ESG 評級已成為資本市場的重要驅動力，但由於評級機構間缺乏
統一的標準與方法，導致評級結果不一致，不僅增加了企業漂綠風險，
也對投資決策帶來挑戰。本研究聚焦於國際主要 ESG 評級機構，包括
CDP、S&P Global、Sustainalytics、MSCI ESG 和 ISS ESG，深入分析其在設計理念、權重配置及數據處理上的差異，並比較這些機構對金融產
業的指標與權重分布。同時，檢視台灣永續金融評鑑在指標設計與權重
配置方面的現狀與可能改進空間。
本研究採用質性分析方法，結合文獻回顧，對各評級機構的架構設
計、指標設計及權重分配進行比較分析。結果顯示，各機構在評級方法
與重點上各具特色：CDP 專注於環境揭露，特別聚焦碳排放、水資源和
森林議題；S&P Global 結合財務與非財務指標，透過企業問卷進行多層
次綜合分析；Sustainalytics 採用風險導向框架，聚焦揭露企業 ESG 風
險並監控爭議事件；MSCI 在 ESG 各面向涵蓋範圍最廣，並根據產業
特性進行細緻的權重分配，確保評級在產業間的一致性；ISS ESG 則依
據國際規範與可持續性標準進行評估，特別將評估對象擴展至中小企業。
研究發現，台灣的永續金融評鑑逐步與國際標準接軌，涵蓋對環境、
社會與治理（ESG）因子的綜合評估。然而，其在數據透明度、即時性
更新及第三方驗證機制方面仍有改進空間，需進一步提升評級結果的可
靠性與國際認可度。
面對國際評級結果分歧的現象，台灣金融機構應深入理解國際評級機構的核心要點，提升公司治理與 ESG 資訊揭露的透明度，並建立集
中化的數據庫以提高國際競爭力。同時，企業需加強內部 ESG 治理結
構與資訊揭露質量，確保評級結果能真實反映其永續績效。這些措施不
僅有助於降低漂綠風險，也能為企業創造中長期競爭優勢，進一步增強
其在全球市場中的地位。

ESG ratings have become a critical driving force in capital markets. However, the lack of unified standards and methodologies among rating agencies has led to inconsistent results, increasing greenwashing risks and complicating investment decisions. This study focuses on major
international ESG rating agencies, including CDP, S&P Global, Sustainalytics, MSCI ESG, and ISS ESG, analyzing their differences in design philosophy, weight allocation, and data processing. It compares these agencies'indicators and weight distributions for the
financial industry while examining Taiwan’s Sustainable Finance Evaluations for potential improvements.
Using qualitative analysis and a literature review, this study compares framework design, indicator selection, and weight allocation across agencies. The findings reveal distinct traits: CDP emphasizes environmental disclosures
like carbon emissions and water resources. S&P Global integrates financial and non-financial metrics through corporate questionnaires. Sustainalytics adopts a risk-oriented framework, highlighting ESG risks and monitoring
controversies. MSCI covers the broadest ESG range with refined industry specific weight adjustments for rating consistency. ISS ESG evaluates using international standards and includes small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Taiwan’s Sustainable Finance Evaluations have aligned with international standards, environmental, social, providing comprehensive assessments of and governance (ESG) factors. However, improvements in data transparency, real-time updates, and third-party verification mechanisms are needed to enhance reliability and global recognition. To address ESG rating divergence, Taiwan’s financial institutions must understand global agencies' key elements, improve governance, and enhance ESG disclosure transparency. Centralized databases will further bolster competitiveness. Enterprises should strengthen internal ESG governance and ensure disclosures reflect sustainability performance. These
actions will mitigate greenwashing risks, create competitive advantages, and enhance global market positioning.

參考文獻
一、中文部分
書籍
王凱，鄒洋 (2021)。國內外ESG評價與評級比較研究。北京 : 經濟管理出版社。
孫忠娟、羅伊、馬文良、梁晗、孫為政 (2021)。ESG揭露標準體系研究。北京 : 經濟管理出版社。

期刊論文
1.王嘉緯（2024）。永續金融評鑑之源起、內涵及展望。政治大學國際金融學院課程講義，台北市。
2.吳家瑜（2022）。國際主要ESG評級機構沿革及衡量要點之研究（碩士論文）。國立政治大學會計學系，台北市。
3.林佳霈（2023）。影響ESG評級因素之關聯性分析（碩士論文）。國立臺北科技大學資訊與財金管理系碩士班，台北市。
4.施柏瑋（2023）。ESG評比對金控股價之影響（碩士論文）。中信金融管理學院碩士班，台北市。
5.陳又瑄（2022）。考量ESG評級不一致下ESG投資之探討（碩士論文）。國立政治大學金融學系，台北市。
6.蔡尚文（2023）。國家認證與企業營運對環境影響之關係—以臺灣企業參與碳揭露計畫（CDP）為例（碩士論文）。國立清華大學科技管理學院碩士在職專班。新竹市。
7.彰化銀行資金營運處（2020）。證券市場ESG投資的發展。《彰銀資料》，69(9-10)，21頁。
網際網路
1.CICC中金公司，ESG投資系列（3）：ESG評級「存異」但難「求同」，上網日期2021年9月8日，檢自：https://research.cicc.com/frontend/recommend/detail?id=2315
2.S&P Global，道瓊斯可持續發展指數－衡量及推進ESG實踐二十載，上網日期2019年，檢自：https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/tc/documents/additional-material/djsi-timeline-tc.pdf
3.工商時報名家廣場，借鏡他山，精益求精─淺談國際主要ESG評鑑，上網日期2024年3月25日，檢自：https://www.ctee.com.tw/news/20240325700092-439901
4.今周刊，對外資最有影響力的ISS首揭台灣ESG 30強企業，上網日期2020年9月16日，檢自：https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/80401/post/202009160037/
5.今周刊，ISS ESG評級：全面分析與中小企業的獨特納入，上網日期2020年9月23日，檢自：https://esg.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/180689/post/202009230054
6.台灣金融研訓院，ESG永續金融評鑑平台，上網日期2024年3月25日，檢自：https://esg.tabf.org.tw/plan
7.永續金融評鑑資訊平台，評鑑簡介、公告訊息、評鑑說明與下載專區，上網日期2023年，檢自：https://esgtest.chainyi.com/
8.高士閔（2022）。商業週刊ESG評鑑有哪些、該參加哪個評比？4大機構評等的關鍵指標，上網日期2022年7月5日，檢自：https://www.managertoday.com.tw/topic/view/127/post/65391

二、英文部分
期刊論文
1.Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514.
2.Berg, F., Koelbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregation confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344.
3.Billio, M., Costola, M., Hristova, I., & Pelizzon, L. (2021). The inconsistency of ESG ratings: Implications for investors. European Financial Management Association Conference Paper.
4.Boffo, R., & Patalano, R. (2020). ESG investing: Practices, progress and challenges. OECD Publishing.
5.Chatterji, A. K., Durand, R., Levine, D. I., & Touboul, S. (2016). Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors, and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, 33(12), 1597–1614.
6.Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 125–169.
7.Cookson, J. A., & Niessner, M. (2020). Why don’t we agree? Evidence from a social network of investors. The Journal of Finance, 75(1), 173–228.
8.Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S., & Hess, J. (2018). The global Findex database 2017: Measuring financial inclusion and the fintech revolution. World Bank Group.
9.Desai, M. A., & Dharmapala, D. (2006). Corporate tax avoidance and high-powered incentives. Journal of Financial Economics, 79(1), 145–179.
10.Doyle, M., & Conboy, K. (2022). Evaluating the consistency of ESG ratings: The role of subjectivity and framework differences. Sustainability, 14(5), 2560.
11.Eccles, R. G., Lee, L.-E., & Stroehle, J. C. (2020). The social origins of ESG: An analysis of Innovest and KLD. Organization & Environment, 33(4), 575–596.
12.Gibson, R., Krueger, P., & Schmidt, S. (2021). ESG rating disagreement and stock returns. Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper No. 20-67.
13.Hanlon, M., & Heitzman, S. (2010). A review of tax research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50(2–3), 127–178.
14.Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
15.Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724.
16.Kolk, A., Levy, D., & Pinkse, J. (2008). Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: The institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 719–745.
17.Kotsantonis, S., & Serafeim, G. (2019). Four things no one will tell you about ESG data. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31(2), 50–58.
18.Liu, M. (2022). Quantitative ESG disclosure and divergence of ESG ratings. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 936798.
19.Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
20.Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1996). The association between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 321–357.
21.Robson, L. S., Shannon, H. S., Goldenhar, L. M., & Hale, A. R. (2007). Guide to evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for preventing work injuries: How to show whether a safety intervention really works. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 50(10), 763–775.
22.Smith, J. (2020). Environmental disclosure and performance: Insights from the CDP. Journal of Environmental Management, 254, 109879.
23.Smith, N. C. (2010). Consumers as drivers of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(Suppl 2), 317–338.
網際網路
1.CDP. (2023). Scoring introduction 2023. Retrieved from https://www.cdp.net/en/guidance
2.CDP. (2023). Scoring category weightings: 2023. Retrieved from https://www.cdp.net/en/guidance
3.CDP. (2024). Corporate questionnaire and reporting guidance. Retrieved from https://www.cdp.net/en/guidance
4.CDP. (2024). Full corporate scoring introduction 2024. Retrieved from https://www.cdp.net/en/guidance
5.ISS ESG. (2023). ESG corporate rating methodology and research process, Version 1.0. Retrieved from https://www.issgovernance.com/esg/
6.ISS ESG. (2024). Frequently asked questions: The ESG corporate rating process – A guide for corporate issuers. Retrieved from https://www.issgovernance.com/esg/
7.MSCI. (2010). MSCI completes acquisition of RiskMetrics. Retrieved June 1, 2010, from https://ir.msci.com/news-releases/news-release-details/msci-completes-acquisition-riskmetrics
8.MSCI. (2022). What is an MSCI ESG Rating? Retrieved November 1, 2022, from https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings
9.MSCI. (2023). ESG methodology: Weight distribution by sectors. Retrieved from https://www.msci.com
10.MSCI ESG Research LLC. (2024). MSCI ESG Ratings methodology. Retrieved from https://www.msci.com/esg-and-climate-methodologies
11.MSCI. (2024). ESG Ratings key issue framework. Retrieved from https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings/esg-ratings-key-issue-framework
12.S&P Global. (2023). Weights overview: Corporate sustainability assessment. Retrieved from https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/
13.S&P Global. (2023). Dow Jones Sustainability Indices methodology. Retrieved December 2023, from https://www.spglobal.com/en
14.S&P Global. (2023). S&P DJI ESG Score methodology. Retrieved May 2023, from https://www.spglobal.com/en
15.S&P Global Sustainable1. (2024). S&P Global ESG Score methodology. Retrieved March 2024, from https://www.spglobal.com/en
16.S&P Global. (2023). ESG performance metrics and distribution. Retrieved from https://www.spglobal.com
17.Sustainalytics. (2020). ESG risk ratings methodology, Version 2.1. Retrieved from https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-data#framework
18.Sustainalytics. (2021). Overview of Sustainalytics’ material ESG issues. Retrieved from https://www.sustainalytics.com
19.Sustainalytics. (2021). ESG risk ratings – Methodology abstract, Version 2.1. Retrieved from https://www.sustainalytics.com
20.Sustainalytics. (2022). Sustainalytics’ ESG risk rating frequently asked questions (FAQ). Retrieved February 2022, from https://www.sustainalytics.com
21.Sustainalytics. (2022). Our history. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.sustainalytics.com/about-us
22.Sustainability. (2023). Rate the raters 2023: ESG ratings at a crossroads. Retrieved from https://www.sustainability.com/insights/rate-the-raters-2023/