臺灣企業ESG重大議題： 水資源與災害風險因子

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：38

、訪客IP：3.144.83.249

姓名

侯柏瑜(BO-YU HOU) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

財務金融學系

論文名稱

臺灣企業ESG重大議題：水資源與災害風險因子

相關論文

★ 半導體產業購併對股東財富效果之影響-以聯發科公司為例	★ 區塊鏈技術應用於金融科技公司企業資金電子調撥系統實作與驗證
★ 金融科技浪潮下銀行分行經營績效之探討－以個案銀行為例	★ 收購案後，主併公司與目標公司財務顧問之間開始合作原因之探討
★ 併購交易完成後，主併公司與目標公司財務顧問延續合作之因素探討	★ 產品組成變動與公司投資決策
★ CEO年齡與選擇併購目標公司之偏好	★ 外部董事產業經驗對於併購的影響
★ 目標公司執行長年齡與併購決策	★ 企業生命週期轉變對股利變化的影響
★ 經理人文化認同形成對風險承擔行為之影響 -以S&P500指數上市公司為例	★ 併購如何創造綜效──以台灣與韓國為例
★ CEO文化認同與債務期限選擇	★ 台灣上市櫃公司撰寫CSR報告書與公司價值之相關性探討
★ 經理人文化認同與公司CSR政策執行之關聯性-以S&P500指數上市公司為例	★ COVID-19疫情對全球航空產業營運之影響–以中華航空為例

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 (2027-7-1以後開放)

摘要(中)

本研究目的在探討乾旱風險因子對臺灣上市櫃公司水資源重大議題判斷的影響，以研究臺灣上市櫃公司對水資源風險的態度。本研究手動蒐集2020、2021年臺灣上市櫃公司發布之永續報告書中重大議題矩陣上議題的名稱、數量與位置，並將蒐集到的議題依其面相與位置進行分類，取得議題的ESG面向、利害關係人關注傾向、公司營運衝擊傾向、一致傾向的資訊，配合災害風險因子，從TEJ、政府統計資料等處取得變數資訊，以迴歸分析，分別討論風險因子對企業重視程度、影響主要對象的影響，並延伸探討字詞差異隱含的企業態度。
研究發現企業是否重視水資源議題受到南北差異、是否位於科學園區、用水量、公司規模、年齡影響，而風險因子對公司營運衝擊之影響不顯著，利害關係人關注則主要受到公司規模影響，並且當利害關係人或公司高階主管有其他關注議題時，水資源議題的重要性會減弱，當利害關係人或公司高階主管兩方對議題的重視程度一致時，水資源議題會較受到公司營運衝擊的重視。因此，本研究認為臺灣上市櫃公司有認知到水資源議題的重要，但相較於其他議題，水資源議題的重要程度較低，並非企業首要關注的議題。

摘要(英)

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of drought risk factors on the assessment of significant water resource issues by listed and over-the-counter (OTC) companies in Taiwan, and to examine the attitudes of these companies towards water resource risks. This study manually collected the names, quantities, and positions of issues from the materiality matrix in sustainability reports published by companies in Taiwan in 2020 and 2021. The collected issues were classified based on their aspects and positions to get information regarding the ESG aspects, and issue tendency of stakeholder concerns, company performance impacts. Disaster risk factors were obtained from TEJ, government statistics, and other sources, and using regression to analyze. The study discusses the influence of risk factors on the importance of water resource issues by companies, the impact on the stakeholders and company performance, and extends the discussion to explore the implied corporate attitudes based on differences in terminology.
The study found that whether companies prioritize water resource issues is influenced by factors such as regional differences, location in science parks, water usage, company size, and age. However, the influence of risk factors on company performance impacts is not significant, and stakeholder concerns are mainly influenced by company size. Furthermore, when stakeholders or senior executives of companies have other issues of concern, the importance of water resource issues diminishes. When the importance of th e materiality by stakeholders or senior executives of companies are on the same page , water resource issues receive greater attention regarding company performance impacts. Therefore, this study suggests that listed and OTC companies in Taiwan recognize the importance of water resource issues, but compared to other issues, the importance of water resource issues is relatively low and is not the primary concern for these companies.

關鍵字(中)

★ ESG
★ 重大議題
★ 水資源
★ 災害風險
★ 氣候變遷
★ 風險因子

關鍵字(英)

論文目次

第一章、緒論 1
第二章、文獻回顧 4
第一節、氣候變遷衝擊導致自然災害 4
第二節、具影響力的水資源風險 4
第三節、企業水資源揭露 5
第四節、氣候變遷水相關災害風險因子 7
第五節、SASB準則、風險認知考量與字詞選擇 10
第三章、研究方法 12
第一節、樣本說明 12
一、樣本蒐集 13
二、水資源相關議題定義 14
三、應變數 14
四、自變數 15
第二節、敘述統計 20
第四章、實證結果 22
第一節、重要程度分析 22
一、暴露度 22
二、脆弱度 24
三、法規影響 29
第二節、影響主力 30
一、暴露度 30
二、脆弱度 31
三、法規影響 36
四、整體議題偏向 38
第三節、字詞差異 39
第五章、結論與未來建議 41
參考資料 44
附錄 50

參考文獻

英文文獻
Abbass, K., Qasim, M. Z., Song, H., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., & Younis, I. (2022). A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(28), 42539-42559.
Aswani, J., Raghunandan, A., & Rajgopal, S. (2024). Are Carbon Emissions Associated with Stock Returns? Review of Finance, 28(1), 75–106.
Aswani, J., Raghunandan, A., & Rajgopal, S. (2024). Are Carbon Emissions Associated with Stock Returns?—Reply. Review of Finance, 28(1), 111–115.
Bakkensen, L. A., & Barrage, L. (2022). Going underwater? Flood risk belief heterogeneity and coastal home price dynamics. The Review of Financial Studies, 35(8), 3666-3709.
Burritt, R. L., Christ, K. L., & Omori, A. (2016). Drivers of corporate water-related disclosure: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 564-575.
CDP. (2017). A turning tide: Tracking corporate action on water security. CDP Global Water Report.
CDP. (2020). A wave of change: The role of companies in building a water-secure world. CDP Global Water Report.
CERES, UBS, Bloomberg, & MURKY WATERS? (2010). Corporate Reporting on Water Risk: A Benchmarking Study of 100 Companies, February 2010.
Cosgrove, W. J., & Loucks, D. P. (2015). Water management: Current and future challenges and research directions. Water Resources Research, 51(6), 4823-4839.
D′Amato, A., & Falivena, C. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and firm value: Do firm size and age matter? Empirical evidence from European listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 909-924.
Dienes, D., Remmer, S., & Fischer, J. (2016). What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 7(2), 154-189.
Dyck, A., Lins, K. V., Roth, L., & Wagner, H. F. (2019). Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 131(3), 693-714.
Ferrero-Ferrero, I., León, R., & Muñoz-Torres, M. J. (2021). Sustainability materiality matrices in doubt: may prioritizations of aspects overestimate environmental performance? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(3), 432-463.
Heine, K., & Rindfleisch, H. (2013). Organizational decline: A synthesis of insights from organizational ecology, path dependence and the resource‐based view. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(1), 8-28.
Hyland, M., & Islam, A. (2019). The drivers and impacts of water infrastructure reliability – A global analysis of manufacturing firms. Ecological Economics, 163, 143-157.
Gosling, S. N., & Arnell, N. W. (2016). A global assessment of the impact of climate change on water scarcity. Climatic Change, 134, 371-385.
IPCC. (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Islam, A., & Hyland, M. (2019). The drivers and impacts of water infrastructure reliability–a global analysis of manufacturing firms. Ecological Economics, 163, 143-157.
Jiao, Y. (2010). Stakeholder welfare and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(10), 2549-2561.
Jones, P., Hillier, D., & Comfort, D. (2016). Water stewardship: Perspectives on corporate water management. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 5(5), 16-28.
Kim, Y., Li, H., & Li, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 43, 1-13.
National Development Council. (2020). Water resource strategy and policy in Taiwan. Retrieved from https://ncsd.ndc.gov.tw/Fore/News_detail/6666ee8f-356a-4520-9c2b-0cb0cf4d8af2
Patruzzelli, A. M., Ardito, L., & Savino, T. (2018). Maturity of knowledge inputs and innovation value: The moderating effect of firm age and size. Journal of Business Research, 86, 190-201.
Rao, S., Koirala, S., Thapa, C., & Neupane, S. (2022). When rain matters! Investments and value relevance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 73, 101827.
Roca, L. C., & Searcy, C. (2012). An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 103-118.
Santosh, S. K., Chandra, T., & Neupane, S. (2022). The impact of extreme weather events on firm performance: Evidence from India. Journal of Corporate Finance, 73, 101827.
Starks, L. T. (2023). Presidential address: Sustainable finance and ESG issues—Value versus values. The Journal of Finance, 78(4), 1837-1872.
United Nations. (1998). Freshwater management strategy. United Nations Sustainable Development Commission.
Weber, O. (2016). Corporate sustainability and financial performance of Chinese banks. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 6(8), 915-931.
Weber, O., & Saunders-Hogberg, G. (2018). Water management and corporate social performance in the food and beverage industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 963-977.
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307-336.
World Bank. (2019). Water infrastructure and economic growth: Evidence from manufacturing firms. World Bank Enterprise Surveys.
World Economic Forum. (2015). Global risks 2015 report. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_2015_Report15.pdf
Yang, S. S., Huang, J. W., & Li, W. H. (2024). Institutional investor stewardship and material sustainability information: Evidence from Taiwan. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 85, 102382.
Zheng, L., Ye, L., Wang, M., Wang, Y., & Zhou, H. (2022). Does water matter? The impact of water vulnerability on corporate financial performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11272).
Zeng, H., Zhang, T., Zhou, Z., Zhao, Y., & Chen, X. (2020). Water disclosure and firm risk: Empirical evidence from highly water‐sensitive industries in China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), 17-38.
中文文獻
吳哲萱（2022）。企業重大性議題與股價資訊性之關聯性-以臺灣上市(櫃)公司為實證研究。﹝碩士論文。國立中央大學﹞。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/39b3f2。
吳筌翔（2020）。企業執行CSR之策略與權益資金成本之關聯性。﹝碩士論文。國立中央大學﹞。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/hzkw39。
林誼萍（2021）。機構投資人與企業CSR策略之關聯性_以台灣上市櫃公司為實證研究。﹝碩士論文。國立中央大學﹞。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u54832。
姜仁匡（2023）。企業重大性議題與漂綠-台灣市場的研究。﹝碩士論文。國立中央大學﹞。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ta5789。
國家災害防救科技中心。（2016）。《臺灣氣候變遷災害衝擊風險評估報告》。新北市：國家災害防救科技中心。
曹晏寧（2020）。企業執行CSR之策略與公司價值之關聯性。﹝碩士論文。國立中央大學﹞。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5bweq5。
陳怡如（2023）。實現水資源永續循環。《工業技術與資訊月刊》，封面故事。工業技術研究院。
陳昭安（2023）。臺灣氣象乾旱事件分析與未來趨勢推估。《2023臺灣氣候變遷分析系列報告導讀》。《臺灣氣候變遷推估資訊與調適知識平台電子報》（第066期）。
陳起鳳、林容安（2010）。IPCC情境下21世紀台灣用水需求預測研究。《華岡農科學報》，(25)，51-65。
經濟部水利署水規所（2013）。《臺灣地區各水資源分區因應氣候變遷水資源管理調適能力綜合研究》。經濟部水利署水規所委辦計畫。執行單位：國立臺灣大學生物環境系統工程學系。
經濟部國際貿易局（2021年）。《臺灣乾旱造成全球半導體短缺危機澄清》。經濟部國際貿易局。
劉玫婷、李欣輯、徐永衡、陳永明（2021）。2021年乾旱事件農作物損失調查紀實。《國家災害防救科技中心災害防救電子報》，194。國家災害防救科技中心氣候變遷組。
魏志義(2019)。氣候變遷下台灣水資源管理之挑戰與策略。經濟部水利署。
網頁資料
Impact Hub Taipei Ｘ社企流. (2023)。台灣年降雨量豐沛，為何名列全球缺水國家之列？[網頁文章]。取自 https://www.seinsights.asia/article/9142
台灣經濟新報. (2023)。用水大戶注意！企業耗水費開徵，依雯帶你看懂遊戲規則[網頁文章]。取自 https://www.tejwin.com/insight/%E7%94%A8%E6%B0%B4%E5%A4%A7%E6%88%B6%E6%B3%A8%E6%84%8F%E4%BC%81%E6%A5%AD%E8%80%97%E6%B0%B4%E8%B2%BB%E9%96%8B%E5%BE%B5/
台灣經濟新報. (2022)。更詳細更好理解的ESG資訊揭露：SASB準則[網頁文章]。取自 https://www.tejwin.com/news/%E6%9B%B4%E8%A9%B3%E7%B4%B0%E7%9A%84esg%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A%E6%8F%AD%E9%9C%B2%EF%BC%8Dsasb%E6%BA%96%E5%89%87/
行政院. (2017)。產業缺水現況與對策[網頁文章]。取自 https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/9277F759E41CCD91/40b47d60-69f5-44bb-84dc-80f43ef467e7
行政院國家永續展委員會. (2020)。世界水日：被忽視的水資源是氣候變遷方案的重要部分[網頁文章]。取自 https://ncsd.ndc.gov.tw/Fore/News_detail/6666ee8f-356a-4520-9c2b-0cb0cf4d8af2
氣候變遷災害風險調適平台. (無日期). 21世紀末的台灣可能增溫超過攝氏3度。平均氣候推估[網頁文章]。取自 https://dra.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/Frontend/Disaster/ClimateDetail/BAL0000031
高宜凡、呂愛麗. (2010)。CSR議題影響──水足跡改變台灣產業結構[網頁文章]。取自 https://esg.gvm.com.tw/article/538
科技部、中央研究院環境變遷研究中心、交通部中央氣象局、臺灣師範大學地球科學系、國家災害防救科技中心. (2021年8月10日). IPCC氣候變遷第六次評估報告之科學重點摘錄與臺灣氣候變遷評析更新報告[網頁文章]。臺灣氣候變遷推估資訊與調適知識平台。取自 https://tccip.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/km_abstract_one.aspx?kid=20210810134743

指導教授

李韋憲(Wei-Hsien Li)

審核日期

2024-7-9

推文