Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 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作者 張紋菁
Chang, Went-Ching貢獻者 郭維裕<br>馮震宇
Kuo, Wei-Yu
張紋菁
Chang, Went-Ching關鍵詞 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日期 2025 上傳時間 4-Aug-2025 13:06:33 (UTC+8) 摘要 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參考文獻 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. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)
112932180資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112932180 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 郭維裕<br>馮震宇 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Kuo, Wei-Yu en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張紋菁 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang, Went-Ching en_US dc.creator (作者) 張紋菁 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chang, Went-Ching en_US dc.date (日期) 2025 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-Aug-2025 13:06:33 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-Aug-2025 13:06:33 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-Aug-2025 13:06:33 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0112932180 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158357 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 經營管理碩士學程(EMBA) zh_TW dc.description (描述) 112932180 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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 en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 致謝 I ABSTRACT II 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與問題 1 第二節 研究動機、內容、步驟 2 第三節 研究範圍與限制 3 一、研究對象界定與產業範疇 3 二、時間、地點、技術成熟度等限制 4 第四節 名詞定義 4 一、ESG（Environmental, Social, Governance） 4 二、生物炭（Biochar） 5 三、木醋液（Pyroligneous Acid） 5 四、碳權（Carbon Credit） 6 第五節 研究流程與論文架構 6 一、研究架構 6 二、研究流程 7 三、研究方法與資料來源 7 四、論文章節安排 7 第二章 文獻探討與理論基礎 9 第一節 ESG 永續發展框架 9 一、ESG歷史沿革和我國的ESG體系 9 二、農業部門的ESG探討 10 三、基於農業產業的環境（E）構面之探討與再詮釋 10 四、基於農業產業的社會（S）構面之傳統認定與再詮釋 10 五、本研究對農業產業的ESG之定義與三構面再詮釋 11 第二節 農業循環經濟理論 11 一、農業循環經濟的基本概念與背景脈絡 11 二、副產物再利用與零廢棄思維 12 三、農業資源再生閉環模型 12 四、本研究對農業循環經濟的整合詮釋與研究定位 13 第三節 農業循環經濟體系中的生物炭與氣化技術發展 13 一、生物炭與氣化技術的背景與基本原理 13 二、穀殼生物炭與氣化設備的技術演進 13 三、木醋液與其他氣化副產物的商業潛力與應用價值 14 四、本研究對氣化與生物炭技術的整合詮釋與定位 14 第四節 結合ESG要素下的農業產業轉型與永續發展理論探討 14 一、農業產業的轉型與永續發展 15 二、結合ESG要素下的農業產業的永續轉型路徑 15 三、小結 15 第五節 小結 15 第三章 理論架構與分析方法 17 第一節 理論基礎與研究架構 17 一、灰犀牛理論與產業風險識別 17 二、ESG 框架與企業永續治理 18 三、農業循環經濟與生質能源理論 19 四、理論整合與研究架構 19 第二節 研究設計與資料來源 20 一、應用導向研究與個案方法整合 20 二、分層次架構模型建立 20 三、次級資料收集途徑 21 四、半結構式訪談設計 21 五、現場觀察與技術調查 22 第三節 分析工具與模型應用 22 一、灰犀牛理論應用 22 二、SWOT 分析 23 三、波特五力分析 23 四、安索夫矩陣策略應用 24 第四節 深度訪談整理原則與倫理考量 24 一、訪談對象與內容整理 25 二、訪談保密與資訊揭露原則 25 第五節 理論與方法之關係 25 第六節 訪談設計對應內容 26 第四章 個案分析：A碾米廠的永續轉型實踐 28 第一節 公司背景與營運模式概述 28 一、企業創立與經營歷程 28 二、產業角色與產品結構 28 第二節 基於ESG的升級契機與轉型路徑 29 一、升級契機 29 二、轉型路徑 30 第三節 商業模式與市場策略分析 30 一、產品應用（肥料、淨水、碳權） 30 二、商業模式畫布與價值主張 31 第四節 ESG治理導入成效分析 32 一、環境面碳足跡減排效益 32 二、社會面在地連結與農民合作 32 三、治理面透明化管理與責任報告 33 第五節 財務評估與投資回收期分析 34 一、營運成本與投資初期資本配置 34 二、回收年限與風險敏感分析 34 第六節 小結 34 第五章 策略分析與發展建議 36 第一節 灰犀牛理論應用：碾米副產物市場的風險識別與應對 36 一、市場需求波動的灰犀牛風險與成因 36 二、技術依賴與政策變動的灰犀牛風險與成因 36 三、應對灰犀牛風險的策略設計 36 第二節 SWOT 分析：碾米廠轉型優劣盤點 37 一、內部優勢與劣勢 37 二、外部機會與威脅 37 第三節 五力分析：碾米副產物產業結構盤點 37 一、現有競爭者與新進入者的威脅 38 二、替代品威脅與買方的議價能力 38 三、供應商的議價能力與應對建議 38 第四節 安索夫矩陣下的成長路徑 38 一、現有產品深耕 39 二、新市場與新產品開發 39 三、多元化推進 39 第五節 ESG導向下的利益整合與創新 39 一、建立品牌 ESG 聲譽 39 二、與政府、農會、學研單位協作機制 40 第六節 政策建議與綠色金融結合路徑 40 一、碳交易市場與認證制度對接建議 40 二、補助政策與投資誘因設計 40 第七節 小結 41 第六章 結論與未來展望 42 第一節 研究發現與學術貢獻 42 一、本研究主要發現整理 42 二、對 ESG 與循環經濟結合理論的貢獻 42 第二節 對傳統農業產業的轉型建議 42 一、以碾米業為例的 ESG 導入步驟建議 43 二、副產物技術應用的策略思維與組織條件 43 第三節 對政策與產業推動的建議 43 一、政策工具與補助制度的導入建議 43 二、建構地方性碳管理平台與農產永續制度 43 第四節 研究限制與未來研究方向 44 一、研究範圍與樣本的限制 44 二、未來研究的延伸主題與方法建議 44 參考文獻 45 附錄 訪談問卷 51 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1781711 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112932180 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) ESG評估 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 農業循環經濟 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 稻殼氣化技術 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 生物炭應用 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 碾米產業轉型 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) ESG Assessment en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Circular Agriculture Economy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Rice Husk Gasification en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Biochar Application en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Rice Milling Industry Transformation en_US dc.title (題名) 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 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Transformation of the Rice Milling Industry under ESG Sustainability: The Market Potential of Rice Husk Biomass Energy en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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. zh_TW
