探討我國工程顧問公司法令遵循制度之研究-以公司治理、反貪腐為核心

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：58

、訪客IP：3.135.206.98

姓名

周天昇(Eddie, Tien-sheng Chou) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

土木系營建管理博士班

論文名稱

探討我國工程顧問公司法令遵循制度之研究-以公司治理、反貪腐為核心
(Exploring the impact factors of legal compliance systems focusing on corporate governance and anti- corruption for consulting engineering companies in Taiwan)

相關論文

★ 運用深度神經網路建立H型鋼構件自動辨識系統之研究	★ 運用關聯法則探討協力廠商對營造廠報價行為之研究
★ 探討影響台灣工程顧問公司落實法律遵循反貪腐關鍵因素之研究	★ 以分包商角度探討對營造廠報價行為策略之研究
★ 運用SOMCM分群演算法開發設計雲端智慧平台之營運維護產業介面-以桃園市某園區為例	★ 專案管理在履約爭議處理機制之比較與研析
★ H型鋼構件智慧塗裝路徑優化研究	★ 以資料包絡分析法評估大型統包營造廠之經營績效-以上市櫃公司為例
★ 運用組織特徵映射圖動作軌跡相似度測量法探索預鑄工項生產效率與資源規劃之研究	★ 預鑄專案成本估算策略之研究
★ 新建工程建造執照查核缺失要項之探討--以台北市為例	★ 灰關聯分析探討古蹟與歷史建築再利用之研究
★ 營造工地管理人資量化與預測	★ 公共建設專案現金管理與控制之研究
★ 營建業ERP整合PDA模型之研究	★ 水庫營運效益評估之研究-以石門水庫為例

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 (2029-2-1以後開放)

摘要(中)

我國政府為厚實產業紮根於西元1970年代成立工程技術服務社團法人，玆為國內專業工程顧問機構之先驅，嗣後諸機構均投資設立股份有限公司，多年來更有大步邁進之國際化大型工程團隊，躍升為全球百大工程公司，展現我國工程專業之全球業務運營及跨越文化界限整合的能力。本研究據以建立國際工程之法令遵循功能與制度，協助企業瞭解自身組織、資源及專業人材等運營條件，據以建立符合國際市場之適法機制，蒐集相關法令資訊，確保於擴展海外業務，避免法律風險與鉅額罰款。
本研究採行結構方程式模型SEM即為多變量分析方法，透過模型建構，探究變數間的關係。工程顧問公司規劃經營策略，可運用SEM模型探索公司治理及反貪腐實施方針，據以持續改善公司法令遵循制度，提高公司績效、價值及國際市場競爭力。本文透過文獻回顧確立公司治理六大構面與反貪腐五大構面，公司治理前測問卷題項為46題為期2個月調查與蒐集，實際回收數量40份，有效樣本回收31份；正式問卷之有效回收數則為324份，經SEM驗證後5條路徑成立。反貪腐前測問卷題項為23題，有效樣本回收22份；正式問卷之有效回收數則為314份，經SEM驗證5條路徑成立。
經因子分析，確立公司治理27項關鍵因子及反貪腐17題關鍵因子的權重順序。謹提供各界先進研究公司治理暨反貪腐等關鍵因子間之關聯及排序權重。第五章案例研究以我國大型國際工程集團為例，擬訂法令遵循功能及架構，俾爲我國工程顧問公司於建置公司治理永續發展與實踐誠信經營的法令遵循系統之重要依據，並期建立法令遵循功能與規範，指引我國工程顧問公司於國際市場拓展業務邁步前進。

摘要(英)

In the 1970s, the Taiwanese government initiated a pivotal move by founding an engineering consultants′ consortium, setting a precedent for the establishment of professional engineering consultancy firms in the nation. This initiative spurred a wave of investment in the creation of limited liability companies. Recently, Taiwanese engineering teams have been making a mark on the global stage, showcasing their expertise in engineering operations and cross-disciplinary collaborations. This emerging international presence underlines the necessity for Taiwanese companies to adhere to global compliance standards.
The purpose of this research is to assist local enterprises in developing internationally recognized corporate frameworks. It focuses on leveraging organizational assets and operational scenarios to achieve effective risk management and expand overseas operations.
The methodology of this study involves Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), a technique used to analyze interconnections among various factors within engineering consulting firms. Through SEM, the study delves into aspects of corporate governance and anti-corruption measures, contributing to the ongoing improvement of legal adherence, efficiency, value, and worldwide market presence. The research identifies six facets of corporate governance and five of anti-corruption, derived from an extensive literature review. A preliminary survey on corporate governance, comprising 46 questions, was conducted over a two-month period, yielding 40 responses, with 31 deemed valid. The final survey garnered 324 valid responses, with SEM validation confirming five significant paths. Similarly, a pre-test questionnaire on anti-corruption, consisting of 23 questions, resulted in 22 valid responses; the final survey yielded 314 valid responses, with five validated paths post-SEM analysis. Factor analysis was adopted to determine the significance and hierarchy of 27 corporate governance factors and 17 anti-corruption factors.
Additionally, the fifth chapter presents a case study of a prominent international engineering group in Taiwan. This study serves as a foundational guide for local engineering consulting firms, emphasizing the corporate governance of sustainable development frameworks and ethical management practices. The findings are intended to inform the development of legal compliance functions and standards, equipping these firms to broaden their international business horizons.

關鍵字(中)

★ 工程顧問公司
★ 法令遵循
★ 公司治理
★ 反貪腐
★ 結構方程式模型(SEM)

關鍵字(英)

★ engineering consulting companies
★ legal compliance
★ corporate governance
★ anti-corruption
★ firewall policy
★ Structural Equation Modeling(SEM)

論文目次

摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
致謝 iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 viii
表目錄 x
第一章緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究問題 3
1.3 研究目的 3
1.4 研究範圍與限制 3
1.5 研究流程圖 5
第二章文獻回顧 7
2.1 我國工程顧問公司 7
2.2 法令遵循 9
2.2.1 定義與發展 9
2.2.2 功能與指導原則 10
2.2.3 法令遵循法規分類 13
2.3 公司治理構面相關文獻 14
2.3.1 股東權益、公平對待股東 14
2.3.2 董事會結構與運作 15
2.3.3 企業社會責任 15
2.3.4 資訊透明度暨防火牆與研究假設之關聯 16
2.3.5 平等對待股東暨內線交易與防火牆之關聯 17
2.4 反貪腐構面相關文獻 18
2.4.1 誠信經營政策 18
2.4.2 防範方案 19
2.4.3 法令遵循制度 19
2.4.4 不誠信行爲 20
2.4.5 建立防火牆 20
2.5 研究工具 21
2.5.1 結構方程式模型(StructuralEquationModeling,SEM) 22
2.5.2 整體模型適配度指標與評估 24
第三章公司治理-實踐永續發展之研究 25
3.1 公司治理研究架構與路徑假設 25
3.1.1 公司治理潛在變項與操作定義 25
3.1.2 公司治理構面定義 27
3.1.3 公司研究假設 41
3.2 公司治理問卷設計 49
3.2.1 本研究題項參考來源 49
3.2.2 公司治理前測問卷暨敘述性統計分析 50
3.2.3 公司治理前測問卷各構面信度分析 54
3.2.4 公司治理前測問卷各構面效度分析 55
3.3 公司治理正式問卷資料與分析暨回收概況 56
3.3.1 公司治理信度分析 57
3.3.2 公司治理正式問卷之敘述性統計分析 58
3.3.3 公司治理效度分析KMO 61
3.3.4 公司治理皮爾森相關係數分析 63
3.3.5 公司治理獨立樣本T檢定 64
3.3.6 公司治理正式問卷各構面題項資料統計與分析 64
3.4 公司治理結構方程式(SEM)測量模型修正 71
3.4.1 驗證性因素分析(CFA) 71
3.4.2 公司治理一階測量模型修正 72
3.4.3 公司治理二階測量模型修正 79
3.4.4 公司治理整體測量模型修正 82
3.4.5 公司治理整體測量模型構面分析 85
3.4.6 公司治理整體測量模型路徑分析 93
3.4.7 公司治理因子平均數排序 102
3.4.8 公司治理因子萃取共同因素 104
第四章反貪腐-實踐誠信經營之研究 109
4.1 反貪腐研究架構與路徑假設 109
4.1.1 反貪腐研究架構 109
4.1.2 反貪腐潛在變項與操作定義 109
4.1.3 本研究反貪腐構面定義 112
4.1.4 反貪腐研究假設 116
4.2 反貪腐問卷設計 122
4.2.1 反貪腐問卷題項參考來源 123
4.2.2 反貪腐前測問卷資料與敍述性統計分析 124
4.2.3 反貪腐前測問卷各構面之信度分析 127
4.2.4 反貪腐前測問卷各構面之效度分析 127
4.3 反貪腐正式問卷資料與分析暨回收概況 129
4.2.5 反貪腐信度分析 130
4.3.1 反貪腐正式問卷之敘述性統計分析 130
4.3.2 反貪腐效度分析KMO 135
4.3.3 反貪腐皮爾森相關係數分析 136
4.3.4 反貪腐獨立樣本T檢定 138
4.3.5 反貪腐正式問卷各構面題項資料統計與分析 138
4.4 反貪腐結構方程式(SEM)測量模型修正 145
4.4.1 反貪腐驗證性因素分析(CFA) 145
4.4.2 反貪腐一階測量模型修正 147
4.4.3 反貪腐二階測量模型修正 153
4.4.4 反貪腐整體結構模型分析 156
4.4.5 反貪腐整體測量模型構面分析 159
4.4.6 反貪腐整體測量模型路徑分析 169
4.4.7 反貪腐因子平均數排序 181
第五章案例研究-建構工程顧問公司法令遵循 188
5.1 我國世界級工程公司 188
5.2 工程顧問公司法令遵循制度 189
5.2.1 有效法令遵循制度之特徵 189
5.2.2 國際組織暨我國法令與指導原則 191
5.2.3 案例研究 193
第六章結論與建議 206
6.1 研究各構面與因子 206
6.1.1 公司治理 206
6.1.2 反貪腐 207
6.2 研究結論與發見 209
6.2.1 公司治理 209
6.2.2 反貪腐 212
6.3 後續研究與建議 214

參考文獻

[1] Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
[2] Arnold, D. H., Arnold, K., & Arnold, V. J. (2010). Managing Ethical Risks and Crises: Beyond Legal Compliance. In Beijing Law Review (Vol. 1, pp. 1-6).
[3] Băndoi, A., Bocean, C. G., Del Baldo, M., Mandache, L., Mănescu, L. G., & Sitnikov, C. S. (2021). Including sustainable reporting practices in corporate management reports: Assessing the impact of transparency on economic performance. Sustainability, 13(2), 940.
[4] Bird, R. C., & Orozco, D. (2014). Finding the right corporate legal strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review.
[5] Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing Structural Equation Models (Vol. 154). Newbury Park : Sage Publications.
[6] Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming.
[7] Chang, M., & Lim, Y. (2016). Late disclosure of insider trades: Who does it and why? Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 519-531.
[8] Cheffi, W., Malesios, C., Abdel‐Maksoud, A., Abdennadher, S., & Dey, P. (2021). Corporate social responsibility antecedents and practices as a path to enhance organizational performance: The case of small and medium sized enterprises in an emerging economy country. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 28(6), 1647-1663.
[9] Chen, J.-H., Chou, T.-S., Wang, J.-P., Wei, H.-H., & Yang, T.-H. (2021). Sustainable corporate governance: the impact factors for top consulting engineering companies in taiwan. Sustainability, 13(14), 7604.
[10] Chen, J.-H., & Hsu, S.-C. (2008). Quantifying impact factors of corporate financing: engineering consulting firms. Journal of Management in Engineering, 24(2), 96-104.
[11] Chen, S., Zhang, J. A., Gao, H., Yang, Z., & Mather, D. (2022). Trust erosion during industry-wide crises: the central role of consumer legitimacy judgement. Journal of Business Ethics, 175, 95-116.
[12] Collinge, W. (2020). Stakeholder engagement in construction: Exploring corporate social responsibility, ethical behaviors, and practices. Journal of construction engineering and management, 146(3), 04020003.
[13] Cumming, D., & Leung, T. Y. (2021). Board diversity and corporate innovation: Regional demographics and industry context. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 29(3), 277-296.
[14] D’Avanzo, E., Franch, M., & Borgonovi, E. (2021). Ethics and Sustainable Management. An empirical modelling of Carroll’s pyramid for the Italian landscape. Sustainability, 13(21), 12057.
[15] Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 259-274.
[16] Ermongkonchai, P. (2010). Understanding Reasons for Employee Unethical Conduct in Thai Organizations: A Qualitative Inquiry. In: Contemporary Management Research.
[17] Glen, S. (2016). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test for Sampling Adequacy. https://www.statisticshowto.com/kaiser-meyer-olkin/
[18] Greenspan, A. (1987). 内防火墻之定義. In.
[19] Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, B. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. In: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[20] Hassan, S., Kaur, P., Muchiri, M., Ogbonnaya, C., & Dhir, A. (2023). Unethical leadership: Review, synthesis and directions for future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(2), 511-550.
[21] Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1), 1-55.
[22] Jagniatinskis, A., Fiks, B., Mickaitis, M., & Šukys, R. (2017). Features of sound classification scheme designated to label buildings in Lithuania. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(3), 409-420.
[23] Joseph F. Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2006). Multivariate data analysis
[24] Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291575
[25] Karwowski, M., & Raulinajtys‐Grzybek, M. (2021). The application of corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions for mitigation of environmental, social, corporate governance (ESG) and reputational risk in integrated reports. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 28(4), 1270-1284.
[26] Kidder, D. L. (2005). Is it ‘who I am’, ‘what I can get away with’, or ‘what you’ve done to me’? A Multi-theory Examination of Employee Misconduct. In Journal of Business Ethics (Vol. 57, pp. 389-398).
[27] Klarner, P., Yoshikawa, T., & Hitt, M. A. (2021). A capability-based view of boards: A new conceptual framework for board governance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(1), 123-141.
[28] Kline, R. B. (1998). Software Review: Software Programs for Structural Equation Modeling: Amos, EQS, and LISREL. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16(4), 343-364. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299801600407
[29] Kyaw, K., Olugbode, M., & Petracci, B. (2017). The role of the institutional framework in the relationship between earnings management and corporate social performance. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 24(6), 543-554.
[30] Lašáková, A., Remišová, A., & Bajzíková, Ľ. (2021). Differences in occurrence of unethical business practices in a post-transitional country in the CEE Region: The case of Slovakia. Sustainability, 13(6), 3412.
[31] Lin, X., Clay, P. F., Hajli, N., & Dadgar, M. (2018). Investigating the impacts of organizational factors on employees’ unethical behavior within organization in the context of Chinese firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 779-791.
[32] Mahr, T. G., Nowak, E., & Rott, R. (2016). The (Ir)relevance of Disclosure of Compliance with Corporate Governance Codes: Empirical Evidence from the German Stock Market. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 172(3), 475-520. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43956775
[33] Martins, A., Gomes, D., & Branco, M. C. (2020). Managing corporate social and environmental disclosure: An accountability vs. impression management framework. Sustainability, 13(1), 296.
[34] Menshawy, I. M., Basiruddin, R., Mohd‐Zamil, N. A., & Hussainey, K. (2023). Strive towards investment efficiency among Egyptian companies: Do board characteristics and information asymmetry matter? International Journal of Finance & Economics, 28(3), 2382-2403.
[35] Miroshnychenko, I., De Massis, A., Miller, D., & Barontini, R. (2021). Family business growth around the world. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(4), 682-708.
[36] Mohd Zakwan Ramli, M. A. M., Mohamad Zaki Muda, Zulkhairi Abd Talib, Nor Syahirah Azman, Nur Farah Syazana Mohamad Fu’ad, Mohd Hafiz Zawawi, and Herda Yati Katman. (2018). A Review of Structural Equation Model for Construction Delay Study. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7 (4.35) (2018) 299-306.
[37] Mueller, R. O. (1999). Basic principles of structural equation modeling: An introduction to LISREL and EQS. Springer Science & Business Media.
[38] Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory 2nd Edition.
[39] O′Mara‐Shimek, M., Guillén, M., & Bañón Gomis, A. J. (2015). Approaching virtuousness through organizational ethical quality: toward a moral corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24, S144-S155.
[40] Ongsakul, V., Jaroenjitrkam, A., Treepongkaruna, S., & Jiraporn, P. (2022). Does board gender diversity reduce ‘CEO luck’? Accounting & Finance, 62(1), 243-260.
[41] Ongsakul, V., Treepongkaruna, S., Jiraporn, P., & Uyar, A. (2021). Do firms adjust corporate governance in response to economic policy uncertainty? Evidence from board size. Finance Research Letters, 39, 101613.
[42] Owusu, E. K., Chan, A. P., Hosseini, M. R., & Nikmehr, B. (2020). Assessing procurement irregularities in the supply-chain of Ghanaian construction projects: a soft-computing approach. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 26(1), 66-82.
[43] Peale, K. B. N. V. (1988). The Power Of Ethical Management. In.
[44] Ruban, D. A., & Yashalova, N. N. (2022). Corporate Pro-Environmental Behavior on the Seas: Eco-Ethical Prescriptions of the Largest Cruise Companies. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(3), 380.
[45] Samuels, D. (2021). Government procurement and changes in firm transparency. The Accounting Review, 96(1), 401-430.
[46] Schuler, D., Rasche, A., Etzion, D., & Newton, L. (2017). Guest editors’ introduction: Corporate sustainability management and environmental ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 213-237.
[47] Smith, N. M., Smith, J. M., Battalora, L. A., & Teschner, B. A. (2018). Industry–university partnerships: Engineering education and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 144(3), 04018002.
[48] Smith, N. M., Zhu, Q., Smith, J. M., & Mitcham, C. (2021). Enhancing engineering ethics: Role ethics and corporate social responsibility. Science and engineering ethics, 27, 1-21.
[49] Tang, X., Shi, J., Han, J., Shu, A., & Xiao, F. (2021). Culturally diverse board and corporate innovation. Accounting & Finance, 61(4), 5655-5679.
[50] Tinsley, H. E., & Tinsley, D. J. . (1987). Uses of Factor Analysis in Counseling Psychology Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 414-424. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414
[51] Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. In: John Wiley & Sons.
[52] Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999). Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance: What Works and What Hurts. In California Management Review (Vol. 41, pp. 131-151).
[53] Unda, L. A., & Ranasinghe, D. (2021). To pay or not pay: Board remuneration and insolvency risk in credit unions. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 66, 101128.
[54] Valle, M., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2019). Understanding the effects of political environments on unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 156, 173-188.
[55] Wang, W.-C., Yu, W.-d., Yang, I.-T., Lin, C.-C., Lee, M.-T., & Cheng, Y.-Y. (2013). Applying the AHP to support the best-value contractor selection–lessons learned from two case studies in Taiwan. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(1), 24-36.
[56] Yang, L.-R., Chen, J.-H., & Wang, H.-W. (2012). Assessing impacts of information technology on project success through knowledge management practice. Automation in construction, 22, 182-191.
[57] Young, C. (2019). Putting the law in its place: Business ethics and the assumption that illegal implies unethical. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 35-51.
[58] Zakaria, M., Aoun, C., & Liginlal, D. (2021). Objective sustainability assessment in the digital economy: An information entropy measure of transparency in corporate sustainability reporting. Sustainability, 13(3), 1054.
[59] Zhelyazkova, A., Kaya, C., & Schrama, R. (2016). Decoupling practical and legal compliance: Analysis of member states’ implementation of EU policy. European Journal of Political Research, 55(4), 827-846.
[60] Zhong, X., Ren, L., & Song, T. (2021). Beyond market strategies: How multiple decision-maker groups jointly influence underperforming firms’ corporate social (ir) responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-19.
[61] <上市上櫃公司永續發展實務守則(1111223)_所有條文.pdf>.
[62] 中央銀行. 巴塞爾銀行監理委員會發布「銀行法規遵循功能指導原則」. https://www.cbc.gov.tw/tw/cp-432-22778-35DDF-1.html
[63] 中鼎集團. 中鼎集團電子報. https://www.ctci.com/e-newsletter/CH/474/outlook/article-01.html
[64] 中鼎集團. (2022). 中鼎公司2022年報. https://www.ctci.com/www/ctci2022/pdf/CH/111year_report.pdf
[65] 公共工程委員會. 工程顧問服務業簡介. https://files.pcc.gov.tw/pcctech/
[66] 巴塞爾銀行監理委員會. (2003). The compliance function in banks. Retrieved from https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs103.pdf
[67] 江逸之. (2019). 從財團法人到世界百大企業，中鼎如何做到領先中國五年. https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5093700?rec=i2i&from_id=5083999&from_index=2
[68] 行政院公共工程委員會. (2012). 工程會與業界共同簽署公共工程反貪腐宣言. https://www.pcc.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=C61062639C0CD29F&sms=21EF9CF82726C1BB&s=C4AD222072635026
[69] 行政院公共工程委員會. (2020). 公共工程管理相關法規概要. 行政院公共工程委員會. https://www.pcc.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=BDB00AA0DDA4EE72
[70] 行政院金融監督管理委員會. (2019). 證券交易法.
[71] 行政院金融監督管理委員會. (2020). 公開發行公司年報應行記載事項準則. 金管證發字第1090360126號令
[72] 行政院勞動部. (2021). 性別勞動統計分析_110-100年.
[73] 吳文樵、李仁豪. (2005). 從企業策略觀點分析業務之委外考量-探討工程技術公司案例.
[74] 吳相儀, 陳冠羽, 廖思涵, 劉政宏, & 謝碧玲. (2018). [新編青少年強項量表] 之編製與驗證. 測驗學刊, 65(4), 367-399.
[75] 吳瓊佩. (2014). 我國銀行法令遵循制度之研究國立政治大學].
[76] 周芳琪. (2015). 企業跨國經營之法律遵循制度比較研究
[77] 林瑞彬. (2017). 企業如何建置法令遵循計畫. In 全國律師月刊2017年09月號.
[78] 林裕盛. (2014). 國家與企業共生關係的形塑與消逝-以中鼎工程公司之發展歷程為例
[79] 金融監督管理委員會. (2023). 上市櫃公司永續發展行動方案(2023年). https://www.fsc.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=96&parentpath=0,2&mcustomize=news_view.jsp&dataserno=202303280001&dtable=News
[80] 姚崇略. (2019). 金融犯罪與吹哨者保護之法制建構—德國法的觀察. https://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/PageSystem/reportFileDownload/C10900500/001
[81] 孫郁喬. (2020). 相關係數的相似性檢定.
[82] 張傑程. (2017). 從公司治理觀點探討我國「企業貪瀆」之防制對策.
[83] 陳瑞仁. 行政院版揭弊者保護法逐條釋義. https://www.aac.moj.gov.tw/media/200376/02-1%E9%99%B3%E7%91%9E%E4%BB%81_52-90_-1018.pdf?mediaDL=true
[84] 陳榮吉. (2006). 國際證券管理機構組織(IOSCO)對法規遵循的看法. https://tpl.ncl.edu.tw/NclService/JournalContentDetail?SysId=A06079046
[85] 黃勤瑞. (2022). 探討影響台灣工程顧問公司落實法律遵循反貪腐關鍵因素之研究國立中央大學]. 桃園縣. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5538fj
[86] 黃瑞堂. (2001). 由美、日金融控股公司法評析我國金融控股公司之立法防火牆制度之研究. In.
[87] 楊竹生. (2009). 論美國公司之法令遵循機制 2009年當前法律問題學術研討會, 中原大學法學院.
[88] 楊粢涵. (2021). 探討公司治理影響臺灣工程顧問公司關鍵因素之研究. In 土木工程學系營建管理碩士班: 國立中央大學.
[89] 經合組織. (2020). OECD原則. http://www.oecd.org/
[90] 經濟合作暨發展組織. (1961). http://www.oecd.org/
[91] 經濟部. (2019). 中小企業誠信經營手冊.
[92] 經濟部國際貿易局. (2021). 出口管制法令遵循日趨重要，經濟部貿易局為業者解析. 經濟部國際貿易局. https://www.moea.gov.tw/MNS/populace/news/News.aspx?kind=1&menu_id=40&news_id=96622
[93] 詹德恩. (2021). 法令遵循理論與實務. 元照出版有限公司.
[94] 廖文忠. (2003). 跨國工程公司之組織策略與公司治理--中鼎工程公司個案研究國立臺灣大學國際企業學研究所]. 台北市.
[95] 臺灣證券交易所. (1961). 臺灣證券交易所.
[96] 臺灣證券交易所公司治理中心(TWSE). (2021). 110年度公司治理評鑑指標.
[97] 臺灣證券交易所股份有限公司. (2019). 上市上櫃公司誠信經營守則. In.
[98] 臺灣證券交易所股份有限公司. (2020). 上市上櫃公司治理實務守則.
[99] 臺灣證券交易所股份有限公司公司治理中心. (2019). 提倡私部門企業誠信修正「上市上櫃公司誠信經營守則」. https://cgc.twse.com.tw/pressReleases/promoteNewsArticleCh/3146
[100] 劉德明、張訓嘉、楊逸君. (2008). 證券商如何建立有效的法令遵循制度. https://www.twsa.org.tw/B01/doc/%E8%AD%89%E5%88%B8%E5%95%86%E5%A6%82%E4%BD%95%E5%BB%BA%E7%AB%8B%E6%9C%89%E6%95%88%E7%9A%84%E6%B3%95%E4%BB%A4%E9%81%B5%E5%BE%AA%E5%88%B6%E5%BA%A6.pdf
[101] <獨立董事是深化公司治理的推手 - 駱秉寬 - 工商時報2023.03.28.pdf>.
[102] 謝明瑞. (2007). 投資銀行發展之研究. 財團法人國家政策研究基金會.
[103] 羅巧娜. (2017). 以科技接受模型探討消費者行動支付之使用意圖

指導教授

陳介豪(Jieh-Haur Chen)

審核日期

2024-1-30

推文