本研究旨在探討ESG爭議風險是否會對台灣上市公司之財務績效產生影響，並進一步分析三大構面（環境、社會與治理）爭議的異質性效果，以及企業ESG績效是否具有調節能力。研究樣本涵蓋2018年至2024年間台灣非金融業上市公司，資料來源為TEJ資料庫，採用固定效果模型進行實證分析，控制時間與產業固定效果，並將ESG爭議分為高度與中度風險，以更貼近實務風險判斷。
實證結果顯示，企業若涉入ESG爭議事件，無論風險程度高低，皆會對其資產報酬率（ROA）造成顯著負面影響，尤其在高度風險事件下效果更為明顯。進一步拆解構面後發現，治理構面爭議對績效的負面影響最為顯著且穩定，而環境構面則僅高度風險事件具有影響，且ESG績效對該構面具顯著調節效果；社會構面則未呈現顯著關聯。此外，公司規模亦影響ESG爭議風險的衝擊程度，中小型企業面臨爭議時所受財務損害顯著高於大型企業。
本研究補足台灣ESG爭議風險相關實證文獻之不足，並提供企業在風險管理與永續溝通策略上的參考依據，亦有助於投資人更有效辨識潛在風險與企業價值穩定性。

This study investigates whether ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) controversy risks affect the financial performance of publicly listed companies in Taiwan. It further examines the heterogeneous effects across the three ESG dimensions and evaluates whether overall ESG performance moderates the impact of controversies. The sample consists of non-financial firms listed in Taiwan from 2018 to 2024, with data obtained from the TEJ database. A fixed effects model is employed, controlling for year and industry fixed effects, and ESG controversy scores are categorized into high- and medium-risk events for practical relevance.
Empirical results indicate that ESG controversies negatively affect firm performance, measured by Return on Assets (ROA), with high-risk events having a more pronounced impact. When broken down by dimension, governance-related controversies consistently exhibit the strongest negative influence on performance. Environmental controversies only affect ROA in high-risk cases, where ESG performance shows a significant moderating effect. In contrast, social controversies have no statistically significant effect. Moreover, firm size plays a critical role: small and medium-sized enterprises suffer greater financial damage from ESG controversies compared to larger firms.
This study contributes to the limited empirical literature on ESG controversy risk in Taiwan and offers practical insights for corporate risk management and sustainability strategy, while also aiding investors in identifying firms with higher ESG-related vulnerability.

游琇螢（2019）。ESG 分數對公司績效表現與風險的影響 —以台灣市場為例（碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
陳筱淇（2024）。結合TESG評分與財務數據觀察臺灣上市公司表現（碩士論文）。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。
Aouadi, A., & Marsat, S. (2018). Do ESG controversies matter for firm value? Evidence from international data. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 1027–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3213-8
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z
Brammer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35(3), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-053X.2006.tb00149.x
Di Tommaso, C., & Thornton, J. (2020). Do ESG scores affect bank risk taking and value? Evidence from European banks. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(5), 2286–2298. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1964
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992
Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2020). The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1
Duque-Grisales, E., & Aguilera-Caracuel, J. (2021). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of multilatinas: Moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(2), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04177-w
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
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
Krüger, P. (2014). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.09.008
Landi, G., & Sciarelli, M. (2019). Towards a more ethical market: The impact of ESG rating on corporate financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-2017-0254
López, M. V., Garcia, A., & Rodriguez, L. (2007). Sustainable development and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9253-8
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556659
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011987
Miroshnychenko, I. (2021). The double-edged sword of corporate boards in the environmental actions of firms. In Management, finance and corporate taxation series. Eurilink University Press.
Oikonomou, I., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2012). The impact of corporate social performance on financial risk and utility: A longitudinal analysis. Financial Management, 41(2), 483–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-053X.2012.01190.x
Schiemann, F., & Tietmeyer, P. (2022). For sustainable development in the transportation sector: Determinants of acceptance of sustainable transportation using the innovation diffusion theory and technology acceptance model. Sustainable Development, 30(6), 1293–1306. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2309
Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045–1061. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1630
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). Too good to be true!”. The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9731-2