我國需求反應式運輸（Demand-Responsive Transit Service, DRTS）政策推動多年，偏鄉公共運輸涵蓋率大幅提升，惟業者普遍面臨補貼依賴、駕駛留任困難、成本收入落差等永續經營課題，現有ESG（Environmental, Social, and Governance）評估架構多為大型企業設計，難以適用於資源有限之小型業者。本研究以此問題意識，探討資源有限之小型運輸業者應如何有效推動ESG。本研究以資本額約新臺幣1,000萬元之D公司（承接臺南市、嘉義縣、新竹縣共51條DRTS路線）為個案，採二階段研究設計：第一階段以層級分析法（Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP）建立十二項ESG指標之全局權重，結合重要度可行性分析（Importance-Achievability Analysis, IAA）評估可行性，依重要性可行性四象限篩選關鍵缺口指標，第二階段以VRIO資源診斷架構（Value, Rarity, Imitability, Organization）檢視關鍵指標之價值性、稀少性、難模仿性與組織性，區分「資源不足（B類）」與「資源未活化（C類）」兩種障礙。問卷分別回收11位與12位產、官、學專家，並以一致性比率（Consistency Ratio, C.R.）≤0.2與Cronbach's α檢定資料品質。結果顯示，僅G3（營運成本回收率，權重0.1501）與S2（駕駛福祉與留才，權重0.1452）落入第二象限。VRIO診斷發現二者資源基礎迥異：S2四項屬性均達門檻，判定為持續競爭優勢，屬C類障礙。G3之價值性屬性未達門檻，判定為競爭劣勢，屬B類障礙，證實同樣「做不到」，其成因未必相同。本研究並蒐集跨縣市補貼費率、評鑑規範及撥款時程等公開資料，佐證G3之資源缺口與現行補貼機制設計、法規遵循成本增加等結構性因素密切相關，非僅個案內部管理問題所致。
本研究整合AHP、IAA與VRIO三套方法，建構首個適用於資源有限小型運輸業者之「ESG-資源基礎理論（Resource-Based View, RBV）輕量化評估框架」，使ESG評估從「現象識別」升級為「成因診斷」。依B類、C類障礙區分，本研究對D公司提出差異化策略：G3宜採資源建構型策略，優先建立成本數據機制、開發多元收入來源。S2宜採資源活化型策略，優先制度化既有優勢並對外溝通。此外，落入第一象限之既有優勢指標（S3、S4、G1、G2）則提出優先執行策略建議，僅憑AHP與IAA篩選結果即可支持，毋須另行診斷。建議業者優先推動優先執行策略與低成本、見效快之C類策略，再分階段投入B類長期建構，形成優先執行、資源活化型、資源建構型三層次策略組合，為資源受限之偏鄉運輸業者提供兼具理論與實務可行性之決策工具。

Taiwan's rural Demand-Responsive Transit Service (DRTS) operators face subsidy dependence, driver retention difficulties, and cost-revenue gaps, yet existing ESG frameworks (Global Reporting Initiative [GRI], Sustainability Accounting Standards Board [SASB], and Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures [TCFD]) are designed for large corporations and ill-suited to resource-constrained small operators. Using Company D, a firm with approximately NT$10 million in registered capital that operates 51 DRTS routes across Tainan, Chiayi, and Hsinchu, as its case, this study applies a two-stage design: Stage One uses AHP to weight twelve ESG indicators and IAA to assess feasibility, classifying indicators into an IPA quadrant matrix to identify critical-gap indicators; Stage Two applies VRIO to these indicators to distinguish resource deficiency (Type B) from resource under-activation (Type C). Eleven and twelve experts completed the two questionnaires, with data quality verified via C.R. ≤ 0.2 and Cronbach's α.
Only G3 (Operating Cost Recovery Ratio) and S2 (Driver Welfare and Retention) fell into the critical-gap quadrant. VRIO diagnosis showed contrasting profiles: S2 met all four attribute thresholds (Type C), while G3's Value attribute fell short (Type B), confirming that indicators sharing the same infeasibility can stem from different root causes. This study further collected cross-county subsidy rates, evaluation regulations, and disbursement timelines, corroborating that G3's resource gap is closely tied to structural factors such as the current subsidy mechanism design and rising regulatory compliance costs, rather than being solely an internal management issue of the case company. Integrating AHP, IAA, and VRIO, this study builds the first "Lightweight ESG-RBV Assessment Framework" for resource-constrained transit operators, advancing ESG evaluation from phenomenon identification to root-cause diagnosis, and proposing differentiated strategies for G3 and S2.

一、中文文獻
台灣大車隊（2024）。2023年永續報告書。
交通部統計處（2022）。計程車營運狀況調查報告。
和泰汽車（2024）。2023年永續報告書。
宅配通（2024）。2023年永續報告書。
財團法人中華顧問工程司（2023）。偏鄉智行推動計畫－交通運輸產業ESG現況發展與推動議題。
陳怡君（2023）。探討偏鄉公共運輸永續服務策略（碩士論文）。國立成功大學交通管理科學系碩士在職專班。
張學孔、鍾志宜、王穆衡（2010）。先進公共運輸系統發展計畫－需求反應式運輸服務營運績效評估及發展策略之研究。交通部運輸研究所。
康書嫚（2005）。需求反應式運輸服務營運與排班之研究（碩士論文）。國立交通大學交通運輸研究所。
經濟部中小及新創企業署（2023）。2023年中小企業白皮書。
 
二、英文文獻
Alonso, J. A., & Lamata, M. T. (2006). Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 14(4), 445-459.
Ambrosino, G., Nelson, J. D., & Romanazzo, M. (2004). Demand responsive transport services: Towards the flexible mobility agency. ENEA (Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment).
Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87-103.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining competitive advantage. Oxford University Press.
Barth, M., & Boriboonsomsin, K. (2008). Real-world carbon dioxide impacts of traffic congestion. Transportation Research Record, 2058, 163-171.
Bryan, K. A., & Gans, J. S. (2019). A theory of multihoming in rideshare competition. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 28(4), 771-797.
Busch, T., Bauer, R., & Orlitzky, M. (2016). Sustainable development and financial markets: Old paths and new avenues. Business & Society, 55(3), 303-329.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1511.
Domini, A. (2001). Socially responsible investing: Making a difference and making money. Dearborn Trade Publishing.
Eccles, R. G., & Serafeim, G. (2013). The performance frontier: Innovating for a sustainable strategy. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 50-60.
Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., & Ferreira, F. A. (2022). What makes organizations unique? Looking inside the box. Journal of Business Research, 139, 664-674.
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
Grewal, J., Riedl, E. J., & Serafeim, G. (2019). Market reaction to mandatory nonfinancial disclosure. Management Science, 65(7), 3061-3084.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 122-128.
Henisz, W. J., Koller, T., & Nuttall, R. (2019). Five ways that ESG creates value. McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 64-73.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672.
KPMG. (2013). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2013. KPMG International.
Kuftinova, N. G., Izmailova, D. K., Ostroukh, A. V., & Pirozhkov, M. A. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance factors in transportation planning. Intelligent Technologies and Electronic Devices in Vehicle and Road Transport Complex (TIRVED).
Lecompte, C. M., & Juan Pablo, B. S. (2017). Transport systems and their impact on gender equity. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 4245-4257.
Liang, X., Zheng, X., & Lv, Y. (2018). The impact of privacy concerns on taxi passengers' willingness to share information. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 93, 302-316.
Lin, C., Tsai, H. L., Wu, Y. J., & Kiang, M. (2012). A fuzzy quantitative VRIO-based framework for evaluating organizational activities. Management Decision, 50(8), 1396-1411.
Lin, P., Zhang, X., Yan, S., & Jiang, Q. (2020). Dynamic capabilities and business model innovation of platform enterprise: A case study of DiDi taxi. Scientific Programming, 2020, 8257317.
Litman, T. (2002). Evaluating transportation equity. World Transport Policy & Practice, 8(2), 50-65.
Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105-113.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1)Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press.
Pham, T. N., Tran, P. P., Le, M.-H., Vo, H. N., Pham, C. D., & Nguyen, H.-D. (2022). The effects of ESG combined score on business performance of enterprises in the transportation industry. Sustainability, 14(14), 8354.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
Rezaee, Z. (2016). Business sustainability research: A theoretical and integrated perspective. Journal of Accounting Literature, 36, 48-64.
Rodrigue, J.-P. (2024). The geography of transport systems (6th ed.). Routledge.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill.
Saratian, E. T. P., Akbar, T., Suparno, & Mukhtar, S. (2025). AHP and CLD as pre-research tools for strategic ESG-based competency models: A resource-based view in action. Jurnal Informatika Ekonomi Bisnis, 7(2), 315-322.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273-292.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Uber. (2025). 2024 environmental, social and governance report.
UN Global Compact. (2004). Who cares wins: Connecting financial markets to a changing world.
Wang, Z. (2023). Multihoming on ride-hailing platforms in Asia. Centre for Management Practice.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Wheeler, D., Colbert, B. A., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing on value: Reconciling corporate social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world. Journal of General Management, 28(3), 1-28.
Yang, H.-H., Chang, Y.-H., & Lin, C.-H. (2022). A combined approach for selecting drone management strategies based on the ICAO Safety Management System (SMS) components. Journal of Air Transport Management, 104, 102257.