重污染企业绿色生产效率的测算、差异来源及其成因

Measurement,difference sources and causes of green production efficiency in heavily polluting enterprises

实现重污染行业高质量发展,不仅需要提升重污染行业整体绿色生产效率,也需要进一步缩小行业间企业绿色生产效率的差异。文章利用2010—2017年中国重污染行业上市公司数据,整理企业排污费作为非期望产出,借助超效率SBM-Malmquist指数测算企业绿色生产效率,并采用Dagum基尼系数、二阶段泰尔指数和QAP分析方法考察企业绿色生产效率的差异来源及其成因。研究发现:①企业间绿色生产效率差异较大,增长最快的企业年均增长63.47%,而降幅最快的企业年均下降17.53%;行业间分化态势亦十分显著,食品加工业年均增长率高达25.33%,而电力、蒸汽、热水的生产和供应业企业绿色生产效率年均下降3.14%,仅有色金属矿采选业、食品加工业实现了技术效率提升和技术进步的双轮驱动增长。②企业绿色生产效率总体差异呈现类“N”型变化趋势,从行业门类看,门类内差异是总体企业绿色生产效率差异的主要来源。进一步从行业大类分析,大类内差异对总体差异的平均贡献率高达72.93%。③上述差异从结构组成上看,缩小技术效率差异和技术进步差异有助于实现整体及不同行业门类企业绿色生产效率均衡发展。从内部治理因素上看,缩小企业间竞争地位、成长性和资产利用率差距是整体企业绿色生产效率均衡发展的重要途径,而扩大企业间盈利能力则有助于降低整体企业绿色生产效率差异。进一步研究发现,缩小企业间竞争地位是实现制造业企业绿色生产效率均衡发展的关键,而提高企业管理能力可降低采掘业企业绿色生产效率差异,差异化金融资产配置则有助于降低电力、煤气及水的生产和供应业企业绿色生产效率差异。因此有的放矢地制定重污染行业发展政策有助于行业内企业绿色生产效率的协同提升。

To achieve the high-quality development of heavily polluting industries,it is not only necessary to improve the overall green production efficiency of heavily polluting enterprises,but also to further narrow the differences in green production efficiency.Based on the data of the listed companies in China’s heavily polluting industries from 2010 to 2017,this paper collected the pollutant discharge fees of enterprises as the unexpected output and measured the green production efficiency of enterprises with the help of the super-efficiency SBM-Malmquist model. Furthermore,the paper used the Dagum Gini coefficient,the two-stage nested Theil decomposition method and QAP to investigate the difference sources and causes of the green production efficiency. The study found that:① There was a big difference in green production efficiency among enterprises,with the fastest annual growth rate being 63.47% and the fastest annual decline rate being 17.53%. The differentiation between industries was also very significant,with the annual growth rate of food processing industry being as high as 25.33%,while the green production efficiency in the enterprises of production and supply of electricity,steam and hot water decreased by 3.14% annually. Only the non-ferrous metal mining and dressing industry,and the food processing industry realized double growth in efficiency improvement and technological progress.②The overall difference in green production efficiency showed a similar‘N’-shaped change trend. From the perspective of industry categories,difference within industry categories was the main difference source of green production efficiency. Further segmenting the industries,this study found that the average contribution rate of differences within sub-industries to the overall difference was as high as 72.93%.③ From the perspective of structural composition,narrowing the difference between EC and TC was helpful to realize the balanced development of green production efficiency on the whole and among different industries. From the perspective of internal governance factors,narrowing the differences in the PCM,GROW and AUR was an important way to balance the development of green production efficiency,while enlarging the difference of PROF would help to reduce the overall difference of green production efficiency. Further research found that narrowing the difference in the PCM was the key to achieving the balanced development of green production efficiency in manufacturing enterprises,while enlarging the difference of MA could reduce the difference of green production efficiency of mining enterprises.The differentiation of FIN was helpful to reduce the difference of green production efficiency of enterprises in the production and supply of electricity,gas and water. Therefore,the targeted formulation of development policies for heavily polluting industries is conducive to the coordinated improvement of green production efficiency.