本研究之目的為探討各項變數對國內金融業上市櫃公司之 GRI 準則下永續揭露程度的影響。研究透過參考國內外文獻資料蒐集可能影響永續揭露程度之各項因素，並以國內金融業上市櫃公司 2019 年至 2021 年間發布之永續報告書為樣本資料，經手動方式蒐集GRI準則中經濟、環境及社會主題之題項回應題數後，進行永續揭露程度評等，研究方法採用多元迴歸分析模型，探討各項影響因素與永續揭露分數之關聯性。
研究實證結果顯示，金融業永續揭露程度受到資產報酬率、外資總持股比率、獨立董事比例及董監事親屬持股比例影響，其中外資總持股比率及獨立董事比例與永續揭露程度存在顯著正相關，而資產報酬率及董監事親屬持股比例與永續揭露程度存在顯著負相關。
本研究進一步探討永續揭露程度中關於經濟、環境與社會主題之各別主題的影響因素。實證結果發現，經濟主題揭露受到資產報酬率影響，資產報酬率與經濟揭露程度存在顯著負相關。環境主題受到董監事持股比例及董監事親屬持股比例影響，其中董監事持股比例與環境揭露程度存在顯著正相關，而董監事親屬持股比例與環境揭露程度存在顯著負相關。社會主題受到資產報酬率、外資總持股比率及獨立董事比例，其中資產報酬率與社會揭露程度存在顯著負相關，而外資總持股比率以及獨立董事比例與社會揭露程度存在顯著正相關。

The purpose of this study is to explore the determinants of degree of ESG disclosure under the GRI standards of domestic financial companies listed on the stock market.
The empirical results show that the level of ESG disclosure in the financial industry is influenced by the return on assets, the total foreign shareholding ratio, the proportion of independent directors, and the proportion of director and supervisor relatives' shareholding. Among them, the total foreign shareholding ratio and the proportion of independent directors are significantly positively correlated with the level of ESG disclosure, while the return on assets and the proportion of director and supervisor relatives' shareholding are significantly negatively correlated with the level of ESG disclosure.
Empirical results found that economic theme disclosure is affected by the return on assets, which is significantly negatively correlated with the degree of economic disclosure. The environmental theme is influenced by the director and supervisor shareholding ratio and the director and supervisor relatives' shareholding ratio, among which the director and supervisor shareholding ratio is significantly positively correlated with the environmental disclosure degree, and the director and supervisor relatives' shareholding ratio is significantly negatively correlated with the environmental disclosure degree. The social theme is influenced by the return on assets, the total foreign shareholding ratio, and the proportion of independent directors. Among them, the return on assets is significantly negatively correlated with the social disclosure degree, while the total foreign shareholding ratio and the proportion of independent directors are significantly positively correlated with the social disclosure degree.

論文審定書 i
致謝 ii
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目錄 v
圖次 vii
表次 viii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究問題 4
第三節 研究架構 5
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 企業社會責任 7
第二節 金融業的CSR 9
第三節 永續報告書與GRI 發展 10
第四節 永續揭露程度相關研究 16
第三章 研究方法 20
第一節 研究假說 20
第二節 實證模型與變數衡量 22
第三節 樣本與研究資料來源 29
第四章 研究結果 31
第一節 敘述性統計分析 31
第二節 相關係數分析 34
第三節 實證結果分析 35
第五章 結論與建議 46
第一節 研究結論 46
第二節 研究限制與建議 48
參考文獻 50

圖次
圖1-1 台灣永續報告之歷年出版量2
圖1-2 台灣永續報告書之永續框架比例2
圖1-3 研究架構7
圖2-1 GRI準則內容12

表次
表 2-1 GRI 特定主題項目12
表 2-2 GRI 報導原則16
表 3-1 變數說明表30
表 3-2 樣本公司資料表32
表 4-1 敘述性統計表 34
表 4-2 Pearson相關係數表38
表 4-3 共線性統計量表40
表 4-4 ESG_SCORE迴歸分析結果44
表 4-5 ECO_SCORE迴歸分析結果45
表 4-6 ENV_SCORE迴歸分析結果47
表 4-7 SOC_SCORE迴歸分析結果48

一、中文文獻
1. 李昱緯，(2014)。各面向企業社會績效與財務績效之間的良性循環─以台灣上市公司為例。中央大學財務金融學系碩士班學位論文。
2. 吳幸蓁，(2017)。自願性揭露企業社會責任資訊之決定因素與其資訊後果。中山管理評論，25卷1期，P13 – 62。
3. 柯亦鴻，(2022)。SASB 準則下 ESG 揭露程度之影響因素。政治大學會計學系碩士班學位論文。
4. 周惠櫻、鄧昇謨，(2011)。台灣醫院對利害關係人企業社會責任之初探。醫務管理期刊，12卷3期，P206 – 219。
5. 陳冠志，(2011)。我國企業社會責任揭露概況與影響因素之探討。臺北大學會計學系碩士班學位論文。
6. 陳怡君，(2022)。從企業社會責任報告書分析台灣銀行業之永續發展目標作為: 以五家銀行為例。中山大學公共事務管理所碩士班論文。
7. 喬友慶、張鈺臻、周靖偉，(2022)。B2B情境中，供應商企業社會責任與顧客滿意度關聯性之探討：垂直組織間承諾的調節效果與競爭者辨識的調節式中介效果。臺大管理論叢，32卷3期， P79 – 115。
8. 甄友薇，(2015)。企業社會責任報告書揭露品質之決定因素及其與公司績效之關聯性。台灣大學財務金融學系碩士班學位論文。
9. 盧逸誠，(2016)。公司財務績效與企業社會責任揭露關聯性之研究。屏東科技大學企業管理系所碩士班學位論文。




二、英文文獻
1. Abeywardana, N.L.E.& Panditharathna K.M.(2016). The Extent and Determinants of Voluntary Disclosures in Annual Reports: Evidence from Banking and Finance Companies in Sri Lanka. Accounting and Finance Research, 5 (4), 147-162.
2. Attig. N& Ghoul. S. E & Guedhami. O& Suh. J.(2013). Corporate social responsibility and credit ratings. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 679–694
3. Bowen. H.R. (1953). Technological Change and Aggregate Demand. The American Economic Review, 43 (4), 1-223.
4. Brammer, S & Pavelin, S. (2006). Voluntary Environmental Disclosures by Large UK Companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(7-8), 1168-1188.
5. Cheng, B. & Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1-23.
6. Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34 (4),39 -48.
7. Chau. K.C & Gray. S.J. (2002). Ownership structure and corporate voluntary disclosure in Hong Kong and Singapore. The International Journal of Accounting, 37 (2), 247-265.
8. Cormier. D & Gordon. I.M. (2001). An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14 (5), 1850‐1914.
9. Davis. K (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2, 102-103.
10. Dewi. S.S.& Prabowo. G & Wicaksono. M.(2021). The Influence of Company Characteristics on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure In Manufacturing Companies. The Idx. Syntax Idea, 3(3), 671-679.
11. Esa. E & Anum. N & Ghazali. M. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Malaysian government‐linked companies. Built Environment Journal, 9 (1), 39-50.
12. Friedman. M (1970). A theoretical framework for monetary analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 78, 461-473.
13. Friede. G & Busch. T & Bassen, (2015) ESG and financial performance: aggregated
evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance, 210-233.
14. Griffin. J.J.& Mahon. J.F. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate: Twenty-Five Years of Incomparable Research. Sage Journals, 36(1). 5-31.
15. Ho. S.S.M & Wong. K.S. (2001). A Study of Corporate Disclosure Practice and Effectiveness in Hong Kong. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 12 (1), 75-102.
16. Ho. L.C. J.& Taylor. M.E. (2007). An empirical analysis of triple bottom‐line reporting and its determinants: evidence from the United States and Japan. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 18, 123-150.
17. Huang, C. J. & Kung, F. H. (2010). Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 435-451.
18. Harjoto. M & Laksmana. I & Lee. R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 641–660.
19. Haniffa. R.M.& Cooke. T.E.(2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, 391-430.
20. Jo. H & Harjoto. M.A.(2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 351-383.
21. Jizi. M.I.& Salama. A & Dixon R & Stratling. R. (2014). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 601-615.
22. Li, W. & Zhang, R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, and political interference: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), 631-645.
23. Moon. J. (2007) The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 15, 296-306.
24. Mallin. C & Michelon. G. & Raggi. D. (2012). Monitoring Intensity and Stakeholders’ Orientation: How Does Governance Affect Social and Environmental Disclosure? Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 29-43.
25. Matuszak. Ł & Różańska. E. (2017). An examination of the relationship between CSR disclosure and financial performance: The case of Polish banks. Accounting and Management Information,16 (4), 522-553.
26. Nollet. J & Filis. G & Mitrokostas. E (2016). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A non-linear and disaggregated approach. Economic Modelling, 52, 400-407.
27. Oh. W.Y & Chang. Y.K & Martynov. A (2011). The Effect of Ownership Structure on Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 283-297.
28. Rodrigo. P & Duran I.J.& Arenas. D. Does it really pay to be good, everywhere? A first step to understand the corporate social and financial performance link in Latin American controversial industries. Business Ethics: A European, 25, 286-309.
29. Sethi. S.P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17, 58-64.
30. Waddock. SA & Graves. SB (1997). The corporate social performance–financial
performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
三、電子資源
1. GRI - Home. (2021)。GRI 準則內容。https://www.globalreporting.org/
2. 永訊智庫，(2022)。GRI 2021改版獨家解析最新重大性分析，6家企業ESG報告https://www.sustaihub.com/articles/blog/gri2021%E6%94%B9%E7%89%88/
3. 中華民國企業永續發展協會(2021)。永續發展報告書的發展趨勢與歷史回顧。bcsd.org.tw. https://bcsd.org.tw › 215.upload.263.pdf
4. 財政部，(2022)。聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則。https://www.mof.gov.tw/
5. 證交所，(2019)。企業永續發展簡介。https://cgc.twse.com.tw/
6. 證券櫃買中心，(2021)。櫃買中心重視性別平權價值，敲鑼響應國際倡議。https://www.tpex.org.tw/web/