Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158357
|
| Title: | ESG 永續經營下的碾米產業轉型：稻殼生質能在綠色能源中的市場潛力
The Transformation of the Rice Milling Industry under ESG Sustainability: The Market Potential of Rice Husk Biomass Energy |
| Authors: | 張紋菁
Chang, Went-Ching |
| Contributors: | 郭維裕
馮震宇
Kuo, Wei-Yu
張紋菁
Chang, Went-Ching |
| Keywords: | ESG評估
農業循環經濟
稻殼氣化技術
生物炭應用
碾米產業轉型
ESG Assessment
Circular Agriculture Economy
Rice Husk Gasification
Biochar Application
Rice Milling Industry Transformation |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-08-04 13:06:33 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 面對全球氣候變遷與永續治理壓力，ESG（環境、社會與治理）已成為企業轉型與政策規劃的重要參考架構。臺灣傳統農業產業，特別是以碾米業為代表的中游加工產業，長期面臨副產物資源低效、社區互動斷裂與治理能力不足等挑戰。在2050淨零排放政策與永續金融評等制度逐步內嵌的背景下，農業企業亟需發展符合在地情境的永續轉型路徑。針對此一脈絡，本研究以 ESG 理論與循環經濟架構為基礎，重新建構農業產業之三構面評估邏輯，提出具備「副產物高值化」、「社會共益」、「制度韌性」三位一體的永續治理模型。
本研究首先透過制度與理論文獻回顧，明確指出主流 ESG 評估框架對農業部門存在構面設計與數據適配性不足的問題，並結合循環經濟與生物炭技術發展脈絡，提出以「稻殼資源再利用」為核心的轉型切入點。在研究設計上，本文採用個案研究法，選擇計畫導入氣化技術與生物炭製程的 A 碾米廠作為分析對象，結合深度訪談、現場觀察與營運文件分析，研究其轉型歷程與行動邏輯。進一步運用 SWOT、五力分析與安索夫矩陣等策略工具，歸納該企業如何在 ESG 制度壓力下調整商業模式，並從副產品價值提升中創造新的經濟與社會連結。
研究結果顯示，若能導入稻殼氣化技術、生物炭與木醋液之商品化模式，並搭配地方契作、社區參與與碳市場接軌機制，碾米業可望由「高碳負擔產業」轉型為「綠色韌性平台」。此外，本研究亦發現，中小農業企業的轉型動能高度依賴技術支持、政策誘因與多元利害關係人協作能力，建議政府應強化永續揭露制度、擴大碳權認證試點，並鼓勵碳收益共享機制之制度創新。
本研究之學術貢獻在於填補 ESG 理論於農業領域應用的概念落差，並實證副產物高值化如何成為 ESG 三構面整合的媒介機制。實務上，則提供傳統農業企業設計永續轉型策略之具體參考模型，並為政策單位建立碳治理與資源循環的制度工具提供建議，期能促進臺灣農業邁向具韌性、包容性與創新性的永續發展之路。
Amid global climate change and increasing pressures for sustainable governance, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) frameworks have become critical references for corporate transformation and policy planning. Taiwan's traditional agricultural sector, particularly the midstream rice milling industry, has long faced challenges such as inefficient utilization of by-products, fragmented community engagement, and limited governance capacity. Against the backdrop of Taiwan's 2050 net-zero emissions policy and the gradual integration of sustainable finance rating systems, agricultural enterprises urgently need to develop locally contextualized pathways for sustainable transformation. To address this context, this study, grounded in ESG theory and the circular economy framework, redefines the triadic assessment logic for the agricultural sector, proposing a sustainable governance model that integrates "by-product valorization," "social embeddedness," and "institutional resilience" as a unified whole.
This study begins with a review of institutional and theoretical literature, clearly identifying the shortcomings of mainstream ESG assessment frameworks in terms of structural design and data adaptability for the agricultural sector, particularly in agriculture. Integrating the developmental contexts of circular economy principles and biochar technology, the study proposes "rice husk resource reuse" as a central entry point for transformation. In terms of research design, a case study approach is adopted, selecting A Rice Mill—a facility planning to implement gasification technology and biochar production—as the analytical subject. Through in-depth interviews, field observations, and operational document analysis, the study examines the firm's transformation journey and action logic. Furthermore, strategic tools such as SWOT analysis, Porter’s Five Forces, and the Ansoff Matrix are employed to analyze how the enterprise adjusts its business model under ESG pressures, creating new economic and social connections through the enhanced value of by-products.
The findings demonstrate that by adopting rice husk gasification technology, commercializing biochar and wood vinegar, and integrating mechanisms such as local contract farming, community participation, and carbon market engagement, the rice milling industry can transition from a "high-carbon burden industry" to a "green resilience platform." Additionally, the study reveals that the transformation momentum of small and medium-sized agricultural enterprises heavily relies on technological support, policy incentives, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. It recommends that the government strengthen sustainable disclosure systems, expand carbon credit certification pilot programs, and promote institutional innovations in carbon benefit-sharing mechanisms.
The academic contribution of this study lies in bridging the conceptual gap in applying ESG theory to the agricultural sector, empirically demonstrating how by-product valorization serves as a mediating mechanism for integrating the three ESG dimensions. Practically, it provides a concrete reference model for traditional agricultural enterprises to design sustainable transformation strategies and offers policy recommendations for establishing carbon governance and resource circulation tools, aiming to advance Taiwan's agriculture toward a resilient, inclusive, and innovative path of sustainable development.
Keywords：ESG Assessment, Circular Agriculture Economy, Rice Husk Gasification, Biochar Application, Rice Milling Industry Transformation |
| Reference: | 一、外文文獻
1. Bloomberg (2022). ESG assets may hit $53 trillion by 2025. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com
2. Chang, C. T., Costa, M., Villetta, M. L., Macaluso, A., Piazzullo, D., & Vanoli, L. (2019). Thermo-economic analyses of a Taiwanese combined CHP system fuelled with syngas from rice husk gasification. Energy.
3. Chen, S., Song, Y. & Gao, P. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: Analyzing the impact of ESG on financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 345(1)：118829.
4. Chen, Y.-H., & Hsueh, S.-L. (2020). ESG adoption in Taiwanese SMEs: Institutional barriers and strategic responses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 124043.
5. Corporate Finance Institute (2023). ESG - Environmental, Social & Governance. Retrieved from https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/esg-environmental-social-governance/
6. Eccles, R. G., & Klimenko, S. (2019). The investor revolution: Shareholders are getting serious about sustainability. Harvard Business Review, May–June 2019.
7. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Towards the Circular Economy. Retrieved from https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org
8. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019). FAOSTAT Emissions Database. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT
9. Ghimire, R., Adhikari, J., & Craven, D. (2019). Conceptualizing closed-loop agricultural systems for resource sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 1142–1152.
10. Investopedia. (n.d.). Carbon Credit. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/carbon_credit.asp
11. Jeng, S. Y., Lin, C. W. R., Sethanan, K., Wang, H. W., & Tseng, M. L. (2024). Circular economy-based integrated closed-loop farming system: A sensitivity analysis for profit optimization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 144184.
12. Kalina, J., Mašek, O., & Budzianowski, W. M. (2019). Biomass Gasification for Sustainable Energy Production. In: Sustainable Bioenergy Production (pp. 157–186). Springer.
13. Kumar, S., Rahman, M., Bouket, A. C., Ahadi, R., Meena, M., Bhupenchandra, I., Singh, U. B., Arutselvan, R., Kumar, R., Singh, S. P., Kashyap, A., Tripathi, R., Gupta, S., Dutta, P., Harish, & Singh, R. (2024). Unravelling the multifarious role of wood vinegar made from waste biomass in plant growth promotion, biotic stress tolerance, and sustainable agriculture. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis.
14. Lee, M. T., Raschke, R. L., & Krishen, A. S. (2023). Understanding ESG scores and firm performance: Are high-performing firms E, S, and G-balanced? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 195, 122779.
15. Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2015). Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation (2nd ed.). Routledge.
16. Lin, S., Chien, M., & Lo, Y.-H. (2021). ESG Policy Implementation in Small Business Contexts: The Case of Agriculture-related Firms in Taiwan. Sustainability, 13(14), 7769.
17. Lin, Y.-H., & Lee, C.-H. (2021). The Value-Added and Linkage Effect Analysis of Taiwan's Agricultural Sector. Modern Economy, 12(6), 1011–1024. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2021.126053
18. Loy, A. C. M., Yusup, S., How, B. S., Chan, Y. H., Chin, B. L. F., Borhan, A., & Lim, H. Y. (2020). Optimization study of syngas production from catalytic air gasification of rice husk. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 10(5), 1784–1791.
19. MSCI (2023). ESG Ratings Methodology. Retrieved from https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings
20. MacNeil, I., & Esser, I.-M. (2021). From a financial to an entity model of ESG. European Business Organization Law Review, 23(1), 9–45.
21. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Pyroligneous acid. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pyroligneous%20acid
22. Morningstar Sustainalytics (2023). ESG Risk Ratings. Retrieved from https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-ratings
23. Mulligan, C., Makris, D., Athanasiadis, V., Illankoon, W. A. M. A. N., Milanese, C., Collivignarelli, M., & Sorlini, S. (2023). Value chain analysis of rice industry by-products in a circular economy context: A review. Waste.
24. Passas, I. (2024). The Evolution of ESG: From CSR to ESG 2.0. Encyclopedia, 4(4):1711-1720.
25. Robertson, J. (2024). Planning for grey rhino risks: How to prepare for the 'unforeseeable'. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 17(4), 383–394.
26. Rodias, E., Aivazidou, E., Achillas, C., Aidonis, D., & Bochtis, D. (2020). Water-Energy-Nutrients Synergies in the Agrifood Sector: A Circular Economy Framework. Energies.
27. Schulte, J., Villamil, C., & Hallstedt, S. (2020). Strategic sustainability risk management in product development companies: Key aspects and conceptual approach. Sustainability.
28. Shaikh, I. (2022). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practice and firm performance: an international evidence. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(1), 218–237.
29. Sinha, M. (2025). Responsible Capital: The Evolution and Performance of ESG Investing. Exploresearch, 01(03), 1–18.
30. UN Global Compact (2004). Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World. Retrieved from https://d306pr3pise04h.cloudfront.net/docs/issues_doc/Financial_markets/who_cares_who_wins.pdf
31. UNFCCC (2015). Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
32. Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Pyroligneous acid. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroligneous_acid
33. Woodvinegar.org. (n.d.). What is wood vinegar? Uses and Benefits. Retrieved from https://www.woodvinegar.org/wood-vinegar.html
34. Wucker, M. (2016). The Gray Rhino: How to Recognize and Act on the Obvious Dangers We Ignore. St. Martin's Press.
35. Xu, P., Wang, Q., Duan, C., Huang, G., Dong, K., & Wang, C. (2024). Biochar addition promotes soil organic carbon sequestration dominantly contributed by macro-aggregates in agricultural ecosystems of China. Journal of Environmental Management, 359, 121042.
36. Yatagai, M., Nishimoto, M., Hori, K., & Ohira, T. (2002). Composition of wood vinegar from pyrolysis of hardwoods. Journal of Wood Science, 48(6), 538–543.
37. Zhou, H., Li, J., & Yuan, Z. (2022). Zero-waste agriculture and circular bioeconomy: Opportunities and challenges. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 180, 106179.
38. European Commission. (2018). Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth. Brussels: European Union.
39. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. (2005). A legal framework for the integration of ESG issues into institutional investment. UNEP FI.
40. 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.*
41. UN Global Compact & Swiss Re. (2004). Who Cares Wins: Connecting financial markets to a changing world. New York: United Nations.
42. United Nations. (2006). Principles for Responsible Investment: Launch Speech. New York: United Nations.
43. European Commission. (2018). Action plan: Financing sustainable growth Brussels, Belgium: Author.
44. G20/OECD. (2023). G20/OECD principles of corporate governance. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
45. Global Reporting Initiative. (2016). GRI 405: Diversity and equal opportunity 2016. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Author.
46. International Organization for Standardization. (2010). ISO 26000:2010 — Guidance on social responsibility. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
47. MSCI. (2023). ESG ratings methodology: Biodiversity & land use key issue. New York, NY: MSCI Inc.
48. SASB. (2023). Conceptual approach to water‑related risk in the SASB standards. San Francisco, CA: Sustainability Accounting Standards Board.
49. Task Force on Climate‑related Financial Disclosures. (2017). Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate‑related Financial Disclosures. Basel, Switzerland: Financial Stability Board.
50. Transparency International. (2024). Corruption perceptions index 2024. Berlin, Germany: Author.
二、中文文獻
1. KPMG（2021）。ESG Preparedness in SMEs: Global Survey Report. https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2021/07/esg-smes.html
2. TiC100農業廢棄物循環經濟（2021）。社會創新平台。取自：https://si.taiwan.gov.tw/Home/Raise/view/94
3. 倪禮豐（2006）。稻殼再利用技術。花蓮區農業專訊，61，19-20。取自 https://www.hdares.gov.tw/upload/hdares/files/web_structure/764/bull-61_19-20.pdf
4. 國家發展委員會（2018）。《臺灣經濟發展歷程與策略》。取自：https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?icon=..pdf&n=6Ie654Gj55m85bGV5q2356iL6IiH562W55WlIDIwMTgucGRm
5. 宣大平、潘昶儒、余宣穎（2005）。《水稻多樣化利用與產品開發》。行政院農業委員會花蓮區農業改良場。
6. 方信雄. (2014). 農業廢棄物資源化及收集模式之研究. 國立臺灣大學生物產業機電工程學研究所學位論文, 1-75.
7. 林業試驗所（2017）。《生物炭產製與農業應用指南》。台灣林業試驗所研究報告，取自:https://ws.tfri.gov.tw/001/Upload/OldFile/files/%E7%94%9F%E7%89%A9%E7%82%AD%E5%AE%8C%E6%88%901030.pdf
8. 王業立（2021）。〈農業轉型中的綠色價值與文創整合〉。《農村發展學刊》，38(2)，55–72。
9. 環境部（2023）。溫室氣體自願減量暨抵換資訊平臺。取自：https://carbonoffset.moenv.gov.tw/
10. 經濟部中小企業處（2022）。《2022中小企業白皮書》。取自：https://www.moeasmea.gov.tw
11. 蔡泳銓（2007）低海拔廢耕檳榔坡地之研究-以嘉義縣中埔鄉三層村為例.南華大學碩士論文 2007.
12. 行政院國家發展委員會（2022）。《臺灣2050淨零排放路徑及策略總說明》。https://www.ndc.gov.tw
13. 行政院環境保護署（2023）。《中華民國溫室氣體排放統計報告》。臺北市：行政院環境保護署。https://www.epa.gov.tw
14. 行政院農業委員會（2020）。《臺灣農業加值創新政策報告》。
15. 農業部農業試驗所（2023）。水稻廢棄資材之利用。取自：https://kmweb.moa.gov.tw/subject/subject.php?id=18467
16. 農業部農業試驗所（2023）。農村減碳指南。取自：https://ruralgis.tari.gov.tw/AgNetZero/AgNetZero
17. 農業部（2010）。《臺灣農業與相關產業在總體經濟的重要性》。取自：https://www.moa.gov.tw/theme_data.php?id=4457&sub_theme=agri&theme=news
18. 農業部（2022）。2050淨零排放：農業部門減排策略。取自：https://www.oapc.org.tw/2022-0513_net-zero-emissions/
19. 農業部（2022）。《農業部門溫室氣體排放現況與減量策略報告》。臺北市：農業部永續農業司。https://www.moa.gov.tw
20. 農業部（2023）。《2050農業淨零白皮書》。取自：https://www.moa.gov.tw
21. 農業部（2023）。《農業部門2050淨零排放政策白皮書》。https://www.moa.gov.tw
22. 農業部（2023）。因應氣候變遷－農業生產管理與溫室氣體減排。取自：https://www.moa.gov.tw/ws.php?id=2447676
23. 農業部（2023）。資源循環零廢棄創造永續農業新價值。取自：https://www.moa.gov.tw/theme_data.php?id=9632&sub_theme=agri&theme=news
24. 農業部（2024）。《農業生質能源利用現況與未來發展簡介》。取自：https://km.twenergy.org.tw/Knowledge/knowledge_more?id=4740。
25. 金融監督管理委員會（2022）。《公司治理3.0—永續發展藍圖》。https://www.sfb.gov.tw
26. 金融監督管理委員會（2022）。《公司治理3.0永續發展藍圖》。取自：https://www.sfb.gov.tw
27. 王業立（2021）。〈農業產業永續化策略與案例研究〉，《農業經濟與發展》，57(3)，頁112–135。
28. Chen, C. Y., & Hsueh, C. C.（2020）。〈中小企業導入ESG評鑑制度之挑戰與因應策略〉，《企業管理學報》，118，頁23–48。
29. Chen, Y. S.（2020）。〈ESG 績效、公司治理與資金成本之關係〉。國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
30. 游志偉（2022）。〈臺灣 ESG 發展趨勢與議題聲量之大數據分析〉。《科技管理學刊》，27（3），45‑70。
31. FSC（金融監督管理委員會）。（2020）。〈公司治理 3.0—永續發展藍圖〉。臺北：金融監督管理委員會。
32. 蘇禹安（2024）。〈ESG 評級對銀行中小企業信用風險評估的影響：TESG 指標的調整與應用〉。國立中山大學國際資產管理研究所碩士專業實務報告。
33. 林永順（2024）。《消費者的 ESG 認知和 ESG 公司企業形象對於消費者行為影響之初探研究》（碩士論文）。嘉南藥理大學，臺南市。
34. 李俊賢（2023）。農業生物質能源的產業化途徑與政策建議。農業經濟研究，34(1), 45-68. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)
112932180 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112932180 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [經營管理碩士學程EMBA] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 218001.pdf | | 1739Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
