因近年來氣候變遷威脅下促使世界各國政府紛紛制定再生能源政策，台灣政府從善如流加入聯合國宣示 2050 年達到淨零碳排的長期目標，民間團體亦發起 100% 使用再生能源 RE100 等倡議活動，企業在日益濃厚的 ESG 永續議題之氛圍下開始積極響應。此外，台灣企業在面臨品牌客戶的要求、政府法令強制規範以及企業社會責任的趨勢下，已有少數綠電先鋒企業開始行動，以逐年達到 2050 年前 100% 使用綠電的目標。本文所收錄企業分析對象為加入國際 RE100 倡議活動、台灣 RE10x10 倡議活動以及接受權威媒體敘獎之企業，均屬於在環境永續方面具濃厚意識者。
本文利用 Carroll Model 中經濟、法律以及倫理三項企業社會責任領域理論來解釋現行台灣企業的綠電行為，資料收錄涵蓋 35 家台灣企業在 2020 年度營收、總用電量以及綠電比率等相關資料進行量化分析，實證結果得到具備經濟責任的企業使用綠電比例，平均而言顯著地較不具備經濟責任的公司高 16.7% ~ 20.7%，反應出台灣企業採用綠電其背後主要動機與身處綠電產業以及台灣製造業代工的商業模式有關，在國際品牌客戶強烈要求下必須配合使用綠電；至於法律責任、倫理責任、用電密度以及是否加入綠電倡議活動等因素則與使用綠電較不具統計上之顯著差異。

As the increasing threat of extreme climate change, Taiwan government has announced the renewable energy policy to achieve long-term Net Zero Emissions by 2050. Not only public sector but also some leading private Taiwanese enterprises joined international RE100 or local RE10x10 initiative to accelerate the commitment to take action on adopting 100% renewable energy gradually. Taiwanese enterprises’ awareness has transformed from CSR to ESG since they are influenced by the trend of environmental sustainability and requested by international brand companies.
This paper uses the revised three-domain theory based on Carroll (2003) to explain the Green Electricity rate utilization of Taiwanese green energy pioneers. We collect 35 environmental awarded Taiwanese companies’ data in 2020, where variables include sales revenue, total electricity consumption, energy density, RE commitment and Green Electricity rate. Statistical analysis shows that the Green Electricity rate of companies with Economic responsibility is significantly higher than those without Economic responsibility by 16.7-20.7% on average. It reflects that OEM business model about companies green electricity adoption has been strongly requested from international brand customers. While Legal responsibility, Ethical responsibility don’t reveal any significant difference. The companies’ electricity consumption, power density, and whether to join RE initiatives don’t have a significant relation with Green Electricity rate as well.

1. Aupperle, K. E., A. B. Carroll and J. D. Hatfield (1985): “An Empirical Examination of the Relationships between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability,” Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
2. Carroll, A. B. (1991): “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders,” Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
3. Carroll, A. B. (2016): “Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR: Taking another Look,” International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(1), 1-8.
4. Friede, G., T. Busch and A. Bassen (2015): “ESG and Financial Performance: Aggregated Evidence from More Than 2000 Empirical Studies,” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210-233.
5. Gholami, S. (2011): “Value Creation Model through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),” International Journal of Business and Management, 6(9), 148-154.
6. Kim, J. H., H. J. Kim and S. H. Yoo (2019): “Willingness to Pay Price Premium for Smartphones Produced Using Renewable Energy,” Sustainability, 11(6), 1566, 1-11.
7. Lee, S. S., Y. Kim and T. Roh (2019): “Modified Pyramid of CSR for Corporate Image and Customer Loyalty: Focusing on the Moderating Role of the CSR Experience,” Sustainability, 11(17), 4745, 1-21.
8. Meynhardt, T. and P. Gomez (2019): “Building Blocks for Alternative Four-dimensional Pyramids of Corporate Social Responsibilities,” Business & Society, 58(2), 404-438.
9. Schwartz, M. S. and A. B. Carroll (2003): “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-domain Approach,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530.
10. Zhu, C. and Y. Zhang (2021): “Corporate Philanthropic Giving and Nature of Stock Market Reaction: Evidence from China,” Managerial and Decision Economics, 1-21.
11. 邵冰如 (2021): 《從沙龍到聯合國：歐萊德創辦人葛望平的綠色模式》。台灣:天下文化。
12. 齊若蘭 (譯) (2022): 《恆久卓越的修煉》。臺北市:天下雜誌。(Collins, J. and Lazier, B., 2020)