sustainability

Article
Evaluation of Green Manufacturing Level in China’s Provincial
Administrative Regions Based on Combination Weighting
Method and TOPSIS
Mingtao Wang 1, *, Chunming Ye 2 and Dingkun Zhang 3

1 School of Computer and Information Engineering, Anyang Normal University, Anyang 455000, China
2 Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China
3 School of Electromechanical Engineering, Heilongjiang University, Harbin 150006, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-15039960446

Abstract: Green manufacturing is becoming an important emerging field in the new round of global
industrial revolution and scientific and technological competition. Scientific evaluation of China’s
regional green manufacturing level has far-reaching significance for promoting the transformation and
upgrading of the manufacturing industry and enhancing international competitiveness. This paper
defines the connotation of green manufacturing in China in the new era, proposes four dimensions
of green production, green emission, green technology, and green benefit as the framework of the
evaluation system, and constructs the evaluation index system. By taking 30 provincial administrative
regions as research samples, based on the data from 2017 to 2020, the combination weighting method
and TOPSIS are used for evaluation from the perspective of “static” and “dynamic” to identify the
current situation and development of green manufacturing level in each region. It was found that the
important factors affecting the green manufacturing level in each region are green products, green
invention patents, sulfur dioxide, green factories, and coal consumption. The “static” evaluation
Citation: Wang, M.; Ye, C.; Zhang, D.
results show that the green manufacturing level varies significantly among regions. The eastern
Evaluation of Green Manufacturing area is generally better than the central and western areas, and only six regions are at high-level and
Level in China’s Provincial medium to high-level. In addition, the four dimensions in most regions are imbalanced, with an
Administrative Regions Based on obvious Matthew effect. The “dynamic” evaluation results show that the green manufacturing level
Combination Weighting Method and in 30 regions appears to have six different types of dynamic trends. There is a small change in the
TOPSIS. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690. ranking of most regions, indicating that the dynamic development of green manufacturing level has
https://doi.org/10.3390/ clear regional dependence, which is difficult to change in the short term. The research results show
su142013690 that the index system and model can effectively evaluate the regional green manufacturing level.
Academic Editor: Antonella Petrillo Finally, combined with the important influencing factors, some suggestions are proposed to enhance
the regional green manufacturing level.
Received: 29 August 2022
Accepted: 2 October 2022
Keywords: green manufacturing; static evaluation; dynamic evaluation; combination weight; TOPSIS
Published: 21 October 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- 1. Introduction
iations.
Green manufacturing, as a new industrial pattern formed by the deep integration
between green technology innovation and the transformation and development of the
manufacturing industry, is becoming an important emerging field in the new round of
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
global industrial revolution and technological competition.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Both developed countries and new economies regard green manufacturing as the key
This article is an open access article field to winning future industrial competitions and have introduced relevant policies to
distributed under the terms and strengthen implementation measures. For example, the United States Congress passed
conditions of the Creative Commons environmental protection laws related to green manufacturing, such as the “Environmental
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Design of Electrical Equipment Act” and the “Electronic Waste Recycling Act” [1]. The
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology of the United States (PCAST)
4.0/). issued a strategy called “Accelerating U.S. Advanced Manufacturing”, known as AMP 2.0,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013690 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 2 of 26

which listed “sustainable manufacturing” as one of the 11 key technologies for revitalizing
the manufacturing industry and made use of technological advantages to seek a new mode
of green manufacturing development [2]. The European Union formulated a series of
directives related to product environment, such as “Restriction of Hazardous Substances
(RoHS)” and “Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)”, which improved the
environmental performance of electrical appliances, electronics, and automobiles in the
European market and greatly promoted the green manufacturing of products [3]. Japan
formulated a new version of the “Chemical Substance Control Law”, requiring enterprises
in the chemical, household appliances, textile, toy production, and other industries to
provide data on the safety of their products and to report and evaluate new chemical
substances [4]. Germany formulated the “Circular Economy and Waste Management Law”,
which takes “government promotion, market guidance, enterprise implementation, and
public participation” as the guiding principle, and specifies the tasks of the government
and enterprises to achieve the goal of “reduction, reuse, and recycling” [5].
China attaches great importance to the development of green manufacturing.
In 2006, the State Council of China issued “the Outline of Medium and Long Term
Scientific and Technological Development Plan of China (2006–2020)”, which listed green
manufacturing as one of the three major directions of the scientific and technological devel-
opment of the manufacturing industry [6]. In 2011, the Ministry of Science and Technology
of China launched “the 12th Five-Year Plan for Science and Technology Development”,
which proposed to focus on the development of advanced green manufacturing technolo-
gies and products and make breakthroughs in key technologies such as green product
design, environmental protection materials, energy conservation and environmental protec-
tion processes, and green recycling treatment in the manufacturing industry [7]. In 2015, the
State Council of China launched “Made in China 2025”, proposing to comprehensively pro-
mote green manufacturing. In 2016, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology
of China (MIIT) issued “the Guidelines for the Implementation of Green Manufacturing
Projects (2016–2020)”, which proposed the tasks of developing 10,000 green products, build-
ing 1000 green factories, building 100 green industrial parks, and creating the green supply
chain [8]. In 2016, MIIT issued “the Notice on Developing Green Manufacturing System”,
which formulated relevant standards and evaluation systems for a green product, green
factory, green industrial park, and green supply chain [9]. After that, Beijing, Shanghai,
Guangdong Province, and other regions formulated “the Implementation Plan of Green
Manufacturing system construction (2018–2020)”, and green manufacturing has become
the focus of government planning and academic research.
How is China’s regional green manufacturing level now? Which regions are at the
forefront? Which regions need to be improved? How to measure and evaluate scientifically?
The research on these issues will help clarify the context of regional green manufacturing.
A scientific and reasonable construction of a regional green manufacturing level evaluation
system and measurement of green manufacturing level will help to grasp the advantages
and disadvantages of green manufacturing in each region and have important theoretical
and practical value for wholly promoting China’s green manufacturing.
From the existing literature, some scholars noticed the importance of regional green
manufacturing level evaluation and carried out empirical research on different regions.
The research can be summarized into two aspects: the construction of an evaluation index
system and the application of evaluation methods.
In terms of the construction of an evaluation index system, scholars conducted research
from different perspectives. Lv [10] constructed an evaluation index system of regional
green manufacturing development level, including five dimensions: the green level of prod-
uct design, the clean level of the production process, the level of energy efficient utilization,
the input level of environmental protection, and the level of industrial coupling integration.
Wang [11] built a green manufacturing level evaluation index system from four aspects of
green growth, green development, energy conservation and control, and technological inno-
vation. From the perspective of the product life cycle, Wang et al. [12] constructed a green
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 3 of 26

manufacturing level evaluation index system consisting of a development benefit index,

production process index, environmental protection index, and industrial and technological
innovation index. From the perspective of industry, Liu et al. [13] established an evaluation
index system for industrial green manufacturing level from four dimensions of efficient
development, low-carbon development, cleaner production, and circular development.
You et al. [14] constructed an evaluation index system of green manufacturing perfor-
mance, including five dimensions: development benefit, resource utilization, pollution
emission, environmental protection, and technological innovation. Li et al. [15] explained
the definition and development trend of green manufacturing and proposed an evaluation
index system of green manufacturing level from five aspects of product ecological design,
cleaner production, efficient utilization of energy, recycling of renewable resources, and
product coupling integration. Based on the “PSR (pressure-state-response)” model and life
cycle theory, Wang et al. [16] constructed a green manufacturing evaluation index system
from four dimensions: environmental attribute, energy attribute, resource attribute, and
economic attribute. Zhang et al. [17] built an evaluation index system of ecosystem green
manufacturing from three aspects of the economy, ecology, and society.
In terms of application of evaluation methods, ANP, AHP, entropy weight method,
TOPSIS, and standard deviation method are more commonly used. Lv [10] used the ANP-
Fuzzy method to evaluate the green manufacturing development level of six provinces
in Central China. Wang [11] used the grey relation analysis and TOPSIS model to eval-
uate the green manufacturing level of Feicheng City from 2010 to 2019. Wang et al. [12]
measured the green manufacturing level of Jilin Province from 2007 to 2017 by using the
standard deviation method and the synthetic weighted method. Liu et al. [13] evaluated
the industrial green manufacturing level of 11 provinces, autonomous regions, and cities
in Western China from 2011 to 2017 by using the entropy weight method, the analytical
hierarchy process (AHP), and the synthetic weighted method. You et al. [14] used the
standard deviation method to measure the green manufacturing performance of the China
National Ecological Civilization Pilot Zone (Guizhou) from 2006 to 2016. Li et al. [15]
used the synthetic weighted method to evaluate the green manufacturing level of nine
industrial developed provinces and cities in eastern China in 2010. Karamaşa et al. [18]
used multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) as the value-creating green approach to study
the logistics companies operating in the TR A1 region. Alosta et al. [19] located EMS
centers by using a multi-criteria decision-making approach, which consists of the AHP and
RAFSI models.
The existing literature laid an important foundation for this study, but there are some
deficiencies as follows: (1) The framework of the evaluation system is not systematic and
scientific enough. Scholars have their own evaluation dimensions, but the inherent logical
relationship between each dimension is loose and not rigorous enough. (2) The evaluation
indicator does not keep pace with the times because scholars do not pay attention to
the practical measures of promoting green manufacturing in China in recent years. The
existing literature lack indicators that can better reflect the benefit of green manufacturing
in provincial regions, such as a green industrial park, green factory, and green product, and
lack indicators that can better reflect green technology, such as green patent, transaction
value in technical markets, and green technology awarded. (3) There has been no research
on the evaluation of green manufacturing level in China’s provincial administrative regions
from the perspectives of “static” and “dynamic”.
Therefore, this paper focuses on improving the above three aspects, and the main work
is as follows. (1) On the basis of defining the connotation of green manufacturing in China in
the new era, this paper proposes four dimensions: green production, green emission, green
technology, and green benefit, which constitute a systematic and scientific evaluation system
framework. (2) According to the practice of promoting green manufacturing in China, this
paper selected indicators with the times, especially the indicators of “green technology” and
“green benefit”. Based on this, a characteristic evaluation index system was constructed.
(3) By taking 30 provincial administrative regions in China (excluding Tibet, Hong Kong,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 4 of 26

Macao, and Taiwan) as research samples, this paper made a comprehensive evaluation of
their green manufacturing level from the perspectives of “static” and “dynamic” using
the data from 2017 to 2020. Then, some targeted suggestions were proposed based on the
detailed analysis of the evaluation results.
The remainder of this paper is as follows: Section 2 defines the connotation of green
manufacturing in China in the New Ara. Section 3 constructs the evaluation index system.
Section 4 introduces research areas and data sources. Section 5 discusses the research
methods. Section 6 calculates the indicator weight and analyzes the important affecting
factors. Section 7 shows the static evaluation results and analysis. Section 8 shows the
dynamic evaluation results and analysis. Section 9 summarizes this study and proposes
some suggestions. Section 10 discusses the advantages and limitations of this study and
then gives future research.

2. Connotation of Green Manufacturing in China in the New Ara

The Society of Manufacturing Engineers recognized green manufacturing from the
perspective of environmental friendliness and first clearly gave its connotation; that is, the
goal of green manufacturing was to minimize the harm to the environment in the entire
product life cycle, including design, manufacturing, packing, transportation, usage, and
waste disposal [20].
Chinese scholars expanded the perspective and integrated energy consumption and
benefit into the connotation of green manufacturing. They believed that green manufactur-
ing refers to the least consumption of energy and the least harm to the environment in the
entire product life cycle so as to realize the coordinated development of economic benefit
and social benefit [6,14,15,21–25].
With the promulgation of policies such as “Made in China 2025”, “Guidelines for
the Implementation of Green Manufacturing Engineering”, and “Guidelines for the Con-
struction of Green Manufacturing Standard System, China’s green manufacturing has
entered a new era. Under the overall planning of MIIT, the application and research of
the green manufacturing system integration project were carried out, emphasizing the
important supporting role of technology in green manufacturing. All regions in China
actively research and develop green products, construct green factories, and create green
industrial parks, which add new content to the implementation of green manufacturing in
China in the new era, that is, ecological benefit.
By drawing on the above, this paper integrated technology and ecological benefits
into the connotation of green manufacturing in the new era. That is, green manufacturing
refers to the use of advanced technology and equipment (green technology) in the entire
product life cycle to improve energy utilization, achieve greater output value with less
energy (green production), minimize pollutant emissions (green emission), and promote
the research and development of a green product, the cultivation of green factory, and the
establishment of a green industrial park, so as to finally realize the coordinated growth of
economic benefit and ecological benefit (green benefit).

3. Construction of Evaluation Index System

According to the connotation of green manufacturing in China in the new era, four
evaluation dimensions of “green production”, “green emission”, “green technology”, and
“green benefit” are proposed to form the framework of the evaluation system. Based
on the relevant literature, “China Statistical Yearbook”, “China Environmental Statistical
Yearbook”, “China energy statistical yearbook”, and “Guidelines for the Implementation of
Green Manufacturing Engineering”, this paper screened out the indicators with a higher
frequency of use and then consulted experts in related fields. Based on expert evaluation
and indicators modification, this paper constructed a scientific and applicable evaluation
index system of China’s regional green manufacturing level, as shown in Table 1, and there
are 18 second-level indicators.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 5 of 26

Table 1. The evaluation index system of China’s regional green manufacturing level.

First-Level Second-Level
Meaning Property
Indicators Indicators
Energy consumption
Industrial energy consumption ÷ IVA -
(10,000 tce, A1)
Green Coal consumption (ton, A2) Industrial coal consumption ÷ IVA -
Production
Electricity consumption (kW·h, A3) Industrial electricity consumption ÷ IVA -
Clean energy power generation
Clean energy power generation ÷ total power generation +
proportion (%, A4)
Industrial COD discharge volume ÷ IVA
COD discharge (ton, B1) -
COD is an important pollutant of wastewater [26].
Industrial ammonia nitrogen discharge volume ÷ IVA
NH3 -N discharge (ton, B2) -
Green NH3 -N is an important pollutant of wastewater [27].
Emission Industrial sulfur dioxide emission volume ÷ IVA
SO2 emission (ton, B3) -
SO2 is an important pollutant of waste gas [28].
Industrial nitrogen oxide emission volume ÷ IVA
NOx emission (ton, B4) -
NOx is an important pollutant of waste gas [29].
solid wastes generated (ton, B5) Industrial solid wastes generated ÷ IVA -
Green invention patent refers to a new technical proposal
with green technology as the theme. Green technology
Number of green invention patents
refers to the technology that can realize ecological +
(piece, C1)
optimization, energy conservation, pollution prevention,
benefit improvement, etc. [30,31]
Number of green utility model Green utility model patent refers to the new practical
+
patents (piece, C2) technical proposal with green technology as a theme.
Green
Technology Transaction value in technical The total transaction volume of technological contracts in
+
markets (10,000 yuan, C3) the technical market.
The awards refer to "the award for green manufacturing
technology progress" and "the award for energy
conservation and emission reduction (ECED) technology
Number of green technology
progress". The former is selected from three aspects: +
awards (piece, C4)
technology and equipment, manufacturing process, and
resource recycling [32]. The latter rewards new technologies
with great application value in the field of ECED [33].
Green industrial park refers to a park that achieves cascade
Number of national green utilization of energy, recycling of water, exchange and
+
industrial parks (unit, D1) utilization of waste, and economic and intensive utilization
of land [34].
Green factory refers to a factory that achieves intensive use
Number of national green factories
of land, harmlessness of raw materials, clean production, +
(unit, D2)
Green resource utilization of waste, and low-carbon energy [35].
Benefit Green product refers to product that is harmless or less
Number of national green products harmful to the ecological environment and human health,
+
(piece, D3) consumes fewer resources and energy, and has high quality
in the entire product life cycle [36].
Industrial profits as a percentage of The proportion of total profits in business revenue of
+
business revenue (%, D4) industrial enterprises above the designated size.
IVA as a percentage of GDP (%, D5) IVA ÷ GDP (%) +

The feature and novelty of the evaluation index system constructed in this paper
are reflected in keeping pace with the times, integrating “green technology” and “green
benefit” into the evaluation framework, integrating “green industrial park”, “green factory”,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 6 of 26

“green product”, “green patent”, and “green technology award” into the index system,
and organically combining “average value indicators” and “absolute value indicators”.
According to the connotation of green manufacturing in China in the new era, “average
value indicators” are used for green production and green emission, and “absolute value
indicators” are mainly used for green technology and green benefit.

3.1. Green Production

Manufacturing is the pillar industry of China’s economic development, so energy
consumption is inevitable. China’s energy consumption structure is dominated by fossil
energy. Green production refers to the consumption of less fossil energy to achieve greater
output value via improving energy utilization and increasing the use of new clean energy.
In this paper, four indicators were designed to measure the level of green production
(A1~A4 in Table 1)
Among the four indicators, A1, A2, and A3 were used to measure the green production
level achieved by saving energy and reducing consumption of fossil energy; A4 was used
to measure the green production level achieved by strengthening the development of new
clean energy (wind, solar, etc.)

3.2. Green Emission

Manufacturing consumes energy, so it is bound to emit pollutants. Green emission
refers to the minimization of pollutant emissions by using pollution control and treatment
technologies so as to promote the green development of the economy. Because there are
many kinds of pollutants, it is necessary to screen out highly representative ones. Therefore,
on the basis of the statistical indicators in “China Statistical Yearbook on Environment”,
this study focused on the emission reduction indicators designated at the national level
since China’s 11th Five-Year Plan and finally selected pollutants such as COD, ammonia
nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and solid waste as the indicator design object, and
designs five indicators to measure the green emission level (B1~B5 in Table 1).
Among the five indicators, B1 and B2 were used to measure the green emission level
achieved by the treatment of pollutants in wastewater; B3 and B4 were used to measure the
green emission level achieved by the treatment of pollutants in waste gas; B5 was used to
measure the green emission level achieved by the treatment of solid wastes.

3.3. Green Technology

Green technology is a strong supporting factor for the in-depth implementation of
green manufacturing. Advanced technology and equipment are needed for energy saving
and consumption reduction, pollutant treatment, research and development of a green
product, construction of a green factory, and establishment of a green industrial park.
Therefore, green production, green emission, and green benefit all need the support of
green technology. In this paper, the green technology level was measured from four
indicators (C1~C4 in Table 1).
Among the four indicators, C1 and C2 were used to measure the green technology
level from the perspective of green patent, C3 was used to measure the green technology
level from the perspective of technological innovation activity and technology transfer
scale, and C4 was used to measure the green technology level from the perspective of
rewarded green technology.

3.4. Green Benefit

Green benefit refers to the economic benefit and social benefits of the implementation
of green manufacturing. In this paper, the green benefit level was measured from five
indicators (D1~D5 in Table 1).
Among the five indicators, D1, D2, and D3 were used to measure the ecological benefit
achieved by the implementation of green manufacturing; D4 and D5 are used to measure
the economic benefit achieved by the implementation of green manufacturing.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 7 of 26

4. Research Areas and Data

4.1. Research Areas
There are 34 provincial administrative regions in China. Due to the limitation of data
availability, Tibet, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan were excluded. Therefore, the research
areas for this paper were 30 provincial administrative regions in Mainland China.

4.2. Data Resource

The data used in this study are from relevant China’s government departments and
China’s official statistical yearbook. Among them, A1~A4 data are from “China Energy
Statistical Yearbook” and “China Statistical Yearbook”; B1~B5 data are from “China Statis-
tical Yearbook on Environment” and “China Statistical Yearbook”; C1, C2 data are from
China National Intellectual Property Administration; C4 data are from the organizers of
technology awards; D1~D3 data are from MIIT; C3, D4, D5 data are from “China Statistical
Yearbook”. The data span 4 years, from 2017 to 2020.

5. Research Methods
5.1. Combination Weighting Method
The methods to determine the weight included the subjective weighting method and
objective weighting method. The advantage of the subjective weighting method is that
it can gather the ideas of experts, while the disadvantage is that it relies too much on
the subjective judgment of experts. The advantage of the objective weighting method is
determining the weight according to the nature of the data, which is not disturbed by
human factors, while the disadvantage is that it relies too much on quantitative calculation
and cannot distinguish the importance of indicators from their own connotation. Therefore,
the more scientific approach is to combine the subjective weighting method with the
objective weighting method, that is, the combination weighting method. Some scholars
used the combination weighting method in their academic research [37–40].
In this paper, AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) [41] was used to determine the
subjective weight, the entropy weight method was used to determine the objective weight,
and the two kinds of weights were optimally combined according to the principle of
minimum discrimination information.

5.1.1. Determination of Subjective Weight by AHP

By consulting experts, the pairwise comparison matrices of each layer of indicators
can be completed so that the AHP weight of each indicator can be calculated and expressed
by as WjA .

5.1.2. Calculation of Objective Weight by Entropy Weight Method

The entropy weight method uses information entropy to calculate the indicator
weight [42]. For a certain indicator, the degree of its dispersion is judged by information
entropy. The smaller the information entropy, the greater the dispersion of the indicator,
indicating that the greater the role it plays in the evaluation, the larger its weight. On the
contrary, the weight will be smaller.
The calculation steps are as follows:
Suppose xij is the original data of the j-th indicator in the i-th region, i = 1, 2, . . . , 30,
j = 1, 2, . . . , 18.
(1) Calculate the proportion of the i-th region under the j-th indicator
,
30
yij = xij ∑ xij (1)
i =1

This step is equivalent to the dimensionless processing of the original data. There is
no need to use min–max method to standardize the data of positive indicator and negative
indicator, respectively.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 8 of 26

(2) Calculate the information entropy of each indicator

1 30
ln 30 i∑
ej = − (yij × ln yij ) (2)
=1

(3) Obtain the entropy weight of each indicator

,
18
E
∑ 1 − ej



Wj = 1 − e j (3)
i =1

5.1.3. Calculation of Combination Weight

Suppose the combined weight is Wj . In order to make WjA and WjE as close as possible,
the objective function was constructed according to the principle of minimum discrimina-
tion information [43], as shown in Equation (4).
   
18 W 18 W
minF = ∑ Wj ln W Aj + ∑ Wj ln W Ej
j =1 j j =1 j
18
(4)
s.t. ∑ Wj = 1, Wj > 0
j =1

The Lagrange multiplier method is used to solve Equation (4) and Wj is obtained, as
shown in Equation (5). q
WjA · WjE
Wj = (5)
18 q
∑ WjA · WjE
j =1

5.2. TOPSIS
TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) is a sort
method for approaching the ideal solution. Its principle is to rank evaluation objects by
detecting the Euclidean distance between the evaluation objects and the optimal and worst
solutions. If an evaluation object is closest to the optimal solution and furthest away from
the worst solution, it is the best [44].
The specific steps are as follows:
Suppose xij is the original data of the j-th indicator in the i-th region, i = 1, 2, . . . , 30,
j = 1, 2, . . . , 18.
(1) Calculate normal matrix M by using the normalizing vector method
 ,v
u 30 

=  xij t ∑ xij2 
  u
M = mij (6)
i =1

(2) Construct the weighted normal matrix Z

   
Zij = zij = w j · mij (7)

(3) Determine positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution

Suppose zj+ and zj− are the maximum values and minimum values of the j-th indicator
in matrix Z, respectively, then:
The positive ideal solution is:

Z + = z1− , z2− , z3− , z4+ , z5− , · · · , z9− , z10

+ +
 
, · · · , z18 (8)
 Suppose z +j and z −j are the maximum values and minimum values of the j-th indi-
cator in matrix Z, respectively, then:
The positive ideal solution is:
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690
[
Z + = z1− , z2− , z3− , z4+ , z5− ,, z9− , z10
+ +
,, z18 ] 9 of 26
(8)

The negative ideal solution is:

The negative ideal solution
[is:
Z − = z1+ , z2+ , z3+ , z4− , z5+ ,, z9+ , z10
− −
,, z18 ] (9)
− + + + − + + − −
 
Z = z1 , z2 , z3 , z4 , z5 , · · · , z9 , z10 , · · · , z18 (9)
(4) Calculate the Euclidean distance of each evaluation object to the positive and neg-
ative ideal
(4) solution
Calculate the Euclidean distance of each evaluation object to the positive and
negative ideal solution 2 18 2
18
di+=  v( zij − z +j )
u 18 2
di− = v  −
u( z18ij − z j ) 2
(10)
+ j =t1 − j =t
1
di = ∑ (zij − z j ) di = ∑ (zij − z j )
u u
+ −
(10)
j = 1 j = 1
(5) Calculate relative closeness of each evaluation object to the positive ideal solution
−
(5) Calculate relative closeness of each devaluation object to the positive ideal solution
Si = + i − (11)
di + di−
di
Si = + (11)
di + di−
5.3. Flow Chart of Methodology
5.3. Flow Chart of Methodology
In order to clearly show the methodology, the flowchart is shown in Figure 1.
In order to clearly show the methodology, the flowchart is shown in Figure 1.

Figure
Figure 1. The
1. The flowchart
flowchart of methodology.
of methodology.
6. Calculation of Indicator Weights and Analysis of Important Factors
6.1. Calculation of Indicator Weights
The subjective weights were determined by using AHP. The consultation letters were
sent to four experts, and the values of the judgment matrix were averaged. Finally, the sub-
jective weights of 18 indicators were obtained, as shown in Table 2. The objective weights
were determined by using the entropy weight method. According to Equations (1)–(3), the
objective weights of 18 indicators from 2017 to 2020 were calculated, as shown in Table 2.
Then, according to Equations (4) and (5), the combination weights from 2017 to 2020 were
obtained, as shown in Table 3.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 10 of 26

Table 2. Subjective weights and objective weights of indicators.

Subjective Weights Objective Weights WEj

Indicators
WAj 2017 2018 2019 2020
A1 0.0989 0.0239 0.0284 0.0291 0.0311
A2 0.0532 0.0344 0.0458 0.0496 0.0493
A3 0.0286 0.0377 0.0415 0.0417 0.0425
A4 0.0532 0.0523 0.0448 0.0368 0.0341
B1 0.0697 0.0313 0.0385 0.0354 0.0348
B2 0.0369 0.0364 0.0385 0.0346 0.0342
B3 0.0697 0.0467 0.0539 0.0568 0.0632
B4 0.0369 0.0324 0.0352 0.0379 0.0404
B5 0.0206 0.0830 0.0789 0.0856 0.1031
C1 0.0712 0.0696 0.0755 0.0809 0.0911
C2 0.0221 0.0610 0.0683 0.0701 0.0764
C3 0.0145 0.1109 0.1028 0.1071 0.1076
C4 0.0312 0.0778 0.0843 0.0914 0.0976
D1 0.0621 0.0575 0.0455 0.0398 0.0311
D2 0.1172 0.0495 0.0504 0.0496 0.0327
D3 0.1172 0.1880 0.1595 0.1446 0.1208
D4 0.0621 0.0041 0.0046 0.0051 0.0056
D5 0.0347 0.0033 0.0035 0.0038 0.0043

Table 3. The combination weights of indicators from 2017 to 2020.

2017 2018 2019 2020

Indicators
Wj Ranking Wj Ranking Wj Ranking Wj Ranking
D3 0.1668 1 0.1517 1 0.1445 1 0.1334 1
C1 0.0791 3 0.0813 3 0.0843 3 0.0903 2
B3 0.0641 5 0.0680 4 0.0698 4 0.0744 3
D2 0.0856 2 0.0853 2 0.0847 2 0.0694 4
A2 0.0531 8 0.0605 6 0.0630 5 0.0664 5
A1 0.0574 6 0.0618 5 0.0626 6 0.0653 6
C4 0.0554 7 0.0569 9 0.0593 7 0.0619 7
B1 0.0525 9 0.0575 8 0.0552 9 0.0552 8
B5 0.0465 10 0.0447 10 0.0466 10 0.0517 9
D1 0.0671 4 0.0590 7 0.0552 8 0.0493 10
A3 0.0422 12 0.0438 11 0.0439 11 0.0466 11
C2 0.0413 13 0.0431 12 0.0437 13 0.0461 12
C3 0.0451 11 0.0428 13 0.0437 12 0.0443 13
B4 0.0389 15 0.0400 15 0.0415 14 0.0433 14
B2 0.0412 14 0.0418 14 0.0397 15 0.0398 15
A4 0.0338 16 0.0309 16 0.0299 16 0.0282 16
D4 0.0178 17 0.0187 17 0.0197 17 0.0209 17
D5 0.0121 18 0.0123 18 0.0128 18 0.0137 18

6.2. Analysis of Important Factors

This section analyzes the top five indicators of weight ranking in 2020:
(1) Number of National Green Products (D3)
D3 dominated the ranking from 2017 to 2020, indicating that it is the first factor
affecting the green manufacturing level in each region. Developing more national green
products can enhance the green manufacturing level from the perspective of green benefits.
By 2020, MIIT had selected five batches of national green products, a total of 2187,
covering dozens of products such as household detergent, degradable plastic, lithium-ion
battery, printed circuit board, air conditioner, washing machines, household refrigerators,
compound fertilizer, etc. Guangdong Province ranks first with 544 green products, Anhui
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 11 of 26

Province ranks second with 306 green products, and Shandong Province ranks third with
274 green products;
(2) Number of Green Invention Patents (C1)
The weighted ranking of C1 changed from the third in 2017 to the second in 2020. In
addition, the weight value increased year by year, from 0.0791 in 2017 to 0.0903 in 2020. The
rise of the weight ranking and the increase in the weight value indicate that the influence
of green invention patents on the green manufacturing level of each region is increasing
year by year.
The implementation of green manufacturing is inseparable from the support of green
technology, and green invention patent is the core of green technology. Increasing R&D
efforts and creating more green invention patents are important technical driving forces to
improve the green manufacturing level;
(3) SO2 emission (B3)
The weight ranking of B3 changed from fifth in 2017 to third in 2020. In addition, the
weight value increased year by year, from 0.0641 in 2017 to 0.0744 in 2020. No matter the
rise in ranking or the increase in value, it shows that the emission of sulfur dioxide is an
important factor affecting the green manufacturing level of each region.
Sulfur dioxide is the main pollutant emitted from industrial waste gas. Excessive
emissions lead to acid rain. Controlling the emission of sulfur dioxide is the biggest driving
force in enhancing the level of green manufacturing in terms of green emission;
(4) Number of National Green Factories (D2)
The weight ranking of D2 was always in the top four from 2017 to 2020, and the
fluctuation is small, indicating that green factory is an important and stable factor affecting
the green manufacturing level of each region.
By 2020, MIIT had selected five batches of national green factories, a total of 2121,
involving industries such as machinery, automobile, electronic information, light industry,
textile, food, medicine, paper, etc. Guangdong Province ranks first with 195 green factories,
Shandong Province ranks second with 192 green factories, and Jiangsu Province ranks third
with 174 green factories;
(5) Coal consumption (A2)
The weight ranking of A2 changed from eighth in 2017 to fifth in 2020. In addition,
the weight value increased year by year, from 0.0531 in 2017 to 0.0664 in 2020. The rise in
the weight ranking and the increase in the weight value indicate that the influence of this
indicator on the green manufacturing level of each region is increasing year by year.
Coal accounts for the largest proportion of energy consumption. This indicator can
test the optimization and adjustment of industrial structure and energy structure and reflect
the green transformation results of key industries and fields.
In summary, the effective way to improve the green manufacturing level of each
region is to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions while reducing coal consumption with the
help of green invention patents, develop more high-quality green products, and build more
green factories.

7. Static Evaluation of Regional Green Manufacturing Level

This section evaluates the green manufacturing level of 30 regions in China in 2020.

7.1. Evaluation Ranking of Green Manufacturing Level of 30 Regions in 2020

Based on the data of 2020 and the TOPSIS method, this paper calculated the relative
closeness of each evaluation object to the positive ideal solution according to Equations
(6)–(12) and arranged 30 regions in descending order, as shown in Table 4.
The calculation of relative closeness of green production level, green emission level,
green technology level, and green benefit level is similar to the green manufacturing level,
but the indicator weight needs to be recalculated, that is, the weight of the second-level
indicator to the corresponding first-level indicator needs to be determined.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 12 of 26

Table 4. Ranking of green manufacturing level of 30 regions in China in 2020.

Green Production Green Emission Green Technology Green Benefit Green Manufacturing
Region Level Level Level Level Level
Si Ranking Si Ranking Si Ranking Si Ranking Si Ranking
Guangdong 0.8327 8 0.9439 4 0.7486 2 0.9213 1 0.8462 1
Shandong 0.7856 17 0.8596 14 0.4634 5 0.5393 3 0.6063 2
Zhejiang 0.8310 9 0.9036 9 0.4880 4 0.4474 4 0.5863 3
Anhui 0.8012 12 0.8624 13 0.2674 8 0.5661 2 0.5763 4
Beijing 0.8351 6 1.0000 1 0.7736 1 0.1344 13 0.5452 5
Jiangsu 0.8529 1 0.9079 8 0.5572 3 0.3326 5 0.5438 6
Fujian 0.8397 3 0.9217 6 0.1315 13 0.2386 6 0.4570 7
Shanghai 0.8361 5 0.9661 2 0.2942 7 0.0948 18 0.4487 8
Hubei 0.8235 11 0.8946 11 0.3755 6 0.0941 19 0.4440 9
Henan 0.8338 7 0.9380 5 0.1597 11 0.1909 7 0.4323 10
Sichuan 0.8002 13 0.8447 15 0.2096 9 0.1647 8 0.4289 11
Hunan 0.8280 10 0.9171 7 0.1574 12 0.1464 11 0.4212 12
Tianjin 0.8000 14 0.9619 3 0.1302 15 0.0832 23 0.4136 13
Chongqing 0.7918 16 0.9024 10 0.0810 17 0.0932 20 0.4080 14
Shaanxi 0.7989 15 0.8945 12 0.1831 10 0.0881 22 0.4038 15
Jiangxi 0.8369 4 0.7793 17 0.0618 20 0.1420 12 0.3906 16
Jilin 0.8483 2 0.7664 18 0.0473 23 0.0686 27 0.3786 17
Hebei 0.6947 23 0.7928 16 0.1191 16 0.1487 10 0.3778 18
Guangxi 0.7126 21 0.7464 20 0.0648 18 0.1067 17 0.3665 19
Yunnan 0.6904 24 0.7018 21 0.0647 19 0.1564 9 0.3663 20
Guizhou 0.7562 18 0.6868 24 0.0288 24 0.0924 21 0.3542 21
Liaoning 0.7389 19 0.7606 19 0.1308 14 0.0717 26 0.3527 22
Shanxi 0.6730 26 0.6971 22 0.0604 22 0.0757 24 0.3441 23
Gansu 0.6800 25 0.6870 23 0.0230 27 0.0742 25 0.3421 24
Hainan 0.7253 20 0.5845 26 0.0074 28 0.0242 30 0.3326 25
Heilongjiang 0.7118 22 0.5238 28 0.0615 21 0.0496 29 0.3175 26
Xinjiang 0.5186 28 0.6092 25 0.0239 26 0.1271 14 0.3171 27
Inner Mongolia 0.3664 29 0.5633 27 0.0269 25 0.1135 15 0.2804 28
Qinghai 0.5213 27 0.3358 30 0.0000 30 0.0654 28 0.2510 29
Ningxia 0.1190 30 0.5064 29 0.0045 29 0.1079 16 0.2415 30

7.2. Analysis of Evaluation results

7.2.1. Analysis of Regional Difference of Green Manufacturing Level
According to Table 4, the coefficients of variation in green manufacturing level and its
four dimensions in 30 regions are counted, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Coefficient of variation.

Statistical Standard Coefficient of

Statistical Object Mean
Item Deviation Variation
Green manufacturing level Si 0.1235 0.4192 0.2946
Green production level Si 0.1613 0.7295 0.2212
Green emission level Si 0.1641 0.7820 0.2099
Green technology level Si 0.2154 0.1915 1.1247
Green benefit level Si 0.1945 0.4192 1.0498

The coefficients of variation in the five statistical objects are greater than 0.2. By
referring to the interpretation of the coefficient of variation in the literature [45,46], it shows
that there are obvious gaps in the green manufacturing level and its four dimensions among
regions, especially in the level of green technology and green emission. The spatial gap is
that the eastern area is better than the central and western areas (Table 4). This is because
the eastern area has gathered top-level innovation elements such as talents, science and
 Table 5. Coefficient of variation.

Statistical Object Statistical Item Standard Deviation Mean Coefficient of Variation

Green manufacturing level Si 0.1235 0.4192 0.2946
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 13 of 26
Green production level Si 0.1613 0.7295 0.2212
Green emission level Si 0.1641 0.7820 0.2099
Green technology level Si 0.2154 0.1915 1.1247
technology, capital and other resources to jointly promote the implementation of green
Green benefit level Si
manufacturing. 0.1945 0.4192 1.0498

7.2.2. Analysis
7.2.2. Analysisofofthe
theClassification
ClassificationofofRegional
RegionalGreen
GreenManufacturing
Manufacturing Level
Level
In order to scientifically classify the green manufacturing level of 30 regions,
In regions, based
based on
Table 4, this paper used the system clustering method with SPSS to obtain the clustering
on Table 4, this paper used the system clustering method with SPSS to obtain the cluster-
tree,tree,
ing as shown in Figure
as shown 2. 2.
in Figure

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Clustering
Clusteringtree
treeofofgreen
greenmanufacturing
manufacturinglevel
levelofof
3030
regions inin
regions China in in
China 2020.
2020.

Figure 22 shows
Figure showsthat
that30
30regions
regionsare
areclustered
clusteredinto
intofive
five categories
categories so so that
that they
they cancan
be be
divided into
divided intofive
fivegrades.
grades.TheThe mean
mean of of
thethe green
green manufacturing
manufacturing levellevel
( H i (H
) of
i ) of
30 30 regions
regions
is 0.419
is 0.419 (Table
(Table 4).
4).By
Bycomparing
comparingthethedistance
distance betweenHHi of
between of each
each category
category and 0.419,
and 0.419, itit is
i
suitable to use “high-level”, “medium to high-level”, “medium-level”, “low
is suitable to use “high-level”, “medium to high-level”, “medium-level”, “low to medium- to medium-
level”, and “low-level” to represent five grades. The classification result is shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Classification of green manufacturing level of 30 regions in China in 2020.

Grade Hi /0.419 Region

High 2.02 Guangdong
Medium to high 1.36 Shandong, Zhejiang, Anhui, Beijing, Jiangsu
Fujian, Shanghai, Hubei, Henan, Sichuan,
Medium 1.02
Hunan, Tianjin, Chongqing, Shaanxi
Jiangxi, Jilin, Hebei, Guangxi, Yunnan,
Low to medium 0.84 Guizhou, Liaoning, Shanxi, Gansu, Hainan,
Heilongjiang, Xinjiang
Low 0.61 Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, Ningxia
 In 30 regions, 40% are “low to medium-level“, 30% are “medium-level”, and only 6
regions are above medium level, accounting for about 10%. This shows that China’s over-
all green manufacturing level is not strong, and most regions need to be improved.

Table 6. Classification of green manufacturing level of 30 regions in China in 2020.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 14 of 26
Grade H i 0.419 Region
High 2.02 Guangdong
Medium to high 1.36 Table 6 shows that Guangdong Province
Shandong, is “high-level“,
Zhejiang, Anhui, Beijing,5 Jiangsu
regions such as Shandong
Medium Province are “medium
1.02 to high-level“,
Fujian, Shanghai, 9 regions
Hubei, Henan, such as
Sichuan, FujianTianjin,
Hunan, Province are “medium-level“,
Chongqing, Shaanxi
12 regionsJiangxi,
such asJilin,
Jiangxi Province
Hebei, are
Guangxi, “low to
Yunnan, medium-level“,
Guizhou, 3 regions
Liaoning, Shanxi, suchHainan,
Gansu, as Qinghai
Hei-
Low to medium 0.84
Province are “low-level“. longjiang, Xinjiang
Low 0.61 In 30 regions, 40% are “low to Inner Mongolia, Qinghai,
medium-level“, 30%Ningxia
are “medium-level”, and only
6 regions are above medium level, accounting for about 10%. This shows that China’s
7.2.3. Analysis
overall of the Weak Factors
green manufacturing level isof Regional
not strong, Green Manufacturing
and most regions needLevel
to be improved.
(1) Region with “High-Level”
7.2.3. Analysis of the Weak Factors of Regional Green Manufacturing Level
The member of this kind of region is Guangdong Province.
(1)
At Region with
the macro “High-Level”
level, the analysis was based on the ranking of four dimensions (Table
The member of this
4). The strengths of Guangdongkind of region is Guangdong
Province are green Province.
benefit (1st) and green technology
At the macro level, the analysis was based
(2nd), and there is more to be performed in green on theproduction
ranking of four
(8th)dimensions
and green (Table 4).
emission
The strengths
(4th). of Guangdong Province are green benefit (1st) and green technology (2nd),
and there
At theis more
microto be performed
level, in green
the analysis production
is based (8th) and
on the ranking green
of five emissionindicators
important (4th).
At the micro level, the analysis is based on the ranking of five important
(Figure 3). The relative weaknesses of Guangdong Province are B3 and A2. Improving indicators
(Figure
these two3). The relative
factors weaknesses
can further of Guangdong
enhance Province are B3level
the green manufacturing and of
A2.Guangdong
Improving Prov-
these
two factors can further enhance the green manufacturing level of Guangdong Province.
ince.

Region

Guangdong
0

1 D3

2 C1
Ranking

3 B3

4 D2
4
5 A2
5
6

Figure3.
Figure 3. Ranking
Ranking of
of five
fiveimportant
importantindicators
indicatorsin
in“high-level”
“high-level”region.
region.

(2) Region
(2) Region with
with“Medium
“Mediumto toHigh-Level”
High-Level”
Membersof
Members ofthis
thiskind
kindofofregion
regioninclude
includeShandong
Shandong Province,
Province, Zhejiang
Zhejiang Province,
Province, An-
Anhui
hui Province,
Province, Beijing,
Beijing, and Jiangsu
and Jiangsu Province.
Province.
Atthe
At themacro
macrolevel,
level,the
theanalysis
analysiswas
wasbased
basedonon
thethe ranking
ranking of of four
four dimensions
dimensions (Table
(Table 4).
The weak
4). The spotsspots
weak of Shandong, Zhejiang,
of Shandong, and Anhui
Zhejiang, Provinces
and Anhui mainlymainly
Provinces concentrate on green
concentrate on
production (17th, 9th,
green production and
(17th, 12th,
9th, andrespectively) and green
12th, respectively) emission
and green (14th, (14th,
emission 9th, and
9th,13th,
and
respectively), indicating that three regions need to reduce pollutant emissions
13th, respectively), indicating that three regions need to reduce pollutant emissions whilewhile re-
ducing energy consumption. The weak spot of Beijing is the green benefit (13th), so the
construction of green industrial parks and green factories needs to be strengthened, and
more high-quality green products need to be developed. The weak spot of Jiangsu Province
is green emission (8th), so it is necessary to reduce pollutant emissions while developing
the economy.
At the micro level, the analysis was based on the ranking of five important indicators
(Figure 4). The ranking gap among five important indicators in Shandong Province, Anhui
Province, and Beijing is obvious, which is narrow in Zhejiang and Jiangsu Provinces. The
weaknesses of Shandong and Anhui Provinces are B3 and A2, while Beijing is D2 and
D3. The relative weakness of Zhejiang Province is A2, while D3 and B3 are the relative
weaknesses of Jiangsu Province. The five regions need to take measures to reverse the
weaknesses so as to further improve the level of green manufacturing.
 At the micro level, the analysis was based on the ranking of five important indicators
(Figure 4). The ranking gap among five important indicators in Shandong Province, An-
hui Province, and Beijing is obvious, which is narrow in Zhejiang and Jiangsu Provinces.
The weaknesses of Shandong and Anhui Provinces are B3 and A2, while Beijing is D2 and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 D3. The relative weakness of Zhejiang Province is A2, while D3 and B3 are the relative 15 of 26
weaknesses of Jiangsu Province. The five regions need to take measures to reverse the
weaknesses so as to further improve the level of green manufacturing.

Region

Shandong Zhejiang Anhui Beijing Jiangsu

0

3 D3

6 C1
Ranking A2, 5 D3, 6 B3, 6
9 B3
D3, 9
D2
12 B3, 11 A2, 11 D2, 11
A2
15 B3, 14

18 A2, 16

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Ranking
Ranking of
of five
fiveimportant
importantindicators
indicatorsinin
“medium to to
“medium high-level” region.
high-level” region.

(3) Region
(3) Region with
with “Medium-Level”
“Medium-Level”
Members of
Members of this
thiskind
kindofofregion
regioninclude
include Fujian
Fujian Province,
Province,Shanghai,
Shanghai, Hubei Province,
Hubei Province,
Henan Province, Sichuan Province, Hunan Province, Tianjin, Chongqing,
Henan Province, Sichuan Province, Hunan Province, Tianjin, Chongqing, and Shaanxi and Shaanxi
Province.
Province.
At the
At the macro
macro level,
level, the
the analysis
analysis waswas based
basedon onthe
theranking
rankingofoffour
fourdimensions
dimensions(Table
(Table 4).
4). The biggest weak spot of the Fujian and Henan Provinces
The biggest weak spot of the Fujian and Henan Provinces is green technology is green technology(13th
(13thand
and 11th,
11th, respectively),
respectively), indicating
indicating thatthat
thethe
two two regions
regions needtotodevelop
need developmore moregreen
green patents
pa-
tents and promote the transformation of technological achievements.
and promote the transformation of technological achievements. The biggest weak spot The biggest weak
spot of Shanghai, Hubei, and Shaanxi Provinces is the green benefit (18th, 19th, and 22nd,
of Shanghai, Hubei, and Shaanxi Provinces is the green benefit (18th, 19th, and 22nd,
respectively), so the three regions need to focus on developing improvement strategies in
respectively), so the three regions need to focus on developing improvement strategies
three aspects: green industrial parks, green factories, and green products. The weak spots
in three aspects: green industrial parks, green factories, and green products. The weak
of Sichuan Province are green production (13th) and green emission (15th), so it is neces-
spots of Sichuan Province are green production (13th) and green emission (15th), so it is
sary to reduce pollutant emissions while reducing energy consumption. The weak spots
necessary to reduce pollutant emissions while reducing energy consumption. The weak
of Hunan Province, Tianjin, and Chongqing are green production, green technology, and
spots of Hunan Province, Tianjin, and Chongqing are green production, green technology,
green benefit, which need to be improved.
and green benefit, which need to be improved.
At the micro level, the analysis was based on the ranking of five important indicators
At the
(Figure 5 and micro
Figurelevel, the polarization
6). The analysis was ofbased onimportant
the five the ranking of fiverankings
indicators important indica-
in the
tors (Figures
Fujian 5 andProvinces
and Hunan 6). The polarization
is not obvious, of while
the five
theimportant
opposite isindicators
true in the rankings
other sevenin the
Fujian
regions. The relative weakness of Fujian Province is C1, while that of Hunan Province seven
and Hunan Provinces is not obvious, while the opposite is true in the other is
regions.
A2. The The relativeof
weaknesses weakness
Shanghaiofand Fujian
HubeiProvince
Province is are
C1, very
whileobvious,
that of Hunan
namely Province
D3 and is
A2. The weaknesses
D2. The weaknessesofofHenan Shanghai andare
Province Hubei
D3 andProvince
C1, while arethat
very ofobvious, namely and
Sichuan Province D3 and
D2.
Chongqing are, respectively, B3 and D2. The biggest weakness of Tianjin is D3, followed and
The weaknesses of Henan Province are D3 and C1, while that of Sichuan Province
Chongqing
by C1 and D2. are,The
respectively, B3 and D2.
biggest weakness The biggest
of Shaanxi weakness
Province is D3,of Tianjin by
followed is D3,
D2 followed
and A2. by
C1 and D2. The biggest weakness of Shaanxi Province is D3, followed
The nine regions should take measures to reverse their respective weaknesses to improve by D2 and A2. The
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 nine regions
the level should
of green take measures to reverse their respective weaknesses to improve
manufacturing. 16 of 26the
level of green manufacturing.

Region

Fujian Shanghai Hubei Henan Sichuan

0

3 D3

6 C1
Ranking

9 B3

D2
12 C1
11 D3, 12
15 D3 C1 A2
13 13
D2, 15 B3, 15
18 D3, 17 D2, 17

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Ranking
Ranking of
of five
five important
importantindicators
indicatorsinin“medium-level”
“medium-level”region (top
region 5 regions).
(top 5 regions).

Region

Hunan Tianjin Chongqing Shaanxi

0
 B3

Ran
9
D2
12 C1
11 D3, 12
15 D3 C1 A2
13 13
D2, 15 B3, 15
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 18 D3, 17 D2, 17 16 of 26

Figure 5. Ranking of five important indicators in “medium-level” region (top 5 regions).

Region

Hunan Tianjin Chongqing Shaanxi

0

4
D3
8
C1
Ranking
12
B3
16 A2, 13 D2, 13
C1, 17 D2
A2
20
D2 17 A2
24 19
D2, 24
28 D3, 26
D3, 27

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Ranking of five
five important
importantindicators
indicatorsinin“medium-level”
“medium-level”region
region(last
(last4 4regions).
regions).

(4) Region with “Low

(4) “Low to to Medium-Level”
Medium-Level”
Members of
Members of this
thiskind
kindof ofregion
regioninclude
includeJiangxi
JiangxiProvince,
Province,Jilin
JilinProvince,
Province,Hebei
HebeiProvince,
Prov-
ince, Guangxi
Guangxi Autonomous
Autonomous Region,Region, Yunnan
Yunnan Province,
Province, Guizhou
Guizhou Province,
Province, Liaoning
Liaoning Prov-
Province,
ince, Shanxi Province, Gansu Province, Hainan Province, Heilongjiang
Shanxi Province, Gansu Province, Hainan Province, Heilongjiang Province, and Xinjiang Province, and Xin-
jiang Autonomous
Autonomous Region. Region.
At the
At the macro
macro level,
level, the
the analysis
analysis was
was based
based on
on the
the ranking
ranking ofof four
four dimensions
dimensions (Table
(Table 4).
4). There
There are many
are many weak weak
lineslines in these
in these regions.
regions. The weak
The weak spotsspots of Jiangxi
of Jiangxi andProvinces
and Jilin Jilin Prov-are
inces emission
green are green(17th
emission (17th respectively),
and 18th, and 18th, respectively), green technology
green technology (20threspectively),
(20th and 23rd, and 23rd,
respectively),
and and(12th
green benefit greenandbenefit
27th,(12th and 27th,The
respectively). respectively).
weak spotsThe weakProvince,
of Hebei spots of Hebei
Yunnan
Province, and
Province, Yunnan
XinjiangProvince, and Xinjiang
Autonomous Region Autonomous Region are(23rd,
are green production green24th,
production
and 28th,
(23rd, 24th, and
respectively), 28th,emission
green respectively), green
(16th, 21st,emission (16th,
and 25th, 21st, and 25th,
respectively), andrespectively), and
green technology
green technology (16th, 19th, and 26th, respectively), while that of Liaoning
(16th, 19th, and 26th, respectively), while that of Liaoning Province are green production Province are
green production (19th), green emission (19th), and green technology (26th).
(19th), green emission (19th), and green technology (26th). The four dimensions of the other The four di-
mensions
six regionsofare
theallother six regions are all backward.
backward.
At the micro level,
At level, the
the analysis
analysiswas
wasbased
basedononthe
theranking
rankingofoffive important
five important indicators
indicators
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 (Figure 77 and
(Figures and Figure
8). On the8). On the whole,
whole, the fivethe five indicators
indicators in thesein these regions
regions are allexcept
are all weak, 17weak,
of 26for
except
D2 for D2(7th)
in Hebei in Hebei
and D3(7th)in and D3 in(7th).
Yunnan Yunnan (7th).

Region

Jiangxi Jilin Hebei Guangxi Yunnan Guizhou

0

D3
6
C1
Ranking

12
B3

18 D2

24 A2

30

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Ranking
Ranking of
of five
five important
importantindicators
indicatorsinin“low
“lowtotomedium-level”
medium-level”region
region(top 6 regions).
(top 6 regions).

Region

Liaoning Shanxi Gansu Hainan Heilongjiang Xinjiang

0

6 D3

C1
Ranking

12
B3

18 D2

A2
24

30
 B3

Ran
18 D2

24 A2

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 30 17 of 26

Figure 7. Ranking of five important indicators in “low to medium-level” region (top 6 regions).

Region

Liaoning Shanxi Gansu Hainan Heilongjiang Xinjiang

0

6 D3

C1
Ranking 12
B3

18 D2

A2
24

30

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Ranking
Ranking of
of five
five important
importantindicators
indicatorsinin“low
“lowtotomedium-level”
medium-level”region (last
region 6 regions).
(last 6 regions).

(5) Region with

with “low-level”
“low-level”
Members of
Members of this
this kind
kind of
of region
region include
include Inner
Inner Mongolia
Mongolia Autonomous
Autonomous Region,
Region, Qinghai
Qing-
hai Province,
Province, andand Ningxia
Ningxia Autonomous
Autonomous Region.
Region.
At the
At the macro
macro level,
level, the
the analysis
analysis was
was based
based on
on the
the ranking
ranking ofof four
four dimensions
dimensions (Table
(Table 4).
4). The weak spots of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia Autonomous Regions
The weak spots of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia Autonomous Regions are green production are green pro-
(29th and 30th, respectively), green emission (27th and 29th, respectively), and and
duction (29th and 30th, respectively), green emission (27th and 29th, respectively), green
green technology
technology (25th27th,
(25th and and respectively).
27th, respectively). The dimensions
The four four dimensions of Qinghai
of Qinghai Province
Province are all
are all backward.
backward.
At the
At the micro
micro level,
level, the
theanalysis
analysisofofthe
theranking
rankingofoffive
fiveimportant
importantindicators
indicatorswill notnot
will bebe
carried out.
carried out.
In summary,
In summary, the the green
green manufacturing
manufacturinglevellevelvaries
variessignificantly
significantlyamong
among regions,
regions,and
and
the eastern area is generally better than the central and western areas. In addition,
the eastern area is generally better than the central and western areas. In addition, the four the four
dimensions in
dimensions in most
most regions
regions are
areimbalanced,
imbalanced,withwithananobvious
obviousMatthew
Matthew effect. The
effect. Theregions
regions
with higher green manufacturing levels have fewer weak dimensions,
with higher green manufacturing levels have fewer weak dimensions, and the regions and the regions
with
with lower
lower levelslevels
have have
moremoreweakweak dimensions.
dimensions.

8. Dynamic
8. Dynamic Evaluation
Evaluation of
ofRegional
RegionalGreen
GreenManufacturing
ManufacturingLevel
Level
This section analyzes the dynamic changes in the rankingofofgreen
This section analyzes the dynamic changes in the ranking greenmanufacturing
manufacturing
levels in 30 regions in China from 2017 to 2020.
levels in 30 regions in China from 2017 to 2020.

8.1. Evaluation Ranking

8.1. Ranking ofof Green
GreenManufacturing
ManufacturingLevel
Levelofof3030Regions
Regionsfrom
from2017
2017toto
2020.
2020
In order to grasp
grasp the
the dynamic
dynamicchange
changeininthe
theregional
regionalgreengreenmanufacturing
manufacturing level, this
level, this
paper further
paper further selects
selects the
the data
data of
of 2017,
2017, 2018,
2018, and
and 2019 for evaluation and obtains the rankingrank-
ingthe
of of green
the green manufacturing
manufacturing level
level of regions
of 30 30 regions from
from 20172017
to to 2020,
2020, asas shown
shown ininTable
Table7.7.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 18 of 26

Table 7. Ranking of green manufacturing level of 30 regions in China from 2017 to 2020.

2017 2018 2019 2020

Region
Si Ranking Si Ranking Si Ranking Si Ranking
Guangdong 0.7336 1 0.7982 1 0.8225 1 0.8462 1
Shandong 0.6704 2 0.5988 2 0.6249 2 0.6063 2
Zhejiang 0.4640 6 0.4834 5 0.5543 4 0.5863 3
Anhui 0.6490 3 0.5503 3 0.6091 3 0.5763 4
Beijing 0.4723 5 0.5051 4 0.5397 5 0.5452 5
Jiangsu 0.5152 4 0.4794 6 0.5056 6 0.5438 6
Fujian 0.3586 13 0.3831 8 0.4060 10 0.4570 7
Shanghai 0.3901 7 0.3930 7 0.4230 7 0.4487 8
Hubei 0.3786 8 0.3802 9 0.4119 8 0.4440 9
Henan 0.3678 9 0.3762 10 0.4090 9 0.4323 10
Sichuan 0.3661 11 0.3608 12 0.3967 11 0.4289 11
Hunan 0.3572 14 0.3496 14 0.3877 13 0.4212 12
Tianjin 0.3670 10 0.3654 11 0.3898 12 0.4136 13
Chongqing 0.3497 15 0.3446 15 0.3744 15 0.4080 14
Shaanxi 0.3612 12 0.3544 13 0.3772 14 0.4038 15
Jiangxi 0.3248 18 0.3313 17 0.3537 17 0.3906 16
Jilin 0.3308 17 0.3301 18 0.3528 18 0.3786 17
Hebei 0.3321 16 0.3343 16 0.3608 16 0.3778 18
Guangxi 0.3216 19 0.3174 19 0.3430 19 0.3665 19
Yunnan 0.3088 22 0.3070 21 0.3305 21 0.3663 20
Guizhou 0.3095 21 0.3005 23 0.3253 23 0.3542 21
Liaoning 0.3120 20 0.3113 20 0.3346 20 0.3527 22
Shanxi 0.2863 25 0.2851 25 0.3050 25 0.3441 23
Gansu 0.2819 26 0.2819 26 0.3040 26 0.3421 24
Hainan 0.3057 23 0.2982 24 0.3293 22 0.3326 25
Heilongjiang 0.2993 24 0.3019 22 0.3116 24 0.3175 26
Xinjiang 0.2648 28 0.2657 27 0.2851 27 0.3171 27
Inner Mongolia 0.2659 27 0.2326 28 0.2334 29 0.2804 28
Qinghai 0.2106 30 0.2317 29 0.2404 28 0.2510 29
Ningxia 0.2378 29 0.1661 30 0.1746 30 0.2415 30

8.2. Analysis of evaluation results

Based on Table 7, the dynamic changes in the ranking of green manufacturing level of
30 regions are divided into six categories, as shown in Table 8. In order to better present the
dynamic changes, Figures 9–14 are shown.

Table 8. Dynamic changes in the ranking of green manufacturing level of 30 regions in China from
2017 to 2020.

Category Change in Ranking Region

Guangdong, Shandong, Zhejiang, Anhui,
1 Consistently leading
Beijing, Jiangsu
2 Consistently forward Shanghai, Hubei, Henan
Guizhou, Liaoning, Shanxi, Gansu, Hainan,
3 Consistently lag behind Heilongjiang, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia,
Qinghai, Ningxia
4 Moving up Fujian, Hunan, Jiangxi, Yunnan
5 Continuous declining Tianjin, Shaanxi
6 Small fluctuation Sichuan, Chongqing, Jilin, Hebei, Guangxi
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 19 of 26

(1) Region with consistently leading ranking

There are six such regions (Table 8), and they consistently ranked in the top six from
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 2017 to 2020 (Figure 9). Among them, Guangdong and Shandong Provinces consistently 19 of 26
ranked first and second, and Zhejiang Province noticeably moved up in the ranking year
by year, from sixth in 2017 to third in 2020.
The
Thereason
reasonwhywhythese
these sixsix
regions
regionsare are
“consistently leading”
"consistently is mainly
leading" due todue
is mainly the to
strong
the
driving force offorce
strong driving fiveofimportant indicators
five important that were
indicators “consistently
that were "consistently leading” in in
leading" different
differ-
degrees fromfrom
ent degrees 20172017
to 2020.
to 2020.
For
For Guangdong Province, the
Guangdong Province, the five
five important
important indicators
indicators consistently ranked top
consistently ranked top 5.
5. In
In
particular, D3, with the largest weight, consistently ranked first from
particular, D3, with the largest weight, consistently ranked first from 2017 to 2020. For 2017 to 2020. For
Shandong
Shandong Province, thestrong
Province, the strongindicators
indicatorsare are mainly
mainly D3D3 (2nd~3rd)
(2nd~3rd) andand D2 (2nd~3rd).
D2 (2nd~3rd). For
For Zhejiang Province, all five indicators consistently ranked around
Zhejiang Province, all five indicators consistently ranked around fourth. For Anhui fourth. For Anhui
Prov-
Province, the superior
ince, the superior indicators
indicators are mainly
are mainly D3 3)
D3 (top (top 3)D2
and and(4th~6th).
D2 (4th~6th). For Beijing,
For Beijing, the
the lead-
leading indicators
ing indicators are are mainly
mainly C1,C1,B3,B3,
andandA2,A2,
allall
ofof whichranked
which rankedfirst.
first.For
ForJiangsu
JiangsuProvince,
Province,
the strong indicators are mainly D2 (top 3), C1 (2nd~3rd), and
the strong indicators are mainly D2 (top 3), C1 (2nd~3rd), and A2 (3rd~5th). A2 (3rd~5th).

3
Ranking

7
2017 2018 2019 2020
Year

Guangdong Shandong Zhejiang

Anhui Beijing Jiangsu

Figure9.
Figure 9. Regions
Regions that
that were
were consistently
consistently leading
leading in
in the
the rank
rank of
of green
green manufacturing
manufacturing level
level from
from 2017
2017
to 2020.
to 2020.

(2) Region
(2) Region withwith consistently
consistently forward
forward ranking
ranking
There are
There are three
three such
such regions
regions (Table
(Table 8),
8), and
and they
they consistently
consistently ranked
ranked 7th
7th to
to 10th
10th from
from
2017 to 2020 (Figure
2017 to 2020 (Figure 10). 10).
The reason
The reason whywhy these
these three
three regions
regions are
are “consistently
"consistently forward”
forward" is
is mainly
mainly due
due to
to the
the
support of five important indicators that were "consistently forward" in different
support of five important indicators that were “consistently forward” in different degrees degrees
from2017
from 2017to to2020.
2020.
Take Shanghai
Take Shanghai as as an
an example;
example; from
from 2017
2017 toto 2020,
2020, although
although D3 (12th~15th)
(12th~15th) and
and D2D2
(14th~15th) were
(14th~15th) were not
not leading,
leading, B3 (constantly 2nd), A2 (constantly 2nd), and and C1
C1 (constantly
(constantly
6th)were
6th) werealways
alwaysahead,
ahead, so
so as
as to
to better
better drive
drive Shanghai’s
Shanghai's green manufacturing level.
Sustainability 2022,14,
Sustainability2022, 14,13690
13690 20 of
20 of 26
26

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 8 20 of 26

Ranking
9

7
10

8
11
Ranking

2017 2018 2019 2020

9 Year

Shanghai Hubei Henan

10

Figure10.
Figure 10. Regions
Regions that
that were
were consistently
consistently forward
forward in
in the
therank
rankof
ofgreen
greenmanufacturing
manufacturinglevel
levelfrom
from
2017 to 2020.
11
2017 to 2020. 2017 2018 2019 2020

(3)Region
Regionthatthatconsistently
consistentlylags Year
lagsbehind
behind ranking
(3) ranking
There are ten such regions (Table 8),
There are ten such regions (Table 8), and they and theyconsistently
consistentlyranked
ranked20th
20thtoto30th
30thfrom
from
Shanghai Hubei Henan
2017to
2017 to2020
2020(Figure
(Figure11).
11). Guizhou
Guizhou Province
Province ranked
ranked21st21sttoto 23rd,
23rd, Liaoning
LiaoningProvince
Provinceranked
ranked
20th to
20th to 22nd,
22nd, Shanxi
Shanxi Province
Province ranked
ranked 23rd
23rd to to 25th,
25th, Gansu
Gansu Province
Province ranked
ranked 24th
24th to
to 26th,
26th,
Figure 10. Regions that were consistently forward in the rank of green manufacturing level from
Hainan
Hainan Province
Province
2017 to 2020. ranked
ranked 22nd
22nd to
to 25th,
25th, and
and Heilongjiang
Heilongjiang Province
Province ranked
ranked 22nd
22nd to
to 26th.
26th. In
In
addition, Xinjiang Autonomous Region, Inner Mongolia Autonomous
addition, Xinjiang Autonomous Region, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Qinghai Region, Qinghai
Province,
Province, andNingxia
and
(3) Region Ningxia Autonomous
Autonomous
that consistently Region
lagsRegion always
behindalways
ranking rankedin
ranked inthe
thelast
lastfour
fourplaces.
places.
The
Therereason why
are ten suchthese 10 regions
regions “consistently
(Table 8), lag behind”ranked
and they consistently is mainly
20th that the from
to 30th five
important
2017 to 2020 indicators were “consistently forward” in different degrees
(Figure 11). Guizhou Province ranked 21st to 23rd, Liaoning Province rankedfrom 2017 to 2020.
20
20thByto taking Ningxia
22nd, Shanxi Autonomous
Province ranked Region
23rd to as25th,
an example, from 2017ranked
Gansu Province to 2020, B3 and
24th A2
to 26th,
constantly
Hainan 22 ranked last (30th), C1 consistently ranked 29th, and D2 always
Province ranked 22nd to 25th, and Heilongjiang Province ranked 22nd to 26th. In ranked around
25th. Although
addition, D3 ranked
Xinjiang Autonomousin the middle,
Region,other
Inner indicators
Mongolia were too poor, soRegion,
Autonomous Ningxia’s green
Qinghai
manufacturing
Province, level remained
24 and Ningxia anchored
Autonomous at the
Region bottom
always of thein
ranked list.
the last four places.
Ranking

26
20
28
22
30
24
Ranking

2017 2018 2019 2020

26 Year

Guizhou
28 Liaoning Shanxi Gansu

Hainan Heilongjiang Xinjiang Inner Mongolia

30
Qinghai Ningxia
2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 11. Regions that consistently lag behind
Year in the rank of green manufacturing level from 2017
to 2020.
Guizhou Liaoning Shanxi Gansu

TheHainan
reason why these 10 regions "consistently
Heilongjiang Xinjiang lag behind"
Inner is mainly that the five im-
Mongolia
portant indicators were "consistently forward" in different degrees from 2017 to 2020.
Qinghai Ningxia
By taking Ningxia Autonomous Region as an example, from 2017 to 2020, B3 and A2
constantly ranked last (30th), C1 consistently ranked 29th, and D2 always ranked around
Figure11.
11. Regions
Regions that
that consistently
consistently lag
lag behind
behind in
in the
the rank of
of green
green manufacturing
manufacturing level from
from 2017
2017
Figure
25th.
to Although
2020. D3 ranked in the middle, otherrank
indicators were too poor,level
so Ningxia’s
to 2020.
green manufacturing level remained anchored at the bottom of the list.
(4) Region
The reasonwith
why increasing ranking
these 10 regions "consistently lag behind" is mainly that the five im-
portant indicators were "consistently forward" in different degrees from 2017 to 2020.
By taking Ningxia Autonomous Region as an example, from 2017 to 2020, B3 and A2
constantly ranked last (30th), C1 consistently ranked 29th, and D2 always ranked around
25th. Although D3 ranked in the middle, other indicators were too poor, so Ningxia’s
 Sustainability2022,
Sustainability 2022,14,
14,13690
13690 21 of 26
21 of 26

There
(4) are four
Region withsuch regionsranking
increasing (Table 8), and their ranking moved up by different ranges
fromThere
2017 are
to 2020
four (Figure 12). Fujian
such regions (TableProvince roseranking
8), and their to seventh in 2020,
moved up bysixdifferent
places up from
ranges
2017.2017
from Hunan Province
to 2020 (Figurerose to Fujian
12). 12th inProvince
2020, two places
rose up fromin2017.
to seventh 2020,Jiangxi andup
six places Yunnan
from
Provinces
2017. Hunan also improved
Province rosetwo places.
to 12th in 2020, two places up from 2017. Jiangxi and Yunnan
By comparing
Provinces also improved the ranking of indicator data in 2017–2020, it was found that the strong
two places.
By comparing
growth points of the thefour
ranking of indicator
regions include data
partsinof2017–2020, it wasindicators,
five important found thatwhich
the strong
con-
growth points
firms that theof theindicators
five four regions areinclude
importantpartsfactors
of fiveinfluencing
important indicators,
the growthwhich confirms
of green man-
that the five level.
ufacturing indicators are important factors influencing the growth of green manufacturing
level. For Fujian Province, the indicator with the largest growth is D2, followed by D3.
From For Fujian
2017 Province,
to 2020, the indicator
D2 ranked with10th,
22nd, 19th, the largest
and 8th,growth is D2, followed
respectively, and D3by D3. From
ranked 12th,
2017
6th, 7th, and 5th, respectively. The former climbed 14 places, and the latter moved7th,
to 2020, D2 ranked 22nd, 19th, 10th, and 8th, respectively, and D3 ranked 12th, 6th, up
and 5th,places.
seven respectively. The former climbed 14 places, and the latter moved up seven places.
For
For Hunan
Hunan Province,
Province, the the indicator
indicator with
with the
the largest
largest growth
growth is is A2,
A2, followed
followed by by D3.
D3.
From
From2017
2017to to2020,
2020,A2 A2rose
roseby byfive
fiveplaces,
places,and
andD3 D3rose
roseby bytwo
twoplaces.
places.
For
ForJiangxi
JiangxiProvince,
Province, thethe
indicator
indicatorwith the the
with largest growth
largest is C1,isfollowed
growth by B3. by
C1, followed From
B3.
2017 to 2020, C1 jumped five places, and B3 moved
From 2017 to 2020, C1 jumped five places, and B3 moved up four places.up four places.
For
For Yunnan
YunnanProvince,
Province,the theindicator
indicator with
with thethe largest
largest growth
growth is is D3,
D3, followed
followed byby B3.
B3.
From 2017 to 2020, D3 moved up five places, and B3
From 2017 to 2020, D3 moved up five places, and B3 went up two places. went up two places.

10

13
Ranking

16

19

22

2017 2018 2019 2020

Year

Fujian Hunan Jiangxi Yunnan

Figure12.
Figure 12.Regions
Regionswith
withmoving
movingup
upin
inthe
therank
rankofofgreen
greenmanufacturing
manufacturinglevel
levelfrom
from2017
2017toto2020.
2020.

(5)
(5)Region
Regionwith withcontinuous
continuousdeclining
decliningranking
ranking
There
Thereare aretwo
twosuch
suchregions
regions(Table
(Table 8),8),
andandtheir ranking
their declined
ranking declinedyearyear
by year (Figure
by year 13).
(Figure
Tianjin dropped
13). Tianjin from 10th
dropped fromin10th
2017into2017
13thto in13th
2020.inShannxi Province
2020. Shannxi droppeddropped
Province from 12th in
from
2017
12thtoin15th
2017in to2020.
15th in 2020.
By
Bycomparing
comparingthe theranking
rankingof ofindicator
indicatordata datain in2017–2020,
2017–2020,ititwaswasfound
foundthatthatthe
thelarge
large
drop points of the two regions include parts of five important indicators,
drop points of the two regions include parts of five important indicators, which confirms which confirms
that
thatthe
thefive
fiveindicators
indicatorsare areimportant
important factors
factorsinfluencing
influencing thethe
decline
decline of green manufacturing
of green manufactur-
level.
ing level.
For
ForTianjin,
Tianjin,thetheindicator
indicatorwith withthe
thelargest
largestdecline
declineisisD3,
D3,followed
followedby byC1.
C1.From
From20172017to to
2020,
2020,D3D3ranked
ranked12th,12th,17th, 22nd,
17th, and
22nd, and23rd, respectively,
23rd, andand
respectively, C1 ranked
C1 ranked 15h, 15h,
15th,15th,
16th, 16th,
and
17th, respectively.
and 17th, The former
respectively. dropped
The former 11 places,
dropped and theand
11 places, latter
thelost twolost
latter places.
twoFortunately,
places. For-
B3 and A2 consistently ranked top 5 and top 7, respectively,
tunately, B3 and A2 consistently ranked top 5 and top 7, respectively, and theand the ranking of D2 moved
ranking of
up year by year, which to some extent offset the great drop of D3
D2 moved up year by year, which to some extent offset the great drop of D3 so that the so that the ranking of
Tianjin’s
ranking green manufacturing
of Tianjin's level did notlevel
green manufacturing decline
did seriously.
not decline seriously.
For
For Shannxi Province, the indicator with the largest
Shannxi Province, the indicator with the largest decline
decline is is D3,
D3, followed
followed by by A2.
A2.
From 2017 to 2020, D3 ranked 6th, 14th, 20th, and 22nd, respectively,
From 2017 to 2020, D3 ranked 6th, 14th, 20th, and 22nd, respectively, and A2 ranked 14h, and A2 ranked 14h,
13th,
13th,16th,
16th,andand17th,
17th,respectively.
respectively.The Theformer
formerdropped
dropped16 16places,
places,and andthethelatter
latterlost
lostthree
three
Sustainability
Sustainability2022, 14, 13690 22 of 26
Sustainability 2022,
2022, 14,
14, 13690
13690 22
22 of
of 26
26

places. Fortunately, C1
places. Fortunately,
Fortunately, C1 consistently
consistentlyranked
ranked12th,
12th,and
andthe
theranking
rankingofof
B3B3 went
went upup year
year by
places. C1 consistently ranked 12th, and the ranking of B3 went up year by
by year, which
year, which
which to to
to some some
some extent extent offset
extent offset
offset the the great
the great
great drop drop
drop of
of D3of
D3 soD3
so thatso that
that the the ranking
the ranking
ranking of of
of green green
green manu-
manu-
year,
manufacturing
facturing level in Shannxi Province did not decline seriously.
facturing level
level in
in Shannxi
Shannxi Province
Province did
did not
not decline
decline seriously.
seriously.

10
10

11
11

12
12
Ranking
Ranking

13
13

14
14

15
15

16
16
2017
2017 2018
2018 2019
2019 2020
2020
Year
Year

Tianjin
Tianjin Shannxi
Shannxi

Figure
Figure 13. Regions
Figure 13.
13. Regions with
with continuous
with continuous decline
continuousdecline ininthe
declinein the rank
therank ofofgreen
rankof green manufacturing
greenmanufacturing level
manufacturinglevel from
level 2017
from
from to
2017
2017 to
2020.
2020.
to 2020.

(6) Region
(6)
(6) Region with
Region withsmall
with smallfluctuation
small fluctuationranking
fluctuation ranking
ranking
There
There are five such regions
There are five such regions (Table8),
are five such regions (Table
(Table 8), and
8),and the
andthe fluctuation
thefluctuation range
fluctuationrange
rangeof of their
oftheir ranking
theirranking was
ranking was
was
less
less than two
two places
places from
from 2017
2017to 2020
to (Figure
2020 14).
(Figure Sichuan
14). Province
Sichuan fluctuated
Province
less than two places from 2017 to 2020 (Figure 14). Sichuan Province fluctuated one place one
fluctuated place
one
between
place
between 11th
11th and
between 11th12th,
and and while
12th, Chongqing
12th, while
while and
and Jilin
Chongqing
Chongqing andProvince
Jilin fluctuated
Jilin Province
Province by
by the
fluctuated
fluctuated thebysame
therange.
same same
range.
Hebei Province
range.
Hebei Province fluctuated
Hebei Province two places
fluctuated
fluctuated two places between
twobetween the 16th
places between
the 16ththe
and16th
and 18th,
18th, while
and 18th,
while Guangxi Autono-
while Guangxi
Guangxi Autono-
Autonomous
mous RegionRegion
mous Region zero is
is zero
is zero fluctuation.
fluctuation.
fluctuation.
The
The reason
The reason why
reason whythe
why thefive
the fiveregions
five regionsare
regions are“small
are "small fluctuate”
"small fluctuate" is
fluctuate" is related
related to
related to the
to the change
the change in
change in five
in five
five
important
important indicators.
indicators. AA detailed
detailed analysis
analysis was
was not
not
important indicators. A detailed analysis was not carried out.carried
carried out.
out.

11
11

13
13
Ranking
Ranking

15
15

17
17

19
19

2017
2017 2018
2018 2019
2019 2020
2020
Year
Year

Sichuan
Sichuan Chongqing
Chongqing Jilin
Jilin Hebei
Hebei Guangxi
Guangxi

Figure 14.
Figure14. Regions
14.Regions with
Regionswith small
withsmall
small fluctuation
fluctuation in
in the
the rank
rank of
of green
green manufacturing
manufacturing level from 2017 to
Figure fluctuation in the rank of green manufacturing level level
from from 2017
2017 to to
2020.
2020.
2020.
In summary, there was a small change in the ranking of most regions, indicating that
In
In summary,
summary,
the dynamic there
there was
development was aa small
small
of green change
change inin the
manufacturing ranking
the level has of
ranking of most
most
clear regions,
regions,
regional indicating that
indicating and
dependence, that
the
the dynamic
theranking
dynamic development
development
landscape of green
of green
is relatively manufacturing
manufacturing
stable, level has
level has
which is difficult clear
to beclear regional
regional
changed dependence,
dependence,
in the short term.
and
and the
the ranking
ranking landscape
landscape isis relatively
relatively stable,
stable, which
which isis difficult
difficult to
to be
be changed
changed inin the
the short
short
term.
term.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 23 of 26

9. Conclusions and Suggestions

9.1. Conclusions
On the basis of defining the connotation of green manufacturing in China in the
new era, this study constructed the evaluation index system of China’s regional green
manufacturing level from 18 indicators in four aspects: green production, green emission,
green technology, and green benefit. By taking 30 provincial administrative regions in
China as the object, on the basis of the data from 2017 to 2020, the evaluation was carried
out from the static and dynamic perspectives using the combined weight and TOPSIS.
Based on the analysis of the results, the conclusions are as follows:
(1) The important factors affecting regional green manufacturing level are green
products, green invention patents, sulfur dioxide, green factories, and coal consumption;
(2) The static evaluation results show that: First, the green manufacturing level of
the 30 regions can be divided into five grades, including 1 high-level region, 5 medium to
high-level regions, 9 medium-level regions, 12 low to medium-level regions, and 3 low-level
regions. Second, there are obvious differences in the green manufacturing level among
regions, and the eastern area is generally better than the central and western areas. Third,
the four dimensions in most regions are imbalanced, with an obvious Matthew effect;
(3) The dynamic evaluation results show that: First, the green manufacturing level in
30 regions appears to have six different types of dynamic trends. Second, there is a small
change in the ranking of most regions, indicating that the dynamic development of green
manufacturing level has clear regional dependence;
(4) The index system and evaluation model constructed in this study can effectively
evaluate the level of regional green manufacturing, which is reasonable and practical.

9.2. Suggestions
In combination with influencing factors, suggestions for enhancing green manufactur-
ing levels are proposed as follows:
(1) To accelerate the green and low-carbon transformation of energy
First, appropriately control industrial coal consumption and actively promote eco-
nomic and effective coal cleaning technology. Second, accelerate the large-scale and high-
quality development of wind power and solar power. Third, actively promote the construc-
tion of hydropower bases according to local conditions. Fourth, promote the construction
of coastal nuclear power projects in a safe and orderly manner;
(2) To actively adjust and optimize the industrial structure
First, strictly control the entry of high-energy consuming industries from the source,
strictly control new projects in high-energy consuming industries, and curb the excessive
growth of high-energy consuming industries. Second, strengthen efforts to eliminate un-
qualified and backward production capacity in heavily polluting manufacturing industries
such as steel, nonferrous metals, chemical industry, papermaking, building materials, etc.
Third, accelerate the cultivation and expansion of strategic emerging industries such as new
generation information technology, biological industry, high-end equipment manufacturing
industry, new material industry, new energy vehicles, etc.;
(3) To strengthen the application and innovation of green technology
First, actively research and develop cutting-edge technologies with low-carbon eco-
nomic characteristics and overcome the technical difficulties of efficient and clean utilization
of fossil fuels and pollution control. Second, promote the application of new green tech-
nologies in key fields such as steel, electric power, building material, and chemical industry
to maximize energy conservation and emission reduction. Third, build the high-tech enter-
prise alliance and research and develop advanced and sophisticated technologies so as to
lay a solid force for invention patent application, technology market trading, and green
product development. Fourth, actively carry out international cooperation and exchange in
green technology, and select energy utilization and environmental protection as the priority
fields of cooperation.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 24 of 26

10. Advantages, Limitations and Future Research

10.1. Advantages
The advantages of the proposed methodology and this study are as follows:
First, integrating ecological benefits enriches the connotation of green manufacturing
in China in the new era, which serves as a scientific basis for building an evaluation
index system.
Second, a systematic and distinctive evaluation index system is built for provin-
cial administrative regions. The indicator system can also be used for the evaluation of
prefecture-level cities after a slight adjustment.
Third, empirical analysis from both static and dynamic perspectives can not only
understand the current situation but also grasp the dynamic development.
Fourth, the “principle of minimum discrimination information” is used to optimally
combine subjective weight and objective weight, which is more scientific.

10.2. Limitations
The limitations of the proposed methodology and this study are as follows:
First, from the perspective of the selection of comprehensive evaluation methods,
this study only used TOPSIS and did not use other methods, such as the gray correlation
method or fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, to demonstrate the accuracy of the
evaluation results.
Second, from the perspective of comprehensive evaluation objects, this study only eval-
uated 30 provincial administrative regions in China, so the conclusions are only applicable
to the comparison of provincial space.
Third, from the perspective of a comprehensive evaluation index system, due to the
restriction of data availability, the index system proposed in this study was not perfect.

10.3. Future Research

The future research is as follows:
First, use the grey correlation method or fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to
conduct empirical analysis and compare it with the TOPSIS evaluation results of this study
to demonstrate the accuracy of the evaluation conclusions.
Second, adjust the indicators to expand the application scope of the index system and
evaluate and propose suggestions on the spatial scale of prefecture-level cities.
Third, collect further data and optimize the indicators so as to establish a more com-
prehensive green manufacturing level evaluation index system.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.W. and C.Y.; methodology, M.W.; software, M.W. and
D.Z.; validation D.Z.; formal analysis, M.W.; investigation, M.W.; resources, M.W.; data curation,
M.W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.W.; writing—review and editing, C.Y.; visualization,
M.W. and D.Z.; supervision, C.Y.; project administration, C.Y.; funding acquisition, C.Y. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Philosophy Social Science Planning Project of Shanghai
(grant number 2022BGL010) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number
71840003).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 25 of 26

References
1. Patil, R.A.; Ramakrishna, S.A. Comprehensive analysis of e-waste legislation worldwide. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27,
14412–14431. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Brewster, M.A. Perspective on advanced manufacturing and AMP2.0. MRS Bull. 2015, 40, 388. [CrossRef]
3. Andersen, T.A. Comparative study of national variations of the European WEEE directive: Manufacturer’s view. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 19920–19939. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Yeo, M.K.; Han, T.H.; Kim, S.S.; Lee, J.A.; Park, H.G. Chemical management policies and a distribution model for chemical
accidents. Mol. Cell. Toxicol. 2017, 13, 361–371. [CrossRef]
5. Ilyassova, G.; Nukusheva, A.; Arenova, L.; Karzhassova, G.; Akimzhanova, M. Prospects of legal regulation in the field of
electronic waste management in the context of a circular economy. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2021, 21, 367–388. [CrossRef]
6. Sun, B.L. Simulation research on green manufacturing. Comput. Simul. 2015, 32, 1–4+50.
7. Cao, H.J.; Li, H.C.; Zeng, D.; Ge, W.W. The State-of-art and future development strategies of green manufacturing. China Mech.
Eng. 2020, 31, 135–144.
8. Li, J.H. Green manufacturing and intelligent manufacturing in China: Development realities and future path. Res. Econ. Manag.
2022, 43, 3–12.
9. Du, Z.; Chen, L.J.; Tian, J.P. Trajectory and policy evolution of Chinese industrial parks’ eco-transformation. Chin. J. Environ.
Manag. 2019, 11, 107–112.
10. Lv, Y.H. Research on Comprehensive Evaluation of Green Manufacturing Development level of Six Provinces in Central China.
Master’s Thesis, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China, 2021.
11. Wang, X.M. Dynamic Evaluation and Countermeasures of Green Manufacturing Development Level of Feicheng City. Master’s
Thesis, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an, China, 2020.
12. Wang, X.Q.; Zhao, Y.T. Evaluation of green manufacturing development level and empirical analysis of influencing factors in Jilin
Province. Fortune Today 2020, 5, 13–14.
13. Liu, X.H.; Jie, X.W. Study on the evaluation and Promotion Countermeasures of industrial green manufacturing system in Western
China. North. Econ. 2020, 1, 37–40.
14. You, J.M.; Zhang, W. Study on the performance evaluation and influencing factors of green manufacturing in national ecological
civilization experimental zone: A case study of Guizhou. Guizhou Soc. Sci. 2018, 12, 120–128.
15. Li, B.Y.; Gu, C.K. Evaluation system of green manufacturing for China region. Ind. Econ. Rev. 2015, 2, 23–30.
16. Wang, Q.S.; Yuan, X.L.; Cao, D.Y.; Ma, C.Y.; Zhang, K. Research on evaluation index system for green manufacturing based on
PSR model and life cycle. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2010, 34–35, 79–84.
17. Zhang, X.M.; Zhang, H. Framework system of green manufacturing evaluation and optimization based on ecological civilization.
Mod. Manuf. Eng. 2016, 10, 153–158.
18. Karamaşa, Ç.; Ergün, M.; Gülcan, B.; Korucuk, S.; Memiş, S.; Vojinović, D. Ranking value-creating green approach practices in
logistics companies operating in the TR A1 region and choosing ideal green marketing strategy. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl.
2021, 4, 21–38. [CrossRef]
19. Alossta, A.; Elmansouri, O.; Badi, I. Resolving a location selection problem by means of an integrated AHP-RAFSI approach. Rep.
Mech. Eng. 2021, 2, 135–142. [CrossRef]
20. Wu, Z.; Xi, J.J.; Xu, Y. Promoting green manufacturing and realizing sustainable development of manufacturing industry. Manuf.
Auto. 2004, 26, 20–24+49.
21. Lu, Y.X. Toward green manufacturing and intelligent manufacturing—Development road of China. China Mech. Eng. 2010, 21,
379–386+399.
22. Chen, X.R.; Li, X.; Dong, H.B.; Bai, R.B. Green manufacturing of auto parts based on life cycle assessment. Environ. Eng. 2015, 33,
116–120+146.
23. Tao, Y.; Li, Q.S.; Zhao, G. Research on the green manufacturing strategy based on product life. Forum Sci. Technol. China 2016,
9, 58–64.
24. Ma, P.; Zhang, C. Pricing strategies for complementary products in green supply chain. Control Decis. 2018, 33, 1861–1870.
25. Liu, P.J.; Liu, F.; Wang, X.; Yin, Z.B.; Cao, H.J.; Li, C.B. The theory and technology system of green manufacturing and their new
frameworks. J. Mech. Eng. 2021, 57, 165–179.
26. Chen, W.J.; Lu, R.Y.; Tuo, Y.Y. Comparison of two methods for the determination of COD. Qual. Saf. Insp. Test. 2020, 30, 92–93+100.
27. Zhang, D.; Cao, H.B.; Zhao, Y.H. Economic analysis of industrial ammonia pollution abatement in different forms. China Envion.
Sci. 2021, 41, 1474–1479.
28. Wang, S.F. Analysis of industrial sulfur dioxide pollution emission and environmental protection mode. Cult. Geogr. 2017, 4, 126.
29. Liang, J.; Zheng, J.; Han, M.M.; Ma, L.X.; Shi, Y. Harm of nitrogen oxide and its treatment technology. Technol. Innov. Appl. 2021,
11, 120–122.
30. Liu, Z.S.; Zhang, X.L.; Yang, L.Q.; Shen, Y.J. Access to digital financial services and green technology advances: Regional evidence
from China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4927. [CrossRef]
31. Yang, Y.R.; Liu, D.S.; Zhang, L.X.; Yin, Y.K. Social trust and green technology innovation: Evidence from listed firms in China.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4828. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13690 26 of 26

32. CMES. Notice on Applying for the 8th Green Manufacturing Technology Progress Award. 2018. Available online: https:
//www.cmes.org/05f3d5c85f864a0daf7be27b00d1d086.html (accessed on 15 May 2022).
33. CECA. Notice on Publicly Soliciting the Innovation Award of China Energy Conservation Association in 2022. Available online:
http://kyy.hnu.edu.cn/info/1061/7525.htm (accessed on 10 June 2022).
34. Hao, Z.C.; Duan, L.J.; Hao, D.W.; Wang, G.Q.; Song, Y.F. Establishment and application of green standard system in industrial
park. Reg. Gov. 2020, 3, 74–77.
35. Yang, M.; Li, H.S. Interpretation of the China national standard: General principles for assessment of green factory. Inf. Technol.
Stand. 2019, 7, 32–35.
36. Fu, Y.; Lin, L.; Gao, D.F. General principles for assessment of green product. Stand. Living 2018, 6, 34–37.
37. Yi, L.Z.; Guo, Y.; Liu, N.A.; Liu, N.; Liu, J.Y.; Zhao, J.; Jiang, G.L. Health status sensing of catenary based on combination weighting
and normal cloud model. Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 2022, 47, 2835–2849. [CrossRef]
38. Zhang, F.; Wang, P.Y.; Mu, P.; Wang, M.L.; Han, L.F.; Sun, J.L. A comprehensive evaluation method for the service status of groins
in waterways based on an AHP-improved CRITIC combination weighting optimization model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10709.
[CrossRef]
39. Niu, D.P.; Guo, L.; Zhao, W.W.; Li, H.R. Operation performance evaluation of elevators based on condition monitoring and
combination weighting method. Measurement 2022, 194, 111091. [CrossRef]
40. Chen, S.F.; Liu, W.; Bai, Y.H.; Luo, X.Y.; Li, H.F.; Zha, X. Evaluation of watershed soil erosion hazard using combination weight
and GIS: A case study from eroded soil in Southern China. Nat. Hazards 2021, 109, 1603–1628. [CrossRef]
41. Kim, I.; Kim, S.; Choi, S.; Kim, D.; Choi, Y.; Kim, D.; Ni, Y.; Yin, J. Identifying key elements for establishing sustainable conventions
and exhibitions: Use of the Delphi and AHP approaches. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1678. [CrossRef]
42. Kaneesamkandi, Z.; Rehman, A.U.; Usmani, Y.S.; Umer, U. Methodology for assessment of alternative waste treatment strategies
using entropy weights. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6689. [CrossRef]
43. Xue, C.Y.; Shao, C.F.; Chen, S.H. SDGs-based river health assessment for small- and medium-sized watersheds. Sustainability
2020, 12, 1846. [CrossRef]
44. Xu, B.S.; Qi, N.N.; Zhou, J.P.; Li, Q.F. Reliability assessment of highway bridges based on combined empowerment-TOPSIS
method. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7793. [CrossRef]
45. Jing, L.; Li, J.P.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, H.Y.; Li, J. Study on dry soil layers under different land-use systems in the Loess Plateau. Pratac
Sci. 2018, 35, 1829–1835.
46. Wu, X.J.; Du, D.B.; Xiao, G.; Guan, M.M. The temporal and spatial evolution of city innovation capability differences in the
Yangtze River economic belt. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2017, 26, 490–499.