Multi-Scenario Decision-Making for Carbon Asset Management of Cement Industry Under China’s New Unified National Carbon Market

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a novel methodology for carbon asset management under benchmark-based ETS, with empirical evidence on nonlinear dynamics between emission intensity and allowance surplus.

🏢実務担当者:Offers a decision-support tool for cement companies to optimize carbon allowance trading, reducing compliance costs by ~37% compared to traditional methods.

🏛政策担当者:Illustrates how ETS design parameters (benchmark level, carry-over rules) critically affect firm-level compliance costs and investment incentives.

The inclusion of the cement industry into China’s national carbon emissions trading system in 2025 has fundamentally altered the compliance environment for high-emission enterprises, transforming carbon allowances from passive regulatory instruments into dynamic assets whose management directly affects financial performance. We develop a multi-scenario carbon asset management decision model tailored to the intensity-based benchmarking mechanism adopted by the national market. The model centres on the quota surplus-deficit variable EA4, which is computed from enterprise-level emission intensity relative to the industry benchmark, and decomposes the management problem into sequential selling and buying subproblems linked by coupled decision boundaries. A systematic parameter framework is constructed, and the model is applied to two cement enterprises—Enterprise A, a leading producer with a clear allowance surplus, and Enterprise B, a mid-tier producer operating near the benchmark boundary—through historical backtesting over the 2024–2025 period. Three principal findings emerge. First, the intensity benchmarking mechanism creates a dual-leverage effect whereby a 1.4% improvement in emission intensity (from 0.8112 to 0.8000 t/t) increases the quota surplus by 27%, a nonlinearity not captured by conventional compliance-cost models. Second, the model-driven strategy outperforms traditional experience-based approaches by 36.8% (baseline scenario, +95.20 vs. +69.58 MRMB) and 37.3% (risk scenario, −44.55 vs. −71.08 MRMB), with the improvement rate remaining consistent across both enterprises, suggesting that trading timing outweighs instrument selection in determining compliance cost outcomes. Third, dynamic CEA–CCER allocation captures an incremental 2.33 MRMB through the exploitation of a transient price inversion, a gain invisible to single-instrument strategies. Sensitivity analysis confirms that the relative advantage is robust to carbon price variations (±30%) and CCER offset caps (2–10%), while emission intensity and carry-over allowances represent the most consequential parameters for strategy direction, with EA4 crossing zero near the industry benchmark (I ≈ 0.85). The framework provides actionable decision support for cement and other high-emission enterprises navigating the unified carbon market, and contributes a quantitative methodology to the emerging field of environmental management accounting. This study contributes to Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action), Goal 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), and Goal 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) by providing operational tools for decarbonisation in carbon-intensive industries.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/su18126054first seen 2026-06-18 05:40:22