學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 以制度與資源觀點探討本國企業減碳行動與內部碳定價發展
Domestic firms` carbon reduction and internal carbon pricing development: perspectives from institutional theory and resource-based view作者 張成漢
Chang, Cheng-Han貢獻者 柯玉佳
Ko, Yu-Chia
張成漢
Chang, Cheng-Han關鍵詞 企業內部碳定價
制度理論
資源基礎理論
競爭優勢
Internal carbon pricing
Institutional theory
Resource-based theory
Competitive advantage日期 2023 上傳時間 9-Mar-2023 18:33:20 (UTC+8) 摘要 隨國際與外部制度環境的環保法規影響，企業的碳風險辨識與適應能力愈加重要，2023年通過的《氣候變遷因應法》目標2050年達到淨零排放，未來環境的外部成本將成為企業的實質支出，無疑對國內企業產生重大挑戰。企業需要立即管理自身以及供應鏈的碳排放，以符合外部制度壓力，在此背景下，企業內部碳定價成為國際上企業接續採用的新興減碳轉型方式，雖然碳費制度在全球已行之有年，但碳定價對國內企業而言仍為陌生領域，因此本研究首先統整內部碳定價的流程與方式，再分析國際上套用的趨勢，以及實務上個案公司套用的案例，以利了解此項議題的發展。接著本研究以制度理論與資源基礎理論為基礎，藉外部制度環境與企業內部資源分析，探討國內企業在引入內部碳定價以及減碳策略時，所面對的制度環境影響及背後需擁有的資源能力，探討企業最終應如何達成整體價值鏈減碳的目標。本研究獲得以下發現：研究發現一： 企業內部碳定價可分為五大步驟，需縝密規劃目標與流程，始能達到促使內部轉型的結果。研究發現二： 外部制度環境將影響企業實施減碳轉型與內部碳定價，依據不同因素將影響實施內部碳定價的可能。研究發現三： 從內部資源角度呼應外部制度分析，可發現企業實施減碳轉型與規模及所處產業有關，若能結合商業機會，將是成功實施減碳策略的最大誘因，並產生永續發展的競爭優勢。
With the influence of international environmental protection regulations in the institutional environment, the abilities of enterprises to identify and adapt carbon risk are becoming critical issues. The "Climate Change Response Legislation" passed recently aims to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Therefore, the external cost of the environment in the future will become the actual expenditure of enterprises. This is undoubtedly an urgent challenge for domestic enterprises. For enterprises, in order to meet the pressure of external systems, it is necessary to manage the carbon emissions of both themselves and the supply chain immediately. Although it has been practiced for many years in the world, domestic enterprises still find carbon pricing an unfamiliar field. Therefore, in order to understand the development of this topic, this study integrates the details of the internal carbon pricing process and analyzes the international trend of application, as well as practical cases of individual companies.Afterward, based on institutional theory and resource-based theory, this study discusses the impact of the institutional environment and the resources they need to have when domestic enterprises introduce internal carbon pricing and green transition strategy. Through the analysis of the institutional environment and internal resources of enterprises, this study analyzes how enterprises could ultimately achieve the goal of reducing carbon emissions across the entire value chain.This study concludes 3 research findings as following:Research finding 1: The internal carbon pricing of enterprises can be divided into five major steps. Careful planning of goals and processes is required to achieve the result of promoting internal transformation.Research finding 2: The external institutional environment will affect the implementation of carbon reduction transformation and internal carbon pricing, and different factors will affect the possibility of implementing internal carbon pricing.Research finding 3: Echoing the analysis of external institutions from the perspective of internal resources, it can be found that the implementation of green transition strategies by enterprises is related to their business scale and industry. If the strategies can be combined with business opportunities, it would be the critical incentive for successful implementation. Moreover, generating competitive advantages of sustainable development in the future.參考文獻 英文文獻Aaker, D. A. (1989). Managing assets and skills: The key to a sustainable competitive advantage. California management review,vol.31, p.91-106.Ahn, M. J., & York, A. S. (2011). Resource-based and institution-based approaches to biotechnology industry development in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,vol.28, p.257-275.Aldy, G. G. (2019). Future-Proof Your Climate Strategy. Harvard Business Review. original source: https://hbr.org/2019/05/future-proof-your-climate-strategy (Retrieved Apr 24, 2022)Allan, R. P., Hawkins, E., Bellouin, N., & Collins, B. (2021). IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers.Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic management journal,vol.14, p.33-46.Aoki, M. (2001). Toward a comparative institutional analysis. MIT press.Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization studies,vol.18, p.93-117.Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,vol.17, p.99-120.Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management science,vol.32, p.1231-1241.Barreto, I., & Baden‐Fuller, C. (2006). To conform or to perform? Mimetic behaviour, legitimacy‐based groups and performance consequences. Journal of management studies,vol.43, p.1559-1581.Bartlett, N., Cushing, H., & Law, S. (2017). Putting a price on carbon: Integrating climate risk into business planning. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) North America: New York, NY, USA.Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor. BergerThe Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge1967.Carbontrust. (2018). Carbon footprinting Introductory guide. Carbon Trust.CDP. (2021). PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON：The state of internal carbon pricing bycorporates globally. CDP.Chen, M.-J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of management review,vol.21, p.100-134.Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2015). Reconceptualizing competitive dynamics: A multidimensional framework. Strategic management journal,vol.36, p.758-775.Collis, D., & Montgomery, C. (1997). Corporate strategy: Resources and the scope of the firm. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm (Vol. 2). Englewood Cliffs, NJ.d`Andrade, R. G., Shweder, R., & Le Vine, R. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. Adams, Robert McC, Ed.; And Others Behavioral and Social Science Research: A National,vol.197.DellaSala, D. A., & Goldstein, M. I. (2017). Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene (Vol. 1). Elsevier.Derobert, E., & Operations Howard Klee, J. World business council for sustainable development. In: Citeseer.DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological reviewp.147-160.Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Blome, C., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: integrating institutional theory, resource‐based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management,vol.30, p.341-361.Ecofys, C. (2017). HOW-TO GUIDE TO CORPORATE INTERNAL CARBON PRICING: Four Dimensions to Best Practice Approaches. generation foundation; ECOFYS; CDP. In.Eicke, L., Weko, S., Apergi, M., & Marian, A. (2021). Pulling up the carbon ladder? Decarbonization, dependence, and third-country risks from the European carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Research & Social Science,vol.80.Fang, H., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., & Welsh, D. H. (2012). Family Firms` Professionalization: Institutional Theory and Resource-Based View Perspectives. Small Business Institute® Journal (SBIJ),vol.8.Fernhaber, S. A., & Li, D. (2010). The impact of interorganizational imitation on new venture international entry and performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,vol.34, p.1-30.Fremeth, A. R., & Richter, B. K. (2011). Profiting from environmental regulatory uncertainty: Integrated strategies for competitive advantage. California Management Review,vol.54, p.145-165.Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative science quarterlyp.454-479.Gorbach, O., Kost, C., & Pickett, C. (2022). Review of internal carbon pricing and the development of a decision process for the identification of promising Internal Pricing Methods for an Organisation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,vol.154.Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California management review,vol.33, p.114-135.Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Societyp.501-522.HALL, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic management journal,vol.13, p.135-144.Harpankar, K. (2019). Internal carbon pricing: rationale, promise and limitations. Carbon Management,vol.10, p.219-225.Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of management review,vol.20, p.986-1014.Hartmann, T. (2022). Carbon Pricing Strategy of Taiwan: Path to Global Net Zero Roadmap Forum.Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. (1997). Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative science quarterlyp.472-500.Initiative, G. R. (2018). GRI 305: Emissions 2016. In: Récupéré le.INTEL. (2022). 2021-22 Intel Corporate Responsibility Report.Lieberman, M. B., & Asaba, S. (2006). Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of management review,vol.31, p.366-385.Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology,vol.83, p.340-363.Microsoft. (2020). Microsoft Supplier Code of Conduct 2021. p.16.Microsoft. (2022). 2021 Environmental Sustainability Report.Nordhaus, W. D. (2007). To tax or not to tax: Alternative approaches to slowing global warming. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management review,vol.16, p.145-179.Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource‐based views. Strategic management journal,vol.18, p.697-713.Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), p.73-93.Porter, M. E. (2011). Competitive advantage of nations: creating and sustaining superior performance. simon and schuster.Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. In Knowledge and strategy (pp. p.41-59). Routledge.Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations (Vol. 2). Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publications.Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J.W. (1983). The Organization of Societal Sectors: Propositions and Early Evidence. Beverly Hills.Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism" old" and" new". Administrative science quarterly p.270-277.Smith, B. (2020). Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030. Microsoft.Standardization, I. O. f. (2006). Environmental management: life cycle assessment; Principles and Framework. ISO.Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences (Vol. 48). Sage.Stephenson, M. (2018). Energy and climate change: an introduction to geological controls, interventions and mitigations. Elsevier.Sutton, J. R., Dobbin, F., Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1994). The legalization of the workplace. American Journal of Sociology,vol.99, p.944-971.Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). New Society Publishers.WBCSD. (2015). Emerging Practices in Internal Carbon Pricing: A Practical Guide.Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal,vol.5, p.171-180.Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. (2008). A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. Ecological economics research trends,vol.1, p.1-11.Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. Oxford University Press.WorldBank. (2022). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2022.Zhang, C., & Dhaliwal, J. (2009). An investigation of resource-based and institutional theoretic factors in technology adoption for operations and supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics,vol.120, p.252-269.中文文獻中央通訊社 (2022)。氣候變遷因應法修法會後記者會。中央通訊社： https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202204210250.aspx。2022/06/27。中華民國外交部(2014)。「聯合國氣候變化綱要公約」（UNFCCC）成立之背景、目的、成員責任及基本原則為何？。中華民國外交部：https://subsite.mofa.gov.tw/igo/News_Content.aspx?n=C60A5AF9E8F638E0&sms=FD69E2823D9785AA&s=0F2AF4C227A2C81C。2022/06/29。毛秀云(2006)。轉型經濟中制度環境對組織同形影響之研究--以中國食品業通路為例, 東海大學企業管理學系碩士班論文 東海大學。台達電子(2021)。2020台達電子永續報告書。台達電子。行政院環保署(2021)。溫管法簡介。行政院環保署：https://ghgrule.epa.gov.tw/greenhouse/greenhouse_page/23/100。2022/06/24行政院環保署(2021)。溫室氣體減量及管理法修正草案總說明(2021)。行政院環保署。吳思華(2002)。策略九說: 策略思考的本質。復旦大學出版社。李堅明(2019)。臺灣碳權交易與碳稅的未來。會計研究月刊。頁101-107。李堅明(2021)。全球淨零排放因應策略。《TRI政策高峰會談》系列二 全球淨零碳排挑戰與因應。李堅明, & 楊喻閔(2021)。企業內部碳價訂定與氣候效益。會計研究月刊。頁54-59。周志宏(2020)。台達電子成為全台第一家通過 SBTi 審查企業。永續產業發展頁75-79。林晉寬(1995)。從資源基礎理論探討資源特性與成長策略之關係。國立政治大學企業管理研究所博士論文.。邱凡玶(2021)。國際企業內部碳定價作法初探。經濟部溫室氣體減量管理推動辦公室。邱莉燕(2021)。一噸碳交300美元碳費？台達電「高貴」定價的祕密。遠見雜誌：https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/84055。2022/05/26。金管會(2022)。綠色金融行動方案3.0。金融監督管理委員會。胡幼慧(1996)。質性研究: 理論, 方法及本土女性研究實例。台北: 巨流。夏立軍、方鐵強(2005)。政府控制, 治理環境與公司價值。經濟研究。第五版。頁40-51。徐千偉(2014)。我國政府因應氣候變遷的治理政策。人文與社會科學簡訊15卷2期。海英俊(2022)。永續論壇。永續論壇,許惠卿(2022)。台灣碳定價策略：邁向全球淨零。前瞻論壇,陳炫碩、陳佩宜、游敏、張一中(2014)。由制度理論探討企業實施綠色供應鏈之研究。商管科技季刊。頁247-278。曾真真、賴勇成、簡俊成(2020)。行為理論及 AMC 模型對管理人風險承擔的影響-以台灣電子資訊製造業赴大陸投資為例。管理與系統。頁53-76。黃雪娟(2010)。ISO溫室氣體系列國際標準趨勢介紹。永續產業發展雙月刊。劉仲恩(2021)。「碳權」到底是什麼？碳交易、碳抵換真的可以實質減碳、邁向淨零？。CSR@天下：https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/42144。2022/04/24。盧振華(2021)。買方永續供應鏈管理與利益關係人壓力可以讓供應商獲得更好的環境與營運績效嗎? 管理學報。頁497-532。 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
109364111資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109364111 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 柯玉佳 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Ko, Yu-Chia en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張成漢 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang, Cheng-Han en_US dc.creator (作者) 張成漢 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chang, Cheng-Han en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 9-Mar-2023 18:33:20 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 9-Mar-2023 18:33:20 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 9-Mar-2023 18:33:20 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109364111 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/143817 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109364111 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨國際與外部制度環境的環保法規影響，企業的碳風險辨識與適應能力愈加重要，2023年通過的《氣候變遷因應法》目標2050年達到淨零排放，未來環境的外部成本將成為企業的實質支出，無疑對國內企業產生重大挑戰。企業需要立即管理自身以及供應鏈的碳排放，以符合外部制度壓力，在此背景下，企業內部碳定價成為國際上企業接續採用的新興減碳轉型方式，雖然碳費制度在全球已行之有年，但碳定價對國內企業而言仍為陌生領域，因此本研究首先統整內部碳定價的流程與方式，再分析國際上套用的趨勢，以及實務上個案公司套用的案例，以利了解此項議題的發展。接著本研究以制度理論與資源基礎理論為基礎，藉外部制度環境與企業內部資源分析，探討國內企業在引入內部碳定價以及減碳策略時，所面對的制度環境影響及背後需擁有的資源能力，探討企業最終應如何達成整體價值鏈減碳的目標。本研究獲得以下發現：研究發現一： 企業內部碳定價可分為五大步驟，需縝密規劃目標與流程，始能達到促使內部轉型的結果。研究發現二： 外部制度環境將影響企業實施減碳轉型與內部碳定價，依據不同因素將影響實施內部碳定價的可能。研究發現三： 從內部資源角度呼應外部制度分析，可發現企業實施減碳轉型與規模及所處產業有關，若能結合商業機會，將是成功實施減碳策略的最大誘因，並產生永續發展的競爭優勢。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) With the influence of international environmental protection regulations in the institutional environment, the abilities of enterprises to identify and adapt carbon risk are becoming critical issues. The "Climate Change Response Legislation" passed recently aims to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Therefore, the external cost of the environment in the future will become the actual expenditure of enterprises. This is undoubtedly an urgent challenge for domestic enterprises. For enterprises, in order to meet the pressure of external systems, it is necessary to manage the carbon emissions of both themselves and the supply chain immediately. Although it has been practiced for many years in the world, domestic enterprises still find carbon pricing an unfamiliar field. Therefore, in order to understand the development of this topic, this study integrates the details of the internal carbon pricing process and analyzes the international trend of application, as well as practical cases of individual companies.Afterward, based on institutional theory and resource-based theory, this study discusses the impact of the institutional environment and the resources they need to have when domestic enterprises introduce internal carbon pricing and green transition strategy. Through the analysis of the institutional environment and internal resources of enterprises, this study analyzes how enterprises could ultimately achieve the goal of reducing carbon emissions across the entire value chain.This study concludes 3 research findings as following:Research finding 1: The internal carbon pricing of enterprises can be divided into five major steps. Careful planning of goals and processes is required to achieve the result of promoting internal transformation.Research finding 2: The external institutional environment will affect the implementation of carbon reduction transformation and internal carbon pricing, and different factors will affect the possibility of implementing internal carbon pricing.Research finding 3: Echoing the analysis of external institutions from the perspective of internal resources, it can be found that the implementation of green transition strategies by enterprises is related to their business scale and industry. If the strategies can be combined with business opportunities, it would be the critical incentive for successful implementation. Moreover, generating competitive advantages of sustainable development in the future. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 謝辭 I摘要 IIAbstract III目次 IV表次 V圖次 VI第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景 1第二節 研究動機 3第三節 研究目的與問題 5第二章 文獻探討 6第一節 企業內部碳定價 6第二節 制度理論(Institution Theory) 38第三節 資源基礎理論(Resource-based Theory) 45第四節 制度與資源基礎理論結合 52第五節 文獻探討小結 54第三章 研究方法與設計 55第一節 研究架構 55第二節 研究方法 56第三節 研究流程 58第四節 資料蒐集方式 59第四章 制度環境分析 62第一節 國際減碳協議以及碳定價方式 62第二節 企業內部碳定價趨勢 69第五章、個案分析與討論 72第一節、台達電子 72第二節、企業A個案分析 85第三節、個案綜合分析與討論 93第六章 結論與建議 104第一節、研究結論 104第二節、研究意涵 110第三節、研究限制 111第四節、未來研究建議 112參考文獻 113 zh_TW dc.format.extent 4968253 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109364111 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業內部碳定價 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 制度理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資源基礎理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 競爭優勢 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Internal carbon pricing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Institutional theory en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Resource-based theory en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Competitive advantage en_US dc.title (題名) 以制度與資源觀點探討本國企業減碳行動與內部碳定價發展 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Domestic firms` carbon reduction and internal carbon pricing development: perspectives from institutional theory and resource-based view en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 英文文獻Aaker, D. A. (1989). Managing assets and skills: The key to a sustainable competitive advantage. California management review,vol.31, p.91-106.Ahn, M. J., & York, A. S. (2011). Resource-based and institution-based approaches to biotechnology industry development in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,vol.28, p.257-275.Aldy, G. G. (2019). Future-Proof Your Climate Strategy. Harvard Business Review. original source: https://hbr.org/2019/05/future-proof-your-climate-strategy (Retrieved Apr 24, 2022)Allan, R. P., Hawkins, E., Bellouin, N., & Collins, B. (2021). IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers.Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic management journal,vol.14, p.33-46.Aoki, M. (2001). Toward a comparative institutional analysis. MIT press.Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization studies,vol.18, p.93-117.Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,vol.17, p.99-120.Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management science,vol.32, p.1231-1241.Barreto, I., & Baden‐Fuller, C. (2006). To conform or to perform? Mimetic behaviour, legitimacy‐based groups and performance consequences. Journal of management studies,vol.43, p.1559-1581.Bartlett, N., Cushing, H., & Law, S. (2017). Putting a price on carbon: Integrating climate risk into business planning. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) North America: New York, NY, USA.Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor. BergerThe Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge1967.Carbontrust. (2018). Carbon footprinting Introductory guide. Carbon Trust.CDP. (2021). PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON：The state of internal carbon pricing bycorporates globally. CDP.Chen, M.-J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of management review,vol.21, p.100-134.Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2015). Reconceptualizing competitive dynamics: A multidimensional framework. Strategic management journal,vol.36, p.758-775.Collis, D., & Montgomery, C. (1997). Corporate strategy: Resources and the scope of the firm. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm (Vol. 2). Englewood Cliffs, NJ.d`Andrade, R. G., Shweder, R., & Le Vine, R. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. Adams, Robert McC, Ed.; And Others Behavioral and Social Science Research: A National,vol.197.DellaSala, D. A., & Goldstein, M. I. (2017). Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene (Vol. 1). Elsevier.Derobert, E., & Operations Howard Klee, J. World business council for sustainable development. In: Citeseer.DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological reviewp.147-160.Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Blome, C., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: integrating institutional theory, resource‐based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management,vol.30, p.341-361.Ecofys, C. (2017). HOW-TO GUIDE TO CORPORATE INTERNAL CARBON PRICING: Four Dimensions to Best Practice Approaches. generation foundation; ECOFYS; CDP. In.Eicke, L., Weko, S., Apergi, M., & Marian, A. (2021). Pulling up the carbon ladder? Decarbonization, dependence, and third-country risks from the European carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Research & Social Science,vol.80.Fang, H., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., & Welsh, D. H. (2012). Family Firms` Professionalization: Institutional Theory and Resource-Based View Perspectives. Small Business Institute® Journal (SBIJ),vol.8.Fernhaber, S. A., & Li, D. (2010). The impact of interorganizational imitation on new venture international entry and performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,vol.34, p.1-30.Fremeth, A. R., & Richter, B. K. (2011). Profiting from environmental regulatory uncertainty: Integrated strategies for competitive advantage. California Management Review,vol.54, p.145-165.Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative science quarterlyp.454-479.Gorbach, O., Kost, C., & Pickett, C. (2022). Review of internal carbon pricing and the development of a decision process for the identification of promising Internal Pricing Methods for an Organisation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,vol.154.Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California management review,vol.33, p.114-135.Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Societyp.501-522.HALL, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic management journal,vol.13, p.135-144.Harpankar, K. (2019). Internal carbon pricing: rationale, promise and limitations. Carbon Management,vol.10, p.219-225.Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of management review,vol.20, p.986-1014.Hartmann, T. (2022). Carbon Pricing Strategy of Taiwan: Path to Global Net Zero Roadmap Forum.Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. (1997). Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative science quarterlyp.472-500.Initiative, G. R. (2018). GRI 305: Emissions 2016. In: Récupéré le.INTEL. (2022). 2021-22 Intel Corporate Responsibility Report.Lieberman, M. B., & Asaba, S. (2006). Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of management review,vol.31, p.366-385.Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology,vol.83, p.340-363.Microsoft. (2020). Microsoft Supplier Code of Conduct 2021. p.16.Microsoft. (2022). 2021 Environmental Sustainability Report.Nordhaus, W. D. (2007). To tax or not to tax: Alternative approaches to slowing global warming. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management review,vol.16, p.145-179.Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource‐based views. Strategic management journal,vol.18, p.697-713.Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), p.73-93.Porter, M. E. (2011). Competitive advantage of nations: creating and sustaining superior performance. simon and schuster.Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. In Knowledge and strategy (pp. p.41-59). Routledge.Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations (Vol. 2). Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publications.Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J.W. (1983). The Organization of Societal Sectors: Propositions and Early Evidence. Beverly Hills.Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism" old" and" new". Administrative science quarterly p.270-277.Smith, B. (2020). Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030. Microsoft.Standardization, I. O. f. (2006). Environmental management: life cycle assessment; Principles and Framework. ISO.Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences (Vol. 48). Sage.Stephenson, M. (2018). Energy and climate change: an introduction to geological controls, interventions and mitigations. Elsevier.Sutton, J. R., Dobbin, F., Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1994). The legalization of the workplace. American Journal of Sociology,vol.99, p.944-971.Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). New Society Publishers.WBCSD. (2015). Emerging Practices in Internal Carbon Pricing: A Practical Guide.Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal,vol.5, p.171-180.Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. (2008). A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. Ecological economics research trends,vol.1, p.1-11.Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. Oxford University Press.WorldBank. (2022). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2022.Zhang, C., & Dhaliwal, J. (2009). An investigation of resource-based and institutional theoretic factors in technology adoption for operations and supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics,vol.120, p.252-269.中文文獻中央通訊社 (2022)。氣候變遷因應法修法會後記者會。中央通訊社： https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202204210250.aspx。2022/06/27。中華民國外交部(2014)。「聯合國氣候變化綱要公約」（UNFCCC）成立之背景、目的、成員責任及基本原則為何？。中華民國外交部：https://subsite.mofa.gov.tw/igo/News_Content.aspx?n=C60A5AF9E8F638E0&sms=FD69E2823D9785AA&s=0F2AF4C227A2C81C。2022/06/29。毛秀云(2006)。轉型經濟中制度環境對組織同形影響之研究--以中國食品業通路為例, 東海大學企業管理學系碩士班論文 東海大學。台達電子(2021)。2020台達電子永續報告書。台達電子。行政院環保署(2021)。溫管法簡介。行政院環保署：https://ghgrule.epa.gov.tw/greenhouse/greenhouse_page/23/100。2022/06/24行政院環保署(2021)。溫室氣體減量及管理法修正草案總說明(2021)。行政院環保署。吳思華(2002)。策略九說: 策略思考的本質。復旦大學出版社。李堅明(2019)。臺灣碳權交易與碳稅的未來。會計研究月刊。頁101-107。李堅明(2021)。全球淨零排放因應策略。《TRI政策高峰會談》系列二 全球淨零碳排挑戰與因應。李堅明, & 楊喻閔(2021)。企業內部碳價訂定與氣候效益。會計研究月刊。頁54-59。周志宏(2020)。台達電子成為全台第一家通過 SBTi 審查企業。永續產業發展頁75-79。林晉寬(1995)。從資源基礎理論探討資源特性與成長策略之關係。國立政治大學企業管理研究所博士論文.。邱凡玶(2021)。國際企業內部碳定價作法初探。經濟部溫室氣體減量管理推動辦公室。邱莉燕(2021)。一噸碳交300美元碳費？台達電「高貴」定價的祕密。遠見雜誌：https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/84055。2022/05/26。金管會(2022)。綠色金融行動方案3.0。金融監督管理委員會。胡幼慧(1996)。質性研究: 理論, 方法及本土女性研究實例。台北: 巨流。夏立軍、方鐵強(2005)。政府控制, 治理環境與公司價值。經濟研究。第五版。頁40-51。徐千偉(2014)。我國政府因應氣候變遷的治理政策。人文與社會科學簡訊15卷2期。海英俊(2022)。永續論壇。永續論壇,許惠卿(2022)。台灣碳定價策略：邁向全球淨零。前瞻論壇,陳炫碩、陳佩宜、游敏、張一中(2014)。由制度理論探討企業實施綠色供應鏈之研究。商管科技季刊。頁247-278。曾真真、賴勇成、簡俊成(2020)。行為理論及 AMC 模型對管理人風險承擔的影響-以台灣電子資訊製造業赴大陸投資為例。管理與系統。頁53-76。黃雪娟(2010)。ISO溫室氣體系列國際標準趨勢介紹。永續產業發展雙月刊。劉仲恩(2021)。「碳權」到底是什麼？碳交易、碳抵換真的可以實質減碳、邁向淨零？。CSR@天下：https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/42144。2022/04/24。盧振華(2021)。買方永續供應鏈管理與利益關係人壓力可以讓供應商獲得更好的環境與營運績效嗎? 管理學報。頁497-532。 zh_TW
