“双速”困境下，需重塑ESG评价标准

Core Insights - The article highlights the "dual-speed" phenomenon in global ESG practices, where developed countries and developing countries exhibit significant differences in their pace, policy strength, and corporate responses to environmental actions, particularly in climate change [1][3][5] Group 1: Differences in ESG Practices - Developed countries have historically contributed more to carbon emissions during their industrialization, leading to a lighter burden in achieving carbon reduction goals compared to developing countries, which are still in critical economic development phases [1][3] - Developing countries face immense pressure to reduce emissions while striving for economic growth and poverty alleviation, resulting in a challenging balancing act [1][2] Group 2: Capacity and Resource Disparities - Developing countries are disproportionately affected by climate change impacts, such as extreme weather events, due to their weaker infrastructure and economic foundations, which limits their ability to respond effectively [2][3] - In contrast, developed countries possess advanced warning systems, robust infrastructure, and greater financial resources to tackle climate change, exacerbating global inequalities [2][3] Group 3: Funding and Technology Gaps - The research and application of green technologies are primarily concentrated in developed countries, which also have the financial strength for large-scale green investments, while developing countries struggle to access these technologies and necessary funding [2][3] - High costs associated with technology licensing and export restrictions from developed nations hinder the ability of developing countries to deploy advanced low-carbon technologies [2][3] Group 4: Recommendations for ESG Evaluation - To address the "dual-speed" dilemma, the article suggests redefining and quantifying "differentiation" in ESG evaluations based on historical emissions, economic development levels, and technological capabilities of different countries [3][4] - It recommends designing additional scoring criteria for industries with high historical emissions and providing extra points for companies involved in green technology development and transfer to developing nations [4][5] - The evaluation process should consider the impact of energy-saving and carbon reduction efforts on traditional industries, allowing time for green transitions and focusing on trends in carbon reduction and investments in green transformation [4][5]