專訪 | 王連升：“紙面承諾與實質責任：標準化CSR/ESG治理方案”

專訪| 王連升：“紙面承諾與實質責任：標準化CSR/ESG治理方案”

編者按：在全球可持續發展議程與中國“雙碳”戰略深度交融的當下，ESG與CSR已成為企業必答題。然而，投資者手里的評分越來越高，供應鏈最深處的勞工和排放問題卻依舊觸目驚心。“紙面責任”與“實質責任”之間的鴻溝，正成為全球可持續發展議程最大的信用赤字。帶著“標準化如何穿透迷思”“中國智慧如何貢獻全球治理”等深層追問，本刊深度專訪了以“標準制定—企業實踐—學術研究—國際合作”四位一體模式深耕行業多年的研究者與實踐者——中國電子工業標準化技術協會社會責任工作委員會戰略合作部部長、研究員王連升。

個人簡介：王連升，現任中國電子工業標準化技術協會社會責任工作委員會戰略合作部部長、研究員，全球電子協會亞洲可持續發展委員會副主席，中國綠色供應鏈聯盟綠色金融專委會創始委員兼副秘書長，廣東省企業可持續發展研究會企業社會責任專委會副會長，北京ESG研究院專家，瑞典國家外交部CSR與可持續發展特邀訪問學者。主導編制了SJ/T 16000《電子信息行業社會責任指南》等行業關鍵標準，連續六年主導“中國電子信息行業企業社會責任治理水平評測”，累計覆蓋兩千余家企業。構建了以“責任閉環”為哲學本體論、“價值沉默”為戰略方法論、“CSR為魂，ESG為體”為價值論的完整思想體系，發表全球政產學研用社會責任實踐應用研究400余篇。

一、思想體系之源：“CSR為魂，ESG為體”的深層邏輯

記者：王老師，您在行業內外最被熟知的標簽是SJ/T 16000系列標準的主要起草人，但很多人更想知道的是，您推動這些標準背后的頂層思考是什么？您曾提出“CSR為魂，ESG為體”的核心論斷，二者之間究竟該是什么關系？

王連升：坦率地說，我觀察到當前業界對ESG的理解普遍存在一種“技術化迷思”，—企業忙于計算碳排放指標、編制冗長的披露報告，卻漸漸忘記了這些工作的根本目的是什么。許多企業的ESG實踐是被資本市場倒逼出來的，關注的是如何填報表、如何獲得更高評級，而忽略了企業究竟要為社會創造什么價值。更糟糕的是，傳統的CSR往往被窄化為慈善捐贈或公益項目，游離于核心業務之外，最終淪為營銷話術。所以我提出“CSR為魂，ESG為體”這個辯證關系，CSR回答了“我們為什么要做”，為戰略提供價值導向和溫度；ESG為價值落地提供可量化的框架和標尺。魂體相融，方能同頻共生。

記者：您將CSR定位為“魂”，ESG定位為“體”，是否有些“重C輕E”的嫌疑？在當前資本市場環境中，E（環境）議題吸引了絕大多數注意力，您的理論會不會反而削弱了企業對環保行動的投入？

王連升：這個問題很有洞察力，恰恰需要我進一步闡明。很多人誤以為“CSR為魂”意味著把CSR放在凌駕于ESG之上的位置，其實不然——這是一體兩面、相互嵌入的關系。E（環境）議題之所以在資本市場中獲得更多關注，是因為它最容易量化、最容易與財務風險建立傳導鏈條；但這絕不意味著S（社會）和G（治理）不重要，恰恰相反，它們是企業能夠持續踐行環保使命的組織基礎和人力資源保障。

在“責任閉環”模型中，E、S、G三者之間是相互嵌入、彼此生成的有機關系：卓越的治理（G）是基石，為環境績效（E）和社會價值（S）提供制度保障；優異的環境表現（E）能反哺治理韌性并賦能社會資本；良好的社會關系（S）則構成可持續發展所需的人力資本和信任基礎。把E抽離出來孤立看待，正是當前許多企業“為了減碳而減碳”、卻忽視了員工培訓、社區對話等“隱性成本”投入的根本原因。

打個比方：一家工廠為了降低碳足跡斥巨資安裝了光伏屋頂，但與此同時還在壓榨工人的加班時間、延遲發放工資、逃避安全培訓投入，這家企業的減碳成果能持續多久？無法長期維持。人與環境是并存的，試圖跨越“人的不公平”去解決“環境危機”，最終會落入“公正轉型”的悖論之中。所以，“CSR為魂”不是弱化E的權重，而是把E放回企業作為社會組織應當承擔的完整責任圖景中去理解。

二、“價值沉默”：反直覺的戰略方法論與“紙面責任”批判

記者：您在2026年初提出的“價值沉默”概念最近被廣泛討論，甚至還遭到了一些誤讀，有人把它理解為“不做宣傳”，也有人把它視為中國傳統文化中“韜光養晦”的商業翻版。您能否澄清一下這個概念的真正意涵？

王連升：“價值沉默”確實容易被誤讀，這一點我很清楚。它不是“不做事”，更不是“低調避禍”，而是一種戰略定力，把有限的注意力資源從高調的“表達”轉移到扎實的“行動”上去。“價值沉默”包含三個層次：一是在議題方向不明朗時的“觀察性沉默”，用深度研究把不確定性轉化為確定性；二是在取得階段性成果時的“謙抑性沉默”，避免公眾的“動機性質疑”，用時間積累信任厚度；三是核心的“積累性沉默”，將資源導向實質性價值創造本身，構筑難以復制的結構性優勢。

為什么必須強調這一點？因為我看到了ESG實踐中令我觸目驚心的三種“責任表演”，我稱之為“符號合規”“評級驅動”和“風險隔離”。

先說“符號合規”。很多企業做ESG的本質是“報告即盡責”，發一本厚厚的報告，全是“我們致力于”“我們承諾”“我們計劃”，但真正可量化、可驗證、有追溯機制的實質性行動少之又少。你追問一級供應商之外的第二級、第三級供應商是誰，他們往往只能回答你三個字，“收集中”。這個狀態在有些企業的報告里已經保持了四年。這就是“紙面責任”的第一層表現。

“評級驅動”則更隱蔽。企業專門成立團隊研究評級模型的權重，分數上去了，碳排放沒下來。最大的危害是，它給了企業一個自我正當化的借口：評分那么高，難道還不能說明我們負責任嗎？但評級機構的邏輯與供應鏈實質責任之間存在一個根本性的裂縫——你可以在問卷上勾選“我們有供應商行為準則”并得分，但這份準則在實際采購訂單里執行了沒有，不扣分。信息披露越來越豐富，評級越來越高，工人仍在加班、廢水仍在排放，這就是當前最大的悖論。

“風險隔離”則是跨國公司最常見的手法，讓供應商簽一份行為準則，一旦出事，那“都是供應商的獨立行為”。這是利用合同做了一道“防火墻”，把真正的責任擋在了品牌方的大門外。真正的責任沒有被履行，它只是被轉移了。

所以，“價值沉默”的戰略方法論并非教企業不去對話，而是讓企業把精力從“報告上的喧囂”轉向“行動上的夯實”。當所有企業都在講述相似的ESG故事時，故事本身就不再是差異化優勢。真正的護城河在于那些“看不見”的能力，可追溯的供應鏈體系、可驗證的數據管理系統、全員認同的責任文化。

三、SJ/T 16000的進化：標準化作為穿透“紙面責任”的手術刀

記者：我們回到標準本身。《電子信息行業社會責任指南》SJ/T 16000-2026版較之2016版實現了諸多突破，新增了鄉村振興、數據安全與隱私保護、女性權益與發展、碳達峰碳中和等議題，并將“資源節約與環境保護”升格為“綠色發展”、“供應鏈合作”拓展為“產業鏈供應鏈”。這些變化背后是怎樣的一種標準哲學？

王連升：這些變化不是簡單的議題增補，而是社會責任從“點”到“面”的認知躍遷。“資源節約與環境保護”到“綠色發展”，是從“合規達標”走向“引領轉型”，企業不再只是被要求“少做壞事”，更被期待“多做對事”；“供應鏈合作”到“產業鏈供應鏈”，是從“點對點協作”走向“生態系統治理”。電子信息行業的競爭已經不再是企業間的單點競爭，而是產業鏈、供應鏈、創新鏈的系統競爭。

最關鍵的變化是我們新增了兩個資料性附錄，與聯合國2030可持續發展目標的對照表，以及與上市公司可持續發展報告指引的對照表。這一設計的重要意義在于為企業提供了“翻譯工具”和“導航地圖”，把SJ/T 16000的條款與SDGs逐一對應，使中國企業的社會責任實踐能在國際對話中找到“共同語言”。

我可以明確地說：這套框架不只是中國的標準，它正在成為一種跨文化的“信任語言”。

記者：您主導的行業評測已經覆蓋了兩千余家企業。從這些海量數據中，您看到的行業整體責任水平是什么狀態？

王連升：坦白說，兩極分化非常嚴重。頭部企業治理相對成熟，但中小企業普遍存在能力瓶頸。最大的問題不是“不做”，而是“不會做”，缺乏可操作的行動框架和可接入的能力建設資源。因此SJ/T 16000專門考慮了中小企業的可落地性，而不是一個高高在上的“精英標準”。標準的生命力不在于“高標準”，而在于“可落地”。

四、綠色供應鏈與責任溯源：穿透“三層供應商”的信任工程

記者：您最近一個非常引人注目的論斷是“真正的競爭力不在評級分數里，而在信任穿透力中”。在電子信息行業高度全球化、多層化的供應鏈體系中，這種“穿透力”從何而來？

王連升：這是我從實踐中摸索出的核心命題。大家要明白：在一個多層全球供應鏈中，品牌方很多時候對第三級、第四級供應商的狀況一無所知。但那一級的工廠，恰恰可能存在超時加班、童工雇傭或環境污染等實質性風險。信息技術企業與生俱來的數據管理優勢，恰恰是解決這個責任溯源難題的天然鑰匙。工業互聯網、物聯網追蹤、數據中臺、區塊鏈，這些技術工具完全可能被改造為“責任溯源”的基礎設施。每一件產品所關聯的碳排放、用工合規記錄，是可被精準記錄并驗證的。

真正的競爭力不是評級機構給你打個高分，而是整個市場，從客戶到消費者到監管機構——在行使購買權時，發自內心地認為：“這家公司無論在哪里運作，它的運行方式都是公平的、透明可控的。”這才是“信任穿透力”的本質。

記者：您在綠色供應鏈實踐中與聯合國婦女署長期合作，推動女性職工職業發展項目。這個項目與“責任溯源”之間是什么關系？為什么在供應鏈責任工程中特別強調女性權益？

王連升：責任供應鏈的表面問題，超時加班、安全缺失、環保不達標，本質上往往與治理結構失衡高度相關。而女性在職場的權益保障和職業發展，恰恰是最能反映一家企業治理質量的指標之一。如果一個企業的女性員工長期得不到公平的升職加薪機會，我們很難相信這家企業會認真對待環保合規或數據安全。基于這個洞察，自2020年以來，我們與聯合國婦女署在廣東省持續開展女性職工發展項目，推動女性職工安全健康與同等就業升職加薪事宜，推動女性職工職業發展與企業社會責任治理水平同步提升。

五、TISFD、CBAM與資本的轉向：中國電子信息企業的“出海”考驗

記者：2025年5月26日，TISFD發布了披露框架0.1試用版。這被視為繼TCFD、TNFD之后全球可持續信息披露體系的“最后一塊拼圖”。您如何解讀這一事件對中國電子信息行業的影響？

王連升：TISFD的問世具有深刻的時代意義。它的核心邏輯是將“不平等”這一傳統上被視為公共政策議題的問題，納入企業財務披露的核心議程。過去，企業談論薪酬公平、勞工權益、社區關系時往往是“企業社會責任”的道德敘事，這是“應該做的事”；TISFD的顛覆性在于：它要求企業將這些議題視為“必須管理的事”，因為它們會影響財務表現。更重要的是，TISFD框架在結構上與TCFD、TNFD對齊，使企業能夠在同一個概念架構下整合氣候、自然和社會三重議題的披露。這對電子信息行業尤其重要，因為該行業既是碳排放大戶，又是高度依賴勞動密集型供應鏈的行業，同時還深度消耗稀有礦物和自然資源，三重系統性風險疊加，信息披露的要求只會越來越高、越來越細。

記者：2026年1月1日，歐盟碳邊境調節機制正式進入實質性征收階段。這對中國電子信息產業的出口造成了哪些實質沖擊？企業應如何應對這種“綠色貿易壁壘”？

王連升：沖擊是多維度的。首先，CBAM要求出口歐盟的產品必須申報生產過程中的碳排放量并承擔相應碳成本，碳價與歐盟碳交易市場掛鉤；其次，中國碳市場與歐盟碳價存在近十倍的差距，且目前歐盟不認可在中國支付的碳成本進行抵扣；第三，CBAM會不斷擴容，預計2028年起鋼鐵和鋁密集型下游產品將納入覆蓋范圍，這將波及更多電子信息類產品。更難應付的是，CBAM正在變成全球趨勢，英國將在2027年跟進推出本國CBAM，美國、加拿大、日本等也在積極研究類似機制。出口產品的合規門檻已從“價格、質量、交期”擴大至“碳排放透明度與減碳能力”。

記者：面對這種合規環境，SJ/T 16000框架如何幫助電子信息企業應對？

王連升：SJ/T 16000新版專門設立了“綠色發展”和“產業鏈供應鏈”兩大核心主題，并要求企業制定碳減排行動計劃。對電子信息企業而言，TISFD和CBAM本質上是同一枚硬幣的兩面——前者要求企業量化社會影響與依賴關系，后者要求企業量化碳足跡；二者疊加，要求企業將可持續性從“成本管理工具”提升至“戰略治理高度”。我們的標準框架正是幫助企業在這兩個維度同步構建能力：一方面通過標準化的碳管理和信息披露確保不因數據缺失被擋在國際市場之外；另一方面通過社會責任治理的深度嵌入，包括供應鏈勞工審計、社區溝通機制、ESG治理架構，從根本上提升應對系統性風險的能力。這是SJ/T 16000的獨特價值所在。

記者：資本市場在2026年發生了顯著轉向，PRI正在進行報告框架重置，大幅減少指標數量但加重了對人權、氣候和自然的關注。您如何看待ESG投資與產業實踐的深層關系？

王連升：過去資本是企業的“輸血者”，只看回報率；現在資本正在成為企業的“體檢醫生”，掃描你的可持續健康度。2026年的資本市場已經發生了根本性轉向。投融資兩端共同聚焦科創板、創業板、北交所上市的轉型升級企業，以及具備綠色融資能力的行業龍頭。我們參與編制的《綠色設計產品評價技術規范 存儲設備》等綠色制造標準，以及《信息技術 開源治理》系列標準，正是為企業構建ESG信息披露與綠色融資能力提供的“標準工具包”。

六、前瞻：從“工具理性”到“價值自覺”的歷史跨越

記者：如果用一個最簡練的概念來概括您過去這些年構建的思想體系，您會選擇什么？

王連升：“從工具理性到價值自覺。”這不是一個抽象的概念，而是對企業可持續發展范式革命的根本性判斷。

當下，全球企業的可持續發展實踐普遍深陷于工具理性異化的雙重困境：ESG被簡化為資本市場評級工具，CSR則容易流于營銷話術。“工具理性”過度膨脹的后果，是“分數”與“真相”之間的嚴重脫節。我們要做的是引導企業從被動應對監管壓力的思維，轉向主動構建長期韌性的“價值自覺”，讓企業發自內心地認同：負責任不是一件“應該做的事”，而是企業最根本的生存之道。基于“責任閉環”模型的系統整合、憑借“價值沉默”戰略的扎實沉淀、堅持“CSR為魂，ESG為體”的魂體相融，企業才能在喧囂的ESG競賽中走出自己的價值創造之路。最終的競爭力，不在評級分數里，而在信任穿透力中。

記者：最后一個問題。您如何看待中國在全球可持續治理體系中的位置和貢獻？

王連升：中國在全球責任治理體系中扮演的角色正在從“規則接受者”向“方案貢獻者”轉變。SJ/T 16000系列標準的升級，既是對國際趨勢的系統回應，也是一次中國特色的制度化嘗試。我深信，一套扎根產業實踐、融合東方智慧、兼顧國際接軌的可持續治理標準體系，將是未來中國為全球貢獻的重要公共品。而這一切的起點，就是我們手中正在推進的工作，不是為了獲得一個漂亮的評級，而是為了真正構建一個既能創造利潤、又能滋養社會、還能守護地球的商業生態系統。

（本文經王連升本人審閱）

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)