隨氣候變遷對於企業之傷害與造成虧損逐漸增加，根據資料已經對全球造成8000萬個工作面臨風險、自1980年到現在因氣候變遷導致的直接損失便超過了42兆美元，可見氣候變遷造成之財務衝擊相當巨大，且2020年起全球面臨COVID-19疫情，為避免企業受氣候變遷衝擊、減少風險，環境、社會、治理(ESG)之投資成為企業的重點之一。
能源產業為全球碳排最大且對環境衝擊最高行業之一，其影響性之大至推動經貿、航空運輸燃料，細至為家庭提供動力能源，全球營收最高產業，市值超過4兆美元，且近期GDP占比從3.9%成長為13%，劇烈變動使投資人要求能源產業揭露ESG等相關指標作為判斷依據。
現有研究大多關注於ESG與財務指標之相關性，缺乏考慮多因素狀況之下探討ESG與財務指標(資產報酬率)及企業市值(Tobin’s Q)之關係。本研究歸納全球2010年到2021年122間能源產業之ESG、財務指標與企業市值作為樣本，建立貝式結構方程模型探討能源產業在受到揭露氣候變遷商業風險機會資訊、ESG爭議、國家風險程度與國家治理程度中介效果下，ESG績效指標對企業財務績效與企業市值的關係，並加入8項控制變項使模型穩定可信。
研究成果顯示能源產業的環境績效可有效的使企業財務指標上升，同時可使企業市值有效上升，然社會績效與企業市值呈弱負相關，顯示在長期能源產業企業在社會績效方面的投入未能轉化為企業價值的提升，甚至可能增加企業的成本。
能源產業揭露氣候變遷商業風險機會對環境、社會、治理績效與企業財務績效間具中介效果，表示當企業能夠適應氣候變遷並把它視為商業機會時，其環境、社會、治理績效對財務績效的關係可能增加。此外ESG爭議在社會績效與企業市值間具有部分中介效果，表示若能妥善處理ESG爭議，可將社會績效對企業市值產生正面關係。在國家層面之中介結果來說，能源產業所處之國家治理程度對環境、治理績效與企業市值間具中介效果，表示治理良好的國家，公眾對環境問題的關注度較高，環境績效優秀更容易獲得投資者青睞，且投資者更信任治理結構和透明度，因此治理績效良好的企業更容易獲得信任，進而提升其市值。
最後，本研究為欲增加企業財務績效與企業市值之能源產業指示ESG 關鍵績效指標揭露標準順序。欲利用ESG增加企業財務績效之能源產業企業ESG 關鍵績效指標揭露標準順序：(1)環境績效指標；(2)社會績效指標與治理績效指標。欲利用ESG增加企業市值之能源產業企業ESG 關鍵績效指標揭露標準順序：(1)環境績效指標；(2)社會績效指標；(3)治理績效指標。

As the damage and losses caused by climate change to businesses continue to grow, data indicate that 80 million jobs globally are at risk and direct losses resulting from climate change have exceeded 42 trillion USD since 1980. The financial impact of climate change is substantial. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in 2020. To decrease the impact of climate change and reduce risk, investment in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) has become a focal point for businesses.
The energy industry, one of the largest carbon emitters and highest environmental impact industries, has significant influence from driving economic and fueling air transport to providing household energy. As the industry with the highest global revenue and a market value exceeding 4 trillion USD, its recent GDP proportion has grown from 3.9% to 13%. This drastic change has prompted investors to demand the disclosure of ESG-related indicators in the energy industry as a basis for decision-making.
Existing research primarily focuses on the correlation between ESG and financial performances, but lacks consideration of the impact of ESG on financial performance (ROA) and market value (Tobin's Q) under multi-factor conditions. This study compiles a sample from 122 global energy companies between 2010 and 2021, tracking their ESG performance, financial performance, and market value. Utilizing a Bayesian Structural Equation Model to discuss the influence of ESG to corporate financial performance and market value in the energy sector. The study also sets for the mediating factors of disclosed information on Climate Change Commercial Risks Opportunities, ESG controversies, national risk level, and governance level. To ensure the reliability and stability of the model, eight control variables are incorporated.
The results show that the environmental performance of energy companies can effectively enhance their financial performance and market value. However, there is a weak negative correlation between social performance and market value. This suggests that in the long term, investments in social performance may not translate into an increase in market value and may even add to a company's costs.
The disclosure of Climate Change Commercial Risks Opportunities in the energy sector plays a mediating role in the relationship between ESG performance and financial performance. This indicates that when a company can adapt to climate change and perceive it as a business opportunity, the impact of its ESG performance on financial performance may increase. Furthermore, ESG controversies have a partial mediating effect between social performance and corporate market value, suggesting that properly managing ESG disputes can have a positive impact on the market value of the company through social performance. On a national level, the governance level of the country in which the energy industry operates mediates the relationship between environmental and governance performance to corporate market value. This indicates that in countries with good governance, public concern for environmental issues is higher, and excellent environmental performance is more likely to attract investors. Additionally, investors trust governance structures and transparency, so companies with good governance performance are more likely to gain trust and support, thereby increasing their market value.
Finally, this study provides a standard order of ESG key performance indicators (KPIs) disclosure for energy companies aiming to enhance their financial performance and corporate market value. The standard order for energy companies seeking to enhance their financial performance through ESG disclosure is as follows: (1) Environmental performance; (2) Social and governance performance. For energy companies seeking to increase corporate market value through ESG disclosure, the standard order is: (1) Environmental performance; (2) Social performance; (3) Governance performance.

Agnese, P., Battaglia, F., Busato, F., & Taddeo, S. (2023). ESG controversies and governance: Evidence from the banking industry. Finance Research Letters, 53, 103397.
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of management, 38(4), 932-968.
Anita, M., Shveta, S., Surendra, S. Y., & Arvind, M. (2023). When do ESG controversies reduce firm value in India? Global Finance Journal, 100809.
Atan, R., Alam, M. M., Said, J., & Zamri, M. (2018). The impacts of environmental, social, and governance factors on firm performance: Panel study of Malaysian companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal.
Awaysheh, A., Heron, R. A., Perry, T., & Wilson, J. I. (2020). On the relation between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic management journal, 41(6), 965-987.
AYDOĞMUŞ, M., GÜLAY, G., & ERGUN, K. (2022). Impact Of Esg Performance On Firm Value And Profitability. Borsa Istanbul Review.
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic management journal, 27(11), 1101-1122.
Barrot, J.-N., & Sauvagnat, J. (2016). Input specificity and the propagation of idiosyncratic shocks in production networks. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(3), 1543-1592.
Bies, R. J., Bartunek, J. M., Fort, T. L., & Zald, M. N. (2007). Corporations as social change agents: Individual, interpersonal, institutional, and environmental dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 788-793.
Boiral, O. (2006). Global warming: should companies adopt a proactive strategy? Long Range Planning, 39(3), 315-330.
Boiral, O., Brotherton, M.-C., & Talbot, D. (2020). Building trust in the fabric of sustainability ratings: An impression management perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 120942.
Brookes, N., Morton, S., Dainty, A., & Burns, N. (2006). Social processes, patterns and practices and project knowledge management: A theoretical framework and an empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 24(6), 474-482.
Carbon Disclosure Project. (2013). Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2013 https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/CDP-Australia-NZ-ClimateChange-Report-2013.pdf. v
Chen, H.-M., Kuo, T.-C., & Chen, J.-L. (2022). Impacts on the ESG and financial performances of companies in the manufacturing industry based on the climate change related risks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 380, 134951.
Chen, Z., & Xie, G. (2022). ESG disclosure and financial performance: Moderating role of ESG investors. International Review of Financial Analysis, 83, 102291.
Citterio, A., & King, T. (2023). The role of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) in predicting bank financial distress. Finance Research Letters, 51, 103411.
Clayton, S., Devine-Wright, P., Stern, P. C., Whitmarsh, L., Carrico, A., Steg, L., Swim, J., & Bonnes, M. (2015). Psychological research and global climate change. Nature climate change, 5(7), 640-646.
Cohen, I., Huang, Y., Chen, J., Benesty, J., Benesty, J., Chen, J., Huang, Y., & Cohen, I. (2009). Pearson correlation coefficient. Noise reduction in speech processing, 1-4.
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Dieleman, M., Hirsch, P., Rodrigues, S. B., & Zyglidopoulos, S. (2021). Multinationals’ misbehavior. Journal of World Business, 56(5), 101244.
DasGupta, R. (2022). Financial performance shortfall, ESG controversies, and ESG performance: Evidence from firms around the world. Finance Research Letters, 46, 102487.
Dow Jones & FTSE. (2022). Industry Classification Benchmark. https://research.ftserussell.com/products/downloads/ICB_Rules_new.pdf
Dumitrescu, A., El Hefnawy, M., & Zakriya, M. (2020). Golden geese or black sheep: Are stakeholders the saviors or saboteurs of financial distress? Finance Research Letters, 37, 101371.
Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., & Kaiser, S. (2018). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal, 38, 45-64.
Galbreath, J. (2013). ESG in focus: The Australian evidence. Journal of business ethics, 118, 529-541.
Gallego-Álvarez, I., & Ortas, E. (2017). Corporate environmental sustainability reporting in the context of national cultures: A quantile regression approach. International Business Review, 26(2), 337-353.
Gatzert, N., & Reichel, P. (2022). Awareness of climate risks and opportunities: empirical evidence on determinants and value from the US and European insurance industry. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 1-22.
Gregory, R. P. (2022). ESG scores and the response of the S&P 1500 to monetary and fiscal policy during the Covid-19 pandemic. International Review of Economics & Finance, 78, 446-456.
Hsu, P.-H., Lee, H.-H., Peng, S.-C., & Yi, L. (2018). Natural disasters, technology diversity, and operating performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 100(4), 619-630.
Huynh, T. D., & Xia, Y. (2021). Climate change news risk and corporate bond returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 56(6), 1985-2009.
Jiguang, L., & Zhiqun, S. (2011). Low carbon finance: Present situation and future development in China. Energy Procedia, 5, 214-218.
Lai, X., & Zhang, F. (2022). Can ESG certification help company get out of over-indebtedness? Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 76, 101878.
Lee, C.-C., & Lee, C.-C. (2022). How does green finance affect green total factor productivity? Evidence from China. Energy Economics, 107, 105863.
Lin, M. C. (2021). Analysis of the Correlation between Enterprise ESG Performance and Financial Performance National Quemoy University]. National Quemoy University.
Liu, P., Zhu, B., Yang, M., & Chu, X. (2022). ESG and financial performance: A qualitative comparative analysis in China's new energy companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379, 134721.
Ma, B., Lin, S., Bashir, M. F., Sun, H., & Zafar, M. (2023). Revisiting the role of firm-level carbon disclosure in sustainable development goals: Research agenda and policy implications. Gondwana Research.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative science quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424.
Naeem, N., Cankaya, S., & Bildik, R. (2022). Does ESG performance affect the financial performance of environmentally sensitive industries? A comparison between emerging and developed markets. Borsa Istanbul Review.
Paltrinieri, A., Dreassi, A., Migliavacca, M., & Piserà, S. (2020). Islamic finance development and banking ESG scores: Evidence from a cross-country analysis. Research in International Business and Finance, 51, 101100.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2023). COVID-19: What it means for the energy industry. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/energy-utilities-resources/library/coronavirus-energy-industry-impact.html
Ramírez-Orellana, A., Martínez-Victoria, M., García-Amate, A., & Rojo-Ramírez, A. A. (2023). Is the corporate financial strategy in the oil and gas sector affected by ESG dimensions? Resources Policy, 81, 103303.
Rivera-Santos, M., Rufin, C., & Kolk, A. (2012). Bridging the institutional divide: Partnerships in subsistence markets. Journal of Business Research, 65(12), 1721-1727.
Shakil, M. H. (2021). Environmental, social and governance performance and financial risk: Moderating role of ESG controversies and board gender diversity. Resources Policy, 72, 102144.
Shin, J., Moon, J. J., & Kang, J. (2022). Where does ESG pay? The role of national culture in moderating the relationship between ESG performance and financial performance. International Business Review, 102071.
Stern, N., & Stern, N. H. (2007). The economics of climate change: the Stern review. cambridge University press.
Thomson Reuters. (2022). ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE SCORES FROM REFINITIV. T. R. Corporation. https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/methodology/refinitiv-esg-scores-methodology.pdf
Thunder Said Energy. (2022). Energy Costs Set to Reach Record 13% of Global GDP This Year. T. S. Energy. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-16/energy-costs-set-to-reach-record-13-of-global-gdp-this-year
Van Poucke, E., Matthyssens, P., & Weeren, A. (2016). Enhancing cost savings through early involvement of purchasing professionals in sourcing projects: Bayesian estimation of a structural equation model. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22(4), 299-310.
Wen, H., Ho, K. C., Gao, J., & Yu, L. (2022). The fundamental effects of ESG disclosure quality in boosting the growth of ESG investing. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 81, 101655.
Zahid, R. A., Taran, A., Khan, M. K., & Chersan, I.-C. (2022). ESG, Dividend Payout Policy and the Moderating role of Audit Quality: Empirical evidence from Western Europe. Borsa Istanbul Review.