Author/ Ya-Ting Kuo, Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing and Distribution Management, Asia Eastern University of Science and Technology
Yi-Meng Chao, Senior Assistant Researcher, the RSPRC
Fang-Ying Lin , Assistant Researcher, the RSPRC
Ling-Ru Hsu, Senior Assistant Researcher, the RSPRC
Kuei-Tien Chou , Director, the RSPRC

Since 2023, the Risk Society and Policy Research Center (RSPRC), National Taiwan University (NTU), has conducted an annual stratified-sample survey examining climate-related financial disclosures among Taiwanese enterprises with annual revenues exceeding NT$100 million. The survey evaluates 19 items corresponding to the four dimensions of recommendations offered by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD): governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Weighted scores of up to 25 points are assigned to each dimension, contributing to a total of 100 points. [Note 1]

1. Overall performance in climate-related financial disclosures

Overall, the findings from successive surveys indicate a gradual upward trend in the performance of corporate climate-related financial disclosures in Taiwan. According to the RSPRC's statistics (Figure 1), the average total climate-related disclosure score increased from 53.8 in 2023 to 57.5 in 2025 (out of 100 points), suggesting meaningful progress in corporate attention to and implementation of climate-related disclosure practices. However, an examination of the score distribution (Figure 2) reveals that scores remain clustered in the middle range. In 2023, approximately 40.3% of firms scored between 40 and 60 points, while fewer than 10% achieved scores above 80. Even in 2025, enterprises scoring above 80 accounted for only 9.3% of the sample, showing no substantial growth in the proportion of high performers.

Figure 1. Scores obtained from the survey on climate-related financial disclosures—comparison of mean scores for the four dimensions across different years

This phenomenon suggests that, although climate-related financial disclosures are gradually attracting greater corporate attention, most firms have made only limited progress in deepening practices (e.g. physical and transition risk quantification, target setting, or disclosure quality enhancement) in dimensions beyond governance. As a result, overall improvements in maturity have been relatively modest. The findings demonstrate that, over the past 3 years, Taiwan's enterprises have not yet achieved a structural breakthrough in their substantive actions or in strengthening their managerial resilience with respect to climate-related financial disclosures. Policy guidance and parallel efforts to build relevant climate-related capacities will remain essential in the future.

Figure 2. Scores obtained from the survey on climate-related financial disclosures—score distribution across different years

2. Performance in the governance dimension

In the governance dimension, corporate average scores showed a steady but modest improvement from 2023 to 2025, rising only slightly from 16.09 to 16.31 and then to 16.34 (out of 25 points). This trend indicates that most enterprises in Taiwan have begun integrating climate-related issues into their corporate governance frameworks, with boards of directors or senior management assuming oversight and decision-making responsibilities, reflecting the gradual institutionalization of climate governance. At the same time, some companies have initiated the development of medium- and long-term climate strategies in response to global sustainability governance norms and trends.

Nevertheless, the average scores remain well below the maximum for this dimension, suggesting that many firms have yet to achieve a mature and systematic level of management in areas such as deepening governance structures, clarifying responsibilities, enhancing board engagement, and establishing performance oversight mechanisms associated with climate risks. In the future, Taiwan's enterprises will need to strengthen the establishment and implementation of climate-governance mechanisms to advance toward a higher-level sustainability governance system and effectively address the financial and operational challenges posed by climate risks.

3. Performance in the strategy dimension

In the strategy dimension, companies' overall scores exhibit volatility and polarization. According to the survey, the average score in this dimension declined from 17.05 in 2023 to 14.85 in 2024, then rebounded slightly to 15.96 in 2025 (out of 25 points). This trend indicates that most firms have yet to establish stable, systematic thinking and internal processes for climate-related strategic planning and disclosures.

The 2025 survey further demonstrates that a substantial proportion of companies (11.48%) have still not conducted systematic assessments of climate-related risks and opportunities for the short (1–3 years), medium (3–10 years), and long (more than 10 years) terms nor have they fully analyzed the potential impacts of climate change on their business models, supply chains, financial performance, and capital structures. The main reasons for this gap include: (1) companies' subjective perception that climate risks have not yet exerted a significant impact on their operations; (2) the absence of mandatory requirements under external disclosure regulations; and (3) the relatively weak linkage between climate risks and certain industries, which reduces the motivation to assess the strategy dimension.

Overall, corporate strategic responses to climate-related risks and opportunities remain in an early stage, and the maturity of climate–financial integration requires further enhancement. In the future, companies will need to strengthen their climate-scenario analysis capabilities and improve the use of financial quantification tools. It is also recommended that authorities establish clearer disclosure guidelines and sector-specific communication platforms to encourage a shift from ''formalistic disclosure'' to ''substantive management'' in corporate climate strategies.

4. Performance in the risk management dimension

In the risk management dimension, the average corporate scores were 9.91, 10.71, and 11.53 from 2023 to 2025, respectively (out of 25 points). Despite slight increases, overall performance remains relatively weak, indicating that Taiwan's firms have yet to develop effective mechanisms for establishing and implementing climate risk management systems.

The survey reveals that most companies still lack the capacity, data tools, and professional resources to quantify climate risks. In 2025, only approximately 28% of firms had planned or implemented an internal carbon pricing system, and only approximately 40% were able to leverage geospatial data (e.g., geographic information systems, flood hazard maps, or risk hotspot maps) for spatial analysis during physical risk assessments. These findings highlight significant deficiencies in corporate capabilities for identifying, quantifying, and modeling climate risks, including both physical and transition risks.

The year 2025 marks the formal introduction of carbon pricing in Taiwan, signaling a gradual increase in the tangible financial pressures associated with transition risks. Without timely identification and response to climate risks, companies may face impacts on operational costs, capital accessibility, and supply chain stability.

Accordingly, the RSPRC recommends that firms accelerate the development of climate risk quantification models and internal management systems and invest in cross-disciplinary professionals with expertise in sustainable finance, risk engineering, and geospatial analysis. Companies are also advised to enhance their assessment and adaptation capabilities with respect to extreme climate events (e.g., flooding, droughts, and heatwaves) and carbon policies (e.g., carbon taxes and carbon border adjustment mechanisms) through education, training, and institutionalized internal processes, thereby strengthening corporate resilience and responsiveness to climate-related impacts.

5. Performance in the metrics and targets dimension

Corporate performance in the metrics and targets dimension remains at a lower position among the four assessed dimensions in the long term, marginally outperforming only the risk management dimension, while remaining substantially below the governance and strategy dimensions. Survey data indicate that the average score for this dimension increased from 10.76 in 2023 to 13.43 in 2024, with a small rise to 13.63 in 2025 (out of 25 points), reflecting modest progress, but persistent low overall maturity in this area.

These findings suggest that most companies have yet to fully establish concrete, quantifiable, and time-bound climate performance metrics and decarbonization targets. For example, many organizations lack science-based reduction targets (e.g., SBTi certification), have not implemented measurable greenhouse gas management metrics, and fail to disclose systematic progress-tracking mechanisms. Such gaps constrain firms' capacity to demonstrate their low-carbon transition commitments and implementation effectiveness to external stakeholders, including investors, financial institutions, and supply chain partners.

Overall, Taiwan's companies exhibit substantial room for improvement in the development of climate performance metrics, the logic underpinning target setting, and the integration of these elements into broader sustainability strategies. It is recommended that policy interventions, industry guidance programs, and clearer disclosure standards be leveraged to enhance systematic planning in climate data governance, feasibility assessment of targets, and performance monitoring. Such measures would support companies in advancing toward a more strategic and verifiable net-zero transition pathway.

6. Differences in overall performance of climate-related financial disclosures across enterprise sizes

Figure 3. Scores obtained from the survey on climate-related financial disclosures—comparison of scores for the four dimensions across different years and enterprise sizes

As shown in Figure 3, enterprise size exerts a substantial influence on the disclosure quality of the metrics and targets and risk management dimensions. For the metrics and targets dimension, firms with 200 or more employees saw their average scores increase from 12.58 in 2023 to 14.92 in 2024 and slightly decrease to 14.67 in 2025 (out of 25 points). In contrast, firms with fewer than 200 employees exhibited evidently lower average scores in the same dimension, of 8.07 in 2023, 10.89 in 2024, and 12.06 in 2025. Similarly, in the risk management dimension, companies with 200 or more employees achieved average scores of 11.50, 11.76, and 12.14 for 2023, 2024, and 2025, respectively, whereas those with fewer than 200 employees scored 7.55, 8.93, and 10.62, revealing a clear disparity.

These findings suggest that, compared with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), larger firms possess greater human resources, technical capabilities, and disclosure experience, which facilitate the development of climate-related metrics and targets, and risk management mechanisms. Additionally, they are more likely to be motivated by pressures from regulators, investors, and international supply chains, resulting in more mature disclosure practices in terms of both scope and quality.

Conversely, SMEs may face considerable challenges in setting concrete targets, constructing performance metrics, and managing risks due to limited financial and human resources, insufficient expertise in climate-related issues, or failure to perceive pressures from mandatory external regulations. This observation aligns with the policy direction long advocated by the RSPRC, which encourages large enterprises to assume a leading role in supporting SMEs throughout their upstream and downstream supply chains to enhance their climate disclosure capabilities. By sharing resources, aligning metrics, and building capacities, larger firms can strengthen the overall resilience and international competitiveness of the entire industrial chain in the context of a low-carbon transition.

7. Inter-industry differences in overall performance of climate-related financial disclosures

Figure 4. Scores obtained from the survey on climate-related financial disclosures—comparison of scores for the four dimensions across years and industries

Figure 4 presents the disclosure performance and progress of each industry across the TCFD dimensions, revealing how industry characteristics influence the maturity of climate-related financial disclosures.

First, in 2025 the traditional high-carbon manufacturing industry scored 13.99 in the metrics and targets dimension. Although this score is slightly lower than that of the construction engineering and financial services industries, it surpasses its own levels from 2023 and 2024, indicating that the industry is gradually establishing relevant metrics and targets in response to carbon-reduction pressures.

Second, in 2025 the high-carbon electronics manufacturing industry achieved scores of 16.19 and 10.96 in the strategy and risk management dimensions, both higher than the corresponding scores in the preceding two years. These improvements suggest that, under pressure from international supply chains and net-zero transition requirements, the industry has begun strengthening its medium- and long-term climate planning and risk-identification mechanisms.

Third, the construction engineering industry scored 17.06 in the metrics and targets dimension in 2025, ranking second among all industries, behind only the financial services sector. This score marks a substantial increase compared with that in the previous 2 years, indicating that the industry is progressively establishing carbon-reduction targets and net-zero transition pathways.

Fourth, in 2025 the real estate industry received a score of 17.69 points in the strategy dimension, the second highest among all industries, surpassed only by that of the financial sector. This improvement reflects the industry's initiation of short-, medium-, and long-term planning for climate risks and opportunities. Its score in the risk management dimension also rose to 12.36, suggesting that mechanisms for identifying and addressing physical and transition risks are being steadily implemented.

Fifth, in 2025 the transportation and warehousing industry scored 17.14, 10.71, and 14.68 points in the governance, risk management, and metrics and targets dimensions, respectively showing notable improvements compared with the previous two years. This progress may be attributed to higher regulatory and investor pressures, given that the sector is one of the world's five largest sources of carbon emissions.

Sixth, in 2025 the financial services industry achieved the highest scores of all sectors in both the risk management (19.64) and metrics and targets (17.50) dimensions. This improvement reflects the sector's leadership and institutional advantages in climate-risk management and net-zero target setting, as it plays a central role in capital allocation and risk assessment.

In summary, while most industries showed higher scores in the metrics and targets dimension in 2025 relative to 2023, notable inter-industry differences persist, indicating that climate-related financial disclosures have not yet reached a consistent level across sectors. Notably, SMEs and certain manufacturing industries continue to face structural challenges in formulating clear, time-bound, and quantitatively grounded emissions-reduction targets, including the lack of standardized indicators, technical expertise, and internal governance support.

8. Discussion and conclusions

Overall, the metrics and target dimension remains a relative weakness of Taiwan's corporate climate-related financial disclosures. Although the average score has risen annually, some companies provide only formalistic disclosures without presenting concrete, trackable pathways for progress. In addition, the scores for the risk management dimension remain generally low, underscoring the underdeveloped state of companies' quantitative assessments of physical and transition risks associated with climate disasters, as well as their corresponding response strategies.

The survey further indicates that, while Taiwan's companies have gradually established institutional foundations in the governance and strategy dimensions, substantial improvement is still required in several critical domains, including risk quantification, the concretization of decarbonization targets, capacity building, and resource allocation. These findings offer important guidance for policymakers and business leaders; in the future, efforts should focus on strengthening capacity-building for SMEs, enhancing collaboration among the supply chains of large corporations, and advancing the establishment of net-zero disclosure standards across industries.

Finally, the RSPRC annual survey emphasizes that the TCFD framework is not merely a disclosure tool but also a core managerial structure that drives firms to enhance operational resilience and strengthen sustainable competitiveness. Companies that effectively leverage this framework, actively transforming climate risks into strategic opportunities, will be better positioned to achieve low-carbon, sustainable transitions.

Note: This article is an excerpt from the official report of the ''2025 Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Readiness Survey—Leveraging International Sustainability Stagnation to Accelerate the Net-Zero Transition.'' For a more detailed analysis of the survey results on corporate sustainability disclosure readiness, please download the full report via the link.