§ Browsing ETD Metadata
  
System No. U0002-2107201116171900
Title (in Chinese) 台灣電子業綠色策略績效評估之研究 ─ 應用成本與利益控制準則下之分析網路程序法
Title (in English) Performance Evaluation for Green Strategy on Electronics Industry in Taiwan - An Application of ANP under Two Control Criteria of Benefits and Costs
Other Title
Institution 淡江大學
Department (in Chinese) 管理科學研究所碩士班
Department (in English) Graduate Institute of Management Science
Other Division
Other Division Name
Other Department/Institution
Academic Year 99
Semester 2
PublicationYear 100
Author's name (in Chinese) 吳佩青
Author's name(in English) Pei-Ching Wu
Student ID 698620142
Degree 碩士
Language Traditional Chinese
Other Language
Date of Oral Defense 2011-06-07
Pagination 81page
Committee Member advisor - Hsu-Shih Shih
co-advisor - Ue-Pyng Wen
co-chair - 蔡文賢
co-chair - 張炳騰
co-chair - 林長青
Keyword (inChinese) 綠色策略
分析網路程序法
環境平衡計分卡
BOCR法
績效評估
敏感度分析
Keyword (in English) Green Strategy
Analytic Network Process
The Balanced Scorecard of Environment
BOCR Analysis
Performance Appraisal
Sensitive Analysis
Other Keywords
Subject
Abstract (in Chinese)
本研究期藉建構一個具有成本與利益考量之環境平衡計分卡,來了解推動綠色策略的重要因素,並應用於當今台灣電子業綠色策略之績效評估。以平衡計分卡 (The Balanced Scorecard [BSC] of Environment) 為基礎,利用分析網路程序法 (Analytic Network Process, ANP) 結合外部整體環境分析 (Political, Economic, Social, and Technological analysis, PEST Analysis) 及BOCR分析 (Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks Analysis, BOCR Analysis) 中的利益 (benefit) 和成本 (cost) 之內部環境分析,透過整合專家問卷得各評估因素之相對重要性,進而得知環境平衡計分卡各構面之效益分析,以及其構面和個別因素之權重。
在結合BSC、PEST、ANP以及應用BOCR的成本與利益思考下,透過文獻回顧及兩次問卷調查建構出完善的評估架構,共五個構面及二十九項評估量度。藉由財務構面、顧客構面、內部程序構面、學習與成長構面及擴展之環境構面為主,架構各評估項目,並因研究問題的重點在於利益及成本,故僅將評估量度轉換區分在利益及成本之下,做為兩個ANP網路進行重要性評估。最後,獲得較重要之績效評估構面為「環境構面」及「顧客構面」,並且需注重「學習與成長構面」及「內部流程構面」之成本管控。最後,針對權重最大之環境及顧客構面中的顧客滿意度和能源效率,進行敏感度分析,結果變動幅度甚小,可推論本建議模型相當穩健。
本研究結論可知:1 區分評估項目之影響面向而形成各自之ANP網路,可有利重要性評估更為確實;2 可仿製研究步驟及權重計算,建構符合需求之環境平衡計分卡;3 可透過確定關鍵構面及因素,有助於管理者進行策略管理與控制,以期該綠色策略在考量到內外部環境因素下,能達到成功推動之目標。
Abstract (in English)
The goal of this study is to construct a balanced scorecard of environment under two control criteria of benefits and costs, use it to find out the key function of implement green strategy, and apply the result on electronics industry’s performance evaluation of green strategy in Taiwan. On the basis of the balanced scorecard of environment, this study also combines the analytic network process (analytic network process, ANP), BOCR analysis (Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks [BOCR] Analysis), and PEST analysis (Political, Economic, Social, and Technological analysis) to get the weight of each factor of evaluations and perspectives from analysis of the expert questionnaires. 
This study establishes the basic evaluative framework including literature review and two expert questionnaires adopting the balance scorecard of environment with 5 perspectives and 29 elements. The ANP’s expert questionnaire approach dug out the important dimensions and factors for the weight from experts’ aspects under two control criteria of benefits and costs for simplicity. Finally, two of the key factor evaluations are customer perspective and environmental perspective. On the other hand, the innovation perspective and learning and internal process perspective need more cost control. A sensitive analysis is also made to assure the model to be robust.
The result found three points: 1 the application of ANP with BOCR can make the pairwise comparison of importance more certainty; 2 company can be modeled on the process to construct the balanced scorecard of environment; 3 managers can identify key perspectives and elements to control strategies to successfully implement the goal of green strategy.
Other Abstract
Table of Content (with Page Number)
目錄
第1章	緒論	1
1.1	研究背景與動機	1
1.2	研究目的	2
1.3	研究方法	3
1.4	研究限制	3
1.5	研究假設	4
1.6	研究內容與架構	4
第2章	文獻回顧	6
2.1	企業綠色管理及綠色策略	6
2.1.1	環境管理演進趨勢	6
2.1.2	環境管理之綠色策略訂定方向	7
2.1.3	整體環境分析	8
2.2	環境績效評估	9
2.2.1	環境績效與企業績效之關連性	9
2.2.2	環境績效評估	11
2.3	平衡計分卡	12
2.3.1	平衡計分卡之源起	12
2.3.2	平衡計分卡之概念及四大構面	13
2.3.3	平衡計分卡之相關文獻	14
2.4	分析網路程序法	18
2.4.1	分析網路程序法之源起	18
2.4.2	分析網路程序法之架構	19
2.4.3	分析網路程序法結合BOCR	20
2.5	小結	27
第3章	模型建構	29
3.1	平衡計分卡之應用	31
3.1.1	應用平衡計分卡之緣由	31
3.1.2	環境平衡計分卡之建構	32
3.2	分析網路程序法之應用	34
3.2.1	應用分析網路程序法之緣由	34
3.2.2	應用分析網路程序法之步驟	35
3.3	小結	47
第4章	研究結果	48
4.1	ANP專家問卷之專家資料	48
4.2	ANP專家問卷整合及分析	49
4.2.1	一對一進行ANP專家問卷	49
4.2.2	專家問卷整合	49
4.2.3	建立超級矩陣	51
4.2.4	分析各構面之權重	51
4.2.5	BOCR之利益與成本分析	57
4.3	敏感度分析	57
4.4	小結	60
第5章	結論與建議	61
5.1	結論	61
5.2	建議	62
參考文獻		64
中文文獻	64
英文文獻	66
附錄A 第一階段問卷擷取之範例	70
附錄B 第二階段 ANP專家問卷擷取之範例	73
附錄C 成本控制階層下之超級矩陣計算	79

圖目錄
圖 1.1研究流程圖	5
圖 2.1 成本與效益兩個階層AHP的應用舉例	21
圖 2.2 BOCR應用之模型	25
圖 2.3 BOCR的未完善及完善之應用比較圖	26
圖 3.1 研究架構圖	30
圖 3.2平衡計分卡做為策略行動的架構	32
圖 3.3將願景與策略轉換為平衡計分卡的四大構面	33
圖 3.4 網路連結的類型	34
圖 3.5 應用ANP結合BOCR及PEST計算相對權重之流程	35
圖 3.6 環境平衡計分卡之構面及量度	37
圖 3.7 以環境平衡計分卡建構之ANP模型	39
圖 3.8 以環境平衡計分卡架構之ANP網路層級關係	47
圖 4.1以幾何平均法整合成對比較矩陣之範例	50
圖 4.2 利益控制準則下之敏感度分析釋例圖-學習與成長構面	58
圖 4.3 成本控制準則下之敏感度分析釋例圖-學習與成長構面	59

表目錄
表 2.1以自然資源為基礎的概念架構	7
表 2.2 應用PEST分析之國內外相關研究	8
表 2.3環境管理與企業績效之國內相關研究	10
表 2.4 環境相關平衡計分卡之國內外相關研究	16
表 2.5 AHP/ANP結合BOCR之國內外相關研究	24
表 3.1 各評估因素之定義	37
表 3.2 AHP問卷評估尺度意義與說明	40
表 3.3 R.I. 值	43
表 4.1 專家背景資料一覽表	48
表 4.2 利益控制階層下之未加權超級矩陣	53
表 4.3 利益控制階層下之加權超級矩陣	54
表 4.4 利益控制階層下之極限超級矩陣	55
表 4.5 各構面及其因素之權重	56
表 4.6 構面之成本與利益分析	57
表 4.7利益控制準則下之敏感度分析釋例表-各構面結果	58
表 4.8成本控制準則下之敏感度分析釋例表-各構面結果	59
附表C.1 成本控制階層下之未加權超級矩陣	79
附表C.2 成本控制階層下之加權超級矩陣	80
附表C.3 成本控制階層下之極限超級矩陣	81
References
中文文獻
吳佩樺 (2010),綠色先驅者優勢?綠色策略為企業績效來源之實證研究。國立東華大學國際企業學系,碩士論文,花蓮。
張昑柱 (2010),台灣綠能產業的全球化之關鍵因素研究 - 以台灣“D”公司為例。國立交通大學高階主管管理碩士學程,碩士論文,新竹。
楊維楨 (2003),系統分析在經營決策上的應用,五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
武天翔 (2009),我國燃料電池產業未來發展之市場競爭策略分析。國立交通大學高階主管管理碩士學程,碩士論文,新竹。
王昌言 (2010),UH-1H機隊改善方案的探討。國立成功大學航空太空工程學系專班,碩士論文,台南。
王曉慧 (2006),以 PEST 分析與五變因探討台商在日本光學檢測儀器設備產業於中國大陸發展的關鍵成功因素。中興大學高階經理人碩士在職專班,碩士論文,台中。
莊士毅 (2008),任意汽車保險經營績效之研究-結合分析網路程序法與平衡計分卡之運用。淡江大學保險學系,碩士論文,台北。
莊舜翔 (2009),應用分析網路程序法預測台灣廢印表機營業量之研究。淡江大學管理科學研究所,碩士論文,台北。
詹淑清 (2009),綠色供應鏈之廠商績效研究:以台灣資訊電子產業為例。國立台北大學企業管理學系,博士論文,台北。
陳宥杉 (2004),綠色環保壓力對企業競爭優勢影響之研究-以國內資訊電子相關產業為例。國立政治大學,博士論文,台北。
陳玟曄、顏志龍 (2009),平衡計分卡應用於台灣中油公司之研究。中華管理評論國際學報,12(3),1-18。
高明瑞、胡瓊文 (1995),環保導向的企業管理之理論和實證研究。八十四年度國家科學委員會管理學門專題計畫研究成果發表會, 行政院國家科學委員會。
黃博信 (2010),台灣產業環境策略, 環境知識循環活動, 綠色創新與企業績效相互關係之研究。國立成功大學資源工程學系,博士論文,台南。
黃文怡 (2005),運用平衡計分卡協助企業環境績效評估與環境策略管理。成功大學資源工程學系,碩士論文,台南。
英文文獻
Beamon, B. M. (1999). Designing the green supply chain. Logistics Information Management, 12(4), 332-342. 
Berry, M. A., & Rondinelli, D. A. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental management: A new industrial revolution. The Academy of Management Executive (1993), 12(2), 38-50. 
Dias‐Sardinha, I., Reijnders, L., & Antunes, P. (2002). From environmental performance evaluation to eco‐efficiency and sustainability balanced scorecards. Environmental Quality Management, 12(2), 51-64.
Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001). Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental Quality Management, 11(2), 1-10. 
Erdogmus, S., Kapanoglu, M., & Koē, E. (2005). Evaluating high-tech alternatives by using analytic network process with BOCR and multiactors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(4), 391-399. 
Esty, D. C., & Winston, A. S. (2009). Green to gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage, USA : John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269-284.
Florida, R., & Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from green management: Environment management systems inside and outside the factory. California Management Review, 43(3), 63-84. 
Handfield, R., Walton, S. V., Sroufe, R., & Melnyk, S. A. (2002). Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 141(1), 70-87. 
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986-1014. 
Hart, S. L. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 66-77. 
Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? an empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5(1), 30-37. 
Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(3), 177-191. 
Jasch, C. (2000). Environmental performance evaluation and indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8(1), 79-88. 
Johnson, S. D. (1998). Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators: Application of the balanced scorecard approach. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 5(4), 34-41. 
Judge, W. Q., & Douglas, T. J. (1998). Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. Journal of Management Studies, 35(2), 241-262. 
Kane, G. (2009). The three secrets of green business: Unlocking competitive advantage in a low carbon economy, London, UK : Earthscan. 
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard–measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79. 
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1995). Putting the balanced scorecard to work. In D. G. Shaw, C. E. Schneier, R.W. Beatty & L. S. Baird (Eds.), The Performance Measurement, Management, and Appraisal Sourcebook (pp. 66-79). USA : Human Resource Development Press.
King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2001). Lean and green? an empirical examination of the relationship between lean production and environmental performance. Production and Operations Management, 10(3), 244-256. 
Konar, S., & Cohen, M. A. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance? Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2), 281-289.
Lampe, M., & Gazda, G. M. (1995). Green marketing in europe and the united states: An evolving business and society interface. International Business Review, 4(3), 295-312. 
Lee, A. H. I. (2009). A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consideration of benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 2879-2893. 
Lee, A. H. I., Lin, C. Y., Wang, S. R., & Tu, Y. M. (2010). The construction of a comprehensive model for production strategy evaluation. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 9(2), 187-217. 
Saaty, T. L. (1980). Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York : McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. 
Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: Decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. USA: RWS publications.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
Saaty, T. L., & Kearns, K. P. (1985). Analytical planning: The organization of systems. New York: Pergamon.
Saaty, T. L., & Ozdemir, M. (2003). Negative priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 37(9-10), 1063-1075. 
Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (1994). Decision making in economic, political, social and technological environments with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publication, 267-277
Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2006). Decision making with the analytic network process: Economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. USA : Springer Verlag.
Sidiropoulos, M., Mouzakitis, Y., Adamides, E., & Goutsos, S. (2004). Applying sustainable indicators to corporate strategy: The eco-balanced scorecard. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 1(27), 28-33. 
Taylor, S. R. (1992). Green management: The next competitive weapon. Futures, 24(7), 669-680. 
Tyson, L. D. (2011). A Better Stimulus Plan for the U.S. Economy. Harvard Business Review, 54, 7-8.
Valentine, S. V. (2010). A STEP toward understanding wind power development policy barriers in advanced economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 2796-2807. 
Vander Beken, T., Dorn, N., & Van Daele, S. (2010). Security risks in nuclear waste management: Exceptionalism, opaqueness and vulnerability. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(4), 940-948. 
Wijnmalen, D. J. D. (2007). Analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR) with the AHP-ANP: A critical validation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8), 892-905. 
Yazgan, H. R., Boran, S., & Goztepe, K. (2010). Selection of dispatching rules in FMS: ANP model based on BOCR with choquet integral. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 49(5), 785-801.
Terms of Use
Within Campus
I request to embargo my thesis/dissertation for 5 year(s) right after the date I submit my Authorization Approval Form.
Duration for delaying release from 5 years.
Outside the Campus
I grant the authorization for the public to view/print my electronic full text with royalty fee and I donate the fee to my school library as a development fund.
Duration for delaying release from 5 years.
 Top

If you have any questions, please contact us!

Library: please call (02)2621-5656 ext. 2487 or email