永續現今成為全球的熱烈議題，大公司陸續提出企業社會責任(Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR)報告書，展現其永續作為，揭露在環境、經濟、社會三面向之績效。台灣今年開始規定上市、櫃公司宜編製CSR報告書，但目前提出者多半為製造或服務業公司，營建相關公司大都尚未著手。
本研究探討CSR報告書中環境面內容，以全球報告綱領(Global Reporting Initiative, GRI)為架構，分析其對CSR報告書的內容、品質及指標的規定，以對營建業公司準備CSR報告提出指引。選取國內五家大公司發表的CSR報告書，依照GRI提出的原則及測試規定，檢視其在策略分析、公司治理、管理方針，及績效指標等面向的內容與品質，然後給與1、3、5的分數。其中針對環境面30個績效指標，檢視各公司提出之環境指標與措施，了解其揭露內容與程度，排序、比較指標採用之難易順序。
研究結果發現，CSR報告在長期永續發展之策略與管理方針說明不足，內容較未揭露重大資訊，品質較未符合平衡、可比較性原則。環境面30個指標中，較多揭露減少間接能源使用措施(EN7)和重大氣體排放(EN20)等資訊，較少揭露材料使用(EN1和EN12)、其他相關之間接GHG排放重量(EN17)，及有害廢棄物運送與處理重量(EN24)。 在環境指標揭露上有努力的空間，因而本研究也建立指標揭露的難易順序。
本研究依據GRI 綱領，說明CSR報告書架構與內容，分析國內公司CSR報告之內容與品質，建立環境指標採用之優先順序，以指引營建相關公司著手編寫CSR報告書。

Sustainable issues have been discussed extensively worldwide today. Large companies have published CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) reports to disclose sustainable performances in economic, environmental, and social aspects. In Taiwan, the publicly traded companies are encouraged to publish their CSR reports from this year. Most manufacturing or service companies have published CSR reports, but construction companies have not started yet.
This research explores the environmental contents of corporate CSR reports, bases on the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) reporting framework to analyze the principles for reporting content, the quality of reported information, and the compilation of environmental indicators. Published CSR reports of five large companies in Taiwan were chosen, and based on the principles and testing factors of GRI, It was checked the content and quality of the parts of strategy and analysis, governance, management approach and performance indicators, then score 1, 3, or 5 was given. In the environmental aspect, indicators and measures of each company were examined to understand the content and level of disclosure, then sort and compare the sequence of indicators in terms of difficulty.
The finding shows that the description of the relevance of sustainability to the companies and their strategy and management approach are not enough, the content has not exposed the significant information, the quality has not conformed to the balance and comparability principles. In the 30 environmental indicators, more companies disclosed the information of initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption (EN7) and other significant air emissions (EN20); less companies disclosed the information of materials used (EN1, 2), other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight (EN17), and weight of transported and treated hazardous waste (EN24). There are more rooms on disclosing the environmental indicators. Therefore, this research also established the difficulty sequence for the 30 indicators.
This research explains the framework and content for preparing CSR reports based on GRI guidelines, and analyzes the content and quality of CSR reports of compaies in Taiwan. It also builds the priority of environmental indicators to guide construction related companies to prepare CSR reports.

1. AccountAbility (2008). Introduction to the Revised AA1000 Assurance Standard and the AA1000 AccountAbility Principles Stardard 2008, London, UK.
2. Azapagic, A. (2004). “Developing a Framework for Sustainable Development Indicators for The Mining and Minerals industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12, pp. 639–662.
3. Bosch, S. J., and Pearce, A. R. (2003). “Sustainability in Public Facilities: Analysis of Guidance Documents.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 17(1), pp.9-18.
4. Brown, H. S., Jong, M. d., Levy, D. L. (2009). “Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, pp. 571–580.
5. Connor, M. O., 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, Vol.16,pp. 1399-1415.
6. European Commission (2001). Communications on Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. COM 2001, 366, Brussels, July.
7. European Commission (2002). Communications from the Commission Concerning Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development. COM 2002, 347 Final, Brussels, February.
8. Gallego, I. (2006). “The Use of Economic, Social and Environmental Indicators as a Measure of Sustainable Development in Spain.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13, pp 78-97.
9. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2006). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines on Economic, Environmental, and Social Performance. Version 3.0, GRI: Boston.
10. Goodland, R., and Daly, H. (1993). “Poverty Alleviation Is Essential for Environmental Sustainability.” Divisional Working Paper 1993-42, Environmental Economics and Pollution Division, The World Bank, Washington, D. C.
11. Greenbiz. (2000). Sustainability, Team Spotlights Top 50 Corporate Sustainability Reports. November 15.
12. KPMG (2005). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005, KPMG Environmental Consulting: DeMeern, The Netherlands.
13. KPMG (2008). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008, KPMG Environmental Consulting: DeMeern, The Netherlands.
14. Liu, X., 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.
15. Myers, D. (2005). “A Review of Construction Companies’ Attitudes to Sustainability.” Construction Management and Economics, 23(8), pp 781-785.
16. United States Green Building Council. (USGBC)(2002). Green Building Rating System for New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED-NC), Version 2.1, Green Building Council, Washington, D.C.
17. United States Green Building Council. (USGBC)(2009).LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations, Version 3.0, Green Building Council, Washington, D.C, April.
18. UNCED (1992).Promoting Education and Public Awareness and Training, Agenda 21,United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, conches.
19. World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED)(1987).Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxyford
20. 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.
21. Wu, P. and Low, S. P. (2010). “Project Management and Green Buildings: Lessons from the Rating Systems.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 136(2), 64-70.
22. Xianbing Liu and V. Anbumozhi (2009). “Determinant factors of corporate environmental information disclosure: an empirical study of Chinese listed companies.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.17, pp.593–600.
23. 天下雜誌，天下企業公民大調查，367期，2007年。
24. 天下雜誌，2009年CSR榜單揭曉，416期，2009年。
25. 中國鋼鐵股份有限公司，企業社會責任報告，2007年。
26. 中華電信股份有限公司，企業社會責任報告，2008年。
27. 中鼎工程股份有限公司，企業社會責任報告，2008年。
28. 台灣積體電路股份有限公司，企業社會責任報告，2008年。
29. 台灣證券交易所，上市上櫃公司企業社會責任實務守則，中華民國99年2月8日。
30. 行政院國家永續發展委員會、行政院研究發展考核委員會，2007台灣永續發展指標現況，民國97年6月。
31. 林宜諄(民98)，企業社會責任入門手冊，天下遠見出版股份有限公司，台北。
32. 奇美電子股份有限公司，企業社會責任報告，2008年。
33. 段國慶(民94)，台灣廠商環境管理策略與環保績效之探索性研究－以環保得獎廠商為例，私立中原大學企業管理研究所，中壢。
34. 莫冬立(民95)，追求典範：企業社會責任評等系統的發展與應用，證券櫃檯月刊，No.122，pp. 62-73.
35. 徐世輝(民94)，應用統計學，華泰文化事業股份有限公司，台北。
36. 張行道、陳建旭、蔡雅雯、王彥智(民98)，公路永續設計項目指標與評估方法之建立，中華顧問工程司研究報告，計畫編號98926。
37. 黃榮堯、郭瓊瑩(民91)，「綠營建政策推動策略及藍圖之研究」，行政院公共工程委員會。
38. 遠見雜誌，台灣企業最需要的獎/第一屆企業社會責任獎，227期，2005年。
39. 遠見雜誌，第五屆企業社會責任大調查，273期，2009年。
40. 潘珏汝(民99)，探討員工企業社會責任之認知對組織公民行為之影響，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所，中壢。
41. Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI) http://www.sustainability-indexes.com/
42. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) http://www.globalreporting.org/
43. 中華民國企業永續發展協會網站http://www.bcsd.org.tw/
44. 台灣企業社會責任協會 http://www.csrtaiwan.org/
45. 世界企業永續發展協會(WBCSD) http://www.wbcsd.org
46. 遠見雜誌企業社會責任獎 http://www.gvm.com.tw/event/csr2008/page01.html
47. 臺灣永續發展指標系統 http://theme.cepd.gov.tw/sustainable-development/