由資本市場的金融監理機構看企業ESG資訊揭露的適當性

Abstract

世界經濟論壇報告指出未來10年全球最嚴重的風險與氣候變遷相關，聯合國之永續發展目標面臨挑戰，因此企業於實現永續發展目標過程扮演重要角色，而監管企業的資本市場在引導企業改變行為則具相當重要的關鍵另則ESG已為資本市場的關鍵詞，各國監管機構紛紛推出相關規範和永續金融政策誘因，為了符合監管機構的要求並吸引機構投資者的期望，企業應透過揭露ESG資訊展現其ESG表現和績效。本研究旨在從金融監理機構的角度探討企業ESG資訊揭露的適當性，藉由分析鄰近國家及歐美先進資本市場對企業永續資訊揭露的要求，與收集未來永續資訊揭露準則，提供對台灣資本市場監理機構及企業的改善建議，藉以改變企業行為，推動企業落實永續發展。 截至2022年度，我國已有685家上市櫃公司於公開資訊觀測站申報永續報告書，申報家數比例在國際上名列前茅。然而，普遍存在已申報之永續報告書邊界與財務報告之邊界不一致之情形，導致永續資訊分析困難。目前國內資本市場以GRI為核心進行永續資訊揭露，並要求對接SASB及TCFD等國際準則趨勢；但GRI係以多重利害關係人為溝通對象，不僅局限於資本市場之投資人與債權人，準則適用之彈性較大，ESG指標高達84項，且企業對揭露指標有高度裁量權，可能存在選擇揭露非真正關鍵指標之情形。 本研究選取鄰近國家（新加坡、香港、韓國）及歐美先進資本市場（美國、盧森堡）永續資訊揭露相關規定及國際永續資訊揭露準則趨勢，就規範對象、揭露範疇、揭露內容與確信要求等資訊與國內既有做法進行綜合分析比較後，建議針對上市公司之規範，應以企業在原有財務資訊揭露之公司治理基礎上進行優化，進而擴展至環境和社會的議題與指標，以利投資者評估。本研究同步提出26個質性與量化指標建議項目增加資訊可比較性，以降低企業遵循成本。另透過企業評價模型之現金流量折現法(DCF)檢驗該26項指標，推論各該項指標表現將影響企業未來的現金流量品質、永續經營終值與成長率，或反映企業未來風險的折現率和相關風險溢酬，這些都將影響企業評價結果。

綜上所述，本研究建議金管會在制定企業ESG揭露資訊規範的未來政策和策略時，考慮下列幾點： 1. 明確聚焦資本市場投資人與債權人為利害關係人，參採ISSB等國際永續報導準則趨勢，並明訂永續報告書之邊界應與財務報表一致。 2. 考量企業規模差異，針對一定規模以上之企業，依據治理、策略、風險管理以及指標目標等四大面向要求編制永續報告書，並以本研究所建議之26項永續指標作為必要揭露之指標與目標。針對一定規模以下之企業，則允許以26項永續指標揭露取代整本永續報告書之編制。以26項永續指標並參考新加坡資本市場之經驗建立統一的數位平台，俾企業遵循揭露規範及提供相關指標。 3. 主管機關應要求企業強化內部對永續資訊揭露的複核機制，加強與董事會的溝通，以確保其對永續資訊揭露的責任有明確的認識。並依據上市櫃公司規模大小與永續資訊揭露之重要性，建立分階段要求第三方確信之機制，強化永續資訊揭露之品質。

The World Economic Forum's Global Risk Report states that climate change poses the most significant global risks in the coming decade. Moreover, the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are encountering challenges. As a result, businesses have a crucial role in achieving these goals, and the behavior of businesses is significantly influenced by capital markets, which regulate them. Consequently, the concept of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) has gained prominence in the capital market, leading regulatory authorities in various countries to introduce regulations and incentives for sustainable financial policies. To meet regulatory requirements and satisfy the expectations of institutional investors, companies must disclose ESG information to demonstrate their performance and accomplishments in these areas. This study aims to evaluate the adequacy of Corporate ESG information disclosure from the perspective of financial supervisory agencies. By examining the disclosure requirements of neighboring countries, as well as advanced capital markets in Europe and the United States, and by collecting forthcoming standards on sustainable information disclosure, the study provides recommendations to enhance ESG information disclosure practices in Taiwan's capital market supervisory agency and listed companies. The ultimate objective is to promote changes in corporate behavior and foster the implementation of sustainable development goals. In 2022, Taiwan's capital market had 685 listed companies that filed sustainability reports on the Market Observation Post System, making Taiwan one of the leading countries in terms of the percentage of reporting companies. However, a common issue is that the boundaries of sustainability reports often do not align with financial reports, making it challenging to compare and analyze sustainability information. Currently, the domestic capital market primarily relies on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as the core framework for sustainability information disclosure and expects alignment with international trends such as the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). However, GRI's scope extends to multiple stakeholders beyond capital market investors, allowing for a more flexible application of the guidelines. With a total of 84 ESG indicators, companies have significant discretion in selecting which indicators to disclose, potentially leading to the selective disclosure of non-critical indicators. Based on a comparison of major capital market regulations and trends in ESG information disclosure standards, this study proposes that ESG disclosure regulations for listed companies should be optimized within the existing financial reporting governance framework. It recommends optimizing existing financial information disclosure based on corporate governance principles and expanding it to cover various environmental and social issues and indicators. Such disclosure would benefit investors' evaluations and encourage companies to expand their reporting from traditional financial performance to include sustainable (non-financial) performance. Additionally, the study suggests introducing 26 quantifiable key sustainable indicators to reduce compliance costs for companies and enhance information comparability. The study also utilizes the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) enterprise valuation model to assess the impact of these 26 indicators on future cash flow quality, sustainable business terminal value and growth rate, as well as the discount rate and associated risk premiums that reflect future risks. The assessment educe that these factors have clear impacts on the valuation outcomes of companies. In summary, this study recommends that the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) consider the following points when formulating future regulations on ESG information disclosure: 1. Give priority to capital market investors and lenders as key stakeholders and adopt international sustainability reporting trends such as the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards. It should be explicitly stated that the boundaries of sustainability reports should align with financial statements. 2. Require the preparation of sustainability reports based on the four dimensions of governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics & targets, taking into account company size differences. For larger companies, sustainability reports should encompass the aforementioned four dimensions, and the 26 sustainability indicators proposed in this study should be disclosed as necessary metrics and targets. For smaller companies, preparing the entire sustainability report may be replaced by disclosing the 26 sustainability indicators. Additionally, drawing from Singapore's capital market experience, establishing a unified digital platform based on the 26 sustainability indicators would facilitate companies' compliance with disclosure regulations and provision of relevant metrics and targets. 3. Strengthen internal review mechanisms for sustainability-related information disclosure within companies. Regulatory authorities should enhance communication with corporate boards to ensure a clear understanding of their responsibilities regarding sustainability-related information disclosure. It is crucial to bolster the internal review mechanisms for non-financial information disclosure. Additionally, a phased approach should be adopted to require third-party assurance, thereby enhancing the quality of sustainability information disclosure.