本研究以 2016 至 2024 年台灣上市非金融業公司為樣本，探討 ESG（環境、社會、公司治理）表現對機構投資人持股行為之影響，並進一步檢驗研發支出是否於其中扮演中介機制。研究採用固定效果模型與分組迴歸分析，並納入時間滯後設計，以觀察 ESG 資訊對投資決策之跨期影響。
我們發現，整體 ESG 評分僅對投信法人持股呈現穩定且顯著的正向關聯；外資與自營商則未展現一致反應，顯示不同機構投資人對 ESG 表現之敏感程度具有顯著異質性。進一步拆解 ESG 三大構面後發現，投信法人對環境構面特別敏感，顯示企業若在環保作為上表現良好，將更容易吸引投信資金配置；外資則主要關注公司治理表現，對環境與社會面之回應相對保守；自營商則未對 ESG 任一構面產生顯著反應，反映其投資策略較不受永續資訊驅動。
進一步的中介效果分析顯示，企業研發支出可部分傳導 ESG 整體評分對投信法人持股的影響，但此中介機制對外資與自營商並不成立。此外，ESG 評分對投信法人持股具有顯著的時間遲延效果，說明投信法人在投資決策上會持續追蹤並回應企業的永續表現。
整體而言，研究結果支持 ESG 表現對機構法人投資決策存在顯著影響，且此影響方向與程度依法人類型而異。企業若能將永續策略與研發創新有效整合，將更有可能獲得具長期投資取向之機構法人青睞。

The main purpose of this research examines the impact of corporate ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) performance on institutional ownership, using panel data from Taiwan-listed non-financial firms between 2016 and 2024. This study not only analyzes the effects of both overall ESG scores and individual dimensions (ENV, SOC, GOV), but also explores whether R&D intensity acts as a mediating mechanism. Furthermore, it investigates investor heterogeneity by categorizing institutional investors into foreign investors, mutual funds, and dealers, while also incorporating a time-lagged design to test for delayed investment responses to ESG information.
The empirical results indicate that ESG performance positively influences mutual fund ownership, particularly through the environmental dimension, while foreign investors respond significantly to governance performance only. Dealers show no consistent response to ESG factors. Evidence of mediation via R&D is limited, and only partially supported within the mutual fund sample. Time-lagged models reveal that ESG information has a deferred effect on mutual fund investment decisions. Overall, this study highlights the differentiated preferences among investor types and suggests that ESG performance, when aligned with innovation strategies, can enhance firm appeal to long-term capital providers.

參考文獻
1. Asgharian, H., Dzieliński, M., Hashemzadeh, Z., & Liu, L. (2024). Green links: Corporate networks and environmental performance. Review of Finance, 28, 1027–1058.
2. Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2925310
3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
4. Barth, M. E., Clinch, G., & Shibano, T. (2003). Market effects of recognition and disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(4), 581–609.
5. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1–19.
6. Bushee, B. J. (1998). The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. The Accounting Review, 73(3), 305–333.
7. Bradshaw, M. T., Richardson, S. A., & Sloan, R. G. (2006). The relation between corporate financing activities, analysts’ forecasts and stock returns. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 42(1–2), 53–85.
8. Chen, H., Lin, Y., & Hsiao, H. (2020). ESG performance and institutional ownership: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 10(2), 213–230.
9. Cheng, S., & Huang, S. (2024). ESG combined score effects on stock performance of S&P 500-listed firms. Finance Research Letters, 66, 105686.
10. Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23.
11. Clark, G. L., Feiner, A., & Viehs, M. (2015). From the stockholder to the stakeholder: How sustainability can drive financial outperformance. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2508281.
12. Dyck, A., Lins, K. V., Roth, L., & Wagner, H. F. (2019). Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 131(3), 693–714.
13. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.
14. Ferreira, D., Manso, G., & Silva, A. C. (2014). Incentives to innovate and the decision to go public or private. The Review of Financial Studies, 27(1), 256–300.
15. Flammer, C. (2015). Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science, 61(11), 2549–2568.
16. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.
17. Gompers, P. A., & Metrick, A. (2001). Institutional investors and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 229–259.
18. Gillan, S. L., Hartzell, J. C., Koch, A., & Starks, L. T. (2010). Firms’ environmental, social and governance (ESG) choices, performance and managerial motivation. Unpublished working paper, Texas Tech University and University of Texas at Austin.
19. Hong, H., & Kacperczyk, M. (2009). The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), 15–36.
20. Ilhan, E., Krueger, P., Sautner, Z., & Starks, L. T. (2023). Climate change and long-term investors: Evidence from sovereign wealth funds. Review of Financial Studies, 36(2), 469–510.
21. Krüger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304–329.
22. La Porta, R., Lopez‐de‐Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Legal determinants of external finance. Journal of Finance, 52(3), 1131–1150.
23. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517.
24. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (2000). Investor protection and corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 3–27.
25. Lin, M. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2018). Institutional ownership and innovation: Evidence from Taiwan. Taiwan Economic Review, 46(1), 93–132.
26. Liu, T., Lu, W., & Wang, J. (2023). ESG performance, technological innovation, and firm value: Evidence from China. Sustainability, 15(5), 4002.
27. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. The American Economic Review, 48(3), 261–297.
28. Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, H. T., & Nguyen, L. C. (2023). The impact of environmental, social and governance disclosure on stock prices: Empirical research in Vietnam. Journal of Accounting, Finance and Auditing Studies, 9(2), 1–22.
29. Ong, C. H., Tan, L. P., & Richardson, G. (2023). ESG disclosure and technological innovation capabilities of the Chinese listed companies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management.
30. Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.
31. Padgett, R. C., & Galan, J. I. (2010). The effect of R&D intensity on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 407-418.
32. Rau, P. R., & Yu, T. (2024). A survey on ESG: Investors, institutions and firms. China Finance Review International, 14(1), 3–33.
33. Tang, Y. (2022). The effect of ESG performance on corporate innovation in China: The mediating role of financial constraints and agency cost. Journal of Cleaner Production, 331, 129962.
34. Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H., & Managi, S. (2019). Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 286-300.
35. 丁秀儀（2009）。公司治理是否受到機構投資人的青睞。管理學報，26(3)，233-253。
36. 丁秀儀、黃勇達（2010）。資訊揭露程度與內涵對機構投資人持股的影響。證券市場發展季刊，22(3)，39-74。
37. 池祥萱、繆文娟、呂昀潔（2024）。ESG/CSR績效對公司的股利支付扮演重要角色嗎？來自全球的證據。管理評論，43(4)，47-69。
38. 郭憲章、葉立仁、王麗惠（2016）。公司治理特性對於研究發展與企業財務績效關聯性之影響：以U-shape法檢定研發投入之非線性關係。Review of Securities and Futures Markets，28(4)，1-38。
39. 莊永丞（2025）。論ESG評等機構的迷思與對策。臺灣財經法學論叢，7(1)，107-161。
40. 謝文良、李進生（2024）。ESG評分歧異及對永續投資的影響。Review of Securities and Futures Markets，36(1)，1-70。