2026 marks the first year of mandatory ESG disclosure for A-share listed companies. Under hierarchical supervision, practical issues concerning mandatory ESG disclosure for SMEs have attracted wide attention. As a core sector serving innovative SMEs, the ChiNext Market gathers numerous private techs and small-to-medium firms. Based on the Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Standards, this paper takes Ultrapower (300002.SZ) as a typical case. Supported by information asymmetry, stakeholder and resource-based theories, it systematically analyzes the current situation and deep-seated dilemmas of SMEs’ mandatory ESG disclosure. The study finds that SMEs have insufficient endogenous motivation and practical capabilities, while imperfect hierarchical rules and inadequate external support further intensify disclosure difficulties. Accordingly, this paper proposes optimization paths from enterprises, regulators and external parties, including building a lightweight management structure, improving tiered disclosure rules and establishing an inclusive service platform. It aims to provide references for SMEs’ low-cost ESG compliance and regulators’ improved hierarchical supervision, so as to advance high-quality development of China’s capital market ESG disclosure system.

Wei Yang, Hongjiang Pei. Practical Dilemmas and Optimization Paths for SMEs' Mandatory ESG Disclosure under Hierarchical Supervision: A Case Study of Ultrapower. Academic Journal of Business & Management (2026), Vol. 8, Issue 6: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJBM.2026.080601.

[1] Akerlof G A. The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism [J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1970, 84(3): 488-500.

[2] Freeman R E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach [M]. Boston: Pitman, 1984.

[3] Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1984, 5(2): 171-180.

[4] Christensen D M, Serafeim G, Sikochi A. Why is Corporate Virtue in the Eye of the Beholder? The Case of ESG Ratings [J]. The Accounting Review, 2022, 97(1): 147-175.

[5] Ramanna K. Friedman at 50：Is it Still the Social Responsibility of Business to Increase Profits? [J]. California Management Review, 2020, 62(3): 28-41.

[6] Barka Z, Taher H, Senda M. Corporate ESG Scores and Equity Market Misvaluation：Toward Ethical Investor Behavior [J]. Economic Modelling, 2023, 27(C).

[7] Dyck A, Lins K V, Roth L, et al. Do Institutional Investors Drive Corporate Social Responsibility? International Evidence [J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2019, 131(3): 693-714.

[8] Wang Yu, Wang Haoyu, Xue Shuang. Greening of Tax System and Corporate ESG Performance — A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on the Environmental Protection Tax Law [J]. Journal of Finance and Economics, 2022, 48(9): 47-62.

[9] Wang Yunchen, Yang Ruoyi, He Kang, et al. Can Digital Transformation Improve Corporate ESG Performance? — Research Based on Legitimacy Theory and Information Asymmetry Theory [J]. Securities Market Herald, 2023(7): 14-25.

[10] Liu Lijuan, Ren Yuqiang, Han Liping. Executives’ Environmental Awareness and Corporate ESG Performance — From the Perspective of Corporate Green Development [J]. Friends of Accounting, 2024(1): 100-108.

[11] Bao Shuchen, Zhou Jingfei, Hu Yijia, et al. The Overstep of “Greenwashing” and the Return of “True Green” in Corporate ESG Practice — A Case Study of Kweichow Moutai [J]. Finance and Accounting Research, 2026(1): 69-80.

[12] Wang Zaifeng. Stock Market Reaction to ESG Information [D]. Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, 2024.

[13] Chen Songjie, Xue Shuang, Zhang Weiguo. Assurance of Sustainable Development Reports: Standards, Current Situation and Economic Consequences [J]. Finance and Accounting Monthly, 2023, 44(13): 12-23.

[14] Chen Hong, Zhang Lingxiao. ESG Performance, Digital Transformation and Enterprise Value Enhancement [J]. Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, 2023(3): 136-149.