本研究以台灣上市櫃公司為研究對象，探討企業當年度整體 ESG 表現及其環境、社會與治理構面表現，與次年度 ESG 事件風險之預測關聯。研究期間為 2019 年至 2024 年，以台灣經濟新報資料庫（Taiwan Economic Journal, TEJ）之 TESG 分數衡量企業整體 ESG表現及各構面表現，並以 ESG 事件雷達分數（Environmental, Social, and Governance Risk Score, ERS）衡量企業次年度 ESG 事件風險。本研究以企業 t 期 ESG 表現及財務控制變數對應 t+1 期 ERS，並將整體 TESG 分數及環境、社會與治理構面分數分別置入不同迴歸模型進行估計。
實證結果顯示，整體 ESG 表現與治理構面，在主要模型及採用公司層級聚類標準誤之穩健性測試中，均與次年度 ERS 分數呈顯著負向關聯，因此根據風險管理理論推論出企業當年度整體 ESG 表現、治理構面表現越佳，次年度的 ESG 事件風險越低。環境構面之係數方向為負，但顯著性會隨模型設定而改變，因此根據風險管理理論推論出企業當年度環境構面表現越佳，次年度的 ESG 事件風險越低的推論僅獲部分支持。社會構面在各項模型中均未呈現顯著關聯，因此根據逆選擇理論推論出企業當年度社會構面表現與次年度 ESG 事件風險之關聯性可能不具穩定性。補充分析方面，以次年度最嚴重事件風險（ERS_min）作為替代衡量時，治理構面之顯著負向關聯未能維持，顯示此一預測關聯於較嚴重事件風險之情境下仍有待進一步確認；高碳排產業之補充分析則顯示，產業特性可能影響部分 ESG 指標與次年度事件風險之關聯。
本研究顯示，整體 ESG 分數可能無法充分呈現環境、社會與治理構面所包含之不同風險資訊，因此分別檢視各構面，有助於更完整地評估企業未來 ESG 事件風險。惟本研究結果僅反映企業當年度 ESG 表現與次年度事件風險之統計關聯，並不代表兩者具有因果關係。

This study investigates Taiwan-listed and OTC-listed companies to examine the predictive association between firms' overall ESG performance—together with their performance across the Environmental, Social, and Governance dimensions—in a given fiscal year and their ESG event risk in the subsequent year. The sample period covers 2019 through 2024. Overall ESG performance and dimension-level performance are measured using TESG scores drawn from the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ) database, while next-year ESG event risk is measured using the Environmental, Social, and Governance Risk Score (ERS). Specifically, this study regresses firms' ESG performance and a set of financial control variables in period t on ERS in period t+1, entering the overall TESG score and the Environmental, Social, and Governance dimension scores separately across distinct regression models to allow for dimension-specific estimation.
The empirical results indicate that overall ESG performance and the Governance dimension exhibit a significant and negative association with next-year ERS scores in both the main models and the robustness test using firm-level clustered standard errors. Drawing on risk management theory, this finding suggests that firms with stronger overall ESG performance and stronger Governance performance in the current year tend to face lower ESG event risk in the following year. The coefficient on the Environmental dimension is consistently negative in direction; however, its statistical significance is sensitive to model specification. Accordingly, the risk-management-based inference that stronger Environmental performance predicts lower next-year ESG event risk receives only partial support. The Social dimension, by contrast, shows no significant association with next-year ERS across any model specification, indicating—consistent with adverse selection theory—that the relationship between Social dimension performance and subsequent ESG event risk may not be stable or reliably observed. In supplementary analyses, the significant negative association for the Governance dimension does not hold when using the most severe next-year event risk (ERS_min) as an alternative measure, suggesting that its predictive power for more severe events warrants further investigation. A supplementary analysis restricted to high-carbon-emission industries further reveals that industry-specific characteristics may condition the association between certain ESG indicators and next-year event risk, pointing to potential heterogeneity across sectors.
Taken together, these findings suggest that a composite ESG score may obscure meaningful differences in the risk information conveyed by its Environmental, Social, and Governance components. Disaggregating ESG performance into its constituent dimensions therefore offers a more complete basis for assessing firms' future ESG event risk than reliance on an aggregate score alone. It should be emphasized, however, that the results reported here capture only a statistical, predictive association between firms' current-year ESG performance and their subsequent-year event risk; they do not establish, and should not be interpreted as evidence of, a causal relationship between the two.

1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431
2. Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., Yang, S., & Zhang, C. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science, 65(10), 4451–4469. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3043
3. Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes II, K. E. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5–6), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00032-1
4. 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
5. Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
6. Capelle-Blancard, G., & Petit, A. (2019). Every little helps? ESG news and stock market reaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 543–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3667-3
7. 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, 37(8), 1597–1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2407
8. Chava, S. (2014). Environmental externalities and cost of capital. Management Science, 60(9), 2223–2247. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1863
9. Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2131
10. Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts , R. W., & Rodrigue , M. (2015). Organized Hypocrisy, Organizational Façades, and Sustainability Reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003
11. Christensen, D. M., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021). Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting Studies, 26(3), 1176–1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5
12. Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
13. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
14. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The Legitimising Effect of Social and Environmental Disclosures - a Theoretical Foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
15. Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
16. Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59–100. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.00000005
17. 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
18. Edmans, A. (2011). Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and equity prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(3), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.03.021
19. Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
20. Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 758–781. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0744
21. Gibson, R., Krueger, P., Riand, N., & Schmidt, P. S. (2021). ESG rating disagreement and stock returns. Financial Analysts Journal, 77(4), 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/0015198X.2021.1963186
22. Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.18378878
23. Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.750
24. Goss, A., & Roberts, G. S. (2011). The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(7), 1794–1810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.12.002
25. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
26. Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3), 405–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00018-0
27. Hoepner, A. G. F., Oikonomou, I., Sautner, Z., Starks, L. T., & Zhou, X. Y. (2024). ESG shareholder engagement and downside risk. Review of Finance, 28(2), 483–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfad034
28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896
29. Jafarinejad, M., Ngo, T., & Escobari, D. (2018). Disentangling the impacts of industrial and global diversification on firm risk. Global Finance Journal, 37, 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2018.04.001
30. Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329.
31. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
32. Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1052-1
33. Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383
34. Kim, S., Lee, G., & Kang, H.-G. (2021). Risk management and corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(1), 202–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3224
35. Kölbel, J. F., Busch, T., & Jancso, L. M. (2017). How media coverage of corporate social irresponsibility increases financial risk. Strategic Management Journal, 38(11), 2266–2284. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2647
36. Krüger, P.(2015). Corporate Goodness and Shareholder Wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.09.008
37. Krueger, P., Sautner , Z., & Starks, L. T. (2020). The Importance of Climate Risks for Institutional Investors. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(3), 1067–1111. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz137
38. Lee, J., & Koh, K. (R.). (2024). ESG performance and firm risk in the U.S. financial firms. Review of Financial Economics, 42, 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/rfe.1208
39. Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785–1824. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12505
40. Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate Environmental Disclosure Under Threat of Audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x
41. Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization Science, 27(2), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1039
42. Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003
43. Minor, D., & Morgan, J. (2011). CSR as reputation insurance: Primum non nocere. California Management Review, 53(3), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.3.40
44. Muhammad, S., & Tadele, A. (2026). Corporate governance and ESG controversies: a quantile regression approach. Corporate Governance, (2026) 26 (3), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-11-2024-0616
45. Oh, W.-Y., Zeng, R. (Ratchel), & Bu, M. (2025). Buffering or backfiring? A meta-analysis of the effects of corporate social (ir)responsibility on firm risk. Business & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503251350044
46. Peloza, J. (2006). Using corporate social responsibility as insurance for financial performance. California Management Review, 48(2), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166338
47. Plumlee, M., Brown, D., Hayes, R. M., & Marshall, R. S. (2015). Voluntary environmental disclosure quality and firm value: Further evidence. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34(4), 336–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2015.04.004
48. Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2023). Stock price reactions to ESG news: The role of ESG ratings and disagreement. Review of Accounting Studies, 28(3), 1500–1530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09675-3
49. Shiu, Y.-M., & Yang, S.-L. (2017). Does engagement in corporate social responsibility provide strategic insurance-like effects? Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2494
50. Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
51. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
52. Sun, W., Luo, Y., Yiu, S. M., Yu, L., & Ding, W. (2024). ESG scores, scandal probability, and event returns. Financial Innovation, 10, Article 121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00635-1
53. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2017). Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Financial Stability Board.
54. Treepongkaruna, S., Kyaw, K., & Jiraporn, P. (2024). ESG controversies and corporate governance: Evidence from board size. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(5), 4218–4232. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3697
55. Verrecchia, R. E. (2001). Essays on disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32(1–3), 97–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00025-8