本研究為探討在教育部推動USR計畫的背景下，大專校院如何回應體制壓力，首先針對臺灣的158間大專校院進行全面性普查，盤點其發布報告書之表徵資訊，以是否參採國際通用的永續報導工具作為文本樣態的判別標準，描繪出臺灣的大專校院發布報告書之趨勢。USR計畫自2017起開始試辦，教育部為鼓勵大專校院實踐社會責任，延續推廣第二期USR計畫（2020年至2021年），且著重引導大學將大學社會責任融入校務治理架構，接軌SDGs實踐永續。為檢視計畫成效，於第二期首次要求符合規範計畫之學校，須實施中長期效益評估以及出版USR年報落實社會責信，當中有28間USR計畫學校符合規範（稱為28間試辦學校）。本研究有三大發現，第一個發現是自2020年起，SDGs已成為臺灣永續報告書中最常被採納之報導工具。第二個發現是自2021年（USR計畫要求出版年報回應的第一年）起，報告書文本的樣態區分為USR年報與永續報告書，報告書發布數量遽增，經交叉分析得出主要來自此28間試辦學校。第三個發現是以文本表徵之現象，作為報告書回應體制的框架，提出五種報告書回應程度：完成報告、呼籲倡議、參採框架、追求品質以及創新意義。最後討論理論貢獻與實務意涵。

This study explores how universities and colleges respond to institutional pressure in the context of the Ministry of Education's promotion of the USR program. Firstly, a comprehensive survey was conducted on 158 universities and colleges in Taiwan to inventory the indicative information of their published reports. The distinction between texts was based on whether international sustainability reporting tools were adopted, depicting the trends in report publications among Taiwanese universities and colleges.
The USR program began as a pilot in 2017. To encourage universities and colleges to practice social responsibility, the Ministry of Education extended the promotion into the second phase of the USR program (2020-2021). This phase focused on guiding universities to integrate social responsibility into their governance structures and align with the SDGs for sustainability practice. To evaluate the effectiveness of the program, the second phase required schools with compliant plans to implement medium- to long-term benefit evaluations and publish USR annual reports to fulfill social accountability. Among these, 28 schools with USR projects met the criteria (referred to as the 28 pilot schools).
This study presents three main findings: First, since 2020, the SDGs have become the most adopted reporting tool in sustainability reports in Taiwan. Second, starting from 2021 (the first year the USR program required annual report publications), the types of report texts were distinguished between USR annual reports and sustainability reports, with a significant increase in the number of published reports, primarily from the 28 pilot schools, according to cross-analysis. Third, using textual representations as a framework to respond to institutional pressures, five degrees of report response were proposed: completed reports, advocacy calls, framework adoption, quality pursuit, and innovative significance. Finally, theoretical contributions and practical implications are discussed.

目錄
謝誌	I
目錄	V
表目錄	VII
圖目錄	IX
第壹章、緒論	1
第一節、研究背景	1
第二節、研究動機	2
第三節、研究問題	4
第四節、研究流程	4
第貳章、文獻回顧	6
第一節、高等教育的永續報導與評估	6
第二節、教育部推動USR與成效評估	11
第三節、發布之體制壓力與策略回應	14
第參章、研究方法	21
第一節、研究設計	22
第二節、資料來源	26
第三節、資料分析	28
第四節、分析架構	35
第肆章、研究發現一：大學永續報導發布趨勢	36
第一節、臺灣大專校院報導發布趨勢	44
第二節、參與USR計畫學校發布趨勢	48
第三節、28間USR試辦學校發布趨勢	66
第伍章、研究發現二：USR試辦學校回應方式	74
第一節、出版報告書的關鍵事件時序歷程	74
第二節、USR年報之文本樣態與表徵變化	77
第三節、28間USR試辦學校回應體制方式	81
第陸章、討論與結論	85
第一節、理論貢獻	85
第二節、實務意涵	86
第三節、研究限制與建議	86
第四節、結論	87
參考文獻	88
 
表目錄
表1：第二期USR計畫28間試辦學校	2
表2：第二期USR計畫28間試辦學校回應USR年報方式	3
表3：體制過程的策略回應	15
表4：體制先決條件與預測的策略反應	16
表5：策略因應框架預測行為以西班牙的大學為例	17
表6：內容分析的與主題列表以西班牙的大學為例	19
表7：永續報導的體制壓力之策略回應以西班牙的大學為例	20
表8：歷年TCSA評比得獎之學校	23
表9：研究資料來源	26
表10：普查對象基本統計	28
表11：普查文本基本統計	33
表12：普查對象發布文本交叉分析	34
表13：報告書表徵資訊回應體制壓力的程度	35
表14：臺灣大專校院報導發布趨勢	37
表15：參與USR計畫學校依據體制分類之發布趨勢	38
表16：參與USR計畫學校依據參與USR計畫程度分類之發布趨勢	40
表17：28間USR試辦學校依據體制分類發布趨勢	42
表18：近年臺灣大專校院發布報告書趨勢	44
表19：近年採納永續框架與標準發布趨勢	45
表20：近年院校體制分類學校發布永續報告書趨勢	46
表21：近年USR計畫參與程度分類學校發布永續報告書趨勢	47
表22：近年參與USR計畫之公立大學院校發布趨勢	48
表23：近年參與USR計畫之公立技專院校發布趨勢	50
表24：國立雲林科技大學TCSA評比獲獎	51
表25：近年參與USR計畫之私立大學院校發布趨勢	52
表26：近年參與USR計畫之私立技專院校發布趨勢	54
表27：參與USR計畫學校依據院校體制分類發布情形統計	56
表28：近年第二期USR計畫28間試辦學校發布趨勢	58
表29：近年僅通過第二期USR計畫學校發布趨勢	60
表30：近年僅通過第三期USR計畫學校發布趨勢	61
表31：近年同時通過第二、三期USR計畫學校發布趨勢	63
表32：參與USR計畫學校依參與USR計畫程度分類之發布情形統計	64
表33：近年USR試辦學校之公立大學院校發布趨勢	67
表34：USR試辦學校之公立技專院校發布趨勢	69
表35：USR試辦學校之公立技專院校發布趨勢	71
表36：USR試辦學校之私立技專院校發布趨勢	73
表37：28間USR試辦學校回應體制方式	81
表38：出版主責單位類別統計	83
表39：【創新意義】組織建置之學校情形	84
 
圖目錄
圖1：本論文的結構與流程	5
圖2：研究方法與設計之流程	21
圖3：臺灣大專校院發布報告書趨勢	44
圖4：採納永續框架與標準發布趨勢	45
圖5：院校體制分類學校發布永續報告書趨勢	46
圖6：USR計畫參與程度分類學校發布永續報告書趨勢	47
圖7：參與USR計畫之公立大學院校發布趨勢	48
圖8：參與USR計畫之公立技專院校發布趨勢	50
圖9：參與USR計畫之私立大學院校發布趨勢	52
圖10：參與USR計畫之私立技專院校發布趨勢	54
圖11：參與USR計畫學校依據院校體制分類發布情形	57
圖12：第二期USR計畫28間試辦學校發布趨勢	58
圖13：僅通過第二期USR計畫學校發布趨勢	59
圖14：僅通過第三期USR計畫學校發布趨勢	61
圖15：同時通過第二、三期USR計畫學校發布趨勢	63
圖16：參與USR計畫學校依參與USR計畫程度分類發布情形	65
圖17：USR試辦學校之公立大學院校發布報告書內容占比	66
圖18：USR試辦學校之公立大學院校發布趨勢	67
圖19：USR試辦學校之公立大學院校發布報告書內容占比	68
圖20：USR試辦學校之公立技專院校發布趨勢	69
圖21：USR試辦學校之公立大學院校發布報告書內容占比	70
圖22：USR試辦學校之私立大學院校發布趨勢	71
圖23：USR試辦學校之公立大學院校發布報告書內容占比	72
圖24：USR試辦學校之私立技專院校發布趨勢	73
圖25：出版報告書的關鍵事件時序歷程	74
圖26：28間試辦學校回應USR年報文本樣態變化	77
圖27：【創新意義】文本名稱以《三生有幸》為例	83

李曉峰、張慶勳（2023）。大學永續發展與經營的策略、困境與解決途徑。台灣教育研究期刊，4（1），73-95。	
翁晶晶、易莉翔（2022）。體制邏輯之演化：從企業社會責任的發展探討商業永續。中山管理評論，30（5），809-856。
張書瑋（2021）。ESG企業永續報告書準備好了嗎？。會計研究月刊，（422），66-74。
張慶勳（2021）永續發展與發揮影響力的大學治理：以實踐社會責任為切入點。台灣教育研究期刊，2（1），17-37。
教育部（2022）。冬釀：大學社會責任的豐收與永續。https://usr.moe.gov.tw/。
教育部（2023）。USR瞭望臺：大學的中長期效益評。https://usr.moe.gov.tw/tw。
教育部（2024）。成效評估：大學永續的必修課。https://usr.moe.gov.tw/tw。
許程閔（2024）。一本永續報告書的目的和意義：利害關係人觀點（未出版博碩士論文）。淡江大學。新北市。
Adams, C. A. (2013). Sustainability reporting and performance management in universities: Challenges and benefits. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 4(3), 384-392. 	
Ali, I., Lodhia, S., & Narayan, A. K. (2021). Value creation attempts via photographs in sustainability reporting: A legitimacy theory perspective. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(2), 247-263. 	
Al‐Shaer, H. (2020). Sustainability reporting quality and post‐audit financial reporting quality: Empirical evidence from the UK. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2355-2373. 	
Andrades, J., Martinez-Martinez, D. and Larrán, M. (2024). Sustainability reporting, institutional pressures and universities: Evidence from the Spanish setting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal.Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2023-0455
Bokhari, A. A. (2017). Universities’ social responsibility (USR) and sustainable development: A conceptual framework. SSRG International Journal of Economics and Management Studies (SSRG-IJEMS), 4(12), 8-16. 	
Bullock, G., & Wilder, N. (2016). The comprehensiveness of competing higher education sustainability assessments. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(3), 282-304. 	
Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R., & Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M. (2015). Sustainability reporting in higher education: Interconnecting the reporting process and organisational change management for sustainability. Sustainability, 7(7), 8881-8903. 	
Chatelain-Ponroy, S., & Morin-Delerm, S. (2016). Adoption of sustainable development reporting by universities: An analysis of French first-time reporters. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(5), 887-918. 	
de Matos Pedro, E., Leitão, J., & Alves, H. (2021). Can higher education institutions’ stakeholders drive regional sustainable development? Yes, they can?! IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70(10), 3421-3433.
del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M., Marimon, F., Casani, F., & Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. (2015). Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: Current situation and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 144-154. 	
Delgado-Ceballos, J., Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N., Antolín-López, R., & Montiel, I. (2023). Connecting the sustainable development goals to firm-level sustainability and ESG factors: The need for double materiality. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 26(1), 2-10. 	
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. 	
Dorosh, N., & Horobets, I. (2019). Organization and standardization of sustainability reporting. Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit(1-2), 40-51. 	
Fonseca, A., Macdonald, A., Dandy, E., & Valenti, P. (2011). The state of sustainability reporting at Canadian universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 22-40. 	
Garst, J., Maas, K., & Suijs, J. (2022). Materiality assessment is an art, not a science: Selecting ESG topics for sustainability reports. California Management Review, 65(1), 64-90. 	
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303-324. 	
Lozano, R. (2006). A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities (GASU). Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9-11), 963-972. 	
Lukman, R., & Glavič, P. (2007). What are the key elements of a sustainable university? Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 9, 103-114. 	
Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(2), 110-122. 	
Moggi, S. (2023). Sustainability reporting, universities and global reporting initiative applicability: A still open issue. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14(4), 699-742. 	
Moggi, S., Leardini, C., & Campedelli, B. (2015). Social and environmental reporting in the Italian higher education system: Evidence from two best practices. Integrative Approaches to Sustainable Development at University Level: Making the Links, 81-96. 	
Ntim, C. G., Soobaroyen, T., & Broad, M. J. (2017). Governance structures, voluntary disclosures and public accountability: The case of UK higher education institutions. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(1), 65-118. 	
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179. 	
Othman, R., & Othman, R. (2014). Higher education institutions and social performance: Evidence from public and private universities. International Journal of Business & Society, 15(1),1-18. 	
Rosa, M. R. d., Boscarioli, C., & Freitas Zara, K. R. d. (2023). A systematic review of the trends and patterns of sustainability reporting in universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.25(3), 556-576.	
Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage publications. 	
Siew, R. Y. J. (2015, 2015/12/01/). A review of corporate sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Journal of Environmental Management, 164, 180-195. 
Son-Turan, S., & Lambrechts, W. (2019). Sustainability disclosure in higher education: A comparative analysis of reports and websites of public and private universities in Turkey. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(7), 1143-1170. 	
Trireksani, T., Zeng, Y. T., & Djajadikerta, H. G. (2021). Extent of sustainability disclosure by Australian public universities: Inclusive analysis of key reporting media. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 80(4), 830-848. 	
Yanez, S., Uruburu, A., Moreno, A., & Lumbreras, J. (2019). The sustainability report as an essential tool for the holistic and strategic vision of higher education institutions. Journal of cleaner production, 207, 57-66.