在數位科技迅速進步與全球永續發展浪潮交織的時代背景下，數位轉型已不僅是企業提升營運效率的技術性手段，而是驅動組織深層變革、形塑治理創新及實現永續發展的重要動力。臺灣半導體封測產業作為全球價值鏈的重要節點，面對高效能運算（HPC）、人工智慧（AI）、高階封裝技術快速演進及外部ESG規範壓力，如何以數位轉型為觸媒，發展具韌性且符合永續目標的組織能力，已成為企業治理的重大課題。
　　本研究以日月光半導體高雄廠為研究個案，採用單一個案嵌入式質性研究設計，聚焦探討數位轉型、組織變革與永續發展三者的交織互動機制。研究結合中高階主管及基層員工深度訪談、內部策略文件、ESG報告及公開資料，進行多元資料交叉分析。研究重點聚焦於：第一，企業如何策略性導入數位工具，以重塑治理架構、強化數據驅動決策及跨部門協作模式；第二，數位轉型如何促發組織結構、流程與文化的調適與重塑，並形成具持續性與動態性的治理能力；第三，企業如何透過數位轉型與組織調適過程，實現永續行動由外部合規走向內在價值的內嵌化轉型。
　　研究結果顯示，數位轉型能否成功驅動永續發展，關鍵在於企業是否能從「資源重組」提升至「行動邏輯轉化」層次，藉由數位觸發、組織調適與文化內化形成韌性治理體系。日月光高雄廠的經驗表明，數位轉型若僅視為效率工具，易淪為技術空轉；唯有作為反思與創新的觸媒，才能促發治理革新與永續價值深層內化。本研究建構出「數位觸發－組織調適－永續內嵌」動態轉型架構，除回應文獻中對數位轉型與永續發展整合研究的需求外，亦為製造業在多重轉型壓力下提供具體的策略指引與治理洞見。

Digital transformation offers organizations the potential to pursue sustainable development by aligning technological innovation with environmental, social, and economic goals. However, the mechanisms linking digital initiatives to long-term sustainability objectives remain underexplored. This study develops an integrated theoretical framework, drawing on Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze model, Kotter’s eight-step change model, and Weick’s dynamic adaptation perspective, to conceptualize digital transformation as a holistic driver of organizational change. We propose that digital initiatives act as catalysts that break old routines, guide transitional change efforts, and eventually refreeze new, sustainability-aligned practices. Using an embedded single-case study of Advanced Semiconductor Engineering’s (ASE) Kaohsiung plant, this research examines how digital initiatives catalyze multi-level organizational shifts. The analysis reveals that digital transformation triggers mediating mechanisms across levels: it first unfreezes legacy routines, which are then reshaped through targeted human resource interventions and governance restructuring, before refreezing as an embedded ESG-focused culture. Human resource management emerges as a crucial mediator by facilitating employee upskilling and cultural alignment, while revamped governance frameworks ensure that digital strategy incorporates environmental and social objectives. Together, leadership actions, HR practices, and structural reforms transform technological innovation into sustainable organizational outcomes. By integrating digital transformation with organizational change and sustainability literature, the findings extend theory by showing how static change models (Lewin, Kotter) can be complemented with Weick’s notion of continuous adaptation to achieve sustainability goals. Specifically, the model highlights how vision-driven leadership and organizational readiness drive sustainable digital adoption. These findings provide practical insights for managers and organizational leaders, suggesting that aligning digital innovation with robust HR strategy and ESG governance is key to achieving long-term sustainable development.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133–141.
Besson, P., & Rowe, F. (2012). Strategizing information systems-enabled organizational transformation: A transdisciplinary review and new directions. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(2), 103–124.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482.
Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of cleaner production, 65, 42-56.
Bondarouk, T., & Brewster, C. (2016). Conceptualising the future of HRM and technology research. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(21), 2652–2671.
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002.
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2006). Competing values leadership: Creating value in organizations. In Competing Values Leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Elkington, J. (1997). The triple bottom line. Environmental management: Readings and cases, 2, 49-66.
Feroz, A. K., Zo, H., & Chiravuri, A. (2021). Digital transformation and environmental sustainability: A review and research agenda. Sustainability, 13(3), 1530.
Furr, N., & Shipilov, A. (2019). Digital doesn't have to be disruptive: the best results can come from adaptation rather than reinvention. Harvard Business Review, 97(4), 94-104.
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274.
Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(2), 56-67.
Henri, J. F. (2006). Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Accounting, organizations and society, 31(1), 77-103.
Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2014). Digital ubiquity: How connections, sensors, and data are revolutionizing business. Harvard business review, 92(11), 19.
Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., & Gawankar, S. A. (2018). Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process safety and environmental protection, 117, 408-425.
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan management review.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard business review, 73(2), 59-67.
Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in social psychology, 3(1), 197-211.
Marler, J. H., & Fisher, S. L. (2013). An evidence-based review of e-HRM and strategic human resource management. Human resource management review, 23(1), 18-36.
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business & information systems engineering, 57, 339-343.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review, 33(2), 404-424.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization science, 3(3), 398-427.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. sage.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), 78-92.
Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. V. D. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of economic perspectives, 9(4), 97-118.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-29.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of business research, 122, 889-901.
Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Managing digital transformation, 13-66.
WCED, S. W. S. (1987). World commission on environment and development. Our common future, 17(1), 1-91.
Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading digital: Turning technology into business transformation. Harvard Business Review Press.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 361-386.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
IDC. (2024, January 4). IDC forecasts semiconductor market to grow by over 15% driven by continued AI demand [Press release]. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prAP52836924
iThome. (2023, May 25). 日月光 ESG 轉型案例：內外兼修，推動智慧化永續治理。 iThome. https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/164765
日月光投資控股股份有限公司（2022）。《2021年度永續報告書》。取自日月光官方網站 永續報告專區。
日月光投資控股股份有限公司（2023）。《2022年度永續報告書》。取自日月光官方網站 永續報告專區。
日月光投資控股股份有限公司（2024）。《2023年高雄廠永續報告書》。取自日月光官方網站 永續報告專區。
呂采穎、張禎晏、林孟慧、許博任、游博翔、林彥廷（2025）。《氣候變遷與基礎設施韌性：臺灣半導體產業水資源與電力使用分析報告》。科技、民主與社會研究中心。取自 https://dset.tw/research/infrastructure-resilience/
余至浩（2024a年8月30日）。〈永續第一線經驗：日月光高雄廠企業職安處副處長顏俊明 日月光永續團隊是敏捷團隊〉。取自 iThome 新聞 網站：https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/164768
余至浩（2024b年8月30日）。〈日月光永續轉型發展史〉。取自 iThome 新聞 網站：https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/164764
周信輝（2022年9月）。〈數位轉型，該如何「轉」？〉。《哈佛商業評論》，2022年9月號。
高雄市政府（2024年9月25日）。《高雄市淨零數位雙軸轉型圓桌交流會──日月光永續策略與淨零轉型》[影片]。YouTube。https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSxJ2I8J0O0
張彥文（2023年10月）。〈老機台免退休！數位力讓產值翻倍〉。《哈佛商業評論》，2023年10月號。
詹文男、沈柏延（2020年8月）。〈不只是導入資訊系統與流程改善，七大構面檢驗數位轉型〉。《哈佛商業評論》，2020年8月號。
數位經濟暨產業發展協會（無日期）。《臺灣產業數位轉型》。取自 DTA 官方網站：https://tdx.tw/