Energy conservation, environmental protection and resource recycling / Process equipment and inspection instruments Supply-chain Study

Comparative structure study

The largest recorded reporting jurisdiction, Beijing, contains 7 records (18.9% of this 37-record cohort). The remaining cohort contains 30 records. The comparison concerns archive composition.

The recorded sub-industry label Environmental-monitoring instruments accounts for 21.6% here (8/37), compared with 3.4% in the parent set (27/797), an absolute gap of 18.2 percentage points.

10/37 companies link to pages with existing source-supported excerpts (27.0% of the cohort). The other 27 records remain usable for archive composition, but do not support new operating case studies.

An ID-deduplicated archive snapshot, not the whole market, current recognition or operating results.

The parent set, Energy conservation, environmental protection and resource recycling, contains 797 records. This cohort contributes 37 (4.6%); 760 records remain after excluding it.

The parent set, All public archive records, contains 19,297 records. This cohort contributes 37 (0.2%); 19,260 records remain after excluding it.

Ratio of label participation, not market share; multi-label counts overlap.

Excluding this cohort, the recorded sub-industry label Environmental-monitoring instruments covers 19/760 remaining records (2.5%), an absolute gap of 19.1 percentage points from this cohort.

The full reporting jurisdiction distribution has 17 labels; the top 3 contain 13/37 records (35.1%).Other known labels contain 24 records.

For 37 records with known labels, the effective category count is 11.5, versus 17 actual labels. Definitions and scope are in the methodology.

The table shows ten labels; 7 others are included in the calculations above.

Record counts do not rank supply capability or economic size.

The largest intersection, Beijing × Energy conservation and environmental protection, contains 5 records, or 71.4% of the 7 records carrying the Beijing label.

A cell contains company IDs carrying both labels. It does not establish procurement, supply or investment relationships between firms. Multi-label cells may overlap.

This page displays 8 of the full cross-tab’s 19 non-empty cells; the other 11 remain in the analysis.

Non-empty fields are not necessarily accurate or supported by originals.

Counts concern existing reviewed bilingual excerpts, not re-certification of originals or entire reports.

A rule hit prioritises review; it does not establish that the entire field is wrong. One record can trigger several rules.

7 of this cohort’s 37 records link through existing company-ID mappings to 2026 lists from all jurisdictions (18.9%). This intersection measures list linkage, not successful recognition or company growth.

List rows and company IDs are separate counts, not new firms or final recognition.

Assess environmental products against treatment media

The Environmental-monitoring instruments label covers 8 records (21.6% of this cohort). This archive clue raises a verification question about Treatment equipment, materials or chemicals for defined objects; it does not establish that these companies already deliver it.

Shared records with Environmental Monitoring Instruments Keyword Candidate Study: 9; records in this cohort but outside that set: 28. The intersection/union ratio is 12.2%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

Shared records with Environmental Online Monitoring Keyword Candidate Study: 9; records in this cohort but outside that set: 28. The intersection/union ratio is 11.4%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

Stable-ID samples, not rankings; metrics use the full cohort.