在追求經濟發展的同時必須與環境的維護互相配合，才能達到永續發展的目的。而近年來亞洲許多國家經濟快速成長，尤其是亞洲開發中國家，利用本身的優勢促使世界各地的大企業皆前往投資設立工廠，進而成為支撐亞洲經濟成長的重要角色。但是伴隨著經濟發展而來的是各式的環境汙染，尤其是二氧化碳的過度排放導致地球暖化現象問題，更是近年來備受世人關注，因此本論文將以國家生產力的觀點，再加入環境影響因素後，來進行探討國家整體性的績效評估。本研究的目的是在於比較亞洲29個國家在考慮非意欲產出(CO2排放量)情況下的環境績效之分析討論，且將此29個國家因地緣位置劃分為五個區域及發展程度區分為已開發國家和開發中國家分別探討，再以Malmquist生產力指數來分析各國及區域的跨年度生產力變動，並藉由此兩項指標做綜合分析，研究期間為2010年到2016年間。並探討亞洲國家及區域組織的產業及經濟發展策略及調整。實證結果顯示，在考慮碳排放下的生產效率，亞洲各區域中以西亞最佳，其次是東亞、東南亞、南亞及中亞。以國家來看，2010~2016年之平均環境效率表現較佳的前五名分別為以色列、新加坡、日本、卡達及科威特；表現較差的後五名則分別為不丹、中國、印度、吉爾吉斯及尼泊爾。以Malmquist生產力指數來探討，各區域之平均跨期效率值排名為東南亞、東亞、中亞、南亞，而西亞則是呈現衰退狀況。國家層面則是汶萊進步幅度最大，其次是寮國、越南、菲律賓及中國；率退幅度較大的則有科威特、卡達、柬埔寨、日本、不丹。最後利用兩項指標做綜合分析，新加坡、以色列、卡達及科威特在第一及第四象限間變化，代表這些國家的整體經濟發展策略上，在方向與執行上都相對有成效；而其他國家則需要重新檢視國家的發展策略及改善其產業結構來達到效率。

In pursuit of economic growth, we must cooperate with the maintenance of the environment to achieve the goal of sustainable development. In recent years, many Asian countries have experienced rapid economic growth, especially in developing countries. They have used their own advantages to encourage international companies around the world to go to invest and set up factories, and thus play an important role in supporting Asian economic growth. However, along with economic development, various types of environmental pollution, especially the excessive emission of carbon dioxide, have caused global warming. It has attracted the attention of the world in recent years. Therefore, this thesis will add environmental factor from the perspective of national productivity. After the factors, we will conduct a performance evaluation that explores the country's overall performance. The purpose of this thesis is to compare the analysis of the environmental performance of 29 countries in Asia considering the undesirable output (CO2 emissions), and divide the 29 countries into five regions due to geographical location and then classify them by development level into Developed countries and developing countries discuss separately, and then analyze the cross-year productivity changes of countries and regions by Malmquist Productivity Index, and conduct comprehensive analysis by two indicators. The research period is from 2010 to 2016. It also explores the industrial and economic development strategies and adjustments of Asian countries and regional organizations. The empirical results show that in terms of production efficiency under carbon emissions, West Asia is the best, followed by East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Central Asia. In terms of countries, the top five countries with average environmental efficiency performance from 2010 to 2016 were Israel, Singapore, Japan, Qatar and Kuwait; the bottom five were Bhutan, China, India ,Kyrgyzstan and Nepal. Based on the Malmquist Productivity Index, the average intertemporal efficiency Indexes for each region are ranked in Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia, while West Asia is in a recession. At the national level, Brunei has the largest progress, followed by Laos, Vietnam,Philippines and China; the larger recessions are Kuwait, Qatar, Cambodia, Japan and Bhutan. Finally, using two indicators for comprehensive analysis, Singapore, Israel, Qatar and Kuwait have changes between the first and fourth quadrants, representing that the overall economic development strategies of these countries are relatively effective in terms of direction and implementation; while other countries It is necessary to re-examine the country's development strategy and improve its industrial structure to achieve efficiency.

一、 中文文獻
1. 林彩梅。多國籍企業論，五南，台北市，2006。
2. 吳濟華、何柏正。組織效率與生產力評估-資料包絡分析法，前程，台北縣，2009。
3. 余朝權。創造生產力優勢：知識經濟時代的競爭武器，五南，台北市，2002。
4. 行政院主計總處統計專區，薪資及生產力統計，多因素生產力趨勢分析報告。
5. 莊奕琦、林祖嘉，台灣產業結構變化分析與因應策略：『去工業化與空洞化之剖析』。
6. 宋鎮照。海峽評論319期，2017。

二、 英文文獻
1. Arcelus, F. and P. Arocena (2005). "Productivity differences across OECD countries in the presence of environmental constraints." Journal of the Operational Research Society 56(12): 1352-1362.
2. Ayres, R. U., et al. (2007). "Energy efficiency, sustainability and economic growth." Energy 32(5): 634-648.
3. Barla, P. and S. Perelman (2005). "Sulphur emissions and productivity growth in industrialised countries." Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 76(2): 275-300.
4. Bampatsou, C. and G. Hadjiconstantinou (2009). "The use of the DEA method for simultaneous analysis of the interrelationships among economic growth, environmental pollution and energy consumption."
5. Banker, R. D., et al. (1984). "Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis." Management science 30(9): 1078-1092.
6. Caves, D. W., et al. (1982). "Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers." The economic journal 92(365): 73-86.
7. Chang, C.-C. and Y.-H. Luh (1999). "Efficiency change and growth in productivity: the Asian growth experience." Journal of asian Economics 10(4): 551-570.
8. Chang, D.-S., Kuo, L.-c. R., & Chen, Y.-t. (2013). Industrial changes in corporate sustainability performance–an empirical overview using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 147-155.
9. Chang, D.-S., Yeh, L.-T., & Liu, W. (2015). Incorporating the carbon footprint to measure industry context and energy consumption effect on environmental performance of business operations. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17(2), 359-371.
10. Chalecki, E. (2000). Same Planet, Different Worlds: The Climate Change Information Gap. conference Climate Change Communication.
11. Charnes, A., et al. (1978). "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units." European journal of operational research 2(6): 429-444.
12. Cooper, W.W., Seiford. LM and Tone, K.(2007):Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Clark, C. (1940). The conditions of economic progress. London: Macmillan.
14. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and M.. Norris (1994), “Producyivity Growth, Technical progress and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries, ” American Economic Review, Vol. 84, 66-83
15. Färe, R., et al. (2004). "Environmental performance: an index number approach." Resource and Energy Economics 26(4): 343-352.
16. Farrell, M. J. (1957). “The Measurement of Productivity Efficiency." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A , vol.120,no.3,(1957), 253-290.
17. Fisher, A. G. (1939). "Production, primary, secondary and tertiary." Economic record 15(1): 24-38.

18. Gomes, E. and M. E. Lins (2008). "Modelling undesirable outputs with zero sum gains data envelopment analysis models." Journal of the Operational Research Society 59(5): 616-623.
19. Guo, X.-D., Zhu, L., Fan, Y., & Xie, B.-C. (2011). Evaluation of potential reductions in carbon emissions in Chinese provinces based on environmental DEA. Energy policy, 39(5), 2352-2360.
20. Hu, J.-L. and C.-H. Kao (2007). "Efficient energy-saving targets for APEC economies." Energy policy 35(1): 373-382.
21. Kortelainen, M. (2008). "Dynamic environmental performance analysis: a Malmquist index approach." Ecological economics 64(4): 701-715.
22. Kumar, S. (2006). "Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: a global analysis using Malmquist–Luenberger index." Ecological economics 56(2): 280-293.
23. Lo, S.-F., et al. (2005). "Taking CO2 emissions into a country's productivity change: the Asian growth experience." The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 12(3): 279-290.
24. Lovell, C. K., et al. (1995). "Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: A comparison of European and non-European countries." European journal of operational research 87(3): 507-518.
25. Meng, F., Fan, L., Zhou, P., & Zhou, D. (2013). Measuring environmental performance in China’s industrial sectors with non-radial DEA. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 58(5-6), 1047-1056.
26. Mol, A. P. (2003). "Global institutional clashes: economic versus environmental regimes." The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 10(4): 303-318.
27. Ray, S. C. and E. Desli (1997). "Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries: comment." The American Economic Review 87(5): 1033-1039.
28. Simon, K. (1971). Economic Growth of Nations: Total Output and Production Structure, Cambridge (USA): Harvard University Press.
29. Smale, R., et al. (2006). "The impact of CO2 emissions trading on firm profits and market prices." Climate Policy 6(1): 31-48.
30. Tone, K. (2001). "A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis." European journal of operational research 130(3): 498-509.
31. Zaim, O. and F. Taskin (2000). "Environmental efficiency in carbon dioxide emissions in the OECD: a non-parametric approach." Journal of Environmental Management 58(2): 95-107..
32. Zhou, P., et al. (2006). "Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance." Ecological economics 60(1): 111-118.
33. Zhou, P., et al. (2007). "A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance." European journal of operational research 178(1): 1-9.
34. Zhou, P., Ang, B., & Han, J. (2010). Total factor carbon emission performance: a Malmquist index analysis. Energy Economics, 32(1), 194-201.
35. Zofı́o, J. L. and A. M. Prieto (2001). "Environmental efficiency and regulatory standards: the case of CO2 emissions from OECD industries." Resource and Energy Economics 23(1): 63-83.