本研究以 2016 年至 2024 年台灣上市櫃公司為研究對象，資料來源為台灣經濟新報（TEJ）資料庫。排除金融業及 KY 公司並刪除缺漏值後，共取得 7,689 筆公司－年觀察值。研究採用固定效果模型進行實證分析，以 TESG 分數作為主要依變數，並進一步以環境（E）、社會（S）、治理（G）及溫室氣體排放績效（GHG Score）作為替代衡量指標進行穩健性測試。
研究結果顯示，在控制年度與產業固定效果後，CEO 任期與企業整體 ESG 績效呈現顯著正向關係，顯示任期較長之 CEO 較能推動企業永續發展。此外，CEO 任期對環境構面與社會構面亦呈現顯著正向影響，但對治理構面之影響較不一致。家族企業之實證結果顯示，相較於非家族企業，家族企業中長任期 CEO 與 ESG 績效之正向關係較為顯著。另一方面，CEO 任期與 ESG 績效之倒 U 型關係並未獲得一致支持，顯示台灣企業中尚無充分證據證明 CEO 任期存在明顯之非線性效果。
本研究之結果有助於瞭解高階管理者特質對企業永續發展之影響，並為企業董事會在高階經理人任用及永續治理規劃上提供實證參考。

In recent years, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance has become an important criterion for evaluating corporate sustainability and long-term competitiveness. As stakeholders increasingly emphasize sustainable development, firms are expected not only to achieve superior financial performance but also to fulfill their environmental, social, and governance responsibilities. Since the implementation of sustainability strategies is largely influenced by top executives, understanding how CEO characteristics affect ESG performance has become an important research issue. Drawing upon the Upper Echelons Theory, this study investigates the relationship between CEO tenure and corporate ESG performance. Furthermore, this study examines whether family ownership moderates this relationship and whether a nonlinear relationship exists between CEO tenure and ESG performance.
The sample consists of Taiwanese listed companies from 2016 to 2024. Data were obtained from the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ) database. After excluding financial institutions, KY firms, and observations with missing values, the final sample includes 7,689 firm-year observations. Fixed-effects regression models were employed to analyze the impact of CEO tenure on ESG performance while controlling for firm-specific characteristics, year effects, and industry effects. In addition to the overall ESG score (TESG), environmental (E), social (S), governance (G), and greenhouse gas disclosure performance (GHG Score) were used as alternative dependent variables to examine the robustness of the findings. The empirical results indicate that CEO tenure is positively associated with overall ESG performance. The findings suggest that CEOs with longer tenure are more likely to accumulate firm-specific knowledge, organizational influence, and strategic stability, enabling them to promote sustainability initiatives more effectively. The results further show that CEO tenure has a significantly positive impact on the environmental and social dimensions of ESG performance. However, the effect on the governance dimension is relatively weaker and less consistent.In addition, the moderating analysis reveals that the positive association between CEO tenure and ESG performance is stronger in family firms than in non-family firms, suggesting that the long-term orientation and reputation concerns of family firms may strengthen the effectiveness of experienced CEOs in implementing sustainability
strategies. Regarding the nonlinear effect, the results do not provide sufficient evidence to support an inverted U-shaped relationship between CEO tenure and ESG performance.
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it extends the application of Upper Echelons Theory to the field of corporate sustainability by highlighting the role of CEO tenure in shaping ESG outcomes. Second, it provides evidence from Taiwan, an emerging market where family-controlled firms are prevalent. Third, by examining both overall ESG performance and its individual dimensions, this study offers a more comprehensive understanding of how CEO tenure influences different aspects of sustainability. The findings provide practical implications for boards of directors and policymakers regarding executive succession planning, corporate governance, and the promotion of sustainable business practices.

Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., & Zhang, C. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science, 65(10), 4451–4469.
Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1328.
Aydoğmuş, M., Gülay, G., & Ergün, K. (2022). Impact of ESG performance on firm value and profitability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(S2), S119–S127.
Barker, V. L., III, & Mueller, G. C. (2002). CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management Science, 48(6), 782–801.
Bertrand, M., & Schoar, A. (2003). Managing with style: The effect of managers on firm policies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1169–1208.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gómez-Mejía, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113.
Block, J. H., & Wagner, M. (2014). The effect of family ownership on different dimensions of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from large U.S. firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(7), 475–492.
Chrisman, J. J., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 976–997.
Dechow, P. M., & Sloan, R. G. (1991). Executive incentives and the horizon problem: An empirical investigation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 14(1), 51–89.
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.
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484–503.
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.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, SM17.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
Henderson, A. D., Miller, D., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006). How quickly do CEOs become obsolete? Industry dynamism, CEO tenure, and company performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(5), 447–460.
Jiang, Y., Luo, J., & Gong, Y. (2018). Effects of international exposure on corporate social responsibility of the Chinese corporate sector: The moderating role of CEO duality (Master’s thesis). Victoria University of Wellington.
Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 351–383.
Kalyta, P. (2009). Compensation transparency and managerial opportunism: A study of supplemental retirement plans. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 405–423.
Kong, X., Li, Z., & Lei, X. (2024). Research on the impact of ESG performance on carbon emissions from the perspective of green credit. Scientific Reports, 14, 10478.
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517.
Li, Q., Li, M., & Zhang, L. (2024). Revisiting the relationship between ESG, institutional ownership, and corporate innovation: An efficiency perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(6), 5109–6525.
Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785–1824.
Liu, J., Shi, Y., & Yang, S. (2025). Impact of economic risk on sovereign environmental, social, and governance performance: Global evidence. Finance Research Letters, 86(Part A), 108344.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.
Mahmood, A., Mehmood, A., Terzani, S., De Luca, F., & Djajadikerta, H. G. (2024). ESG performance and firm value: Evidence from EU-listed firms. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
McGuire, J. B., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 341–359.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
Miller, D. (1991). Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organization and environment. Management Science, 37(1), 34–52.
Paolone, F., Pozzoli, M., Cucari, N., & Bianco, R. (2023). Longer board tenure and audit committee tenure: How do they impact environmental performance? A European study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(1), 358–368.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Prencipe, A., Bar-Yosef, S., & Dekker, H. C. (2014). Accounting research in family firms: Theoretical and empirical challenges. European Accounting Review, 23(3), 361–385.
Shaikh, I. (2022). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practice and firm performance: An international evidence. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(5), 1027–1050.
van Norel, H. J. (2023). Evaluating sovereign ESG performance as determinant for attracting foreign direct investments in a COVID-19 context (Master’s thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006). How do family ownership, control, and management affect firm value? Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 385–417.
Wu, D., Song, Z., & Jin, S. (2025). ESG performance and financial stability: The moderating effect of CEO characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management, 393, 127049.
Yavuz, M. S., Tatlı, H. S., Bozkurt, G., & Öngel, G. (2025). Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 21(1), 24–42.