Energy conservation, environmental protection and resource recycling / Digital software and industrial services Supply-chain Study

Comparative structure study

The largest recorded reporting jurisdiction, Beijing, contains 11 records (33.3% of this 33-record cohort). The remaining cohort contains 22 records. The comparison concerns archive composition.

The recorded sub-industry label Energy saving and waste-heat utilisation accounts for 36.4% here (12/33), compared with 9.0% in the parent set (72/797), an absolute gap of 27.3 percentage points.

10/33 companies link to pages with existing source-supported excerpts (30.3% of the cohort). The other 23 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 33 (4.1%); 764 records remain after excluding it.

The parent set, All public archive records, contains 19,297 records. This cohort contributes 33 (0.2%); 19,264 records remain after excluding it.

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

Excluding this cohort, the recorded sub-industry label Energy saving and waste-heat utilisation covers 60/764 remaining records (7.9%), an absolute gap of 28.5 percentage points from this cohort.

The full reporting jurisdiction distribution has 12 labels; the top 3 contain 19/33 records (57.6%).Other known labels contain 14 records.

For 33 records with known labels, the effective category count is 6.0, versus 12 actual labels. Definitions and scope are in the methodology.

The table shows ten labels; 2 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 11 records, or 100.0% of the 11 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 14 non-empty cells; the other 6 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 33 records link through existing company-ID mappings to 2026 lists from all jurisdictions (21.2%). 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 9 records (27.3% 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: 24. The intersection/union ratio is 12.9%, 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: 24. The intersection/union ratio is 12.0%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

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