在全球淨零轉型的浪潮下，金融機構營運策略已轉向兼顧ESG的永續發展框架。如何在維持核心獲利之餘，將資源有效配置於永續實踐，已成挑戰。過去探討銀行績效之研究多將營運視為單一「黑箱」，難以釐清內部資源的轉換邏輯；且傳統理論多假設大型金控體系具備規模經濟優勢，但在面對需高度決策彈性與跨部門整合的ESG轉型時，大即是美的假設是否依然成立，仍存在實證缺口。
本研究以2020至2024年間台灣18家金融機構為研究對象，採用資料包絡分析法（DEA）中之動態兩階段模型（Dynamic Two-Stage SBM-DEA），將營運流程拆解為「利潤與市場價值階段」與「永續階段」，分別評估其效率表現，藉此識別資源轉化邏輯，並比較不同組織型態與規模對整體效率之影響。
實證結果顯示，台灣金融業在利潤與市場價值階段的效率普遍優於永續階段，反映多數機構雖具備穩健獲利能力，但在將永續投入轉化為實質產出時，仍面臨資源閒置或轉換瓶頸。進一步分群發現，獨立銀行在兩階段的平均轉換效率皆優於大型金控體系。此發現顛覆了傳統規模經濟迷思，證實大型金控推動ESG時，易受限於層層簽核與溝通成本，陷入規模不經濟；反觀獨立銀行則能憑藉較佳的決策彈性與資源整合優勢，更有效地落實永續轉型。
本研究建構了整合財務與永續績效之動態評估框架，補足現有文獻不足。大型金控應優化內部決策機制、精簡流程以提升轉換力；主管機關設計永續評鑑與監理機制時，則應考量機構的規模差異，採取分級化監理，引導金融業由規模競爭轉向效率競爭，以達成金融體系之真實永續與韌性。

Under the global net-zero trend, allocating resources to ESG while maintaining core profits is a major challenge for financial institutions. Past studies often viewed bank operations as a "black box," obscuring resource conversion logic. Also, traditional theories assume large financial holding companies (FHCs) enjoy economies of scale. However, since ESG transformation requires high decision-making flexibility, whether "bigger is better" still holds remains an empirical gap.
This study analyzes 18 Taiwanese financial institutions from 2020 to 2024. Using the Dynamic Two-Stage SBM-DEA model, divide operations into a "Profitability Stage" and a "Sustainability Stage" to identify the resource conversion logic and compare how different organization types affect overall efficiency.
Results show that efficiency in the profitability stage is generally better than in the sustainability stage. While most banks make steady profits, they still face bottlenecks when turning ESG inputs into real outputs. Further grouping shows that independent banks outperform large FHCs in both stages, challenging the traditional myth of economies of scale. It proves that when promoting ESG, large FHCs are limited by complex approval systems and high coordination costs, leading to "diseconomies of scale." In contrast, independent banks implement sustainable transformation more efficiently due to better flexibility.
Large FHCs should optimize decision-making and simplify management processes to improve conversion efficiency. When designing ESG evaluations, authorities should consider the size differences of banks and apply tiered supervision. This will guide the industry to shift from scale competition to efficiency competition.

Abu-Alrop, J. H. A. (2025). Assessing and forecasting the efficiency of Russian banks (2000-2026): A DEA, panel data, and Monte Carlo simulation approach. Available at SSRN 5196992.
Alam, A. W., Banna, H., & Hassan, M. K. (2021). ESG activities and bank efficiency: are Islamic banks better? Alam, AW, Banna, H., & Hassan, MK (2022). ESG ACTIVITIES AND BANK EFFICIENCY: ARE ISLAMIC BANKS BETTER, 65–88.
Aldousari, A. (2026). ESG Integration and Cost Efficiency Assessment: Evidence from GCC Banking. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 16(2), 96.
Auer, B. R., & Schuhmacher, F. (2016). Do socially (ir) responsible investments pay? New evidence from international ESG data. The Quarterly review of economics and finance, 59, 51–62.
Aureli, S., Brighi, P., & Schadewitz, H. (2026). The impact of board diversity and sustainability engagement on bank performance. Journal of Management and Governance, 1–48.
Avkiran, N. K. (2009). Opening the black box of efficiency analysis: an illustration with UAE banks. Omega, 37(4), 930–941.
Azmi, W., Hassan, M. K., Houston, R., & Karim, M. S. (2021). ESG activities and banking performance: International evidence from emerging economies. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 70, 101277.
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management science, 30(9), 1078–1092.
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of business ethics, 97(1), 71–86.
Bătae, O. M., Dragomir, V. D., & Feleagă, L. (2021). The relationship between environmental, social, and financial performance in the banking sector: A European study. Journal of cleaner production, 290, 125791.
Bolibok, P. M. (2024). Does firm size matter for ESG risk? Cross-sectional evidence from the banking industry. Sustainability, 16(2), 679.
Buallay, A. (2019). Is sustainability reporting (ESG) associated with performance? Evidence from the European banking sector. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(1), 98–115.
Cantero-Saiz, M., Polizzi, S., & Scannella, E. (2024). ESG and asset quality in the banking industry: The moderating role of financial performance. Research in International Business and Finance, 69, 102221.
Cao, Q., Zhu, T., & Yu, W. (2024). ESG investment and bank efficiency: Evidence from China. Energy Economics, 133, 107516.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European journal of operational research, 2(6), 429–444.
Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2006). Introduction to data envelopment analysis and its uses: with DEA-solver software and references. Springer.
Cornett, M. M., Erhemjamts, O., & Tehranian, H. (2016). Greed or good deeds: An examination of the relation between corporate social responsibility and the financial performance of US commercial banks around the financial crisis. Journal of Banking & Finance, 70, 137–159.
Cui, J., Jo, H., & Na, H. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility affect information asymmetry? Journal of business ethics, 148(3), 549–572.
Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The accounting review, 86(1), 59–100.
Di Giuli, A., & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of financial economics, 111(1), 158–180.
Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2020). The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review: S. Drempetic et al. Journal of business ethics, 167(2), 333–360.
Duque-Grisales, E., & Aguilera-Caracuel, J. (2021). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores and Financial Performance of Multilatinas: Moderating Effects of Geographic International Diversification and Financial Slack: E. Duque-Grisales, J. Aguilera-Caracuel. Journal of business ethics, 168(2), 315–334.
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., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406.
Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1997). Intertemporal production frontiers: with dynamic DEA. Journal of the operational research society, 48(6), 656–656.
Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2000). Network dea. Socio-economic planning sciences, 34(1), 35–49.
Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the royal statistical society series a: statistics in society, 120(3), 253–281.
Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., & Kaiser, S. (2018). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global finance journal, 38, 45–64.
Flammer, C. (2021). Corporate green bonds. Journal of financial economics, 142(2), 499–516.
Fong, C. C. (2025). Determinants of ESG Performance in Chinese Financial Firms: Roles of Community Engagement, Firm Size, and Ownership Structure. Sustainability, 18(1), 307.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 32–33, 122–126
Giese, G., Lee, L.-E., Melas, D., Nagy, Z., & Nishikawa, L. (2019). Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 45(5), 69–83.
Grmanová, E., & Ivanová, E. (2018). Efficiency of banks in Slovakia: Measuring by DEA models. Journal of International Studies (2071-8330), 11(1).
Henriques, I. C., Sobreiro, V. A., Kimura, H., & Mariano, E. B. (2020). Two-stage DEA in banks: Terminological controversies and future directions. Expert Systems with Applications, 161, 113632.
Ji, L., Sun, Y., Liu, J., & Chiu, Y.-h. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and market efficiency of China’s commercial banks under market competition. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(9), 24533–24552.
Krueger, P., Sautner, Z., & Starks, L. T. (2020). The importance of climate risks for institutional investors. The Review of financial studies, 33(3), 1067–1111.
Krüger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of financial economics, 115(2), 304–329.
Menicucci, E., & Paolucci, G. (2023). ESG dimensions and bank performance: an empirical investigation in Italy. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 23(3), 563–586.
Milenković, N., Radovanov, B., Kalaš, B., & Horvat, A. M. (2022). External two stage DEA analysis of bank efficiency in West Balkan countries. Sustainability, 14(2), 978.
Miralles‐Quirós, M. M., Miralles‐Quirós, J. L., & Redondo‐Hernández, J. (2019). The impact of environmental, social, and governance performance on stock prices: Evidence from the banking industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1446–1456.
Novickytė, L., & Droždz, J. (2018). Measuring the efficiency in the Lithuanian banking sector: The DEA application. International journal of financial studies, 6(2), 37.
Paradi, J. C., & Zhu, H. (2013). A survey on bank branch efficiency and performance research with data envelopment analysis. Omega, 41(1), 61–79.
Riani, D., Meutia, M., & Ismawati, I. (2023). Bank efficiency and productivity: Role of risk and ESG disclosure. Rev. Econ. Financ, 21, 2333–2343.
Titko, J., Stankevičienė, J., & Lāce, N. (2014). Measuring bank efficiency: DEA application. Technological and economic development of economy, 20(4), 739–757.
Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European journal of operational research, 130(3), 498–509.
Tone, K., & Tsutsui, M. (2014). Dynamic DEA with network structure: A slacks-based measure approach. Omega, 42(1), 124–131.
Wang, K., Huang, W., Wu, J., & Liu, Y.-N. (2014). Efficiency measures of the Chinese commercial banking system using an additive two-stage DEA. Omega, 44, 5–20.
Wang, Y., Baeckström, Y., & Jacobsson, T. (2025). Sustainability adaptation in Swedish banks: evidence from senior bank leaders. The European Journal of Finance, 1–23.
Wanke, P., & Barros, C. (2014). Two-stage DEA: An application to major Brazilian banks. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(5), 2337–2344.
Weber, O. (2012). Environmental credit risk management in banks and financial service institutions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(4), 248–263.
Wu, W.-Y., Liao, Y.-K., Chang, W.-S., Vo, T. T., Dang, G. V., Wu, T. C., Un, L., Phou, S., & Hang, C. (2026). An assessment of bank efficiency in Cambodia: A comparison between multi-criteria measurement and the DEA approach. Asia Pacific Management Review, 31(1), 100390.
Wu, Z., & Chen, S. (2024). Does environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance improve financial institutions’ efficiency? Evidence from China. Mathematics, 12(9), 1369.
Yoo, S., & Managi, S. (2022). Disclosure or action: Evaluating ESG behavior towards financial performance. Finance research letters, 44, 102108.
Zhou, X. Y., Caldecott, B., Hoepner, A. G., & Wang, Y. (2022). Bank green lending and credit risk: an empirical analysis of China's Green Credit Policy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1623–1640.