Correcting the trajectory: Establishing a universal benchmark and rebalancing research priorities for zero-carbon industrial parks

Abstract

Zero-carbon industrial parks are core demonstration carriers for global industrial deep decarbonization and a key research hotspot in climate change and sustainable development. However, three structural issues have long restricted the formation of a globally comparable research paradigm: fragmented accounting benchmarks, imbalanced research priorities, and poor generalizability of findings. This comment systematically analyzes the above deviations: divergent accounting rules across mainstream frameworks weaken cross-study comparability; studies overfocus on energy system transition while neglecting core process-level decarbonization; case-specific conclusions cannot adapt to the transition needs of developing economies. To correct these deviations, this comment proposes a universal minimum consensus benchmark, advocates a rebalanced research agenda, and outlines a differentiated globally adaptable framework with seven priority propositions, to advance the systematic development of the field.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

zero-carbon governance / energy transition / industrial park

References

[1] Abraham E J, Ramadan F, Al-Mohannadi D M, (2021). Synthesis of sustainable carbon negative eco-industrial parks. Frontiers in Energy Research, 9: 689474

[2] Chen M, Wang K, (2024). Decomposition and decoupling of driving factors on marginal abatement cost change of carbon emissions: An empirical study based on China’s industrial sector. Frontiers of Science and Technology of Engineering Management, 43( 3): 46–54 (in Chinese)

[3] Daehn K, Basuhi R, Gregory J, Berlinger M, Somjit V, Olivetti A, (2021). Innovations to decarbonize materials industries. Nature Reviews. Materials, 7( 4): 275–294

[4] Guo Y, Tian J P, Chen L J, (2020). Managing energy infrastructure to decarbonize industrial parks in China. Nature Communications, 11( 1): 981

[5] Huo Q H, Liu Q R, Deng H W, Wang W Y, Shi C L, Wei T Z, (2024). Research on dual-layer optimization strategy of photovoltaic-storage-hydrogen system in coal chemical industry park. Renewable Energy, 230: 120813

[6] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report. Available from the website of IPCC

[7] International Energy Agency (2024). Renewables for Industry: Electrification of low-temperature heat and steam – Executive summary, Paris: IEA. Available at the website of IEA

[8] International Organization for Standardization (2018). ISO 14064–1:2018: Greenhouse gases, Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Available from the website of ISO

[9] Jin X, Tang R L, Pan T Z, Li X, Wang Z Y, Jiang C, Zhang R, (2025). Optimal operation of flexible IES based on energy hub and demand-side response. Aims Energy, 13( 3): 569–589

[10] Kim H W, Dong L, Choi A E S, Fujii M, Fujita T, Park H S, (2018). Co-benefit potential of industrial and urban symbiosis using waste heat from industrial park in Ulsan, Korea. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135: 225–234

[11] Laurin M D, Aryanpur V, Farabi-Asl H, Grahn M, Taljegard M, Vilén K, (2025). Exploring the applicability of “One-Size-Fits-All” road transport decarbonization strategies: A participatory energy systems modeling comparison of urban and non-urban municipalities. Scientific Reports, 15( 1): 13

[12] Science Based Targets initiative (2025). SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard. Available from the website of sciencebasedtargets.org

[13] Simanjuntak U, (2026). Global industrial decarbonization progress leaves developing countries behind. Institute for Essential Services Reform. Sovacool B K, Bazilian M D, Kim J, Griffiths S (2023). Six bold steps towards net-zero industry. Energy Research & Social Science, 99: 9

[14] Sun Y H, Li Y H, Ning J, Fu H, Liu F T, Feng Z Y, Liu G X, Shi L, (2024). Twelve pathways of carbon neutrality for industrial parks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 437: 140753

[15] Trouwloon D, Streck C, Chagas T, Martinus G, (2023). Understanding the use of carbon credits by companies: A review of the defining elements of corporate climate claims. Global Challenges, 7( 4): 2200158

[16] Wang K, Liu C T, Chen X, Yi J C, Wei Y M, Li Z, (2025). Pathways to carbon neutrality and value creation in industrial parks: A case study based on goldwind carbon neutral smart industrial park. Journal of Management Case Studies, 18( 3): 295–308 (in Chinese)

[17] Wang Q, Duan H B, Miao Q M, Li H, Liu J G, Wang N, Xu Q Y, (2023). Environmental and economic impact assessment of synergistic organic-waste treatment strategies in eco-industrial parks: A pilot-scale case study in Shenzhen, China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 103: 107250

[18] Wang Z Y, Hubacek K, Sun X, Ruzzenenti F, (2026). Landscape of research on accounting scope 3 emissions: A review of methodologies and data. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,

[19] Yu X, Zheng H R, Sun L, Shan Y L, (2020). An emissions accounting framework for industrial parks in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244: 118712

[20] Zhang B Q, Wang Y F, Pan L, Guo X H, Liu Y S, Shi C C, Xue S Q, Wang L P, Chang X L, Fan L, (2025). Net zero carbon park planning framework: Methodology, application, and economic feasibility analysis. Energy, 325: 136205

[21] Zhang R, Bai X, (2025). Applied research on the building of the standardized evaluation system for low (zero) carbon industrial parks.. Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, 25: 14727978251361387

Rights & permissions

Higher Education Press