社会的发展需要找到经济高质量发展与环境保护之间的平衡点，作为碳排放量较多的汽车行业，进行绿色转型是推动我国实现“双碳”目标的重要一环，也是汽车企业扩大市场份额、增强综合竞争力的重要举措。对于汽车企业来说，实施绿色转型，不仅是顺应国家政策的必然之举，更能助力企业实现可持续发展。因此，对汽车行业的绿色转型进行研究能够为传统车企的绿色转型提供思路，并丰富这一领域的理论成果。

本文选取吉利汽车作为案例研究对象，分析其绿色转型的动因及绿色转型对企业绩效的影响。首先，采用文献研究法，从绿色转型、企业绩效以及绿色转型对企业绩效的影响这三个方面展开，梳理当前有关这三个方面的研究现状，为后续的案例分析提供一定的文献理论基础。其次，对汽车行业现状展开分析。包括当前汽车行业概况、绿色转型制度背景以及行业背景，发现当前我国汽车行业电动汽车市场认可度提高、绿色技术水平提升、燃油消耗量显著改善、配套设施仍需完善、转型成本要求高。然后，对吉利汽车绿色转型的历程、动因及实现路径展开研究。由于吉利汽车从2005年开始涉足混动汽车领域，因此以2005年为起点，梳理其2005至2023年期间绿色转型的历程，为后续的绩效分析提供参考。以前文文献梳理为基础，从宏观经济层面、中观产业和外部层面、微观企业层面这三个方面层层递进，剖析吉利汽车绿色转型的动因。吉利汽车绿色转型的实现路径包括构造全产业链碳管理、采用多品牌协同、健全管治架构、发展可持续金融，共同助推吉利汽车的绿色转型，促使吉利汽车实现降低碳排放量、提升综合竞争力、促进可持续发展以及拓宽融资渠道。最后，对吉利汽车的绿色转型绩效进行重点分析。以吉利汽车第一辆新能源汽车发布为开始时间，对其2015至2023年期间进行绩效评价。以三重盈余理论为基础，构建包含环境绩效、财务绩效和社会绩效的综合评价体系。环境绩效的评价包含四个维度，分别是碳排放量、污染排放、资源利用以及绿色研发；财务绩效包含盈利能力、营运能力、成长能力和偿债能力这四个方面；社会绩效从员工发展与安全以及社会责任两个维度出发。为排除主观影响，采用熵权法TOPSIS进行综合绩效分析，通过客观赋权，为各绩效指标分别打分，直观体现出吉利汽车绿色转型对企业绩效的影响。结果显示，绿色转型行为短期内会提升企业的绩效水平，中期可能会由于转型进程导致成本增加带来绩效的短暂降低，但随着绿色转型的不断成熟，企业的绩效水平又会逐步提升。因此，长期来看，企业的绿色转型行为会提升综合绩效水平，促进企业的可持续发展。

基于以上研究，对于企业的绿色转型得出以下启示：企业应当加强战略合作，促进成果落地；加强职工培训，提升技术水平；研发先进技术，推进绿色转型；扩大产业布局，降低经营风险；顺应时代发展，实现同步转型。

The development of society needs to find a balance between high-quality economic growth and environmental protection, as the automobile industry with high carbon emissions, green transformation is an integral part of promoting China to realize the goal of “dual-carbon”, and it is also an essential measure for automobile enterprises to expand their market share and enhance their comprehensive competitiveness. For automobile enterprises, the implementation of green transformation is not only an inevitable move to comply with national policies but also helps enterprises to realize sustainable development. Therefore, the study of green transformation in the automobile industry can provide ideas for the green transformation of traditional automobile enterprises and enrich the theoretical achievements in this field.

In this paper, Geely Automobile is selected as a case study object to analyze the motivation for its green transformation and the impact of green transformation on enterprise performance. First of all, the literature research method is adopted to start from the three aspects of green transformation, enterprise performance, and the impact of green transformation on enterprise performance, combing the current status of the research on these three aspects to provide a certain theoretical basis of the literature for the subsequent case study. Secondly, the current situation of the automobile industry is analyzed. Including the current automotive industry overview, green transformation system background, and industry background, found that the current automotive industry in China has the status quo of increased market recognition of electric vehicles, green technology level, significant improvement in fuel consumption, the scale of supporting facilities but still need to be perfected, and the high cost of transformation requirements. Then, the history, motivation, and realization path of Geely Automobile's green transformation are studied. As Geely has been involved in the field of hybrid vehicles since 2005, we take 2005 as the starting point to trace its journey of green transformation from 2005 to 2023, which provides a reference for the subsequent performance analysis. Based on the previous literature, we analyze the motivation of Geely Auto's green transformation from the macroeconomic level, the meso-industry and external level, and the micro-enterprise level. The realization path of Geely Auto's green transformation includes constructing the whole industrial chain carbon management, adopting multi-brand synergy, sound organizational structure, and developing sustainable finance, which together promote Geely Auto's green transformation, prompting Geely Auto to achieve carbon emission reduction, enhance comprehensive competitiveness, promote sustainable development, and broaden financing channels. Finally, the green transformation performance of Geely Automobile is analyzed. The performance of Geely Automobile is evaluated for the period from 2015 to 2023, starting with the release of its first new energy vehicle. Based on the triple surplus theory, a comprehensive evaluation system is constructed that includes environmental performance, financial performance, and social performance. The evaluation of environmental performance contains four dimensions, namely, carbon emission, pollution emission, resource utilization, and green R&D; financial performance contains four dimensions, namely, profitability, operating ability, development ability, and solvency; and social performance starts from the dimensions of employee development and safety and social responsibility. To exclude subjective influence, the entropy weighting method TOPSIS is used to carry out comprehensive performance analysis, and through objective empowerment, each performance indicator is scored separately, which visually reflects the impact of Geely Automobile's green transformation on corporate performance. The results show that the green transformation behavior will enhance the performance level of the enterprise in the short term, and may bring about a short-lived decrease in performance in the medium term due to the increase in costs caused by the transformation process, but with the continuous maturity of green transformation, the performance level of the enterprise will gradually increase again. Therefore, in the long run, the green transformation behavior of enterprises will enhance the comprehensive performance level and promote the sustainable development of enterprises.

Based on the above research, the following insights are drawn for the green transformation of enterprises: enterprises should strengthen strategic cooperation to promote the results; strengthen employee training to improve the technical level; research and development of advanced technologies to promote green transformation; expand industrial layout to reduce business risks; and adapt to the development of the times to realize synchronous transformation.

[1] 毕茜,李虹媛,于连超.高管环保经历嵌入对企业绿色转型的影响与作用机制[J].广东财经大学学报,2019,34(05):4-21.

[2] 曹亮.低碳经济、欧盟可再生能源转型与俄罗斯能源出口[D].华东师范大学,2023.

[3] 巢清尘.“碳达峰和碳中和”的科学内涵及我国的政策措施[J].环境与可持续发展,2021,46(02):14-19.

[4] 陈国进,丁赛杰,赵向琴,等.中国绿色金融政策、融资成本与企业绿色转型——基于央行担保品政策视角[J].金融研究,2021,(12):75-95.

[5] 陈秋强,蔡兆晖,林学杰.基于熵值——突变级数的能源公司创新能力评价[J].江西煤炭科技,2022,(01):245-248.

[6] 陈扬.环境规制视角下我国流通业绿色转型的影响因素分析[J].商业经济研究,2021,(04):27-30.

[7] 陈泽文,陈丹.新旧动能转换的环境不确定性背景下高管环保意识风格如何提升企业绩效——绿色创新的中介作用[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2019,40(10):113-128.

[8] 成琼文,丁红乙.财政补贴、政策组合与资源型企业创新产出——基于创新产出异质性视角[J].中国科技论坛,2021,(09):20-30+103.

[9] 丁杰,李仲飞,黄金波.绿色信贷政策能够促进企业绿色创新吗?——基于政策效应分化的视角[J].金融研究,2022,(12):55-73.

[10] 丁少恒.欧盟达成2035年起禁售燃油车协议对全球能源转型影响深远[J].国际石油经济,2023,31(01):22-23+48.

[11] 丁潇君,房雅婷.中国环境规制与绿色创新关系研究——基于元分析方法的实证分析[J].价格理论与实践,2018,(06):34-37.

[12] 冯烈,郭亚军.基于突变级数法的新能源上市公司成长性评价[J].财会月刊,2014,(10):64-68.

[13] 郭俊杰,方颖.绿色信贷、融资结构与企业环境投资[J].世界经济,2022,45(08):57-80.

[14] 郭丕斌,张爱琴.负责任创新、动态能力与企业绿色转型升级[J].科研管理,2021,42(07):31-39.

[15] 何兴邦.环境规制、政治关联和企业研发投入——基于民营上市企业的实证研究[J].软科学,2017,31(10):43-46+51.

[16] 侯建,陈恒.中国高专利密集度制造业技术创新绿色转型绩效及驱动因素研究[J].管理评论,2018,30(04):59-69.

[17] 胡元林,崔丹.企业环保投资影响因素的实证研究[J].生态经济,2019,35(01):161-166.

[18] 蒋金荷,马露露,于宪荣.中国绿色经济转型评价及驱动因素研究[J].北京工业大学学报(社会科学版),2022,22(03):123-141.

[19] 解学梅,王若怡,霍佳阁.政府财政激励下的绿色工艺创新与企业绩效:基于内容分析法的实证研究[J].管理评论,2020,32(05):109-124.

[20] 康丽群,刘汉民,钱晶晶.高管长期导向对企业绿色创新的影响研究：环境动态性的调节作用与战略学习能力的中介效应[J].商业经济与管理,2021,(10):34-48.

[21] 李博,李芬,杜爽.碳交易对电力企业的财务影响[J].会计之友,2024,(16):94-102.

[22] 李春发,卢娜娜,李冬冬,等.企业绿色创新:政府规制、信息披露及投资策略演化[J].科学学研究,2021,39(01):180-192.

[23] 李金克,张荣,李伯钧.环境动态性视角下大数据能力对制造业绿色竞争力的影响机制研究——基于SBM-GML指数模型[J].科技进步与对策,2021,38(23):67-75.

[24] 李楠博.压力与期冀：生态文明视域下企业绿色技术创新的驱动机制研究[J].求是学刊,2020,47(01):75-87.

[25] 李想,刘海斌,王宗晟.“双碳”目标下制造业供应链绿色化转型的多元驱动路径分析——基于TOE理论的fsQCA方法[J].物流科技,2025,48(03):148-152.

[26] 李佐军.中国第三次大转型已拉开序幕——《中国绿色转型发展报告》序[J].中国发展观察,2013,(06):60-61.

[27] 林绮琪,杨玲玲,刘鸿浩.ESG表现对企业绩效影响的实证研究[J].现代商贸工业,2022,43(S1):167-169.

[28] 刘建江,熊智桥,石大千.环境规制对国有企业转型升级的影响——来自环保问责制的新证据[J].财经理论与实践,2022,43(02):114-122.

[29] 绿色制造：“双碳"目标下的制造业转型焦点[J].中国工业和信息化,2022,(06):24-25.

[30] 孟晓倩,吴传清.经济绿色转型发展指数评价方法探讨及应用[J].区域经济评论,2023,(01):149-160.

[31] 聂雷,王圆圆,张静,等.资源型城市绿色转型绩效评价——来自中国114个地级市的检验[J].技术经济,2022,41(04):141-152.

[32] 聂雷,王圆圆,张静,等.资源型城市绿色转型绩效评价——来自中国114个地级市的检验[J].技术经济,2022,41(04):141-152.

[33] 齐美娟. 绿色制造成为落实高质量发展要求的新趋势和新潮流[J]. 中国国情国力, 2019(12): 74-74.

[34] 任相伟,孙丽文.低碳视域下中国企业绿色转型动因及路径研究——基于扎根理论的多案例探索性研究[J].软科学,2020,34(12):111-115+121.

[35] 邵利敏,高雅琪,王森.环境规制与资源型企业绿色行为选择:“倒逼转型”还是“规制俘获”[J].河海大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2018,20(06):62-68+92-93.

[36] 苏冬蔚,连莉莉.绿色信贷是否影响重污染企业的投融资行为?[J].金融研究,2018,(12):123-137.

[37] 孙凌宇.资源型企业绿色转型成长的理论框架构建研究[J].青海社会科学,2013,(05):45-50.

[38] 田红娜,刘思琦.政府补贴对绿色技术创新能力的影响[J].系统工程,2021,39(02):34-43.

[39] 田嘉莉,黄文艳,彭甲超,等.绿色金融赋能碳中和的传导机制与空间效应[J].西部论坛,2022,32(05):44-62.

[40] 王爱国,刘洋.政府绿色政策与低碳企业投资行为的相关性研究[J].东岳论丛,2019,40(07):127-139.

[41] 王火根,黄漂,林斌.林业企业绿色绩效评价及政策优化[J].林业经济,2019,41(08):69-75+94.

[42] 王喆,王留群.2023年多项气候变化指标创下新高[J].生态经济,2024,40(05):5-8.

[43] 王志锋,赵鹏飞.科学发展观视角下动力衰减型资源城市转型战略思考[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2008,(05):70-73.

[44] 武保贇,张克荣,周罗,等.基于熵值法和突变级数法的安徽省上市企业绩效评价研究[J].阜阳师范学院学报(自然科学版),2017,34(04):78-85.

[45] 徐枫,潘麒,汪亚楠.“双碳”目标下绿色低碳转型对企业盈利能力的影响研究[J].宏观经济研究,2022,(01):161-175.

[46] 徐建中,贯君,林艳.互补性资产视角下绿色创新与企业绩效关系研究——战略柔性和组织冗余的调节作用[J].科技进步与对策,2016,33(20):76-82.

[47] 杨静,施建军,李曼,等.绿色战略如何影响企业绩效——基于转型经济情境的研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2013,34(07):141-149.

[48] 杨静,施建军.企业生态创新与经济绩效曲线关系研究[J].科技进步与对策,2015,32(13):95-99.

[49] 杨婷蓉,丁慧平.绿色EVA:基于预期生态效率的经济增加值[J].东北大学学报(社会科学版),2017,19(02):147-152+159.

[50] 油控研究项目课题组.中国石油消费情景与峰值分析[J].中国煤炭,2019,45(12):20-26.

[51] 于连超,毕茜,张卫国.工业企业绿色转型评价体系构建[J].统计与决策,2019,35(14):186-188.

[52] 于连超,张卫国,毕茜.环境税对企业绿色转型的倒逼效应研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2019,29(07):112-120.

[53] 张瑾华,陈强远.碳中和目标下中国制造业绿色转型路径分析[J].企业经济,2021,40(08):36-43.

[54] 张炜.创新环境、产业环境与转型绩效关系研究——以江浙企业为样本[J].科技管理研究,2010,30(19):170-174.

[55] 张希良,黄晓丹,张达,等.碳中和目标下的能源经济转型路径与政策研究[J].管理世界,2022,38(01):35-66.

[56] 张霞,蒋文慧.因子分析法在A股上市公司财务质量评价分析中的运用[J].现代审计与经济,2022,(06):32.

[57] 朱东波,任力.环境规制、外商直接投资与中国工业绿色转型[J].国际贸易问题,2017,(11):70-81.

[58] 邹志勇,辛沛祝,晁玉方,等.高管绿色认知、企业绿色行为对企业绿色绩效的影响研究——基于山东轻工业企业数据的实证分析[J].华东经济管理,2019,33(12):35-41.

[59] Chan R Y K, He H, Chan H K, et al. Environmental Orientation and Corporate Performance: The Mediation Mechanism of Green Supply Chain Management and Moderating Effect of Competitive Intensity[J]. Industrial Marketing Management 2012, 41(4): 621-630.

[60] Dongyang Z. Green financial system regulation shock and greenwashing behaviors: Evidence from Chinese firms[J]. Energy Economics, 2022, 111.

[61] Guan D, Meng J, Reiner M D, et al. Structural decline in China’s CO2 emissions through transitions in industry and energy systems[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2018, 11(8): 551-555.

[62] Haichao F, Yuchao P, Huanhuan W, et al. Greening through finance? [J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2021, (prepublish): 102683-.

[63] Hetong W ,Shaozhou Q ,Chaobo Z , et al.Green credit policy, government behavior and green innovation quality of enterprises[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022, 331.

[64] Horbach J, Rammer C, Rennings K. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact- The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull[J]. Ecological Economics, 2012, 78112-122.

[65] Kammerer D. The effects of customer benefit and regulation on environmental product innovation[J]. Ecological Economics, 2009, 68(8/9): 2285-2295.

[66] Leonidou C L, Christodoulides P, Kyrgidou P L, et al. Internal Drivers and Performance Consequences of Small Firm Green Business Strategy: The Moderating Role of External Forces[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2017, 140(3): 585-606.

[67] Mingfeng T, Grace W, Daniel L, et al. Green Innovation, Managerial Concern and Firm Performance: An Empirical Study[J]. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2017, 27(1): 39-51.

[68] Shaorui Li, Vaidyanathan Jayaraman, Antony Paulraj, Kuo-chung Shang. Proactive environmental strategies and performance: role of green supply chain processes and green product design in the Chinese high-tech industry[J]. International Journal of Production Research, 2016, 54(7).

[69] Shi L, Han L, Yang F, et al. The Evolution of Sustainable Development Theory: Types, Goals, and Research Prospects[J]. Sustainability, 2019,11(24): 7158.

[70] Stucki T. Which firms benefit from investments in green energy technologies? -The effect of energy costs[J]. Research Policy, 2019, 48(3): 546-555.

[71] Tang B, Li X, Yu B, et al. Sustainable development pathway for intercity passenger transport: A case study of China[J]. Applied Energy, 2019, 254(C): 113632-113632.

[72] Tzouvanas P, Kizys R, Chatziantoniou I, et al. Environmental and financial performance in the European manufacturing sector: An analysis of extreme tail dependency[J]. The British Accounting Review, 2019, 52(6): 100863- 100863.

[73] World Meteorological Organization. State of the global-climate 2020[R/OL]. (2021-01-19)[2023-01-16].

[74] Yineng G, Lijun F, Xiaohao Y. Market Competition, Financialization, and Green Innovation: Evidence From China’s Manufacturing Industries[J]. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2022, 10.

[75] Zhang L ,Cao C ,Tang F , et al.Does China’s emissions trading system foster corporate green innovation? Evidence from regulating listed companies[J].Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2019,31(2):199-212.

[76] Zhou Y, Hong J, Zhu K, et al. Dynamic capability matters: Uncovering its fundamental role in decision making of environmental innovation[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 177516-526.