綠色創新對企業永續發展至關重要，但需要長期投入。本研究結合高階梯隊理論與地方依附理論，探討在地CEO如何驅動綠色創新，以及時間認知框架焦點（現在導向與未來導向）如何調節此一關係。本研究以S&P 500企業為樣本，建構1999至2024年之追蹤資料集，並運用泊松虛擬最大概似估計法（PPML）進行實證分析。結果顯示，在地CEO能顯著提升企業綠色專利的產出，此效果在面臨嚴重環境外部性的高污染產業中尤為突出。然而，此種基於在地認同的管理驅動力受到高階主管注意力配置的制約：當CEO展現出強烈的現在導向時，其在地效果將顯著減弱。相對地，未來導向並未顯著強化上述關係，顯示基於身份認同的動機與策略性時間導向，在驅動綠色創新的過程中可能透過相互獨立而非交互作用的機制發揮影響。本研究豐富了策略領導領域的文獻，證實雖然在地CEO是推動企業永續發展的自然驅動力，卻極易受到短期績效壓力的阻滯。上述發現對企業董事會在高階主管遴選與環境策略整合方面，具有重要的實務參考價值。

Green innovation is crucial for corporate sustainability but requires long-term commitment. Drawing on upper echelons and place attachment theories, this study investigates how CEO locality drives green innovation and how temporal cognitive frames (present vs. future focus) moderate this relationship. Using a panel dataset of S&P 500 firms (1999–2024) and employing the Poisson Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood (PPML) estimator, we find that local CEOs significantly increase green patent generation, particularly within high-polluting industries facing severe environmental externalities. However, this localized stewardship is bounded by executive attention: a strong present focus significantly weakens the local CEO effect. Conversely, future focus does not significantly amplify this relationship, suggesting that identity-based motivation and strategic temporal orientation may operate through independent rather than interactive mechanisms in driving green innovation. This study contributes to the strategic leadership literature by demonstrating that while CEO locality acts as a natural engine for sustainability, its potential is easily stalled by short-term performance pressures. These findings offer actionable insights for corporate boards regarding executive selection and environmental strategy alignment.

1. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.
2. Andrikogiannopoulou, A., Ventouri, A., & Yonker, S. E. (2025). Not in my backyard: Intrinsic motivation and corporate pollution abatement. Review of Finance, 29(4), 1067–1104.
3. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
4. Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of 'green' inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 891–909.
5. Chen, Y. S., Lai, S. B., & Wen, C. T. (2006). The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 331–339.
6. Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives' values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197–232.
7. Chirico, F., Eddleston, K. A., & Patel, P. C. (2025). Does it pay to patent green innovations? Stock market reactions to family and nonfamily firms' green patents. Journal of Business Ethics, 198(4), 947–970.
8. DesJardine, M. R., & Shi, W. (2021). How temporal focus shapes the influence of executive compensation on risk taking. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 265–292.
9. Di Giuli, A., & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 158–180.
10. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
11. Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 369–406.
12. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
13. Li, W., Xu, Q., & Zhu, Q. (2025). CEO hometown preference in corporate environmental policies. Management Science, 71(10), 8783–8806.
14. Martin, G. P., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Wiseman, R. M. (2013). Executive stock options as mixed gambles: Revisiting the behavioral agency model. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 451-472.
15. Nadkarni, S., & Chen, J. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1810–1833.
16. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187–206.
17. Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.
18. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10.
19. Silva, J. M. C. S., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658.
20. Walls, J. L., & Berrone, P. (2017). The power of one to make a difference: How informal and formal CEO power affect environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 293–308.
21. Wiseman, R. M., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1998). A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 133-153.
22. Yadav, M. S., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2007). Managing the future: CEO attention and innovation outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 84–101.