隨著永續議題的重要性日漸提升，公司治理評鑑已成為評估企業永續作為的重要制度工具。然而，現行評鑑究竟能否反映企業實質環境績效，或主要依賴揭露層面的資訊，仍存有研究缺口。本研究旨在探討企業碳排放如何影響公司治理評鑑結果，並檢驗永續揭露品質在其中所扮演的中介角色，同時分析 ISO 認證、出口依存度、外資持股與國內金融機構持股等情境因素是否調節此一關係。
本研究使用 2019 至 2024 年台灣上市公司之縱橫資料，並採固定效果模型、結構方程模型（SEM）及重抽樣（bootstrap）中介效果檢定進行實證檢驗。實證結果顯示，公司治理評鑑較傾向回應企業的揭露行為，而非實質碳排放水準；碳排放主要透過提升 GRI 揭露品質進而影響治理評鑑，支持部分中介效果。在調節效果方面，國內金融機構持股會顯著強化企業碳排放與碳揭露之間的正向關係，而 ISO 認證在結構方程模型下亦呈現部分調節效果；反之，出口依存度與外資持股並未對此關係產生明顯影響。
本研究說明公司治理評鑑對資訊透明度的偏好，並指出機構投資人，尤其是國內金融機構，在企業永續揭露行為中具有關鍵影響；研究結果對治理制度設計及永續政策推動具有實務意涵。

Corporate governance evaluations are widely used to assess sustainability practices, yet it remains uncertain whether they reflect substantive environmental performance or mainly reward disclosure behaviors. This study examines how carbon emissions influence governance evaluation outcomes and whether sustainability disclosure quality mediates this relationship.
Using panel data on Taiwanese listed firms from 2019 to 2024, the analysis combines firm-year fixed-effects regressions, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and bootstrap inference to identify mediation and moderated mediation effects. The roles of ISO certifications, export intensity, foreign ownership, and domestic financial ownership are also evaluated.
The results show that governance evaluations respond more strongly to disclosure quality than to actual emission performance. Carbon emissions affect governance scores primarily through improved GRI-based disclosure, indicating a partial mediation effect. Among the moderators, only domestic financial ownership consistently strengthens this emission–disclosure linkage; ISO exerts limited influence under SEM, while export intensity and foreign ownership show no meaningful moderation.
Overall, the findings suggest that evaluation systems emphasize transparency over substantive environmental outcomes and underscore the influence of domestic financial institutions in shaping the disclosure behavior.

Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes, 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.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Cheng, I.-H., Hong, H., & Shue, K. (2014). Do managers do good with other people’s money? Journal of Financial Economics, 114(2), 355–370.
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327.
Clarkson, P. M., Overell, M. B., & Chapple, L. (2011). Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate environmental performance. Abacus, 47(1), 27–60.
Darnall, N., & Carmin, J. (2013). Greener and cleaner? The signaling accuracy of U.S. voluntary environmental programs. Policy Sciences, 46(2), 121–149.
Gunzler, D., Chen, T., Wu, P., & Zhang, H. (2013). Introduction to mediation analysis with structural equation modeling. Psychology Methods and Design, 1–30.
Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918–1927.
Houston, J. F., & Shan, H. (2022). Banking on green: The role of banks in shaping corporate environmental transparency. Journal of Banking & Finance. Advance online publication.
Huang, R.-D., & Kung, H.-Y. (2010). Drivers of environmental disclosure: Evidence from foreign institutional ownership in Taiwan. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 18(2), 144–159.
Hummel, K., & Schlick, C. (2016). The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure: Reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 35(5), 455–476.
KPMG. (2022). The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022. KPMG International. https://www.sustainability-reports.com/four-in-five-largest-global-companies-report-with-gri/
Lee, S.-Y., & Lee, K.-H. (2022). Export intensity, global supply chain pressure, and carbon disclosure quality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 1184–1200.
Liao, C.-H., & Chen, X.-X. (2021). Corporate governance scores, sustainability disclosure, and environmental performance: Evidence from Taiwan. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(5), 1402–1418.
Luo, L., Tang, Q., & Lan, Y.-C. (2023). Carbon disclosure, assurance, and capital market responses. The British Accounting Review, 55(3), 101129.
Millo, G. (2017). Robust standard error estimators for panel models: A unifying approach. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(3), 1–27.
Ojiako, U., Author2, A. A., & Author3, B. B. (2024). ISO 14001 certification, stakeholder responses, and perceived greenwashing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 412, 137000.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.
Seroka-Stolka, O., & Fijorek, K. (2022). ISO 14001 certification, greenwashing risk, and credibility of environmental communication. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30, 350–362.
Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (2008). Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression. Econometrica, 76(1), 155–174.
Temiz, H., Author2, A. A., & Author3, B. B. (2023). Foreign ownership and the quality of carbon disclosure. International Journal of Economics and Energy Policy, 13(1), 1–15.
Wang, X. (2023). Bank dependence and firms’ environmental transparency: Evidence from sustainability-linked lending. Journal of Corporate Finance, 78, 102451.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.