主管機關為股東會空洞化、股東會撞期等不利股東權行使之問題，新修正公司法第一七七條之一第一項1授權證券主管機關應視公司規模、股東人數與結構及其他必要情況，命其將電子方式列為表決權行使管道之一。明訂實收資本額超過100億元且股東人數達一萬人以上之上市、櫃公司2，於2012年起召開股東會，採取強制電子投票，以落實股東行動主義，藉此提高小股東的自主性，落實股東民主。本文基於E化時代，以股東會之相關程序之電子化為主軸，就鄰國日本為促使股東會活性化所為之各項關於股東會電子化之修法為例，分別探討臺灣與日本之立法例，比較研究臺日兩國在股東行動主義下，除了電子投票制度外，並包含從召集通知到股東提案權等相關規定之配合修正，是否達到鼓勵、促使股東參與股東會之立法目的。特別是E化環境下，在落實股東行動主義、深化公司治理之目標下，股東會應有如何之風貌與現行法所要克服之問題為何，進行分析與檢討。 The government has made amendments about the questions of dysfunction regarding shareholders’ meetings and conflict of meetings which affect shareholders’ rights. According to Company Act Article 177-1 I: The competent authority in charge of securities affairs, however, shall as necessary in view of the company’s scale, shareholder number, shareholder structure and other essential factors, require a company to adopt electronic transmission as one of the methods for exercising voting power. From this year, it has been made obligatory to use e-voting to ensure shareholder activism and improve the rights and freedom of small shareholders. With these amendments in mind, is it helpful to solve the questions mentioned above and implement shareholder activism? In the context of the E-era, this study is based on the relevant procedures of electronic shareholders’ meetings in Taiwan and on the case in which the Japanese government amended the law to vitalize the functions of shareholders’ meetings by implementing electronic shareholders’meetings, and discusses cases of legislation in Taiwan and Japan, respectively. By comparing and studying E-voting systems under the shareholder activism in both countries, this study tries to understand whether the relevant amendments which include assembling, notifying and shareholders’ rights to propose a motion meet the requirements of encouraging shareholders to attend the meetings. Especially in an electronic environment, for the purpose of implementing shareholder activism and deepening corporate governance, this study analyzes and examines how shareholders’ meetings can function well and how to amend the deficiencies of the relevant legislation.