本研究以台積電供應鏈為研究背景，探討龍頭企業是否透過供應鏈治理機制影響其供應商之租稅行為與 ESG 表現。研究樣本以我國 2018 年至 2025 年電子相關產業上市櫃公司為主，並依據公開資訊辨識台積電供應商。租稅行為部分，採用有效稅率、現金有效稅率、五年期現金有效稅率及財稅差異衡量租稅規避程度；ESG 表現則以 TEJ TESG 評分及其三項子構面環境、社會、治理評分作為代理變數。研究模型控制公司規模、財務槓桿、獲利能力、資本密集度與研發支出等因素，並納入產業與年度固定效果進行分析。
實證結果顯示，在基準模型下，台積電供應商之五年期現金有效稅率顯著較低，顯示其長期實際現金稅負相對較低；此外，供應商企業之 ESG 評分與部分子構面評分呈現顯著正向關係。然而，進一步採用公司層級叢集標準誤調整、配對樣本分析及敏感性分析後，部分模型之統計顯著性下降，甚至出現估計方向改變之情形，顯示研究結果對模型設定與樣本選取方式具有一定敏感性。
整體而言，本研究提供部分證據顯示供應鏈關係可能影響供應商之租稅行為與 ESG 表現，惟相關結果之穩定性仍有待後續研究進一步驗證。

This study investigates whether core firms influence the tax behavior and ESG performance of their suppliers through supply chain governance mechanisms, using the supply chain of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) as the research context. The sample consists of publicly listed electronics-related firms in Taiwan from 2018 to 2025, and TSMC suppliers are identified based on publicly available information. To measure corporate tax avoidance, this study adopts the effective tax rate, cash effective tax rate, five-year cash effective tax rate, and book-tax differences. ESG performance is measured using the TEJ TESG score and its three subdimensions: environmental, social, and governance. The empirical models control for firm size, leverage, profitability, capital intensity, and research and development expenditures, while also incorporating industry and year fixed effects.
The empirical results indicate that, under the baseline model, TSMC suppliers exhibit a significantly lower five-year cash effective tax rate, suggesting relatively lower long-term actual cash tax burdens. In addition, supplier firms show significantly positive relationships with ESG scores and certain ESG subdimension scores. However, after further applying firm-level clustered standard errors, propensity score matching analysis, and sensitivity analysis, the statistical significance of several models declines and some estimated coefficients change direction, indicating that the results are sensitive to model specifications and sample selection methods.
Overall, this study provides partial evidence that supply chain relationships may influence suppliers’ tax behavior and ESG performance. Nevertheless, the stability and robustness of such spillover effects require further investigation.

陳明進，2002，營利事業有效稅率決定因素之實證研究，會計評論，第34期： 57-75。
王晨，2021，綠色供應商管理之實踐：以A公司為例。國立政治大學商學院企業 管理研究所碩士論文。
Awaysheh, A., and R. D. Klassen. 2010. The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially responsible practices. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 30 (12): 1246–1268.
Dai, R., H. Liang, and L. Ng. 2021. Socially responsible corporate customers. Journal of Financial Economics 142 (2): 598–626.
DiMaggio, P. J., and W. W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.
Dyreng, S. D., M. Hanlon, and E. L. Maydew. 2008. Long-run corporate tax avoidance. The Accounting Review 83 (1): 61–82.
Dyreng, S. D., M. Hanlon, and E. L. Maydew. 2010. The effects of executives on corporate tax avoidance. The Accounting Review 85 (4): 1163–1189.
Fullerton, D. 1984. Which effective tax rate? National Tax Journal 37 (1): 23–41.
Gupta, S., and K. Newberry. 1997. Determinants of the variability in corporate effective tax rates: Evidence from longitudinal data. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 16 (1): 1–34.
Hanlon, M. 2005. The persistence and pricing of earnings, accruals, and cash flows when firms have large book–tax differences. The Accounting Review 80 (1): 137–166.
Hanlon, M., and S. Heitzman. 2010. A review of tax research. Journal of Accounting and Economics 50 (2): 127–178.
Jo, H., and M. A. Harjoto. 2011. Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 103 (3): 351–383.
Kale, J. R., and H. Shahrur. 2007. Corporate capital structure and the characteristics of suppliers and customers. Journal of Financial Economics 83 (2): 321–365.
Post, C., N. Rahman, and E. Rubow. 2011. Green governance: Boards of directors’composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business & Society 50 (1): 189–223.
Porcano, T. M. 1986. Corporate tax rates: Progressive, proportional, or regressive. Journal of the American Taxation Association 7 (2): 17–31.
Reverte, C. 2009. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (2): 351–366.
Stickney, C. P., and V. E. McGee. 1982. Effective corporate tax rates: The effect of size, capital intensity, leverage, and other factors. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 1 (2): 125–152.
Waddock, S. A., and S. B. Graves. 1997. The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal 18 (4): 303–319.
Wilkie, P. J., and S. T. Limberg. 1990. The relationship between firm size and effective tax rate: A reconciliation of Zimmerman (1983) and Porcano (1986). Journal of the American Taxation Association 11 (2): 76–91.
Zimmerman, J. L. 1983. Taxes and firm size. Journal of Accounting and Economics 5 (2): 119–149.