台灣上市化學公司環境永續績效評量方法之研究

Abstract

台灣上市櫃公司永續資訊的揭露要求已行之有年，公司所採用的報導準則很多元以外，揭露之永續資訊及品質也還沒有完全一致，而現行常見的評比機構，都是透過公開的資訊或者是用發放問卷的方式邀請公司參加評比，但受限於各評比機構的方法學及計算的方式，同一間企業的績效表現會有不同的結果，也無法直接評估公司對於自然資源的消耗，本研究希望可以建立台灣上市化學公司環境永續績效評量方法的框架，利用公開揭露的環境資訊，包含四類組成要素，分別是溫室氣體排放、能源管理、水資源管理及廢棄物管理及各要素對應之績效指標，利用層級分析法，邀請永續領域專家填寫問卷，分析各組成要素之優先程度而得出權重，溫室氣體排放的權重值為31.42%、能源管理權重值為29.25%，接著是水資源管理權重值為22.45%，最後是廢棄物管理的權重值為16.88%，顯示專家一致認為溫室氣體排放及能源管理在上市化學公司是比較重要的。 接著利用球型統計模式計算環境構面整體績效分數，上市化學公司平均評量中位數為3.18，平均分數為3.53，最高為6.47，最低為1.63，主要是因為整體化學公司使用再生能源之公司佔比不到30%，另在溫室氣體排放中範疇三的數據也有高達53%公司未提供(揭露)相關指標資料，本研究把這些公司視為未處理相關揭露義務以0分進行統計，整體表現平均分數為3.53，得分最高之公司其在所有數據的揭露最完整，上市化學公司的環境面績效指標評比，可能會受揭露範圍而影響公司的整體環境績效表現，例如揭露個體數據在各績效指標的數值可能就會比揭露合併範圍的數值來得小，因而被誤認為是較少排放，可以取得較佳的績效分數，故若是依照完整揭露之資料重新評估，其排序等級可能會有不一樣結果。 本研究透過上市化學公司之公開揭露之環境資訊進行分析，提出一個可參考之量化永續績效指標之評比框架，也探討出有關化學公司在當前發展可以關注的主要議題及主要可以被關注之永續績效指標，這些結果可以給未來政府訂定政策或者管理者在制定永續績效評量之參考。

Over the years, the disclosure requirements for sustainability information among listed companies in Taiwan have evolved significantly. However, despite the existence of numerous reporting standards, the quality and comparability of disclosed information remain inconsistent. Evaluation agencies typically rely on publicly available data or distribute questionnaires to invite companies to participate in assessments. Due to methodological differences and calculation approaches among these agencies, the same company may receive divergent performance evaluations. This study aims to establish a framework for assessing the environmental sustainability performance of listed chemistry companies in Taiwan. Through a comprehensive literature review, four key environmental dimensions were identified: greenhouse gas (GHG) missions, energy management, water resource management, and waste management. Each dimension is associated with specific performance indicators. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was employed, and sustainability experts were invited to complete questionnaires to determine the weight of each dimension. The resulting weights were as follows: GHG emissions (31.42%), energy management (29.25%), water resource management (22.45%), and waste management (16.88%) and indicated a consensus among experts that GHG emissions and energy management are of greater importance in the chemical industry. Subsequently, a spherical statistical model was used to calculate the overall environmental performance scores. The median score among listed chemical companies was 3.18, with an average of 3.53, a maximum of 6.47, and a minimum of 1.63. These results reflect the fact that less than 30% of companies utilize renewable energy, and 53% of companies failed to disclose Scope 3 GHG emissions data. Companies that did not fulfill disclosure obligations were assigned a score of zero, which contributed to the overall average score of 3.53. The highest-scoring company demonstrated the most comprehensive data disclosure. It is important to note that the scope of disclosure can significantly influence a company’s environmental performance score. For instance, disclosing individual entity data may result in lower reported emissions compared to consolidated data, potentially leading to a misperception of better performance. This study proposes a quantifiable evaluation framework for environmental sustainability performance tailored to listed chemical companies. It also identifies key sustainability issues and performance indicators relevant to the current development of the chemical industry. The findings offer valuable insights for policymakers and corporate managers in formulating sustainability performance assessment strategies.