隨著永續發展與責任投資的理念普及，環境、社會與公司治理 (Environmental, Social and Governance, ESG) 已成為評估企業長期競爭力的重要指標。本研究旨在探討台灣高科技企業投入 ESG 是否能帶來實質的財務績效。我們使用了台灣經濟新報 (Taiwan Economic Journal, TEJ) 所建置的 TESG 永續發展指標，並對照三項常見的財務指標：資產報酬率 (Return on Assets, ROA)、股東權益報酬率 (Return on Equity, ROE) 以及每股盈餘 (Earnings Per Share, EPS)。研究對象為 21 家台灣高科技企業，分析期間涵蓋 2016 年至 2024 年。
實證結果發現，TEJ 提供的 TESG 分數越高，對企業的 EPS 幫助越明顯。而且這種效益需要時間發酵，也就是前一年的 TESG 表現，對隔年獲利的提升最為顯著（具有時間遞延性）。相較之下，TESG 對 ROA 與 ROE 的影響則沒有那麼明顯。進一步將 ESG 拆解來看，以「社會 (Social)」面向對提升企業獲利的效果最為突出。
此外，本研究也特別將時間軸獨立拆分為三個階段來觀察：新冠肺炎疫情期間 (COVID)、人工智慧紅利期間 (Artificial Intelligence Bonus, AI_BONUS) 以及排除疫情高基期干擾後的人工智慧期間 (Artificial Intelligence 2, AI_2)。結果顯示，疫情期間確實為高科技業帶來短期的財務紅利；而 AI_BONUS 與 AI_2 期間的數據，則因為剛好遇到電子業景氣循環、庫存去化，且 AI 獲利僅集中在少數受惠企業，因此不能單純解讀為 AI 沒有帶來好處，需要更謹慎評估。整體而言，企業做 ESG 並不會立刻讓所有的財務數字同步呈現正向增長，而是呈現「挑選特定指標反映（選擇性）」、「需要時間發酵（遞延性）」以及「不同面向效果差異大（構面異質性）」三大特徵。

As the concepts of sustainability and responsible investment continue to gain traction, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance has become a critical metric for evaluating a firm's long-term competitiveness and risk management capabilities. This study explores the substantive impact of ESG performance on corporate financial outcomes within Taiwan's high-tech sector. Using the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ) TESG sustainability index, this research analyzes panel data from 21 Taiwanese high-tech firms between 2016 and 2024. Financial performance is measured using Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE), and Earnings Per Share (EPS).
Empirical results indicate that a higher TESG score significantly and positively impacts a firm's EPS. Furthermore, this effect demonstrates a time lag, with the prior year's TESG performance having a more pronounced impact on current earnings. Conversely, the influence of ESG on ROA and ROE is not robustly significant. When decomposing the ESG index into its three pillars, the Social (S) dimension emerges as the primary driver of improved earnings performance in the high-tech sector.
To control for macroeconomic shocks, the study isolates three distinct periods: the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID), the initial Artificial Intelligence boom (AI_BONUS), and a subsequent AI period adjusted for pandemic base effects (AI_2, 2023–2024). The findings confirm a short-term financial premium during the COVID period. However, the coefficients observed during the AI_BONUS and AI_2 periods should be interpreted with caution, as they coincided with post-pandemic inventory corrections, industry-wide cyclical downturns, and the concentration of AI benefits among a limited number of firms. Ultimately, the financial impact of ESG is not instantaneous or universal across all metrics; rather, it is characterized by selectivity, time delays, and dimensional heterogeneity.

中文文獻 :
台灣經濟新報（Taiwan Jingji Xinbao）（2025）。TESG 永續發展指標技術手冊［TESG Sustainability Index Technical Manual］。台北：台灣經濟新報文化事業股份有限公司。
池祥麟（Chi Xianglin）（2017）。企業社會責任—行為財務學的觀點［Corporate social responsibility: A behavioral finance perspective］。證券市場發展季刊，29（4），63－104。
金融監督管理委員會（Jinrong Jiandu Guanli Weiyuanhui）（2023）。上市櫃公司永續發展行動方案［Sustainable Development Action Plan for TWSE/TPEx Listed Companies］。台北：金融監督管理委員會。
張元（Zhang Yuan）（2011）。社會責任公司有較高的股票報酬嗎？［Do socially responsible firms have higher stock returns?］。輔仁管理評論，18（1），79－118。
陳育成、許峰睿、黃聖雯（Chen Yucheng、Xu Fengrui、Huang Shengwen）（2013）。企業社會責任與經營績效之關聯性研究［A study on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and operating performance］。評價學報，6，53－72。
陳庭萱、何瑞鎮、林玉婷（Chen Tingxuan、He Ruizhen、Lin Yuting）（2016）。企業社會責任對長短期股價的影響：以臺灣銀行業為例［The impact of corporate social responsibility on short- and long-term stock prices: Evidence from Taiwan's banking industry］。證券市場發展季刊，28（4），129－169。
經濟部（Jingji Bu）（2024）。經濟部提供科技事業或文化創意產業具市場性意見書作業要點。台北：經濟部。
楊欣穎（Yang Xinying）（2018）。淺談資本市場永續性倡議與 ESG 資訊揭露之推動［A brief discussion of capital market sustainability initiatives and the promotion of ESG information disclosure］。證券服務，663，41－46。
詹場、柯文乾、池祥麟（Zhan Chang、Ke Wenqian、Chi Xianglin）（2016）。CSR 能為公司經營策略帶來什麼好處？—來自世界頂級學術期刊之證據［What benefits can CSR bring to corporate business strategy? Evidence from top international academic journals］。商略學報，8（2），77－86。
臺灣證券交易所（Taiwan Zhengquan Jiaoyisuo）（2025）。上市公司編製與申報永續報告書作業辦法［Regulations Governing the Preparation and Filing of Sustainability Reports by Listed Companies］。台北：臺灣證券交易所。
英文文獻 :
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304-1320. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1980
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2,000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210-233.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13.
Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697-1724.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603-609.
Nollet, J., Filis, G., & Mitrokostas, E. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A non-linear and disaggregated approach. Economic Modelling, 52, 400-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.09.019
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.