Exploring Key Factors Influencing ESG Commitment: Evidence from Taiwanese Listed Companies

Abstract

This study addresses critical Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) research gaps in Asia by developing a validated and holistic framework tailored to Taiwanese listed companies. Integrating the Resource-Based View (RBV), Institutional Theory, and Stakeholder Theory, the framework encompasses five key dimensions relevant to ESG commitment: Corporate Governance, Regulatory Pressure, Stakeholder Influence, Financial Performance, and ESG Implementation. This study adopts a two-round Delphi method involving 15 cross-sector ESG experts and uses a 7-point Likert scale questionnaire to validate 40 ESG sub-indicators. The research offers significant theoretical and practical contributions. Academically, it integrates multiple theoretical perspectives, providing a more comprehensive and enriched understanding of the key drivers influencing ESG commitment. It offers robust empirical validation within the specific Taiwanese context, thereby contributing to the body of knowledge in ESG research. Practically, it provides structured guidance for enhancing ESG readiness, empowering companies to implement more effective and impactful ESG strategies, and offers a practical tool for improving ESG performance. Furthermore, this framework’s adaptability positions it as a scalable model for ESG assessment and strategic alignment across Asia, providing valuable insights for policymakers and businesses seeking to advance sustainable development in the region.

1. Introduction

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles have become critical metrics for corporate sustainability amid global climate challenges. International standards, including the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) mandates, and IFRS S1/S2, emphasize the importance of non-financial disclosures. ESG is no longer merely a branding tool but is essential for long-term competitiveness and capital access.

1.1. Research Background and Motivation

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) commitments are increasingly essential amid global sustainability transitions. Taiwan’s regulatory-driven ESG model, led by the FSC, differs from the EU’s market-led evolution and Japan’s supply chain orientation. However, most Taiwanese firms—especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)-lack structured ESG systems, creating a critical research gap. This study addresses this gap by constructing and validating a multidimensional ESG framework grounded in robust theoretical foundations.

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) commitments are a strategic necessity for tackling climate change and fulfilling stakeholder expectations. Global frameworks, including the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), U.S. SEC’s climate disclosure rules, and IFRS S1/S2 standards [1,2], enhance non-financial disclosures. Taiwan’s regulatory-driven ESG model, led by the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) [3], differs from Japan’s supply chain approach, which mandates 90% supplier compliance [4], and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which encompasses approximately 50,000 firms [5]. However, 80% of Taiwanese listed companies lack ESG systems, trailing behind the EU’s 80% disclosure rate. Although the Ministry of Economic Affairs has outlined Taiwan’s 2050 net-zero pathway [6], the pace of corporate ESG systematization remains sluggish, especially among smaller firms.

Inconsistent ESG ratings result in varying scores for Taiwanese firms, hindering informed decision-making [1]. As a semiconductor hub, Taiwan’s industries, spearheaded by TSMC, face stringent environmental, social, and governance (ESG) expectations from buyers [7]. However, SMEs, which comprise 70% of listed firms, face challenges due to their limited resources [8]. The FSC’s 2022 Sustainable Development Roadmap requires IFRS S2 compliance by 2026 [3], yet systemic gaps remain [6]. This study combines Resource-Based View, Institutional Theory, and Stakeholder Theory [9,10,11] to create a five-dimensional framework (Corporate Governance, Regulatory Pressure, Stakeholder Influence, Financial Performance, ESG Implementation), addressing the challenges in Taiwan and promoting Asian ESG scholarship.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature and theoretical foundation, leading to the construction of the five-dimensional ESG framework. Section 3 introduces the research methodology, including the selection of experts and the Delphi procedures. Section 4 presents the results of specialist consensus and key ESG indicators. Section 5 discusses empirical implications, theoretical contributions, and practical relevance. Section 6 concludes the paper by presenting policy implications and discussing research limitations.

1.2. Research Questions

The section previously introduced ESG dimensions in bullet format. It has now been revised to present the five dimensions as a cohesive narrative that flows logically from governance structures to implementation mechanisms, with specific sub-indicator references embedded in context.

This study develops a five-dimensional framework to identify the drivers of ESG commitment in Taiwanese listed companies: Corporate Governance (A), Regulatory Pressure (B), Stakeholder Influence (C), Financial Performance (D), and ESG Implementation (E). Tailored to Taiwan’s regulatory model [3], it aligns with Japan’s supply chain focus [4] and the EU’s CSRD [5]. The framework integrates the Resource-Based View (RBV) for internal capabilities (A, D, E) [11], Institutional Theory for regulatory forces (A, B, C) [10], and Stakeholder Theory for external pressures (C, D, E) [9].

Forty sub-indicators, derived from GRI [12], IFRS S1/S2 [2], and FSC guidelines [13], capture governance (A5) and supply chain (C3) challenges [6,14]. By employing the Delphi method, this study validates their reflection on operational barriers, addressing gaps such as the fact that 80% of firms lack ESG systems and exhibit weak supply chain coordination, offering a scalable model for Asian markets.

2. Literature Review

2.1. ESG and Sustainable Development

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) frameworks are vital for corporate sustainability transformation in Taiwanese listed companies. The shift from shareholder value to stakeholder capitalism positions ESG as a measure of resilience and innovation [9,15]. Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) aligns with IFRS S1/S2 disclosures, with phased implementation starting in 2026 for large-cap firms [3]. Unlike Japan’s supply chain-driven model (90% supplier compliance) [4] or the EU’s CSRD mandates [5], Taiwan’s regulatory approach faces gaps, with 80% of firms lacking ESG systems [14].

Taiwan, a key player in the global semiconductor supply chain, faces unique challenges under pressure from international buyers (e.g., Apple) [2], with only 40% of its suppliers achieving ESG compliance. Customized frameworks aligned with the GRI [12] and IFRS S1/S2 [2], as applied in the EU [5], are critical. In Asia, ESG investment is growing, with Taiwan and Japan leading the way [6].

2.2. ESG and Corporate Governance

Corporate governance is central to ESG commitment in Taiwanese listed companies. Board structures, including independent director ratios and ESG committees, drive the integration of sustainability [14,15]. Prior studies also suggest that institutional pressures significantly influence how firms design their ESG governance structures [16]. Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) mandates enhanced board ESG roles [13], with firms such as TSMC linking 20% of bonuses to ESG metrics [7]. Unlike the EU, where over 80% of large companies integrate ESG goals into executive compensation packages [5], and unlike Japan’s robust disclosure norms [4], only 30% of Taiwanese SMEs establish ESG committees [6].

While institutional pressures are often cited as a driver of ESG governance structures, such as board-level ESG oversight, their effectiveness varies across firm size. In Taiwan, although the FSC mandates ESG governance roles, only 30% of SMEs have established such mechanisms. This discrepancy highlights the limits of coercive isomorphism, as defined by Institutional Theory, in contexts where firms lack the absorptive capacity or internal incentives to comply. Furthermore, the absence of ESG-linked compensation (A5) in most SMEs indicates a symbolic rather than substantive adoption of governance practices. Compared to the EU’s 80% adoption rate of ESG pay structures, Taiwan’s lag underscores a governance capability gap that extends beyond mere regulatory compliance to encompass organizational and cultural issues.

SMEs, constrained by resources, struggle to meet GRI [12] and IFRS S1/S2 [2] disclosure standards, as applied in the EU [5]. Global buyers, such as Apple, demand governance alignment [17], exposing gaps in sub-indicator A5 (board ESG engagement) [13]. Strengthening governance structures is crucial for addressing these gaps and aligning with international expectations [12,14].

2.3. ESG and Regulatory Pressure

Regulatory pressure has a significant impact on ESG commitment in Taiwanese listed companies. The Financial Supervisory Commission’s (FSC) 2015–2025 Sustainable Development Roadmap mandates enhanced ESG disclosures, with IFRS S2 compliance phased in by 2026 [3,13]. Compared to Singapore’s SGX disclosure norms [18] or the EU’s CSRD [5], Taiwan’s approach primarily drives large firms, such as TSMC [7], but only 20% of SMEs meet the disclosure standards [3].

Institutional Theory explains how regulations foster ESG adoption (B2: disclosure compliance, B8: policy integration) [10]. However, 80% of firms lack ESG systems, and high compliance costs hinder small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) [6]. Global buyers, such as Apple, impose additional regulatory expectations [17], which amplify gaps in B2 and B8 [13]. Aligning with IFRS S2, as in the EU [2,5], is crucial to bridging these gaps and enhancing compliance [3,14].

2.4. ESG and Stakeholder Influence

To further strengthen the stakeholder framework, this study applies the stakeholder salience model [19], which evaluates stakeholder influence based on power, legitimacy, and urgency. Global buyers such as Apple possess high salience, exerting coercive ESG pressure on Taiwanese suppliers. These stakeholders influence ESG prioritization, particularly in the area of supply chain transparency (e.g., sub-indicator C3).

Stakeholder influence is pivotal for ESG commitment in Taiwanese listed companies. Stakeholder Theory highlights how investors, customers, and NGOs shape corporate behavior [9,15]. Global buyers, such as Apple, demand supply chain ESG compliance [17], while investors prioritize ESG ratings, with only 30% of firms meeting expectations [6]. In contrast, Japan achieves 90% supplier compliance [4], and the EU’s CSRD enforces supply chain transparency [5].

Despite increasing external pressure from global buyers and NGOs, stakeholder integration in Taiwan remains fragmented. According to Mitchell et al. [19], stakeholder salience is characterized by a triad of power, legitimacy, and urgency. However, most Taiwanese SMEs do not perceive buyers as urgent stakeholders, nor do they possess internal mechanisms to respond to their demands. This results in passive compliance or surface-level reporting, rather than proactive engagement. The gap in C3 reflects not only operational deficiencies but also a structural disconnect between stakeholder theory and supply chain practice. In contrast, Japan’s 90% compliance rate illustrates how normative expectations, reinforced by institutionalized supplier audits, have translated stakeholder salience into actual governance practice.

Taiwan’s supply chain coordination (C3) remains weak, with only 40% of firms meeting buyer standards [14]. Southeast Asian NGOs advocate for transparency [20], but gaps persist. Aligning with GRI standards, as in the EU [5,12], is essential for sub-indicator C3 to enhance stakeholder engagement and address coordination challenges [6,13].

2.5. ESG and Financial Performance

ESG commitment enhances financial performance in Taiwanese listed companies, boosting market competitiveness and long-term returns [15,21,22]. The Resource-Based View positions ESG as a strategic asset [11]. Firms such as TSMC and Delta reduce capital costs through ESG [7,23], unlike Korea’s subsidy-driven model [24] or the EU’s CSRD-linked disclosures [5]. However, only 20% of SMEs access ESG financing.

European banks enhance their credit ratings through ESG disclosures [25], while global buyers, such as Apple, offer financial incentives [17]. Sub-indicator D4 (ESG-financial returns) shows positive correlation, but SMEs lag due to resource constraints [6,13]. Aligning with IFRS S1, as in the EU [2,5], can bridge financing gaps and strengthen D4 [7,22].

2.6. Theoretical Integration

Institutional pressures are categorized into coercive (e.g., FSC regulations), normative (industry codes), and mimetic (peer imitation). In Taiwan, coercive pressures dominate due to state-led ESG enforcement, while normative and mimetic influences remain limited.

This study proposes a five-dimensional ESG framework tailored for Taiwanese listed firms, derived from the integration of Resource-Based View (RBV), Institutional Theory, and Stakeholder Theory.

First, Corporate Governance refers to internal mechanisms that align ESG oversight with executive accountability, such as ESG-linked incentives, board committees, and ethical supervision (A1–A5).

Second, Regulatory Pressure captures external rules and compliance expectations, including FSC disclosure mandates, IFRS S1/S2, and alignment with EU CSRD protocols (B1–B8).

Third, Stakeholder Influence reflects the salience and pressure from investors, global buyers (e.g., Apple), NGOs, and civil society, particularly in relation to supply chain expectations (C1–C5).

Fourth, Financial Performance examines the ESG-finance linkage, including capital cost reduction, credit risk improvement, and ESG investment impact (D1–D4).

Fifth, ESG Implementation refers to the operationalization of ESG commitments, such as carbon inventory management, internal ESG training, and sustainability reporting (E1–E5).

These five dimensions are empirically validated through a two-round Delphi process (Section 3) and are conceptually grounded in international ESG frameworks and scholarly theory.

This study integrates the Resource-Based View (RBV) [11], Institutional Theory [10], and Stakeholder Theory [9] to support the five-dimensional ESG framework. RBV explains internal capabilities (A, D, E) [11], Institutional Theory addresses regulatory forces (A, B, C) [10], and Stakeholder Theory emphasizes external expectations (C, D, E) [9]. In Taiwan, these theories underpin FSC policies [13] and TSMC’s practices [7]. Japan’s supply chain compliance [4] and the EU’s CSRD [5] affirm their global relevance [10]. To enhance theoretical robustness, MCDM-based ESG evaluations have been proposed as a complement to qualitative models [26]. Investor behavior in emerging Asian economies, such as Vietnam, reflects a growing alignment with ESG investment logic [27], while Japan’s Code of Conduct for ESG data providers sets an emerging benchmark for responsible ESG assessment [28].

These observations suggest that while Taiwan’s ESG adoption is primarily driven by regulatory mandates (coercive institutional pressure), stakeholder and governance responses remain underdeveloped.

This divergence reflects the contextual limits of Western ESG theories when applied in emerging Asian markets, where normative and mimetic drivers are weaker or less institutionalized.

Consequently, there is a need to adapt and critically extend frameworks such as Stakeholder Theory and Institutional Theory to reflect better localized incentive structures, cultural dynamics, and firm capabilities.

This study contributes to that effort by integrating theoretical critique with empirical consensus, thereby advancing ESG scholarship beyond formulaic application.

3. Methodology

This study employs a structured methodology to validate the ESG commitment drivers for Taiwan’s listed companies, combining theoretical foundations, indicator development, expert input, and statistical testing [13]. The seven-step process (Figure 1) includes: (1) defining objectives, (2) reviewing literature (RBV, Institutional Theory, Stakeholder Theory) [10,11], (3) developing ESG indicators, (4) designing a 7-point Likert scale questionnaire, (5) conducting a three-round Delphi survey with 15 experts, with only two rounds implemented due to convergence in Round 2 (M difference < 0.5, SD < 0.8) [29], (6) analyzing responses via descriptive statistics and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test [30], and (7) finalizing validated indicators. Delphi, used in EU ESG studies [5], aligns indicators with GRI [5,12]. This ensures a robust, Taiwan-specific ESG framework [13].

Only two Delphi rounds were conducted. The third round was not required, as Round 2 achieved convergence thresholds (M < 0.5, SD < 0.8), in line with standard Delphi guidelines [31].

This figure outlines the seven-step research process, which integrates theoretical grounding and iterative expert consensus to validate ESG indicators tailored for Taiwan’s listed companies. The framework development involved a Delphi method validation of 40 sub-indicators, ensuring both content reliability and contextual relevance [13].

3.1. Research Framework

The expert evaluation process, originally structured as procedural bullet points, has been rewritten in paragraph form to emphasize better the logic of the Delphi design and the rationale behind expert selection.

This study proposes a five-dimensional framework for analyzing ESG commitment in Taiwanese listed firms, integrating Resource-Based View (RBV) [11], Institutional Theory [10], and Stakeholder Theory [9]. The dimensions are:

• A. Corporate Governance—board structure, ESG oversight, incentives
• B. Regulatory Pressure—FSC and IFRS S1/S2 mandates, climate disclosure, compliance
• C. Stakeholder Influence—investor/customer expectations, supply chain
• D. Financial Performance—ESG returns, market value, credit
• E. ESG Implementation—decarbonization, action plans, integration

Each map to theoretical constructs: RBV informs A, D, and E (internal capabilities); Institutional Theory underpins A, B, and C (regulatory pressures); Stakeholder Theory supports C, D, and E (external influence). Figure 2 illustrates this alignment, akin to the EU’s CSRD framework [5]. Governance (A5) and supply chain (C3) align with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) [5,12], thereby enhancing global relevance [13].

As shown in Figure 2, the foundational mapping provides the theoretical basis. It presents a comprehensive evaluation model that integrates Taiwan’s ESG characteristics and addresses practical challenges, such as executive incentives (A5) and supply chain coordination (C3).

3.2. Research Design

• This study uses a seven-step, theory-driven process to develop ESG indicators for Taiwanese listed companies (Figure 1) [2]:
• Theoretical Foundation: Grounded in RBV [11], Institutional Theory [10], and Stakeholder Theory [9], guiding five dimensions: (A) Governance, (B) Regulation, (C) Stakeholders, (D) Finance, (E) Implementation.
• Indicator Development: Forty sub-indicators were built from FSC guidelines, GRI, IFRS S1/S2, and international regulatory standards [2,3,12,13,32].
• Questionnaire Design: A 7-point Likert scale questionnaire was pre-tested by five experts [33].
• Delphi Survey: Two rounds, involving 15 experts from academia, industry, and government, assessed the indicators [34].
• Statistical Validation: SPSS 26.0 retained indicators with M > 6.0, SD < 0.8, p < 0.05 (K-S test) [35]. C3 (supply chain, p = 0.071) lacked consensus [6].
• Framework Validation: Indicators were mapped to dimensions (Figure 2).
• Synthesis: Findings align with Taiwan’s ESG context [3].

Figure 1 shows the process; Figure 2 links theories to dimensions.

3.3. Expert Selection

The Delphi method is a structured approach widely used in consensus-building for policy, management, and ESG research involving emerging constructs [31,32,33,34]. This study followed the classical Delphi sampling recommendation (10–20 participants) and invited 15 domain experts across industry, consultancy, and academia.

The 15-member expert panel included:

(i)

Sustainability Officers (N = 5): Senior managers from Taiwanese listed companies, with 3 holding doctoral degrees and 2 holding master’s degrees. Their average professional experience was approximately 12 years. Their expertise focused on corporate governance, supply chain management, and the implementation of ESG, GRI, IFRS, and CDP.

(ii)

ESG Consultants (N = 5): Experts from industrial consulting or sustainability advisory sectors. Four held doctoral degrees, and one had a master’s degree. Their average experience was approximately 15 years. Their specialties included constructing ESG metrics, conducting governance diagnostics, and providing guidance on ESG, GRI, IFRS, and CDP.

(iii)

Academic Scholars (N = 5): Professors and postdoctoral researchers affiliated with universities. All five held doctoral degrees and had an average of 13 years of academic experience. Their research focused on ESG frameworks, corporate governance, sustainability development, and supply chain responsibility.

In total, the expert panel consisted of 12 PhDs and 3 master’s degree holders, with an overall average of 13 years of professional experience. Their collective expertise represents a well-balanced integration of theoretical knowledge and practical application in ESG governance, sustainability standards, and reporting systems.

This composition reflects Taiwan’s ESG context. A 7-point Likert scale questionnaire, pre-tested by five experts for validity, was applied in two Delphi rounds [36]. The scale supports robust social science analysis.

For transparency purposes, we provide here a representative example of an item used in the Delphi questionnaire (original item unchanged): “Q13: The firm has established ESG-linked executive compensation mechanisms aligned with long-term sustainability goals” (7-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). This example is cited solely for illustration and does not constitute a post-survey modification.

3.4. Data Collection

Data were collected via Google Forms from March to April 2025 using a two-round Delphi process with 15 experts. A 7-point Likert scale questionnaire, pre-tested by five experts and based on FSC and IFRS S1/S2 guidelines, assessed 40 ESG sub-indicators [3,13].

In Round 1 (100% response rate), mean scores ranged from 5.625 to 7.000 (SD = 0.414–0.816). Minor wording adjustments were made to A5 and E1 based on feedback.

In Round 2 (100% response rate), revised items showed score differences below 0.5 and SDs under 0.8, indicating convergence. C3 (supply chain, p = 0.071) lacked consensus [6]. A third round was unnecessary, as thresholds were met.

3.5. Data Analysis

Data from 15 experts were analyzed using SPSS 26.0, applying descriptive statistics and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test. Mean scores (M > 6.0) and standard deviations (SD < 0.8) assessed consensus across 40 ESG sub-indicators. For sub-indicators, p < 0.05 indicated non-normal distribution and strong consensus. Dimension-level ratings showed p > 0.05, suggesting near-normal distribution, but M > 6.0 and SD < 0.8 confirmed consensus (

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and K-S test results for ESG dimensions.

Dimension	Mean	SD	Z-Value	p-Value
A. Corporate Governance	6.383	0.361	0.861	0.449
B. Regulatory Pressure	6.583	0.298	0.701	0.710
C. Stakeholder Influence	6.350	0.396	0.947	0.332
D. Financial Performance	6.467	0.367	0.839	0.482
E. ESG Implementation	6.375	0.518	1.033	0.236

Note: N = 15, 7-point Likert scale (Delphi survey). All p > 0.05 (K-S test), suggesting near-normal distribution; consensus confirmed by M > 6.0, SD < 0.8.

). Thirty-nine sub-indicators (97.5%) met thresholds, confirming framework robustness. One item, C3 (supply chain, p = 0.071), showed borderline normality, reflecting coordination gaps.

4. Results

This study validates a five-dimensional ESG framework (Corporate Governance [A], Regulatory Pressure [B], Stakeholder Influence [C], Financial Performance [D], ESG Implementation [E]) using two-round Delphi ratings from 15 experts. Of 40 sub-indicators, 39 met thresholds (M > 6.0, SD < 0.8, p < 0.05, K-S test):

Regulatory Pressure (B, M = 6.583) and Corporate Governance (A, M = 6.383) were the most influential factors, reflecting Taiwan’s policy momentum. Other dimensions scored: D (M = 6.250), E (M = 6.200), C (M = 6.130). A5 (ESG-linked compensation, M = 5.800) showed gaps, with only 20% of firms adopting such incentives [6,14].

C3 (supply chain coordination, M = 6.130, p = 0.071) failed K-S significance, indicating expert divergence due to complex supply chain alignment challenges. The framework is robust, but it highlights the need for enhanced incentives and supply chain coordination.

4.1. Dimension-Level Analysis: Key Drivers of ESG Adoption

This section evaluates five core ESG dimensions—Corporate Governance (A), Regulatory Pressure (B), Stakeholder Influence (C), Financial Performance (D), and ESG Implementation (E)—based on two-round Delphi ratings (100% response rate) from 15 experts. Aligned with the Resource-Based View (A, D), Institutional Theory (B), and Stakeholder Theory (C, E), the dimensions were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale, supporting objectives in Section 1.2 [9,10,11]. Most dimensions met consensus thresholds (M > 6.0, SD < 0.8), despite p > 0.05 (K-S test), indicating near-normal distribution; however, consensus was still confirmed as all dimensions met M > 6.0 and SD < 0.8 thresholds.

As summarized in the expert ratings, Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and K-S test results for ESG dimensions: A (M = 6.383, SD = 0.361, K-S Z = 0.861, p = 0.449), B (M = 6.583, SD = 0.298, K-S Z = 0.701, p = 0.710), C (M = 6.350, SD = 0.396, K-S Z = 0.947, p = 0.332), D (M = 6.467, SD = 0.367, K-S Z = 0.839, p = 0.482), E (M = 6.375, SD = 0.518, K-S Z = 1.033, p = 0.236). Note: N = 15. Regulatory Pressure (B) was led, driven by Taiwan’s FSC policies [6,10].

Figure 3 shows the radar chart of ESG dimension scores. This figure highlights the dominance of Regulatory Pressure (B, M = 6.583) and the comparative lag in Stakeholder Influence (C, M = 6.350). In particular, C3 (supply chain coordination) presents a marginal normality result (p = 0.071) from the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, indicating relatively divergent expert views.

These findings validate the framework’s explanatory strength, illustrating how institutional forces outweigh stakeholder consensus in ESG implementation. This pattern is consistent with Taiwan’s ESG context, where regulatory alignment is prioritized over stakeholder integration [6,32].

4.2. Sub-Indicator Validation

This section validates 40 sub-indicators across five ESG dimensions—Corporate Governance (A), Regulatory Pressure (B), Stakeholder Influence (C), Financial Performance (D), and ESG Implementation (E)—addressing the second research objective (Section 1.2). A two-round Delphi survey (N = 15) evaluated these indicators on a 7-point Likert scale.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test results for ESG sub-indicators (N = 15, 7-point Likert scale; significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001). (Refer to Appendix A, Table A1 for the complete dataset).

Dimension	Item	Mean	SD	Z-Value	p-Value
A	A1	6.670	0.488	2.582 ***	0.000
A	A2	6.730	0.458	2.840 ***	0.000
A	A3	6.730	0.458	2.840 ***	0.000
A	A4	6.400	0.632	1.807 **	0.003
A	A5	5.800	0.775	1.549 *	0.016
A	A6	6.270	0.704	1.549 *	0.016
A	A7	6.270	0.594	1.678 **	0.007
A	A8	6.200	0.561	1.678 **	0.007
B	B1	6.470	0.516	2.066 ***	0.000
B	B2	6.800	0.414	3.098 ***	0.000
B	B3	6.600	0.507	2.324 ***	0.000
B	B4	6.330	0.724	1.807 **	0.003
B	B5	6.730	0.458	2.840 ***	0.000
B	B6	6.330	0.724	1.807 **	0.003
B	B7	6.600	0.632	2.582 ***	0.000
B	B8	6.800	0.414	3.098 ***	0.000
C	C1	6.130	0.640	1.420 *	0.035
C	C2	6.470	0.516	2.066 ***	0.000
C	C3	6.130	0.743	1.291	0.071
C	C4	6.330	0.617	1.678 **	0.007
C	C5	6.530	0.516	2.066 ***	0.000
C	C6	6.270	0.799	1.807 **	0.003
C	C7	6.400	0.632	1.807 **	0.003
C	C8	6.530	0.516	2.066 ***	0.000
D	D1	6.330	0.488	2.582 ***	0.000
D	D2	6.470	0.516	2.066 ***	0.000
D	D3	6.600	0.507	2.324 ***	0.000
D	D4	6.800	0.414	3.098 ***	0.000
D	D5	6.530	0.516	2.066 ***	0.000
D	D6	6.530	0.516	2.066 ***	0.000
D	D7	6.270	0.594	1.678 **	0.007
D	D8	6.200	0.561	1.678 **	0.007
E	E1	6.400	0.737	2.066 ***	0.000
E	E2	6.330	0.816	2.066 ***	0.000
E	E3	6.330	0.724	1.807 **	0.003
E	E4	6.530	0.516	2.066 ***	0.000
E	E5	6.200	0.775	1.549 *	0.016
E	E6	6.400	0.737	2.066 ***	0.000
E	E7	6.330	0.724	1.807 **	0.003
E	E8	6.470	0.516	2.066 ***	0.000

Note: N = 15, 7-point Likert scale (Delphi survey). Significance: p < 0.05 *, p < 0.01 **, p < 0.001 *** (K-S test). 39/40 sub-indicators show p < 0.05, indicating non-normal distribution and strong consensus [34]. C3 (p = 0.071) suggests near-normal distribution.

presents descriptive statistics and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test results [34], with significance at p < 0.05 *, p < 0.01 **, p < 0.001 ***.

Of 40 sub-indicators, 39 achieved consensus (M > 6.0, SD = 0.414–0.816, p < 0.05), confirming empirical robustness. Regulatory compliance (B2, M = 6.800) and mandatory disclosures (B8, M = 6.800) scored highest, reflecting Taiwan’s FSC-driven model [10,13]. However, four sub-indicators—A5 (M = 5.800), C3 (M = 6.130, p = 0.071), A8 (M = 6.200), and E5 (M = 6.200)—emerged as areas of concern, highlighting governance and coordination gaps compared to global benchmarks [4,5].

4.2.1. Key Sub-Indicators and Grey Areas

(1)

A5: ESG-Linked Executive Compensation (M = 5.800, SD = 0.775, p = 0.016 *)

The only sub-indicator below the consensus threshold (M < 6.0) is A5, which highlights a governance gap, as only 20% of Taiwanese firms link ESG to executive bonuses, compared to 80% in the EU [5,13,14,37]. This aligns with the Resource-Based View (RBV), indicating weak internal incentive structures [11].

(2)

C3: Supply Chain ESG Coordination (M = 6.130, SD = 0.743, p = 0.071)

Despite reaching consensus, C3’s lack of significance reflects expert divergence due to supplier capability gaps, with 80% of firms lacking ESG supply chain systems [6,14]. Japan’s 90% supplier compliance offers a benchmark [4], supporting Stakeholder Theory’s emphasis on external alignment [9]. Abedin et al. (2023) note that Japan’s board oversight enhances supply chain ESG transparency, unlike Taiwan’s fragmented supplier data [38,39].

(3)

B2 and B8: Regulatory Compliance and Disclosures (M = 6.800, SD = 0.414, p = 0.000 ***)

The highest-scoring sub-indicators validate Taiwan’s regulatory strength, driven by FSC mandates and IFRS S2 [3,10]. This aligns with Institutional Theory, emphasizing policy-driven isomorphism [10].

(4)

A8: Board Oversight (M = 6.200, SD = 0.561, p = 0.007) and E5: Performance Monitoring (M = 6.200, SD = 0.775, p = 0.016 *)

Lower scores indicate governance and monitoring challenges, limited by insufficient board expertise and data standardization [6,14]. These findings align with RBV (A8) and Stakeholder Theory (E5), highlighting both internal and external gaps [9,11].

4.2.2. Research Contributions

The six sub-indicators (A5, C3, B2, B8, A8, E5) reveal Taiwan’s ESG strengths (B2, B8) and challenges (A5, C3, A8, E5). A5 and C3 highlight governance and supply chain gaps compared to the EU and Japan [4,5], while A8 and E5 underscore monitoring weaknesses [6,14]. Grounded in RBV [11], Institutional Theory [10], and Stakeholder Theory [9], these findings validate the effectiveness of the sub-indicators, contributing to an Asia-centric ESG framework [6,9].

4.3. Taiwan’s ESG Framework

This section evaluates Taiwan’s ESG framework based on 40 validated sub-indicators, situating it within an Asia-centric and global context [4,5,6]. A two-round Delphi process (N = 15) confirmed Taiwan’s ESG drivers and gaps [32,33,35], highlighting its regulatory and governance strengths while also identifying implementation challenges.

4.3.1. Key Findings

Regulatory Pressure (B, M = 6.583) and Corporate Governance (A, M = 6.383) are Taiwan’s primary ESG drivers, driven by the Financial Supervisory Commission’s (FSC) alignment with IFRS S1/S2 mandates by 2026 [3,14,16]. However, two sub-indicators reveal critical gaps:

• C3: Supply Chain ESG Coordination (M = 6.130, p = 0.071)

Despite reaching consensus, C3’s lack of significance reflects divergent expert views, attributed to supplier capacity gaps and the absence of standardized ESG reporting [14,22,37]. Over 80% of Taiwanese listed firms lack formal ESG supply chain platforms, compared to Japan’s 90% supplier compliance [4]. Abedin et al. (2023) demonstrate that Japan’s board-driven disclosure enhances supply chain transparency, thereby guiding Taiwan’s C3 improvements [38].

• A5: ESG-Linked Executive Compensation (M = 5.800, p = 0.016 *)

The only sub-indicator below consensus, A5, indicates a governance gap, with only 20% of firms linking ESG to executive bonuses, compared to 80% in the EU [5,13,14]. This reflects weak incentive structures, consistent with the Resource-Based View (RBV) [11].

Taiwan’s electronics sector, led by firms such as TSMC, demonstrates ESG-driven profitability, with TSMC integrating 20% ESG metrics into bonuses [7]. However, greenwashing risks persist due to compliance pressures from global buyers, such as Apple [17].

Based on expert consensus (N = 15), the average scores indicate the following priority order (Figure 4): Regulatory Pressure (B, M = 6.583) > Financial Performance (D, M = 6.467) > Corporate Governance (A, M = 6.383) > ESG Implementation (E, M = 6.375) > Stakeholder Influence (C, M = 6.350).

This priority sequence suggests that ESG adoption in Taiwan’s listed companies is primarily driven by compliance, with a strong emphasis on regulatory expectations and financial implications. The relatively lower ranking of stakeholder influence, particularly on supply chain collaboration (e.g., C3, M = 6.130, p = 0.071), indicates a need for broader external engagement strategies.

These findings are consistent with Institutional Theory, highlighting the impact of coercive and normative pressures from regulators (e.g., FSC and IFRS S1/S2), as well as the Resource-Based View (RBV), which underscores the importance of internal capabilities in governance and financial readiness. Accordingly, this study supports a phased ESG strategy that prioritizes regulatory and financial dimensions before advancing stakeholder alignment. This sequential approach is both contextually appropriate for emerging markets and aligned with international ESG implementation trajectories.

4.3.2. Implications

Taiwan’s ESG framework excels in regulatory alignment (B) but lags in supply chain coordination (C3) and governance incentives (A5). Benchmarking Japan’s supply chain model [4] and the EU’s compensation practices [5] offers pathways for improvement, strengthening Taiwan’s position in Asia’s ESG landscape [6,9].

5. Discussion

5.1. Empirical Synthesis and Key Findings

The empirical findings have been reorganized into narrative form. Instead of listing indicators, the text now describes the most and least influential factors in paragraph structure, with appropriate theoretical interpretations.

This study integrates the Resource-Based View (RBV) [11], Institutional Theory [10], and Stakeholder Theory [9] to develop a five-dimensional ESG framework—Corporate Governance (A), Regulatory Pressure (B), Stakeholder Influence (C), Financial Performance (D), and ESG Implementation (E)—tailored for Taiwanese listed companies. A two-round Delphi process (N = 15) validated 39 of 40 sub-indicators (97.5% consensus rate), aligned with internationally recognized ESG research practices [32,33,35,36].

High-performing sub-indicators include B2 and B8 (M = 6.800, regulatory compliance) and A2 and A3 (M = 6.730, governance strategies), reflecting Taiwan’s FSC-driven mandates and established governance capabilities [3,10,11]. Conversely, four sub-indicators fall into the “gray areas,” indicating implementation challenges that warrant further attention [6,14]:

• A5: Only 20% of firms connect ESG to executive bonuses, compared to 80% in the EU [5,13,14], highlighting governance gaps under RBV [11]. This gap indicates limited ESG-linked incentive mechanisms in Asia, as noted by Lin and Hsu [28]. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD [37] similarly emphasizes that misalignment of incentives presents a regional barrier to the effectiveness of ESG across Asia-Pacific economies [39]. In particular, ref. [40] highlights that companies in emerging Asian markets often adopt ESG measures symbolically, with few connections to executive accountability, thereby undermining the strategic integration of ESG into corporate governance systems.
• C3: Over 80% of firms lack ESG supply chain systems, which contrasts with Japan’s 90% supplier compliance [4,6,37]. This mismatch reflects fragmented disclosure of supplier data and the compliance barriers [22]. Abedin et al. [39] note that Japan’s strong board oversight enhances supply chain ESG transparency; however, SMEs encounter challenges in data standardization, highlighting Taiwan’s C3 coordination gaps.
• A8 and E5: Limited board expertise and insufficient data standardization hinder oversight and performance monitoring. These findings reflect both internal resource constraints and external expectations [9,11], consistent with recent governance practice reviews in Taiwan’s ESG evaluations [28].

These findings confirm the theoretical robustness and empirical applicability of the proposed ESG framework, identifying Taiwan’s ESG strengths (B, A) and persistent gaps (A5, C3). Benchmarking EU executive compensation models (A5) and Japan’s supply chain platforms (C3) offers strategic improvement pathways [4,5], contributing to a regionally adapted ESG governance model for Asia [6,9].

Beyond immediate implementation gaps, the study also highlights the long-term significance of ESG commitment in enhancing corporate resilience and global competitiveness. By integrating ESG priorities into their governance and operational systems, listed companies in Taiwan are better equipped to respond to international regulatory shifts, such as the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and IFRS S1/S2 disclosures. This strategic alignment not only strengthens firms’ adaptive capacity but also supports Taiwan’s transition toward a low-carbon, innovation-driven economy.

Although the overall consensus was strong, these three items point to lingering strategic, incentive, and coordination gaps in ESG implementation.

5.2. Practical Implications for Corporate ESG Strategy

This framework provides actionable guidance for Taiwanese firms to advance ESG adoption, addressing validated sub-indicators and grey areas [6,14]:

• Corporate Governance (A): Firms should prioritize ESG-linked compensation (A5), aiming for a 40% adoption rate by 2030, benchmarking against the EU’s 80% rate [3,5,14]. TSMC’s plan to tie 20% of bonuses to ESG by 2025 sets a precedent [7]. Enhancing board risk oversight (A8) through ESG training aligns with the Resource-Based View (RBV), strengthening internal capabilities [11].
• Regulatory Pressure (B): Taiwan’s compliance strength (B2, B8) supports expanding FSC mandates, integrating IFRS S1/S2, and ESRS to include SMEs, mirroring the EU’s CSRD [5,10,13]. This fosters institutional isomorphism [10].
• Stakeholder Influence (C): Supply chain coordination (C3) requires standardized ESG data templates, similar to Japan’s 90% supplier compliance rate [4,6,37]. Collaboration with global buyers, such as Apple, mitigates greenwashing risks [17], aligning with Stakeholder Theory [9].
• Financial Performance (D): Leveraging ESG investments (D4) can reduce capital costs, as seen in TSMC and Delta [7,23]. European banks’ ESG-driven credit upgrades offer a model [25], enhancing market competitiveness.
• ESG Implementation (E): Upgrading monitoring systems (E5) with digital tools and third-party assurance enhances credibility [14], thereby reinforcing stakeholder accountability [9].

These strategies position Taiwanese firms to bridge governance (A5, A8) and supply chain (C3) gaps, leveraging regulatory strengths (B) and financial incentives (D) to meet global ESG expectations [4,5].

These findings align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically Goals 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), 13 (Climate Action), and 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). The framework’s focus on supply chain coordination (C3, M = 6.130, p = 0.071) supports Goal 12 by addressing gaps in sustainable production, with 80% of firms lacking ESG supply chain systems [6,14]. Regulatory compliance (B2, B8, M = 6.800) advances Goal 13 through IFRS S2-aligned climate disclosures [3], supporting Taiwan’s 2050 net-zero pathway [6]. Governance reforms, such as ESG-linked compensation (A5, with 20% adoption compared to the EU’s 80% [5,14]) and board oversight (A8), promote Goal 16 by fostering transparent institutions, as exemplified by TSMC’s 20% ESG bonus plan [7].

These contributions also align with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda by advancing cross-functional ESG readiness, transparency, and stakeholder engagement in emerging markets.

5.3. Theoretical Integration and Framework Recommendations

This section aligns with three theoretical foundations—Resource-Based View (RBV), Institutional Theory, and Stakeholder Theory—emphasizing the multidimensional nature of ESG in the Taiwanese context.

These core theories form the backbone of our validated five-dimensional ESG framework, guiding the analysis of Corporate Governance, Regulatory Pressure, Stakeholder Influence, Financial Performance, and ESG Implementation.

5.3.1. Recommendations Extensions for Evaluating

To support interdisciplinary expansion, we suggest exploring the application of additional perspectives, such as Dynamic Capabilities [41], Social Network Theory [42], and Systems Theory [43]. These lenses are not empirically validated in this study, but they may offer useful extensions for evaluating ESG adaptability, inter-organizational collaboration, and systemic impact in future research.

This section maps to three theoretical foundations: RBV [11], Institutional Theory [10], and Stakeholder Theory [9], and the five ESG dimensions—Corporate Governance (A), Regulatory Pressure (B), Stakeholder Influence (C), Financial Performance (D), and ESG Implementation (E)—to ESG Evaluation Model, reinforcing the multidimensional nature of ESG commitment in Taiwanese listed firms [6,9].

• Resource-Based View (RBV) [11]: Explains high performance in A2 (governance, M = 6.730) and D4 (financial reporting, M = 6.800), driven by internal capabilities. However, gaps in A5 (ESG-linked compensation, M = 5.800, 20% adoption vs. EU’s 80% [5,13,14]) and A8 (board oversight, M = 6.200) indicate weak governance systems, as evidenced by TSMC’s gradual A5 integration [7].
• Institutional Theory [10]: It underpins B2 and B8 (regulatory compliance, M = 6.800), driven by FSC mandates, IFRS S1/S2 [13], and global standards such as the EU’s CSRD [5] and Singapore’s SGX comply-or-explain model [18]. This highlights regulatory isomorphism in Taiwan’s ESG adoption.
• Stakeholder Theory [9]: Applies to C3 (supply chain coordination, M = 6.130, p = 0.071, 80% of firms lack systems [6,14,37]) and E5 (performance monitoring, M = 6.200), where external pressures from buyers such as Apple expose coordination and tracking gaps [17]. Japan’s 90% supplier compliance serves as a benchmark [4]. Abedin et al. [39] further demonstrate that Japan’s governance-driven ESG disclosure strengthens supply chain coordination, offering a model for Taiwan to address C3 gaps.

This model synthesizes Resource-Based View (RBV), Institutional Theory, and Stakeholder Theory, incorporating five ESG dimensions, and integrates Taiwan-specific challenges (e.g., A5, C3) and regulatory drivers (e.g., B1, B2). It offers a replicable model for ESG adoption in emerging Asian markets.

As shown in Figure 2, the foundational mapping presents the theoretical basis for linking the Resource-Based View (RBV), Institutional Theory, and Stakeholder Theory to the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) dimensions—see Figure 5. ESG Evaluation Model Integrating Taiwan-Specific Challenges illustrates an expanded evaluation framework that incorporates Taiwan’s ESG characteristics, addressing key empirical gaps, such as A5 (executive incentives) and C3 (supply chain coordination), while reinforcing regulatory strengths (B) [3,6,9].

This model supports a phased ESG transition strategy aligned with Taiwan’s regulatory framework, addressing institutional gaps observed in corporate governance and stakeholder engagement practices.

5.3.2. Recommendations for Framework Extension

• Dynamic Capabilities Theory [41]: Enhances adaptability in governance (A5, A8), enabling firms to respond to ESG disruptions, complementing RBV [11].
• Social Network Theory [42]: Examines inter-organizational ESG collaboration (C3), leveraging Japan’s supply chain model to strengthen stakeholder networks [4,9].
• Systems Theory [43]: Integrates regulatory (B) and stakeholder (C) dynamics, addressing greenwashing risks from global buyers [17].

This multi-theoretical framework positions Taiwan’s ESG model as a reference for Asia, bridging governance gaps (A5, A8) and supply chain weaknesses (C3) through global benchmarks [4,5].

6. Conclusions

6.1. Summary of Contributions

This study developed and validated a robust ESG framework tailored to Taiwan’s regulatory and industrial landscape, offering significant contributions to theory and practice:

• Empirical Validation:

A two-round Delphi method (N = 15, 100% response rate) validated 39 of 40 sub-indicators (M > 6.0, SD < 0.8, p < 0.05, K-S test [34]), achieving a 97.5% consensus rate, confirming the framework’s robustness for ESG assessment [14,29,32,34].

• Contextual Insights:

Regulatory Pressure (B, M = 6.583) and Corporate Governance (A, M = 6.383) underscore Taiwan’s top-down ESG success, driven by FSC’s IFRS S1/S2 mandates [3,10]. However, Stakeholder Influence (C, M = 6.350) reveals supply chain gaps (C3, M = 6.130, p = 0.071, 80% lack systems [6,37]), lagging Japan’s 90% compliance [4]. Abedin et al. (2023) note Japan’s board aids SME supply chain transparency [39]. Financial Performance (D, M = 6.467, SD = 0.367, p = 0.482) demonstrates consensus, with firms such as Delta achieving superior ESG-driven returns, which reinforces the financial incentives for ESG adoption [7,23]. Governance weaknesses in A5 (ESG-linked compensation, M = 5.800, 20% adoption vs. the EU’s 80% [3,5,14]) highlight the need for reform, as seen in TSMC’s 20% ESG bonus plan [7].

• Theoretical Advancement:

By synthesizing the Resource-Based View [11], Institutional Theory [10], and Stakeholder Theory [9], the framework offers an Asia-centric ESG perspective. Extensions through Dynamic Capabilities [41], Social Networks [42], and Systems Theory [43] enhance adaptability (A5), collaboration (C3), and regulatory-stakeholder synergy (B-C), thereby addressing greenwashing risks from buyers, such as Apple [17].

This multi-framework integration provides a methodological template for scholars and practitioners seeking scalable ESG assessment models tailored to Asian regulatory contexts.

• Practical Impact:

Strategies for A5 (40% compensation target) and C3 (Japan-inspired data templates [4]) position Taiwanese firms to bridge gaps, leveraging financial benefits (e.g., Delta [23]) and global benchmarks [5].

This framework establishes Taiwan as an ESG leader in Asia, providing a scalable model for emerging markets [4,5,6,9].

6.2. Research Limitations

This study presents several limitations that should be acknowledged to guide future research. First, the Delphi method involved 15 experts, primarily from the manufacturing and finance sectors, which limits the generalizability of findings to other sectors such as logistics or services [32,33,36]. Second, although the Delphi approach is effective in achieving expert consensus, it does not support causal testing or mediation analysis—for example, evaluating the potential impact of A5 on D4 [14,36]. Third, the framework’s applicability is tailored specifically to the Taiwanese context and remains untested in other regions, such as Japan or the European Union [4,5,6]. Finally, while theoretical extensions such as Dynamic Capabilities [41], Social Network [42], and Systems Theory [43] are included, these remain conceptual and require further empirical validation to establish their relevance to ESG research.

Taken together, these limitations highlight opportunities for future research to expand sample diversity, incorporate causal modeling approaches, and evaluate the framework’s applicability in global contexts [4,5].

6.3. Future Research Directions

Future studies may explore the integration of additional theoretical lenses, such as Social Network and Systems Theory, to evaluate cross-sector ESG coordination and inter-organizational learning.

To address limitations, future research should:

• Expand to 30–50 experts, including logistics and services, or survey 100–200 firms, incorporating SMEs [6,29].
• Apply SEM or AHP to test mediating effects (e.g., B→A→E, A5→D4), leveraging Dynamic Capabilities [11,36,41].
• Compare Taiwan’s policy-driven ESG with Japan’s supply chain model (90% compliance), the EU’s governance (80% ESG pay), or Korea’s incentive-led approach, especially its impact on financial outcomes [4,5,23,37]. Abedin et al. (2023) suggest Japan’s board governance aids SME supply chain integration [39].
• Use NLP to analyze ESG disclosure quality (> 95% accuracy), integrating secondary data [37].
• Conduct 5–10-year longitudinal studies to assess ESG’s impact on trust, financial outcomes, and stakeholder networks [14,42].

These directions enhance the framework’s global applicability, testing new theories, such as the Social Network and Systems Theory [42,43], and addressing gaps in A5 and C3 [4,5,39].

6.4. Final Remarks

This study presents a validated ESG framework tailored to the Taiwanese context, integrating the Resource-Based View (RBV), Institutional Theory, and Stakeholder Theory [9,10,11].

Through a two-round Delphi process with 15 cross-sector experts, 39 of 40 indicators were confirmed as critical to ESG commitment [36].

The framework’s five dimensions—Corporate Governance, Regulatory Pressure, Stakeholder Influence, Financial Performance, and ESG Implementation—offer practical guidance for corporate ESG strategy.

Practically, this model enables companies to strengthen board accountability, meet FSC and IFRS disclosure requirements, and enhance ESG supply chain integration [3,5,13].

It also provides a scalable basis for assessing ESG maturity in emerging markets and benchmarking Asian ESG policies with global practices [5,10].

The findings contribute to the regional academic discourse and offer a foundation for evidence-based policymaking and institutional capacity building [5,11].

Future research can expand this work by incorporating longitudinal ESG performance data, cross-industry comparisons, and testing the framework in other Asian economies [9,10].