多元、公平與共融已從國際倡議內化為台灣企業永續揭露之常規。綜觀既 有 DEI 文獻，多數聚焦單一構面或單一產業，鮮少以一套結構完整、分級明確 之國際基準，對不同產業之標竿企業進行系統性且可相互比較的實地評分，形成本研究之研究缺口。基於此，本研究之目的有二：其一，運用 GDEIB 評估中 壢產業園區生技醫療業標竿企業 DEI；其二，以同一基準評估食品製造業標竿 企業之 DEI 現況。 研究方法上，本研究以 Global Diversity， Equity & Inclusion Benchmark 為評估架構。選定中壢產業園區生技醫療業與食品製造業各五家標 竿企業，樣本員工規模自 138 人至 5，400 人，橫跨新創興櫃公司、中型民生 製造業與大型上市集團及跨國集團在台子公司。資料來源為 2024 至 2026 年 間所發布之公開次級資料，包含永續報告書、年報、官方網站、招募專頁及媒 體報導，將 GDEIB 基準操作化為 0 至 4 分之符合程度量表，自等級二起依得 分率逐級判定，最終以完全滿足之基礎等級加計本級得分率計算各類別分數。 案例分析發現，兩產業呈現截然不同之分布型態。生技醫療業呈現一枝獨 秀之集中化格局。相對地，食品製造業呈現齊頭並進之扁平化格局，五家企業 平均分數介於 1.54 至 1.73 分之間，尚未出現具明顯標竿意義之領先者，且 各企業強弱項互補。惟兩產業共同呈現外部延伸不足之瓶頸，外部群組於兩產 業均為得分最低或偏低之群組，多數企業徘徊於 1.5 分附近，顯示將 DEI 承 諾由組織內部延伸至供應鏈、社區與顧客，係台灣企業不分產業別於現階段共 同面臨之挑戰。;Diversity， Equity， and Inclusion has evolved from an international initiative into a standard component of corporate sustainability disclosure in Taiwan. A review of the existing DEI literature reveals that most studies focus on a single dimension or a single industry， with few employing a structurally complete， tiered international benchmark to conduct systematic and comparable field-based assessments of benchmark firms across different industries. This gap motivates the present study， which has two objectives: first， to apply the Global Diversity， Equity & Inclusion Benchmark to assess the DEI practices of benchmark firms in the biotech and medical industry within the Zhongli Industrial Park; and second， to apply the same benchmark to assess the DEI status of benchmark firms in the food manufacturing industry. Methodologically， this study adopts the GDEIB as its evaluation framework. Five benchmark firms each from the biotech/medical and food manufacturing industries in the Zhongli Industrial Park were selected， with employee sizes ranging from 138 to 5，400， spanning emerging listed startups， mid-sized consumer-goods manufacturers， and Taiwan-based subsidiaries of large listed conglomerates and multinational corporations. Data were drawn from publicly available secondary sources published between 2024 and 2026， including sustainability reports， annual reports， official websites， recruitment pages， and media coverage. The GDEIB was operationalized into a 0-to-4 scale of compliance， with scores from Level 2 onward determined by achievement rate; the final score for each category was calculated as the fully satisfied base level plus the achievement rate within the current level. The case analysis reveals markedly different distribution patterns between the two industries. The biotech/medical industry exhibits a concentrated pattern led by a single standout firm. In contrast， the food manufacturing industry displays a flat， evenly matched pattern， with the five firms′ average scores ranging narrowly between 1.54 and 1.73， no firm yet emerging as a clear benchmark leader， and firms exhibiting complementary strengths and weaknesses across categories. Nevertheless， both industries share a common bottleneck of "insufficient external extension": the External group consistently ranks among the lowest- or relatively low-scoring categories in both industries， with most firms hovering around a score of 1.5. This finding suggests that extending DEI commitments from internal organizational practices to the supply chain， community， and customers remains a shared challenge for Taiwanese enterprises at the current stage， irrespective of industry.
