Corporate Social Responsibility of Energy Companies: International Experience and Polycriterial Evaluation of Technological Innovations’ Effectiveness
Sergei G. Vagin
Bogdan Vasyakin
Mikhail Y. Zakharov4 - 1National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
- 2Department of Modern Technologies of Management, Institute of Management Technologies, MIREA—Russian Technological University, Moscow, Russia
- 3Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, Russia
- 4Institute of Personnel Management and Social and Business Communications, State University of Management, Moscow, Russia
- 5Financial University Under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia
Introduction
The fuel and energy complex is a system-forming element of the modern economy, determining both the opportunities for economic growth and the prospects for sustainable development (Cui et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Padmanabhan et al., 2022; Wen and Jia, 2022). This strategic role of energy companies covers two types of activities. First, the implementation of initiatives in the field of corporate social responsibility aimed at increasing the sustainability (universal accessibility and environmental safety/purity) of energy (Ahmed et al., 2022; Ates, 2022; Madaleno et al., 2022; Shukla and Geetika, 2022; Wang and Sun, 2022).
Second, the introduction of technological innovations that allow optimizing the business processes of energy companies. In the existing literature, authors such as Brizhak and Tolstobokov (2022), Dudukalov et al. (2021), Guo et al. (2022), Popkova et al. (2022), Qu et al. (2022), Shi et al. (2022), and Vanchukhina et al. (2016) consider technological innovations as a promising tool for corporate social responsibility of energy companies, as they have the potential to increase productivity and environmental safety of their activities. However, the extent to which this potential can be used in practice is insufficiently studied and unclear. This is a research gap that is being filled in this article.
This article is intended to demonstrate the contradictory impact of technological innovations on the corporate social responsibility of energy companies. The originality of the study lies in the fact that it goes beyond the usual framework of modernization of energy companies, taking into account the impact of the digital economy on their corporate social responsibility. The traditional focus on internal factors forms the idea of corporate social responsibility as a manifestation of the altruism of energy companies.
The article presents a new view on the corporate social responsibility of energy companies since it is heavily influenced by market pressure. In this vein, the article is aimed at studying international experience and conducting a polycriterial evaluation of the effectiveness of technological innovations of energy companies from the standpoint of corporate social responsibility.
The contribution of the article to the improvement of scientific knowledge consists in the development of a new scientific-methodological approach to assessing the compliance of energy companies with EnergyTech criteria. The novelty, peculiarity, and advantage of the new approach are that it involves determining the compliance of EnergyTech energy companies from the perspective of efficiency rather than from the perspective of costs (digital competitiveness)—for the first time, it takes into account the contribution of these costs to results—energy intensity level of primary energy, investment in energy with private participation, and renewable electricity output.
Place of Technological Innovations in the System of Corporate Social Responsibility of Energy Companies
The theoretical basis of the research conducted in this article is formed by the concept of EnergyTech, in which the system combination of high technologies and sustainability is defined as a priority of energy companies (Baur et al., 2022; Haoyang et al., 2022; Matsunaga et al., 2022; Wang and Hasani, 2022). In accordance with this concept, the corporate social responsibility of energy companies is interpreted as an activity carried out on their own initiative (going beyond meeting the requirements of the state) in support of the implementation of SDG 7: sustainable energy development (Ajagekar and You, 2022; Gebreslassie et al., 2022; Son Le et al., 2022; Tang et al., 2022).
In the works of Kurowski and Huk (2021), Madaleno et al. (2022), and Nguyen (2022), the corporate social responsibility of energy companies is identified with altruism—their non-profit support for sustainable energy development. The clearest and generally recognized indicators of corporate social responsibility of energy companies are offered and calculated annually by the World Bank (2022). Among these, indicators are the energy intensity level of primary energy (we will introduce the notation e1, its reduction is assumed), renewable electricity output (we will introduce the notation e2, its increase is necessary), and investment in energy with private participation (we will introduce the notation e3; its increase is required).
Technological innovations of energy companies are interpreted as the use of advanced capabilities of scientific and technological progress (in support of the implementation of SDG 9). In the works of Asakereh et al. (2022), Buonomano et al. (2022), and Zhang and Fu (2022), breakthrough technologies such as robots, artificial intelligence, and Big Data are cited as key technological innovations at the present stage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In accordance with this, it is also indicated that technological innovations of energy companies are determined by internal factors—the successful introduction and active practical application of the aforementioned breakthrough technologies.
The existing scientific and methodological approach to assessing the degree of compliance of energy companies with the EnergyTech criteria involves the analysis of their technological innovations from the standpoint of digital competitiveness. This approach is described in the works of Cibinskiene et al. (2021), Li and Kimura (2021), Nagel et al. (2022), and Shuai et al. (2022). The problem lies in the fact that the current approach takes into account only high technological intensity, the relationship of which with the sustainability of energy is still poorly understood and not clearly defined, which is a gap in the literature. Because of this, the boundaries of EnergyTech remain blurred, and its scientific study is hampered by the uncertainty of the subject area to study. The identified gap is filled in this article through the study of the interdependence of corporate social responsibility and technological innovations of energy companies.
Polycriterial Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Technological Innovations of Energy Companies From the Standpoint of Corporate Social Responsibility
To determine the interdependence of corporate social responsibility and technological innovations of energy companies, this article provides a polycriterial evaluation of the effectiveness of technological innovations of energy companies from the standpoint of corporate social responsibility. The study is conducted on the example of a sample of countries representative of the global economy, covering both developed and developing countries from different parts of the world with the highest digital competitiveness in 2021 (included in the IMD World Competitiveness Center rating, 2022).
Using the hierarchical procedure of T.L. Saati (the Saati method), the contribution of various technological innovations available in the digital economy to the corporate environmental responsibility of energy companies is determined. The internal factors of technological modernization (the use of robots, AI, and Big Data) and external (market) factors of the digital economy (the level of development of the information society, e-government) are considered simultaneously according to the materials of the IMD World Competitiveness Center (2022). The basic statistics and evaluation results are given in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Polycriterial evaluation of the effectiveness of technological innovations of energy companies from the standpoint of corporate social responsibility in 2021.
It is essential to consider the calculations made in Table 1 and their results in more detail using the example of Russia. In accordance with the Saati method, the values of indicators of technological innovation are transferred from places to percentages of the maximum possible values (the best value: 1st place and the worst: 64th place). For example, the value for world robots distribution is obtained as follows: ((64–51.56)/64)*100% = 51.56%.
Then, the correlation of indicators of technological innovation with each of the indicators of corporate social responsibility (for the entire sample) is calculated. For example, the correlation of world robots distribution with an energy intensity level of primary energy (e1) was −0.02, with renewable electricity output (e2): −0.13, and with investment in energy with private participation (e3): −0.49. The arithmetic mean of the correlation coefficients was −0.22. A negative correlation value indicates the antagonism of technological innovations and corporate social responsibility.
The average correlation of corporate social responsibility indicators with the use of Big Data and analytics was 0.54, with e-participation: 0.06, and with e-government: 0.32. Next, weighted amounts are calculated, reflecting the contribution of each technological innovation to the corporate social responsibility of energy companies. For example, in Russia:
− world robots distribution: 51.56%*(−0.22) = −11.10%;
− use of Big Data and analytics: 51.56%*0.54 = 27.68%;
− e-participation: 59.38%*0.06 = 3.48%;
− e-government: 48.44%*0.32 = 15.74%.
Integral synthesis is determined by summing weighted sums. For example, in Russia: −11.10 + 27.68 + 3.48 + 15.74 = 35.80 (moderate efficiency). The results obtained mean that in Russia, technological innovations of energy companies make a moderate contribution to their corporate social responsibility in 2021—energy companies correspond to EnergyTech by 35.80%. The largest compliance of EnergyTech energy companies was found in the United States (63%), China (40%), Australia (47.88%), and Kazakhstan (71.01%). In the whole sample (taking into account the representativeness, this can be extended to the global economy as a whole), the degree of compliance of EnergyTech energy companies is estimated at 35.05%.
Discussion
The article contributed to the literature by clarifying the scientific provisions of the EnergyTech concept through the disclosure of the essence of the interdependence of corporate social responsibility and technological innovations of energy companies. Unlike Kurowski and Huck (2021), Madaleno et al. (2022), and Nguyen (2022), it was revealed that the corporate social responsibility of energy companies is not a “pure” manifestation of altruism but is carried out under significant market pressure—demand from society (consumers) and government incentives.
Unlike Asakereh et al. (2022), Buonomano et al. (2022), and Zhang and Fu (2022), it is proved that not only internal factors but also external market factors play an important role in the implementation of technological innovations by energy companies. Moreover, one of the internal factors—robotization—does not make a significant contribution to the corporate social responsibility of energy companies. The most significant was the internal factor of using Big Data and artificial intelligence for their analysis (0.54%). Among the external factors, the most significant is the development of the e-government system (0.32). The information society turned out to be a less significant external factor (0.06), but it also needs to be taken into account.
Unlike Cibinskiene et al. (2021), Li and Kimura (2021), Nagel et al. (2022), and Shuai et al. (2022), the article shows, on the basis of a review of international experience, that a high level of digital competitiveness does not guarantee that energy companies meet the criteria of EnergyTech. For example, India ((12 + 15 + 28 + 59)/4 = 29) and Spain ((10 + 55 + 34 + 17)/4 = 29) have a similar level of digital competitiveness from the positions of the considered indicators of the IMD World Competitiveness Center (2022). But in India (29.45%), the compliance of energy companies with the EnergyTech criteria turned out to be higher than in Spain (15.99%) since technological innovations are used to varying degrees in the implementation of corporate social responsibility in these countries. Based on the obtained conclusion, the article demonstrates a new scientific and methodological approach to assessing the degree of compliance of energy companies with the EnergyTech criteria, which involves analyzing their technological innovations from the standpoint of efficiency.
Conclusion
So, technological innovations occupy an important place in the system of corporate social responsibility of energy companies. But the impact of technological innovations on this responsibility is contradictory, which requires flexible management of energy companies. The scientific novelty of the research and its contribution to the literature are involved in the development of a new scientific-methodological approach to assessing the compliance of energy companies with EnergyTech criteria.
The novelty of the authors’ approach is that it provides a transition from the single-criteria assessment of competitiveness prevailing in the existing literature to the multicriteria assessment of the efficiency of technological innovations of energy companies. This allows for the first time to take into account not only costs (digital competitiveness) but also results (energy intensity level of primary energy, investment in energy with private participation, and renewable electricity output), as well as the ratio of results and costs (efficiency). As a result, the suggested approach allows making the most accurate and reliable assessment of the contribution of corporate social responsibility of energy companies to EnergyTech.
The theoretical significance of the results obtained in this study is that they formed a systemic vision of the practical implementation of SDG 7 and SDG 9 in the activities of energy companies, clarified the conceptual boundaries of EnergyTech, and offered scientific and methodological recommendations to accurately quantify the degree of compliance of energy companies with the requirements of EnergyTech.
The practical significance of the obtained results lies in the fact that the application of the progressive Saati method allowed not only to systematize but also to rank the criteria according to the degree of significance. Based on the ranks assigned to the indicators, energy companies will be able to prioritize the development of technological innovations when managing them in their activities. This will improve the efficiency of technological innovation management from the standpoint of increasing their contribution to the corporate social responsibility of energy companies, as well as accelerate their transition to EnergyTech.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the manuscript contributed to the conception and design of the study revision, read, and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ahmed, R. I., Zhao, G., Ahmad, N., and Habiba, U. (2022). A Nexus between Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and its Determinants in Energy Enterprises. Jbim 37 (6), 1255–1268. doi:10.1108/JBIM-07-2020-0359
Ajagekar, A., and You, F. (2022). Quantum Computing and Quantum Artificial Intelligence for Renewable and Sustainable Energy: A Emerging Prospect towards Climate Neutrality. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 165, 112493. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2022.112493
Asakereh, A., Soleymani, M., and Safieddin Ardebili, S. M. (2022). Multi-criteria Evaluation of Renewable Energy Technologies for Electricity Generation: A Case Study in Khuzestan Province, Iran. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 52, 102220. doi:10.1016/j.seta.2022.102220
Ates, S. (2022). The Credibility of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports: Evidence from the Energy Sector in Emerging Markets. Srj. doi:10.1108/SRJ-04-2021-0149
Baur, D., Emmerich, P., Baumann, M. J., and Weil, M. (2022). Assessing the Social Acceptance of Key Technologies for the German Energy Transition. Energ Sustain Soc. 12 (1), 4. doi:10.1186/s13705-021-00329-x
Brizhak, O. V., and Tolstobokov, O. N. (2022). Forming the New Industrial Core of Russian Industry: Problems and Perspectives. Curr. Problems World Econ. Int. Trade 42. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/s0190-128120220000042015
Buonomano, A., Barone, G., and Forzano, C. (2022). Advanced Energy Technologies, Methods, and Policies to Support the Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems. Energy Rep. 8, 4844–4853. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.171
Cibinskiene, A., Dumciuviene, D., Bobinaite, V., and Dragašius, E. (2021). Competitiveness of Industrial Companies Forming the Value Chain of Wind Energy Components: The Case of Lithuania. Sustainability 13 (16), 9255. doi:10.3390/su13169255
Cui, L., Mu, Y., Shen, Z., and Wang, W. (2022). Energy Transition, Trade and Green Productivity in Advanced Economies. J. Clean. Prod. 361, 132288. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132288
Dudukalov, E. V., Munister, V. D., Zolkin, A. L., Losev, A. N., and Knishov, A. V. (2021). The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Information Technology for Measurements in Mechanical Engineering and in Process Automation Systems in Industry 4.0. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1889 (5), 052011. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1889/5/052011
Gebreslassie, M. G., Cuvilas, C., Zalengera, C., To, L. S., Baptista, I., Robin, E., et al. (2022). Delivering an Off-Grid Transition to Sustainable Energy in Ethiopia and Mozambique. Energ Sustain Soc. 12 (1), 23. doi:10.1186/s13705-022-00348-2
Guo, Z., Peng, Y., and Chen, Y. (2022). How Digital Finance Affects the Continuous Technological Innovation of Chinese Energy Companies? Front. Energy Res. 10, 833436. doi:10.3389/fenrg.2022.833436
Haoyang, W., Lei, G., and Ying, J. (2022). The Predicament of Clean Energy Technology Promotion in China in the Carbon Neutrality Context: Lessons from China's Environmental Regulation Policies from the Perspective of the Evolutionary Game Theory. Energy Rep. 8, 4706–4723. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.142
IMD World Competitiveness Center (2022). World Digital Competitiveness Ranking 2021. Available at: https://www.imd.org/centers/world-competitiveness-center/rankings/world-digital-competitiveness/[data accessed 04 29 2022].
Kurowski, M., and Huk, K. (2021). Selected Aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Industry Related to the Production and Supply of Energy. Energies 14 (23), 7965. doi:10.3390/en14237965
Li, R., Xu, L., Hui, J., Cai, W., and Zhang, S. (2022). China's Investments in Renewable Energy through the Belt and Road Initiative Stimulated Local Economy and Employment: A Case Study of Pakistan. Sci. Total Environ. 835, 155308. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155308
Li, Y., and Kimura, S. (2021). Economic Competitiveness and Environmental Implications of Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles in ASEAN Countries: The Current and Future Scenarios. Energy Policy 148, 111980. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111980
Madaleno, M., Dogan, E., and Taskin, D. (2022). A Step Forward on Sustainability: The Nexus of Environmental Responsibility, Green Technology, Clean Energy and Green Finance. Energy Econ. 109, 105945. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105945
Matsunaga, F., Zytkowski, V., Valle, P., and Deschamps, F. (2022). Optimization of Energy Efficiency in Smart Manufacturing through the Application of Cyber-Physical Systems and Industry 4.0 Technologies. J. Energy Resour. Technol. Trans. ASME 144 (10), 102104. doi:10.1115/1.4053868
Nagel, N. O., Kirkerud, J. G., and Bolkesjø, T. F. (2022). The Economic Competitiveness of Flexibility Options: A Model Study of the European Energy Transition. J. Clean. Prod. 350, 131534. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131534
Nguyen, C. P. (2022). The “Karma” of Impact on the Earth: Will Humans Take Responsibility? Evidence of Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-19461-y
Padmanabhan, S., Giridharan, K., Stalin, B., Kumaran, S., Kavimani, V., Nagaprasad, N., et al. (2022). Energy Recovery of Waste Plastics into Diesel Fuel with Ethanol and Ethoxy Ethyl Acetate Additives on Circular Economy Strategy. Sci. Rep. 12 (1), 5330. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-09148-2
Popkova, E. G., De Bernardi, P., Tyurina, Y. G., and Sergi, B. S. (2022). A Theory of Digital Technology Advancement to Address the Grand Challenges of Sustainable Development. Technol. Soc. 68, 101831. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101831
Qu, F., Xu, L., and Zheng, B. (2022). Directed Technical Change and Pollution Emission: Evidence from Fossil and Renewable Energy Technologies in China. Front. Energy Res. 10, 794104. doi:10.3389/fenrg.2022.794104
Shi, G., Fei, F., Qin, J., Gao, Y., Li, Y., and Xu, D. (2022). Application, Prospect, and Challenge of Small-Spacing Stereo-Staggered Well Pattern Deployment Technology in the Shale Oil Reservoir. Front. Energy Res. 10, 859348. doi:10.3389/fenrg.2022.859348
Shuai, J., Zhao, Y., Wang, Y., and Cheng, J. (2022). Renewable Energy Product Competitiveness: Evidence from the United States, China and India. Energy 249, 123614. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2022.123614
Shukla, A., and Geetika, N. A. (2022). Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Financial Performance of Energy Firms in India. Ijbge 16 (1), 88–105. doi:10.1504/IJBGE.2022.119356
Son Le, H., Said, Z., Tuan Pham, M., Hieu Le, T., Veza, I., Nhanh Nguyen, V., et al. (2022). Production of HMF and DMF Biofuel from Carbohydrates through Catalytic Pathways as a Sustainable Strategy for the Future Energy Sector. Fuel 324, 124474. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124474
Tang, J., Zhao, Y., Wang, M., Wang, D., Yang, X., Hao, R., et al. (2022). Circadian Humidity Fluctuation Induced Capillary Flow for Sustainable Mobile Energy. Nat. Commun. 13 (1), 1291. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28998-y
Vanchukhina, L. I., Leybert, T. B., and Khalikova, E. A. (2016). Methodological Approaches to Evaluation and Analysis of Labor Efficiency in the Spheres of Fuel and Energy Complex. J. Environ. Manag. Tour. 7 (4), 585–593.
Wang, J., and Sun, J. (2022). The Role of Audit Committees in Social Responsibility and Environmental Disclosures: Evidence from Chinese Energy Sector. Int. J. Discl. Gov. 19 (1), 113–128. doi:10.1057/s41310-021-00131-3
Wang, Y., and Hasani, J. (2022). Energy Generation from a System Based on Solar Energy and Fuel Cell Technology with the Option of Storing Electrical Energy. Energy Rep. 8, 4988–5004. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.199
Wen, S., and Jia, Z. (2022). The Energy, Environment and Economy Impact of Coal Resource Tax, Renewable Investment, and Total Factor Productivity Growth. Resour. Policy 77, 102742. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102742
World Bank (2022). Data – Energy & Mining. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/topic/energy-and-mining?view=chart [data accessed 29 04 2022].
Keywords: EnergyTech, corporate social responsibility, energy companies, international experience, polycriterial evaluation, technological innovations, effectiveness
Citation: Vagin SG, Vasyakin B, Zakharov MY and Shaker IE (2022) Corporate Social Responsibility of Energy Companies: International Experience and Polycriterial Evaluation of Technological Innovations’ Effectiveness. Front. Energy Res. 10:945109. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2022.945109
Received: 16 May 2022; Accepted: 20 June 2022;
Published: 26 August 2022.
Edited by:
Elena G. Popkova, Moscow State Institute of International Relations, RussiaReviewed by:
Pietro Stilo, Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, ItalyCopyright © 2022 Vagin, Vasyakin, Zakharov and Shaker. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sergei G. Vagin, vsg63@hotmail.com