學術界對於ESG表現與企業財務績效（Corporate Financial Performance, CFP）之間的實證關聯長期未達共識。本研究認為此一「ESG-CFP 之謎」的根源，可能並非ESG本身缺乏價值，而是傳統綜合型ESG評分混入與核心業務關聯較低的非重大性項目，產生資訊雜訊，進而掩蓋真正具有財務攸關性的永續訊號。基於此，本研究以永續會計準則委員會（Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, SASB）重大性框架為核心工具，建構產業特定之重大性永續指標，檢驗其對企業市場價值之影響，以及在罪惡產業情境下的效果。
實證結果顯示，第一，SASB 重大性指標對企業市場價值具有顯著正向影響，支持其作為市場定價訊號之價值攸關性。第二，傳統ESG總分在一般產業中對企業價值呈顯著正向影響，但在罪惡產業中其估值效果呈弱化趨勢；雖然主模型之交互作用項未達統計顯著水準，但其方向與理論預期一致，且罪惡產業之總邊際效果趨近於零。第三，重大性指標與罪惡產業之交互作用項顯著為負，表示罪惡產業會顯著削弱重大性永續表現對企業價值的正向效果。進一步觀察總邊際效果後發現，重大性指標在罪惡產業中的估計方向由正轉負，惟 Wald test 未達傳統顯著水準，因此本文將其解讀為支持核心業務衝突假說之方向性證據，而非直接宣稱其具有顯著負向總效果。
本研究之貢獻在於，揭示SASB重大性框架作為「去雜訊」工具的分析價值，能協助區分傳統綜合評分中具有財務攸關性的永續訊號與非核心項目所造成的測量偏誤。就實務而言，投資人不應僅依賴綜合型ESG評分，而應進一步關注企業所投入之永續議題是否符合其產業特性與核心營運風險。對罪惡產業而言，永續轉型若涉及核心業務模式調整，亦需配合長期策略規劃與審慎的市場溝通，以降低投資人對核心業務萎縮與現金流穩定性受損之疑慮。

The empirical relationship between ESG and corporate financial performance (CFP) remains inconclusive, largely due to informational noise in aggregate ESG scores that combine material and non-material issues. Using the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) framework, this study constructs an industry-specific materiality score to examine its effect on firm value using a global panel dataset from 2018 to 2023. The analysis focuses on the value relevance of this materiality score and compares it with traditional ESG scores, particularly within sin industries.
Results indicate that the SASB-based materiality score is positively associated with firm value, serving as an effective market signal. While traditional ESG scores also show a positive valuation effect generally, their informativeness weakens in sin industries. Furthermore, the interaction between the materiality score and the sin industry dummy is significantly negative. Although the total marginal effect is not statistically significant, this provides directional evidence for the core business conflict hypothesis, suggesting that sin industry characteristics undermine the positive valuation effect of sustainability efforts.
Overall, the SASB framework reduces measurement noise and better identifies value-relevant sustainability signals. Investors should prioritize industry-specific material issues over composite ESG scores, while sin industries undertaking sustainability transitions require clear strategic communication to mitigate investor concerns regarding cash flow uncertainty.

英文文獻
Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., Yang, S., & Zhang, C. (2020). Resiliency of environmental and social stocks: An analysis of the exogenous COVID-19 market crash. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 9(3), 593–621.
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86.
Berg, F., Koelbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344.
Blitz, D., & Fabozzi, F. J. (2017). Sin stocks revisited: Resolving the sin stock anomaly. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 44(1), 105–111.
Borgers, A., Derwall, J., Koedijk, K., & ter Horst, J. (2013). Stakeholder relations and stock returns: On errors in investors’ expectations and learning. Journal of Empirical Finance, 22, 159–175.
Cayón, E., & Gutierrez, J. C. (2021). Sin stocks and ESG scores: Does the nature of your business really matter? Journal of International Studies, 14(2), 246–259.
Chatterji, A. K., Durand, R., Levine, D. I., & Touboul, S. (2016). Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1597–1614.
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.
El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C. Y., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406.
Fabozzi, F. J., Ma, K. C., & Oliphant, B. J. (2008). Sin stock returns. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 35(1), 82–94.
Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233.
Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. (2022). Global sustainable investment review 2022.
Heinkel, R., Kraus, A., & Zechner, J. (2001). The effect of green investment on corporate behavior. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 36(4), 431–449.
Hong, H., & Kacperczyk, M. (2009). The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), 15–36.
Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724.
Krüger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304–329.
Mahmood, A., Mehmood, A., Terzani, S., De Luca, F., & Djajadikerta, H. G. (2024). The effect of ESG disclosure on firm value in the European context. Management Decision, 62(1), 1–25.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
Merton, R. C. (1987). A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. The Journal of Finance, 42(3), 483–510.
Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1963). Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: A correction. American Economic Review, 53(3), 433–443.
Mustaffa, A. H., Muda, R., Bahrudin, N. Z., & Abdul Malik, H. K. (2023). A meta-analysis of ESG disclosure and listed companies' financial performance. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences.
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.
Stearns, W. (2023). A review of the effect of ESG on "sin" firms (Honors Thesis). Bryant University.
中文文獻
國立臺北大學企業永續發展研究中心。（2024）。2024 臺灣永續投資調查。
網站
BlackRock, BlackRock ESG integration statement, https://www,blackrock,com/corporate/literature/publication/blk-esg-investment-statement-web,pdf
Bloomberg Professional Services, ESG AUM set to top $40 trillion by 2030, anchor capital markets, https://www,bloomberg,com/professional/insights/sustainable-finance/esg-aum-set-to-top-40-trillion-by-2030-anchor-capital-markets/
IFRS Foundation, SASB Standards, https://www,ifrs,org/issued-standards/sasb-standards/
IFRS Foundation, IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information, https://www,ifrs,org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards-navigator/ifrs-s1-general-requirements/
IFRS Foundation, (2023b), IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures, https://www,ifrs,org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards-navigator/ifrs-s2-climate-related-disclosures/
IFRS Foundation, (2024), Using SASB Standards to meet the requirements in IFRS S1, https://www,ifrs,org/content/dam/ifrs/supporting-implementation/ifrs-s1/using-sasb-standards-for-ifrs-s1,pdf
Morningstar, (2024, October 31), Global ESG funds attract $10,4 billion in Q3 2024, https://www,morningstar,com/sustainable-investing/global-esg-funds-attract-104-billion-q3-2024