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

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)


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


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


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


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


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