隨著全球氣候治理趨勢與歐盟碳邊境調整機制（CBAM）的推行，減碳已成為企業進入國際供應鏈的關鍵准入門檻。本研究旨在探討出口目的地之法規差異，如何透過供應鏈壓力傳導影響臺灣企業之溫室氣體排放分數與 TESG 評分。研究採用 2016 至 2024 年臺灣上市櫃公司之面板資料（Panel Data），並結合差異中之差異法（DID）與動態差異中之差異法（Dynamic DID）進行因果識別。
實證結果顯示，外銷歐洲市場占比逾 10% 之企業，其溫室氣體排放分數普遍優於其他企業。此外，企業規模作為衡量企業資源多寡的指標，在壓力傳導過程中扮演關鍵的調節角色：企業規模愈大，歐洲市場壓力壓力通常伴隨較佳的減碳表現；相對地，規模較小企業可能因合規成本較高而難以受益。此結果顯示企業規模與歐洲市場壓力及減碳績效之間存在重要關聯性。
針對 CBAM 政策衝擊之分析，實證結果顯示，CBAM能顯著提升企業的溫室氣體排放分數與 TESG 評分。其中，對歐貿易高依賴企業感受之轉型壓力較強，其減排表現與 ESG 之改善幅度均顯著優於一般銷歐企業。
在地理性規避行為方面，本研究未發現歐盟 CBAM 政策對銷歐企業產生穩健且持續之市場重配置或轉單效應，顯示企業調整行為可能仍屬短期或過渡性反應。

With the global trend of climate governance and the implementation of the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), carbon reduction has become a key entry barrier for companies entering international supply chains. This study aims to explore how regulatory differences in export destinations affect the greenhouse gas emission scores and TESG scores of Taiwanese companies through supply chain pressure transmission. The study uses panel data of listed companies in Taiwan from 2016 to 2024, combining the Difference-in-Differences (DID) and Dynamic DID methods for causal identification.
Empirical results show that companies with over 10% of their sales to the European market generally have better greenhouse gas emission scores than other companies. Furthermore, company size, as an indicator of resource availability, plays a crucial moderating role in the pressure transmission process: larger companies typically exhibit better carbon reduction performance in response to European market pressure; conversely, smaller companies may struggle to benefit due to higher compliance costs. These results demonstrate a significant correlation between company size, European market pressure, and carbon reduction performance.
An analysis of the impact of the CBAM policy reveals empirical results showing that CBAM significantly improves firms' greenhouse gas emission scores and TESG scores. Firms highly dependent on trade with the EU experience stronger pressure to transform their operations, with significantly better emissions reduction performance and TESG improvements compared to other firms primarily selling to the EU.
Regarding geographical avoidance behavior, this study did not find a robust and sustained market reallocation or order shifting effect from the EU CBAM policy on firms selling to the EU, suggesting that their adjustment behavior may still be a short-term or transitional response.

論文審定書 i
中文摘要 ii
Abstract iii
目錄 v
圖次 vii
表次 viii
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻回顧 5
2.1 ESG之發展脈絡與利害關係人壓力機制 5
2.1.1 ESG之演進背景 5
2.1.2 利害關係人壓力之多維網路 5
2.2 影響企業履行ESG之誘因 7
2.2.1 內部誘因（Internal Incentives）：財務與規模 7
2.2.2 外部誘因（External Incentives）：市場與社會壓力 8
2.3 供應鏈壓力下之 ESG 擴散與競爭轉型 10
2.3.1 全球主要貿易體之環境政策背景 10
2.3.2 國際市場的規範溢出：加州效應與布魯塞爾效應 13
2.3.3 環境規範對企業創新之激勵：波特假說視角 15
2.4 小結 18
2.4.1 出口目的地與布魯塞爾效應之驗證 18
2.4.2 企業規模之調節效應 19
第三章 資料來源與研究方法 20
3.1 資料來源 20
3.2 變數衡量 21
3.2.1 應變數 21
3.2.2 自變數 22
3.2.3 控制變數 23
3.2.4 調節變數 23
3.3 研究方法 26
3.3.1 雙向固定效果模型 26
3.3.2 進一步研究：差異中之差異法與動態差異中之差異法 27
第四章 實證結果 30
4.1 敘述統計 30
4.2 雙向固定效果模型 33
4.3 歐盟 CBAM 政策之因果識別：溫室氣體排放分數 42
4.3.1 差異中之差異法分析結果 42
4.3.2 動態差異中之差異法分析結果 44
4.4 歐盟 CBAM 政策之因果識別：TESG 分數 47
4.4.1 差異中之差異法分析結果 47
4.4.2 動態差異中之差異法分析結果 49
4.5小結 52
第五章 延伸討論 53
5.1 污染避難所假說之補充檢驗 53
5.1.1 檢驗動機與理論背景 53
5.1.2 實證模型設定 54
5.1.3 實證結果：DID模型 56
5.1.4 實證結果：動態DID模型 58
5.2 污染避難所假說之小結 63
第六章 結論與建議 64
參考文獻 67
附錄 73

中文文獻
任芸蓁（2026）。ESG 評分中的規模效應探討——台灣市場實證研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。淡江大學財務金融學系碩士班。
邱俊瑜（2024）。董事會結構對公司風險、CSR 及 ESG 指標之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。元智大學管理學院財務金融暨會計碩士班。
邱紫婷（2023）。董事會性別多元化、董監事薪酬與企業 ESG 績效〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立台灣科技大學企業管理系碩士班。
金融監督管理委員會（2022）。《上市櫃公司永續發展路徑圖》。
康廷嶽（2025）。TEST 解密台灣中小企業 ESG 發展現況與影響因素。台灣經濟研究月刊，48（3），13–23。
環境部（2023）。《氣候變遷因應法》。全國法規資料庫。

英文文獻
Ambec, S., Cohen, M. A., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P. (2013). The Porter hypothesis at 20: Can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(1), 2–22.
Baroto, Y., Ulupi, I., & Gurendrawati, E. (2025). Unlocking the power of ESG: How ESG scores drive firm performance (ROE) with firm size as a key moderator: Evidence from Southeast Asia.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113.
Bilgin, N. M., Devicienti, F., Grinza, E., Manello, A., & Vannoni, D. (2025, June 4). Environmental regulations, selection and trade. University of Turin.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5282681
Blanco, C., Caro, F., & Corbett, C. J. (2016). The state of supply chain carbon footprinting: Analysis of CDP disclosures by US firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1189-1197.
Blyde, J. S., & Ramírez, M. A. (2022). Exporting and environmental performance: Where you export matters (IDB Working Paper Series No. 1308). Inter-American Development Bank.
Bonetti, P., En, Y., Kadach, I., & Ormazabal, G. (2024). Climate disclosures and decarbonization along the supply chain. IESE Business School.
Bradford, A. (2012). The Brussels Effect. Northwestern University Law Review, 107(1), 1-67.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
Cassells, S., & Lewis, K. (2011). SMEs and environmental responsibility: Do actions reflect attitudes? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(3), 186-199.
Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, Growth, and the Environment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 7-71.
Dai, Y., & He, R. (2025). The impact of carbon emissions trading policy on the ESG performance of heavy-polluting enterprises: The mediating role of green technological innovation and financing constraints. Sustainability, 17(4), 1365.
Deloitte. (2022). Does a company's ESG score have a measurable impact on its market value? Deloitte AG.
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.
Eccles, R. G., & Serafeim, G. (2013). The performance frontier: Innovating for a sustainable strategy. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 50–60.
European Commission. (2021). Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council: European Climate Law. Official Journal of the European Union.
European Parliament and Council. (2003). Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community.
European Parliament and Council. (2023). Regulation (EU) 2023/956 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., ... & Zheng, B. (2023). Global Carbon Budget 2023. Earth System Science Data, 15(12), 5301–5369.
Friedman, M. (2002). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In T. Donaldson, P. H. Werhane, & M. Cording (Eds.), Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach (7th ed., pp. 33–38). Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1970).
Gómez Martínez, R., Medrano-Garcia, M. L., & Amo Navas, D. (2024). Evaluating ESG performance: The influence of firm size and gender diversity. Small Business International Review, 8(2), e693.
Hao, M., Jiang, X., Yang, Y., & Zhu, B. (2024). Greening the Supply Chain: Customers' ESG Performance and Suppliers' Green Innovation. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5655304
International Accounting Standards Board. (2006). International Financial Reporting Standard 8: Operating segments. IFRS Foundation.
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.
Koh, H. K., Burnasheva, R., & Suh, Y. G. (2022). Perceived ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) and consumers' responses: The mediating role of brand credibility, brand image, and perceived quality. Sustainability, 14(8), 4515.
Korea Exchange (KRX). (2025). Strategic carbon initiatives that steer markets forward.
Li, M., Liang, S., & Du, W. (2023). How does export behavior affect carbon emissions? Multivariate heterogeneous data based on Chinese enterprises. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 32(4), 3653–3662.
Li, Z., Liu, Z., & Wang, Y. (2024). The role of institutional ownership in corporate ESG performance. SSRN.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4935696
Lien, D., & Wang, L.-H. (2025). ESG peer spillover effect in supply chain: Evidence from Taiwan semiconductor industry. International Review of Economics and Finance, 100, 104082.
Lin, J., Cao, X., Dong, X., & An, Y. (2024). Environmental regulations, supply chain relationships, and green technological innovation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 88, 102645.
NRI (Nomura Research Institute). (2023). Japan's GX Promotion Act and the Future of Carbon Pricing.
National Climate Change Secretariat (Singapore). (2024). Singapore's Carbon Tax: Driving Low-Carbon Transition.
Pan, H., Qin, C., Li, Y., Jing, H., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Does financial flexibility affect corporate ESG performance? Evidence from China. International Review of Economics and Finance, 102, 104272.
Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.
Prakash, A. & Potoski, M. (2006). Racing to the bottom? Trade, environmental governance, and ISO 14001. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 350-364.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). (2005). Memorandum of Understanding in the Matter of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). (2023). Program Overview and Design.
U.S. Congress. (2022). S.4355 - Clean Competition Act.
Republic of Korea. (2021). Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis (Act No. 18469).
Shan, X., Song, Y., & Song, P. (2025). How ESG performance impacts corporate financial performance: A DuPont analysis approach. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 17(2), 1–24.
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98.
The White House. (2025). Presidential Proclamation on Energy Independence and Withdrawal from International Climate Accords.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements/
UN News. (2025). United Nations receives formal notification of U.S. intent to withdraw from Paris Agreement.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/01/1159211
United Nations Global Compact. (2004). Who cares wins: Connecting financial markets to a changing world.
Vogel, D. (1995). Trading up: Consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy. Harvard University Press.
Wang, L., Li, W., & Qi, L. (2020). Stakeholder pressures and corporate environmental strategies: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 12(3), Article 1172.
Xu, H., Li, Y., Lin, W., & Wang, H. (2024). ESG and customer stability: a perspective based on external and internal supervision and reputation mechanisms. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-14.
Yang, M., Hou, A., Wang, P., & Chai, L. (2025). Customer environmental performance and supplier green innovation: A sustainable supply chain perspective. Sustainability, 17, 1248.
Zhang, L.-S. (2025). The impact of ESG performance on the financial performance of companies: Evidence from China's Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share listed companies. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 13, 1507151.