本研究探討台灣上市公司與其利害關係人重視之環境議題為哪些？他們對這些環境議題的共融程度為何？ 本研究樣本來自臺灣2013-2015年出具企業社會責任報告書之上市公司，運用內容分析法進行資料蒐集，針對企業社會責任報告書內之環境相關議題整體性分析，並依據時間、產業別、環境敏感性、法令強制性等進一步剖析。本研究發現，上市公司其利害關係人關注之最重要環境議題為法規遵循、能源管理、廢氣排放、廢棄物處理，且關心之環境議題隨期間、產業而異。上市公司認為對公司營運具有影響力之環境議題依序為法規遵循、能源管理，其次為水資源利用、廢水排放、廢棄物處理、廢氣排放、供應商環境評估，其優先順序隨產業不同有明顯差別。整體而言公司與利害關係人共同重視之環境議題之共融性頗高，依序為法規遵循、能源管理、其次為廢氣排放、廢水排放、廢棄物處理，產業的差異性仍然存在，尤其是食品業。自2013年台灣發生嚴重的油品污染事件以及廢水排放污染事件後，利害關係人與公司對環保法規遵循以及廢水、廢氣與廢棄物處理之議題，有明顯上升的趨勢。

This study explores what environmental issues are important to Taiwan's listed companies and their stakeholders? What is their degree of communion on these environmental issues? This study was prepared by the listed companies from Taiwan 2013-2015 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. The content analysis method was used to collect the data. In view of the environmental analysis of the environmental related issues in the CSR report, and based on the time, Analysis. This study found that the most important environmental issues of concern for listed companies whose stakeholders are concerned about compliance, energy management, emissions, waste disposal, and environmental issues of concern vary from industry to industry. The listed companies consider that the environmental issues that are influential to the operation of the company are in compliance with regulations, energy management, followed by water resources utilization, waste water discharge, waste disposal, emissions, and supplier environmental assessment. difference. In general, the company and the stakeholders attach great importance to the environmental issues of high communion, followed by compliance, energy management, followed by emissions, waste water discharge, waste disposal, industry differences still exist, especially Food industry. Since the event of serious oil pollution incidents and waste water pollution incidents in Taiwan in 2013, there has been a clear upward trend in stakeholder and company issues regarding environmental compliance and waste water, waste gas and waste disposal.

目錄
第壹章 緒論	1
第一節 研究背景	1
第二節 研究問題	2
第三節 研究目的	3
第四節 研究架構	3
第貳章 文獻回顧及探討	5
第一節 永續發展革沿及企業社會責任在臺灣發展近況	5
第二節 重要環境議題	10
第三節 公司與利害關係人間共融性關係	16
第參章 研究設計	20
第一節 觀念性分析架構	20
第二節 樣本與資料來源	24
第三節 內容分析法	25
第四節 信效度分析	28
第肆章 資料分析結果	29
第一節 利害關係人所關心的環境議題	29
第二節 對公司營運影響程度大的環境議題	39
第三節 利害關係人與公司皆高度重視之環境議題	47
第伍章 結論與建議	56
第一節 研究發現	56
第二節 研究貢獻	58
第三節 研究限制	58
第四節 研究建議	59
參考文獻	60
中文文獻	60
英文文獻	62

 
表目錄
表2-1 環境類別之議題考量面與指引	12
表2-2 環境議題分類對照表	14
表3-1 樣本統計表	24
表4-1 利害關係人對環境議題關心程度排行表-總樣本	29
表4-2 利害關係人對環境議題關心程度排行表-年度區別	31
表4-3 利害關係人對環境議題關心程度排行表-產業間比較	33
表4-4 利害關係人對環境議題關心程度排行表-環境敏感性區分	35
表4-5 利害關係人對環境議題關心程度排行表-法令強制性區別	36
表4-6 利害關係人對環境議題關心程度排行表-自願性申報公司於法令頒佈前後對照	37
表4-7 利害關係人對環境議題關心程度排行表-非自願性申報公司於法令頒布前後對照	38
表4-8 環境議題對公司營運衝擊程度排行表-總樣本	39
表4-9 環境議題對公司營運衝擊程度排行表-年度區別	41
表4-10 環境議題對公司營運衝擊程度排行表-產業間比較	42
表4-11 環境議題對公司營運衝擊程度排行表-環境敏感性區分	43
表4-12 環境議題對公司營運衝擊程度排行表-法令強制性區別	44
表4-13 環境議題對公司營運衝擊程度排行表-自願性申報公司於法令頒佈前後對照	45
表4-14 環境議題對公司營運衝擊程度排行表-非自願性申報之公司於法令頒布前後對照	46
表4-15 樣本於不同劃分基礎下之共融百分比表	47
表4-16 利害關係人與公司共同高度重視之環境議題-總樣本	48
表4-17 利害關係人與公司共同重視之環境議題-年度區別	49
表4-18 利害關係人與公司共同重視之環境議題-產業間比較	50
表4-19 利害關係人與公司共同重視之環境議題-環境敏感性區分	52
表4-20 利害關係人與公司共同重視之環境議題-自願性與非自願性	53
表4-21 利害關係人與公司共同重視之環境議題-自願性申報公司於法令頒佈前後對照	54
表4-22 利害關係人與公司共同重視之環境議題-非自願性申報公司於法令頒布前後對照	55

 
圖目錄
圖1-1 研究流程	4
圖2-1 利害關係人之組成來源與溝通方式圓餅圖	19
圖3-1 重大實質性議題象限劃分方式	20
圖3-2 利害關係人高度重視之象限區塊	22
圖3-3 對公司營運衝擊程度大之象限區塊	23
圖3-4 利害關係人與公司共同高度重視之象限區塊	23
圖3-6 重大實質性議題-矩陣圖	25
圖3-7 重大實質性議題-扇形圖	25

中文文獻
周建宏. (2007). 迎接全球化資本市場時代之來臨－從提昇資訊透明度及會計準 則整合之趨勢談起. 證券櫃檯月刊, (130), 58-68.
李秀英, 劉俊儒, & 楊筱翎. (2011). 企業社會責任與公司績效之關聯性. 東海管理評論, 13(1), 77-111.
林文鼎, & 王俊如. (2006). 知識特性與技術授權模式: 資源依賴觀點. 智慧財產評論, 4(2), 55-77.
林鳳儀, & 蘇信安. (2011). 自願性資訊揭露與強制性資訊揭露之盈餘管理. 管理學報, 28(4), 345-359.
申永順. (2008). Iso 26000 企業社會責任標準之發展與因應. 環境工程會刊, 19
申永順. (2008). iso26000 企業社會責任標準之發展與因應. 環境工程會刊, 19
簡文玲. (1993). 環境特性.企業經營策略與經營績效之相關研究 = The relationship of environmental characteristics, the business strategies and the performance 臺北市 : 淡江大學管理科學研究所管理科學組, 民國82. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.tku.edu.tw:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat03454a&AN=TUL.415931&lang=zh-tw&site=eds-live
維基百科, 自. (2017, April 22). 2016年高雄美濃地震. Retrieved from https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E5%B9%B4%E9%AB%98%E9%9B%84%E7%BE%8E%E6%BF%83%E5%9C%B0%E9%9C%87&oldid=44088657
維基百科, 自. (2017, April 28). 921大地震. Retrieved from https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=921%E5%A4%A7%E5%9C%B0%E9%9C%87&oldid=44156208
維基百科, 自. (2017, May 10). 八八水災. Retrieved from https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%85%AB%E5%85%AB%E6%B0%B4%E7%81%BD&oldid=44307108
莊世杰, 賴志松, 孫衙聰, 龔昶元, 葉穎蓉, & 許秉瑜. (2005). 一個 Erp 系統之建構決定因素的理論探索: 整合制度理論, 資源依賴理論, 資源基礎理論及交易成本理論之理論模型. 資訊管理學報, 12(1), 149-170.
金志遠. (2000). 董事會特性與年報自願性揭露關係之研究, 國立政治大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文.
金融監督管理委員會. (2014, September 22). 強制上市(櫃)公司編製企業社會責任報告書. Retrieved from http://www.fsc.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=96&parentpath=0,2&mcustomize=news_view.jsp&dataserno=201409180005&toolsflag=Y&dtable=News
陳泓志. (2015). 企業社會責任行為與企業績效之關聯性研究. 臺灣大學會計學研究所學位論文, , 1-50.
高明瑞, 劉常勇, 黃義俊, & 張乃仁. (2010). 企業綠色管理, 環境績效與競爭優勢關聯性之研究. 管理與系統, 17(2), 255-278.
魏文欽, & 莊怡萱. (2009). 企業社會責任, 企業形象, 消費者態度與行爲意向關係之實證研究. International Journal of LISREL, 2(2), 1-21.
黃靖雯, 鄭先祐, & 鄭吉成. (2009). 台南縣國小教師的環境倫理觀-主流, 新生態與永續社會典範的比較. 環境與生態學報, 2(2), 45-60.
 
英文文獻
Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes, K. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5), 447-471.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barringer, M. W., & Milkovich, G. T. (1996). Employee health insurance decisions in a flexible benefits environment. Human Resource Management, 35(3), 293-315.
Boubaker, L., Djebabra, M., & Saadi, S. (2014). Contribution of stakeholder theory in the management of environmental quality of algerian firms: Case study of the SONATRACH group, algeria. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 25(3), 335-351.
Bowen, H. R., & Johnson, F. E. (1953). Social responsibility of the businessman Harper.
Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453-470.
Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. (1989). Business and society, cincinnati. Ohio: South-Western,
Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405.
Cormier, D., & Gordon, I. M. (2001). An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(5), 587-617.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Donada, C. (2001). Co-development partnerships: Consequences for car suppliers. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 1(2-3), 183-195.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Dunlap, R. E., & LIERE, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65(4), 1013.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.
Elkington, J. (2002). The Triple Bottom Line,
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century,
Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda-setting? Public Relations Review, 24(3), 305-319.
Freeman, R. E., & McVea, J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management.
Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88-106.
Friedman, M. (1970). A theoretical framework for monetary analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 193-238.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191-205.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51-71.
G4 sustainability reporting guidelines, (2015).
Huang, C., & Kung, F. (2010). Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: Evidence from taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 435-451.
Huang, C., & Kung, F. (2011). Environmental consciousness and intellectual capital management: Evidence from taiwan's manufacturing industry. Management Decision, 49(9), 1405-1425.
Jawahar, I., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397-414.
Keys, T., Malnight, T. W., & van der Graaf, K. (2009). Making the most of corporate social responsibility. McKinsey Quarterly, 36, 38-44.
Medcof, J. W. (2001). Resource‐based strategy and managerial power in networks of internationally dispersed technology units. Strategic Management Journal, 22(11), 999-1012.
Menguc, B., & Ozanne, L. K. (2005). Challenges of the “green imperative”: A natural resource-based approach to the environmental orientation–business performance relationship. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 430-438.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179.
Pfeffer, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations Pitman Marshfield, MA.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence approach. NY: Harper and Row Publishers,
Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120-134.
Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97-118.
Rasheed, H. S., & Geiger, S. W. (2001). Determinants of governance structure for the electronic value chain: Resource dependency and transaction costs perspectives. Journal of Business Strategies, 18(2), 159.
Richardson, A. J., & Welker, M. (2001). Social disclosure, financial disclosure and the cost of equity capital. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(7), 597-616.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910.
Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. The Executive, 5(2), 61-75.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 183-200.
Steensma, H. K., Marino, L., Weaver, K. M., & Dickson, P. H. (2000). The influence of national culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 951-973.
Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758-769.
Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 443-464.