1990年代中期起，大型企業陸續以企業社會責任(Corporate social responsibility, CSR)報告書揭露經濟、環境及社會面的永續績效。但公司發行CSR報告書，議題和指標多著重內部觀點，忽略引入外部利害關係人參與，造成報告內容涵蓋不足。
本研究探討利害關係人參與及關切的議題，以全球報告綱領(Global Reporting Initiative, GRI)為基礎，分析國內外CSR報告書中利害關係人參與及議題的指導原則，找出高科技廠房新建時之重大議題，即早於設計階段考量。
首先選取五家高科技公司發行之CSR報告書，檢視利害關係人參與方式及關切議題，以及公司的回應程度。以同樣程序分析國外四家營建相關公司，探討科技與營建業關切議題的異同。最後引入新建廠房案例，與前述分析結果比對。
研究結果發現，CSR報告書內容多提及利害關係人及參與方式，但利害關係人關切度與公司回應度無正相關。與公司營運活動密切關係人，公司採低參與程度、頻率較高之電話網路作溝通，與營運無關聯但被影響者，公司則需採高參與程度，成本較高之會晤及合辦活動互動連繫。
七類利害關係人中，顧客與員工針對環境及勞工面向提出最多關切，但議題廣泛，公司難聚焦以量化數據回應。各關係人對環境關切外，科技業另關切經濟獲利，營建業關切勞工安全，公司對兩者均能以量化數據回應。高科技廠房於設計階段時考量與外部觀點相同，及早引入被施工影響的供應商及社區參與意見，可降低生命週期階段之影響，提升公司永續績效。

Since the mid-1990s, large corporations have been publishing the corporate social responsibility (CSR) report to disclose sustainable performance in economic, environmental and social aspects. However, issues and indicators disclosed in the CSR reposts mostly focus on internal perspectives and fail to engage stakeholders to an adequate level.
This study probed into the issues of stakeholders’ engagement and participation. It analyzed domestic and international CSR reports and the guiding principles of stakeholder engagement according to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), identified the materiality issues during conductions of new high-tech plants, and addressed those issues during the early designing stage.
The study first selected five CSR reports of high-tech companies in taiwan, and scrutinized the concerned issues of stakeholders, their engagement approaches and the companys’ responses. Further, it employed the same procedure to analyze four foreign construction companies to explore the similarities and differences in concerned issues between the high-tech and construction companies. Finally, the high-tech plant project was used for the comparison of these issues.
The results indicate that CSR reports mostly mention the stakeholder and their engagement approaches. No positive relationship was found between the level of stakeholders’ concerns and the degree of companies’ responses. The telephone network with higher frequency is utilized to communicate with stakeholders frequently engaging in the corporate’s operation. Meetings and joint activities of higher cost are adopted for interacting with stakeholders who are not engaged in but affected by the corporate’s operation.
Among seven types of stakeholders, customers and employees present most concerns over environmental and labor aspects, but the wide range of issues makes it hard for companies to respond with quantitative data. Stakeholders present most concerns on the environment issues. Economic profit is the issue concerned by the high-tech plant while labor safety is concerned in construction. Both issues can be responded with quantitative data. The high-tech plant has the same viewpoints with the external perspective. Engaging construction-affected suppliers and communities as early as possible can minimize the impact during the life cycle and maximize the company's sustainable performance.

1.Azapagic, A (2003). “Systems approach to corporate sustainability, a general management framework. ” Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 81, pp. 303-316.
2.Azapagic, A (2004). “Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, pp. 639–662.
3.Azapagic, A (2006). “A methodology for integrating sustainability considerations into process design.” Trans IChemE, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Part A, 84 (A6), pp. 439–452.
4.AccountAbility, (2008). AA1000 AccountAbility Principles Standard 2008, London, UK.
5.Bhamra, T. and Hon, B. (2004). Design and Manufacture for Sustainable Development 2004, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
6.Brown, H. S., Jong, M. and Levy, D. L. (2009). “Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, pp. 571–580.
7.Burritt, R. L., Herzig, C. and Tadeo, B. D. (2009). “Environmental management accounting for cleaner production: the case of a Philippine rice mill.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.17, pp. 431–439.
8.Clarkson, M. (1995). “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance.” Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 92–117.
9.CorporateRegister.com (2010). CR Reporting Awards 10 Official Report: Global Winners & Reporting Trends, London, UK.
10.Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995). “The stakeholder theory of corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implication.” Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 65–91.
11.Downey, P. R. (2002). “The essential stakeholder dialogue.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, pp. 37–45.
12.Epstein, M. J. (2008). Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing Corporate Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts, Greenleaf Publishers Inc., Sheffield, UK.
13.Gardner, J. R., Rachlin, R. and Sweeny, A. (1986), Handbook of Strategic Planning, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NJ.
14.Global Reporting Initiative, (2005). GRI Boundary Protocol, Boston, MA.
15.Global Reporting Initiative, (2006). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines on Economic, Environmental, and Social Performance. Version 3.0, Boston, MA.
16.Global Reporting Initiative, (2006). GRI Application Levels, Boston, MA.
17.Global Reporting Initiative, (2006). Indicator Protocol, Economic/ Environment/ Society/ Human Rights/ Labor Practices & Decent, Boston, MA.
18.Global Reporting Initiative, (2008). A Snapshot of Sustainability Reporting in the Construction and Real Estate Sector, Boston, MA.
19.Goodpaster, K. E. (1998). “Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. The Corporation and its Stakeholders. ” Classic and Contemporary Readings, Toronto.
20.International Association for Public Participation (2006), IAP2’s Techniques for Effective Public Participation, Thornton, CO.
21.International Association for Public Participation (2007). IAP2’s Spectrum of Public Participation, Thornton, CO.
22.Junnila, S. and Horvath, A. (2003). “Life-cycle environmental effects of an office building.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, 9(4), pp. 157-166.
23.KPMG International (2008). Report of the GRI Readers’ Choice survey, MC Amstelveen, Netherland.
24.KPMG International (2008). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting, MC Amstelveen, Netherland.
25.Liu, X. and Anbumozhi, V. (2009). “Determinant factors of corporate environmental information disclosure: an empirical study of Chinese listed companies,” Journal of Cleaner Production Vol.17, pp.593–600.
26.Mclntosh, M., Thomas, R., Leipziger, D. and Coleman, G. (2003). Living Corporate Citizenship: Strategic Routes to Socially Responsible Business, MPG Biddles Ltd, Norfolk, UK.
27.Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. (1997). “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience：defining the principle of who and what really counts”, Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), pp. 853-886.
28.O’Connor, M. and Spangenberg, J. H. (2008). “A methodology for CSR reporting: assuring a representative diversity of indicators across stakeholders, scales, sites and performance issues.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, pp. 1399-1415.
29.Pleon Kohtes Klewes GmbH, (2005).Accounting for Good: The Global Stakeholder Report 2005, Germany.
30.Porter, M. E. (2008). On Competition, Updated and Expanded Edition, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Boston, MA.
31.Silva, P. R. S. and Amaral, F. G. (2009), “An integrated methodology for environmental impacts and costs evaluation in industrial processes.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.17, pp. 1339–1350.
32.Simpson, P. and Ashworth, P. (2009). “ZeroGen new generation power – a framework for engaging stakeholders.” Energy Procedia, 1, pp. 4697–4705.
33.Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning. A New Approach to Practical Philosophy, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
34.Veleva, V. and Ellenbecker, M. (2001). “Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 9, pp. 519–549.
35.Vos, F. J. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility and the identification of stakeholders.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10, pp. 141–152.
36.Waddock, S., Bodwell, C. and Graves, S. (2002). “Responsibility: the new business imperative.” The Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), pp. 132-147.
37.Wallace, R. and Naser, K. (1995). “Firm specific determinants of the comprehensiveness of stock mandatory disclosure in the annual reports of firms listed on the stock exchange of Hong Kong.” Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 14, pp. 311–68.
38.World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2000). Corporate Social Responsibility, Making Good Business Sense, North Yorkshire, UK.
39.Welford, R., Chan, C. and Man, M. (2007). “Priorities for corporate social responsibility: a survey of businesses and their stakeholders.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, pp. 52–62.

二、CSR報告書
1.British Land (2009), Corporate Responsibility Report, UK.
2.Cemex (2008), Sustainable Development Report, Mexico.
3.Fluor (2008), Sustainability Report, US.
4.Group Five (2007), Sustainability Report, South Africa.
5.Hochtief (2009), Sustainability Report, Germany.
6.Holcim (2007), Sustainable Development Report, Switzerland.
7.Kajima (2009), Corporate Responsibility Report, Japan.
8.Landcom (2008), Sustainability Report, Australia.
9.Lendlease (2005), Sustainability Report, Australia.
10.MTR Corp (2008), Sustainable Report, Hong Kong.
11.Obayashi (2009), Corporate Responsibility Report, Japan.
12.Prologis (2008), Sustainability Report, US.
13.Skanska (2008), Responsibility Report, Sweden.
14.Stockland (2009), Corporate Responsibility Report, Australia.
15.Swire Properties (2008), Sustainable Development Report, Hong Kong.
16.Y.Takaoka (2005), Sustainability Report2005, Brazil.
17.中華電信股份有限公司(民98)，企業社會責任報告書，台北。
18.友達光電股份有限公司(民98)，企業社會責任報告書，新竹。
19.台灣積體電路股份有限公司(民98)，企業社會責任報告書，新竹。
20.奇美電子股份有限公司(民98)，企業社會責任報告書，台南。
21.聯華電子股份有限公司(民98)，企業社會責任報告書，新竹。