CASS-CSR4.0). Among these standards, the GRI
The port industry is widely recognized as a crucial driver of Standards are relatively complete in content and more widely
national economic growth, with spillover benefits that extend used since they are recognized as the official standard for
beyond the industry itself and into the wider society (Deng et al., countries by the GSSB. However, some indicators in the GRI
2020). However, there are growing concerns regarding environ- standards may not be applicable to port enterprises. Table 1
mental accountability, which has led to the port industry provides a summary of the 15 port enterprises in the sample,
assuming environmental, social, and governance responsibilities, including the year they began to disclose ESG reports and their
aligning with the principles of sustainable port development primary reference standard.

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4 3

ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

Fig. 2 Distribution of ports in China. This figure shows the concentration of China’s ports along the eastern coast, marked in darker colors. Marked by red
dots are the 24 Chinese inland ports that are in the 2021 World’s Top 100 Container Ports ranking by Lloyd’s List. The approximate extent of China’s five
largest port clusters is also indicated.

The main issues disclosed in the ESG reports in our sample are especially when dealing with negative information or missing data
summarized in Table 2. Under environmental responsibility, the (Paredes-Gazqueza et al., 2016).
ports disclose their actions related to protecting the environment Therefore, we believe it is necessary to combine general
and conserving resources. Under social responsibility, the ports standards and take into account the characteristics of the port
report their actions in four areas: social development, regional industry, integrating the existing research results on the E, S, and
relations, human resource management, and service. These G aspects. This will help in constructing a comprehensive ESG
initiatives affect both direct and indirect stakeholders. The performance framework tailored to the port industry. Assessing
sections on governance, as in the disclosures of corporations in the sustainable performance of port companies based on their
other sectors, focus on the management of the organizational ESG reports can also provide more accurate feedback to guide
structure. For ports, this includes port operation management their sustainable development practices. To achieve this, we use
and services. The operations management has some attributes 32 representative indicators to construct a comprehensive system
that are specific to the port industry. for evaluating port sustainability from a complete ESG perspec-
tive, as shown in Table 3.
Construction of port sustainability indicators from an ESG Definitions of indicators
perspective Environment: Ten variables, grouped into three categories, are
System of Indicators. We focus our attention on the current used to assess the environmental responsibility performance of
research topics related to the sustainable performance of the port the port.
industry based on ESG reports and find that there is almost no The first category is energy-saving capability indicators.
comprehensive research on all three aspects of ESG reporting. Throughput energy consumption (E1) reflects the intensity of
Many scholars tend to discuss one aspect separately, such as energy consumption. Energy-saving rate (E2) reflects the trend in
environmental responsibility and green port performance
energy savings and is calculated using formula ξ ¼ e1 ee0 ´ 100%,
(Hua et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2019); defining the social role of 0

ports, drivers of social responsibility, and Corporate Social Per- drawn from the Chinese national standard Port Energy
formance (CSP) of ports (Batalha et al., 2023; Acciaro, 2015; Consumption Statistics and Analysis Methods (GB/T21339-
Batalha et al., 2020); and exploring sustainable governance 2020), where e1 and e0 represent the energy consumption per
models for ports (Caldeirinha et al., 2018; Schrobback and Meath, unit of output, i.e., throughput energy, for the reporting period
2020; De Langen and Heij, 2014). In addition, we expand our and the base period, respectively.
focus to other industries’ sustainable performance based on ESG The second category is emission-reduction capacity indicators.
reporting. Many studies often directly use the scores provided by Carbon emission intensity (E3) measures the CO2 emission-
commercial rating agencies as ESG performance indicators reduction capacity and is calculated using the comprehensive
(Qureshi et al., 2021; Sandberg et al., 2023; Liu and Lyu, 2022). energy consumption multiplied by the carbon emission factor of
However, there are differences between ratings from different standard coal, divided by throughput. Air quality index/air
commercial agencies, and standardization remains a challenge pollution index (E4) and noise level (E5) indicators are used to
(Sahin et al., 2022). There are still some existing issues, such as indicate other negative environmental impacts. Environmental
insufficient industry classification. In our review in the section capital investment (E6) is the annual investment of enterprises in
“Status of ESG disclosure in the port industry in China”, we also energy saving and emission reduction, which is used to reflect the
find that port companies have some unique characteristics apart efforts of emission reduction.
from the internationally recognized indicators like GRI. Another The third category is resource utilization efficiency indicators.
issue is the lack of transparency in the evaluation process, Water consumption per unit of throughput (E7) and sewage

4 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

 Table 1 Chinese listed port companies participating in ESG disclosure.

Enterprise name (stock Main operating ports Starting Report name Main reference standards
symbol) year
SIPG (600018.SH) Shanghai Port 2008 Sustainable GRI standards
development report
NZP (601018.SH) Ningbo-Zhoushan Port, Wenzhou 2010 CSR report Report on Corporate Social Responsibility
Port, Jiaxing Port etc. Compilation Guidelines (Shanghai Stock
Exchange)
QDPI (601298.SH) Qingdao Port 2016 Sustainable GRI Standards; Guidelines on ESG Reporting
development report (Hong Kong Stock Exchange)
LIAONING PORT Dalian Port、Yingkou Port 2012 CSR report Report on Corporate Social Responsibility
(601880.SH) Compilation Guidelines (Shanghai Stock
Exchange)
CMPort (001872.SZ) Participated in the management of 2017 CSR report GRI Standards; Guidelines on ESG Reporting
Shenzhen Port, Shantou Port, (Hong Kong Stock Exchange); Guidance On
Zhanjiang Port and many other ports Social Responsibility Reporting GB/T 36001-
2015
GZP (601228.SH) Guangzhou Port 2017 CSR report The Ten Principles of the United Nations
Global Compact; Guidance On Social
Responsibility Reporting GB/T 36001-2015;
Report on Corporate Social Responsibility
Compilation Guidelines (Shanghai Stock
Exchange)
TSPGC (601000.SH) Tangshan Port 2012 CSR report –
QHD PORT (601326.SH) Qinghuangdao Port, Caofeidian Port, 2016 CSR report Guidelines on ESG Reporting (Hong Kong Stock
Huanghua Port Exchange); Report on Corporate Social
Responsibility Compilation Guidelines (Shanghai
Stock Exchange)
Beibu Gulf Port. Beibuwan Port, Qingzhou Port 2021 CSR report GRI Standards; Sustainable Development
(000582.SZ) Goals (SDGs); Guidance On Social
Responsibility Reporting GB/T 36001-2015;
Guidelines on the Social Responsibility of Listed
Companies (Shenzhen Stock Exchange)
YPH (000088.SZ) Yantian Port 2019 CSR report GRI Standards; SDGs; Guidance On Social

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

Responsibility Reporting GB/T 36001-2015
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

TJP (600717.SH) Tianjing Port 2008 CSR report GRI Standards; Report on Corporate Social
Responsibility Compilation Guidelines (Shanghai
Stock Exchange)
RIZHAO PORT Rizhao Port 2008 CSR report Report on Corporate Social Responsibility
(600017.SH) Compilation Guidelines (Shanghai Stock
Exchange)
ZHUHAI Zhuhai Port 2020 ESG report GRI Standards; Guidance On Social
PORT(000507.SZ) Responsibility Reporting GB/T 36001-2015
JZP (600190.SH) Jingzhou Port 2011 CSR report GRI Standards; Guidance On Social
Responsibility Reporting GB/T 36001-2015
Lianyungang Port Lianyungang Port 2008 CSR report –
(601008.SH)

This table reports 15 port-listed companies in China that publicly disclose ESG reports, including the ports they mainly operate, the beginning year of ESG report disclosure, and the name of the report, as well as the disclosure standards referenced by the report. An “-” in the
Main Reference Standards column indicates that the enterprise does not explicitly indicate the standards used in the ESG disclosure report.
ARTICLE

5
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

Table 2 Focal issues in the ESG reports of Chinese port companies.

Focal issues Content

Environmental responsibility (E)
Environmental protection Greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution prevention, and control, water pollution prevention and control, noise
pollution prevention and control, sewage treatment, solid waste utilization, environmental protection financial
support, environmental management measures, environmental protection training, emission-reduction technology
use, management of supplier environmental awareness
Resource conservation Energy consumption, water consumption and utilization, electricity consumption, ecological resource protection,
biodiversity, shoreline resource utilization, material consumption, clean energy substitution
Social responsibility (S)
Social development Public policy, industry cooperation, social donation, science and technology innovation support
Regional relations Stakeholder relations and engagement, community events, cultural participation
Human resource management Position structure, gender diversity ratio, anti-discrimination, anti-corruption, salary and benefits, system security,
education and training, cultural activities, security measures management, security awareness training, security
investment, hardship support
Service Customer satisfaction, complaints, and handling
Governance responsibility (G)
Organizational structure Board of directors, shareholding structure, governance framework, values building, transparent internal and external
communication, Scale of organization, anti-corruption, socioeconomic compliance
Operations FP, tax payment, risk management, economic performance, economic impact, infrastructure development,
throughput, port operation efficiency, transportation mode optimization, smart port construction, technology
advancement

This table reports the focus issues of environment, society, and governance that port enterprises are concerned about. The content is derived from our statistics and refining of the information disclosed
in ESG reports of all port enterprises over the years.

treatment rate (E8) are used to describe water use and sewage Governance: Ten variables, grouped into five categories, are used
discharge. E7 represents water use per unit of throughput, and E8 to assess the governance responsibility performance of the port.
is the ratio of effluent discharge to water use. Measures are done Governance responsibilities are organized into five categories:
to increase resource use, such as waste recycling, and hazardous organizational management, scale of organization, economic
waste disposal, to lessen the detrimental ecological effects of port performance, anti-corruption, and socioeconomic compliance.
activities. We choose the indicators are waste recycling rate (E9), In organizational management, we chose the percentage of
and hazardous waste disposal rate (E10). independent directors (G1), the percentage of females in
management (G2), and the percentage of management remu-
Society: Twelve variables, grouped into six categories, are used to neration (G3) as indicators to reflect the board’s and manage-
assess the society responsibility performance of the port. ment’s status. Number of employees (G4) and employee
We have organized social responsibility into six categories: compensation (G5) are used as indicators of organization scale.
employee management, security, training and education, social Cargo throughput (G6), container throughput (G7), and profit-
contribution capability, vendor, and customer. For the category of ability (G8) are selected as indicators of economic performance,
employee management, a number of new employees (S1) and reflecting the operational capacity and economic situation of the
employee turnover rate (S2) are used to describe employee port enterprises. Among them, the profitability indicator directly
mobility, and the percentage of female employees (S3) is used to reflects the cost efficiency of the company, which is calculated as
reflect gender equality and social equity. Security indicator is profit divided by cost. The indicator anti-corruption training per
expressed in terms of security investment (S4) for the reporting capita (G9) represents anti-corruption efforts. The Amounts
period. Training and education indicator is expressed in terms of Penalized (G10) indicator is used to assess socioeconomic
number of trainings per capita (S5). For the category of social compliance during the reporting period.
contribution capacity, we chose five indicators.
The amount of social donation (S6) reflects the contribution of Methodology
a port company to poverty eradication, which is the total amount The CRITIC method, first proposed by Diakoulaki et al. (1995), is
of social donations such as charitable donations and funding for an objective weighting method that integrates indicators based on
education in poor areas. Employment opportunities for the their comparative strength and the conflict between them. The
neighborhood (S7) are jobs provided to the community. Science CRITIC method is more objective than subjective weighting
and technology innovation projects (S8) are the sum of the methods such as the Delphi method and the AHP method. In
number of science and technology projects completed and the port-related research, the CRITIC method has been widely
number of patents applied during the reporting period. Tax applied and is currently being used for various studies, including
contribution (S9) is the amount of tax paid during the reporting the evaluation of service capabilities in multimodal transportation
period. Social contribution per share (S10) responds to the hubs centered around ports (Liu & Wang, 2023), the identifica-
combination of social contributions, which is calculated with tion of critical flaws affecting vessel detention decisions (Zhu
reference to the Corporate Social Responsibility Compilation et al., 2023), and the assessment of port resilience (Lin & Liu,
Guidelines Report (Shanghai Stock Exchange) by dividing the 2023).
entire value provided for stakeholders by the enterprise’s total
share capital, after removing the societal expenses associated with
environmental damage and so on. Vendor screening rate (S11) Data processing. To eliminate the influence of the different
and number of customer complaints (S12) are chosen to magnitudes of the evaluation results, it is necessary to carry
represent vendor and customer metrics. out dimensionless processing of each indicator. For positive

6 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

 Table 3 ESG framework for assessing sustainability.

Category First-level Second-level indicators Variable Unit Predicted Reference

indicators name direction
Environment Energy-saving capability
Throughput energy E1 Tons of standard Negative GRI 302; Asgari et al. (2015); Dos Santos
consumption coal/ ten and Pereira (2022); Junior et al. (2022);
thousand tons Chen and Pak (2017); Di Vaio et al.
Energy-saving rate E2 % Positive (2018)
Emission-reduction capacity
Carbon emission E3 Tons/ten Negative GRI 305; Chen et al. (2022); Chen and
intensity thousand tons Pak (2017); Junior et al. (2022); Di Vaio
Air quality index/Air E4 μg/m3 Positive/ et al. (2018); Wan et al. (2018)
pollution index Negative
Noise level E5 dB Negative
Environmental capital E6 Ten thousand Positive
investment yuan
Resource utilization efficiency
Water consumption per E7 Cubic meters/ Negative GRI 303/304/306; Chen and Pak (2017);
unit of throughput tonne Di Vaio et al. (2018); Lim et al. (2019);
Sewage treatment rate E8 % Positive Wan et al. (2018)
Waste recycling rate E9 % Positive
Hazardous waste E10 % Positive
disposal rate
Society Employee management
Number of new S1 Person Positive GRI401/405; Junior et al. (2022);
employees Paredes-Gazqueza et al. (2016)
Employee Turnover S2 % Negative
Rate
Percentage of female S3 % Positive
employees
Security
Security investment S4 Ten thousand Positive GRI403; Junior et al. (2022); Ha et al.
yuan (2017); Lim et al. (2019)
Training and education

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

Number of trainings per S5 Times Positive GRI404; Di Vaio et al. (2018); Ha et al.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

capita (2017); Paredes-Gazqueza et al. (2016)

Social contribution capability
Amount of social S6 Ten thousand Positive GRI413; Report on Corporate Social
donation yuan Responsibility Compilation Guidelines
Employment S7 Unit Positive (Shanghai Stock Exchange); Junior et al.
opportunities for the (2022); Ha et al. (2017); Paredes-
neighborhood Gazqueza et al. (2016)
Science and Technology S8 Unit Positive
Innovation Projects
Tax Contribution S9 Hundred million Positive
yuan
Social contribution per S10 Yuan Positive
share
ARTICLE

7
8
Table 3 (continued)
Category First-level Second-level indicators Variable Unit Predicted Reference
indicators name direction
Vendor
ARTICLE

Vendor screening rate S11 % Positive G414; Ha et al. (2017); Paredes-

Gazqueza et al. (2016)
Customer
Number of customer S12 unit Negative Junior et al. (2022); Ha et al. (2017)
complaints
Governance Organizational management
Percentage of G1 % Positive Kocmanova and Simberova (2012)；
independent directors Schrobback and Meath (2020); Paredes-
Percentage of females G2 % Positive Gazqueza et al. (2016)
in management
Percentage of G3 ‰ Positive
management
remuneration
Scale of organization
Number of employees G4 person Positive GRI 102; Junior et al. (2022); Paredes-
Employee G5 Hundred million Positive Gazqueza et al. (2016)
compensation yuan
Economic performance
Cargo throughput G6 Hundred million Positive GRI 201; Kocmanova and Simberova
tons (2012); Chen et al. (2022); Asgari et al.
Container throughput G7 Ten thousand Positive (2015); Junior et al. (2022); Ha et al.
TEU (2017); Lim et al. (2019)
Profitability G8 % Positive
Anti-corruption
Anti-corruption training G9 Unit Positive GRI 205、Kocmanova and Simberova
per capita (2012)
Socioeconomic compliance
Amounts penalized G10 Ten thousand Negative GRI 419; Kocmanova and Simberova
yuan (2012)

This table reports the established port ESG performance indicators, which have been constructed based on a combination of environmental, social, and governance responsibilities. The indicators include 14 first-level indexes and 32 second-level indexes.

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4 ARTICLE

Table 4 Standardized data matrix.

Variable 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
E1 0.00 0.25 0.63 0.85 0.81 0.76 0.76 1.00 0.78 0.79 0.66 0.81
E2 1.00 0.70 0.88 0.68 0.42 0.42 0.35 0.71 0.00 0.37 0.15 0.57
E3 0.00 0.56 0.71 1.00 0.77 0.59 0.61 0.82 0.71 0.29 0.16 0.12
E4 0.00 0.08 0.15 0.23 0.56 0.37 0.51 0.50 0.68 0.79 0.86 1.00
E5 0.11 0.00 0.39 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.39 0.94 1.00 0.89
E6 0.07 1.00 0.62 0.00 0.06 0.77 0.64 0.19 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05
E7 0.00 0.34 0.49 0.73 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.95 0.93 1.00 0.95 0.97
E8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
S1 0.00 0.87 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.75 0.39 0.69 0.63 0.31 0.21 0.29
S2 1.00 0.38 0.72 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.38 0.23 0.08 0.46 0.68 0.15
S3 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.47 0.64 0.85 0.99 1.00
S4 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.21 0.02 0.40 0.88 0.18 0.49 1.00 0.14 0.46
S5 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.16 0.27 0.30 0.47 0.40 0.63 0.85 1.00
S6 0.31 0.00 0.06 0.66 0.74 0.74 1.00 0.78 0.91 0.70 0.75 0.76
S7 0.00 0.88 1.00 0.79 0.62 0.60 0.31 0.51 0.47 0.23 0.16 0.21
S8 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.23 1.00 0.79 0.51 0.31 0.61
S9 0.00 0.14 0.31 0.49 0.27 0.55 0.40 0.70 0.63 1.00 0.52 0.70
S10 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.13 0.26 0.33 0.34 0.72 0.70 0.65 0.52 1.00
S11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
S12 0.36 0.21 0.97 0.95 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.79 0.00 0.68 0.73 0.69
G1 0.42 0.56 0.42 0.30 0.56 0.56 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.25 0.42 1.00
G2 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.13 0.42 0.47 0.55 0.46 0.62 0.75 1.00
G3 1.00 0.68 0.79 0.00 0.48 0.12 0.89 0.59 0.61 0.28 0.16 0.79
G4 1.00 0.91 0.82 0.72 0.63 0.55 0.53 0.42 0.32 0.13 0.06 0.00
G5 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.37 0.54 0.63 0.72 0.88 0.75 0.83 1.00
G6 0.00 0.42 0.56 0.86 0.83 0.64 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.62 0.83
G7 0.00 0.15 0.19 0.26 0.35 0.42 0.45 0.62 0.72 0.79 0.80 1.00
G8 1.00 0.82 0.15 0.25 0.42 0.21 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.26
G9 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.23 0.16 0.13 0.10 0.34 0.41 0.89 0.87 1.00
G10 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.87 0.98 0.50 0.91 1.00

This table reports the data of the 32 indicators established by SIPG from 2010 to 2021 after data standardization. The values are reserved as two decimal places. All the original data are from SIPG’s ESG
reports, annual reports, China Port Yearbook, and Shanghai City Yearbook.
Source: Based on author’s calculation.

indicators, the forwarding process is carried out. For negative Step 1. From the original index data matrix, as shown in Eq. (3).
indicators, the inverse process is carried out. The calculation The matrix has n samples and p evaluation indicators, where Xij
formula is given in (1) and (2). denotes the i-th sample and the value of the j-th evaluation
indicator.
Xj  Xmin
Xij0 ¼ ð1Þ 8 9
Xmax  Xmin > X11 ¼ X1p >
>
< >
=
X¼ .. .. .. ð3Þ
Xmax  Xj > . . . >
Xij0 ¼ ð2Þ >
: >
;
Xmax  Xmin Xn1 ¼ Xnp

Step 2. The variability of the indicator is expressed as a standard

Calculation steps. The CRITIC assignment method used in this deviation, which is calculated for the j-th indicator.
paper compares the intensity of indicators using the entropy
weighting method (Krishnan et al., 2021), taking into account the 8 n
>
> Xj ¼ n1 ∑ Xij
contradictory nature of the indicators. It exclusively uses the < i¼1
objective properties of the data. Contrast intensity refers to the rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð4Þ
>
>
: S ¼ ∑i¼1 ðXij Xj Þ
n 2
size of the difference between values obtained for the same
j n1
indicator from various evaluation schemes, expressed in the form
of a standard deviation. The larger the standard deviation, the
greater the fluctuation; that is, the larger the variation, the greater Step 3. The indicator conflict value is expressed as a correlation
the weight given to the indicator. The conflict between the coefficient.
indicators is expressed by the correlation coefficient. Strong
p
correlations with other indicators indicate small conflicts between ð5Þ
Rj ¼ ∑ ð1  rij Þ
the focal indicator and the other indicators, suggesting that the i¼1
indicators reflect the same information. If the analysis suggests
that the information content is duplicated across indicators, the Step 4. Calculate the information quantity, as shown in Eq. (6). Cj
contrast strength of the indicator is weakened. The calculation indicates the information quantity of the j-th evaluation index
steps are as follows. within the whole evaluation index system; the larger the

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4 9

ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

information quantity, the greater the weight assigned. Step 6. The weights are multiplied by the values to get the
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u  2 evaluation score.
u∑n p  
t i¼1 Xij  Xj ð6Þ
Cj ¼ Sj ´ Rj ¼ ´ ∑ 1  rij Case study
n1 i¼1
Data collection and calculation. ESG disclosure reports are a
Step 5. Weight is calculated as follows: recent development among Chinese port enterprises, but there is
Cj a lack of uniform standards. Many of these reports do not contain
Wj ¼ p ð7Þ sufficient information. Shanghai Port has one of the earliest ESG
∑j¼1 Cj
report disclosures and the best disclosure performance among
Chinese port enterprises. As the research object for an empirical
analysis, we concentrate on Shanghai Port considering the
accessibility and comparability of data.
Table 5 Data calculation process.
This paper focuses on Shanghai Port and analyzes data from its
ESG reports, annual reports, China Port Yearbook and Shanghai
Variable Variability Conflict Information Weight City Yearbook between 2010 and 2021. During the data collection
content
process, most of the indicators’ data can be directly obtained from
E1 0.277 25.043 6.941 2.71% publicly disclosed information. Some data require simple
E2 0.292 36.657 10.718 4.18% calculations based on the meaning of the indicators, such as E2
E3 0.314 32.882 10.313 4.02%
and S10, and the calculation methods are explained in the section
E4 0.322 23.622 7.597 2.96%
E5 0.361 25.932 9.353 3.65%
“Definitions of indicators”. Additionally, for indicators with
E6 0.352 34.258 12.068 4.70% missing data for individual years, we use interpolation to estimate
E7 0.305 23.817 7.271 2.83% and supplement them, as in the case of the E6 indicator. However,
E8 0 31 0 0.00% for indicators that are completely missing for all years in the
E9 0 31 0 0.00% study period and have no publicly disclosed information, we
E10 0 31 0 0.00% follow the approach described by Paredes-Gazqueza et al. (2016)
S1 0.322 33.413 10.753 4.19% and assign a value of 0 to them. Examples of such indicators
S2 0.287 36.317 10.427 4.06% include E8, E9, E10, and S11. The selected data has been
S3 0.371 26.105 9.679 3.77% forwarded and inverted to obtain the data matrix in Table 4.
S4 0.331 27.158 8.979 3.50% The variability and conflict of the indicators have been
S5 0.323 23.845 7.711 3.01% calculated separately using the CRITIC assignment method.
S6 0.32 26.479 8.477 3.30%
Then, the weights for each variable have been derived. The
S7 0.31 34.254 10.624 4.14%
S8 0.347 25.506 8.854 3.45%
relevant data are summarized in Table 5.
S9 0.273 24.217 6.612 2.58%
S10 0.321 23.386 7.515 2.93% Results and discussion
S11 0 31 0 0.00% Indicator weights. The weights of each indicator have been cal-
S12 0.315 30.149 9.501 3.70% culated using the procedure shown in Fig. 3. The total weights of
G1 0.258 30.694 7.912 3.08% the indicators for environment, society, and governance are
G2 0.328 23.437 7.695 3.00% 25.05%, 38.63%, and 36.30% respectively, shown in Fig. 4. This
G3 0.326 33.136 10.812 4.21%
aligns with the issue we encounter during data collection, where
G4 0.332 40.476 13.42 5.23%
empirical cases tend to have more detailed and abundant dis-
G5 0.359 23.495 8.438 3.29%
G6 0.28 25.277 7.065 2.75% closure information in the social and governance aspects com-
G7 0.308 23.232 7.157 2.79% pared to the environmental aspect. There is a deficiency in
G8 0.316 38.787 12.262 4.78% environmental disclosure, particularly in terms of quantitative
G9 0.366 24.653 9.015 3.51% data.
G10 0.301 31.125 9.383 3.66%
Sustainable performance in the three aspects of ESG. The devel-
The table reports the value of each process calculated against the study case data by the CRITIC
method. The final weighting results are listed in the last column of the table. opment of Shanghai Port’s sustainability capacity and its cumu-
Source: Based on author’s calculation. lative performance in environment, society, and governance
sustainability from 2010 to 2021 are shown in Fig. 5. Through the

6.00%
5.23%
5.00% 4.70% 4.78%
4.18% 4.19%
4.06% 4.14% 4.21%
4.02%
Relative Weights

4.00% 3.65% 3.77% 3.70% 3.66%

3.50% 3.45% 3.51%
3.30% 3.29%
2.96% 2.83% 3.01% 2.93% 3.08%
3.00%
2.79%
2.75%
3.00% 2.71% 2.58%

2.00%

1.00%

0.00%
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S12 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10
Variable

Fig. 3 Relative weights of the indicators. This figure shows the relative weights of 32 indicators in the study case. In this case, indicators with a value of 0
attached to them because they were not disclosed are not shown in the figure because they have a weight of 0.

10 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4 ARTICLE

Total curve in Fig. 5, it can be seen that the Shanghai Port’s Shanghai Port plans to establish a “green port” that is a low-
sustainability has improved over the last twelve years despite carbon operation. In addition to improving the environmental
volatility. The most significant improvement has been in social management system, a large amount of money has been invested
performance through the bar charts of the three ESG categories. in energy-saving and emission-reduction technologies, including
Environmental performance has increased slightly, but only a shore power, oil-to-electricity conversion, LNG technology, green
little. Governance performance has also improved slightly, but to lighting, and clean energy substitution (https://www.
a lesser extent because it was already relatively good. portshanghai.com.cn/). However, some trends in individual
We examine the performance of Shanghai Port in the three indicators are particularly relevant to the indicators identified in
ESG aspects for the most recent year, 2021, and further discuss it. this study. For example, the trends in carbon emission intensity
The cross-sectional data is represented in Fig. 6. From Fig. 6, we and throughput energy consumption (Fig. 7a) are not encoura-
observe that Shanghai Port’s sustainable performance in the three ging. Possible reasons for these trends are as follows.
ESG aspects needs improvement and balance. Currently, govern-
ance responsibility performance is the best, followed by social (1) The implementation of energy-saving and emission-
responsibility performance, while there is room for improvement reduction measures faces significant obstacles. For instance,
in the environmental aspect. incorporating shore power technology in ports requires not
only infrastructural transformation but also the transfor-
Discussion of individual indicators. Further efforts are made to mation of ships to connect to the new power equipment.
focus on the empirical instances’ environmental responsibility This technology poses several technical challenges, such as
performance characteristics. Since the ratification of the Copen- power distribution, which must be addressed before
hagen Accord in 2010, Shanghai Port has been vigorously successful implementation. Consequently, implementing
transforming all aspects of its operations from port construction shore power requires a substantial amount of capital
to operation management, focusing on promoting environmental investment and multi-sectoral cooperation, which cannot
protection, energy conservation, and emission reduction. be achieved overnight. Currently, research is focused on
shore power policies and optimal subsidies (Yin et al.,
2020).
(2) China primarily relies on thermal power for electricity
Relative Weights

40.00% generation, making it difficult for technologies like shore

35.00% power and oil-to-power to significantly reduce the country’s
30.00% carbon emissions. However, these technologies can still
25.00% have a positive impact by reducing the emissions of various
20.00% 38.63% 36.30% pollutant gases and improving overall air quality. Instead of
15.00% 25.05%
10.00% solely focusing on individual technologies, China should
5.00% prioritize developing a diverse range of clean energy sources
0.00% to replace thermal power generation. This approach would
provide a more comprehensive solution to reducing carbon
emissions while also promoting sustainable development.
The social sustainability aspect of the study is illustrated by the
jobs indicator (Fig. 7b), which indicates a steady decline in
Category employment opportunities over the last decade, posing serious
concerns. This decline can be attributed to the adoption of
Fig. 4 Relative weights of environmental, social, and governance. The automation technology and the development of smart ports.
figure shows the relative weights of the environmental, social, and Although the trend towards automation and intelligent machines
governance categories in this case. is not unique to the port industry, it improves production

0.7

0.6
Evaluation Score

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year

Environment Society Governance Total

Fig. 5 Sustainability evaluation results. This figure shows the sustainability evaluation scores of the example. The environment, society, and governance
scores are marked with different colors, and the cumulative sustainability scores are marked with curves.

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4 11

ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

E efficiency and increases production capacity, ultimately benefiting

the firms economically. However, the societal impact of job
0.8 restructuring requires more attention from governments and
researchers. Possible strategies to mitigate this trend include
0.6 improving the quality of education for all and promoting careers
in science and technology innovation.

0.4
Conclusions
This paper analyzes the ESG reports of Chinese port enterprises to
0.2 evaluate their social responsibility. Using an ESG framework, the
study establishes indicators that represent the three dimensions of
0 environment, society, and governance for assessing the port’s
sustainable responsible governance performance. The study shows
that ESG reports are useful sources of information for monitoring
environmental, social, and economic impacts and identifying good
practices for whole-port development. This evaluation system
could be a foundation for more research on the application and
G S development of an ESG framework for the port industry.
Ports play a crucial role in modern sustainability frameworks
by contributing to sustainable development in various areas such
ESG cross-section in 2021 as the economy, environment, human health, social well-being,
and employment equity. ESG reports of port companies offer
Fig. 6 Radar chart of ESG performance cross-section in 2021. This figure valuable insights into their environmental, social, and governance
shows the cross-section data for the three ESG dimensions taken for the responsibility practices. Using quantitative indicators, the envir-
year 2021 to show the attainment in a radar chart. The values for each of onmental, social, and economic impacts of ports can be effectively
the three dimensions E, S, and G are obtained by dividing their evaluation monitored, thus enabling the identification of sustainable prac-
scores for the year 2021 by the weights of each category. tices that can be applied to promote whole-port development.

˄a˅The Trends of Carbon Emission Intensity and Throughput Energy Consumption

30

25
Value of index

20

15

10

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year

Carbon emission intensity Throughput energy consumption

(b) The Trend of Employment Offered

25000

20000
Value of index

15000

10000

5000

0
201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
Year

Employment offered

Fig. 7 Individual indicator trends. a The trends of carbon emission intensity and throughput energy consumption. b The trend of employment offered.
These Figures show some trends in individual indicators from 2010 to 2021. Figure a shows the trends of carbon emission intensity and throughput energy
consumption. Figure b shows the trend of employment offered.

12 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4 ARTICLE

This study has revealed a few issues in the ESG disclosure Cariou P, Fedi L, Dagnet F (2014) The new governance structure of French sea-
practices of Chinese port companies, such as inadequate parti- ports: an initial post-evaluation. Marit Policy Manag 41(5):430–443
cipation, inconsistent disclosure standards, and low-quality dis- Chen JH, Zhang WP, Song L, Wang YF (2022) The coupling effect between eco-
nomic development and the urban ecological environment in Shanghai port.
closures. To address these problems, it is essential for regulators Sci Total Environ 841:156734
to establish ESG disclosure policies and standards that are tai- Chen JH, Huang TC, Xie XK, Lee PTW, Hua CY (2019) Constructing governance
lored to the port industry. This will help to clarify the develop- framework of a green and smart port. J Mar Sci Eng 7(4):83
ment objectives of port companies and enhance the quality of Chen Z, Pak M (2017) A Delphi analysis on green performance evaluation indices
ESG disclosure, ultimately promoting sustainable ESG practices for ports in China. Marit Policy Manag 44(5):537–550
De Langen PW, Heij C (2014) Corporatisation and performance: a literature review
within the industry. and an analysis of the performance effects of the corporatisation of port of
Although this study provides valuable insights into the ESG Rotterdam authority. Transp Rev 34(3):396–414
disclosure practices of Chinese port enterprises and establishes a Deng Z, Li ZF, Zhou YT, Chen X, Liang SS (2020) Measurement and spatial
set of indicators for evaluating port sustainability, the lack of data spillover effects of port comprehensive strength: Empirical evidence from
limits the scope of analysis. Therefore, future research should aim China. Transp Policy 99:288–298
Derwall J, Guenster N, Bauer R, Koedijk K (2005) The eco-efficiency premium
to include a cross-sectional comparison of ports, which will puzzle. Financ Anal J 61(2):51–63
enable a more comprehensive understanding of the ESG practices Di Vaio A, Varriale L, Alvino F (2018) Key performance indicators for developing
in the industry. It is also crucial for the whole-port industry to environmentally sustainable and energy efficient ports: evidence from Italy.
strengthen its commitment to ESG and to develop more con- Energy Policy 122:229–240
sistent disclosure standards and policies. Moreover, the evalua- Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L (1995) Determining objective weights in
multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Comput Oper Res 22:763–770
tion system for port sustainability developed in this study should Dos Santos MC, Pereira FH (2022) ESG performance scoring method to support
be refined to better clarify the sustainable development objectives responsible investments in port operations. Case Stud Transp Policy
of the industry and promote the sustainable development of the 10(1):664–673
port and the region as a whole. By doing so, the port industry can Duque-Grisales E, Aguilera-Caracuel J (2021) Environmental, social and govern-
contribute more effectively to the sustainable development of the ance (ESG) scores and financial performance of multilatinas: moderating
effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack. J Bus
economy, environment, and society. Ethics 2:315–334
Feng L, Chen ZM, Chen HS (2022) Does the central environmental protection
inspectorate accountability system improve environmental quality? Sustain-
Data availability ability 14(11):6575
Ferrero-Ferrero I, Fernández-Izquierdo MA, Muñoz-Torres MJ (2017) The effect
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in of environmental, social and governance consistency on economic results.
this article and its supplementary information files. Sustainability 8(10):1005
Gupta AK, Gupta SK, Patil R (2005) Environmental management plan for port and
Received: 17 March 2023; Accepted: 28 November 2023; harbour projects. Clean Technol Environ Policy 7(2):133–141
Ha MH, Yang ZL, Notteboom T, Ng AKY, Heo MW (2017) Revisiting port perfor-
mance measurement: A hybrid multi-stakeholder framework for the modelling of
port performance indicators. Transp Res Part E: Logist Transp Rev 103:1–16
Hassel L, Nilsson H, Nyquist S (2005) The value relevance of environmental
Note performance. Eur Account Rev 14(1):41–61
1 In 2004, Kofi Anan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, invited 20 Hua CY, Chen JH, Wan Z, Xu L, Bai Y, Zheng TX, Fei YJ (2020) Evaluation and
financial institutions to prepare a report, Who Cares Wins, that introduced the governance of green development practice of port: a sea port case of China. J
concept of ESG (Li et al., 2021).
Clean Prod 249:119434
Huang SZ (2022) Greenwashing and Anti-Greenwashing on ESG Report. Finance
and Accounting Monthly 1:3–11
References Hughes A, Urban MA, Wójcik D (2021) Alternative ESG ratings: how technological
Acciaro M (2015) Corporate responsibility and value creation in the port sector. Int innovation is reshaping sustainable investment. Sustainability 13(6):3551
J Logist Res Appl 18(3):291–311 Junior ICL, de Oliveira UR, Guimaraes VD, Ribeiro LG, Fernandes VA (2022)
Adegbite E, Guney Y, Kwabi F, Tahir S (2019) Financial and corporate social Probabilistic analysis of the sustainable performance of container terminals.
performance in the UK listed firms: The relevance of non-linearity and lag Res Transp Bus Manag 43:100725
effects. Rev Quant Financ Account 1:105–158 Kocmanova A, Simberova I (2012) Modelling of corporategovernance performance
Alsayegh MF, Rahman RA, Homayoun S (2020) Corporate economic, environ- indicators. Inzinerine Ekon-Eng Econ 23(5):485–495
mental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG Konstantinos K, Nikas A, Daniil V, Kanellou E, Doukas H (2022) A multi-criteria
disclosure. Sustainability 12(9):3910 decision support framework for assessing seaport sustainability planning: the
Aregall MG, Bergqvist R, Monios J (2018) A global review of the hinterland case of Piraeus. Maritime Policy Manage. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.
dimension of green port strategies. Transp Res Part D 59:23–34 2022.2047815
Asgari N, Hassani A, Jones D, Nguye HH (2015) Sustainability ranking of the UK Krishnan AR, Kasim MM, Hamid R, Ghazali MF (2021) A modified CRITIC
major ports: Methodology and case study. Transp Res Part E: Logist Transp method to estimate the objective weights of decision criteria. Symmetry
Rev 78:19–39 13(6):973
Batalha E, Chen SL, Pateman H, Zhang W (2020) The meaning of corporate social Lam JSL, Li KX (2019) Green port marketing for sustainable growth and devel-
performance in seaports: the managers’ perspective. WMU J Marit Aff opment. Transp Policy 84:73–81
19:183–203 Lawer ET, Herbeck J, Flitner M (2019) Selective adoption: how port authorities in
Batalha E, Chen SL, Pateman H, Zhang W (2023) Defining a Social Role for Ports: Europe and West Africa engage with the globalizing ‘green port’ idea. Sus-
Managers’ Perspectives on Whats and Whys. Sustainability 15(3):2646 tainability 11(18):5119
Bjerkan KY, Seter H (2019) Reviewing tools and technologies for sustainable ports: Leins S (2020) Responsible investment’: ESG and the post-crisis ethical order. Econ
Does research enable decision making in ports? Transp Res Part D 72:243–260 Soc 49(1):71–91
Bottasso A, Conti M, Ferrari C, Tei A (2014) Ports and regional development: A Li T-T, Wang K, Sueyoshi T, Wang DRD (2021) ESG: research progress and future
spatial analysis on a panel of European regions. Transp Res Part A 65:44–55 prospects. Sustainability 13(21):11663
Bruna MG, Loprevite S, Raucci D, Ricca B, Rupo D (2022) Investigating the Lim S, Pettit S, Abouarghoub W, Beresford A (2019) Port sustainability and per-
marginal impact of ESG results on corporate financial performance. Financ formance: a systematic literature review. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ
Res Lett 47:102828 72:47–64
Busch T, Friede G (2018) The robustness of the corporate social and financial Lin WS, Liu W (2023) Resilience Evaluation of Ports along the Maritime Silk Road
performance relation: A second-order meta-analysis. Corp Soc Responsib from the Perspective of Investment and Construction. J Adv Transp
Environ Manag 25(4):583–608 2023:8818667
Caldeirinha VR, Felício JA, da Cunha SF, da Luz LM (2018) The nexus between Liu H, Lyu C (2022) Can ESG ratings stimulate corporate green innovation?
port governance and performance. Marit Policy Manag 45(7):877–892 Evidence from China. Sustainability 14(19):12516

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4 13

ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4

Liu T, Wang HY (2023) Evaluating the Service Capacity of Port-Centric Inter- Wang D, Huang J (2021) ESG theory and practice. Economy & Management
modal Transshipment Hub. J Mar Sci Eng 11(7):1403 Publishing House
Lu CS, Shang KC, Lin CC (2016) Examining sustainability performance at ports: Wen H, Ho KC, Gao JJ, Yu L (2022) The fundamental effects of ESG disclosure
port managers’ perspectives on developing sustainable supply chains. Marit quality in boosting the growth of ESG investing. J Int Financ Mark, Inst
Policy Manag 43(8):909–927 Money 81:101655
Mio C, Fasan M, Marcon C, Panfilo S (2020) The predictive ability of legitimacy Woo SH, Pettit SJ, Kwak DW, Beresford AKC (2011) Seaport research: A struc-
and agency theory after the implementation of the EU directive on non- tured literature review on methodological issues since the 1980s. Transp Res
financial information. Corp Soc Respoonsib Environ Manag 27(6):2465–2476 Part A: Policy Pract 45(7):667–685
Munim ZH, Saeed N, Larsen OI (2019) ‘Tool port’ to ‘landlord port’: a game theory Yang ZZ, He YZ, Zhu H, Notteboom T (2020) China’s investment in African ports:
approach to analyse gains from governance model transformation. Marit Spatial distribution, entry modes and investor profile. Res Transp Bus Manag
Policy Manag 46(1):43–60 37:100571
Noring L (2019) Public asset corporation: a new vehicle for urban regeneration and Yin M, Wang Y, Zhang Q (2020) Policy implementation barriers and economic
infrastructure finance. Cities 88:125–135 analysis of shore power promotion in China. Transp Res Part D 87:102506
Orlitzky M, Schmidt F, Rynes S (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: Zhu JH, Yang Q, Jiang J (2023) Identifying crucial deficiency categories influencing
a meta-analysis. Organ Stud 24(3):403–441 ship detention: A method of combining cloud model and prospect theory.
Paredes-Gazqueza JD, Rodriguez-Fernandez JM, de la Cuesta-Gonzalez M (2016) Reliab Eng Syst Saf 230:108949
Measuring corporate social responsibility using composite indices: mission
impossible? The case of the electricity utility industry. Rev de Contabilidad
19(1):142–153 Acknowledgements
Park JS, Seo Y-J (2016) The impact of seaports on the regional economies in South This article is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
Korea: Panel evidence from the augmented Solow model. Transp Res Part E 72372106).
85:107–119
Pavlic B, Cepak F, Sucic B, Peckaj M, Kandus B (2014) Sustainable port infra- Author contributions
structure, practical implementation of the green port concept. Therm Sci X.G.: data curation, conceptualization, writing original draft; Y.Z.: project administration,
18(3):935–948 supervision, writing review, and editing; J. Z.: data collection, writing review, and editing.
Qureshi MA, Akbar M, Akbar A, Poulova P (2021) Do ESG endeavors assist firms
in achieving superior financial performance? A case of 100 Best Corporate
Citizens. Sage Open 11(2):21582440211021598 Competing interests
Roh S, Thai VV, Jang H, Yeo GT (2023) The best practices of port sustainable The authors declare no competing interests.
development: a case study in Korea. Marit Policy Manag 50(2):254–280
Sahin O, Bax K, Paterlini S, Czado C (2022) The pitfalls of (non-definitive)
Environmental, Social, and Governance scoring methodology. Glob Financ J
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of
56:100780
the authors.
Sandberg H, Alnoor A, Tiberius V (2023) Environmental, social, and governance
ratings and financial performance: Evidence from the European food
industry. Bus Strategy Environ 32(4):2471–2489 Informed consent
Scholtens B (2014) Indicators of responsible investing. Ecol Indic 36:382–385 This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of
Schrobback P, Meath C (2020) Corporate sustainability governance: Insight from the authors.
the Australian and New Zealand port industry. J Clean Prod 255:120280
Styhre L, Winnes H, Black J, Lee J, Le-Griffin H (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions from
ships in ports – Case studies in four continents. Transp Res Part D 54:212–224 Additional information
Sun JS, Yuan Y, Yang R, Ji X, Wu J (2017) Performance evaluation of Chinese port Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material
enterprises under significant environmental concerns: An extended DEA- available at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4.
based analysis. Transp Policy 60:75–86
Tamimi N, Sebastianelli R (2017) Transparency among S&P 500 companies: An Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Yingjun Zhu.
analysis of ESG disclosure scores. Manag Decis 8:1660–1680
Tang H (2022) The effect of ESG performance on corporate innovation in China: The Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints
mediating role of financial constraints and agency cost. Sustainability 14(7):3769
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Tian Z (2007) A review of the theory of socially responsible investment. Econ
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Trends 12:88–92
Tsatsaronis, M, Syriopoulos T, Gavalas D, Boura G, Trakadas P, Gkorila M (2022)
The impact of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial perfor-
mance: an empirical study on shipping. Maritime Policy Manage. https://doi. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
org/10.1080/03088839.2022.2116658 Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
UNCTAD (1993) Sustainable development for ports. International Maritime adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
Organization (IMO), Geneva, http://unctad.org/en/Docs/sddport1_en.pdf appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
[Online] Available at Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
UNCTAD (2015) Review of maritime transport 2015. United Nations Publication material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
Wan CP, Zhang D, Yan XP, Yang ZL (2018) A novel model for the quantitative indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
evaluation of green port development—a case study of major ports in China. article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
Transp Res Part D 61:431–443 regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
Wang F, Xiong MH, Niu BZ, Zhuo XP (2018) Impact of government subsidy on the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/
BOT contract design: Price, demand, and concession period. Transp Res Part licenses/by/4.0/.
B 110:137–159
Wang YB, Ding WY, Dai L, Hu H, Jing DY (2021) How would government subsidize
the port on shore side electricity usage improvement? J Clean Prod 278:123893 © The Author(s) 2023

14 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:944 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02474-4