Interactions and Co-Governance Policies of Stakeholders in the Carbon Emission Reduction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Research Design
3.1. Construction of Evaluation Indicators System
3.2. Evaluation Model Building
3.3. Data Investigation and Test
3.4. Model Fit
4. Empirical Results and Analysis
4.1. Relations Evaluation of Latent Variables
- (1)
- The influence coefficients of Government (F1), Manufacturing Enterprises (F2), R&D Organizations (F3), Energy Supply Industry (F4), and Financial Institutions (F5) to the Carbon-reduction intensity (F0) are 0.881, 0.908, 0.624, 0.691 and 0.313, respectively. This finding implies that when the influence of Government (F1), Manufacturing Enterprises (F2), R&D Organizations (F3), Energy Supply Industry (F4), and Financial Institutions (F5) on Carbon-reduction intensity (F6) is up to 1%, the Carbon-reduction intensity (F0) would be strengthened by 0.881%, 0.908%, 0.624%, 0.691%, and 0.313%, respectively. Notably, the influence of every stakeholder on carbon-reduction intensity varies. We can see that the influence coefficients of Financial Institutions (F5) to the Carbon-reduction intensity (F0) are the lowest. This may be one of the reasons why China’s carbon finance policy is imperfect, green financial products are not rich enough, and the support of financial institutions for carbon emission reduction is not currently visible [8,9].
- (2)
- In carbon emission reduction activities, the influence coefficients of Government (F1) to Manufacturing Enterprises (F2), R&D Organizations (F3), Energy Supply Industry (F4), and Financial Institutions (F5) are 0.702, 0.517, 0.739, and 0.767, respectively, thereby indicating that when the influence of Government (F1) on Manufacturing Enterprises (F2), R&D Organizations (F3), Energy Supply Industry (F4), and Financial Institutions (F5) is up to 1%, Manufacturing Enterprises (F2), R&D Organizations (F3), Energy Supply Industry (F4), and Financial Institutions (F5) in the reducing carbon emissions would be strengthened by 0.702%, 0.517%, 0.739%, and 0.767%, respectively.
- (3)
- Manufacturing enterprises are the source of carbon emissions. The influence coefficients of Government (F1), R&D Organizations (F3), Energy Supply Industry (F4), and Financial Institutions (F5) to Manufacturing Enterprises (F2) are 0.702, 0.574, 0.872, and 0.467, respectively, thereby indicating that when the influence of Government (F1), R&D Organizations (F3), Energy Supply Industry (F4), and Financial Institutions (F5) on Manufacturing Enterprises (F2) are enhanced by 1%, Manufacturing Enterprises (F2) in the reduction carbon emissions are enhanced by 0.702%, 0.574%, 0.872%, and 0.467%, respectively.
4.2. Influence Analysis of the Observed Variables on Latent Variables
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- 1.
- You are:
- 2.
- How many years have you been working?
- 3.
- Highest level of education you have completed:
- 4.
- Your professional title:
- 5.
- Your employer:
Number | Questionnaires Subjects | Your Choice | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | Government should undertake the responsibilities and obligations in carbon emission reduction activities. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X2 | Government has the power and strategy to reduce carbon emissions, and its position is suitable. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X3 | Government urgently wants to achieve the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X4 | Government’s interest requirements are consistent with the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X5 | Government supports towards achieving the targets of the carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X6 | Manufacturing enterprises should undertake the responsibilities and obligations in carbon emission reduction activities. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X7 | Manufacturing enterprises have the power and strategy to reduce carbon emissions, and their position is suitable. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X8 | Manufacturing enterprises urgently want to achieve the targets of the carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X9 | Manufacturing enterprises’ interest requirements are consistent with the targets of the carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X10 | Manufacturing enterprises support towards achieving the targets of the carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X11 | R&D Organizations should undertake the responsibilities and obligations in carbon emission reduction activities. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X12 | R&D Organizations have the power and strategy to reduce carbon emissions, and their position is suitable. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X13 | R&D Organizations urgently want to achieve the targets of the carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X14 | R&D Organizations’ interest requirements are consistent with the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X15 | R&D Organizations support towards achieving the targets of the carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X16 | Energy Supply Industry should undertake the responsibilities and obligations in carbon emission reduction activities. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X17 | Energy Supply Industry has the power and strategy to reduce carbon emissions, and its position is suitable. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X18 | Energy Supply Industry urgently wants to achieve the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X19 | Energy Supply Industry’ interest requirements are consistent with the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X20 | Energy Supply Industry supports towards achieving the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X21 | Financial Institutions should undertake the responsibilities and obligations in carbon emission reduction activities. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X22 | Financial Institutions have the power and strategy to reduce carbon emissions, and their position is suitable. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X23 | Financial Institutions urgently want to achieve the targets of the carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X24 | Financial Institutions’ interest requirements are consistent with the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X25 | Financial Institutions support towards achieving the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X26 | China can achieve the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X27 | China has the urgency to achieve the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
X28 | China will benefit from achieving the targets of carbon emission reduction. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
References
- Lim, A.M.R.T.; Saedah, S.; Zulkipli, G. An ISM approach for managing critical stakeholder issues regarding carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment in developing Asian countries. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6618. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, J.C.; Mitchell, L.; Crosman, E.; Mendoza, D.L.; Buchert, M.; Bares, R.; Fasoli, B.; Bowling, D.R.; Pataki, D.; Catharine, D.; et al. CO2 and carbon emissions from cities: Linkages to air quality, socioeconomic activity, and stakeholders in the salt lake city urban Area. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2018, 99, 2325–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rob, B.; Mathias, F.; Javier, L.; James, P.; Rodriguez, E.; Adrian, L.; Anders, H.; Stefan, G.; Simon, H. Incentivising bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) responsibly: Comparing stakeholder policy preferences in the United Kingdom and Sweden. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 116, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
- Moon, W.-K.; Kahlor, L.A.; Olson, H.C. Understanding public support for carbon capture and storage policy: The roles of social capital, stakeholder perceptions, and perceived risk/benefit of technology. Energy Policy 2020, 139, 111312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Somaiya, Y.; Elijido-Ten, E.O.; Subhash, A. Impact of stakeholder pressure on the adoption of carbon management strategies: Evidence from Australia. Sustain. Acc. Manag. Policy J. 2020, 11, 1189–1212. [Google Scholar]
- Hao, L.N.; Umar, M.; Khan, Z.; Ali, W. Green growth and low carbon emission in G7 countries: How critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and human capital is? Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 752, 141853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, M. Locating the Principal Sectors for Carbon Emission Reduction on the Global Supply Chains by the Methods of Complex Network and Susceptible–Infective Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Wang, J. Spatial spillover effect of carbon emission trading on carbon emission reduction: Empirical data from pilot regions in China. Energy 2022, 251, 123906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, J.; Cao, J. Carbon Emission Reduction Effects of Green Credit Policies: Empirical Evidence From China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 798072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canal, V.L.; Mariolina, L.; Mura, M. Are the European manufacturing and energy sectors on track for achieving net-zero emissions in 2050? An empirical analysis. Energy Policy 2021, 156, 112464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, G.; Zhen, H.; Tong, L.; Dai, Y. Does carbon financial market as an environmental regulation policy tool promote regional energy conservation and emission reduction? Empirical evidence from China. Energy Policy 2022, 163, 112826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhishuang, Z.; Hua, L.; Li, L. The role of public energy R&D in energy conservation and transition: Experiences from IEA countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110978. [Google Scholar]
- Huaping, S.; Love, E.; Augustine, M.; Khoa, T.D.; Ehsan, R.; Farhad, T.H. The long-run effects of trade openness on carbon emissions in sub-Saharan African countries. Energies 2020, 13, 5295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Wang, J.; Shi, J. Can China meet its 2020 economic growth and carbon emissions reduction targets? J. Cleaner Prod. 2017, 142, 993–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhammad, S.; Xu, D.; Avik, S.; Zubair, M.M.; Nudrat, F. The dynamic nexus among financial development, renewable energy and carbon emissions: Moderating roles of globalization and institutional quality across BRI countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 343, 130995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huaping, S.; Hu, L.; Geng, Y.; Yang, G. Uncovering impact factors of carbon emissions from transportation sector: Evidence from China’s Yangtze River Delta Area. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2020, 25, 1423–1437. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, R.; Cheng, S.; Zuo, X.; Liu, Y. Optimal management of multi stakeholder integrated energy system considering dual incentive demand response and carbon trading mechanism. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021, 46, 6246–6263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiang, W.; Xinyu, H.; Rongrong, L. Does technical progress curb India’s carbon emissions? A novel approach of combining extended index decomposition analysis and production-theoretical decomposition analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 310, 114720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, W.; Jun, Z.Y. Does China’s carbon emissions trading scheme affect the market power of high-carbon enterprises? Energy Econ. 2022, 108, 105906. [Google Scholar]
- Jabir, A.; Vaseem, A.; Muqbil, B. Does economic complexity lead to global carbon emissions convergence? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, T.; Rui, Z.; Biao, H. The carbon emission reduction effect of tourism economy and its formation mechanism: An empirical study of China’s 92 tourism-dependent cities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glanz, S.; Schönauer, L. Towards a low-carbon society via hydrogen and carbon capture and storage: Social acceptance from a stakeholder perspective. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2021, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansoff, H.I. Corporate Strategy; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Blair, J.D.; Rock, T.T.; Rotarius, T.M.; Fottler, M.D.; Bosse, G.C.; Driskill, J.M. The problematic fit of diagnosis and strategy for medical group stakeholders including IDS/Ns. Health Care Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarkson, M.E. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 92–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, R.K.; Cohen, B. Stakeholder theory and the entrepreneurial firm. J. Small Bus. Strategy 2006, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, R.K.; Agle, B.R.; Wood, D.J. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really Counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 853–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman: Boston, MA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Carlos, C.-F.; Yuliya, S.; Pascual, B.; Enric, R.J. The stakeholder value proposition of digital platforms in an urban ecosystem. Res. Policy 2022, 51, 104488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harjoto, M.A.; Hoepner, A.G.; Qian, L. A stakeholder resource-based view of corporate social irresponsibility: Evidence from China. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 144, 830–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumarasiri, J. Stakeholder pressure on carbon emissions: Strategies and the use of management accounting. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 24, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, Z.; Liu, B. Analysis on carbon emission reduction strategy and potential based on stakeholder groups—A case study of Suzhou. Chin. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 10, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
- Cherepovitsyn, A.E.; Ilinova, A.A.; Evseeva, O.O. Stakeholders management of carbon sequestration project in the state—Business—Society system. J. Min. Inst. 2019, 240, 731–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amiraslani, F. Rising to the top ten transformative projects in Asia and the Pacific: A stakeholder analysis of the community-based carbon sequestration project in Eastern Iran. Proj. Leadersh. Soc. 2021, 2, 100030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jian-Min, W.; Chuan-Xu, W.; Li, Y. Definition and classification of carbon emissions reduction stakeholders in China. J. Anhui Univ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 16, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
- Feliciano, D.; Sobenes, A. Stakeholders’ perceptions of factors influencing climate change risk in a Central America hotspot. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2022, 22, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christopher, D.; AbiElias Ivan, H.; Quinn Charlene, C.; Adams Alyce, S.; Magaziner Jay, S.; Ito, K.; Paavani, J.; Gurwitz Jerry, H.; Mazor Kathleen, M. Stakeholders’ views on priorities essential for establishing a supportive environment for clinical trials in nursing homes. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2022, 70, 950–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhanda Kanwalroop, K.; Joseph, S.; Dhavale Dileep, G. Institutional and stakeholder effects on carbon mitigation strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 31, 782–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, H.; Zheng, S.; Adams, J.; Jaggi, B. The effect stakeholders have on voluntary carbon disclosure within Chinese business organizations. Carbon Manag. 2020, 11, 455–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juhari, S.K.; Omar, D.B.; Leh, O.L.H.; Kamarudin, S.M.; Marzukhi, M.A. The readiness of the stakeholders in the implementation of low carbon cities framework (Lccf) in an urban Area: Methodology of research. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 385, 012071. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, Y.; Li, Y.; Cai, B.-F.; Li, Q. Comparing the explicit and implicit attitudes of energy stakeholders and the public towards carbon capture and storage. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huaping, S.; Kofi, E.B.; Kwaku, K.A.; Asumadu, S.S.; Farhad, T.-H. Energy efficiency: The role of technological innovation and knowledge spillover. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 167, 120659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herold, D.M.; Farr-Wharton, B.; Lee, K.-H.; Groschopf, W. The interaction between institutional and stakeholder pressures: Advancing a framework for categorising carbon disclosure strategies. Bus. Strat. Dev. 2019, 2, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jianmin, W.; Li, Y. Does factor endowment allocation improve technological innovation performance? An empirical study on the Yangtze River Delta region. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 716, 137107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, Z.; Li, J.; Ceng, H. Research on the impact of political and economic stakeholders on corporate carbon performance—An Empirical Analysis Based on Chinese Listed Companies. J. Yunnan Univ. Fin. Econ. 2020, 36, 72–88. [Google Scholar]
- Charef, R. Supporting construction stakeholders with the circular economy: A trans-scaler framework to understand the holistic approach. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 8, 100454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huaping, S.; Pofoura, A.K.; Mensah, I.A.; Li, L.; Mohsin, M. The role of environmental entrepreneurship for sustainable development: Evidence from 35 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 741, 140132. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Sekei, V.S.; Ganiyu, S.A.; Makwetta, J.J. Research on the Sustainability of the Standard Gauge Railway Construction Project in Tanzania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E. Divergent stakeholder theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 233–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmoudian, F.; Lu, J.; Dongning, Y.; Nazari, J.A.; Herremans, I.M. Inter- and intra-organizational stakeholder arrangements in carbon management accounting. Br. Acc. Rev. 2020, 53, 100933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penz, E.; Polsa, P. How do companies reduce their carbon footprint and how do they communicate these measures to stakeholders? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1125–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weimin, J.; Michael, C.; Jiajing, S.; Shouyang, W. Innovation, carbon emissions and the pollution haven hypothesis: Climate capitalism and global re-interpretations. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 307, 114465. [Google Scholar]
- Nunally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Zhonglin, W.; Kittai, H.; Marsh, H.W. Structural equation model testing: Cutoff criteria for goodness of fit indices and chi-square test. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2004, 36, 186–194. [Google Scholar]
- Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: Apractical Information—Theoretical Approach, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
Latent Variables | Observed Variables |
---|---|
Government (F1) | The level of undertaking responsibilities and obligations of government in carbon emission reduction activities (X1); |
Having the power and strategy of government to reduce the carbon emissions and to determine whether this position is suitable (X2); | |
The degree of urgency of the government to achieve the target of carbon emission reduction (X3); | |
The extent of consistency of interest requirements of government with the target of carbon emission reduction (X4); | |
The degree of support of the government to achieve the target of carbon emission reduction (X5); | |
Manufacturing Enterprises (F2) | The size of undertaking responsibilities and obligations of manufacturing enterprises in carbon emission reduction activities (X6); |
Having the power and strategy of manufacturing enterprises to reduce the carbon emissions, (X7); | |
The degree of urgency of manufacturing enterprises to achieve the target of carbon emission reduction (X8); | |
The extent of consistency of interest requirements of manufacturing enterprises with the target of carbon emission reduction (X9); | |
The degree of support of manufacturing enterprises to achieve the target of carbon emission reduction (X10); | |
R&D Organizations (F3) | The size of undertaking responsibilities and obligations of R&D organizations in carbon emission reduction activities (X11); |
Having the power and strategy of R&D organizations to reduce the carbon emissions and to determine whether their position is suitable (X12) | |
The degree of urgency of R&D organizations to achieve the target of carbon emission reduction (X13); | |
The extent of consistency of interest requirements of R&D organizations with the targets of carbon emission reduction (X14); | |
The degree of support of R&D organizations to achieve the target of carbon emission reduction (X15); | |
Energy Industry (F4) | The size of undertaking responsibilities and obligations of the energy industry in carbon emission reduction activities (X16); |
Having the power and strategy of energy industry to reduce the carbon emissions and to determine whether their position is suitable (X17); | |
The degree of urgency of energy industry to achieve the targets of carbon emission reduction (X18); | |
The extent of consistency of interest requirements of energy industry with the target of carbon emission reduction (X19); | |
The degree of support of energy supply industry to achieve the target of carbon emission reduction (X20); | |
Financial Institutions (F5) | The size of undertaking responsibilities and obligations of financial institutions in carbon emission reduction activities (X21); |
Having the power and strategy of financial institutions to reduce the carbon emissions and to determine whether their position is suitable (X22); | |
The degree of urgency of financial institutions to achieve the target of carbon emission reduction (X23); | |
The extent of consistency of interest requirements of financial institutions with the target of carbon emission reduction (X24); | |
The degree of support of financial institutions to achieve the target of carbon emission reduction (X25); | |
Carbon-reduction intensity (F0) | The degree of realization of China’s target of carbon emission reduction (X26); |
The urgency for China to achieve the target of carbon emission reduction (X27) | |
The significance of achieving the target of carbon emission reduction (X28) |
Evaluation Indicators | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 | Factor 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 0.646 | |||||
X2 | 0.809 | |||||
X3 | 0.783 | |||||
X4 | 0.676 | |||||
X5 | 0.692 | |||||
X6 | 0.838 | |||||
X7 | 0.603 | |||||
X8 | 0.847 | |||||
X9 | 0.833 | |||||
X10 | 0.846 | |||||
X11 | 0.761 | |||||
X12 | 0.651 | |||||
X13 | 0.689 | |||||
X14 | 0.706 | |||||
X15 | 0.759 | |||||
X16 | 0.714 | |||||
X17 | 0.755 | |||||
X18 | 0.810 | |||||
X19 | 0.829 | |||||
X20 | 0.816 | |||||
X21 | 0.643 | |||||
X22 | 0.792 | |||||
X23 X24 | 0.788 | |||||
X24 | 0.757 | |||||
X25 | 0.703 | |||||
X26 | 0.841 | |||||
X27 | 0.605 | |||||
X28 | 0.738 | |||||
Eigenvalue | 12.317 | 5.015 | 3.467 | 1.562 | 1.271 | 1.018 |
Variance (%) | 43.513 | 17.285 | 11.868 | 6.094 | 5.055 | 3.206 |
Cumulative (%) | 43.513 | 60.798 | 72.666 | 78.76 | 83.815 | 87.021 |
Model | CMIN | DF | CMIN/DF | CFI | RMR | GFI | AGFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Default model | 1106.341 | 383 | 2.889 | 0.907 | 0.038 | 0.927 | 0.826 | 0.058 |
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F0 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 0.847 | |||||
X2 | 0.703 | |||||
X3 | 0.960 | |||||
X4 | 0.942 | |||||
X5 | 0.536 | |||||
X6 | 0.766 | |||||
X7 | 0.629 | |||||
X8 | 0.770 | |||||
X9 | 0.797 | |||||
X10 | 0.848 | |||||
X11 | 0.598 | |||||
X12 | 0.640 | |||||
X13 | 0.834 | |||||
X14 | 0.808 | |||||
X15 | 0.313 | |||||
X16 | 0.379 | |||||
X17 | 0.527 | |||||
X18 | 0.860 | |||||
X19 | 0.921 | |||||
X20 | 0.798 | |||||
X21 | 0.512 | |||||
X22 | 0.611 | |||||
X23 | 0.873 | |||||
X24 | 0.910 | |||||
X25 | 0.828 | |||||
X26 | 0.594 | |||||
X27 | 0.774 | |||||
X28 | 0.765 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Dong, Z. Interactions and Co-Governance Policies of Stakeholders in the Carbon Emission Reduction. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105891
Wang Y, Wang J, Dong Z. Interactions and Co-Governance Policies of Stakeholders in the Carbon Emission Reduction. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):5891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105891
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Yuhao, Jianmin Wang, and Zhongbing Dong. 2022. "Interactions and Co-Governance Policies of Stakeholders in the Carbon Emission Reduction" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 5891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105891