Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/157726
|
| Title: | 我國銀行業在淨零排放目標下的利害關係人融資面議合策略研究
Stakeholder Engagement Strategies Under Net-Zero Emission Goals: A Study of Taiwan Banking Sector Lending Practice |
| Authors: | 莊瀚緯
Juang, Han-Wei |
| Contributors: | 呂桔誠
楊曉文
Lyu, Jye-Cherng
Yang, Hsiao-Wen
莊瀚緯
Juang, Han-Wei |
| Keywords: | 淨零排放
永續金融
ESG
責任授信
利害關係人議合
Net-zero
Sustainable Finance
ESG
Responsible Lending
Stakeholder Engagement |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-07-01 14:34:50 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨著氣候變遷風險與企業轉型壓力升高，銀行在淨零排放目標下的利害關係人議合亦逐漸受到重視。儘管國內外已有諸多關於永續金融與責任投資之研究，惟大多集中於投資面之議合策略，對於銀行該如何透過授信與機制影響企業減排之實證與制度性分析仍付之闕如。有鑑於此，本研究透過議合架構整理、國內外銀行案例分析與策略歸納，探討我國銀行業在全球淨零排放目標趨勢下，融資面利害關係人議合策略與行動之現況與挑戰，並列舉具代表性之國內外銀行業案例、梳理銀行業融資面議合之策略與行動，並分析其成效影響因素。
研究方法方面，本研究採文獻分析法、比較研究法與個案研究法，蒐集31家本國銀行2023年永續報告書等公開揭露資訊，透過Morsing and Schultz之三層次議合策略、Gable and Shireman之六層次管理架構，對我國銀行業融資面議合行動進行系統性歸納與分析，另透過銀行常用國際倡議SBTi對授信資產之分類標準，使用由下而上方式（Bottom-Up Approach），梳理出我國銀行業在發電業、商用不動產與商業貸款等三大資產類別所常用之議合策略。
此外，就議合成效而言，本研究梳理出影響其成效之關鍵因素包括：銀行規模與資源投入、永續治理結構與文化、ESG 表現與揭露透明度，以及外部政策與社會壓力的影響。具備永續專責單位、明確責任分工、資訊揭露詳實，且能導入誘因型產品者，將有助於銀行議合策略之執行與提升議合成效。
綜合而言，我國銀行業若欲強化其在永續轉型中的金融引導角色，應發展具策略性、可量測與具誘因之議合行動，並建立制度化溝通機制與產品工具，逐步深化與企業客戶間之永續對話與合作，實踐融資面淨零議合之永續價值。
Although numerous studies on sustainable finance have been conducted, the majority have focused on engagement strategies in the investment domain. In response, this study examines the current practices and challenges of stakeholder engagement strategies in the lending activities of Taiwanese banks under the global net-zero transition.
This study adopts document analysis, comparative analysis, and case study methods, collecting public disclosures—including the 2023 sustainability reports of 31 domestic banks. International theoretical and policy frameworks, including the three levels of stakeholder communication proposed by Morsing and Schultz, the six-level management framework by Gable and Shireman, and the SBTi’s asset-class-based classification, were applied to guide the systematic analysis.
Key factors influencing engagement effectiveness include bank size and resources, sustainability governance, ESG performance and transparency, and external policies and social pressures. Banks with dedicated sustainability units, clear accountability, comprehensive ESG disclosures, and incentive-driven products are more likely to implement successful engagement strategies.
In conclusion, to enhance their financial influence in net-zero, it is recommended that they develop strategic, measurable, and incentive-based engagement approaches. Strengthening collaborative dialogue with corporate clients will be essential to realizing the value of net-zero-aligned lending-side engagement. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
(一)碩博士論文
1.吳雨學，論我國推動永續金融之趨勢與挑戰，國立臺灣大學管理學院碩士在職專班國際企業管理組碩士論文，頁34-37，2023年5月。
2.劉子瑜，我國機構投資人盡職治理報告揭露內容之分析－以議合內容為中心，國立臺灣大學進修推廣學院事業經營法務碩士在職學位學程碩士論文，頁31，2022年7月。
3.張景儒，我國機構投資人盡職治理之研究－以盡職治理守則推動ESG投資，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文，2022年7月。
(二)網路資料
1.中央銀行(5/2021)，〈我國發展永續金融現況與挑戰〉，《金融穩定報告》，載於：https://www.cbc.gov.tw/tw/mp-1.html
2.行政院(3/14/2023)，〈臺灣2050淨零排放〉，《重要政策》，載於：https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/7a65a06e-3f71-4c68-b368-85549fbca5d1。
3.姚佳慧(12/2020)，〈氣候變遷對金融體系之衝擊與因應〉，《台北外匯市場發展基金會專案計畫》，載於：https://www.tpefx.com.tw/uploads/download/tw/3.The%20impact%20of%20climate%20change%20on%20the%20financial%20system%20and%20its%20response.pdf
4.科學基礎減碳目標(8/2022)，〈金融部門科學基礎減碳目標指引第1.1版〉，《科學基礎減碳目標》，載於：https://www.sitca.org.tw/ROC/SITCA_ESG1/att/ESGi7/SBT_Financial-Sector-Science-Based-Targets-Guidance(%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87%E7%89%88).pdf。
5.陸孝立(8/2023)，〈金融業議合再進化 協助企業實踐永續發展〉，《勤業眾信通訊2023年8月號》，載於：file:///C:/Users/133076/Downloads/tw-202308-newsletter-1.pdf
6.陸孝立(9/29/2020) ，〈綠色金融行動方案2.0，開啟永續金融新紀元〉，《工商時報》，載於：https://www2.deloitte.com/tw/tc/pages/risk/articles/pr200929-sustainable-tax-management-risk-perspectives.html。
7.國家災害防救科技中心全球災害事件簿網站，載於：https://den1.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/。
8.陳智忠、林群堯(10/20/2023)，〈永續趨勢下的企業績效管理與高階薪酬新策略〉，《EY Taiwan》，載於：https://www.ey.com/zh_tw/insights/assurance/executive-compensation-and-sustainable-business-practices
9.程淑芬(11/22/2019)，〈責任投資與責任放貸—金融業的責任與機會〉，《595期工總產業雜誌》，載於：https://cgc.twse.com.tw/latestNews/promoteNewsArticleCh/3483
10.黃瀞儀、彭宇如、賴思如(11/2021)，〈環境、社會及公司治理 (ESG) 對我國銀行業經營之挑戰與商機〉，《財團法人台灣金融研訓院自提研究計畫》，載於：https://www.tabf.org.tw/Article.aspx?id=3663&cid=1
二、英文部分
1.Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87–103.
2.Bolibok, P. M. (2024). Does firm size matter for ESG risk? Cross-sectional evidence from the banking industry. Sustainability, 16(2), 679.
3.Bouattour, A., Kalai, M., & Helali, K. (2024). The non-linear relationship between ESG performance and bank stability in the digital era: New evidence from a regime-switching approach. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 1445.
4.Belsom, T., Jones, J. (2023). ESG incorporation in direct lending: A guide for private debt investors, The Principles for Responsible Investment. Retrieved from https://www.unpri.org/private-debt/esg-incorporation-in-direct-lending-a-guide-for-private-debt-investors/11772.article
5.Bauer, R., Ruof, T., & Smeets, P. (2021). Get real! Individuals prefer more sustainable investments. The Review of Financial Studies, 34(8), 3976–4043.
6.Bank for International Settlement (2021). Climate-related risk drivers and their transmission channels, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
7.Breeden, S. (2019). Avoiding the storm: Climate change and the financial system, Address to the Official Monetary & Financial Institutions Forum.
8.Bank of England (2018). Transition in thinking: The impact of climate change on the UK banking sector, Prudential Regulation Authority
9.Becchetti, L., Ciciretti, R., & Dalò, A. (2015). Does stakeholder engagement reduce risk? Evidence from the UK. European Financial Management, 24(3), 465–486.
10.Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1–19.
11.Christophers, B. (2019). The planetary limits of financialized capitalism: Financial governance and climate crisis. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 51(3), 517-536.
12.Castell, M., Salman, P. (2019). Central banks and climate change: taking up the challenge, UBS Report.
13.Carney, M. (2015). Breaking the tragedy of the horizon–climate change and financial stability. Speech at Lloyd’s of London, 29 September 2015.
14.Carroll, A.B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2014). Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
15.Clarkson, M. E., Li, Y., & Richardson, G. (2008). Revisiting the stakeholder theory: Implications for corporate governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 573-594.
16.Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
17.Dikau, S., & Volz, U. (2021). Central bank mandates, sustainability objectives and the promotion of green finance. Ecological Economics, 184, 107022.
18.Dimson, E., Karakaş, O., & Li, X. (2015). Active ownership. The Review of Financial Studies, 28(12), 3225–3268.
19.Esty, D. C., & Egelston, A. E. (2020). The sustainable finance handbook: Everything you need to know about navigating the financial aspects of climate change. New York: Wiley.
20.Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Capstone.
21.Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
22.Galletta, S., Goodell, J. W., Mazzù, S., & Paltrinieri, A. (2024). The impact of environmental disclosure and controversies on bank value. Journal of Economics and Business, 106221.
23.Gable, G. G., & Shireman, W. (2005). Stakeholder engagement in sustainable finance: Managing for long-term value creation. Greenleaf Publishing.
24.Gary, R., & Bebbington, J.（2001）. Accounting for the Environment（second ed.）, Sage, London.
25.IPCC (2023). Sections. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115.
26.Kahn, M., Mohaddes, K., Ng, R., Pesaran, H., Raissi, M., Yang J. C. (2019). Longterm macroeconomic effects of climate change: A cross-country analysis, Working Paper, IMF.
27.Lee, C.-C., Lu, M., Wang, C.-W., & Cheng, C.-Y. (2024). ESG engagement, country-level political risk and bank liquidity creation. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 102260.
28.Libit, B., & Freier, T. (2013). The corporate social responsibility report and effective stakeholder engagement. HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.
29.Martinez, R., Crish, M., Bujno, M., Arthur, L., & Haley, S. (2024). ESG-infused governance: How financial institutions can meet expanding stakeholder expectations. Deloitte & Touche LLP. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/financial-services/us-esg-infused-governance.pdf
30.Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338.
31.Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
32.Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
33.Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.
34.Sastry, P., Verner, E., & Marqués-Ibáñez, D. (2024). Business as Usual: Bank Net Zero Commitments, Lending, and Engagement. National Bureau of Economic Research.
35.Stocker, F., de Arruda, M. P., de Mascena, K. M. C., & Boaventura, J. M. G. (2020). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: A classification model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(5), 2071–2080.
36.Scholtens, B., & Dam, L. (2007). Banking on the equator. Are banks that adopted the equator principles different from non-adopters? World Development, 35(8), 1307–1328.
37.Smith, D.（1994）. Environmental Risk: Credit Approaches and Opportunities: An Interim Report. United Nations Environment, Geneva.
38.Sarokin, D., & Schulkin, J.（1991）. Environmental concerns and the business of banking. Journal of Commercial Bank Lending, 74（5）. pp. 6-19
39.Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). (2017). Recommendations of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures. Final Report.
40.UNEP FI. (2019). Principles for Responsible Banking: Guidance document.
41.World Resources Institute. (2021). Banking beyond climate commitments: Transforming client engagement and products & services for a net-zero emissions future.
42.Weber, O., Hoque, A., & Islam, M. A. (2021). Incorporating sustainability into credit risk management: The role of the Principles for Responsible Banking. Sustainability, 13(5), 2557. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
國際金融碩士學位學程
111ZB1082 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111ZB1082 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [國際金融碩士學位學程] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 108201.pdf | | 1085Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
