發展型國家如何回應全球治理？台灣資本市場中企業社會責任與永續報告規範的建構與變遷

Abstract

近年來興起的CSR與ESG風潮，除了自願遵循與作為投資標的，也成為新興的管制。企業非財務揭露規範如何在台灣的資本市場中被建立？國家在其中扮演什麼角色？規範建立後又如何變遷？本研究以檔案資料為主，從「市場政治」的取徑分析不同行動者互動的政治過程，在發展型國家與全球治理的脈絡中回答這個問題，區分發展型國家的「發展意志」與「官僚能力」，指出國內與國際公私規範的互動，以及金融監管機構的主導性和公民社會的有限參與。 我將規範發展歷程分成三個階段，首先是2000年代的公司治理改革，揭露企業社會責任受到鼓勵，產業部門也投入輔導，但沒有標準化的揭露規範，企業的實作分歧，2010年公司年報規範加入企業社會責任的揭露項目，指標逐漸明確化，但尚未成為市場中普遍遵循的事項，國家介入有限。2014年為回應食安與環境事件的政治壓力，金管會強制特定產業編制企業社會責任報告書，並頒布報告書編制標準，不過在這之前其他改革方案都被拒絕。規範建立後在金管會主導下強制範圍逐步擴大，國家發揮官僚能力建構規範，但不存在明確發展意志與指向。2020年前後國際上的新風潮與國內新政策目標，「2050淨零碳排」及其中「綠色金融」策略與既有的企業社會責任規範接軌，將原規範轉型為新政策藍圖的一部份，報告書由CSR轉向ESG的框架，內容增加量化與可比較的指標，也建立針對第三方驗證的管理機制，此時期國家出現明確的發展意志與官僚能力。 國際因素在其中扮演重要角色，國際交流、外國制度發展與參與國際組織，是動國內規範修正的重要參照，台灣作為主權受挑戰的國家，需要連結世界最新潮流，進而搶得先機而不落後。再者是供應鏈與外資的影響，高度依賴國際貿易進出口的後進工業國，加上外資的高占比，國際市場同時驅動國內的規範建構以及企業的實踐。然而國際規範落地過程，也可能與在地社會結構摩擦，顯示相異的政治經濟脈絡。而規範在地化的過程中，國家扮演重要的中介角色。在這個過程中，改革進程高度被金融監管機構主導，希望透過既有管制手段來治理市場，但在政治壓力下必須回應時，便介入主導改革進程，只有更上位的政策目標如淨零轉型，金融監管才配合並轉變規範。公民社會對這套管制模式感到有所不足，出現如應用新揭露的資料重新組裝並進行倡議，與批判揭露規範的無用並主張更高強度的管制例如人權盡職治理的回應。

In recent years, the rising trends of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) became not only voluntary practices and investment considerations but also emerging regulations. Non-financial disclosure standards in Taiwan''s capital market were established. The state played a role, and the regulations evolved after establishment. This study answers these questions primarily through archives, employing a "markets as politics" approach to analyze the political processes of various actors'' interactions. It addresses these questions within the context of the developmental state and global governance. The study highlights the difference between the developmental state''s “will for development” and “bureaucratic ability.” It also emphasizes the interactions between the regulations in different scales, including domestic and international, public and private norms. The research also discusses the dominant role of financial regulatory institutions and the limited participation of civil society. The process of constructing regulations is divided into three stages. Firstly, in the 2000s, corporate governance reforms encouraged the promotion of CSR disclosure, with industry sectors actively tutoring companies. However, the lack of standardized disclosure regulations resulted in divergent corporate practices. In 2010, CSR disclosure norms were incorporated into the corporate annual report regulations, gradually clarifying indicators, though it had not yet become a widely followed market standard. At this stage, state intervention is relatively limited. In 2014, responding to political pressures arising from food safety crises and environmental pollution, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) mandated specific industries to compile CSR reports and issued standards for report preparation. Nevertheless, legislative proposals for mandatory report preparation and CSR budgets were rejected before this. Subsequently, under the leadership of the FSC, the scope of mandatory reporting gradually expanded. The state leverages bureaucratic ability to construct regulations, but there is an absence of explicit developmental will and direction. Around 2020, global trends and domestic policy goals, such as the "2050 Net-Zero Emissions" and the "Green Finance" strategy, aligned existing CSR regulations with the new policy blueprint. The report framework shifted from CSR to ESG, incorporating numerous quantitative and comparable indicators. The mandatory reporting scope continued to broaden, accompanied by the establishment of a management system for third-party verification institutions. During this period, the state manifests clear will to development and bureaucratic ability. International factors played a crucial role. Transnational interactions, foreign institutional developments, and participation in international organizations served as essential references for domestic regulatory adjustments. As a state facing sovereignty challenges, Taiwan needs to connect with global trends to stay ahead. Additionally, the impact of supply chains and foreign investment was significant. As a late industrializing nation heavily reliant on international trade, high foreign investment ratios simultaneously drove domestic regulatory development and corporate practices. However, the implementation of international regulations may have caused friction with local social structures, revealing diverse political-economic contexts. In the process of localizing regulations, the state played a crucial intermediary role. Throughout this process, the reform initiative was largely led by financial regulatory authorities, attempting to govern the market through existing regulatory means. Civil society perceived shortcomings in this regulatory model, leading to advocacy efforts, reassembling data from new disclosures, criticism of disclosure regulations, and a call for more stringent regulations, such as human rights due diligence governance.