专访 | 王连升：“纸面承诺与实质责任：标准化CSR/ESG治理方案”

专访| 王连升：“纸面承诺与实质责任：标准化CSR/ESG治理方案”

编者按：在全球可持续发展议程与中国“双碳”战略深度交融的当下，ESG与CSR已成为企业必答题。然而，投资者手里的评分越来越高，供应链最深处的劳工和排放问题却依旧触目惊心。“纸面责任”与“实质责任”之间的鸿沟，正成为全球可持续发展议程最大的信用赤字。带着“标准化如何穿透迷思”“中国智慧如何贡献全球治理”等深层追问，本刊深度专访了以“标准制定—企业实践—学术研究—国际合作”四位一体模式深耕行业多年的研究者与实践者——中国电子工业标准化技术协会社会责任工作委员会战略合作部部长、研究员王连升。

个人简介：王连升，现任中国电子工业标准化技术协会社会责任工作委员会战略合作部部长、研究员，全球电子协会亚洲可持续发展委员会副主席，中国绿色供应链联盟绿色金融专委会创始委员兼副秘书长，广东省企业可持续发展研究会企业社会责任专委会副会长，北京ESG研究院专家，瑞典国家外交部CSR与可持续发展特邀访问学者。主导编制了SJ/T 16000《电子信息行业社会责任指南》等行业关键标准，连续六年主导“中国电子信息行业企业社会责任治理水平评测”，累计覆盖两千余家企业。构建了以“责任闭环”为哲学本体论、“价值沉默”为战略方法论、“CSR为魂，ESG为体”为价值论的完整思想体系，发表全球政产学研用社会责任实践应用研究400余篇。

一、思想体系之源：“CSR为魂，ESG为体”的深层逻辑

记者：王老师，您在行业内外最被熟知的标签是SJ/T 16000系列标准的主要起草人，但很多人更想知道的是，您推动这些标准背后的顶层思考是什么？您曾提出“CSR为魂，ESG为体”的核心论断，二者之间究竟该是什么关系？

王连升：坦率地说，我观察到当前业界对ESG的理解普遍存在一种“技术化迷思”，—企业忙于计算碳排放指标、编制冗长的披露报告，却渐渐忘记了这些工作的根本目的是什么。许多企业的ESG实践是被资本市场倒逼出来的，关注的是如何填报表、如何获得更高评级，而忽略了企业究竟要为社会创造什么价值。更糟糕的是，传统的CSR往往被窄化为慈善捐赠或公益项目，游离于核心业务之外，最终沦为营销话术。所以我提出“CSR为魂，ESG为体”这个辩证关系，CSR回答了“我们为什么要做”，为战略提供价值导向和温度；ESG为价值落地提供可量化的框架和标尺。魂体相融，方能同频共生。

记者：您将CSR定位为“魂”，ESG定位为“体”，是否有些“重C轻E”的嫌疑？在当前资本市场环境中，E（环境）议题吸引了绝大多数注意力，您的理论会不会反而削弱了企业对环保行动的投入？

王连升：这个问题很有洞察力，恰恰需要我进一步阐明。很多人误以为“CSR为魂”意味着把CSR放在凌驾于ESG之上的位置，其实不然——这是一体两面、相互嵌入的关系。E（环境）议题之所以在资本市场中获得更多关注，是因为它最容易量化、最容易与财务风险建立传导链条；但这绝不意味着S（社会）和G（治理）不重要，恰恰相反，它们是企业能够持续践行环保使命的组织基础和人力资源保障。

在“责任闭环”模型中，E、S、G三者之间是相互嵌入、彼此生成的有机关系：卓越的治理（G）是基石，为环境绩效（E）和社会价值（S）提供制度保障；优异的环境表现（E）能反哺治理韧性并赋能社会资本；良好的社会关系（S）则构成可持续发展所需的人力资本和信任基础。把E抽离出来孤立看待，正是当前许多企业“为了减碳而减碳”、却忽视了员工培训、社区对话等“隐性成本”投入的根本原因。

打个比方：一家工厂为了降低碳足迹斥巨资安装了光伏屋顶，但与此同时还在压榨工人的加班时间、延迟发放工资、逃避安全培训投入，这家企业的减碳成果能持续多久？无法长期维持。人与环境是并存的，试图跨越“人的不公平”去解决“环境危机”，最终会落入“公正转型”的悖论之中。所以，“CSR为魂”不是弱化E的权重，而是把E放回企业作为社会组织应当承担的完整责任图景中去理解。

二、“价值沉默”：反直觉的战略方法论与“纸面责任”批判

记者：您在2026年初提出的“价值沉默”概念最近被广泛讨论，甚至还遭到了一些误读，有人把它理解为“不做宣传”，也有人把它视为中国传统文化中“韬光养晦”的商业翻版。您能否澄清一下这个概念的真正意涵？

王连升：“价值沉默”确实容易被误读，这一点我很清楚。它不是“不做事”，更不是“低调避祸”，而是一种战略定力，把有限的注意力资源从高调的“表达”转移到扎实的“行动”上去。“价值沉默”包含三个层次：一是在议题方向不明朗时的“观察性沉默”，用深度研究把不确定性转化为确定性；二是在取得阶段性成果时的“谦抑性沉默”，避免公众的“动机性质疑”，用时间积累信任厚度；三是核心的“积累性沉默”，将资源导向实质性价值创造本身，构筑难以复制的结构性优势。

为什么必须强调这一点？因为我看到了ESG实践中令我触目惊心的三种“责任表演”，我称之为“符号合规”“评级驱动”和“风险隔离”。

先说“符号合规”。很多企业做ESG的本质是“报告即尽责”，发一本厚厚的报告，全是“我们致力于”“我们承诺”“我们计划”，但真正可量化、可验证、有追溯机制的实质性行动少之又少。你追问一级供应商之外的第二级、第三级供应商是谁，他们往往只能回答你三个字，“收集中”。这个状态在有些企业的报告里已经保持了四年。这就是“纸面责任”的第一层表现。

“评级驱动”则更隐蔽。企业专门成立团队研究评级模型的权重，分数上去了，碳排放没下来。最大的危害是，它给了企业一个自我正当化的借口：评分那么高，难道还不能说明我们负责任吗？但评级机构的逻辑与供应链实质责任之间存在一个根本性的裂缝——你可以在问卷上勾选“我们有供应商行为准则”并得分，但这份准则在实际采购订单里执行了没有，不扣分。信息披露越来越丰富，评级越来越高，工人仍在加班、废水仍在排放，这就是当前最大的悖论。

“风险隔离”则是跨国公司最常见的手法，让供应商签一份行为准则，一旦出事，那“都是供应商的独立行为”。这是利用合同做了一道“防火墙”，把真正的责任挡在了品牌方的大门外。真正的责任没有被履行，它只是被转移了。

所以，“价值沉默”的战略方法论并非教企业不去对话，而是让企业把精力从“报告上的喧嚣”转向“行动上的夯实”。当所有企业都在讲述相似的ESG故事时，故事本身就不再是差异化优势。真正的护城河在于那些“看不见”的能力，可追溯的供应链体系、可验证的数据管理系统、全员认同的责任文化。

三、SJ/T 16000的进化：标准化作为穿透“纸面责任”的手术刀

记者：我们回到标准本身。《电子信息行业社会责任指南》SJ/T 16000-2026版较之2016版实现了诸多突破，新增了乡村振兴、数据安全与隐私保护、女性权益与发展、碳达峰碳中和等议题，并将“资源节约与环境保护”升格为“绿色发展”、“供应链合作”拓展为“产业链供应链”。这些变化背后是怎样的一种标准哲学？

王连升：这些变化不是简单的议题增补，而是社会责任从“点”到“面”的认知跃迁。“资源节约与环境保护”到“绿色发展”，是从“合规达标”走向“引领转型”，企业不再只是被要求“少做坏事”，更被期待“多做对事”；“供应链合作”到“产业链供应链”，是从“点对点协作”走向“生态系统治理”。电子信息行业的竞争已经不再是企业间的单点竞争，而是产业链、供应链、创新链的系统竞争。

最关键的变化是我们新增了两个资料性附录，与联合国2030可持续发展目标的对照表，以及与上市公司可持续发展报告指引的对照表。这一设计的重要意义在于为企业提供了“翻译工具”和“导航地图”，把SJ/T 16000的条款与SDGs逐一对应，使中国企业的社会责任实践能在国际对话中找到“共同语言”。

我可以明确地说：这套框架不只是中国的标准，它正在成为一种跨文化的“信任语言”。

记者：您主导的行业评测已经覆盖了两千余家企业。从这些海量数据中，您看到的行业整体责任水平是什么状态？

王连升：坦白说，两极分化非常严重。头部企业治理相对成熟，但中小企业普遍存在能力瓶颈。最大的问题不是“不做”，而是“不会做”，缺乏可操作的行动框架和可接入的能力建设资源。因此SJ/T 16000专门考虑了中小企业的可落地性，而不是一个高高在上的“精英标准”。标准的生命力不在于“高标准”，而在于“可落地”。

四、绿色供应链与责任溯源：穿透“三层供应商”的信任工程

记者：您最近一个非常引人注目的论断是“真正的竞争力不在评级分数里，而在信任穿透力中”。在电子信息行业高度全球化、多层化的供应链体系中，这种“穿透力”从何而来？

王连升：这是我从实践中摸索出的核心命题。大家要明白：在一个多层全球供应链中，品牌方很多时候对第三级、第四级供应商的状况一无所知。但那一级的工厂，恰恰可能存在超时加班、童工雇佣或环境污染等实质性风险。信息技术企业与生俱来的数据管理优势，恰恰是解决这个责任溯源难题的天然钥匙。工业互联网、物联网追踪、数据中台、区块链，这些技术工具完全可能被改造为“责任溯源”的基础设施。每一件产品所关联的碳排放、用工合规记录，是可被精准记录并验证的。

真正的竞争力不是评级机构给你打个高分，而是整个市场，从客户到消费者到监管机构——在行使购买权时，发自内心地认为：“这家公司无论在哪里运作，它的运行方式都是公平的、透明可控的。”这才是“信任穿透力”的本质。

记者：您在绿色供应链实践中与联合国妇女署长期合作，推动女性职工职业发展项目。这个项目与“责任溯源”之间是什么关系？为什么在供应链责任工程中特别强调女性权益？

王连升：责任供应链的表面问题，超时加班、安全缺失、环保不达标，本质上往往与治理结构失衡高度相关。而女性在职场的权益保障和职业发展，恰恰是最能反映一家企业治理质量的指标之一。如果一个企业的女性员工长期得不到公平的升职加薪机会，我们很难相信这家企业会认真对待环保合规或数据安全。基于这个洞察，自2020年以来，我们与联合国妇女署在广东省持续开展女性职工发展项目，推动女性职工安全健康与同等就业升职加薪事宜，推动女性职工职业发展与企业社会责任治理水平同步提升。

五、TISFD、CBAM与资本的转向：中国电子信息企业的“出海”考验

记者：2025年5月26日，TISFD发布了披露框架0.1试用版。这被视为继TCFD、TNFD之后全球可持续信息披露体系的“最后一块拼图”。您如何解读这一事件对中国电子信息行业的影响？

王连升：TISFD的问世具有深刻的时代意义。它的核心逻辑是将“不平等”这一传统上被视为公共政策议题的问题，纳入企业财务披露的核心议程。过去，企业谈论薪酬公平、劳工权益、社区关系时往往是“企业社会责任”的道德叙事，这是“应该做的事”；TISFD的颠覆性在于：它要求企业将这些议题视为“必须管理的事”，因为它们会影响财务表现。更重要的是，TISFD框架在结构上与TCFD、TNFD对齐，使企业能够在同一个概念架构下整合气候、自然和社会三重议题的披露。这对电子信息行业尤其重要，因为该行业既是碳排放大户，又是高度依赖劳动密集型供应链的行业，同时还深度消耗稀有矿物和自然资源，三重系统性风险叠加，信息披露的要求只会越来越高、越来越细。

记者：2026年1月1日，欧盟碳边境调节机制正式进入实质性征收阶段。这对中国电子信息产业的出口造成了哪些实质冲击？企业应如何应对这种“绿色贸易壁垒”？

王连升：冲击是多维度的。首先，CBAM要求出口欧盟的产品必须申报生产过程中的碳排放量并承担相应碳成本，碳价与欧盟碳交易市场挂钩；其次，中国碳市场与欧盟碳价存在近十倍的差距，且目前欧盟不认可在中国支付的碳成本进行抵扣；第三，CBAM会不断扩容，预计2028年起钢铁和铝密集型下游产品将纳入覆盖范围，这将波及更多电子信息类产品。更难应付的是，CBAM正在变成全球趋势，英国将在2027年跟进推出本国CBAM，美国、加拿大、日本等也在积极研究类似机制。出口产品的合规门槛已从“价格、质量、交期”扩大至“碳排放透明度与减碳能力”。

记者：面对这种合规环境，SJ/T 16000框架如何帮助电子信息企业应对？

王连升：SJ/T 16000新版专门设立了“绿色发展”和“产业链供应链”两大核心主题，并要求企业制定碳减排行动计划。对电子信息企业而言，TISFD和CBAM本质上是同一枚硬币的两面——前者要求企业量化社会影响与依赖关系，后者要求企业量化碳足迹；二者叠加，要求企业将可持续性从“成本管理工具”提升至“战略治理高度”。我们的标准框架正是帮助企业在这两个维度同步构建能力：一方面通过标准化的碳管理和信息披露确保不因数据缺失被挡在国际市场之外；另一方面通过社会责任治理的深度嵌入，包括供应链劳工审计、社区沟通机制、ESG治理架构，从根本上提升应对系统性风险的能力。这是SJ/T 16000的独特价值所在。

记者：资本市场在2026年发生了显著转向，PRI正在进行报告框架重置，大幅减少指标数量但加重了对人权、气候和自然的关注。您如何看待ESG投资与产业实践的深层关系？

王连升：过去资本是企业的“输血者”，只看回报率；现在资本正在成为企业的“体检医生”，扫描你的可持续健康度。2026年的资本市场已经发生了根本性转向。投融资两端共同聚焦科创板、创业板、北交所上市的转型升级企业，以及具备绿色融资能力的行业龙头。我们参与编制的《绿色设计产品评价技术规范 存储设备》等绿色制造标准，以及《信息技术 开源治理》系列标准，正是为企业构建ESG信息披露与绿色融资能力提供的“标准工具包”。

六、前瞻：从“工具理性”到“价值自觉”的历史跨越

记者：如果用一个最简练的概念来概括您过去这些年构建的思想体系，您会选择什么？

王连升：“从工具理性到价值自觉。”这不是一个抽象的概念，而是对企业可持续发展范式革命的根本性判断。

当下，全球企业的可持续发展实践普遍深陷于工具理性异化的双重困境：ESG被简化为资本市场评级工具，CSR则容易流于营销话术。“工具理性”过度膨胀的后果，是“分数”与“真相”之间的严重脱节。我们要做的是引导企业从被动应对监管压力的思维，转向主动构建长期韧性的“价值自觉”，让企业发自内心地认同：负责任不是一件“应该做的事”，而是企业最根本的生存之道。基于“责任闭环”模型的系统整合、凭借“价值沉默”战略的扎实沉淀、坚持“CSR为魂，ESG为体”的魂体相融，企业才能在喧嚣的ESG竞赛中走出自己的价值创造之路。最终的竞争力，不在评级分数里，而在信任穿透力中。

记者：最后一个问题。您如何看待中国在全球可持续治理体系中的位置和贡献？

王连升：中国在全球责任治理体系中扮演的角色正在从“规则接受者”向“方案贡献者”转变。SJ/T 16000系列标准的升级，既是对国际趋势的系统回应，也是一次中国特色的制度化尝试。我深信，一套扎根产业实践、融合东方智慧、兼顾国际接轨的可持续治理标准体系，将是未来中国为全球贡献的重要公共品。而这一切的起点，就是我们手中正在推进的工作，不是为了获得一个漂亮的评级，而是为了真正构建一个既能创造利润、又能滋养社会、还能守护地球的商业生态系统。

（本文经王连升本人审阅）

Interview | Wang Liansheng: "Paper commitments and substantive responsibilities: Eastern speculation and Chinese solutions for standardized CSR/ESG governance"

Editor's note: In the current era of deep integration between the global sustainable development agenda and China's "dual carbon" strategy, ESG and CSR have become essential questions for enterprises. However, as investor ratings continue to rise, the labor and emissions issues at the deepest part of the supply chain remain alarming. The gap between "paper responsibility" and "substantive responsibility" is becoming the biggest credit deficit in the global sustainable development agenda. With deep questions such as "how standardization can penetrate myths" and "how Chinese wisdom can contribute to global governance", our magazine conducted an in-depth interview with Wang Liansheng, the director and researcher of the Strategic Cooperation Department of the Social Responsibility Working Committee of the China Electronics Industry Standardization Technology Association, who has been deeply involved in the industry for more than ten years through the four in one model of "standard setting enterprise practice academic research international cooperation".

Personal Profile: Wang Liansheng is currently the Minister and Researcher of the Strategic Cooperation Department of the Social Responsibility Working Committee of the China Electronics Industry Standardization Technology Association, Vice Chairman of the Asia Sustainable Development Committee of the Global Electronics Association, Founding Member and Deputy Secretary General of the Green Finance Special Committee of the China Green Supply Chain Alliance, Vice Chairman of the Corporate Social Responsibility Special Committee of the Guangdong Enterprise Sustainable Development Research Association, Expert of the Beijing ESG Research Institute, and Visiting Scholar of CSR and Sustainable Development invited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden. Led the development of key industry standards such as SJ/T 16000 "Guidelines for Social Responsibility in the Electronic Information Industry", and led the "Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility Governance Level in China's Electronic Information Industry" for six consecutive years, covering more than 2000 enterprises. We have constructed a complete ideological system based on the philosophical ontology of "responsibility loop", the strategic methodology of "value silence", and the value theory of "CSR as the soul, ESG as the body", and published more than 400 research papers on the practical application of social responsibility in global government, industry, academia, research and application.

1、 The source of ideological system: the deep logic of "CSR as the soul, ESG as the body"

Reporter: Teacher Wang, your most well-known label both inside and outside the industry is the main drafter of the SJ/T 16000 series standards. However, what many people are more curious about is the top-level thinking behind your promotion of these standards? What is the relationship between CSR as the soul and ESG as the body?

Wang Liansheng: To be frank, I have observed that there is a common "technical misconception" in the current industry's understanding of ESG - companies are busy calculating carbon emission targets and preparing lengthy disclosure reports, but gradually forget the fundamental purpose of these tasks. Many companies' ESG practices are forced out by the capital market, focusing on how to fill out forms and obtain higher ratings, while ignoring what value the company wants to create for society. Even worse, traditional CSR is often narrowed down to charitable donations or public welfare projects, detached from core business, and ultimately reduced to marketing rhetoric. So I propose the dialectical relationship of "CSR as the soul, ESG as the body". CSR answers the question of "why should we do it" and provides value orientation and warmth for strategy; ESG provides a quantifiable framework and benchmark for value implementation. Only when the soul and body blend together can they coexist in the same frequency.

Reporter: You position CSR as the "soul" and ESG as the "body", do you have any suspicion of "emphasizing C over E"? In the current capital market environment, the E (environmental) issue has attracted the vast majority of attention. Does your theory actually weaken companies' investment in environmental actions?

Wang Liansheng: This question is insightful and requires further clarification from me. Many people mistakenly believe that 'CSR as the soul' means placing CSR above ESG, but this is not the case - it is a two faced, mutually embedded relationship. The reason why environmental issues receive more attention in the capital market is because they are the easiest to quantify and establish a transmission chain with financial risks; But this does not mean that S (society) and G (governance) are not important. On the contrary, they are the organizational foundation and human resource guarantee for enterprises to continue to fulfill their environmental mission.

In the "responsibility loop" model, E, S, and G are organically embedded and generated with each other: excellent governance (G) is the cornerstone, providing institutional guarantees for environmental performance (E) and social value (S); Excellent environmental performance (E) can contribute to governance resilience and empower social capital; Good social relationships (S) constitute the human capital and trust foundation required for sustainable development. Isolating E is the fundamental reason why many companies are currently "reducing carbon for the sake of carbon reduction" but neglecting "implicit costs" such as employee training and community dialogue.

For example, a factory has invested heavily in installing photovoltaic roofs to reduce its carbon footprint, but at the same time, it is squeezing workers' overtime, delaying salary payments, and evading safety training investments. How long can this company's carbon reduction achievements last? Cannot be sustained in the long term. People and the environment coexist, and attempting to overcome "human unfairness" to solve the "environmental crisis" will ultimately fall into the paradox of "just transformation". So, 'CSR as the soul' is not about weakening the weight of E, but about putting E back into the complete responsibility picture that enterprises should undertake as social organizations to understand.

2、 Value Silence ": Counter intuitive Strategic Methodology and Critique of" Paper Responsibility "

Reporter: The concept of "value silence" that you proposed in early 2026 has recently been widely discussed and even misunderstood. Some people understand it as "not doing publicity", while others see it as a commercial copy of the traditional Chinese culture of "keeping a low profile". Can you clarify the true meaning of this concept?

Wang Liansheng: 'Value silence' is indeed prone to misinterpretation, and I am well aware of this. It is not about 'not doing anything', nor is it about 'low-key avoidance of trouble', but a strategic determination to shift limited attention resources from high-profile 'expression' to solid 'action'. Value silence "includes three levels: first, observational silence when the direction of the issue is unclear, using in-depth research to transform uncertainty into certainty; The second is to adopt a "humble silence" when achieving phased results, avoiding the public's "motivational skepticism" and accumulating trust over time; The third is the core 'accumulated silence', which directs resources towards substantive value creation itself and constructs structural advantages that are difficult to replicate.

Why must this point be emphasized? Because I have witnessed three shocking 'responsibility performances' in ESG practices, which I call' symbol compliance ',' rating driven ', and' risk isolation '.

Let's talk about 'symbol compliance' first. The essence of many companies doing ESG is' reporting is responsibility ', issuing a thick report full of' we are committed to ',' we promise ',' we plan ', but there are very few substantive actions that are truly quantifiable, verifiable, and have traceability mechanisms. When you ask who the second and third tier suppliers outside of the first tier supplier are, they often can only answer you with three words, 'Collecting'. This status has been maintained in some companies' reports for four years. This is the first manifestation of 'paper responsibility'.

'Rating driven' is more covert. The company has set up a team specifically to study the weight of the rating model, and once the score goes up, the carbon emissions do not come down. The biggest harm is that it gives companies an excuse for self justification: with such a high rating, doesn't it still mean we are responsible? But there is a fundamental gap between the logic of rating agencies and the substantive responsibility of the supply chain - you can check "We have a supplier code of conduct" on the questionnaire and score points, but this code has not been implemented in actual purchase orders and no points will be deducted. The biggest paradox at present is that information disclosure is becoming increasingly rich, ratings are getting higher, workers are still working overtime, and wastewater is still being discharged.

Risk isolation "is the most common technique used by multinational corporations, which requires suppliers to sign a code of conduct. Once an incident occurs, it is the supplier's independent behavior. This is using the contract as a 'firewall' to block the real responsibility from the brand. The true responsibility has not been fulfilled, it has only been transferred.

So, the strategic methodology of 'value silence' does not teach companies not to engage in dialogue, but rather to shift their focus from 'noisy reporting' to 'solid action'. When all companies are telling similar ESG stories, the story itself is no longer a differentiation advantage. The real moat lies in those 'invisible' abilities, traceable supply chain systems, verifiable data management systems, and a culture of responsibility recognized by all employees.

3、 The Evolution of SJ/T 16000: Standardization as a Surgical Knife Penetrating "Paper Responsibility"

Reporter: Let's go back to the standards themselves. The SJ/T 16000-2026 edition of the "Guidelines for Social Responsibility in the Electronic Information Industry" has achieved many breakthroughs compared to the 2016 edition, adding topics such as rural revitalization, data security and privacy protection, women's rights and development, carbon peaking and carbon neutrality, and upgrading "resource conservation and environmental protection" to "green development" and expanding "supply chain cooperation" to "industrial chain supply chain". What kind of standard philosophy is behind these changes?

Wang Liansheng: These changes are not simply adding topics, but a cognitive transition of social responsibility from "point" to "surface". From "resource conservation and environmental protection" to "green development", it is a transition from "compliance and standardization" to "leading transformation". Enterprises are no longer just required to "do less bad things", but are also expected to "do more right things"; The transition from "supply chain cooperation" to "industrial chain supply chain" is a shift from "point-to-point cooperation" to "ecosystem governance". The competition in the electronic information industry is no longer a single point competition between enterprises, but a systematic competition in the industrial chain, supply chain, and innovation chain.

The most crucial change is that we have added two informative appendices, a comparison table with the United Nations' 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, and a comparison table with the sustainability reporting guidelines for listed companies. The significance of this design lies in providing "translation tools" and "navigation maps" for enterprises, aligning the provisions of SJ/T 16000 with SDGs one by one, so that Chinese enterprises can find a "common language" for their social responsibility practices in international dialogue.

I can make it clear that this framework is not just a Chinese standard, it is becoming a cross-cultural 'language of trust'.

Reporter: The industry evaluation led by you has covered more than 2000 companies. What is the overall level of industry responsibility that you see from these massive amounts of data?

Wang Liansheng: To be honest, polarization is very serious. The governance of top enterprises is relatively mature, but small and medium-sized enterprises generally have capacity bottlenecks. The biggest problem is not 'not doing', but 'not being able to do', lacking an actionable framework and accessible capacity building resources. Therefore, SJ/T 16000 specifically considers the feasibility of landing for small and medium-sized enterprises, rather than a lofty "elite standard". The vitality of standards does not lie in "high standards", but in "implementability".

4、 Green Supply Chain and Responsibility Traceability: A Trust Project that Penetrates the "Three Layer Supplier"

Reporter: One of your recent very striking statements is that 'true competitiveness lies not in rating scores, but in trust penetration'. Where does this' penetrating power 'come from in the highly globalized and multi-layered supply chain system of the electronic information industry?

Wang Liansheng: This is the core proposition I have explored through practice. Everyone should understand that in a multi-layered global supply chain, brand owners often have no knowledge of the status of third and fourth tier suppliers. But at that level of factory, there may be substantial risks such as overtime, child labor, or environmental pollution. The inherent data management advantage of information technology enterprises is precisely the natural key to solving this responsibility traceability problem. Industrial Internet, Internet of Things tracking, data midrange, blockchain, these technical tools may be transformed into "responsibility traceability" infrastructure. The carbon emissions and employment compliance records associated with each product can be accurately recorded and verified.

The true competitiveness is not about rating agencies giving you high scores, but about the entire market, from customers to consumers to regulatory agencies - when exercising their purchasing power, they genuinely believe that "no matter where this company operates, its operating methods are fair, transparent, and controllable." This is the essence of "trust penetration power.

Reporter: You have long-term cooperation with UN Women in green supply chain practice, promoting career development projects for female employees. What is the relationship between this project and 'responsibility traceability'? Why is there a special emphasis on women's rights in supply chain responsibility engineering?

Wang Liansheng: The surface problems of the responsible supply chain, such as overtime, lack of safety, and non-compliance with environmental standards, are often closely related to the imbalance of governance structures. The protection of women's rights and career development in the workplace is precisely one of the most reflective indicators of a company's governance quality. If female employees of a company do not receive fair opportunities for promotion and salary increase for a long time, it is difficult to believe that the company will take environmental compliance or data security seriously. Based on this insight, since 2020, we have been working with UN Women to continuously carry out the Women's Employee Development Project in Guangdong Province, promoting the safety, health, and equal employment promotion and salary increase of female employees, and promoting the synchronous improvement of their career development and corporate social responsibility governance level.

5、 TISFD, CBAM, and the Shift of Capital: The "Going Global" Test for Chinese Electronic Information Enterprises

Reporter: On May 26, 2025, TISFD released the disclosure framework 0.1 trial version. This is seen as the 'last piece of the puzzle' in the global sustainable information disclosure system, following TCFD and TNFD. How do you interpret the impact of this incident on China's electronic information industry?

Wang Liansheng: The emergence of TISFD has profound historical significance. Its core logic is to incorporate the issue of 'inequality', traditionally seen as a public policy issue, into the core agenda of corporate financial disclosure. In the past, when companies discussed pay equity, labor rights, and community relations, it was often a moral narrative of "corporate social responsibility," which was "what should be done; The disruptive aspect of TISFD is that it requires companies to view these issues as' must be managed 'as they can impact financial performance. More importantly, the TISFD framework is structurally aligned with TCFD and TNFD, enabling companies to integrate disclosures on climate, nature, and social issues within the same conceptual framework. This is particularly important for the electronic information industry, as it is both a major carbon emitter and highly dependent on labor-intensive supply chains. At the same time, it also consumes rare minerals and natural resources, and the triple systemic risks are compounded. The requirements for information disclosure will only become increasingly high and detailed.

Reporter: On January 1, 2026, the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism officially entered the substantive collection stage. What substantial impact has this had on the export of China's electronic information industry? How should enterprises respond to such "green trade barriers"?

Wang Liansheng: Impact is multidimensional. Firstly, CBAM requires that products exported to the EU must declare the carbon emissions during the production process and bear the corresponding carbon costs, with carbon prices linked to the EU carbon trading market; Secondly, there is a nearly tenfold gap between China's carbon market and the EU's carbon price, and currently the EU does not recognize the deduction of carbon costs paid in China; Thirdly, CBAM will continue to expand, and it is expected that steel and aluminum intensive downstream products will be included in the coverage area from 2028, which will affect more electronic information products. What is even more difficult to deal with is that CBAM is becoming a global trend, and the UK will follow suit by launching its own CBAM in 2027. The United States, Canada, Japan, and others are also actively researching similar mechanisms. The compliance threshold for export products has been expanded from "price, quality, delivery time" to "carbon emission transparency and carbon reduction capacity".

Reporter: How can the SJ/T 16000 framework help electronic information companies cope with this compliance environment?

Wang Liansheng: The new version of SJ/T 16000 specifically sets up two core themes: "Green Development" and "Industrial Chain Supply Chain", and requires enterprises to develop carbon reduction action plans. For electronic information companies, TISFD and CBAM are essentially two sides of the same coin - the former requires companies to quantify their social impact and dependency relationships, while the latter requires companies to quantify their carbon footprint; The combination of the two requires companies to elevate sustainability from a "cost management tool" to a "strategic governance level". Our standard framework is designed to help businesses build capabilities in these two dimensions simultaneously: on the one hand, ensuring that they are not blocked from the international market due to data loss through standardized carbon management and information disclosure; On the other hand, by deeply embedding social responsibility governance, including supply chain labor audits, community communication mechanisms, and ESG governance architecture, we can fundamentally enhance our ability to respond to systemic risks. This is where the unique value of SJ/T 16000 lies.

Reporter: The capital market has undergone a significant shift in 2026, and PRI is undergoing a report framework reset, significantly reducing the number of indicators but increasing attention to human rights, climate, and nature. How do you view the deep relationship between ESG investment and industry practice?

Wang Liansheng: In the past, capital was the "blood transfusion" of enterprises, only looking at the rate of return; Capital is now becoming the 'health check-up doctor' for enterprises, scanning your sustainable health. The capital market has undergone a fundamental shift in 2026. Both investment and financing sides focus on transformation and upgrading enterprises listed on the Science and Technology Innovation Board, Growth Enterprise Market, and Beijing Stock Exchange, as well as industry leaders with green financing capabilities. The green manufacturing standards such as the "Green Design Product Evaluation Technical Specification Storage Equipment" and the "Information Technology Open Source Governance" series of standards that we have participated in the development of are the "standard toolkits" provided for enterprises to build ESG information disclosure and green financing capabilities.

6、 Forward looking: The Historical Leap from "Instrumental Rationality" to "Value Consciousness"

Reporter: If you could summarize the ideological system you have built over the years with the most concise concept, what would you choose?

Wang Liansheng: "From instrumental rationality to value consciousness." This is not an abstract concept, but a fundamental judgment on the paradigm revolution of sustainable development in enterprises.

At present, the sustainable development practices of global enterprises are generally trapped in the dual dilemma of instrumental rationality alienation: ESG is simplified as a capital market rating tool, while CSR is easily reduced to marketing rhetoric. The consequence of excessive expansion of 'instrumental rationality' is a serious disconnect between 'scores' and' truth '. What we need to do is to guide enterprises to shift from a passive mindset of responding to regulatory pressure to an active "value consciousness" of building long-term resilience, so that enterprises can sincerely recognize that responsibility is not a "thing to do", but the most fundamental way for enterprises to survive. Only through system integration based on the "responsibility closed-loop" model, solid accumulation of the "value silence" strategy, and adherence to the integration of "CSR as the soul and ESG as the body" can enterprises find their own path of value creation in the noisy ESG competition. The ultimate competitiveness lies not in rating scores, but in trust penetration.

Reporter: The last question. How do you view China's position and contribution in the global sustainable governance system?

Wang Liansheng: China's role in the global responsibility governance system is shifting from being a "rule taker" to a "solution contributor". The upgrade of the SJ/T 16000 series standards is not only a systematic response to international trends, but also an institutionalized attempt with Chinese characteristics. I firmly believe that a sustainable governance standard system rooted in industrial practice, integrating Eastern wisdom, and taking into account international standards will be an important public good for China to contribute to the world in the future. And the starting point of all of this is the work we are pushing forward, not to obtain a beautiful rating, but to truly build a commercial ecosystem that can create profits, nourish society, and protect the earth.

(This article has been reviewed by Wang Liansheng himself)