1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 永續發展：金融先行者的氣候機會轉換
Sustainable Development: Climate Opportunity Transformation by Financial Pioneers
作者 嚴之妤
Yen, Chih-Yu
貢獻者 蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Ruey-Lin
嚴之妤
Yen, Chih-Yu
關鍵詞 氣候變遷
永續變遷
機會辨識
商業邏輯
永續邏輯
Climate change
Sustainability transition
Opportunity identification
Business logic
Sustainability logic
日期 2024
上傳時間 1-Jul-2025 14:31:29 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究探討企業如何在氣候變遷衝擊下落實永續發展。本文分析企業如何辨識氣候變遷風險，進而得以辨識永續商機。現有文獻強調機構力量對合規性的追求，然此卻使企業被動實踐永續行動，也導致重視永續而忽略商機的探索。另一觀點強調永續變遷，認為引進永續發展其實就是一場組織轉型，需要克服各種阻力。這樣的觀點雖然關注到組織內部的調適問題，卻也同樣忽略永續發展會帶來龐大的成本，與企業追尋商業邏輯的本質有所衝突。這兩做法也皆忽略永續發展關切到氣候變遷的風險，這樣的風險會為企業帶來龐大的成本，因此也必須要考量到轉換風險為機會的可能性。本研究分析三間永續金融先行者，整理該司辨識之實體風險與轉型風險的做法，再行梳理這些風險如何結合企業本身的資源，而找到轉換為商機的可能。在理論貢獻上，本研究點出，如何從氣候風險中辨識出機會，之後又何以轉化機會為商機，以使落實永續發展的過程中也結合到自身的商業模式，讓永續邏輯得以融入商業邏輯。在實務啟發上，本研究建議金融業在落實永續時可留意三項契機，包括氣候變遷帶來的「危機」、自身危機帶來的「轉機」，和轉機何以蛻變為「商機」。本文點出，唯有結合商業思維與永續發展，才能讓永續發展落實與企業。落實永續應以風險為出發點，並透過機會轉換以尋覓永續商機。
This research explores how businesses implement sustainability development in the context of climate change. It investigates how companies identify climate change risks and subsequently recognize sustainable opportunities. Existing literature emphasizes institutional power in enforcing compliance, resulting in a passive approach to sustainable actions by enterprises and a focus on sustainability that often neglects the exploration of business opportunities. Another perspective highlights sustainability transition, viewing the introduction of sustainability development as an organization transformation requiring the overcoming of various forms of resistance. While this perspective addresses internal adaptation challenges, it also overlooks the significant costs associated with sustainability development, which could conflict with the business logic. Both approaches inadequately consider the substantial costs that climate change risks impose on businesses, underscoring the necessity of transforming these risks into opportunities. Therefore, this research analyzes three pioneering companies in financial industry, detailing their methods for identifying physical and transitional risks, and examining how these risks could be leveraged with the companies’ resources to uncover opportunities. The theoretical contribution of this research lies in identifying how to discern opportunities from climate risks and transform these opportunities into business prospects. This process integrates sustainability development into the companies’ business operations, merging sustainability logic with business logic. Practically, this study suggests that the financial industry should focus on three key opportunities when implementing sustainability development initiatives: as the crises brought about by climate change risks, the opportunity also arises from these crises. It is vital to understand the transformation of crises into business opportunities. The paper posits that only by combining business acumen with sustainability logic could sustainability development be effectively integrated into business operations. Implementing sustainability development initiatives should begin with addressing risks and subsequently seek sustainable business opportunities through the conversion of these risks.
參考文獻 中文文獻 吳曉慧，2023，「品牌創新與永續發展」，《臺灣經濟研究月刊》，第46卷，第6期，81-87 頁。 翁晶晶、易莉翔，2022，「制度邏輯之演化：從企業社會責任的發展探討商業永續」，《中山管理評論》，第30卷，第5期，809-856頁。 張育琳，2019，「節能減碳，企業綠色環境管理策略與公司績效之關連性」，《中山管理評論》，第27 卷，第2期，279-326頁。 許永明，2021，「從學術文獻探討CSR作為企業策略性運用工具：過去、現在與未來」，《管理學報》，第39卷，第4期，477-495頁。 喬友慶、張鈺臻、林鈞鏗，2021，「善盡企業社會責任的供應商，真的會讓零售商顧客滿意嗎？」，《管理學報》，第 38卷，第4期，533-561頁。 蔡依倫，2021，「延遲改變：永續轉型過程的捍衛制度工作」，《管理學報》，第38卷，第4期，411-443頁。 蕭瑞麟，2020，《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北: 五南學術專書系列。 蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳煥宏，2019，《負負得正：隨創時相依性如何促成負資源轉換》，《組織與管理》，第12卷，第1期，127-171頁。 蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，《劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為》，《中山管理評論》，323-367頁。 蘇威傑，2017，《為什麼企業要發佈永續報告書？從非市場觀點解釋》，《管理學報》，第34卷，第3期，331-353頁。 英文文獻 Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1): 105-123. Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. 2014. Multiple insitutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 364-381. Boe-Lillegraven, S., Georgallis, P., & Kolk, A. 2023. Sea Change? Sensemaking, firm reactions, and community resilience following climate disasters. Journal of Management Studies, n/a(n/a). Busch, C., & Barkema, H. 2021. From necessity to opportunity: Scaling bricolage across resource‐constrained environments. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4): 741-773. Cao, J., Liang, H., & Zhan, X. 2019. Peer effects of corporate social responsibility. Management Science, 65(12): 5487-5503. Clement, J. 2023. Missing the forest for the trees: Modular search and systemic inertia as a response to environmental change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 68(1): 186-227. Cohen, B., & Muñoz, P. 2017. Entering conscious consumer markets: Toward a new generation of sustainability strategies. California Management Review, 59(4): 23-48. Crilly, D., Hansen, M., & Zollo, M. 2016. The grammar of the decoupling: A cognitive-linguistic perspective on firms’ sustainability claims and stakeholders’ interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2): 705-729. Dacin, M. T. 1997. Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 46-81. Darwish, T. K., Mohamed, A. F., Wood, G., Singh, S., & Fleming, J. 2017. Can HRM alleviate the negative effects of the resource curse on firms? Evidence from Brunei. Personnel Review, 46(8): 1931-1947. Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H., & Lauche, K. 2016. Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3): 659-677. Demers, C., & Gond, J. 2020. The moral microfoundations of institutional complexity: Sustainability implementation as compromise-making at an oil sands company. Organization Studies, 41(4): 563-586. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociology Review, 48: 147-160. Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. 2010. The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21(5): 1092-1107. Geels, F. W. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9): 1257-1274. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36: 399-417. Gephart, R. P., Jr. 1993. The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1465-1514. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 874-907. Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380. Haanaes, K., Michael, D., Jurgens, J., & Rangan, S. 2013. Making sustainability profitable. Harvard Business Review, 91(3): 110-115. Kim, E.-H., & Lyon, T. P. 2015. Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organization Science, 26(3): 705-723. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. 2014. Blue Ocean Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 92(5): 60-72. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. 2016. Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1): 205-217. Kornberger, M., Leixnering, S., & Meyer, R. E. 2018. The Logic of Tact: How Decisions Happen in Situations of Crisis. Organization Studies, 40(4): 239-266. Kornberger, M., Leixnering, S., & Meyer, R. E. 2019. The logic of tact: How decisions happen in situations of crisis. Organization Studies, 40(2): 239-266. Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Satlynski, C. J. 1999. Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology: 1979-1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55: 161-187. Liu, S.-C., Chang, A., Shiu, Y.-M., & Chen, H.-R. 2020. Reflections on CSR awards in Taiwan. Review of Securities & Futures Markets, 33(2): 1-50. MacLean, T. L., & Behnam, M. 2010. The dangers of decoupling: The relationship between compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and institutionalized misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1499-1520. Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. 2012. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6): 955-967. Martin, S., & Pauwels, S. 1999. The diffusion of innovations in urban design: The case of sustainability in the Hulme development guide. Journal of Urban Design, 4(1): 97-117. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. 2009. Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9): 56-64. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2013. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4): 972-1001. Peloza, J., Loock, M., Cerruti, J., & Muyot, M. 2012. Sustainability: How stakeholders perceptions differ from corporate reality. California Management Review, 55(1): 74-95. Powell, E. E., & Baker, T. 2014. It's what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1406-1433. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6): 629-652. Rothenberg, S. 2007. Sustainability through servicizing. Sloan Management Review, 48(2): 83-89. Scott, S. V., & Barrett, M. I. 2005. Strategic risk positioning as sensemaking in crisis: the adoption of electronic trading at the London international financial futures and options exchange. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(1): 45-68. Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448-469. Shu, E., & Lewin, A. Y. 2016. A resource dependence perspective on low-power actors shaping their regulatory environment: The case of Honda. Organization Studies, 38(8): 1039-1058. Strambach, S., & Pflitsch, G. 2020. Transition topology: Capturing institutional dynamics in regional development paths to sustainability. Research Policy, 49(7): 104006. Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Busenitz, L. 2012. Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1): 77-94. Tourais, P., & Videira, N. 2023. Sustainability transition strategies in a business context: A co-creation process in the Portuguese hospitality sector. Corporate Social Responsibility Environment Management, 31(1): 600-628. Tyre, M., & Orlikowski, W. 1994. Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(1): 98-118. Vaghely, I. P., & Julien, P.-A. 2010. Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1): 73-86. Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. W. 2009. From crisis to opportunity: Environmental jolt, corporate acquisitions, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(7): 791-801. Weick, K. E. 1988. Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4): 305-317. Weigelt, C., Lu, S., & Verhaal, J. C. 2021. Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 50(9): 1-22. Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. 2013. Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2): 307-336. Wijen, F. 2014. Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 302-323.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
111364104
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111364104
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 蕭瑞麟zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Hsiao, Ruey-Linen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 嚴之妤zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yen, Chih-Yuen_US
dc.creator (作者) 嚴之妤zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Yen, Chih-Yuen_US
dc.date (日期) 2024en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2025 14:31:29 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Jul-2025 14:31:29 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2025 14:31:29 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0111364104en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/157717-
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) 111364104zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究探討企業如何在氣候變遷衝擊下落實永續發展。本文分析企業如何辨識氣候變遷風險，進而得以辨識永續商機。現有文獻強調機構力量對合規性的追求，然此卻使企業被動實踐永續行動，也導致重視永續而忽略商機的探索。另一觀點強調永續變遷，認為引進永續發展其實就是一場組織轉型，需要克服各種阻力。這樣的觀點雖然關注到組織內部的調適問題，卻也同樣忽略永續發展會帶來龐大的成本，與企業追尋商業邏輯的本質有所衝突。這兩做法也皆忽略永續發展關切到氣候變遷的風險，這樣的風險會為企業帶來龐大的成本，因此也必須要考量到轉換風險為機會的可能性。本研究分析三間永續金融先行者，整理該司辨識之實體風險與轉型風險的做法，再行梳理這些風險如何結合企業本身的資源，而找到轉換為商機的可能。在理論貢獻上，本研究點出，如何從氣候風險中辨識出機會，之後又何以轉化機會為商機，以使落實永續發展的過程中也結合到自身的商業模式，讓永續邏輯得以融入商業邏輯。在實務啟發上，本研究建議金融業在落實永續時可留意三項契機，包括氣候變遷帶來的「危機」、自身危機帶來的「轉機」，和轉機何以蛻變為「商機」。本文點出，唯有結合商業思維與永續發展，才能讓永續發展落實與企業。落實永續應以風險為出發點，並透過機會轉換以尋覓永續商機。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This research explores how businesses implement sustainability development in the context of climate change. It investigates how companies identify climate change risks and subsequently recognize sustainable opportunities. Existing literature emphasizes institutional power in enforcing compliance, resulting in a passive approach to sustainable actions by enterprises and a focus on sustainability that often neglects the exploration of business opportunities. Another perspective highlights sustainability transition, viewing the introduction of sustainability development as an organization transformation requiring the overcoming of various forms of resistance. While this perspective addresses internal adaptation challenges, it also overlooks the significant costs associated with sustainability development, which could conflict with the business logic. Both approaches inadequately consider the substantial costs that climate change risks impose on businesses, underscoring the necessity of transforming these risks into opportunities. Therefore, this research analyzes three pioneering companies in financial industry, detailing their methods for identifying physical and transitional risks, and examining how these risks could be leveraged with the companies’ resources to uncover opportunities. The theoretical contribution of this research lies in identifying how to discern opportunities from climate risks and transform these opportunities into business prospects. This process integrates sustainability development into the companies’ business operations, merging sustainability logic with business logic. Practically, this study suggests that the financial industry should focus on three key opportunities when implementing sustainability development initiatives: as the crises brought about by climate change risks, the opportunity also arises from these crises. It is vital to understand the transformation of crises into business opportunities. The paper posits that only by combining business acumen with sustainability logic could sustainability development be effectively integrated into business operations. Implementing sustainability development initiatives should begin with addressing risks and subsequently seek sustainable business opportunities through the conversion of these risks.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 聲明頁 I 謝辭 II 中文摘要 III 英文摘要 IV 表目錄 IX 圖目錄 X 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 一、實務動機 1 二、理論動機 2 第二節 研究目的 4 一、分析氣候變遷風險帶來的制約 4 二、探索永續機會的辨識 5 三、分析永續商機 5 第三節 預期效益 6 一、章節佈局 6 二、預期學術貢獻 7 三、預期實務貢獻 7 第二章 文獻回顧 8 第一節 專有名詞定義 8 一、 氣候變遷 8 二、永續發展 9 第二節 機構法遵觀點 13 ㄧ、制定永續政策 13 二、建立永續習慣 14 三、宣導永續認知 15 第三節 永續變遷觀點 16 一、永續變遷的組成條件 16 二、永續變遷的外部影響 17 三、永續變遷的內部改革 18 第四節 理論缺口—機會轉換觀點 19 一、落實永續由風險著手 19 二、氣候災害的機會辨識 20 三、由相依性轉換商機 21 第三章 研究方法 23 第一節 案例選擇與理論取樣 23 第二節 資料分析架構 24 第三節 資料蒐集過程 28 第四章 研究發現 33 第一節 永續金融趨勢 33 一、氣候變遷風險 33 二、先行者聯盟 35 第二節 玉山金控：永續轉型平台 37 一、個案背景 37 二、氣候變遷風險 39 （一）實體風險：暴雨乾旱影響營運 39 （二）轉型風險：營運危機導致呆帳 41 三、機會辨識 42 （一）機會辨識一：提升風險認知 43 （二）機會辨識二：協助媒合資源 44 （三）機會辨識三：提供融資方案 46 四、永續商機 47 （一）商機ㄧ：企業永續平台 47 （二）商機二：碳排放計算機 49 （三）商機三：永續企金商品 50 第三節 中信金控：綠色偵探 54 一、個案背景 55 二、氣候變遷風險 57 （一）實體風險：淹水加劇水質污染 57 （二）轉型風險：高碳產品需求下降 58 三、機會辨識 60 （一）機會辨識一：因接觸而認知 60 （二）機會辨識二：因成效而成就 61 （三）機會辨識三：因信任而忠誠 63 四、永續商機：綠色偵探 64 （一）商機ㄧ：永續教育學院 65 （二）商機二：全卡別碳足跡 66 （三）商機三：綠色減碳行動 68 第四節 國泰金控：綠色房東 71 一、個案背景 72 二、氣候變遷風險 74 （一）實體風險：溫室氣體急增須減量 74 （二）轉型風險：能源昂貴用電危機 75 三、機會辨識 76 （一）機會辨識一：團購壓低成本 76 （二）機會辨識二：能源轉型風潮 78 （三）機會辨識三：電業融資方案 79 四、永續商機：綠色房東 80 （一）商機ㄧ：團綠電出租 81 （二）商機二：立自有電業 82 （三）商機三：創能源專案 83 第五章 研究討論 88 第一節 學術意涵 88 一、危機四伏，危機是福 88 二、機會辨識，具相依性 89 三、機會轉換，角色、資源及關係 90 第二節 實務貢獻 91 一、金控永續落實三契機 91 二、金融先行者思辨設計 92 第三節 研究限制與未來方向 95 第六章 結論 97 參考文獻 99 中文文獻 99 英文文獻 99zh_TW
dc.format.extent 10249182 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111364104en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 氣候變遷zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 永續變遷zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 機會辨識zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 商業邏輯zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 永續邏輯zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Climate changeen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Sustainability transitionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Opportunity identificationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Business logicen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Sustainability logicen_US
dc.title (題名) 永續發展：金融先行者的氣候機會轉換zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Sustainable Development: Climate Opportunity Transformation by Financial Pioneersen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻 吳曉慧，2023，「品牌創新與永續發展」，《臺灣經濟研究月刊》，第46卷，第6期，81-87 頁。 翁晶晶、易莉翔，2022，「制度邏輯之演化：從企業社會責任的發展探討商業永續」，《中山管理評論》，第30卷，第5期，809-856頁。 張育琳，2019，「節能減碳，企業綠色環境管理策略與公司績效之關連性」，《中山管理評論》，第27 卷，第2期，279-326頁。 許永明，2021，「從學術文獻探討CSR作為企業策略性運用工具：過去、現在與未來」，《管理學報》，第39卷，第4期，477-495頁。 喬友慶、張鈺臻、林鈞鏗，2021，「善盡企業社會責任的供應商，真的會讓零售商顧客滿意嗎？」，《管理學報》，第 38卷，第4期，533-561頁。 蔡依倫，2021，「延遲改變：永續轉型過程的捍衛制度工作」，《管理學報》，第38卷，第4期，411-443頁。 蕭瑞麟，2020，《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北: 五南學術專書系列。 蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳煥宏，2019，《負負得正：隨創時相依性如何促成負資源轉換》，《組織與管理》，第12卷，第1期，127-171頁。 蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，《劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為》，《中山管理評論》，323-367頁。 蘇威傑，2017，《為什麼企業要發佈永續報告書？從非市場觀點解釋》，《管理學報》，第34卷，第3期，331-353頁。 英文文獻 Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1): 105-123. Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. 2014. Multiple insitutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 364-381. Boe-Lillegraven, S., Georgallis, P., & Kolk, A. 2023. Sea Change? Sensemaking, firm reactions, and community resilience following climate disasters. Journal of Management Studies, n/a(n/a). Busch, C., & Barkema, H. 2021. From necessity to opportunity: Scaling bricolage across resource‐constrained environments. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4): 741-773. Cao, J., Liang, H., & Zhan, X. 2019. Peer effects of corporate social responsibility. Management Science, 65(12): 5487-5503. Clement, J. 2023. Missing the forest for the trees: Modular search and systemic inertia as a response to environmental change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 68(1): 186-227. Cohen, B., & Muñoz, P. 2017. Entering conscious consumer markets: Toward a new generation of sustainability strategies. California Management Review, 59(4): 23-48. Crilly, D., Hansen, M., & Zollo, M. 2016. The grammar of the decoupling: A cognitive-linguistic perspective on firms’ sustainability claims and stakeholders’ interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2): 705-729. Dacin, M. T. 1997. Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 46-81. Darwish, T. K., Mohamed, A. F., Wood, G., Singh, S., & Fleming, J. 2017. Can HRM alleviate the negative effects of the resource curse on firms? Evidence from Brunei. Personnel Review, 46(8): 1931-1947. Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H., & Lauche, K. 2016. Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3): 659-677. Demers, C., & Gond, J. 2020. The moral microfoundations of institutional complexity: Sustainability implementation as compromise-making at an oil sands company. Organization Studies, 41(4): 563-586. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociology Review, 48: 147-160. Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. 2010. The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21(5): 1092-1107. Geels, F. W. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9): 1257-1274. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36: 399-417. Gephart, R. P., Jr. 1993. The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1465-1514. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 874-907. Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380. Haanaes, K., Michael, D., Jurgens, J., & Rangan, S. 2013. Making sustainability profitable. Harvard Business Review, 91(3): 110-115. Kim, E.-H., & Lyon, T. P. 2015. Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organization Science, 26(3): 705-723. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. 2014. Blue Ocean Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 92(5): 60-72. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. 2016. Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1): 205-217. Kornberger, M., Leixnering, S., & Meyer, R. E. 2018. The Logic of Tact: How Decisions Happen in Situations of Crisis. Organization Studies, 40(4): 239-266. Kornberger, M., Leixnering, S., & Meyer, R. E. 2019. The logic of tact: How decisions happen in situations of crisis. Organization Studies, 40(2): 239-266. Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Satlynski, C. J. 1999. Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology: 1979-1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55: 161-187. Liu, S.-C., Chang, A., Shiu, Y.-M., & Chen, H.-R. 2020. Reflections on CSR awards in Taiwan. Review of Securities & Futures Markets, 33(2): 1-50. MacLean, T. L., & Behnam, M. 2010. The dangers of decoupling: The relationship between compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and institutionalized misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1499-1520. Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. 2012. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6): 955-967. Martin, S., & Pauwels, S. 1999. The diffusion of innovations in urban design: The case of sustainability in the Hulme development guide. Journal of Urban Design, 4(1): 97-117. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. 2009. Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9): 56-64. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2013. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4): 972-1001. Peloza, J., Loock, M., Cerruti, J., & Muyot, M. 2012. Sustainability: How stakeholders perceptions differ from corporate reality. California Management Review, 55(1): 74-95. Powell, E. E., & Baker, T. 2014. It's what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1406-1433. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6): 629-652. Rothenberg, S. 2007. Sustainability through servicizing. Sloan Management Review, 48(2): 83-89. Scott, S. V., & Barrett, M. I. 2005. Strategic risk positioning as sensemaking in crisis: the adoption of electronic trading at the London international financial futures and options exchange. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(1): 45-68. Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448-469. Shu, E., & Lewin, A. Y. 2016. A resource dependence perspective on low-power actors shaping their regulatory environment: The case of Honda. Organization Studies, 38(8): 1039-1058. Strambach, S., & Pflitsch, G. 2020. Transition topology: Capturing institutional dynamics in regional development paths to sustainability. Research Policy, 49(7): 104006. Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Busenitz, L. 2012. Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1): 77-94. Tourais, P., & Videira, N. 2023. Sustainability transition strategies in a business context: A co-creation process in the Portuguese hospitality sector. Corporate Social Responsibility Environment Management, 31(1): 600-628. Tyre, M., & Orlikowski, W. 1994. Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(1): 98-118. Vaghely, I. P., & Julien, P.-A. 2010. Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1): 73-86. Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. W. 2009. From crisis to opportunity: Environmental jolt, corporate acquisitions, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(7): 791-801. Weick, K. E. 1988. Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4): 305-317. Weigelt, C., Lu, S., & Verhaal, J. C. 2021. Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 50(9): 1-22. Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. 2013. Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2): 307-336. Wijen, F. 2014. Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 302-323.zh_TW