臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來因全球化、氣候變遷、能資源短缺、人口結構改變以及市場波動起伏，使得「永續發展」蔚為全球企業所共同面臨之挑戰與契機。能源與氣候變遷，是全球先進企業積極運籌帷幄的重要議題，因為它涉及未來的科技創新、成本節餘、新商機與競爭優勢。自從京都議定書於2005 年2 月16 日生效後，溫室氣體盤查是企業對於溫室氣體議題之基本因應工作。為提供企業界一個進行溫室氣體盤查的通用性標準，世界企業永續發展協會（WBCSD）與世界資源研究院（WRI）於2011 年9月公佈了一套企業溫室氣體會計與報告的標準，並獲得全球各地的企業、政府機構以及非政府組織廣泛地接受及採用。為協助定義及制定直接與間接排放源，增進透明度，並為不同型組織、不同類型氣候政策與商業目的，提供公用的工具，因此針對溫室氣體會計與報告目的定義了三種範疇(scope)，範疇一 (直接溫室氣體排放)、範疇二 (電力之間接溫室氣體排放)及範疇三 (其它間接溫室氣體排放)。若企業採用範疇三溫室氣體盤查標準，價值鏈之其他非報告公司所擁有或控制的排放，皆列入公司作業活動的結果，進而衍生未來與溫室氣體限制與成本效益相關之風險與機會。
本研究針對溫室氣體盤查、企業供應鏈(範疇三)會計與報告標準、供應商評選準則與供應商評選研究方法此四構面進行相關文獻回顧與探討，回顧過去供應商評選準則相關文獻，傳統供應商選擇著重品質、交期、成本等經濟評選準則，近年來，隨永續發展蔚為全球企業重視之議題，供應商評選標準已不僅是單純的著重於經濟評選準則，企業社會責任、生態環保、風險管理等永續發展衍生之議題已廣為各學術領域討論。相關供應商選擇文獻之評選準則多以單一層面如: 經濟層面或環保層面為研究主要構面，因此本研究欲建立考量公司溫室氣體盤查邊界擴大之衍生風險與機會，訂定具經濟、社會、環保和風險層面考量之供應商評選準則。研究中將供應商評選準則項目建立層級式架構，並進而歸納以組織層面、社會層面、環境層面、風險層面為四大主軸涵蓋二十項評選準則，藉由層級分析法(Analytic Hierarchy Process)分析評選準則之權重作為供應商評選之模型。
研究顯示供應商評選準則風險層面之「法規風險」、組織層面之「品質管理」、風險層面之「信譽風險」依次為影響供應商評選準則之主要準則。本研究鑑別傳統供應商選擇著重之經濟評選準則若在企業面臨溫室氣體盤查法規風險時之評估權重調整。

Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from corporate activities are gradually becoming a mainstream management issue for businesses. The GHG Protocol Scope 3 Corporate Standard launched in 2001 which has been commonly adopted by businesses, governments, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world as the international standard for developing and reporting a corporation’s overall emissions profile of their value chain activities. Through Scope 3 Corporate Standard, companies can recognize potential emissions and associated life cycle environmental risks and opportunities cover in supply chain activities.
This research reviewed the previous research in four dimensions: greenhouse gas inventory, corporate supply chain (Scope 3) accounting and reporting standard, supplier selection criteria and supplier selection methodology. In traditional supplier selection method, the selection criteria focused on economic criteria such as quality, delivery and cost. Recent years, as sustainable development rising importance in global business, economic criteria is no longer the only selection principle for companies. Academic institutes and researchers are gradually aware of recognition issues and practices in corporate social reasonability, environmental friendly and risk management. In the earlier study mostly manage supplier selection problem in single level, for example, economic level or environmental level. For instance, in consideration of greenhouse gas inventory associated risks and opportunities cover in supply chain activities, this research proposes four dimensions supplier selection framework integrated organizational level, social level, environmental level and risk level into supplier selection principle consist of twenty sub-criteria applying Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to analyze the weights of the multi-criteria decision-making factors designed for supplier selection.
This study found the regulatory risk, quality and reputation are the three most important supplier selection criteria. This research discovers when corporations encounter greenhouse gas regulations and standards, corporations will adjust the weights of the traditional economic criteria.

摘要 I
Abstract II
LIST OF FIGURES IV
LIST OF TABLES IV
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND 1
1.2 RESEARCH MOTIVATION 2
1.3 RESEARCH PURPOSE 3
1.4 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 5
2.2 GREENHOUSE GAS PROTOCOL 21
2.3 SUPPLIER SELECTION PROBLEM 28
2.4 SUPPLIER SELECTION CRITERIA 32
2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY 39
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 41
3.1 ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS 41
3.2 PAIRWISE COMPARISON EVALUATION 46
3.3 CONSISTENCY INDEX AND CONSISTENCY RATIO 48
3.4 FACTOR DEFINES 50
CHAPTER IV RESULT 57
4.1 SAMPLE STRUCTURE 57
4.2 RESULT 59
4.3 DISCUSSION 67
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 69
References 71
Appendix I 77

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 4
FIGURE 2 CUMULATIVE GLOBAL FOSSIL-FUEL CO2 EMISSIONS (SOURCE: CDIAC, 2012) 6
FIGURE 3 CO2 EMISSIONS BY SECTOR IN 2010 (SOURCE: IEA, 2012) 6
FIGURE 4 GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY GAS (SOURCE: IPCC, 2007) 8
FIGURE 5 GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY COUNTRY (SOURCE: IPCC, 2007) 9
FIGURE 6 OVERVIEW OF GHG PROTOCOL SCOPES AND EMISSIONS ACROSS THE VALUE CHAIN 24
FIGURE 7 EXISTING ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR SUPPLIER SELECTION ADOPTED FROM CHEN (2011). 28
FIGURE 8 THE FLOWCHART OF THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (HO ET AL., 2006) 44
FIGURE 9 HIERARCHY FOR SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 45

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2. 1 OVERVIEW OF GHG STANDARDS 11
TABLE 2. 2 WBCSD/WRI CORPORATE VALUE CHAIN (SCOPE 3) STANDARD BOUNDARY 23
TABLE 2. 3 BUSINESS GOALS SERVED BY A SCOPE 3 GHG INVENTORY 25
TABLE 2. 4 GHG-RELATED RISKS RELATED TO SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS 26
TABLE 2. 5 GHG -RELATED OPPORTUNITIES RELATED TO SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS 27
TABLE 2. 6 SUMMARY OF COMMON USE SUPPLIER SELECTION CRITERIA 33
TABLE 2. 10 RISK SUPPLIER SELECTION CRITERIA. 35
TABLE 2. 9 ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPLIER SELECTION CRITERIA 36
TABLE 2. 10 SOCIAL SUPPLIER SELECTION CRITERIA 37
TABLE 2. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLIER SELECTION CRITERIA 38
TABLE 2. 12 RISK SUPPLIER SELECTION CRITERIA 38
TABLE 3. 1 RATIO SCALE OF COMPARATIVE JUDGMENTS 42
TABLE 3. 2 AHP QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE FORM 46
TABLE 3. 3 AVERAGE RANDOM INDEX 48
TABLE 3. 4 CRITERIA AND SUB-CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING SUPPLIER 51
TABLE 4. 1 SURVEY CORPORATION INDUSTRY 58
TABLE 4. 2 AGGREGATED PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRIX OF THE FOUR ATTRIBUTES 60
TABLE 4. 3 AGGREGATED PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRIX OF THE FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIZATION 62
TABLE 4. 4 AGGREGATED PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRIX OF THE FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL 63
TABLE 4. 5 AGGREGATED PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRIX OF THE FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL 64
TABLE 4. 6 AGGREGATED PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRIX OF THE FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF RISK 65
TABLE 4. 7 PRIORITY VECTORS FOR THE DECISION HIERARCHY 66

Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. (2010). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. Int. J. Production Economics, 370–378.
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using rough set theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1200–1210.
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. International Journal of Production Economics, 252–264.
Baldo, G. L., Marino, M., Montani, M., & Ryding, S.-O. (2009). The carbon footprint measurement toolkit for the EU Ecolabel. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 591-596.
Bebbington, J., & Larrinaga-González, C. (2008). Carbon Trading: Accounting and Reporting Issues. European Accounting Review, 697–717.
Bishopa, R. A., Morganb, C. V., & Ericksonc, L. (2013). Public Awareness of Human Trafficking in Europe: How Concerned Are European Citizens? Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 113-135.
Björklund, A. (2012). Life cycle assessment as an analytical tool in strategic environmental assessment. Lessons learned from a case study on municipal energy planning in Sweden. Environmental impact assessment review, 82-87.
Boden, T., Marland, G., & Andres, R. (2012). Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Tennessee: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.
Boer, L. d., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7, 75–89.
Brunoa, G., Espositoa, E., Genovesea, A., & Passaro, R. (2012). AHP-basedapproachesforsupplierevaluation:Problemsandperspectives. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 159-172.
Brunsson, N., Rasche, A., & Seidl, D. (2012). The Dynamics of Standardisation: Three Perspectives on Standards in Organisation Studies. Organization Studies, 613-633 .
BSI. (2011). PAS 2050: specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. London: British Standards Institution .
Burritt, R. L., Hahn, T., & Schaltegger, S. (2002). Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Management Accounting — Links Between Business Actors and Environmental Management Accounting Tools. Australian Accounting Review, 39-50.
Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection. Computers in Industry, 164–174.
Chan, F. T., & Kumar, N. (2007). Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega, 417 – 431.
Chan, F. T., Kumary, N., Tiwariz, M. K., Laux, H. C., & Choy, K. L. (2008). Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. International Journal of Production Research, 3825–3857.
Chandrappa, R., Gupta, S., & Kulshrestha, U. C. (2011). Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Coping with Climate Change, 69-88.
Chen, Y.-J. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Information Sciences, 181, 1651–1670.
Cormiera, D., Magnanb, M., & Velthoven, B. V. (2005). Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions? European Accounting Review,, 3-39.
Demsetz, H. (1983). Structure of Ownership and the Theory of the Firm . Journal of Law and Economics , 375-390.
Dickson, G. W. (1966). An Analysis of Vendor Selection Systems and Decisions . Journal of Purchasing, 5–17.
Downie, J., & Stubbs, W. (2012). Corporate Carbon Strategies and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessments: The Implications of Scope 3 Emission Factor Selection. Business Strategy and the Environment, 412–422.
Downiea, J., & Stubbsb, W. (n.d.). Evaluaiton of Australian companies’ scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions assessments in press. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Eltayeba, T. K., Zailani, S., & Ramayah, T. (2011). Green supply chain initiatives among certified companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: investigating the outcomes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 495-506.
European Union. (2013). The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). European Commission.
Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., Dahe, Q., Dokken, D. J., Ebi, K. L., et al. (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Garnaut, R. (2010). Policy framework for transition to a low-carbon world economy. Asian Economic Policy Review, 19–33.
Gendron, C., Bisaillon, V., & Rance, A. I. (2009). The Institutionalization of Fair Trade: More than Just a Degraded Form of Social Action. Journal of Business Ethics, 63-79.
Ghodsypour, S., & O'Brien, C. (1998). A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. International Journal of Production Economics, 199–212.
Gunasekarana, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2012). Sustainability of manufacturing and services: Investigations for research and applications. International Journal of Production Economics, 35-47.
Ha, S. H., & Krishnan, R. (2008). A hybrid approach to supplier selection for the maintenance of a competitive supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal, 34, 1303-1311.
Harmon, J. A., Babbitt, H., Gustave, J., Ruckelshaus, W. D., Emerson, A. F., Artavia, R., et al. (2012). Making Big Ideas Happen. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 211–228.
Ho, W., Higson, H. E., & Dey, P. K. (2006). An integrated multiple criteria decision making approach for resource allocation in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 319–337.
Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 16–24.
Hoek, R. v., Harrison, A., & Christopher, M. (2001). Measuring agile capabilities in the supply chain. nternational Journal of Operations & Production Management, 126–147.
Houghton, R. (2008). Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Changes: 1850-2005. Tennese: In TRENDS: A Compendium of Data on Global Change.
Huang, Y., Weber, C., & Matthews, H. (2009). Categorization of scope 3 emissionsfor streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting. Environmental Science &Technology, 8509-8515.
IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2011). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
ISO. (2006). ISO14064: Greenhouse Gases. Genève, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization,.
ISO. (2009). GHG schemes addressing climate change– How ISO standards help. Stockholm: International Organization for Standardization.
Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., & Diabat, A. (2013). Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production (47), 355-367.
Kuo, R., Wang, Y., & Tien, F. (2010). Integration of artificial neural network and MADA methods for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production (18), 1161–1170.
Lee, H. L., & Billington, C. (1992). Managing supply chain inventory: Pitfalls and opportunities. Sloan Management Review, 65–73.
Lee, K. H. (2012). Carbon accounting for supply chain management in the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 83-93.
Lenzne, M., & Muraay, J. (2010). Conceptualising environmental responsibility. Ecological Economics, 261–270.
Liao, C.-N., & Kao, H.-P. (2011). An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP approach to supplier selection in supply. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 10803–10811.
Malte, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S. C., Frieler, K., Knutti, R., et al. (2009). Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2℃. Nature, 1158-1162.
Matson, P. A., Dietz, T., Abdalati, W., Antonio J. Busalacchi, J., Caldeira, K., Corell, R. W., et al. (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science.
Miller, J. G., Graham, M. B., Freeland, J. R., Hottenstein, M., Maister, D. H., Meredith, J., et al. (1981). Production/Operations management: Agenda for the’80s. Decision Sciences, 547–571.
Murthya, D., & Djamaludina, I. (2002). New product warranty: A literature review. International Journal of Production Economics (79), 231–260.
Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, accountability and community: the limits of the CSR agenda. International Affairs, 541-557.
Noland, J., & Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews (12), 39–49.
NRC. (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Rubina, J., & Leiby, P. N. (2013). Tradable credits system design and cost savings for a national low carbon fuel standard for road transport. Energy Policy, 16–28.
Sarkis, J. (1998). Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices . European Journal of Operational Research, 159- 174.
Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Perspectives, 61-75.
Schaltegger, S., & Csutora, M. (2012). Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1–16.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 225-243.
Sharma, M. J., & Yu, S. J. (2013). Selecting critical suppliers for supplier development to improve supply management. OPSEARCH, 42-59.
Smith, J. B., Schellnhuber, H.-J., & Mirza, M. M. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts: Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, N. (2006). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trucost. ( 2009.). Carbon Risks and Opportunities in the S&P 500. Boston: Trucost.
Tseng, M.-L., & Chiu, A. S. (2013). Evaluating firm’s green supply chain management in linguistic preferences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 22-31.
Upadhyayulaa, V. K., Meyerb, D. E., Curranb, M. A., & Gonzalezb, M. A. (2012). Life cycle assessment as a tool to enhance the environmental performance of carbon nanotube products: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37–47.
Verghese, K., & Lewis, H. (2010). Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a supply chain approach. International Journal of Production Research, 4381-4401.
WBCSD, & WRI. (2011). The greenhouse gas protocol: corporate value chain (scope3) accounting and reporting standard. Washington, DC: World Business Council for Sustainable Development ; WorldResources Institute.
Weber, C. A., & Current, J. R. (1993). A multiobjective approach to vendor selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 68, 173–184.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 50, 2-18.
Wheelera, S. M. (2008). State and Municipal Climate Change Plans: The First Generation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 481-496.
Zeydana, M., Çolpanb, C., & Çobanoglu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 2741–2751.
Zhao, R., Deutz, P., Neighbour, G., & McGuire, M. (2012). Carbon emissions intensity ratio: an indicator for an improved carbon labelling scheme. Environmental Research Letters, 1-9.