本文以利害關係人理論與合法性理論為分析架構，探討企業環境、社會及公司治理（ESG）績效與租稅規避之關聯，並進一步檢視環境、社會及治理三項構面的異質性效果，以及高汙染產業特性之調節作用。研究以 2020 年至 2024 年臺灣上市櫃公司為樣本，共計 6,390 筆公司－年度觀測值，採用台灣經濟新報（TEJ）之 TESG 永續發展指標衡量企業 ESG 績效，並以三項有效稅率及兩項財稅差異指標衡量租稅規避程度。實證結果顯示，ESG 整體績效愈佳之企業，其有效稅率顯著較高，且財稅差異顯著較小，顯示良好的 ESG 績效與較低程度之租稅規避具有穩定關聯，支持利害關係人理論之預期。進一步分析發現，環境構面對租稅規避呈現最全面且一致的抑制效果；治理構面之影響主要反映於企業現金納稅行為；社會構面則於部分指標中與較高程度之租稅規避相關，顯示合法性動機亦具有一定解釋力。此外，ESG 績效對租稅規避之抑制效果在高汙染產業中更為顯著。額外分析結果與主要發現大致一致，顯示研究結論不受特定分析方法或 ESG 衡量尺度所影響。整體而言，本研究說明企業 ESG 活動可能同時反映倫理承諾與策略性回應，並凸顯區分 ESG 個別構面及產業情境的重要性。

This study draws on stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory to examine the association between corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and tax avoidance. It further investigates the heterogeneous effects of the environmental, social, and governance dimensions and the moderating role of high-pollution industry characteristics. Using 6,390 firm-year observations of Taiwanese listed and over-the-counter firms from 2020 to 2024, this study measures ESG performance using the TESG sustainability ratings provided by the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ). Tax avoidance is measured using three effective tax rate measures and two book-tax difference measures. The results show that firms with better overall ESG performance have significantly higher effective tax rates and smaller book-tax differences, indicating a robust association between stronger ESG performance and lower tax avoidance. This finding is consistent with stakeholder theory. Further analyses reveal substantial heterogeneity across the three ESG dimensions. Environmental performance exhibits the most comprehensive and consistent constraining effect on tax avoidance, whereas the effect of governance performance is primarily reflected in firms’ cash tax payments. In contrast, social performance is associated with greater tax avoidance under certain measures, suggesting that legitimacy-based motivations also have explanatory power. Moreover, the constraining association between ESG performance and tax avoidance is more pronounced among firms in high-pollution industries. Additional analyses yield results broadly consistent with the main findings, indicating that the conclusions are not driven by a particular analytical method or ESG measurement scale. Overall, the findings suggest that corporate ESG activities may reflect both ethical commitments and strategic responses, highlighting the importance of considering individual ESG dimensions and industry contexts.

中文文獻
王肇蘭與蔡怡徵，2016，企業社會責任與財稅差異之關聯，會計審計論叢，第 6 卷第 1 期，頁 1-22。
汪瑞芝與李佳駿，2019，企業社會責任對避稅行為之影響，證券市場發展季刊，第 31 卷第 1 期，頁 47-86。
侯啟娉、蔡玉琴、倪伯煌與李子文，2017，財務績效、公司稅與企業社會責任揭露，商管科技季刊，第 18 卷第 1 期，頁 75-100。
范宏書、林彥廷與陳慶隆，2022，內部控制缺失對盈餘管理與租稅規避相關之財稅差異的影響，會計評論，第 74 期，頁 47-102。
范宏書、鄭佳綾、周坤約與黃大維，2025，負面企業聲譽事件與企業避稅程度之關聯性，輔仁管理評論，第 32 卷第 1 期，頁 23-46。
黃美祝，2019，董事連結與企業避稅程度之關聯性，臺大管理論叢，第 29 卷第 2 期，頁 201-232。
魏妤珊，2017，有社會責任的公司比較不會避稅嗎？—台灣上市公司實證，管理與系統，第 24 卷第 3 期，頁 393-431。
羅能清與周麗芳，2023，上市櫃公司永續報告書應揭露稅務透明度之研析，財稅研究，第 52 卷第 3 期，頁 32-55。
蘇迺惠與朱珮瑜，2020，企業社會責任與租稅規避之關係：經理人持股的調節效果，會計評論，第 71 期，頁 133-182。
英文文獻
Avi-Yonah, R. S. 2014. Corporate taxation and corporate social responsibility. New York University Journal of Law & Business 11 (1): 1–30.
Chen, S., X. Chen, Q. Cheng, and T. Shevlin. 2010. Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms? Journal of Financial Economics 95 (January): 41–61.
Cho, C. H., and D. M. Patten. 2007. The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society 32 (October–November): 639–647.
Clarkson, P. M., Y. Li, G. D. Richardson, and F. P. Vasvari. 2008. Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33 (April–May): 303–327.
Desai, M. A., and D. Dharmapala. 2009. Corporate tax avoidance and firm value. The Review of Economics and Statistics 91 (August): 537–546.
Dowling, J., and J. Pfeffer. 1975. Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific sociological review 18(1), 122-136.
Freeman, R. E. 2010. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, M. 2007. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In Corporate ethics and corporate governance, 173–178. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Godfrey, P. C. 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review 30 (October): 777–798.
Gupta, S., and K. Newberry. 1997. Determinants of the variability in corporate effective tax rates: Evidence from longitudinal data. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 16 (January): 1–34.
Hanlon, M., and J. Slemrod. 2009. What does tax aggressiveness signal? Evidence from stock price reactions to news about tax shelter involvement. Journal of Public Economics 93 (January–February): 126–141.
Hardeck, I., and R. Hertl. 2014. Consumer reactions to corporate tax strategies: Effects on corporate reputation and purchasing behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 123 (February): 309–326.
Hemingway, C. A., and P. W. Maclagan. 2004. Managers' personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 50 (January): 33–44.
Hoi, C. K., Q. Wu, and H. Zhang. 2013. Is corporate social responsibility (CSR) associated with tax avoidance? Evidence from irresponsible CSR activities. The Accounting Review 88 (November): 2025–2059.
Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling. 2019. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. In Corporate governance, 77–132. Gower.
Laguir, I., R. Staglianò, and J. Elbaz. 2015. Does corporate social responsibility affect corporate tax aggressiveness? Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (November): 662–675.
Lanis, R., and G. Richardson. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 31 (January): 86–108.
Lanis, R., and G. Richardson. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26 (January): 75–100.
Marques, M., T. M. Montenegro, and F. A. Brás. 2024. Tax avoidance and corporate social responsibility: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Taxation Association 46 (Spring): 137–156.
Mills, L., M. M. Erickson, and E. L. Maydew. 1998. Investments in tax planning. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 20 (Spring): 1–20.
Phillips, J., M. Pincus, and S. O. Rego. 2003. Earnings management: New evidence based on deferred tax expense. The Accounting Review 78 (April): 491-521.
Porter, M. E., and M. R. Kramer. 2006. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84 (December): 78–92.
Prior, D., J. Surroca, and J. A. Tribó. 2008. Are socially responsible managers really ethical? Exploring the relationship between earnings management and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review 16 (May–June): 160–177.
Siegfried, J. J. 1974. Effective average U.S. corporation income tax rates. National Tax Journal 27 (June): 245–259.
Souguir, Z., N. Lassoued, I. Khanchel, and H. Bouzgarrou. 2024. Environmental performance and corporate tax avoidance: Greenwashing policy or eco-responsibility? The moderating role of ownership structure. Journal of Cleaner Production 434 (February): 140152.
Stickney, C. P., and V. E. McGee. 1982. Effective corporate tax rates: The effect of size, capital intensity, leverage, and other factors. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 1 (Summer): 125–152.
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20 (July): 571–610.
Todaro, D. L., and R. Torelli. 2024. From greenwashing to ESG‐washing: A focus on the circular economy field. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 31 (September–October): 4034–4046.
Yoon, B., J. H. Lee, and J. H. Cho. 2021. The effect of ESG performance on tax avoidance—evidence from Korea. Sustainability 13 (June): 6729.
Zimmerman, J. L. 1983. Taxes and firm size. Journal of Accounting and Economics 5 (October): 119–149.