台灣企業永續報告發展現況與品質之研究

Current status and quality of sustainability reporting in Taiwan

黃泓維(Hong-Wei Huang)

指導教授 ： 胡憲倫

國立臺北科技大學/工程學院/環境工程與管理研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6841/NTUT.2014.00864

摘要

過去十年，企業永續報告乃一項與企業與利害關係人溝通組織永續績效的重要工具。針對企業永續報告的調查多以全球市場或是已開發國家作為主要調查對象，對於新興國家之調查相對較少。本研究透過問卷調查台灣101家企業永續抱告之現況，調查內容包含了企業目前對於永續報告之認知，企業面臨的障礙因素，驅使企業出版報告書之動力以及第三方保證在永續報告中的意義。並透過調查結果比較與分析已經出版與尚未出版之企業間各類因素的差異。此外，本研究發展一套以G4為基礎之永續報告品質評比之架構，並實際應用於台灣兩家企業並與兩家國際頂尖企業進行比較以了解台灣與國際之間永續報告書品質之差異。本研究之結果顯示台灣企業對於GRI指引應用相當廣泛。而僅有4分之一之企業是由跨領域團隊負責撰寫永續報告書(像是CSR部門或是永續部門)；已經出版永續報告之企業中有高達三分之二之企業乃通過外部第三方保證。通過外部保證之主要因素乃是「促進揭露資訊的可信度」與「促進管理時訊息的可信度」；驅使台灣企業出版永續報告書之驅動力以「企業高層的支持」及「企業形象」兩因素為最，本次調查結果與國際調查結果最大差異性乃是驅動因素「內部員工的壓力」並非重要的驅動力。障礙因素中「企業認為不具有可預期之利益價值」與「CSR報告書屬於自願性質，與財務報告不同，不具有法律強制性」兩項為最主要的障礙，這樣的結果與國際文獻相符合。本研究也發現，企業規模乃影響企業是否出版永續報告的關鍵因素，而成立跨領域團隊與否也與企業規模有關。成本對於規模較小之企業亦是相當重要的障礙因素，將導致小企業缺乏對於永續報告書撰寫與製作的相關知識。分析台灣與國際各兩家企業之永續報告書品質結果顯示，台灣永續報告書之完整性與國際企業的報告書相似，但台灣企業永續報告書在重大性分析、重大性議題與績效指標的連結性以及重大性議題的目標設定上遠不如國際企業之報告書，未來企業應就這些缺點予以強化以提升台灣企業永續報告書之品質。

關鍵字

企業永續性報告書 ； 台灣永續報告現況 ； 報告書品質 ； GRI

並列摘要

As a tool for communicating with stakeholders for sustainability performance, corporate sustainability reporting (CSR) has become a worldwide trend in the last decade. Surveys related to sustainability reporting are mainly focused on overall global markets and are rarely found in specific emerging countries. This paper investigated 101 Taiwanese companies to study their current status, the barriers they encountered, their driving force for publishing sustainability reports, and the role of third-party assurance for sustainability reporting. The situations of the companies with published and unpublished reports were compared and analyzed. An evaluation framework based on the materiality and stakeholder inclusiveness of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4 Guidelines was also developed to assess the quality of two “best” sustainability reports published by Taiwanese companies and to compare it with the sustainability reports published by international leading companies. Results of the study showed that the GRI Guideline was applied widely. Only 25% of the reports were compiled by multi-disciplinary/cross-functional team (such as CSR or sustainability taskforce) and only two-thirds of the reports were verified by a third party. The main reason for third-party assurance was to “add credibility to the information disclosed” and “improved confidence in information used for management.” The two most important driving forces for Taiwanese companies in publishing sustainability reports were “tone from top” and “corporate reputation and ethics.” However, “the pressure from employees” was not an important driving force, which is obviously different from previous investigations. The results also showed that “no perceived benefit” and “sustainability reporting is not mandatory” were the main barriers that conform to previous studies. The findings indicate that corporate size is a key factor that affects the adoption of sustainability reporting of corporations. A multi-disciplinary team will be formed by larger companies in Taiwan. “Cost” is also an important barrier for smaller companies, which may lead to their lack of knowledge about sustainability reporting. The completeness of reporting in Taiwanese companies and international leading companies is similar. However, Taiwanese companies may need to put more emphasis on materiality, particularly on the connectivity of the material aspect with performance and material target setting.

並列關鍵字

Sustainability reporting ； current status of CSR in Taiwan ； quality of reporting ； GRI

參考文獻

2. Amran, A., & Haniffa, R. (2011). “Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: a case of a developing country,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(3), 141-156.

3. Anderson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). “Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in US business organizations,” Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 548-570.

4. Archel, P., Fernandez, M., & Larrinaga, C. (2008). “The organizational and operational boundaries of triple bottom line reporting: a survey,” Environmental Management, 41(1), 106-117.

5. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990), “The double-edge of organizational legitimation,” Organization science, 1(2), 177-194.

6. Barometer, E. T. (2012). Edelman trust barometer executive summary.