企業ESG框架下員工餐飲食品安全管理之實踐與成效評估—以A企業為例

Abstract

近年環境、社會與公司治理（Environmental, Social and Governance, ESG）逐漸成為企業永續發展的重要框架，員工福利與職場健康保護亦成為「社會（S）」與「公司治理（G）」的重要衡量面向。員工餐飲具高頻率與集體暴露特性，一旦發生食品安全事件，將同時衝擊員工健康、企業聲譽與營運韌性。爰此，本研究以企業ESG治理為基礎，探討大型企業在法規與國際標準要求下，如何將外部食品安全規範轉譯為內部可稽核、可量測之治理機制，並以A企業為單一企業個案進行實證分析。研究方法採回溯性個案研究法，整合2016至2024年間之既有管理資料，資料來源包括稽核結果、檢驗結果與員工彙總性感受三類資料，並輔以制度文件與相關規範之文件分析。研究分析上，透過三類證據交叉判讀，建構可對應ESG揭露之績效衡量構面與指標邏輯，以說明企業如何運用內控證據鏈管理員工餐飲食品安全。 研究結果顯示，A企業透過稽核條文化、檢驗監測與改善追蹤，已初步形成內部供餐食品安全治理之證據鏈。稽核資料顯示，單場次缺失密度由2017年之60.3點下降至2024年之38.0點，改善閉環率達79.3%；檢驗資料顯示，整體合格率長期維持於98%–99%區間，2024年合格率為98.36%，其中微生物不合格率於2024年為3.05%，高於化學性不合格率之0.09%，顯示主要風險訊號集中於作業衛生與微生物控制面向。員工彙總性感受資料顯示，相關題項結果由 2023 年之 37.7% 提升至 2024 年之 69.5%，顯示員工對供餐管理之感受有所提升；惟因題項內容、年度口徑及非食品安全因素均可能影響結果，故本研究僅將其作為治理可見度與信任形成之輔助性指標，而非食品安全治理成效之直接證明。綜合而言，本研究指出在分工型食品安全監理體系下，企業往往需扮演治理補強角色，將員工餐飲由行政福利議題提升為可稽核之風險治理與供應鏈治理議題；並提出以儀表板化指標整合稽核、檢驗與員工感受之評估路徑，供企業導入供應商分級、事件導向加抽、持續監測與資訊透明化等措施，作為建立可持續改善之員工餐飲食品安全治理模型參考。

With the rapid rise of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) initiatives, employee welfare and workplace health protection have become key indicators of the Social (S) and Governance (G) pillars. Among workplace welfare services, employee catering is characterized by high frequency and collective exposure; once a food safety incident occurs, it may simultaneously harm employee health, corporate reputation, and operational resilience. Against this backdrop, this study adopts an ESG governance lens to examine how a large enterprise translates external food safety regulations and international standards into internal, auditable, and measurable governance mechanisms. Using Company A as a single-enterprise case, the study investigates the implementation process and effectiveness of food safety management in employee catering. A retrospective case study approach was employed. The research first reviews Taiwan’s food safety regulatory framework and relevant requirements for corporate catering, and then compares the governance logic embedded in major international food safety management standards, including Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and Good Hygiene Practice (GHP). Next, document analysis, on-site audits, and laboratory testing were conducted to systematically assess supplier management, ingredient receiving, preparation processes, and inspection outcomes. Data covering Company A’s catering governance from 2016 to 2024 were integrated. Drawing on risk management concepts, this study distinguishes leading indicators (preventive audits) from lagging indicators (objective testing results and subjective perceptions). It further incorporates the Risk Priority Number (RPN) framework and applies an integrated cross-interpretation approach to combine three sources of evidence—audit results, testing results, and employee perceptions—to develop ESG-aligned performance dimensions and measurement logic. The findings indicate that: (1) by operationalizing audit criteria and strengthening evidence-based documentation, Company A established an internal control evidence chain and improved closed-loop corrective actions; deficiency density per audit showed a declining trend, and the corrective-action closure rate reached 79.3%, indicating stronger institutional follow-up capacity; (2) laboratory compliance remained consistently high, with pass rates stable at 98%–99%, reflecting the relative stability of baseline quality control; and (3) the employee perception indicator reached 69.5% in 2024, which may be used as a supplementary indicator of employee trust and risk communication, but should be interpreted cautiously because of item differences across years and potential non-food-safety influences. Overall, this study suggests that under a fragmented regulatory regime, enterprises often need to play a governance-reinforcing role—elevating employee catering from an administrative welfare function to an auditable issue of risk governance and supply-chain governance. The study contributes by proposing an ESG-oriented evaluation pathway and dashboard logic that integrates audits, testing, and employee perceptions, and offers practical recommendations on supplier stratification, event-triggered adaptive sampling, continuous monitoring, and information transparency.