The refinement of the environmental administrative public interest litigation system plays a crucial role in advancing the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, as well as accelerating the construction of a Beautiful China. As the predominant judgment type in environmental administrative public interest litigation, the performance judgment essentially constitutes the “principal contradiction” within such judicial decisions. Current judicial practice reveals several issues regarding performance judgments in environmental administrative public interest litigation, including inconsistent criteria for determining “failure to perform statutory duties”, inappropriate application of judgment modalities, and ambiguity in the scope of judgment content. The determination criteria for “failure to perform statutory duties” directly impact the litigation outcomes between procuratorial organs and administrative agencies’ while the judgment modalities and content affect subsequent enforcement and judicial authority, thus requiring urgent resolution.Courts primarily employ two standards when assessing administrative agencies’ performance of statutory duties: behavioral standards and outcome standards. In environmental administrative public interest litigation, absolute outcome standards should be rejected. For certain cases, courts may directly apply behavioral standards to evaluate administrative compliance, while more complex cases necessitate comprehensive consideration of outcome standards and causal relationships. Judicial authorities must fully recognize that administrative non-performance constitutes the prerequisite for issuing performance judgments. Such judgments should not be combined with judgments confirming illegality, though they may be accompanied by partial claim dismissals or revocation judgments depending on case specifics.It is essential to distinguish between orders to perform and orders to continue performing statutory duties within environmental administrative public interest litigation judgmen