本文探討TEJ研發的TESG指標與台灣上市公司的績效之關係，以2015-2020年的TESG分數為自變數，以Tobin Q、股價報酬率、ROE、ROA等財務指標為因變數。研究結果發現，TESG指標等級與Tobin’s Q、ROE正相關，顯示具有較佳ESG表現的企業，有較高的企業績效。但在個別指標對公司的財務表現，環境指標對ROE和 ROA有正面影響。社會指標沒有顯著影響。治理指標對Tobin’s Q正相關，對ROI和ROE負相關。樣本中有18家屬於科技業，進一步探討ESG對科技業的影響，發現TESG對Tobin's Q有顯著的正相關。環境表現對ROE和ROA有積極影響。科技公司治理表現對Tobin's Q有積極影響，但對ROI和ROE有負面影響。研究貢獻為研究TEJ發布適用於台灣市場的ESG量化指標，去實證ESG與企業績效關係，對於投資人、金融機構、企業管理者等利害關係人更客觀的量化資料來預測企業績效。

This study aims to examine the link between the performance of Taiwanese-listed firms and the TESG indicators created by the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ). A regression analysis was conducted using the TESG scores from 2015 to 2020 as the independent factors. The dependent variables are financial indices like Tobin's Q, ROI, ROE, and ROA. The dependent variables are financial indices like Tobin's Q, ROI, ROE, and ROA. It was demonstrated that the TESG positively correlated with Tobin's Q as well as ROE. For each indicator, the environmental indicator has a positive correlation with ROE and ROA. Social indicators have no significant impact. Governance indicators are positively correlated to Tobin's Q and negatively correlated to ROI and ROE. There are 18 companies in the sample that belong to the technology industry. Further exploring the impact of ESG on the technology industry Tobin’s Q is significantly improved by TESG. ROE and ROA are influenced positively by ENV. Tobin's Q is positively influenced by governance. However, GOV has a negative impact on ROI and ROE. The contribution of this study is to examine the quantitative TESG for the Taiwan market and to provide more objective quantitative information for investors and stakeholders to predict corporate performance.

Table of contents
論文審定書 i
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
Table Index v
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Research Problem and Questions 2
1.3 Framework 2
2. Literature Review 4
2.1 ESG and Corporate Performance 4
3. Methodology 12
3.1 Research Design and Approach 12
3.2 Data Collection and Sampling 13
4. Results 18
4.1 Descriptive Statistics, Inferential Statistics, and Findings 18
4.2 The Association between TESG and Corporate Performance 23
5. Conclusion 32
5.1 Concluding Remarks and Implications 32
5.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Improvement 33
References 34

References
Atan, R., Alam, M. M., Said, J., & Zamri, M. (2018). The impacts of environmental, social, and governance factors on firm performance: Panel study of Malaysian companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal.
Bhandari, L. C. (1988). Debt/equity ratio and expected common stock returns: Empirical evidence. The journal of finance, 43(2), 507-528.
Brammer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial management, 35(3), 97-116.
Chen, Y.-C., Hsu, F.-J., & Haung, S.-W. (2013). An Empirical Study on the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Operating Performance. Journal of Valuation(6), 53-72.
CHEN, Y.-T. (2021). A Study of Relationship Between ESG Index and Corporate Performance. National Taipei University.
Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic management journal, 35(1), 1-23.
Chun-Hua Susan Lin, Wei Hsu, & Chen, M.-H. (2006). An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Change in Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance. Bulletin of Diwan College of Management(1), 295-310.
Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of management Journal, 27(1), 42-56.
Cook, K. A., Romi, A. M., Sánchez, D., & Sanchez, J. M. (2019). The influence of corporate social responsibility on investment efficiency and innovation. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 46(3-4), 494-537.
Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of sustainable finance & investment, 5(4), 210-233.
Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The accounting review, 91(6), 1697-1724.
Kong, N., Bao, Y., Sun, Y., & Wang, Y. (2023). Corporations’ ESG for Sustainable Investment in China: The Moderating Role of Regional Marketization. Sustainability, 15(4), 2905.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of marketing, 70(4), 1-18.
Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good... and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. And does it matter.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative science quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.
Moskowitz, M. (1972). Choosing socially responsible stocks. Business and society review, 1(1), 71-75.
Oh, W., & Park, S. (2015). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance in Korea. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51(sup3), 85-94.
Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Business & society, 50(1), 6-27.
Park, A., & Ravenel, C. (2013). Integrating sustainability into capital markets: Bloomberg LP And ESG's quantitative legitimacy. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 25(3), 62-67.
Pinney, C., Lawrence, S., & Lau, S. (2019). Sustainability and capital markets—Are we there yet? Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31(2), 86-91.
Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management science, 59(5), 1045-1061.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic management journal, 18(4), 303-319.
Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H., & Managi, S. (2019). Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 286-300.