G. V. Plekhanov Russian University of Economics (Moscow, Russia):

N. A. Kazakova, Dr. Econ., Professor, Basic Dept. of Financial and Economic Security (Federal Financial Monitoring Service), e-mail: axd_audit@mail.ru

National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow, Russia):
V. G. Kogdenko, Dr. Econ., Associate Prof., Head of the Dept. of Financial Management

The article is a continue research and determinates the second stage of assessing environmental risks of the largest Russian steel companies using public data. Based on the identified factors that have a significant impact on the level of environmental risks of ferrous metallurgy companies, the authors substantiated a indicators system, proposed a scale for their assessment, an algorithm for calculating and converting them into a point assessment, as well as the procedure for forming a consolidated rating of companies by the level of environmental risks. The developed methodology made possible to carry out a comparative analysis of the largest ferrous metallurgy companies by the level of environmental risks, taking into account the key factors of environmental impact (indicators of discharges, emissions, waste), environmental costs and investments in fixed assets. In addition, for calculating the consolidated rating, the information transparency of companies and the publicity of data on the impact of their activities on the environment were taken into account. According to the results of the study, the highest rating was received by JSC “NLMK”, the worst positions were taken by JSC “Mechel” and JSC “ChTPZ”. The advantage of the methodology is that it is entirely based on public information. It allows to assess the environmental impact absolute and specific indicators, to analyze these indicators’ trends, and also assess the effectiveness of costs for environmental protection, investments in the development and maintenance of production facilities from the point of view of reducing environmental risks. The study proved that environmental risk increases in companies with an unstable financial position, aggressive dividend policy, and insufficient investment in ensuring industrial safety. At the same time, the consolidated rating is comprehensively influenced by such factors as: business scale and diversification; production specifics; the composition of the group of companies; the effectiveness of the technologies used in terms of environmental impact; environmental policy effectiveness in the field of reducing environmental impact; investments volume in environmental projects; the investment amount in fixed assets.

1. The concept of organizing a methodological system in Russia for the development of green financial instruments and responsible investment projects. Expert advice on the long-term investment market at the Bank of Russia. Working Group on Responsible Financing (ESG-finance) [Electronic resource] Available at: https://cbr.ru/Content/Document/File/84163/press_04102019.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3DWdNSlrnI_n-4i_ZYfUoqFD9vZmwlj3IZ67WZRAQy7QmaVC88ug2y5ps (accessed: 17.02.2021).
2. Kostyukhin Y. Conceptual Provisions of Sustainable Development of Socio-Economic Systems (on the Example of an Industrial Enterprise). International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019. pp. 131–138.
3. Bobylev S. N., Skobelev D. О. Natural capital and technological transformations. Menedzhment v Rossii i za rubezhom. 2020. No. 1. pp. 89–100.
4. Skobelev D. О. Environmental industrial policy, technological regulation and the “Encyclopedia of Technology”. Standarty i kachestvo. 2019. No. 6. pp. 60–65.
5. Freiberg D., Park D. G., Serafeim G., Zochowski T. R. Corporate Environmental Impact: Measurement, Data, and Information. [Electronic resource] Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3565533 (accessed: 12.02.2021).
6. Environmental indicators. Assessment of EDF group greenhouse gas emissions. [Electronic resource] Available at: https://www.edf.fr/en/our-commitments/sustainable-development-indicators/environmental (accessed: 12.02.2021).
7. Savchenkov S. A., Bazhin V. Yu., Volkova O. Tendencies of innovation development of the Russian iron and steel industry on the base of patent analytics for the largest national metallurgical companies. CIS Iron and Steel Review. 2020. No. 2. pp. 76–82.
8. Harvard Business Review. Russia. “How could this happen?” why business thinks little about the interests of the society. [Electronic resource] Available at: https://hbr-russia.ru/biznes-i-obshchestvo/etika-i-reputatsiya/ (accessed: 12.02.2021).
9. Kazakova N., Kogdenko V., Bobkova M., Sivkova A., Krioni A. Social Responsibility and Environmental Safety Risks Monitoring of Metallurgical Companies Using an Industrial Approach. 20^th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2020. Sofia, 2020. pp. 333–340.
10. Ranking of openness of mining and metallurgical companies of Russia in the field of environmental responsibility 2019. Moscow: WWF Russia, 2019. — 23 p. [Electronic resource] Available at: https://trends.rbc.ru/trends/green/5dfa07709a7947055be18f14 (accessed: 12.02.2021).
11. Green Bond Guidelines for the Real Estate Sector [Electronic resource] Available at: https://www.icmagroup.org/assets/documents/Regulatory/Green-Bonds/Green-Bond-Guidelines-forthe-Real-Estate-Sector.pdf (accessed: 12.02.2021).
12. Kazakova N., Gendon A., Sedova N., Khlevnaya E. Estimation of factors and projected growth of the metallurgical branch of Russia under unstable market conditions. Metalurgija. 2018. Vol. 57, Iss. 4. pp. 360–362.
13. Yong He, Nuo Liao, Jiwen Rao, Feifei Fu, Zhihao Chen. The optimization of investment strategy for resource utilization and energy conservation in iron mines based on Monte Carlo and intelligent computation. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019. Vol. 232. pp. 672–691.
14. Christmann P. Towards a More Equitable Use of Mineral Resources. Natural Resources Research. 2018. Vol. 27. No. 2. pp. 159–177.
15. Spaiser V., Ranganathan S., Bali Swain R., Sumpter D. J. T. The sustainable development oxymoron: quantifying and modelling the incompatibility of sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2017. Vol. 24, Iss. 6. pp. 457–470.
16. Yue Gaoa, Zhiwei Li, Fangming Wang, Fang Wang et al. A Game Theory Approach for Corporate Environmental Risk Mitigation. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 2018. Vol. 130. pp. 240–247.
17. Kogdenko V. G., Kazakova N. А., Sivkova А. Е. Analysis of factors influencing the level of environmental risks of ferrous metallurgy companies. Chernye Metally. 2021. No. 2. pp. 69–75.
18. Official site of PJSC NLMK [Electronic resource] Available at: https://nlmk.com/ru/responsibility/ (accessed: 26.01.2021).
19. Official site of PJSC Severstal [Electronic resource] Available at: https://www.severstal.com/rus/sustainable-development (accessed: 12.12.2020).
20. Official site of PJSC MMK [Electronic resource] Available at: https://www.tmk-group.ru/sustainable-development, http://www.mmk.ru/for_investor/annual_reports/ (accessed: 12.12.2020).
21. Official site of EVRAZ Group [Electronic resource] Available at: https://www.evraz.com/ru/sustainability/ (accessed: 26.01.2021).
22. Official site of PJSC Mechel [Electronic resource] Available at: https://www.mechel.ru/development/ (accessed: 26.01.2021).
23. Official site of Metalloinvest Group [Electronic resource] Available at: https://www.metalloinvest.com/development/ (accessed: 12.12.2020).
24. Official site of OMK Group [Electronic resource] Available at: https://omk.ru/press/report/ (accessed: 12.12.2020).
25. Official site of PJSC TMK [Electronic resource] Available at: https://www.tmk-group.ru/sustainable-development (accessed: 12.12.2020).
26. To investors and shareholders of PJSC ChTPZ [Electronic resource] Available at: https://chelpipe.ru/investor/#investors-reports (accessed: 12.12.2020).