黃正忠 niven huang 社團法人中華民國企業永續發展協會 business council for...
DESCRIPTION
企業與經濟體永續發展國際評比 International Sustainability Rating of Business and Economy. 黃正忠 Niven Huang 社團法人中華民國企業永續發展協會 Business Council for Sustainable Development. 企業 C orporate 道 瓊永續性群組指數 (DJSGI) D ow Jones Sustainability - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
黃正忠 Niven Huang社團法人中華民國企業永續發展協會Business Council for Sustainable Development
企業與經濟體永續發展國際評比 International Sustainability Rating of Business and Economy
企業 C orporate道瓊永續性群組指數 (DJSGI)D ow Jones Sustainability Group Index
BCSD-Taiwan
經濟體 Economy世界經濟論壇「明日全球領袖」任務小組所環境永續性指數World Economic ForumPilot Environmental Sust
ainability Index
目的為拓展各界對國際永續性指標評比的視野,使我國的永續發展指標系統除了考量本土特性與需求外,也能與國際評等架構接軌 不是一篇專業研究的報告
台灣在國際永續性評比的表現如何 ?
The BCSD-Taiwan is a coalition of 30 large companies from more than 10 sectors of industry with a shared commitment to the environment and to the principles of economic growth and sustainable development.
The BCSD-Taiwan also benefits from a global network of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) representing over 1000 business leaders in developed, developing countries and countries in transition.
BCSD-Taiwan
What are our aims?What are our aims?• Business leadership - to be the leading business
advocate on issues connected with the environment and sustainable development
• Policy development - to participate in policy development in order to create a framework that allows business to contribute effectively to sustainable development
• Best practice - to demonstrate progress in environmental and resource management in business and to share leading-edge practices among our members
• Regional outreach - to contribute through our global network to a sustainable future for developing nations
World Business Council for World Business Council for Sustainable DevelopmentSustainable Development
The WBCSD is a coalition of 126 international companies from more than 20 sectors of industry operating in 33 countries with a shared commitment to sustainable development. The WBCSD also benefits from a regional network representing 1000 business leaders in developing countries and countries in transition.
www.wbcsd.ch
THE REGIONAL NETWORK PROGRAM- BCSDs and Partner Organizations -
BCSD Gulf of MexicoBCSD Latin America
BCSD Mexico
BCSD Argentina
BCSD Venezuela
BCSD Colombia
BCSD Costa Rica
BCSD CroatiaBCSD CroatiaBCSD Czech RepublicBCSD Czech Republic
BCSD El Salvador BCSD Honduras
BCSD Indonesia
BCSD MalaysiaPhilippine Business for the Environment
BCSD Nigeria
Industrial Environmental Forum of Southern Africa
Environment Forum of Zimbabwe
BCSD ThailandBCSD BCSD TaiwanTaiwan
Confederation of Indian Industry
BCSD PolandBCSD PolandVernadsky Foundation RussiaVernadsky Foundation Russia
BCSD Brazil
APEQUE Algeria
WBCSDBCSD New Zealand
BCSD BCSD AustriaAustria
Business Councilof Australia
Dow Jones Sustainability Group
Index (DJSGI)
• the world’s first global index of sustainability-driven companies • launched in September 1999 • by Dow Jones Indexes and the Zurich-based SAM Sustainability Group• tracks more than 200 companies globally
Balancing Sustainability
Environment
Economy
Equity (everyone)
Triple Bottom Line
21 世紀企業環保新驅動力
• 銀行業• 保險業• 投資基金管理公司
投信及專業基金Eco-Efficient Investment
• 善盡社會責任的投資• 有助於環保的投資• 有助於永續發展的投資• 社會公益 環保 工安衛 及人權• 流行風從歐洲到美國再到日本
9 In USA, a total of US$ 2 trillion is now invested
in a socially responsible manner including the investment in the proactive environmental companies, representing about 13 percent of the $16 trillion total of funds under professional management.
The fastest growing component of socially responsible investing is the growth of portfolios that employ both screening and shareholder advocacy, in which shareholders use their ownership positions to mold corporate action.
8 Eco-fund is becoming popular in Japan. So far, four investment trust companies launched Eco-funds. The total amount of sales is 133.2 billion yen (as of November 1999).
Net assets of the Eco-funds in JapanNikko Securities Asset Management Co., Ltd. 71.8 billion yenYasuda Kasai Global Asset Management Co., Ltd. (YKAM) 22.0 billion yenDLIBJ Asset Management Co., Ltd. 35.0 billion yenUBS Fund Management Co., Ltd. 9.1 billion yen
Total 137.9 billion yen
根據許多研究顯示,在環保與社會公益上表現傑出的企業,投資報酬率均優於市場平均值。以過去 5 年的數據來看,道瓊永續性投資指數較傳統指數高出 5.5% ,但風險僅增加 1% 。
5 1999 年 9 月初,道瓊 (Dow Jones) 與永續資產管理公司 (Sustainable Asset Management,SAM)正式推出道瓊永續性群組指數 (The Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index, DJSGI)。
道瓊永續性指數5 個永續性評估準則基本架構
科技:產品與勞務的提供,係基於長期能有效利用資 源,並符合經濟效益的創新科技。管理:管理責任、組織的能力、公司文化及與利益相關人的關係均採取高標準。股東:股東可預見健全的投資報酬率、有長期經濟成長的潛力、生產力提昇、高度全球競爭力及對智慧資產有貢獻。產業:公司能藉由行動示範與公開其績效,引導其產業邁向永續發展。社會:對社會變遷、人口變化、社會文化改變以及長期性與持續性地的教育需求,做出適當且即時的回應。
道瓊永續性群組世界指數( 包括了道瓊全球指數中在永續性上領先之企業 )
•道瓊永續性全球指數•區域性指數 道瓊永續性群組歐洲指數 道瓊永續性群組北美洲指數 道瓊永續性群組亞太指數•道瓊永續性群組美國指數•特定化的永續性指數
特定化永續性指數DJSGI世界 DJSGI歐洲 DJSGI北美 DJSGI亞太 DJSGI美國
不含煙草類股 × × × × ×
不含製酒類股 × × × × ×
不含賭博性類股 × × × × ×
不含煙草、製酒及賭博性類股× × × × ×
Dimensions: Economic Environmental. SocialSustainability OpportunitiesSustainability Risks
Classes: Strategy, Management, Industry Specific
評等架構
Corporate Sustainability Assessment Criteria Opportunities Risks
Economic Strategic Strategic planningOrganizational development Management Intellectual capital management IT management and IT integration Quality Management Industry Specific (for example) R&D spending
Strategic Corporate governance DJSGI Risk and crisis management Corporate codes of conduct Industry Specific (for example) Product recall
Corporate Sustainability Assessment Criteria
Environ-mental
Strategic Environmental charters
Management Environmental, health and Safety reporting Environmental profit and loss accounting Industry Specific (for example) Eco-design Eco-efficient products
Strategic Environmental policy Responsible person for environmental issues Management Environmental management system Environmental performance
Industry Specific (for example) Hazardous substance Environmental liabilities
O R
Social Strategic Stakeholder involvement
Management Social reporting Employee benefits Employee satisfaction Remuneration
Industry Specific (for example) Community programs
Strategic Social policy Responsible person for social issues Management Child labor Conflict resolution Equal rights and non- discrimination Occupational health and safety standards Layoffs/Freedom of Association Standards for suppliers Industry Specific (for example) Personnel training in developing countries
Corporate Sustainability Assessment CriteriaO R
OpportunitiesStrategy Opportunities 15Management opportunities 20Industry Specific opportunities 15RisksStrategy Risks 15 Management Risks 20Industry Specific Risks 15Total Maximum Score 100
Overall weighting %
EVALUATION
DJSGI Rating Standards
Environment
Economy
Equity (everyone)
Triple Bottom Line
• BS 7799 (IT security)• ISO 9001• ECGN, IFAC (corporate governance)
• ILO Standards (human rights)• SA 8000• CERES• Amnesty International• OHSAS 18001• Fair Trade Federation• GRI• 92/241 EEC & Directive 96/34/EC• Industry specific standards
DJSGI
• EMAS• UNEP Top 50 (reporting)• ISO 14000• BS7750 (EMS)• CERES-GRI• ISO Guide 64 (product)• CEFIC (chemical industry)• GEMI (performance measurement metrics)• WBCSD ( Eco-efficiency indicator)• Industry specific standards
Information SourcesCompany QuestionnaireCompany Documents Sustainability report Environmental reports Health and safety reports Social reports Annual financial reports Special reports on intellectual capital management and corporate governance All other sources of company information; e.g. internal documentation, brochures and website. Publicly Available Information/Stakeholder information Personal Contact with Companies
DJSGI 2000 年 9 月公佈的年報指出,該指數目前包含了來自 27 個國家, 61 種工業別,在永續性上績優表現前 10% 的公司,共有 236 家公司組成,總市值約 5 兆美元,占道瓊全球指數的 19.1% 。 自 1999 年 1 月至 2000 年 6 月,以美元表示, DJSGI 的表現優於道瓊全球指數達 127 個基準點。目前已有 50% 的世界企業永續發展委員會 (WBCSD) 會員公司被評選列入此指數之中 ( 去年為 40%) 。 列入道瓊永續性群組指數的公司,在 2000 年上半年的股東淨資盈利率 (return on equity) 平均為 14.89% ,優於道瓊傳統指數的 8.43%;平均的投資報酬率為 11.09% ,優於道瓊傳統指數的 7.37%;平均的資產報酬率為 5.81%,優於道瓊傳統指數的 3.63% 。目前授權使用 DJSGI 的國家,包括比利時、法、德、盧森堡、荷、瑞典、瑞士和英國,共有 17 家金融企業在其金融產品中使用 DJSGI 。
2000 年 DJSGI 236 家組成公司的國家分佈 國家 公司家數澳洲 12
奧地利 3
比利時 4
巴西 2
加拿大 16
智利 2
丹麥 4
芬蘭 6
法國 7
德國 19
國家 公司家數希臘 3
香港 4
愛爾蘭 1
義大利 4
日本 24
馬來西亞 3
荷蘭 7
挪威 3
葡萄牙 1
南非 3
國家 公司家數南韓 1
西班牙 4
瑞典 11
瑞士 10
泰國 1
英國 30
美國 51
Taiwan
Pilot Environmental
Sustainability Index
Pilot Environmental Sustainability Index
An initiative of the Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environment Task Force, World Economic Forum
In collaboration with:
• Yale Center for Law and Environmental Policy (YCELP) led by Daniel C. Esty • Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) led by Marc A. Levy
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY INDEX
COMPONENTS (5)
FACTORS (21)
VARIABLES (64)
Structure
Data base covering 56 economies
Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Taiwan were excluded from the prototype because they were missing more than half thevariables.
Components of the Pilot Environmental Sustainability Index
Component Logic
Environment Systems
1An economy is environmentally sustainable to the extent that its vital environmental systems are maintained at healthy levels, and to the extent to which levels are improving rather than deteriorating.Environmental Stresses And
Risks
2
An economy is environmentally sustainable if the level of anthropogenic stress are low enough to engender no demonstrable harm to its environmental systems.
Component Logic
Human Vulnerability to Environmental Impacts
3
An economy is environmentally sustainable to the extent that people and social systems are not vulnerable (in the way of health impacts, economic losses, and so on) to environmental disturbances; becoming less vulnerable is a sign that an economy is on a track to greater sustainability.Social and Institutional
Capacity
4
An economy is environmentally sustainable to the extent that it has in place political institutions and underlying social patterns of skills, attitudes and networks that foster effective responses to environmental challenges.
Component Logic
Global Stewardship
5An economy is environmentally sustainable if it cooperates with other countries to manage common environmental problems, and if it reduces negative environmental impacts on other countries to levels that cause no serious harm.
Structure of the Pilot Environmental Sustainability IndexCOM-PONENT
FACTOR VARIABLE YEAR NUMBER OF Countries With Data COUNTRIES WITH DATA
Environ-mentalsystems
Urban Air Quality Water Quantity Water Quality Biodiversity
Land
Urban NO2 concentration MRYA*1990-95 39Urban SO2 concentration MRYA 1990-95 44Urban particulates concentration MRYA 1990-95 38Surface water resources per capita 1998 56Groundwater resources per capita 1998 50Nitrogen nitrate and nitrite concentr. MRYA 1991-96 14Dissolved oxygen concentration MRYA 1991-96 23Suspended solids MRYA 1991-96 21Phosphors concentration MRYA 1991-96 16Fecal coliform concentration MRYA 1991-96 17Lead concentration MRYA 1991-96 18Percentage of known plant species threatened 1994 49Percentage of known breeding bird species threatened 1996 54Percentage of known mammal species threatened 1996 53Severity of human induced soil degradation 1990 52* MRYA = Most Recent Available during the stated range
Environ-mentalStresses
Air Pollution Water pollution and Consumption Ecosystem Stress Waste Production and Consumption Pressure Population
SO2 emissions per land area 1995-97 27NO emissions per land area 1995-97 26VOC emissions per land area 1995-97 22Coal Consumption per land area 1997 52Number of vehicles per land area 1997 54Fertilizer used per arable land area 1995-97 55Industrial organic pollutants per land area 1996 44Freshwater withdrawals as percent of renewable MRYA1985-94 41 water resources Groundwater withdrawals as a percent of annual recharge MRYA 1985-94 37Deforestation 1990-95 55Percentage of households with garbage collection 1993 28Consumption pressure per capita 1995 55Spent Nuclear Fuel Waste per capita 1991 43Growth Rate 1995-00 1999 56Change in population growth rate ,1990-1995 and 1995-2000 1999-2000 59
Human Vulner-ability to Environ-mental Impacts
Basic Sustenance Public Health Disasters Exposure
Percentage of urban population with access to MRYA1990-96 29safe drinking waterPercentage of rural population with access to MRYA1990-96 28safe drinking waterPercentage of households with electricity 1993 48Daily per capita calories supply as a percentage 1988-90 49of total requirementsPrevalence of infectious diseases MRYA1985-95 55Infant mortality 1999 56Deaths from natural disasters over the period 1978-98 Total 1978-98 49
Social and Institu-tionalCapacity
Science and Technical Capacity Capacity for RigorousPolicy DebateEnvironmentalRegulation andManagement
TrackingEnvironmentalConditions
Eco-efficiency
Research & Development scientists and engineers 1985-95 49per million population Expenditure for Research & Development as a percentage of GNP 1986-95 50Scientific and technical articles per million population 1995 56IUCN member organizations per million population 1999 56Civil liberties 1998-1999 56Transparency and stability of environmental regulations 1999 56Percentage of urban population with access to MRYA1990-98 45adequate sanitationpercent land area under protected status 1997 56(IUCN Categories I-V)Percentage of ESI variables in publicly available data sets 1999 56Availability of sustainable development information 1997 39at the national levelNumber of GEMS water quality monitoring stations 1994-96 56per million populationEnergy efficiency(total energy consumption per unit GDP) 1997 43Hydroelectric plus renewable energy supply as a percentage of total energy produced 1997 55Percentage increase in the supply of hydroelectric and renewable energy bet. 1990&1997 1990-97 50
Social and Institu-tionalCapacity
Public Choice Failures
Retail prices for premium gasoline 1996-98 42Fossil fuel subsidies as a percentage of GDP 1995-96 16Corruption Perceptions Index 1999 56
GlobalSteward-ship
Contribution toInternationalCooperation Impact on global commons
Number of memberships in environmental INtergovenmental organizations 1998 55Percentage of total memberships in intergovermmental orgs that are environmental 1998 55Percentage of CITES reporting requirements met 1998 53Status of National Biodiversity Strategies & Action Plans under the CBD 1998 55Levels of ratification under the Vienna Convention for theProtection of the Ozone Layer 1999 56Number of members of Forest Stewardship Council and of Marine Stewardship Council 1999 56Forest area certified by Forest Stewardship Council 1999 56Ecological footprint “deficit” 1995 47Carbon-dioxide emissions 1997 56CFC consumption 1997 56SO2 exports 1990-96 35
For every variable in the data set the team created a normalized range and scaled values from 0 (low sustainability) to 100 (high sustainability). The team has not tried to define a true or definitive “sustainability” threshold. Each country was assigned a score from 0 to 100 depending on where it fell along the continuum for that particular variable.
2000
1999
1998
2000
1999
1998
2000
1999
1998
Finl
and
12
23
78
12
223
,520
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
21
12
12
21
133
,212
Ger
man
y3
64
15
16
58
23,6
61
N
ethe
rland
s4
33
78
53
34
24,1
26
S
witz
erla
nd5
59
52
310
910
27,2
86
D
enm
ark
67
88
910
46
727
,003
Sw
eden
74
76
34
117
923
,007
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
810
511
139
98
522
,584
Sin
gapo
re9
1210
1514
125
126
28,7
85
A
ustra
lia10
1315
2019
227
1012
24,9
90
C
anad
a11
86
1612
158
43
26,6
62
B
elgi
um12
1519
1011
1313
1518
25,3
80
A
ustri
a13
1116
1210
1112
1317
24,7
06
Ja
pan
1414
184
47
1919
1924
,892
Fran
ce15
911
96
615
1113
23,2
09
H
ong
Kon
g16
2112
2324
1714
1811
23,8
90
Ic
elan
d17
2224
1421
2816
2123
27,8
10
Is
rael
1820
2113
1821
2020
2017
,123
New
Zea
land
1916
1722
1619
1714
1618
,876
Nor
way
2018
1421
2314
1816
1528
,097
Taiw
an21
1920
1817
1621
2221
19,2
69
Ire
land
2217
1319
2018
2217
1424
,483
Spa
in23
2322
2422
2323
2322
18,7
43
Ita
ly24
2526
1715
2026
2727
23,0
00
S
outh
Afri
ca25
2625
2628
3325
2525
7,48
6
Chi
le26
2423
2726
2524
2424
13,7
89
K
orea
2728
2825
2724
2830
2814
,356
Por
tuga
l28
2933
3537
4827
2630
17,1
29
Tu
rkey
2931
2928
3326
2932
296,
444
M
alay
sia
3027
2730
2534
3031
268,
365
B
razi
l31
3535
2932
2732
3739
6,46
1
Hun
gary
3233
3134
3639
3133
3111
,272
Gre
ece
3336
3832
4532
3334
3815
,180
Cze
ch R
epub
lic34
4130
4155
3134
3633
13,4
06
Jo
rdan
3532
3246
4442
3528
323,
240
S
lova
kia
3648
3631
5140
3647
3710
,255
Indi
a37
4244
4048
5037
4342
1,91
3
Mau
ritiu
s38
3037
2938
2910
,608
Egy
pt39
4340
4449
4739
4235
3,34
8
Thai
land
4039
3747
4337
4039
366,
349
P
olan
d41
3741
3638
3841
3840
8,83
2
Mex
ico
4234
3942
3029
4335
417,
818
C
osta
Ric
a43
3839
3542
416,
995
C
hina
4449
4238
3135
4550
443,
709
A
rgen
tina
4540
3445
3930
4440
3410
,698
Phi
lippi
nes
4644
4543
3441
4646
453,
689
In
done
sia
4753
5151
4752
4752
513,
030
C
olom
bia
4852
4948
4043
4853
497,
366
P
eru
4946
4753
5649
5144
464,
649
Zi
mba
bwe
5045
4856
5446
4945
482,
210
E
l Sal
vado
r51
4757
4650
482,
938
R
ussi
a52
5546
3342
4553
5547
6,81
5
Vie
tnam
5350
4350
4136
5249
431,
815
V
enez
uela
5451
5049
5344
5551
508,
169
B
ulga
ria55
5454
5254
544,
810
U
krai
ne56
5652
5250
5156
5652
3,27
6
Ecu
ador
5757
5557
5857
4,53
5
Cou
ntry
Tabl
e 1
The
Cur
rent
Com
petit
iven
ess
Inde
x (C
CI)
1999
GD
P pe
r Cap
ita
(ppp
ad
just
ed)
CC
I Ran
king
Com
pany
Ope
ratio
ns a
nd
Stra
tegy
Ran
king
Qua
lity
of th
e N
atio
nal
Bus
ines
s En
viro
nmen
t Ran
king
The
Cur
rent
Com
petit
iven
ess
Inde
x
GDP Per Capita Relative to Current CompetitivenessAdvancedCountries
MiddleCountries
DevelopingCountries
UPSIDE POTENTIAL
Current competitiveness would supporta higher per capita income
FinlandGermanyNew ZealandNetherlandsSwedenUnited Kingdom
South AfricaMalaysiaIsraelCosta RicaChile
IndiaJordanEgyptVietnamZimbabweTurkeyChinaIndonesiaPhilippinesBrazilEl SalvadorThailand
NEUTRAL
Income and competitiveness arebalanced
TaiwanFranceAustraliaDenmarkSwitzerlandAustriaJapanBelgiumHong Kong
KoreaMexicoHungarySpainPoland
Peru
CURRENT OVERACHIEVERSPer capita income is high relative tocurrent competitiveness
NorwayIcelandIrelandSingaporeUnited StatesCanada
VenezuelaRussiaArgentinaCzech RepublicGreecePortugalColombiaMauritiusSlovakia
BoliviaEcuadorBulgariaUkraine
Note: Italy also appears as a substantial overachiever, however, its results are distorted by sharp differences between Northern and Southern Italy which distorts the results.
Source: M.E. Porter“The Current Competitiveness Index: Measuring the Microeconomic Foundations of Prosperity” in The Global Competitiveness Report 2000, Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Presented by Prof.
Michael E. Porter
WBCSD LD Meeting,
Boston, 2000
Determinants of Environmental Performance: Conceptual Framework
Environmental Regulatory Regime
Administrative Infrastructure• Civil Liberties• Role of Public Sector
Companies• Government Treatment of
Private Sector• Property Rights• Independence of Judiciary• Irregular Payments• Irregular Payments to Judiciary• Legal Framework
Scientific & Technical Infrastructure • Scientists and Engineers• Technology Position• Institutions• Licensing of Foreign Technologies• Intellectual Property Protection• Company R&D Spending
Stringency of Standards • Air regulation• Water regulation• Toxic waste regulation• Chemical regulation
Regulatory Structure • Transparency• Options and compliance• Confusing and changing• Early or late
Subsidies • Government subsidies• Fossil fuel subsidies
Information • Tracking of ESI variables• Availability of
Sustainable development information
• GEMS Monitoring Stations
Regulatory Enforcement • Enforcement• International
agreements
Environmental Institutions
• IUCN organizations per million population
• Membership in intergovernmental environmental organizations
Economic and Legal Context
Environmental Performance
• Urban Particulate Concentration
• Energy Inefficiency
• Composite Performance Index
EconomicCompetitiveness
• GDP Per Capita
• Growth Index
• Current Competitive Index
Source: D.C. Esty and M.E. Porter, “Measuring National Environmental Performance and Its Determinants,” The Global Competitiveness Report 2000, Geneva: World Economic Forum
Presented by Prof.
Michael E. Porter
WBCSD LD Meeting,
Boston, 2000
Country Score
1 Sweden 9.02 Norway 10.33 France 14.24 Iceland 24.05 New Zealand 27.36 Switzerland 30.77 Canada 31.38 Netherlands 40.09 Australia 43.2
10 Germany 43.311 Japan 43.612 Austria 45.713 Finland 49.914 Argentina 50.015 Portugal 50.416 Venezuela 53.017 Czech Republic 58.418 Denmark 61.019 Hungary 63.720 Slovak Republic 64.521 Spain 72.722 Belgium 77.923 Korea 83.824 Italy 86.925 Malaysia 91.626 Russia 100.027 Brazil 106.228 Colombia 120.029 Greece 178.030 Bulgaria 199.331 Philippines 200.032 Thailand 223.033 Indonesia 271.034 India 277.535 Mexico 279.036 China 310.8
Urban Particulates(Per City Population)
Country Score
1 Switzerland 0.282 Denmark 0.333 Japan 0.344 Italy 0.355 Ireland 0.376 Austria 0.387 France 0.408 Germany 0.419 Spain 0.43
10 Finland 0.4411 Sweden 0.4812 United Kingdom 0.4913 Israel 0.4914 Peru 0.5615 Portugal 0.6116 Netherlands 0.6217 Argentina 0.6318 Norway 0.6319 Belgium 0.6420 Australia 0.6721 Brazil 0.7222 United States 0.7523 Iceland 0.7624 El Salvador 0.7625 New Zealand 0.8126 Costa Rica 0.8427 Chile 0.9028 Philippines 0.9629 Mexico 0.9730 Thailand 1.0031 Canada 1.0132 Indonesia 1.0933 Malaysia 1.1934 Korea 1.2235 Zimbabwe 1.3336 Jordan 1.9437 South Africa 1.9838 Egypt 2.1739 Venezuela 2.4040 China 2.44
Energy Usage(Per Unit GDP)
Environmental Performance by Country, Absolute Ranking*
*Not all data were available for all countriesSource: D.C. Esty and M.E. Porter, “Measuring National Environmental Performance and Its Determinants,” The Global Competitiveness Report 2000, Geneva: World Economic Forum
Presented by Prof.
Michael E. Porter
WBCSD LD Meeting,
Boston, 2000
Environmental Performance by Country, Ranking vs. Income Group Average
Country Score Country Score
1 Russia 0.47 1 Peru 0.442 Brazil 0.50 2 Brazil 0.573 Bulgaria 0.94 3 El Salvador 0.604 Philippines 0.95 4 Costa Rica 0.675 Thailand 1.06 5 Philippines 0.776 Indonesia 1.28 6 Thailand 0.807 India 1.32 7 Indonesia 0.878 China 1.47 8 Zimbabwe 1.06
9 Jordan 1.5410Egypt 1.7311China 1.94
(Per Unit GDP)(Per City Population)Urban Particulates Energy Usage
Low Income Countries
Country Score Country Score
1 New Zealand 0.30 1 Spain 0.412 Argentina 0.55 2 Israel 0.473 Portugal 0.55 3 Portugal 0.574 Venezuela 0.58 4 Argentina 0.605 Czech Rep. 0.64 5New Zealand 0.766 Hungary 0.69 6 Chile 0.857 Slovak Rep. 0.70 7 Mexico 0.928 Spain 0.79 8 Malaysia 1.139 Korea 0.91 9 Korea 1.15
10Malaysia 1.00 10South Africa 1.8711Colombia 1.31 11Venezuela 2.2712Greece 1.9413Mexico 3.04
Urban Particulates Energy Usage
Medium Income Countries
(Per City Population) (Per Unit GDP)Country Score Country Score
1 Sweden 0.22 1 Switzerland 0.552 Norway 0.25 2 Denmark 0.633 France 0.35 3 Japan 0.664 Iceland 0.59 4 Italy 0.675 Switzerland 0.75 5 Ireland 0.726 Canada 0.77 6 Austria 0.737 Netherlands 0.98 7 France 0.778 Australia 1.06 8 Germany 0.799 Germany 1.06 9 Finland 0.85
10Japan 1.07 10 Sweden 0.9211Austria 1.12 11 UK 0.9412Finland 1.23 12 Netherlands 1.2013Denmark 1.50 13 Norway 1.2214Belgium 1.91 14 Belgium 1.2315Italy 2.13 15 Australia 1.29
16 USA 1.4517 Iceland 1.4618 Canada 1.94
Urban Particulates Energy Usage
High Income Countries
(Per City Population) (Per Unit GDP)
Source: D.C. Esty and M.E. Porter, “Measuring National Environmental Performance and Its Determinants,” The Global Competitiveness Report 2000, Geneva: World Economic Forum
Presented by Prof.
Michael E. Porter
WBCSD LD Meeting,
Boston, 2000
Environmental Regulatory Regime Index by Country, Absolute Ranking
Rank Country Score
1 Finland 1.9982 Norway 1.7413 Switzerland 1.6374 Netherlands 1.6235 Denmark 1.5366 Austria 1.3237 Sweden 1.2368 Germany 1.2059 United States 1.190
10 United Kingdom 1.08711 Canada 1.07312 Japan 1.05013 Belgium 1.04114 Australia 1.00615 France 0.89816 New Zealand 0.85517 Ireland 0.71218 Iceland 0.53619 Spain 0.42220 Korea 0.14521 Portugal 0.08322 Israel 0.06323 Italy 0.03524 Malaysia -0.08225 Brazil -0.09526 Hong Kong -0.12827 South Africa -0.250
Rank Country Score
28 Jordan -0.26129 Hungary -0.28030 Mexico -0.34131 Chile -0.41032 Argentina -0.46133 Czech Republic -0.48834 Slovak Republic -0.53935 Greece -0.55836 Poland -0.56937 Costa Rica -0.61438 Russia -0.65239 Thailand -0.66540 China -0.69041 Peru -0.72042 Egypt -0.75743 India -0.88144 Colombia -0.92245 Indonesia -1.03746 Mauritius -1.16747 Philippines -1.19348 Ukraine -1.32249 Vietnam -1.34950 Zimbabwe -1.35351 Venezuela -1.37152 Bulgaria -1.56353 El Salvador -1.777
Source: D.C. Esty and M.E. Porter, “Measuring National Environmental Performance and Its Determinants,” The Global Competitiveness Report 2000, Geneva: World Economic Forum
Presented by Prof.
Michael E. Porter
WBCSD LD Meeting,
Boston, 2000
Environmental Regulatory Regime Index by Country, Ranking vs. Income Group Average
Rank Country Score
1 Brazil 2.0342 Jordan 2.0003 Russia 0.7784 Egypt 0.5165 China 0.3536 Colombia 0.3277 Thailand 0.1578 Peru 0.1529 India -0.21910 Bulgaria -0.46611 Zimbabwe -0.49312 Indonesia -0.50513 Philippines -0.62014 Ukraine -0.84115 Vietnam -1.29516 El Salvador -1.879
Low Income Countries
Rank Country Score
1 New Zealand 2.7102 Ireland 1.5213 Spain 0.9794 Korea 0.5865 Portugal 0.5016 Israel 0.4557 Malaysia 0.3068 South Africa 0.0129 Czech Republic -0.07810 Slovak Republic -0.21911 Mexico -0.26612 Chile -0.27513 Costa Rica -0.47314 Greece -0.59815 Poland -0.67816 Argentina -0.89617 Mauritius -1.32318 Venezuela -2.265
Middle Income Countries
Rank Country Score
1 Finland 1.4242 Denmark 0.9213 Switzerland 0.8774 Netherlands 0.7755 Norway 0.5876 Sweden 0.5077 Austria 0.4628 Germany 0.3239 Canada 0.21510 Australia 0.14911 United Kingdom 0.07712 Japan 0.01913 United States 0.01214 Belgium -0.11615 France -0.26216 Iceland -0.68517 Italy -1.51718 Hong Kong -1.76619 Hungary -2.002
High Income Countries
Source: D.C. Esty and M.E. Porter, “Measuring National Environmental Performance and Its Determinants,” The Global Competitiveness Report 2000, Geneva: World Economic Forum
Presented by Prof.
Michael E. Porter
WBCSD LD Meeting,
Boston, 2000
Relationship Between Environmental Regulatory Regime and Current Competitiveness
(Linear Model)
Zim babw eVietnamVenezue la
United StatesUnited Kingdom
Ukraine
Thailand
Sw itzerland
Sw eden
Spain
South Africa
Slovak RepublicRussia
Portugal
Poland
Phillippines
Peru
Norw ay
New Zealand
Netherlands
Mexico
Mauritius
Malays ia
Korea
Jordan
Japan
Italy Is rae l
Ire land
IndonesiaIndia
Ice land
Hungary
Hong Kong
Greece
Germ any
France
Finland
El Salvador
Egypt
Denm ark
Czech RepublicCosta Rica
Colom bia
China
Chile
Canada
Bulgaria
Brazil
Belgium
Austria
Australia
Argentina
y = 0.9807x - 0.0346R2 = 0.891
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Current Competitiveness Index
Env
ironm
enta
l Reg
ulat
ory
Reg
ime
Inde
x
Source: D.C. Esty and M.E. Porter, “Measuring National Environmental Performance and Its Determinants,” The Global Competitiveness Report 2000, Geneva: World Economic Forum
Presented by Prof.
Michael E. Porter
WBCSD LD Meeting,
Boston, 2000
Relationship Between Environmental Regulatory Regime and GDP Per Capita
(Linear Model)
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Be lgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
ChinaColom bia
Costa RicaCzech Republic
Denm ark
Egypt
El Salvador
Finland
France
Germ any
Greece
Hong KongHungary
Iceland
IndiaIndones ia
Ire land
Israel Italy
Japan
Jordan
KoreaMalaysia
Mauritius
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norw ay
Peru
Phillippines
Poland
Portugal
RussiaSlovak Republic
South Africa
Spain
Sw eden
Sw itzerland
Thailand
Ukraine
United KingdomUnited States
VenezuelaVietnamZim babw e
y = 1E-04x - 1.3853R2 = 0.7947
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
1999 GDP Per Capita
Env
iron
men
tal R
egul
ator
y R
egim
e In
dex
Source: D.C. Esty and M.E. Porter, “Measuring National Environmental Performance and Its Determinants,” The Global Competitiveness Report 2000, Geneva: World Economic Forum
Presented by Prof.
Michael E. Porter
WBCSD LD Meeting,
Boston, 2000
Taiwan
結 論1.多參考國際永行續性評比的指標與架構2.系統性建立我國永續性相關數據資料庫3.建立我國永續性指標系統與企業界互動的機制