建置ESG能源與碳排放環境績效指標與評量系統之研究

企業生產活動在促進人類永續發展上扮演至關重要的角色，環境、社會與治理（ESG）已蔚為永續發展潮流，透過企業活動投資ESG項目，得以促進環境永續發展。環境永續是最需要投入大量資金研發、示範推廣創新技術並建構基礎設施的一環，然而因現今企業ESG之環境績效評量內容完整性不足、不具一致性且透明度不佳等因素，企業環境績效難具可比較性，是故本研究乃先聚焦導致氣候變遷之能源與碳排放主題，考量企業體如何在環境管理與執行效率面來減少其對地球資源的使用與自然環境的污染，以此發展ESG中的環境議題與指標，次以層級分析法建立三層級環境績效指標的相對權重，其後再研擬企業環境管理與環境績效評量方法，將此完整之環境績效指標與評量系統作為企業永續部門建置環境議題與自我檢視評估之平台基礎，以利達成其ESG環境績效。研究建立之第一層為能源與碳排放（Energy and Carbon Emissions）主題，第二層為「EC1能源使用」、「EC2能源來源與儲能」、「EC3二氧化碳排放」及「EC4能源管理與減碳計畫」等4項議題，涵蓋量化之環境操作績效與質化之環境管理績效指標。第三層指標是由第二層各項議題發展而出，總共有22項指標，指標類型涵蓋總量、強度、當年度環境議題執行情況與近5年環境績效進展等。層級分析結果顯示能源與碳排放主題下之第二層議題中，能源管理與減碳計畫權重最高，占41.3%，其次為能源來源與儲能為24.8%，再者為二氧化碳排放23.4%，能源使用僅占10.5%。第三層之22項指標中排序前3高之指標分別二氧化碳減量規劃占13.1%、再生能源使用規劃占9.9%及內部碳定價規劃占8.7%。本研究結果可進一步納入企業實證數據進行實際評分，並依減少能源使用與碳排放管理之需求檢討相關議題及指標，做為企業務實環境永續的重要參考依據。

關鍵字

ESG ；環境績效指標；能源與碳排放；永續績效評量

並列摘要

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) perspectives are widely mandated in sustainable development for all industrial sectors. The world's sustainable development can be greatly promoted through corporate activities and investments in ESG projects. However, the lack of completeness, consistency, and transparency of ESG performance measures makes it difficult to compare environmental performance among corporates in the same sector. In this study, we establishe a three-level environmental performance indicators and evaluation system, focusing on energy and carbon emissions which are the main causes of climate change. In this study, we first examine environmental performance indicators used in domestic and international literature, and analyzed those related to energy and carbon emissions that are applicable at the corporate level. We then establish a list of energy and carbon emission indicators concerning energy consumption, conservation, and carbon emission issues which are detrimental to the global and local environmental quality. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been adapted to highlight the weights of each indicator to complete the energy and carbon emission environmental performance indicators. Finally, we have proposed an evaluation protocol of each indicator to assess the corporates' energy and carbon emission environmental performance. The first hierarchy of the environmental pillar is Energy and Carbon (Theme). The second hierarchy consists of four issues: "EC1 on Energy Use", "EC2 on Energy Sources and Energy Storage", "EC3 on Carbon Dioxide Emission", and "EC4 on Energy Management and Carbon Reduction Plan", covering both quantitative environmental performance and qualitative environmental management performance topics. The third hierarchy of indicators is developed from the second hierarchy of issues, totaling 22 indicators which include the total volume and intensity of the current year, as well as progress over the past 5 years. Results of the AHP analysis reveal energy management and carbon reduction plans carrying the highest weight of 41.3%, followed by energy sources and energy storage of 24.8%, and carbon dioxide emissions of 23.4%, energy use accounting for only 10.5% among the second-tier issues under the theme of energy and carbon emissions. Of the 22 indicators in the third hierarchy, the top 3 indicators are CO2 reduction plan with a weight of 13.1%, renewable energy use plan of 9.9%, and internal carbon pricing plan of 8.7%. The results reveal that empirical data of enterprises can be included for actual scoring and relevant issues and indicators can be evaluated according to the priority needs of energy use reduction and carbon emission management.

並列關鍵字

ESG ； environmental performance indicators ； energy and carbon emissions ； sustainability performance evaluation

參考文獻

Ciegis, R., Ramanauskiene, J., and Startiene, G., “Theoretical reasoning of the use of indicators and indices for sustainable development assessment,” Engineering Economics, Vol. 63, pp. 33-40 (2009).

Google Scholar

Gabrielsen, P. and Bosch, P., “Environmental indicators: Typology and use in reporting,” EEA, Copenhagen, (2003).

Google Scholar

Stoutenborough, J. W. and Vedlitz, A., “The effect of perceived and assessed knowledge of climate change on public policy concerns: An empirical comparison,” Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 37, pp. 23-33 (2014).

Google Scholar

Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., and Dikshit, A. K., “An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies,” Ecological Indicators, Vol. 9 No.2, pp. 189-212 (2009).

Google Scholar

Bennet, J. and Martin, P., “ISO 14031 and the future of environmental performance evaluation,” Greener Management International, Vol. 21, pp. 71-86 (1998).

Google Scholar

主題瀏覽