Using IPA-KANO to discuss the Effect of Sustainable Circular Resource Strategies on the Evaluation Items of Environment, Society, Governance (ESG) in Taiwan
Kuang-Sheng Liu
Department of architecture,
National Quemoy University,
No. 1, University Rd., Jinning Township,
Kinmen County 892, Taiwan R.O.C
E-mail: kliu0513@nqu.edu.tw
Yu-Lin Shih
Teacher of Citizenship education and
Sociology, Kaohsiung Municipal Xiaogang
Senior High School
No. 117, Xuefu Rd., Xiaogang Dist.,
Kaohsiung City 81255, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
E-mail: hector@mail.hkhs.kh.edu.tw
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of sustainable circular resource strategies on the evaluation items of the Environment, Society, and Governance (ESG) criteria in Taiwan, using the IPA-KANO model. With Taiwan's goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the research emphasizes the importance of adopting sustainable circular strategies, including energy efficiency, resource recycling, and the promotion of green consumption. The existing ESG evaluation systems, such as the MSCI ESG Index, predominantly focus on financial performance, which may not fully capture the unique sustainability efforts relevant to specific regions like Taiwan.
The research employs the IPA-KANO model to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies, categorizing them into different levels of importance and performance. Through an expert questionnaire and factor analysis, the study develops a Sustainable Circular Resource Strategy Service Quality Scale, which includes 20 key factors. These factors are aligned with ESG criteria, identifying areas where improvements are needed. The study finds that certain strategies, like promoting green consumption and implementing economic initiatives, are crucial for improving societal and governance dimensions of ESG, while strategies like green building certifications and renewable energy installations are vital for environmental sustainability.
The findings suggest that current ESG evaluation tools need to be adapted to more accurately reflect local sustainability efforts. The study recommends integrating region-specific metrics into global ESG frameworks to improve their relevance and effectiveness. This framework can help policymakers and businesses in Taiwan align their sustainability strategies with ESG standards, supporting the country’s long-term sustainability and carbon reduction goals. The study ultimately contributes to improving localized ESG evaluation systems for better strategic decision-making in the context of sustainable development.
Keywords: IPA-KANO, ESG, Kano, COVID-19, Two-Dimensional Quality Model
The concept of ESG originated from the “Who Cares Wins” report by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2004, which introduced “Environment,” “Society,” and “Governance” (ESG) as critical factors. The report proposed that companies should incorporate these three indicators—environment, society, and corporate governance—into their operational evaluation standards. This would not only support sustainable business practices but also yield positive benefits for society, the environment, and the economy. In Taiwan, the government has set a goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and is committed to advancing sustainable energy management and a circular economy. Key strategies include the adoption of renewable energy, the development of smart grids, and the promotion of green consumption, all of which are essential elements of Taiwan’s approach to achieving sustainable development through sustainable circular resource management.
However, current ESG evaluation tools, especially the widely-used MSCI ESG Index, focus primarily on financial performance and risk management, which may not fully reflect the unique sustainability demands and strategies of specific regions. Therefore, researching ways to improve existing ESG evaluation tools to more accurately reflect local sustainability strategies holds significant theoretical and practical value.
Most previous studies have concentrated on the theoretical aspects and indicator design of the ESG evaluation framework, with limited quantitative analysis of specific sustainability strategies. Particularly, there is a lack of empirical data on how sustainable circular resource strategies applied in Taiwan affect various dimensions of ESG evaluation. Thus, employing scientific quantitative models to analyze the impact of Taiwan’s sustainable circular resource strategies on ESG evaluation items is a crucial topic in current localized ESG research.
To align with international ESG development trends, Taiwan has progressively used the Ministry of Education’s “Energy Resource Education Center” project from 2007 to 2010, which involved the transformation of unused campus spaces (Shih et al., 2012). This platform connected nearby specialized schools, forming a network for sustainable development education (Shih et al., 2014). In 2018, recognizing the trend of sustainable development and ESG assessment indicators in environmental governance, particularly regarding energy resources, the original “Sustainable Campus” project was transformed into the “Sustainable Circular Campus” project. This shift focused on energy resource topics and significantly enhanced measures for resource improvements. However, current sustainable policy development has not actively applied ESG principles to studies of both existing and new buildings. To enhance the net-zero opportunities and strategies in the building sector related to ESG, this research further examines the four major circular systems of sustainable circular campuses (Shaowen Cheng, 2021), consolidating actions related to sustainability, resource management strategies, and greenhouse gas reduction.
The research utilizes the IPA-KANO model—a tool commonly applied in analyzing customer service quality and product attributes—to analyze the influence of different attributes on satisfaction and importance, thus prioritizing areas for improvement. Despite its potential, the model has not been widely applied in ESG evaluation or sustainable strategy research. However, this model can help identify priority areas for sustaining or improving localized sustainability strategies within ESG assessments and provide specific implementation suggestions. This lack of application within ESG evaluation represents a key gap in current research.
In summary, while sustainable circular resource strategies and ESG evaluations are gaining attention, significant gaps remain in research on their specific interrelations and on ways to improve the local adaptability of ESG evaluation tools. This study will use the IPA-KANO model to investigate the impact of Taiwan’s sustainable circular resource strategies on ESG evaluation items, providing theoretical support for improving the existing ESG rating system and offering practical recommendations for policymaking. The main objectives are as follows:
Application of the ESG Rating System
ESG is widely applied as a comprehensive tool for evaluating corporate performance in operational management, creating a more thorough and objective data analysis method. Roselle (2016) noted that companies focusing on ESG tend to increase their willingness for voluntary disclosures, using information platforms and independent institutions to publish measurement standards that aid decision-making. However, the current evaluation mechanisms lack unified principles and standards, leading to varied methods for assessing performance across different ESG rating systems. This inconsistency results in discrepancies in corporate evaluations, raising questions about the validity of these ratings, as each rating agency views ESG differently and applies different weighting strategies to calculate final scores (Louis et al., 2023; Saadaoui & Soobaroyen, 2018; Chatterji et al., 2016).
The widespread impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has driven companies and investors to pay more attention to social and governance measures. For instance, a higher ESG rating may indicate a company’s stronger capacity to respond to crises, showcasing its ability to mitigate associated risks (Alan et al., 2023). Additionally, research by Antonios (2023) found that during periods of high uncertainty and pessimism, companies often improve their ESG performance to boost investor confidence. However, while strong ESG performance can enhance investor trust, it does not directly reduce the uncertainty around climate policy or impact CO₂ reduction performance. These findings may help managers and policymakers focus more on practical improvement efforts that align with ESG rating criteria, thus allowing them to benefit from ESG-related initiatives in times of climate policy uncertainty.
Notably, the MSCI ESG Index, issued by Morgan Stanley Capital International, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) jointly developed by the U.S.-based Dow Jones and Switzerland's RobecoSAM, the FTSE ESG Index and FTSE4Good Index from FTSE Russell, and the Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) promoted by S&P Global are commonly used for corporate sustainability evaluations.
Jain & Tripathi (2023) emphasize that ESG is an emerging field within sustainable finance and further research shows that ESG has a significant impact on company value. This means that companies with strong ESG performance may obtain capital at a lower cost. For managers, understanding the growing importance of ESG is crucial. Companies that invest in ESG-related activities may benefit from a better reputation, easier access to financing, and increased shareholder value (Binh & Lee, 2024). This suggests that companies should prioritize ESG reporting and integrate it into their business strategy, as it increasingly influences investor decisions and market value. Furthermore, Mercereau, Melin, & Lugo (2021) found that focusing on specific ESG variables, such as reducing carbon emissions, improving water efficiency, and promoting gender diversity, is directly related to improvements in company performance and stock prices. Managers can use ESG as a tool to enhance company health and shareholder value. Focusing on important ESG indicators can lead to financial returns and improve a company’s performance in the stock market (Liu & Zhang, 2023). Therefore, ESG strategies should be tailored to each company’s context and key performance areas.
The study by Yasmine & Kooli (2021) found that incorporating ESG factors into smart-beta investment portfolios neither significantly increases nor decreases returns. For asset management companies, adding ESG components does not result in major financial trade-offs. This means that integrating ESG factors can attract socially conscious investors without the risk of poor financial performance, aligning investment practices with both ethical and financial goals (Oprean-Stan et al., 2021).
Helliar, Petracci, & Tantisantiwong (2021) found that SRI (Socially Responsible Investment) funds typically have more diversified portfolios, lower cash holdings, and lower fees, without sacrificing financial returns. Fund managers can attract investors by promoting the diversification benefits of SRI funds, which demonstrate resilience without requiring high fees (He et al., 2023). Companies seeking to position themselves as socially responsible should focus on how to communicate the financial and ethical benefits of their operations in order to attract socially conscious long-term investors.
The MSCI ESG Index, established in 1972, began applying ESG indicators as a stock rating tool in 1999. The MSCI ESG rating system includes 10 relevant themes and 37 key ESG indicators, which are publicly available online, providing convenient and comprehensive information. The index also created the "MSCI Global Green Building Index," with major holdings including real estate investment trusts (REITs) such as Boston Properties and Nippon Building Fund. This system has garnered widespread consensus and contribution in the building and construction industries' ESG rating frameworks. Therefore, the MSCI ESG Index is used as the rating system for verification in this study.
In order to validate the impact of sustainable circular resource strategies on ESG evaluation items, this study applies the IPA and KANO importance-performance statistical methods, commonly used in international management studies, to establish the prioritization of improvements and maintenance for sustainable circular resource strategies.
Overview of the IPA and Kano Two-Dimensional Quality Model
Important Performance Analysis (IPA) was first introduced by Martilla and James (1977) for analyzing the automotive industry. Since its inception, IPA has been widely applied across various fields. It primarily uses a two-dimensional matrix structure based on importance and performance to identify strengths and weaknesses in service quality, providing recommendations for business improvements.
In recent years, Hu & Salim (2023) combined the IPA and Kano models with Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to assess the quality risks of Bangkok's public bus services. They identified safety, cleanliness, and punctuality as critical attributes requiring improvement, as there was a significant gap between their importance and performance. The study suggested that government actions in improving these areas could increase user satisfaction and encourage more citizens to use public transportation instead of cars.
Chen et al. (2022) integrated the IPA and Kano models to explore students' needs in a synchronous remote learning environment. Their research showed that gamification elements could significantly enhance the learning experience. IPA helped identify priority areas for improving educational services, while the Kano model categorized students' needs based on whether their demands were being met.
In the airport service sector, Zeng et al. (2022) applied both IPA and the Kano model to classify and diagnose service attributes affecting passenger satisfaction. They found that certain attributes, such as timely service and efficient customer interaction, were categorized as "Must-be" requirements, while other attributes, such as in-flight entertainment, were classified as "Attractive" factors. These insights help managers focus on maintaining the "Must-be" attributes while enhancing the "Attractive" ones to improve passenger satisfaction.
Typically, IPA uses the average or median of importance and performance as reference lines. On a two-dimensional coordinate plane, it divides product perceived importance and product experience performance into four quadrants: Quadrant I "Keep Up the Good Work"; Quadrant II "Possible Overkill"; Quadrant III "Low Priority"; and Quadrant IV "Concentrate Here."
In 1984, Japanese quality control expert Noriaki Kano modified Herzberg’s "Motivation-Hygiene Theory" and proposed the Kano Two-Dimension Quality Model, also known as the Kano model (as shown in Figure 1). The Kano model classifies quality attributes into five categories: Attractive Quality Element (A), One-Dimension Quality Element (O), Must-be Quality Element (M), Indifferent Quality Element (I), and Reverse Quality Element (R). Matzler and Hinterhuber (1998) classified quality attributes using five expressions: "I like it," "It must be that way," "I am neutral," "I don't mind," and "I dislike it" (as shown in Table 1). Gitlow (1999) recommended that the classification of attributes be determined by accumulating the frequency of responses, with the formula: Kano category = maximum (A, O, M) when (A + O + M) > (I + Q + R), or Kano category = maximum (I, Q, R) when (A + O + M) < (I + Q + R).
Figure 1. Conceptual Diagram of the Kano Two-Dimensional Quality Model
(Source: Kano, N., 1984; created by this study)
Table 1. Two-Dimensional Quality Attribute Classification Table
|
Quality Attribute Deficiency
Quality Attribute Presence |
Insufficient Quality Attribute |
|||||
|
I like it |
It must be that way |
I am neutral |
I don't mind |
I dislike it |
||
|
Sufficient Quality Attribute |
I like it |
Q |
A |
A |
A |
O |
|
It must be that way |
R |
I |
I |
I |
M |
|
|
I am neutral |
R |
I |
I |
I |
M |
|
|
I don't mind |
R |
I |
I |
I |
M |
|
|
I dislike it |
R |
R |
R |
R |
Q |
|
Note 1: A = Attractive Quality, O = One-Dimension Quality, M = Must-be Quality, I = Indifferent Quality, R = Reverse Quality, Q = Questionable Quality
(Source: Matzler & Hinterhuber, 1998; compiled by this study)
Examining Sustainable Circular Resource Strategy Factors Using the MSCI ESG Index
Thematic Dimensions of Sustainable Circular Resource Strategies
Kjaer et al. (2019) explored the challenges faced by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) when adopting circular economy strategies. The study emphasizes the integration of sustainable practices such as energy efficiency and material reuse, while also identifying barriers such as regulatory constraints and market readiness. The research highlights the importance of aligning circular economy models with broader sustainable development goals and identifies key dimensions, such as:
Das et al. (2021) identified critical dimensions such as resource recycling, energy optimization, and waste reduction. They also emphasized the potential of closed-loop systems, which can maximize resource efficiency and minimize environmental impact, thus driving long-term sustainability. The key dimensions covered include:
Velenturf & Purnell (2021) provided insights into the fundamental principles required for achieving a sustainable circular economy in the energy sector, focusing on the need for a systemic change in resource use. They emphasized the importance of integrating ecological and social dimensions to promote a circular bioeconomy and offered a comprehensive framework for establishing a circular economy in the energy field. The core dimensions outlined include:
Blomsma & Brennan (2017) provided a comprehensive overview of the concept of the circular economy, with a particular focus on energy resource management. The discussion highlights strategies such as material reuse and energy recovery, which help extend the productivity of resources. The key thematic dimensions include:
According to the research by Oludolapo et al. (2022), buildings require adequate monitoring throughout their entire life cycle, and the concept of building sustainability assessment is crucial for mitigating global warming. Building certification assessments can serve as effective environmental management tools to reduce the transitional consumption of resources such as water and energy in buildings. When applied to a large number of buildings in urban areas, these tools can significantly reduce the city's demand for energy resources, thereby contributing to the region's overall sustainable development goals (Raissa et al., 2021).
In light of this, Liu et al. (2023) applied Domestic and International Sustainable Building Evaluation Index Certification Systems, further integrating Xu Fuxi’s (2022) research on nine international indicator systems and eight regulations from Taiwan's sector, while also comparing 35 scholarly works on low-carbon studies, including those by Bernhard & Auer (2021), Pomponi & D'Amico (2020), and Griffiths & Sovacool (2020). This study selected key thematic topics for sustainable circular resource strategies, which include: "Energy Efficiency," "Energy Saving," "Water Resources," "Renewable Energy," "Resource Recycling," "Sustainable Management," "Green Buildings," "Indoor Environmental Quality," "Air Quality," and "Health and Hygiene."
On the other hand, although the potential impacts of climate change on the construction industry have not been fully researched, climate change has already had a significant impact on buildings, their environments, designs, and operations. Therefore, understanding these impacts is crucial (Zhiqiang & Jacob, 2019). A comprehensive comparison of international sustainable building evaluation certification systems shows the following weighted priorities for their respective assessment criteria: Health and Well-being, Energy (BREEAM); Energy and Air, Indoor Environmental Quality (LEED); and Energy, Indoor Environment (CASBEE).
Additionally, similar evaluations were conducted for Taiwan's Ministry of the Interior Green Building Evaluation System, Smart Building Label Certification System, Kaohsiung City Government Photovoltaic Smart Building Label Certification, and Kaohsiung City Government Kaohsiu Building Certification Label. The evaluation revealed that "Indoor Environmental Quality" and "Energy" received the highest scores, which were highly consistent with international sustainable evaluation certifications. This also corresponds with the top 10 thematic topics related to sustainable circular resource strategies. Subsequently, four major circular systems of sustainable circular campuses were introduced, with a focus on energy resource-related themes, defining three main thematic dimensions for "Sustainable Circular Resource Strategies": "Environment and Health," "Energy and Microclimate," and "Sustainable Circular System."
Thematic Factors of the Sustainable Circular Resource Strategy Service Quality Scale
This study examines the greenhouse gas control implementation plans by the Executive Yuan and policies related to sustainable circular campuses. Based on the attributes of the thematic items within the three main thematic dimensions, a preliminary "Sustainable Circular Resource Strategy Service Quality Scale" was developed, consisting of 20 factor items. Among these, the items with the most references were "Maintaining Indoor Environmental Quality and Cleanliness" and "Operating Circular Hydropower." The next most referenced items were "Planning Green Building Materials and Natural Material Applications," "Reusing Existing Building Old Facilities," and "Recycling and Reusing Equipment and Facility Materials." The relevant content is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Listed of question factors and data sources for sustainable recycling energy resources strategy
|
|
Dimension Attribute |
Code |
Item Factor |
Data Source |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Environment and Health |
EH1 |
Apply for Kaohsiu, Green Building, or other certifications |
E02；E05 |
|
|||||||
|
|
EH2 |
Maintain indoor environmental quality and cleanliness (e.g., air purifiers, ventilation systems, etc.) |
E01；E02；E03；E04；E05；E06；E07 |
|
||||||||
|
|
EH3 |
Plan for the use of green building materials and natural materials (e.g., low emission, low pollution, or low odor, etc.) |
E01；E02；E03；E04；E05；E07 |
|
||||||||
|
|
EH4 |
Air pollution disaster perception and response (e.g., installation of air quality detectors, air quality monitors, etc.) |
E01；E04；E05；E07；E03 |
|
||||||||
|
|
EH5 |
Install energy-saving lighting in existing buildings (e.g., full or partial replacement) |
E01；E02；E04；E05；E07 |
|
||||||||
|
|
EH6 |
Design spaces for electric vehicle charging stations (e.g., charging stations or charging piles) |
E02；E04 |
|
||||||||
|
EH7 |
Promote vertical greening in buildings (e.g., living walls, landscape balconies, or rooftop greening) |
E01；E02；E05 |
||||||||||
|
Energy and Microclimate |
EC1 |
Introduce campus energy management system (EMS) |
E01；E04；E07 |
|||||||||
|
EC2 |
Install renewable energy generation equipment (e.g., solar power, wind energy, etc.) |
E01；E04；E07 |
||||||||||
|
EC3 |
Install smart digital meters (e.g., smart green energy photovoltaic and cloud-based energy monitoring systems) |
E01；E04；E07 |
||||||||||
|
EC4 |
Operate circular hydropower (e.g., rainwater collection, purified water storage, water infiltration and retention, etc.) |
E01；E02；E03；E04；E05；E06；E07 |
|
|||||||||
|
Sustainable Circular |
SC1 |
Fully implement general resource recycling (e.g., advocacy or actions, etc.) |
E01；E03；E04；E05；E07 |
|
||||||||
|
SC2 |
Reuse old facilities of existing buildings (e.g., self-use, storage, or repurpose for other uses, etc.) |
E01；E03；E04；E05；E06；E07 |
|
|||||||||
|
SC3 |
Recycle and repurpose materials from equipment and facilities (e.g., waste exchange or remanufacturing for reuse) |
E01；E03；E04；E05；E06；E07 |
|
|||||||||
|
SC4 |
Promote food and agriculture education in daily life (e.g., advocacy or actions, etc.) |
E03；E04；E05 |
|
|||||||||
|
SC5 |
Promote leaf and kitchen waste composting or recycling |
E01；E03；E04；E05；E07 |
|
|||||||||
|
SC6 |
Plan and implement economic regeneration actions (e.g., developing local economies based on regional characteristics, etc.) |
E03；E04；E05；E07 |
|
|||||||||
|
SC7 |
Community sustainability human resources training (e.g., horizontal collaboration with community groups to create sustainable innovation) |
E03；E04；E05；E07 |
|
|||||||||
|
SC8 |
Implement green consumption by purchasing green products (e.g., carbon footprint reduction labels, environmental protection certifications, etc.) |
E04；E05；E06 |
|
|||||||||
|
SC9 |
Collaboration among industry, government, and academia to implement energy-saving, carbon-reduction, and campus environmental education policies |
E04；E05；E07 |
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Note 1：E01 =Green Building Standard（EEWH）、E02=Kaohsiung City Building Certification（KCBC）、E03=Sustainable Schools（SS）、E04=LEED (US)、E05=WELL (US)、E06=BREEAM (UK)、E07=CASBEE (Japan)
(Source: Compiled by this study)
Methodology
(1) Implementation of the Sustainable Circular Resource Strategy Quality Scale Survey
To determine the usability and appropriateness of the research scale, feedback was gathered through an expert questionnaire process. The following suggestions were 1.Add an item factor: "Operating Circular Hydropower" (e.g., rainwater collection, purified water storage, and water retention). 2. Include Q&A explanations and definitions for the terms used in the scale. As a result, 20 item factors were finalized. A pretest was then conducted by distributing 50 questionnaires to carry out an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the Sustainable Circular Resource Strategy Quality Scale. The EFA revealed a KMO value of 0.876 and a Bartlett’s test of sphericity significance of 0.000. After the scale was reviewed and modified by experts, its validity and reliability were enhanced. The final EFA identified 3 main themes and 20 item factors. SPSS software was used to analyze the data, producing the following Cronbach’s Alpha values: Environment and Health (Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.818), Energy and Microclimate (Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.705), Sustainable Circular System (Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.887), The overall reliability of the scale, with a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.930, indicates good reliability and validity for all the dimensions.
Next, a parallel comparison was made between the MSCI ESG rating system’s 10 relevant themes and 37 key ESG rating items, and the 20 item factors of this study. The correspondence between the 20 item factors and ESG relevance is shown in Table 3. The findings are as follows: (1) Environment and Health: EH1 and EH6 (2) Energy and Microclimate: EC1, EC2, EC3 (3) Sustainable Circular System: SC6, SC8 Seven item factors from the Sustainable Circular System dimension correspond to the Environment, Society, and Governance themes and rating items. SC7 in the Sustainable Circular System dimension corresponds only to the Society aspect. SC9 in the Sustainable Circular System dimension corresponds to both the Society and Governance aspects. In summary, 18 item factors are linked to the Environment aspect of ESG, 20 item factors are linked to the Society aspect, and 8 item factors are linked to the Governance aspect. Seven item factors are linked to all three ESG dimensions.
|
Environment |
Society |
Governance |
Total Sum Percentage of ESG |
|||||||||||
|
Climate Change Natural Capital Pollution and Waste Environmental Opportunity |
|
Percentage of ESG |
Human Capital Product Responsibility Stakeholder Objections Social Opportunities |
Percentage of ESG |
Corporate Governance Corporate Behaviour |
Percentage of ESG |
|||||||||
|
Environment (E) |
Society (S) |
Governance (G) |
13 indicators |
|
15 indicators |
9 indicators |
|||||||||
|
EH1 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
84.6% |
|
29.7% |
33.3% |
13.5% |
33.3% |
8.1% |
51.4% |
||||
|
EH2 |
★ |
★ |
38.5% |
|
13.5% |
26.7% |
10.8% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
24.3% |
|||||
|
EH3 |
★ |
★ |
69.2% |
|
24.3% |
33.3% |
13.5% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
37.8% |
|||||
|
EH4 |
★ |
★ |
30.8% |
|
10.8% |
26.7% |
10.8% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
21.6% |
|||||
|
EH5 |
★ |
★ |
46.2% |
|
16.2% |
20.0% |
8.1% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
24.3% |
|||||
|
EH6 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
46.2% |
|
16.2% |
26.7% |
10.8% |
11.1% |
2.7% |
29.7% |
||||
|
EH7 |
★ |
★ |
38.5% |
|
13.5% |
13.3% |
5.4% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
18.9% |
|||||
|
EC1 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
38.5% |
|
13.5% |
26.7% |
10.8% |
22.2% |
5.4% |
29.7% |
||||
|
EC2 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
38.5% |
|
13.5% |
20.0% |
8.1% |
22.2% |
5.4% |
27.0% |
||||
|
EC3 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
30.8% |
|
10.8% |
26.7% |
10.8% |
22.2% |
5.4% |
27.0% |
||||
|
EC4 |
★ |
★ |
|
38.5% |
|
13.5% |
13.3% |
5.4% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
18.9% |
||||
|
SC1 |
★ |
★ |
46.2% |
|
16.2% |
13.3% |
5.4% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
21.6% |
|||||
|
SC2 |
★ |
★ |
61.5% |
|
21.6% |
13.3% |
5.4% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
27.0% |
|||||
|
SC3 |
★ |
★ |
61.5% |
|
21.6% |
13.3% |
5.4% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
27.0% |
|||||
|
SC4 |
★ |
★ |
23.1% |
|
8.1% |
60.0% |
24.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
32.4% |
|||||
|
SC5 |
★ |
★ |
30.8% |
|
10.8% |
20.0% |
8.1% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
18.9% |
|||||
|
SC6 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
38.5% |
|
13.5% |
66.7% |
27.0% |
100.0% |
24.3% |
64.9% |
||||
|
SC7 |
★ |
0.0% |
|
0.0% |
40.0% |
16.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
16.2% |
||||||
|
SC8 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
38.5% |
|
13.5% |
40.0% |
16.2% |
22.2% |
5.4% |
35.1% |
||||
|
SC9 |
★ |
★ |
0.0% |
|
0.0% |
40.0% |
16.2% |
33.3% |
8.1% |
24.3% |
|||||
Table 3. Analysis of the Correlation Between Sustainable Circular Resource Strategies and ESG
Note 1: The 20 item factors' data sources are compared with the 37 ESG indicators. If a keyword matches, a ★ symbol is used to indicate the correlation.
Note 2: The higher the frequency of the corresponding keywords in the indicators, the higher the percentage.
(Source: Compiled by this study)
(2) Application of the IPA-Kano Model for Sustainable Circular Resource Strategies
Based on the literature review and analysis, this study uses the IPA or KANO methods for analysis. However, to avoid the shortcomings of the Kano two-dimensional classification, which neglects the importance and performance of quality, and to exclude the limitation of IPA, which only considers One-Dimension Quality, this study integrates the IPA-Kano model as the primary research methodology. The approach is as follows:
According to Kuo et al. (2012), the IPA-Kano model integrates the IPA and Kano two-dimensional quality models, classifying quality attributes into three series: The Hygiene Series, The War Series, and The Treasure Series. These series are further divided into 12 categories: Survival, Chronic Disease, Fatal, Fitness, Major Weapon, Supportive Weapon, Defenseless Strategic Point, Defenseless Zone, Rough Stone, Precious Treasure, Dusty Diamond, and Beginning Jewelry.
Following the IPA-Kano model proposed by Kuo et al. (2012), satisfaction is compared to the average to determine the order for maintaining or improving quality. High satisfaction corresponds to strategies that should be maintained. The maintenance order is as follows: Survival, Fitness, Major Weapon, Supportive Weapon, Precious Treasure, and Beginning Jewelry. Low satisfaction corresponds to strategies that need improvement. The improvement order is as follows: Fatal, Chronic Disease, Defenseless Strategic Point, Defenseless Zone, Dusty Diamond, and Rough Stone. The diagnostic analysis of strategy quality attributes for maintenance and improvement is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Series, Categories, and IPA-Kano Model Strategy Priority Order
|
series |
Attention |
performance level |
IPA |
IPA-Kano model |
strategy sequence |
|
|
improve |
maintain |
|||||
|
Hygiene Health factors(must-be) |
High |
High |
Maintain |
Survival |
|
1 |
|
High |
Low |
Improve |
Fatal |
1 |
|
|
|
Low |
Low |
Minor Improvement |
Chronic disease |
2 |
|
|
|
Low |
High |
Overemphasis |
Fitness |
|
2 |
|
|
War (Performance) |
High |
High |
Maintain |
Major weapon |
|
3 |
|
High |
Low |
Improve |
Defenseless strategy point |
3 |
|
|
|
Low |
Low |
Minor Improvement |
Defenseless zone |
4 |
|
|
|
Low |
High |
Overemphasis |
Supportive weapon |
|
4 |
|
|
Treasure ((Attractive) |
High |
High |
Maintain |
precious treasure |
|
5 |
|
High |
Low |
Improve |
Dusty diamond |
5 |
|
|
|
Low |
Low |
Minor Improvement |
Rough stone |
6 |
|
|
|
Low |
High |
Overemphasis |
Beginning jewellery |
|
6 |
|
(Source: Kuo et al., 2012)
Based on the results of the IPA-Kano attribute classification, an interpretation of the actual value, improvement, and maintenance needs of each item factor was conducted. The analysis revealed that traditional Kano quality elements and IPA-Kano attribute classification methods have limitations in accuracy (Berger et al., 1993). Using the method proposed by Wu et al. (2010), the importance of each factor was analyzed in relation to its impact on satisfaction. Higher importance indicates a greater influence. By ranking the factors within the same IPA-Kano attribute, their impact levels were assessed to guide decision-making adjustments: identifying strategy qualities that require priority maintenance or improvement, evaluating resource conditions before implementing improvements, and determining the reallocation of resources to prioritize enhancement of specific items.
Results and Discussions
(1) Basic Statistics of the Sustainable Circular Energy Resource Strategy Quality Scale
This study collected 338 survey responses, excluding 7 incomplete or invalid questionnaires, resulting in 331 valid samples. The target population consisted of faculty and staff from various levels of schools below senior high school. Convenience sampling was employed, with the questionnaires distributed via email to public and private schools. Data collection was conducted in two stages: a pre-test phase and the main survey phase, using an online survey format. Google Forms was used to design the questionnaire, enhancing the interface for mobile and computer users and improving the respondents’ operational experience and satisfaction. Among the valid responses, 99.1% of participants had educational qualifications above the college level. Elementary schools accounted for the highest proportion (51.4%) of respondents, with most respondents coming from medium-sized schools (13 to 48 classes), representing 62.2% of the total.
(2) IPA and KANO Attribute Classification of the Sustainable Circular Energy Resource Strategy
Statistical analysis was conducted following the methodology of Martilla and James (1977). The average scores for IPA importance ranged from a minimum of 3.58 to a maximum of 4.6, while satisfaction scores ranged from 3.19 to 4.28. Oh (2001) suggested that for non-normal distributions, using the median as the boundary is more appropriate than the mean when interpreting the IPA model. Therefore, the median was set as the boundary for the IPA model. Further evaluation of the IPA attributes and quadrant classification of item factors was conducted, with the X-axis representing Importance and the Y-axis representing Performance. Using the medians of Importance (4.36) and Performance (3.92) as the origin, the IPA matrix was divided into four quadrants. The positions of the items were determined by averaging their Importance and Performance scores, resulting in the distribution shown in Figure 2.
The Kano scale investigates the impact of different strategy qualities on performance, both when present and absent. A higher impact indicates a need for alertness, improvement, or reinforcement. The next step involved applying the Kano two-dimensional quality attribute classification table to compare the positive (presence) and negative (absence) questions for each item, classifying their Kano quality attributes.
Matzler and Hinterhuber (1998) emphasized that the classification of strategy qualkity attributes is determined using a majority vote from the statistical results. Based on this analysis: 1 item factor (SC9) was classified as a Must-be Quality Element (M). 11 item factors were classified as One-Dimension Quality Elements (O): EH2, EH3, EH4, EH5, EC2, EC4, SC1, SC5, SC6, SC7, and SC8; 6 item factors were classified as Attractive Quality Elements (A): EH1, EH7, EC1, EC3, SC3, and SC4. 2 items factors (EH6 and SC2) were classified as Indifferent Quality Elements (I) and excluded from the IPA-Kano model.
(Refer to Table 5 for details.)
Table 5. Kano quality factor attribute classification and numerical analysis
|
構面 |
題項因子 |
O |
M |
A |
I |
R |
Q |
AOM |
IRQ |
屬性 |
|
|
Environment and Health |
EH1 Obtain Kaohsiung Green Building Certification |
70 |
27 |
81 |
142 |
8 |
3 |
178 |
153 |
A |
|
|
EH2 Maintain Indoor Air Quality and Cleanliness |
135 |
38 |
89 |
63 |
1 |
5 |
262 |
69 |
O |
||
|
EH3 Plan for Green Building Materials Usage |
111 |
25 |
75 |
115 |
0 |
5 |
211 |
120 |
O |
||
|
EH4 Air Pollution Awareness and Response |
129 |
27 |
109 |
60 |
1 |
5 |
265 |
66 |
O |
||
|
EH5 Install Energy-Saving Lighting |
135 |
19 |
70 |
103 |
0 |
4 |
224 |
107 |
O |
||
|
EH6 Configure EV Charging Stations |
66 |
17 |
59 |
127 |
58 |
4 |
142 |
189 |
I |
||
|
EH7 Promote Vertical Greening |
81 |
11 |
92 |
130 |
11 |
6 |
184 |
147 |
A |
||
|
Energy and Microclimate |
EC1 Introduce Campus Energy Management Systems |
65 |
31 |
78 |
154 |
2 |
1 |
174 |
157 |
A |
|
|
EC2 Install Renewable Energy Equipment |
117 |
24 |
102 |
83 |
1 |
4 |
243 |
88 |
O |
||
|
EC3 Install Smart Digital Meters |
70 |
22 |
89 |
144 |
4 |
2 |
181 |
150 |
A |
||
|
EC4 Operate Water Cycling Systems |
132 |
9 |
125 |
59 |
3 |
3 |
266 |
65 |
O |
||
|
Sustainable Circular System |
SC1 General Resource Recycling |
154 |
31 |
56 |
86 |
0 |
4 |
241 |
90 |
O |
|
|
SC2 Reuse Old Building Facilities |
66 |
15 |
74 |
161 |
12 |
3 |
155 |
176 |
I |
||
|
SC3 Recycle Materials for Facilities |
76 |
21 |
84 |
140 |
8 |
2 |
181 |
150 |
A |
||
|
SC4 Promote Food and Agriculture Education |
104 |
14 |
126 |
85 |
0 |
2 |
244 |
87 |
A |
||
|
SC5 Promote Leaf and Food Waste Composting |
107 |
14 |
77 |
128 |
1 |
4 |
198 |
133 |
O |
||
|
SC6 Plan and Implement Economic Initiatives |
90 |
11 |
84 |
144 |
0 |
2 |
185 |
146 |
O |
||
|
SC7 Train Community for Sustainability |
89 |
10 |
87 |
142 |
1 |
2 |
186 |
145 |
O |
||
|
118 |
10 |
76 |
108 |
16 |
3 |
204 |
127 |
O |
||
|
SC9 Government-Industry-Academia Collaboration |
79 |
80 |
58 |
112 |
1 |
1 |
217 |
114 |
M |
Notes:
(Source: Compiled from this study)
(3) IPA-KANO Model Attribute Classification and Priority Maintenance and Improvement Order of Sustainable Circular Energy Resource Strategies
Based on the IPA attributes and Kano quality classification of the sustainable circular energy resource strategy, the IPA-Kano classification results (see Table 6) are as follows:
No strategies are distributed in the following quadrants:
Based on the importance values, the priority improvement order is identified as:
EH2 > EH4 > SC8 > SC7 > SC6 > SC3 > EH7 > EH1.
Similarly, the priority maintenance order is:
SC9 > EC4 > SC1 > EH5 > EC2 > EH3 > SC5 > SC4 > EC3 > EC1.
From the IPA-Kano classification and ranking results, the proportion of ESG indicators in the improvement priorities reveals:
In the maintenance priorities, the highest proportion is EH3 (37.8%), while the lowest is EC4 (18.9%) and SC5 (18.9%) (see Table 3).
The most frequent overlaps occur in the following ESG themes:
Summary:
Among the 18 item factors for sustainable circular energy resource strategies:
All factors show relevance to ESG. However, ESG indicators should include suitable evaluation criteria for sustainable circular energy resources and building management, particularly in the Society and Governance dimensions. This would align evaluations with net-zero carbon policies.
Table 6. Summary of key points of sustainable recycling energy resource strategy quality IPA-Kano model
|
Dimension |
Code |
Item Factor |
IPA-KANO Attribute |
Improvement Order |
Priority Improvement |
Maintenance Order |
Priority Maintenance |
||
|
Environment and Health |
EH1 |
Obtain Kaohsiung Green Building Certification |
A-Ⅲ Quadrant |
6 |
8 |
|
|
||
|
EH2 |
Maintain Indoor Air Quality and Cleanliness |
O-Ⅳ Quadrant |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|||
|
EH3 |
Plan for Green Building Materials Usage |
O-Ⅰ Quadrant |
|
|
3 |
6 |
|||
|
EH4 |
Air Pollution Awareness and Response |
|
3 |
2 |
|
|
|||
|
EH5 |
Install Energy-Saving Lighting |
O-ⅠQuadrant |
|
|
3 |
4 |
|||
|
EH6 |
Configure EV Charging Stations |
I |
|
— |
|
— |
|||
|
EH7 |
Promote Vertical Greening |
|
6 |
7 |
|
|
|||
|
Energy and Microclimate |
EC1 |
Introduce Campus Energy Management Systems |
|
|
|
5 |
10 |
||
|
EC2 |
Install Renewable Energy Equipment |
|
|
|
3 |
5 |
|||
|
EC3 |
Install Smart Digital Meters |
A-Ⅰ Quadrant |
|
|
5 |
9 |
|||
|
EC4 |
Operate Water Cycling Systems |
|
|
|
3 |
2 |
|||
|
Sustainable Circular System |
SC1 |
General Resource Recycling |
|
|
|
3 |
3 |
||
|
SC2 |
Reuse Old Building Facilities |
I |
|
— |
|
— |
|||
|
SC3 |
Recycle Materials for Facilities |
A-Ⅲ Quadrant |
6 |
6 |
|
|
|||
|
SC4 |
Promote Food and Agriculture Education |
|
|
|
5 |
8 |
|||
|
SC5 |
Promote Leaf and Food Waste Composting |
|
|
|
4 |
7 |
|||
|
SC6 |
Plan and Implement Economic Initiatives |
|
4 |
5 |
|
|
|||
|
SC7 |
Train Community for Sustainability |
O-Ⅲ Quadrant |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|||
|
SC8 |
Promote Green Consumption |
O-Ⅲ Quadrant |
4 |
3 |
|
|
|||
|
SC9 |
Government-Industry-Academia Collaboration |
M-Ⅱ Quadrant |
|
|
2 |
1 |
Notes:
(Source: Compiled from this study)
(4) IPA-KANO Model Decision Analysis for Sustainable Circular Energy Resource Strategies
By comparing the importance of various strategy attributes, the results identified eight item factors with low satisfaction, prioritized for improvement in the following order: 1. EH2 (Maintain Indoor Air Quality and Cleanliness)；2.EH4 (Air Pollution Awareness and Response); 3. SC8 (Promote Green Consumption), 4. SC7 (Train Community for Sustainability), 5. SC6 (Plan and Implement Economic Initiatives); 6.SC3 (Recycle Materials for Facilities); 7.EH7 (Promote Vertical Greening). 8. EH1 (Obtain Kaohsiung Green Building Certification).
For strategies with high satisfaction, ten item factors were prioritized for maintenance in the following order: 1. SC9 (Government-Industry-Academia Collaboration); 2.EC4 (Operate Water Cycling Systems);3. SC1 (General Resource Recycling)
Decision Analysis Based on IPA-KANO Results
The classification of strategy qualities using the IPA-Kano model (see Figure 3) allows for a comprehensive evaluation of strategic development dimensions. The approach emphasizes:
This analysis provides decision-makers with actionable insights to allocate resources effectively, focus on maintaining high-impact strategies, and prioritize improvements where satisfaction levels are low. By applying these findings, organizations can enhance the importance and satisfaction levels of sustainable circular energy resource strategies, ultimately transforming these into a competitive advantage.
Figure 3. IPA-Kano Decision Analysis Chart for the Quality of Sustainable Circular Energy Resource Strategies
(Source: Shih, 2023; Compiled and illustrated from this study)
Conclusions
Summary
This study confirms the impact of sustainable circular energy resource strategies on ESG evaluation items by using the IPA-KANO statistical model to establish priority sequences for improvement and maintenance. However, the research revealed that the existing MSCI ESG Index heavily emphasizes financial risks and returns in corporate operations. As a result, even though certain item factors show high priority for maintenance and improvement, their overall ESG weighting remains low. This finding highlights the need to revise and expand ESG evaluation tools to address the localized sustainability reporting needs of various industries.
The primary contribution of this study is the development of a preliminary framework for a localized ESG evaluation tool for Taiwan’s sustainable circular energy resource strategies. This framework incorporates the dimensions of society and governance, with the goal of broad application in policy implementation and outcome evaluation, contributing to Taiwan’s achievement of the 2050 net-zero carbon emissions goal.
The specific conclusions are as follows:
The IPA-KANO model excludes two "Indifferent Quality" strategies (SC2 and EH6). Among the remaining 18 strategies:
This establishes that 6 strategies comprehensively impact localized ESG evaluation indicators. Businesses and governments should allocate resources to prioritize strategies accordingly. For example, maintaining strategies like “installing renewable energy equipment” ensures long-term impact, while improving strategies like “green consumption” and “economic initiatives” provides higher benefits in social and governance dimensions.
The study reveals that the MSCI ESG Index focuses heavily on financial risks and returns, which inadequately reflects localized sustainable circular energy resource strategies. High-priority items in maintenance or improvement often have low weights in ESG evaluations. This highlights the need to optimize ESG evaluation tools by adding region-specific and industry-tailored metrics. The study proposes a localized ESG evaluation framework, providing a practical strategic framework for Taiwan’s sustainability policies.
The six strategies identified with priority for improvement and maintenance comprehensively cover ESG’s three dimensions. This confirms the holistic impact of sustainable circular energy resource strategies on ESG evaluations, particularly strategies such as green building certifications, green consumption, and renewable energy equipment, which enhance environmental protection, social responsibility, and corporate governance.
The sustainable circular energy resource strategy framework proposed in this study not only offers a basis for optimizing ESG evaluation systems but also directly supports Taiwan’s 2050 net-zero carbon policy objectives. Future policy development and implementation should consider the localized ESG evaluation indicators proposed in this study to facilitate policy realization and achieve specific targets, promoting Taiwan’s sustainable development progress.
The findings provide policymakers and businesses with concrete guidelines, particularly for resource allocation and strategy development. Priority should be given to strategies identified for improvement and maintenance to ensure effective resource utilization and maximize the positive impact of ESG evaluations. Additionally, businesses should reference the evaluation tools proposed in this study to more accurately reflect the implementation and effectiveness of their localized sustainability strategies in ESG reports.
Recommendations
Research Limitations
Inconsistency of Current Standards: Globally recognized ESG frameworks, such as the GRI Standard, SASB Standard, Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism Towards Common Metrics and Consistent Reporting of Sustainable Value Creation, Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), focus predominantly on corporate, accounting, and financial sectors. However, there is limited development and application of these standards for the construction industry. This remains an area for further exploration and refinement.
Reference
Shao Wen zheng (November 26, 2021). The key benefits and prospects of the 110-year sustainable recycling campus exploration and demonstration plan. 110th Annual Sustainable Cycle Campus Exploration and Demonstration Plan Exchange and 111th Annual Briefing Session, Online Achievements Exchange and New Year Briefing Session, Taiwan。https://www.esdtaiwan.edu.tw/news.asp?id={F4DAF6F6-A38E-48C5-8369-27EC507CF495}
Hsu, Fuji (2022). Research on Low Carbon Policy Implementation and Public Satisfaction Institute of Architecture and Urban Design, Chaoyang University of Science and Technology. [Unpublished doctoral thesis].
Alan, F. C. G. L., Annas, V. & Hendro W.（2023）Rating ESG key performance indicators in the airline industry. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
Antonios, P. （2023）. The impact of climate policy uncertainty on ESG performance, carbon emission intensity and firm performance: evidence from Fortune 1000 firms. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
Berger, C., Blauth, R., & Boger, D.（1993）. Kanos Methods For Understanding Customer-Defind Quality.
Bernhard, S.Z., & Auer, H. （2021）. Citizen Participation in Low-Carbon Energy Systems: Energy Communities and Its Impact on the Electricity Demand on Neighborhood and National Level. Energies, 14（2）, pp.305.
Binh, N. T. T., & Lee, H. C. (2024). Unveiling the impacts of corporate environmental, social, and governance disclosure. Sustainability, 16(6), 2459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062459
Blomsma, F., & Brennan, G. (2017). The Emergence of Circular Economy: A New Framing Around Prolonging Resource Productivity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 603-614. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12603
Cervantes Puma, G. C., Salles, A., & Bragança, L. (2024). Nexus between urban circular economies and Sustainable Development Goals: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 16(6), 2500. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062500
Chatterji, A. K., Durand, R., Levine, D. I., & Touboul, S. (2016). Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, 37（8）, 1597–1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2407
Chen, S., Liu, J., & Yang, H. (2022). Using the Kano model and IPA to explore student needs in synchronous distance learning combined with gamification elements. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 2981–3001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10723-w​:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}.
Cramer, J. (2020). The role of governance in managing the circular economy: A comparative study on circular economy transitions in European regions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123982
Das, S., Horton, R. M., Ziegler, A. D., & Jaafar, Z. (2021). Circular economy for renewable energy: A vision for closing the loop of resource use. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 144, 111024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111024
Egbue, O., & Long, D. (2021). The role of circular economy principles in the transition to sustainable energy systems. Sustainability, 13(2), 1100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13021100
Fraser, M., Lawrence, M., & Arruda, G. (2024). Nexus between circular economy and communities: Systemic impacts of transitioning towards resource optimization. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, 145631. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.145631
Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2023). Circular economy and sustainable energy: Toward a new paradigm for renewable energy policies. Energy Policy, 164, 112881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112881
Ghisellini, P., Ulgiati, S., & Zucaro, A. (2022). Circular economy transition and community-level implications: Overcoming systemic obstacles in linear models. Environmental Development, 42, 100682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100682
Gitlow, H. S.（1999）. Innovation on demand. Quality Engineering, 11（1）, 79-89.
Griffiths, S., & Sovacool, B.K. （2020）. Rethinking the future low-carbon city: Carbon neutrality, green design, and sustainability tensions in the making of Masdar City. Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 24, pp.1-9.
Gupta, S., & Agarwal, M. (2023). Assessing the role of biogas in the circular economy: Potential, challenges, and strategies. Renewable Energy, 201, 126-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.06.036
He, Q., Zhang, Y., & Xu, Y. (2023). Assessing the relationship between ESG performance and corporate financial performance in high-emission industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 380, 135255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135255
Helliar, C., Petracci, B., & Tantisantiwong, N. (2021). Comparing socially responsible investment funds to conventional funds using a PCA methodology. Journal of Banking and Finance, 126, 106145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106145
Hu, K., & Salim, V. (2023). Combining Kano’s model, IPA, and FMEA to evaluate service quality risk for bus service: Case of Bangkok bus service. Applied Sciences, 13(10), 5960. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13105960​:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}.
Huang, H., & Yang, Y. (2022). Energy recovery from municipal solid waste: A review on the circular economy approach. Waste Management, 138, 140-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.10.018
Jain, K., & Tripathi, P. S. (2023). Mapping the environmental, social and governance literature: A bibliometric and content analysis. Journal of Strategy and Management, 16(3), 397-428. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-05-2022-0092
Kjaer, L. L., Pigosso, D. C., McAloone, T. C., & Bocken, N. M. P. (2019). Barriers to sustainable business model innovation: The case of circular economy in Danish SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 223, 1245-1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.246
Kovilage, M. P. (2021). Influence of lean-green practices on organizational sustainable performance. Journal of Asian Business and Economic Studies, 28(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABES-11-2019-0115
Kuo, Y. F., Chen, J. Y., & Deng, W. J.（2012）. IPA–Kano model: A new tool for categorising and diagnosing service quality attributes. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23（7-8）, 731-748. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.637811
Li, J., Abdel-Shafy, H. I., & Mansour, M. S. (2019). Sustainable materials management in the circular economy: From waste to resources. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 17(3), 1145–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-019-00871-1
Li, C. Z., & Umair, M. (2023). Does green finance development goals affect renewable energy in China. Renewable Energy, 203, 898–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.12.066
Liu, K. S., Tzeng, C. T., & Shih, Y. L.（2023, June 7-8）. A Evaluation on the Factors of Sustainability Adapted Environment, Society and Governance （ESG） Perspective in the Energy-Resourced Strategies. [Conference presentation]. International Design Study Forum and Conference（10th IDSFC 2023）, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology Graduate School of Design, Yunlin, Taiwan.
Liu, X., & Zhang, Z. (2023). Exploring the role of ESG factors in firm value creation: Evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Business Research, 163, 164-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.02.054
Louis, M. R·., Merce, B·., & Javier, M. R.（2023）. Quality and environmental management systems as business tools to enhance ESG performance: a cross‑regional empirical study. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 25, 9067–9109.
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C.（1977）. Importance-performance analysis. Journal of marketing, 41（1）, 77-79.
Matzler, K. & Hinterhuber, H. H.（1998）. How to Make Product Development Projects More Successful by Integrating Kano's Model of Customer Satisfaction into Quality Function Deployment. Technovation, 18（1）, 25-38.
Mercereau, B., Melin, L., & Lugo, M. M. (2021). Creating shareholder value through ESG engagement. Journal of Asset Management, 22(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-021-00227-3
Mohsin, M., Bashir, S., Baloch, Z. A., & Hafeez, M. (2022). Assessment of sustainability and uncertainties of oil markets: Mediating determinants of energy use and CO₂ emissions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(1), 663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15098-5
Mont, O., Curtis, S. K., & Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2021). Organisational response strategies to COVID-19 in the sharing economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.03.025
MSCI Inc.（n.d.）. ESG Ratings Key Issue Framework. MSCI Inc. https://www.msci.com/zh/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings/esg-ratings-key-issue-framework
Oh, H.（2001）. Revisiting importance–performance analysis. Tourism management, 22（6）, 617-627.
Oludolapo, I. O., Wallace, I. E., Michael, D., & Nicholas, C.（2022）. Building information modelling and green building certification systems: A systematic literature review and gap spotting. Sustainable Cities and Society, 81, 103865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103865
Oprean-Stan, A., Patil, V., & Matakanye, M. (2021). The implications of ESG performance on the financial performance of firms in the context of sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(6), 1700-1710. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2174
Pomponi, F., & D'Amico, B.（2020）.Low Energy Architecture and Low Carbon Cities: Exploring Links, Scales, and Environmental Impacts. Sustainability, 12（21）, pp.6.7(4), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v17n4p45
Raissa, L., Rebecca, M. D., William, B. R., & Mauricio D. （2021）. Potential contribution of environmental building certifications to urban sustainability - Curitiba case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 73, 103131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103131
Rivas, R. A., & Cruz, J. A. (2022). Transitioning towards a circular economy in energy systems: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Reports, 8, 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.04.018
Roselle, P.（2016）. The evolution of integrating ESG analysis into wealth management decisions. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 28（2）, 75-79.
Saadaoui, K., & Soobaroyen, T. (2018). An analysis of the methodologies adopted by CSR rating agencies. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9（1）, 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2016-0031
Sharma, A., & Kumar, R. (2021). Circular economy in energy transition: A systematic review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 135, 110140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110140
Shih, Y. L.（2023）。The Influences of Sustainable Circular Energy-Resource Strategies on Environment, Society and Governance（ESG）—Taking the Reduction of GHG Emission in the Residential and Commercial Sectors as an Example.［未出版之博士論文］。Graduate Institute of Architecture in National Cheng Kung University。
Shih, Y. L., Liu, K. S., Chiang, C. M., & Chen, N. T.（2014）. Discussions on practice and effect of transforming idle spaces with energy-resource techniques in Taiwanese schools—Using elementary/secondary schools as an example. Energy and Buildings, 68（B）, 660–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.08.064
Shih, Y. L., Liu, K. S., Chiang, C. M., Hsieh, M. C., & Chen, N. T.（2012, August 1-4）. Research on the Building of Energy-Resource Educational Centres in Taiwanese Schools Using Elementary/Secondary Schools as an Example. [Conference presentation]. The Second International Conference on Building Energy and Environment（COBEE）, Boulder, Colorado, United States.
Velenturf, A. P., & Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainability, 13(2), 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020645
Wang, J., Xu, Y., & Li, Y. (2023). The role of renewable energy in achieving circular economy: Evidence from developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318, 128448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128448
Wu, H. H., Tang, Y. T., & Shyu, J. W.（2010）. An integrated approach of Kanos model and importance-performance analysis in identifying key success factors. African Journal of Business Management, 4（15）, 3238-3250.
Yasmine, B., & Kooli, M. (2021). Smart beta ESG disclosure. Journal of Asset Management, 22(3), 245-260. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-021-00228-2
Zeng, F., Zhang, X., & Li, J. (2022). An IPA-Kano model for classifying and diagnosing airport service attributes. Journal of Air Transport Management, 96, 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102115​:contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}.
Zhang, Y., & Zhao, D. (2020). Waste-to-energy: A sustainable circular economy strategy for solid waste management in urban areas. Journal of Environmental Management, 258, 110095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.110095
Zhiqiang, J. Z., & Jacob, M. H. （2019）. Implications of climate changes to building energy and design. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 511-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.043
Zucaro, A., Cristiano, S., & Ulgiati, S. (2022). Integrating urban material flow management with the circular economy: New insights into sustainable urban development. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(1), 100-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13153
