在全球永續發展的浪潮下，ESG金融商品之資產管理規模快速成長。惟實務推廣上投資人普遍存在「知行落差」，且面臨「漂綠」疑慮與評級分歧等挑戰。本研究旨在探討國內投信業者推廣ESG ETF之行銷策略，以及該策略如何實質影響投資人行為與市場資金流向。
本研究採用混合研究法，以國內規模最大之ESG ETF「國泰台灣ESG永續高股息ETF基金（00878）」為核心觀察標的。質性階段透過半結構訪談法，深度訪談銀行端產品行銷經理與理財專員，探索第一線銷售實務與投資人決策心理；量化階段則蒐集該標的自2020年7月至2026年1月共67個月之月度資料，並建立多元迴歸模型檢驗財務誘因對受益人數成長之解釋力。
研究結果有以下幾項觀察。散戶對「永續理念」本身的感受並不強烈，真正影響購買決策的，仍是看得見的績效與穩定配息。迴歸結果也呼應這一點：在67個月的觀察期間，近12個月平均殖利率對受益人數成長的解釋力最高（p < 0.001），而自然人佔比與殖利率的相關係數高達0.685，可見散戶資金的進出，主要還是被現金流誘因牽動。在此前提下，業者真正成功的行銷做法，是把ESG 嚴格篩選機制包裝成「保護配息來源」的角色，讓投資人感覺ESG不是要他們犧牲報酬，而是替他們守住配息，藉此繞過損失規避心理。
基於上述發現，本研究建議投信業者應將行銷論述從「道德義務」轉向「資產保全」，善用數位通路預先建立投資人的永續認知基礎。同時，建議主管機關推動具備量化指標之防漂綠資訊揭露，以建立更穩健之綠色金融信任機制。

Amid the global wave of sustainable development, the assets under management for ESG financial products have grown rapidly. However, in practice, investors generally exhibit a "say-do gap" and face challenges such as "greenwashing" concerns and rating divergence. This study aims to explore the marketing strategies adopted by domestic asset management companies in promoting ESG ETFs and how these strategies substantially influence investor behavior and fund flows.
This study employs a mixed-methods approach, focusing on the largest ESG ETF in Taiwan, "Cathay MSCI Taiwan ESG Sustainability High Dividend Yield ETF (00878)," as the primary case study. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with bank product marketing managers and relationship managers to explore front-line sales practices and investor decision-making psychology. In the quantitative phase, time-series data on this ETF from July 2020 to January 2026 (67 months) were collected, and a multiple regression model was built to examine the explanatory power of financial incentives on growth in unitholder count.
The findings point to several observations. Retail investors show little sensitivity to sustainability concepts in themselves; what actually drives their purchase decisions remains visible performance and stable dividends. The regression results echo this. Over the 67-month observation period, the 12-month average dividend yield had the strongest explanatory power for the growth in unitholders (p < 0.001), and the correlation between the retail investor share and the dividend yield reached 0.685, suggesting that retail capital flows are largely pulled by cash-flow incentives. On this basis, the marketing approach that genuinely succeeds is one that frames strict ESG screening as a mechanism safeguarding the dividend source, so that investors feel ESG does not ask them to sacrifice returns but rather protects their dividends, thereby bypassing loss-aversion psychology.
Based on these findings, this study suggests that asset management companies should shift their marketing narrative from "moral obligation" to "asset protection" and utilize digital channels to cultivate baseline sustainability awareness among investors. Meanwhile, it is recommended that regulators promote quantitative anti-greenwashing information disclosure to build a more robust trust mechanism in green finance.

一、 中文文獻
王薏涵（2024）。ESG績效對台灣企業財務經營之影響。國立臺北商業大學貿易實務法律暨談判碩士學位學程碩士論文，未出版，台北。
林芝伃（2024）。好心有好報？從ESG ETF發行者觀之。國立臺中科技大學流通管理系碩士論文，未出版，台中。
林芸諆（2023）。永續投資、基金經理人特徵與基金績效之研究。朝陽科技大學財務金融系碩士論文，未出版，台中。
孫鳴遠（2025）。ESG ETF與傳統ETF的績效與比較。淡江大學財務金融學系碩士論文，未出版，新北。
國立臺北大學企業永續發展研究中心（2024）。2024年台灣永續投資調查。台北：國立臺北大學。
張晨瀚（2022）。台灣投資人對ESG相關主題基金之認知。國立政治大學國際經營與貿易學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
陳建偉（2023）。我國ESG基金商品之優化揭露－由歐美相關規範與揭露內容談起。證券服務，696，54-66。
陳愉婷（2024）。綠色行銷對消費者購買意願之影響。國立雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士論文，未出版，雲林。
強盈淇（2012）。境外基金行銷策略之探討-以股票型與債券型基金為例。國立臺灣科技大學企業管理系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
黃慧慈（2024）。ESG ETF 與高股息 ETF 之基金績效探討。國立中山大學財務管理學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
葉淑玲、陳建偉（2024年3月15日）。借鏡國際 優化我國ESG基金規範。工商時報，名家廣場版。
劉麗瑜（2023）。ESG 指數與商品，掌握永續投資趨勢。證券服務，695，11-15。
盧怡佳（2023）。媒體曝光度對ESG基金績效的影響。國立臺中科技大學財務金融系碩士論文，未出版，台中。
蕭景耀（2024）。ESG浪潮下股票投資策略之研究-以台灣永續指數股票型基金為例。健行科技大學財務金融系碩士論文，未出版，桃園。
謝文良、李進生（2024）。ESG評分歧異及對永續投資的影響。證券市場發展季刊，36(1)，1-69。
二、 外文文獻
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy.Dow Jones-Irwin.
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2008). All that glitters: The effect of attention and news on the buying behavior of individual and institutional investors. The Review of Financial Studies, 21(2), 785-818.
Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315-1344.
Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64-87.
Hong, H., & Kacperczyk, M. (2009). The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), 15-36.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2018). Principles of marketing (17th ed.). Pearson.
McCarthy, E. J. (1960). Basic marketing: A managerial approach. Richard D. Irwin.
Miller, M. H., & Modigliani, F. (1961). Dividend policy, growth, and the valuation of shares. The Journal of Business, 34(4), 411-433.
Pástor, L., Stambaugh, R. F., & Taylor, L. A. (2022). Dissecting green returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 146(2), 403-424.
Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2008). Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(9), 1723-1742.
Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60.
Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-214.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness.Penguin Books.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS matrix—A tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2), 54-66.