學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 新創企業與大型企業之 ESG 價值共創 -以陽光伏特家為個案研究
Value Cocreation of ESG between Startup and Large Firm: Case Study of Sunnyfounder作者 蔡宜臻
Tsai, Yi-Chen貢獻者 鄭至甫
蔡宜臻
Tsai, Yi-Chen關鍵詞 綠能新創
企業合作
價值共創
Cooperation
Green Energy
Value Co-Creation
Startups日期 2023 上傳時間 2-八月-2023 14:13:28 (UTC+8) 摘要 隨著全球氣候變遷、疫情和戰爭等影響，社會與環境議題已成為全球關注的焦點，各產業也開始重新定義ESG並納入營運決策。台灣政府呼籲企業邁向2050淨零碳排為目標，並要求管控供應鏈碳足跡、降低碳排放，透過自己創能、購買再生能源或是憑證降低使用灰電比例，以減少溫室氣體排放。台灣政府為了培育本國成為亞洲新創資本匯聚中心，推出許多綠能相關的創新創業計劃，而在所有再生能源產業中，又以太陽光電最為成熟，此外，2019年台灣電業法修法後，私人企業也能申請再生能源售電業執照，與台電一同販售綠電給消費者，促進再生能源發展和永續發展的進程。過去有關ESG的學術研究主要探討綠能風潮對企業的影響、企業營運績效與ESG投入的關聯性等，此外，從這幾年台灣企業的現象中，可以發現許多大型企業與綠能新創合作來達到個公司的永續目標，而過去的學術研究中，也較少探討綠能相關新創的合作價值變化。為了結合國際ESG趨勢以及台灣新創趨勢，本研究透過「新創與大型企業的ESG合作過程所共創的價值為何？」來分析合作的契機、互動模式、風險控管，以及盤點其利害關係人是否有價值上的創造。本研究透過一間綠能新創與一間大型企業的三次合作歷程，來探討雙方在合作上的契機、合作歷程及價值上的轉變，發現在合作條件上，綠能新創會透過評估大型企業的永續形象、人脈影響力來尋找合作夥伴，而大型企業則是重視綠能新創的創新度、國際視野、議題發酵度；在合作過程中，本研究透過Prahalad和Ramaswamy所提出的價值共創四大要素來檢視雙方的合作歷程，發現在該共創模式下，會格外重視與公部門的溝通及人脈，以及對先行者專案的風險評估；最後，在訪談過程中，發現專案進行中最大的風險及變數之一就是公部門與利害關係人，故綠能新創與大型企業需要具備良好的應變能力，因為隨著法規的調整，雙方的合作模式會進行轉變，並帶動更多的利害關係人共同提升價值。綠能新創希望透過合作來提高名聲、信任度，而大型企業則透過合作來達到自己的永續目標，為了符合國際趨勢，未來這樣的合作案會越來越多，本研究填補了在綠能新創與大型企業合作領域的研究空白，並提供未來ESG新創團隊與大型企業在合作時可參考的管理決策方針。
With the impact of global climate change, epidemics and wars, social and environmental issues have become the focus of global attention, and industries are beginning to redefine ESG and incorporate it into operational decisions. The Taiwanese government has called on companies to move towards a net zero carbon emissions target of 2050 and has asked them to control the carbon footprint of their supply chain, reduce carbon emissions, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by generating their own energy, purchasing renewable energy, or reducing the proportion of gray power use through certificates. In addition, after the amendment of the Taiwan Electricity Law in 2019, private companies will be able to apply for renewable energy sales licenses and sell green electricity to consumers together with Taipower, promoting the development of renewable energy and sustainable development.In the past, academic studies on ESG have mainly explored the impact of the green energy trend on companies, the correlation between corporate operational performance and ESG investment, etc. In addition, from the phenomenon of Taiwanese companies in the past few years, it can be found that many large companies have cooperated with green energy start-ups to achieve their individual sustainability goals. In order to combine international ESG trends with Taiwan`s new venture trends, this study analyzes the opportunities, interactions, and risk management of the collaboration through the main question: What is the value created by the collaboration process between ESG startups and large firms?This study examines the opportunities, process, and value changes in the collaboration between a green start-up and a large firm through their three collaborative experiences. In the process of cooperation, this study examined the process through the four elements of value co-creation proposed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy, and found that under this co-creation model, special attention is paid to communication and networking with public departments, as well as risk assessment of previous projects. This study found that two of the biggest risks and variables in the project are the public sector and stakeholders. Therefore, start-ups and large corporations need to be able to respond well to changes in regulations, which will lead to a change in the mode of cooperation between the two sides, and bring more stakeholders together to enhance value.Green Start-ups hope to enhance their reputation and trust through cooperation, while large enterprises achieve their sustainability goals through cooperation. This study fills a research gap in the field of cooperation between ESG start-ups and large firms, and provides management decision guidelines for future cooperation between ESG start-up teams and large corporations.參考文獻 一、中文文獻中華民國經濟部（2023年1月25日）。風+光首度破發電占比三成 每三度電約有一度是綠電且電壓無虞。 https://www.moea.gov.tw/MNS/populace/news/News.aspx?kind=1&menu_id=40&news_id=104411中華民國總統府（2021 年 4 月）。世界地球日 總統：臺灣正積極部署在2050年達到淨零排放目標的可能路徑。https://www.president.gov.tw/News/26056方世杰、李慶芳（2017年 5 月 31 日）。價值共創策略思維的五步驟。價值共創社群。http://teamwork0035.blogspot.com/2017/05/blog-post_31.html王玉樹（2022年 11 月 20 日）。風場未完工 將可提早拍賣綠電。中國時報。https://www.chinatimes.com/amp/newspapers/20221120000358-260110行政院（2019 年 1月）。《電業法》修法—發展綠能，啟動國家能源轉型。https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/2ae8bfb8-6014-49d1-b04e-75374fbd6096李蘇竣（2023 年 1 月 3 日）。2022年度光電設置量達2.5GW 創歷來新高。環境資訊中心。https://e-info.org.tw/node/235831花旗台灣銀行（2022）。2021年環境社會和公司治理報告書。https://www.citibank.com.tw/global_docs/chi/csr/download/Citi2021ESGReport.pdf陳肇鴻（2023）。董事會面對ESG目標的治理責任－以金融機構氣候風險管理為例。臺灣財經法學論叢，5(1)，219-260。黃正忠、王竣弘（2020）。責任投資趨勢下 投資人關係的角色。會計研究月刊，419， 48-53. https://doi.org/10.6650/arm.202010_(419).0005黃思敏（2021年 7 月 2 日）。電業自由化里程碑 台電電力交易中心啟用。環境資訊中心。https://e-info.org.tw/node/231577黃追（2022）。ESG浪潮下銀行業的氣候變遷風險管理。內部稽核，119， 30-41。https://doi.org/10.7100/ia.202211_(119).0004蔡昌憲（2023）。董事會之永續治理角色與董事監督義務。臺灣財經法學論叢，5(1)，155-218。簡淑綺（2022年 8 月 27 日）。【2022年臺灣早期投資專題-綠能篇】爭相跨足，2021年臺灣綠能投資再創新高。FINDIT。https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=2126 二、英文文獻Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231-1241.Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Tallman, S. (2005). Cooperative strategy: Managing alliances, networks, and joint ventures. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199266241.001.0001de Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. d. L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), 1-12.Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 279-301.Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.Gummesson, E. (1994). Service management: an evaluation and the future. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(1), 77-96.Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986-1014.Henisz, W., Koller, T., & Nuttall, R. (2019). Five ways that ESG creates value. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Strategy%20and%20Corporate%20Finance/Our%20Insights/Five%20ways%20that%20ESG%20creates%20value/Five-ways-that-ESG-creates-value.ashxJaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: A service system perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 247-261.Jung, S. (2018). Cooperating with start-ups as a strategy: Towards corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. In A. Presse & O. Terzidis (Eds.), Technology Entrepreneurship (pp. 283-298). Springer.Kanamura, T. (2020). Are green bonds environmentally friendly and good performing assets? Energy Economics, 88, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104767Klein, B., Crawford, R. G., & Alchian, A. A. (1978). Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. The Journal of Law and Economics, 21(2), 297-326.Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing management (12th ed.). Pears Education.Kramer, M. R., & Porter, M. (2011). The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1-2), 62-77.Pinho, N., Beirão, G., Patrício, L., & P. Fisk, R. (2014). Understanding value co-creation in complex services with many actors. Journal of Service Management, 25(4), 470-493.Porter, M. E. (2008). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=H9ReAijCK8cCPrahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (2003). The core competence of the corporation. International Library of Critical Writings in Economics, 163, 210-222.Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004b). Co‐creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership, 32(3), 4-9.Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004c). The Future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business Press.Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. J. (2010). The power of co-creation: Build it with them to boost growth, productivity, and profits. Simon and Schuster.Snehota, I., & Hakansson, H. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks (1st ed.). Routledge.Steiber, A., & Alänge, S. (2013). The formation and growth of Google: A firm-level triple helix perspective. Social Science Information, 52(4), 575-604.Steiber, A., & Alänge, S. (2021). Corporate-startup collaboration: Effects on large firms` business transformation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 235-257.Stuckey, H. L. (2013). Three types of interviews: Qualitative research methods in social health. Journal of Social Health and Diabetes, 1(02), 056-059.Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463-490.Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 1-19.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008a). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254-259.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008b). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1-10.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It`s all B2B… and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181-187.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5-23.Vogel, D. (2007). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Brookings Institution Press.Weiblen, T., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2015). Engaging with startups to enhance corporate innovation. California Management Review, 57(2), 66-90.Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.Widyawati, L. (2020). A systematic literature review of socially responsible investment and environmental social governance metrics. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 619-637.Wikström, S. (1996a). The customer as co‐producer. European Journal of Marketing, 30(4), 6-19.Wikström, S. (1996b). Value creation by company‐consumer interaction. Journal of Marketing Management, 12(5), 359-374.Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative Research Methods, 5(14), 359-386. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
110364129資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110364129 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 鄭至甫 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 蔡宜臻 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Tsai, Yi-Chen en_US dc.creator (作者) 蔡宜臻 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Tsai, Yi-Chen en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-八月-2023 14:13:28 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-八月-2023 14:13:28 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-八月-2023 14:13:28 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0110364129 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146611 - 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) 110364129 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著全球氣候變遷、疫情和戰爭等影響，社會與環境議題已成為全球關注的焦點，各產業也開始重新定義ESG並納入營運決策。台灣政府呼籲企業邁向2050淨零碳排為目標，並要求管控供應鏈碳足跡、降低碳排放，透過自己創能、購買再生能源或是憑證降低使用灰電比例，以減少溫室氣體排放。台灣政府為了培育本國成為亞洲新創資本匯聚中心，推出許多綠能相關的創新創業計劃，而在所有再生能源產業中，又以太陽光電最為成熟，此外，2019年台灣電業法修法後，私人企業也能申請再生能源售電業執照，與台電一同販售綠電給消費者，促進再生能源發展和永續發展的進程。過去有關ESG的學術研究主要探討綠能風潮對企業的影響、企業營運績效與ESG投入的關聯性等，此外，從這幾年台灣企業的現象中，可以發現許多大型企業與綠能新創合作來達到個公司的永續目標，而過去的學術研究中，也較少探討綠能相關新創的合作價值變化。為了結合國際ESG趨勢以及台灣新創趨勢，本研究透過「新創與大型企業的ESG合作過程所共創的價值為何？」來分析合作的契機、互動模式、風險控管，以及盤點其利害關係人是否有價值上的創造。本研究透過一間綠能新創與一間大型企業的三次合作歷程，來探討雙方在合作上的契機、合作歷程及價值上的轉變，發現在合作條件上，綠能新創會透過評估大型企業的永續形象、人脈影響力來尋找合作夥伴，而大型企業則是重視綠能新創的創新度、國際視野、議題發酵度；在合作過程中，本研究透過Prahalad和Ramaswamy所提出的價值共創四大要素來檢視雙方的合作歷程，發現在該共創模式下，會格外重視與公部門的溝通及人脈，以及對先行者專案的風險評估；最後，在訪談過程中，發現專案進行中最大的風險及變數之一就是公部門與利害關係人，故綠能新創與大型企業需要具備良好的應變能力，因為隨著法規的調整，雙方的合作模式會進行轉變，並帶動更多的利害關係人共同提升價值。綠能新創希望透過合作來提高名聲、信任度，而大型企業則透過合作來達到自己的永續目標，為了符合國際趨勢，未來這樣的合作案會越來越多，本研究填補了在綠能新創與大型企業合作領域的研究空白，並提供未來ESG新創團隊與大型企業在合作時可參考的管理決策方針。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) With the impact of global climate change, epidemics and wars, social and environmental issues have become the focus of global attention, and industries are beginning to redefine ESG and incorporate it into operational decisions. The Taiwanese government has called on companies to move towards a net zero carbon emissions target of 2050 and has asked them to control the carbon footprint of their supply chain, reduce carbon emissions, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by generating their own energy, purchasing renewable energy, or reducing the proportion of gray power use through certificates. In addition, after the amendment of the Taiwan Electricity Law in 2019, private companies will be able to apply for renewable energy sales licenses and sell green electricity to consumers together with Taipower, promoting the development of renewable energy and sustainable development.In the past, academic studies on ESG have mainly explored the impact of the green energy trend on companies, the correlation between corporate operational performance and ESG investment, etc. In addition, from the phenomenon of Taiwanese companies in the past few years, it can be found that many large companies have cooperated with green energy start-ups to achieve their individual sustainability goals. In order to combine international ESG trends with Taiwan`s new venture trends, this study analyzes the opportunities, interactions, and risk management of the collaboration through the main question: What is the value created by the collaboration process between ESG startups and large firms?This study examines the opportunities, process, and value changes in the collaboration between a green start-up and a large firm through their three collaborative experiences. In the process of cooperation, this study examined the process through the four elements of value co-creation proposed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy, and found that under this co-creation model, special attention is paid to communication and networking with public departments, as well as risk assessment of previous projects. This study found that two of the biggest risks and variables in the project are the public sector and stakeholders. Therefore, start-ups and large corporations need to be able to respond well to changes in regulations, which will lead to a change in the mode of cooperation between the two sides, and bring more stakeholders together to enhance value.Green Start-ups hope to enhance their reputation and trust through cooperation, while large enterprises achieve their sustainability goals through cooperation. This study fills a research gap in the field of cooperation between ESG start-ups and large firms, and provides management decision guidelines for future cooperation between ESG start-up teams and large corporations. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節：研究背景 1第二節：研究動機 2第三節：研究問題 2第四節：研究流程 3第二章 文獻回顧 5第一節：理論基礎 5一、資源基礎理論 5二、資源互補的內涵 7第二節：企業社會責任與永續發展 8一、企業社會責任 8二、ESG的價值創造 8第三節：價值共創 10一、價值共創的發展與內涵 10二、利害關係人的價值共創模式 14第三章 研究方法 17第一節：研究架構 17第二節：研究方法 18一、個案研究法 18二、半結構式訪談 18三、資料蒐集與分析 18第三節：研究樣本 19一、研究個案選擇 19二、研究個案訪談 19第四章 研究分析 21第一節：個案介紹 21一、新創個案公司簡介：陽光伏特家 21二、陽光伏特家商業模式 22三、台灣綠能產業概況 25四、合作企業簡介：花旗銀行 27五、社福單位簡介 27第二節：合作模式及歷程 28一、第一次合作：陽光助老 28二、第二次合作：迎光飛翔 31三、第三次合作：公益碳權 33四、小結 35第三節：合作的風險與困境 36一、第一次合作：陽光助老 36二、第二次合作：迎光飛翔 38三、第三次合作：公益碳權 39四、小結 40第四節：價值創造與效益 41一、個案一：陽光助老 41二、個案二：迎光飛翔 42三、個案三：公益碳權 43四、小結 44第五節：研究分析總結 45第五章 結論與建議 49第一節：研究發現 49第二節：研究討論 55第三節：研究貢獻與意涵 58一、學術貢獻 58二、實務貢獻 59第四節：研究限制 60一、個案侷限性 60二、產業快速變動 60第五節：未來建議 61一、探討綠能新創與政府的互動 61二、探討法規如何驅動綠能新創的商業模式 61參考文獻 62一、中文文獻 62二、英文文獻 64附錄一 訪談大綱 67 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1626635 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110364129 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 綠能新創 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業合作 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 價值共創 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cooperation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Green Energy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Value Co-Creation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Startups en_US dc.title (題名) 新創企業與大型企業之 ESG 價值共創 -以陽光伏特家為個案研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Value Cocreation of ESG between Startup and Large Firm: Case Study of Sunnyfounder en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文文獻中華民國經濟部（2023年1月25日）。風+光首度破發電占比三成 每三度電約有一度是綠電且電壓無虞。 https://www.moea.gov.tw/MNS/populace/news/News.aspx?kind=1&menu_id=40&news_id=104411中華民國總統府（2021 年 4 月）。世界地球日 總統：臺灣正積極部署在2050年達到淨零排放目標的可能路徑。https://www.president.gov.tw/News/26056方世杰、李慶芳（2017年 5 月 31 日）。價值共創策略思維的五步驟。價值共創社群。http://teamwork0035.blogspot.com/2017/05/blog-post_31.html王玉樹（2022年 11 月 20 日）。風場未完工 將可提早拍賣綠電。中國時報。https://www.chinatimes.com/amp/newspapers/20221120000358-260110行政院（2019 年 1月）。《電業法》修法—發展綠能，啟動國家能源轉型。https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/2ae8bfb8-6014-49d1-b04e-75374fbd6096李蘇竣（2023 年 1 月 3 日）。2022年度光電設置量達2.5GW 創歷來新高。環境資訊中心。https://e-info.org.tw/node/235831花旗台灣銀行（2022）。2021年環境社會和公司治理報告書。https://www.citibank.com.tw/global_docs/chi/csr/download/Citi2021ESGReport.pdf陳肇鴻（2023）。董事會面對ESG目標的治理責任－以金融機構氣候風險管理為例。臺灣財經法學論叢，5(1)，219-260。黃正忠、王竣弘（2020）。責任投資趨勢下 投資人關係的角色。會計研究月刊，419， 48-53. https://doi.org/10.6650/arm.202010_(419).0005黃思敏（2021年 7 月 2 日）。電業自由化里程碑 台電電力交易中心啟用。環境資訊中心。https://e-info.org.tw/node/231577黃追（2022）。ESG浪潮下銀行業的氣候變遷風險管理。內部稽核，119， 30-41。https://doi.org/10.7100/ia.202211_(119).0004蔡昌憲（2023）。董事會之永續治理角色與董事監督義務。臺灣財經法學論叢，5(1)，155-218。簡淑綺（2022年 8 月 27 日）。【2022年臺灣早期投資專題-綠能篇】爭相跨足，2021年臺灣綠能投資再創新高。FINDIT。https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=2126 二、英文文獻Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231-1241.Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Tallman, S. (2005). Cooperative strategy: Managing alliances, networks, and joint ventures. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199266241.001.0001de Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. d. L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), 1-12.Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 279-301.Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.Gummesson, E. (1994). Service management: an evaluation and the future. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(1), 77-96.Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986-1014.Henisz, W., Koller, T., & Nuttall, R. (2019). Five ways that ESG creates value. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Strategy%20and%20Corporate%20Finance/Our%20Insights/Five%20ways%20that%20ESG%20creates%20value/Five-ways-that-ESG-creates-value.ashxJaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: A service system perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 247-261.Jung, S. (2018). Cooperating with start-ups as a strategy: Towards corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. In A. Presse & O. Terzidis (Eds.), Technology Entrepreneurship (pp. 283-298). Springer.Kanamura, T. (2020). Are green bonds environmentally friendly and good performing assets? Energy Economics, 88, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104767Klein, B., Crawford, R. G., & Alchian, A. A. (1978). Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. The Journal of Law and Economics, 21(2), 297-326.Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing management (12th ed.). Pears Education.Kramer, M. R., & Porter, M. (2011). The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1-2), 62-77.Pinho, N., Beirão, G., Patrício, L., & P. Fisk, R. (2014). Understanding value co-creation in complex services with many actors. Journal of Service Management, 25(4), 470-493.Porter, M. E. (2008). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=H9ReAijCK8cCPrahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (2003). The core competence of the corporation. International Library of Critical Writings in Economics, 163, 210-222.Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004b). Co‐creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership, 32(3), 4-9.Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004c). The Future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business Press.Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. J. (2010). The power of co-creation: Build it with them to boost growth, productivity, and profits. Simon and Schuster.Snehota, I., & Hakansson, H. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks (1st ed.). Routledge.Steiber, A., & Alänge, S. (2013). The formation and growth of Google: A firm-level triple helix perspective. Social Science Information, 52(4), 575-604.Steiber, A., & Alänge, S. (2021). Corporate-startup collaboration: Effects on large firms` business transformation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 235-257.Stuckey, H. L. (2013). Three types of interviews: Qualitative research methods in social health. Journal of Social Health and Diabetes, 1(02), 056-059.Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463-490.Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 1-19.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008a). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254-259.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008b). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1-10.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It`s all B2B… and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181-187.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5-23.Vogel, D. (2007). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Brookings Institution Press.Weiblen, T., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2015). Engaging with startups to enhance corporate innovation. California Management Review, 57(2), 66-90.Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.Widyawati, L. (2020). A systematic literature review of socially responsible investment and environmental social governance metrics. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 619-637.Wikström, S. (1996a). The customer as co‐producer. European Journal of Marketing, 30(4), 6-19.Wikström, S. (1996b). Value creation by company‐consumer interaction. Journal of Marketing Management, 12(5), 359-374.Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative Research Methods, 5(14), 359-386. zh_TW
