請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85211完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 荷世平 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Shih-Ping Ho | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 康信恩 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Hsin-En Kang | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T22:50:30Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-05-30 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-08-08 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2002-01-01 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Bellantuono, N., & Pontrandolfo, P., & Scozzi, B. (2018). Guiding materiality analysis for sustainability reporting: The case of agri-food sector. International Journal of Technology. Policy and Management, 18 (4), 336-359. Berg, F., & Koelbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2019). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. MIT Sloan School of Management. CA100+ (2020). CA100+ 2020 progress report. https://www.climateaction100.org/progress/progress-report/ CDSB (2018). CDSB Framework for reporting environmental information, natural capital and associated business impacts. https://www.cdsb.net/sites/default/files/cdsb_framework_2.1.pdf Da-Yong, C. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(1), 649-655. Diesendorf, M. (2000). Sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century, 2, 19-37. DJSI (2022). S&P global ESG scores methodology. DJSI (2022). CSA Companion 2022 corporate sustainability assessment. https://portal.csa.spglobal.com/survey/documents/CSA_Companion.pdf Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P., & Rogers, J. (2012). The need for sector-specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards. Journal of Applied Finance, 24, 65-71. Font, X., & Guix, M., & Bonilla-Priego, M. J. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in cruising: using materiality analysis to create shared value. Tourism Management, 53, 175-186. George J., 2012. Ambiguous but tethered: An accounting basis for sustainability reporting_28. GRI (2021). GRI standard 2021. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/ Hill R. C., & Bowen P. A. (1997). Sustainable construction: Principles and a framework for attainment. Constr. Manage. Econ., 15(3), 223-239. Herbert, A. S. (1960). The new science of management decision. International Society on MCDM. Howard R. B. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. Jones, P., & Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2015). Materiality in corporate sustainability reporting within UK retailing. Journal of Public Affairs 16 (1), 81-90. KPMG (2020). The KPMG survey of sustainability reporting 2020: The time has come. https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf MSCI (2022). MSCI ESG ratings methodology executive summary. https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings/materiality-map Laarhoven, P. J. M. V., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty‘s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 229-241. Refinitiv (2021). Environmental, social and governance scores from refinitiv. https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/methodology/refinitiv-esg-scores-methodology.pdf Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. Saaty, T. L., & Peniwati, K. (2008). Group decision making: drawing out and reconciling differences. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications. Sandberg, M. & Holmlund, M. (2015). Impression management tactics in sustainability reporting. SASB (2021). SASB Standards. https://www.sasb.org/standards/ SASB (2021). SASB Standards application guidance bases for conclusions & invitation to comment on exposure drafts. Satyajit, B. (2020). Values at work: sustainable investing and ESG reporting. SustainAbility (2020). Rate the rater 2020: invertor survey and interview results. Sustainalytics (2021). Sustainalytics ESG ratings methodology abstract version2.1. https://connect.Sustainalytics.com/hubfs/INV/Methodology/Sustainalytics_ESG%20Ratings_Methodology%20Abstract.pdf Sustainalytics (2021). Sustainalytics overview of Sustainalytics’ material ESG issues. https://www.Sustainalytics.com/material-esg-issues-resource-center Sylvain, K., & Je ́re ́my, R., & William, D., Alexandre, V., & Yves, L. T. (2016). A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 65, 398-422. TCFD (2021). Implementing the recommendations of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures. Tzeng, G. H., & Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028-1044. United Nations (2015). UN SDGs: Department of economic and social affairs sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/goals United Nations Global Compact(2004). Who Cares Wins. Wei-Wen, W. (2008). Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 828-835. Yang, J. L., & Tzeng, G. H. (2011). An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1417-1424. Ying-Ming W., & Ying-Luo, B., Zhong-sheng, H. (2008). On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. European Journal of Operational, 186, 735-747. 周國村, 袁建中(2014)。應用決策實驗室分析法(DEMATEL)與網路層級分析法 (ANP)在研發專案計畫評選。中山管理評論2014年九月號, 22(3), 543-572。 邱榆淨, 邱守序(2018)。汽車製造商自中國採購之供應鏈風險關鍵因素分析。臺大管理論叢書, 28(2), 61-96。 胡寬程(2021)。企業永續性報告是否反應企業之永續表現?針對美國與香港之實證研究。國立台灣大學土木系 碩士論文。 孫震(2009)。企業倫理與企業社會責任, 2-5。 陳瑞華(2010)。運用模糊分析層級程序法(FAHP)於校外教學地點選擇因素之研究。國立台東大學社會科教育學系社會科教學碩士班 碩士論文。 陳麒宇(2022)。台灣經濟新報(TEJ)全球主要金融服務公司ESG評等介紹 第154期。 褚志鵬(2012)。Analytic Hierarchy Process Theory 層級分析法(AHP)理論與實作。屏東科技大學農企業管理系所 碩士學位論文。 程榮凱(2018)。科技大學教育國際化指標建構之研究。國立台灣師範大學工業教育學系 博士論文。 鄭永祥(2009)。網路分析程序法之理論與應用。國防管理學報, 30(2), 69-79。 臺灣證券交易所股份有限公司(2022)。110 年度公司治理評鑑系統。 鄧振源(2005)。計畫評估:方法與應用。國立臺灣海洋大學運籌規劃與管理研究中心出版 何柏正(2012)。AHP與FAHP理論與實證課程。https://slidesplayer.com/slide/11452228/ 多準則決策筆記(2021)。MCDM Note。https://irw.ncut.edu.tw/peterju/mcdm.html 國家教育研究院(2021)。決策理論。https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1682547/ 天下雜誌(2021)。2021 天下永續公民獎。 https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5118203 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85211 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在科技蓬勃發展,社會日新月異,全球暖化、氣候變遷的劇烈影響之下,讓人 們意識到大自然正在反撲,永續意識興起,不再以經濟利益為單一考量。無論是消 費者、投資者、公司企業或者政府,逐漸將目光投至環境、社會、人權等議題,且 在聯合國 2004 年的倡議之下,以 ESG 作為企業社會責任與永續發展上努力的目 標,自此開始了企業以 ESG 為永續報告的重心。 雖然目前企業 ESG 的呼聲浩大,但實務上 ESG 報告尚存在許多問題,有企業 投機主義產生的揭露避重就輕、重大性分析專業性不足導致揭露品質不良、或揭露 項次重疊性低導致可比較性低落等問題,以及各類利害關係人不知如何衡量企業 ESG 績效問題。 因此,本研究將採「專家焦點團體結合層級分析法(FGD - AHP)」研究不同地 區、不同產業之 ESG 報告之重大性主題(Material Topic)及各主題的評量權重,以嚴 謹之方法來決定企業於 ESG 應努力與揭露之項目以及如何評量 ESG 的權重。本研 究以台灣營造業 ESG 重大主題與權重決定之標準化方法論流程探討,拋磚引玉, 盼可成為其他產業之 ESG 標準制定與評量的參考。 期望台灣營造業的企業、公司以本研究之結果為基礎,原則上應揭露其所屬之 「所有」ESG 特定重大項目,若有不適用之重大揭露項目應詳加說明原委。其次 企業再依據個別之特性,增加揭露其他特殊重大項目。如此,可解決企業投機主義、 重大性分析品質不佳、以及區域國情差異等問題。 盼本研究之結果能提升社會大眾對永續的重視,使投資者之決策以永續經營 與發展為考量,公司行號及企業以促進全體社會發展為願景,政府能以本研究之建 議提出相關永續策略及方針,盡棉薄之力,徹底落實永續發展的地球村。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | With the vigorous development of science and technology, the rapid changes in society and economy, the violent effects of global warming and climate change, people are aware that nature is fighting back, the rise of sustainability awareness, and gradually take sustainability issues in concern. Consumers, investors, companies or governments have turned their attention to environmental, social and human rights issues , and no longer take economic interests as a single consideration. Under the UN initiative in 2004, ESG has been taken as the goal of corporate social responsibility and sustainable development goals. Since then, enterprises have taken ESG as the focus of sustainability report. Although the voice of enterprise ESG is huge at present, there are still many problems in ESG report in practice, such as avoiding and neglecting the important, insufficient professionalism of significance analysis resulting in poor disclosure quality, or low comparability due to low overlap of disclosure items. And various stakeholders do not know how to measure enterprise ESG performance. Therefore, this study will adopt "FGD - AHP" to study the material topics of ESG reports in different regions and industries and the scoring weight of each topic. As to determine the items that enterprises should strive to disclose in ESG and how to evaluate the weight of ESG. First of all, taking Taiwan's construction industry as the first step, we hope to hear the first trumpet of sustainable development and become the pioneer of other industrial standards by formulating the standardized methodology process of ESG sustainability report. Based on the results of this study, enterprises and companies in Taiwan's construction industry should disclose in principle "all" specific major projects to which they belong. If there are inapplicable major disclosure projects, they should explain the reasons in detail. Secondly, according to individual characteristics, enterprises increase the disclosure of other special and major projects. In this way, it can solve the problems of enterprise speculation, poor quality of significance analysis and regional national conditions. It is hoped that the results of this study can enhance the public's attention to sustainability, make the decision-making of investors take sustainable operation and development as the consideration, and the company and enterprise take promoting the development of all society as the vision. The government can put forward relevant sustainable strategies and guidelines based on the suggestions of this study, and do its best to fully implement the global village of sustainable development. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T22:50:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-0208202208210400.pdf: 7452685 bytes, checksum: 92f39b79f06946626da568207d6b4ec1 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 i 摘要 ii ABSTRACT iii 目錄 v 圖目錄 ix 表目錄 xi 第1章 緒論 1 1.1 研究背景與動機 1 1.1.1 國際現況 3 1.1.2 台灣現況 4 1.2 研究目的 6 1.3 研究限制 7 第2章 文獻回顧 9 2.1 永續性(Sustainability) 9 2.1.1 企業社會責任(Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR) 9 2.1.2 環境社會治理(Environment Social Governance, ESG) 10 2.1.3 永續發展目標(SDGs) 11 2.2 企業永續性報告 13 2.2.1 全球永續性報告協會 (GRI) 13 2.2.2 氣候揭露標準委員會 (CDSB) 15 2.2.3 氣候相關財務揭露 (TCFD) 17 2.2.4 永續會計準則委員會 (SASB) 18 2.2.5 氣候行動100+ (CA100+) 20 2.2.6 企業永續性報告比較 21 2.3 企業永續性評分 23 2.3.1 Sustainalytics 24 2.3.2 MSCI 25 2.3.3 DJSI 26 2.3.4 Refinitiv 28 2.3.5 永續性評分比較 29 第3章 研究方法流程 30 第4章 地區/產業別ESG重大主題選擇之方法與架構 32 4.1 以AHP進行地區/產業別ESG重大主題選擇 32 4.1.1 層級分析法 (AHP) 33 4.1.2 模糊層級分析法(FAHP) 38 4.1.3 網路分析法 (ANP) 42 4.1.4 AHP與ANP比較 45 4.1.5 選定AHP之理由 46 4.2 地區/產業別ESG重大主題選擇之方法論流程 46 4.2.1 建立地區/產業別ESG一般主題之架構 47 4.2.2 專家問卷設計、指標說明修訂 48 4.2.3 專家焦點團體座談會設計 49 4.2.4 AHP問卷分析 50 第5章 台灣營造業ESG一般主題之架構與範圍 53 5.1 以GRI作為產業別ESG重大主題選擇基礎 53 5.2 GRI之ESG一般主題統整 55 5.3 永續性評分組織與GRI的比較 58 5.4 ESG一般主題之建議範圍 63 5.5 台灣營造業ESG一般主題之建議範圍 69 第6章 台灣營造業ESG重大主題與權重之分析結果 72 6.1 專家焦點團體座談會 72 6.1.1 問卷與指標說明 72 6.1.2 專家焦點團體座談會名單 77 6.2 營造業於ESG的特性 78 6.3 數據分析 79 6.4 分析各層級間相對權重 81 6.5 計算絕對權重 87 6.6 重大性主題與評量權重決定 90 6.6.1 絕對權重法 90 6.6.2 ESG構面相對權重平分法 94 6.6.3 重大性主題與評分權重法比較 97 第7章 ESG重大主題選擇與權重之驗證 100 7.1 與永續相關組織、評分機構之驗證 100 7.1.1 與SASB驗證結果 100 7.1.2 與Sustainalytics驗證結果 102 7.1.3 與MSCI驗證結果 105 7.1.4 與DJSI驗證結果 107 7.1.5 與Refinitiv驗證結果 109 7.2 與一般利害關係人、消費者驗證 112 7.2.1 計算絕對權重 112 7.2.2 絕對權重法 114 7.2.3 ESG構面相對權重平分法 116 第8章 結論與建議 119 8.1 結論 119 8.2 後續研究 120 參考文獻 122 附錄一 座談會須知&討論題綱 127 附錄二 AHP專家座談會問卷 134 附錄三 座談會會議紀錄 150 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 企業永續責任 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 重大性決策 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | CSR | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | ESG | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 企業永續性報告 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | AHP | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Corporate sustainability responsibility | en |
| dc.subject | Corporate sustainability report | en |
| dc.subject | ESG | en |
| dc.subject | CSR | en |
| dc.subject | Decisions making | en |
| dc.subject | AHP | en |
| dc.title | ESG 產業/地區別重大主題選擇與評量權重之研究-以台灣營造業為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Proposed Methodology for Determining the Sector/Region-specific ESG Material Topics and Scoring Weightings : Applied to the Construction Industry in Taiwan | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林正芳;林建元 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Cheng-Fang Lin;Chien-Yuan Lin | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 企業永續責任,企業永續性報告,ESG,CSR,重大性決策,AHP, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Corporate sustainability responsibility,Corporate sustainability report,ESG,CSR,Decisions making,AHP, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 168 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202201956 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-08-03 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 土木工程學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-08-02 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 土木工程學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-110-2.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務) | 7.28 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
