本研究以臺灣上市公司為樣本，檢視十大股東持股比例與家族成員參與經營對公司ESG三面向績效的影響。結果發現，雖然股權集中能顯著提升公司治理表現，但在控制內生性問題後，十大股東持股比例與社會責任投入呈現顯著負向關係，顯示公司傾向以資源配置最大化股東利益，削弱對外部利害關係人的承諾，甚至降低對環境改善的意願。此外，家族成員參與管理雖能改善治理機制並正向影響環境方面的表現，卻對社會績效有一致且顯著的負面效果，主要係因臺灣多為中小企業，在資源稀缺、決策集中與外部監督不足的情況下，較不願意投入無法即時獲得回報的社會責任行動。整體而言，集中式所有權和經營權的公司類型雖有助於強化內部治理效率，但治理效率的提升只能部分緩解對環境和社會的負面影響，因此建議政府與主管機關可考慮如ESG資訊揭露補助等誘因措施，以鼓勵這種由家族成員企業與大股東更積極承擔環境與社會責任，並推動公司邁向永續治理。

This study uses listed companies in Taiwan to examine how the largest shareholder’s shareholding ratio and Relatives‐member involvement in management affect the three dimensions of corporate ESG performance. The results indicate that, although ownership concentration significantly enhances governance performance, after addressing endogeneity, the largest shareholder’s shareholding ratio is significantly negatively related to social‐responsibility investment—suggesting that firms allocate resources to maximize shareholder value at the expense of external stakeholders—and yields only limited positive effects on environmental performance.
Moreover, while Relatives‐member involvement in management improves governance mechanisms and positively influences environmental outcomes, it consistently and significantly undermines social performance. This may be due to Relatives firms’ scarce resources, concentrated decision‐making power, and insufficient external oversight, which hinder engagement in long‐term, non‐immediately remunerative social‐responsibility initiatives. Overall, improved governance efficiency can only partly mitigate these negative effects. It is recommended that government and regulatory authorities consider incentive measures—such as subsidies for ESG information disclosure—to encourage Relatives firms and major shareholders to more actively assume their environmental and social responsibilities and to advance sustainable governance.

一、 中文文獻
黃鼎恩、林佑澄、陳君瑋（2022），公司治理之性別平等與永續發展，《主計月刊》，804，68–73
劉奕葳（2024），「家族企業之經營表現再檢視，國立中正大學經濟學系碩士論文

二、 英文文獻
Abeysekera, A. P., & Fernando, C. S. (2020). “Corporate social responsibility versus corporate shareholder responsibility: A Relatives firm perspective.” Journal of Corporate Finance, 61, 101370.
Aboud, A., & Diab, A. (2018). “The impact of social, environmental and corporate governance disclosures on firm value: Evidence from Egypt.” Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 8(4), 442–458.
Arduino, F. R., Buchetti, B., & Harasheh, M. (2024). “The veil of secrecy: Relatives firms’ approach to ESG transparency and the role of institutional investors.” Finance Research Letters, 62, 105243.
Arora, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (2011). “Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack.” Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(2), 136–152.
Arora, P., Jain, T., & Gaur, A. (2024). “Communalizing private costs: Ownership concentration, institutions, and corporate environmental performance.” Global Strategy Journal, 1–30.
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). “Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders.” Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). “Socioemotional wealth in Relatives firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research.” Relatives Business Review, 25(3), 258–279.
Boubaker, S., Cellier, A., Manita, R., & Saeed, A. (2020). “Does corporate social responsibility reduce financial distress risk?” Economic Modelling, 91, 1–26.
Boyd, B. K., & Solarino, A. M. (2016). “Ownership of corporations: A review, synthesis, and research agenda.” Journal of Management, 42(5), 1282–1314.
Dam, L., & Scholtens, B. (2012). “Does ownership type matter for corporate social responsibility?” Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(3), 233–252.
Faller, C. M., & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. (2018). “Does equity ownership matter for corporate social responsibility? A literature review of theories and recent empirical findings.” Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 15–40.
Huang, L., & Chen, A. (2024). “Relatives business succession and corporate ESG behavior.” Finance Research Letters, 60, 104901.
Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Sarathy, R., & Murphy, F. (2012). “Innovativeness in Relatives firms: A Relatives influence perspective.” Small Business Economics, 38(1), 85–101.
Li, Y., Gong, M., Zhang, X., & Koh, L. (2018). “The impact of environmental, social, and governance disclosure on firm value: The role of CEO power.” The British Accounting Review, 50(1), 60–75.
Lin, Z., Zhang, Q., & Deng, C. (2024). “Multiple large shareholders and ESG performance: Evidence from shareholder friction.” Sustainability, 16(15), 6558.
Liu, X., & Zhang, C. (2017). “Corporate governance, social responsibility information disclosure, and enterprise value in China.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1075–1084.
Rees, W., & Rodionova, T. (2015). “The influence of Relatives ownership on corporate social responsibility: An international analysis of publicly listed companies.” Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(3), 184–202.
Villalonga, B., Tufano, P., & Wang, B. (2025). “Corporate ownership and ESG performance.” Journal of Corporate Finance, 91, 102732.
Wang, L., Qi, J., & Zhuang, H. (2023). “Monitoring or collusion? Multiple large shareholders and corporate ESG performance: Evidence from China.” Finance Research Letters, 53, 103673.
Wu, H., Ma, Y., Zhang, L., & Wang, K. (2025). “Kinship intensity and ESG performance: The role of socioemotional wealth in Relatives businesses.” Applied Economics Letters.

三、 其他參考資料
普華永道會計師事務所(PwC)，《PwC’s 11th Global Relatives Business Survey》，2023年3月21日取自
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/Relatives-business/Relatives-business-survey.html
遠見雜誌，股民必看！臺灣長青傳承股100強：可成、群光、鴻海三雄稱霸電子業，2022年1月26日取自
https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/86595
White & Case，The effect of women on environmental, social and governance factors，2023年6月29日取自
https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/changing-face-mining-effect-women-esg