在永續發展日益受到重視的環境下，企業對環境保護、社會責任及公司治理這三大面向，已成為評估企業能否永續經營的重要指標。公股銀行作為金融體系的關鍵角色，其政策執行功能與社會責任履行更具指標意義。本文以臺灣銀行承作企業貸款之實務為例，探討其在配合政府政策、實踐社會責任與促進企業永續發展方面所扮演的角色。研究發現，臺灣銀行是政府的銀行，當政府推動特定政策（例如產業發展、紓困、經濟穩定等），為了配合政府政策、維持社會經濟穩定及發展，即使企業因景氣不佳而面臨較高財務風險時，臺灣銀行仍會基於政策性考量與社會責任，提供金融支持。
本研究旨在探討臺灣銀行將ESG目標納入融資條件，作為引導企業資金投入永續發展的重要手段之效果，是否能有效促進企業在ESG表現上的實質改善。研究結果顯示，這樣的融資政策確實在一定程度上提升了企業對永續議題的重視與意識，但整體而言，借款企業在ESG表現上並未因此而呈現顯著改善。造成此現象的可能原因包括：（1）銀行所設計的ESG指標減碼機制，是為了配合企業的需要而制定；（2）研究樣本期間較短，難以觀察長期效果；（3）ESG目標的達成與企業既定經營目標之間可能存在衝突；以及（4）銀行提供予企業達成ESG目標的誘因有限。綜上所述，將ESG目標納入授信條件雖有助於企業朝永續方向調整，但對企業在ESG表現的提升尚未達到顯著影響，顯示策略工具在實際應用上仍需進一步優化，以達成引導企業落實永續轉型的政策目標。

As sustainable development gains increasing global attention, corporate performance in the three dimensions of environmental protection, social responsibility, and corporate governance (ESG) has become a key indicator for evaluating long-term business viability. As a critical component of Taiwan’s financial system, state-owned banks play an especially significant role in implementing public policies and fulfilling social responsibilities. Using the Bank of Taiwan’s corporate lending practices as an empirical case, this study explores its role in supporting government policies, fulfilling social responsibility, and promoting corporate sustainable development. The findings show that, as a government-owned bank, the Bank of Taiwan continues to provide financial support based on policy considerations and social responsibilities—even when enterprises face heightened financial risks due to unfavorable economic conditions—in order to support industrial stability, employment, and economic development in line with government objectives.
This study further examines the effectiveness of incorporating ESG goals into lending conditions as a means to guide corporate resources toward sustainable development, and assesses whether such measures lead to substantive improvements in corporate ESG performance. The results indicate that ESG-linked financing policies have, to some extent, enhanced corporate awareness and recognition of sustainability issues; however, overall, borrowing firms did not exhibit significant improvements in their ESG performance. Possible explanations include: (1) ESG-related reduction mechanisms in loan assessments were designed primarily to accommodate corporate needs; (2) the short sample period may limit observations of long-term effects; (3) potential conflicts exist between ESG goals and firms’ established operational objectives; and (4) the incentives provided by banks for meeting ESG targets remain limited. In sum, although integrating ESG goals into credit assessments can direct firms toward sustainable practices, its impact on substantive ESG performance has yet to reach a significant level, indicating the need for further refinement of policy instruments to align with the government’s objective of promoting corporate sustainable transformation.

一、中文文獻
1.羅伯特·席勒 (2013)。金融與美好社會 (林麗冠譯)。天下文化。(原著出版於 2012 年)。
2.吳當傑 (2015)。財政金融與美好社會 [專題演講]。[研討會或活動名稱，如：台灣金融研訓院高階主管論壇]。
3.金融監督管理委員會 (2022)。綠色金融行動方案 3.0：整合金融資源，支持淨零轉型。金融監督管理委員會銀行局。
4.陳建良 (2024)。我國綠色金融政策之精進建議 [經濟專題]。國家發展委員會經濟發展處。
5.邱鈺雅 (2025)。[論文完整名稱] [碩士論文，[國立某某大學]財務金融研究所]。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
6.財政部國庫署 (2021年11月)。公股銀行積極配合推動綠色金融政策，持續強化綠能產業融資與投資 [新聞稿]。中華民國財政部。
7.中央銀行 (2022)。金融穩定報告 (第16期)。中央銀行金融穩定督導小組。
8.經濟部投資臺灣事務所 (2025)。投資臺灣三大方案審查進度統計。經濟部。https://investtaiwan.nat.gov.tw/
9.財政部國庫署 (2024年8月)。公股銀行配合政府推動「疫後振興」及「低碳智慧」專案貸款執行情形 [新聞稿]。中華民國財政部。
10.立法院預算中心 (2023)。交通部臺灣鐵路管理局113年度附屬單位預算評估報告。立法院。
11.立法院預算中心 (2015)。台灣高鐵財務改善方案執行問題之探討 [專題研究]。立法院。
12.台灣高速鐵路股份有限公司 (2016)。2015 年年報。台灣高速鐵路股份有限公司。
二、英文資料
13.Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone.
14.Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
15.Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
16.Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
17.Weber, O. (2017). Corporate social responsibility in the banking sector. In A. Rasche, M. Morsing, & J. Moon (Eds.), Research handbook on corporate social responsibility in context (pp. 248–264). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783474806.00020
18.Schoenmaker, D., & Schramade, W. (2019). Principles of sustainable finance. Oxford University Press.
19.Rozenberg, J., & Hulme, M. (2020). The economics of greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation. In Global Environmental Change (pp. 123-145). Publisher Name.
20.Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. McGraw-Hill.
21.La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). Government ownership of banks. The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 265–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00422
22.Andrianova, S., Demetriades, P., & Shortland, A. (2008). Government ownership of banks, institutions, and financial development. Journal of Development Economics, 85(1-2), 218–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2006.08.002
23.Bertay, A. C., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Huizinga, H. (2015). Bank ownership and credit over the business cycle: Is lending by state banks less procyclical? Journal of Banking & Finance, 50, 326–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.03.012
24.Brei, M., & Schclarek, A. (2013). Public bank lending in times of crisis. Journal of Financial Stability, 9(4), 820–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2013.01.002
25.International Monetary Fund. (2020). Global financial stability report: Markets in the time of COVID-19. International Monetary Fund.
26.World Bank. (2022). World development report 2022: Finance for an equitable recovery. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1730-4