台灣2011年開始執行環境教育法；2012年推出的國家環境教育獎，從法令與獎項同步推廣，鼓勵國內企業將環境教育融入社會責任方案，此舉使環境教育(Environmental Education)與企業社會責任(Corporate Social Responsibility)的結合更加主流化。

　　為探討本土企業CSR職員的社會責任與環境教育認知，本研究以8家本土企業為對象，透過問卷面訪各企業主管，並使用「企業社會責任同心圓模型」中的內圈、中圈與外圈責任作為訪談問題的基本架構，並融入伯利西宣言(Tbilisi)與全球盟約(The UN Global Compact)的內涵於訪談問題中。

　　研究結果得知本土企業CSR職員認同「責任的鐵律(Iron Law of Responsibility)」是正確的心理狀態；企業的經濟責任屬內在需求，法律責任屬外在規範；企業自發性的改善社會與環境的意願，會因「景氣好壞、高階管理人態度、產業規模大小」有所影響。

　　企業的CSR職員需提升的環境教育概念為「找出可結合的教育課程或活動」；「環境教育的定義與目標需讓CSR職員妥善理解」；「員工教育或對外活動規劃者需客製化運用環境教育的目的類別」。

　　環境教育專業者的CSR角色為「找出企業需要環境教育輔佐的領域」；「令企業理解環境教育」；「說服企業相信環境教育能輔佐企業成長」；「運用企業實踐CSR的過程來實踐環境教育」。

　　Taiwan carried out Environmental Education Act in 2011. The National Environmental Education Award in 2012 is making promotions from laws and prizes, encouraging domestic enterprises to include Social Responsibility into Environmental Education. This act makes the combination of Environmental Education and Corporate Social Responsibility more mainstreaming.

　　To investigate the perception of Social Responsibility and Environmental Education from local corporation's CSR employees, this research’s objects are 8 local corporations. This research is based on interviews and surveys of the managers from different corporations and uses the core value pattern of Corporate Social Responsibility, inner circle, middle circle and outer circle as main structures. Tbilisi Declaration and The UN Global Compact are also included in the interviews.

　　From the research result we know local corporations’ CSR employees agree to Iron Law of Responsibility is a correct status. Whether the economical responsibility of corporations is prior to law responsibility is determined by the scale of corporations. Corporations spontaneously improve social and environment is under 3 conditions, prosperous business, positive attitude of high-level management and great business scale.

　　 Taiwan carried out Environmental Education Act in 2011. The National Environmental Education Award in 2012 is making promotions from laws and prizes, encouraging domestic enterprises to include Social Responsibility into Environmental Education. This act makes the combination of Environmental Education and Corporate Social Responsibilitymore mainstreaming.
To investigate theperception of Social Responsibility and Environmental Education fromlocal corporation's CSR employees, this research objects are 8local corporations. This research is based on interviews and surveys of the managers from different corporations and uses the core value pattern of Corporate Social Responsibility, inner circle, middle circle and outer circle as main structures. Tbilisi Declaration and The UN Global Compact are also included in the interviews.
From the research result we know local corporations’ CSR employees agree to Iron Law of Responsibility is a correct status. Corporations’ economic responsibility is inner demand and the law responsibility is outer standard. The intensions of Corporations spontaneously to improve social and environment will be affected by 3 conditions, prosperous business, positive attitude of high-level management and great business scale.
The environmental education concepts for CSR employees to integrate are finding combinable education programs or activities, the definition of education and target need to be well understood by CSR employees and employee’s education and outward activities planners have to customize the categories of environmental education.
The CSR character of environmental education professionals is to find out the environmental education assistance field that corporations need, let corporations understand environmental education, convince corporations that environmental education can assist corporations to grow and apply the process which corporations realize CSR to realize environmental education.

王文科（民91）。教育研究法。臺北市：五南書局。
王哲祥（民93）。社會資本與企業社會責任之研究。國立中山大學公共事務管理所碩士在職班碩士論文。
丹尼爾.高曼（民99）。綠色EQ。台北市：時報文化。
林宜諄等編（民97）。企業社會責任入門手冊。台北市：天下遠見。
沈溫禪（民100）。探討企業社會責任策略與作法及其環境教育內涵。國立台灣師範大學環境教育所碩士論文。
周儒、張子超、黃淑芬合譯（民92）。環境教育課程規劃。台北市：五南書局。
胡憲倫、鍾啟賢（民92）。企業社會責任之規範與發展趨勢介紹。環境工程會刊，第14卷3期，頁6-14。
胡憲倫、許家偉、蒲彥穎（民95）。策略的企業社會責任：企業永續發展的新課題。應用倫理研究通訊，40期，頁37-50。
胡憲倫、許家偉、林柏維（民98）。企業競逐永續浪潮的新趨勢－策略性企業社會責任。永續產業發展，44期，頁26-39。
陳瑞華（民90）。以社會行銷理論檢視全國搶救棲蘭檜木林聯盟在搶救棲蘭檜木林運動中的策略運用。國立台灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文。
楊冠政（民81）。環境教育概述。臺北市：教育部環境保護小組。
楊冠政（民84）。環境價值教育的理論基礎。環境教育季刊抽印本，8，1-14。
楊冠政（民86）。環境教育。臺北市：明文書局。
葉保強（民96）。企業社會責任的發展與國家角色。應用倫理研究通訊，第41期，頁35-47。 73

葉泰民（民91）。企業社會責任態度及企業從事社會責任活動意願之研究。私立東海大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
鄭勝分（民96）。社會企業的概念分析。政策研究學報，7期，頁65-107。
廖婉鈞、林月雲、虞邦祥（民98）。知覺組織利害關係人重要程度與組織績效之關係：企業責任作為之中介效果。管理學報，26卷2期，頁213-232。
蔡宗霖（民98）。企業經營的社會責任之研究：中華電信個案探討。國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文。
蕭瑞麟（民96）。不用數字的研究。台北市：臺灣培生教育。
ArchieCarroll.(1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. Academy of Management Review 4, 497-505.
Archie Carroll.(1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons 34(4), 39-48.
Craig Smith.(1994).The New Corporate Philanthropy. Harvard Business Review 72,105-114.Commission of the European Communities(2001).Green Paper - Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, COM 2001(366 final). Brussels: European Commission.
CSR Europe’s National Partner Organizations(2009).A Guide to CSR in Europe,Brussels: CSR Europe.
Davis Keith. (1960). Can Business Afford to Ignore Social Responsibilities?. California Management Review 2(3), 70-76.
Dirk Matten & Jeremy Moon(2004).Corporate Social Responsibility Education in Europe. Business Ethics 54,323–337.
Freeman Edward. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Pitman Publications, Boston. 74

Geoffrey P. Lantos. (2001).The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility.Consumer Marketing 18,595-649.
HuangC. L. and F. H. Kung.(2010). Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: evidence from taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics 96:435–451.
Icek Ajzen.(1991).The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50,179-211.
Klaus Möller & Frank Verbeeten.(2010). Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science 4(3):1-30.
Michael Poter & Mark Kramer(1999).Philanthropy’s new Agenda: Creating Value.Harvard Business Review 66,121-130.
Michael Poter & Mark Kramer(2006). Strategy & Society,Harvard Business Review, 78-92. Rodney McAdam & Denis Leonard (2003).Corporate Social Responsibility. Quality Progress 36,27-31.
RichardEells.(1960).The Meaning of Modern Business.New York, Columbia UniversityPress.
Wayne Visser (2005). Revisiting Carroll’S CSR Pyramid an African Perspective. Commission
for Africa, 37.29-56.
William Werther & David Chandler.(2006). Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility-Stakeholders in a Global Environment, SAGE Publications, London.
Zadek Simon.(2001). The Civil Corporation. The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship, Earthscan Publications, London.
Zadek Simon.(2004). The Path to Corporate Responsibility. Harvard Business Review,
125-132.