差異化策略對成本不對稱性之影響

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：37

、訪客IP：3.140.185.147

姓名

張容榕(Jung-jung Chang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

會計研究所

論文名稱

差異化策略對成本不對稱性之影響

相關論文

★ 利害關係人包容性：企業社會責任報告書揭露內容個案探討	★ 盈餘目標的誘因對成本不對稱性之影響 -以母公司單獨報表與合併報表分析
★ 銷管費用的成本結構-以台灣公司為例	★ 代理問題、公司治理與銷管費用僵固性
★ 前期銷貨變動方向對成本習性及不對稱性之影響—營運成本之組成份分析	★ 公司治理與股權結構對資訊透明度之關聯性
★ 公司治理、公司避稅與現金持有	★ 台灣企業社會責任報告書自願性揭露之影響因素
★ 企業社會責任與成本僵固性之關聯性-以台灣公司為例	★ 企業社會責任績效與企業社會責任報告書確信選擇之關聯-以台灣為例
★ 企業社會責任活動與成本僵固性之關聯──以台灣編製企業社會責任報告之公司為例	★ 企業社會責任活動對股東權益報酬率、資產報酬率及股價報酬率之影響：以企業社會責任願景為調節變數
★ 企業社會責任願景對會計績效之影響:企業社會責任績效之中介效果	★ 企業社會責任治理績效與財務績效之雙向因果關係-以無形資產為中介效果
★ 企業社會責任報告書確信提供者之選擇：選擇現任財簽會計師事務所與否之影響因素	★ CSR績效對CSR揭露量之影響：以社會參與面向為例

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 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

本研究探討公司差異化策略及其成本不對稱性兩者之間的關聯性。策略的選擇與公司營運密切相關，本研究之假說為公司採行差異化策略時，會影響管理者進行資源調整的決策，即公司的差異化策略會影響成本不對稱性。
本研究以1987年至2013年間台灣上市、上櫃及興櫃公司作為研究對象，策略選擇係以差異化策略進行研究，觀察差異化策略與成本不對稱性之間的關聯性。實證結果發現，當公司採行差異化策略程度越高時，會有較大的營業成本僵固性；此外，公司的差異化策略與成本不對稱性兩者之間的關聯，會因管理者對於未來是樂觀或悲觀的預期而有所不同，實證結果發現，在樂觀情形下，當公司採行差異化策略程度越高時，會有較大的營業成本僵固性。相反地，在悲觀情形下，當公司差異化策略程度越高時，會有較小的營業成本反僵固性。

摘要(英)

In this study, we examined the relationship between the differentiation strategy and cost asymmetry. The choice of strategy is closely related to firm’s operating. In this study, we assumed that the differentiation strategy will affect the manager’s decisions on resource adjustment cost. That means the differentiation strategy firm choose will affect the cost asymmetry.
Using listed on TSE, OTC, and Emerging-Market companies in Taiwan from 1987 to 2013 as the research sample, we use differentiation strategy as our main strategy choice. The empirical results show that when firms have higher degree of differentiation strategy, they will exhibit greater cost stickiness. Furthermore, the relationship between the differentiation strategy and cost asymmetry also are moderated by the optimistic or pessimistic expectation of managers for future. The empirical result shows that under an optimistic scenario, firms with higher degree of differentiation strategy will exhibit greater cost stickiness. Conversely, under the pessimistic scenario, firms with higher degree of differentiation strategy will exhibit smaller cost anti-stickiness.

關鍵字(中)

★ 差異化策略
★ 成本不對稱性
★ 成本僵固性
★ 成本反僵固性

關鍵字(英)

★ differentiation strategy
★ cost asymmetry
★ cost stickiness
★ cost anti-stickiness

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
致謝 iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 v
表目錄 vi
第壹章緒論1
第一節研究動機與目的1
第二節研究問題2
第三節研究流程2
第貳章文獻探討4
第一節成本不對稱性4
第二節資源調整成本與成本不對稱性6
第三節公司差異化策略與成本不對稱性7
第參章研究設計9
第一節研究假說之建立9
第二節研究模型之建立與變數衡量11
第三節樣本選取17
第肆章實證結果20
第一節策略變數之建構20
第二節敘述統計分析23
第三節相關係數分析23
第四節差異化策略之迴歸分析26
第五節其他穩健性測試34
第伍章結論36
第一節研究結果與貢獻36
第二節研究限制與建議37
參考文獻38

參考文獻

中文部分
曾聯洲，2003，〈銷管費用僵固性之研究〉，碩士論文，國立政治大學會計研究所。

英文部分
Anderson, M. C., R. D.Banker, and S. N.Janakiraman, 2003. Are selling, general, and administrative costs “sticky”? Journal of Accounting Research41(1): 47-63.
Balakrishnan, R., M. J.Petersen, and N. S.Soderstrom, 2004. Does capacity utilization affect the “stickiness” of cost?. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 19(3): 283-300.
Balakrishnan, R., and T.S.Gruca.2008. Cost stickiness and core competency: A note. Contemporary Accounting Research25(4): 993-1006.
Banker, R. D., M. R.Ciftci, and R.Mashruwala, 2008. The effect of prior-period changes on cost behavior. Working Paper, Temple University, The University of Texas at Dallas.
Banker, R. D., D.Byzalov, M.Ciftci, and R.Mashruwala.2014. The moderating effect of prior sales changes on asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research 26(2): 221-242.
Banker, R. D., and D.Byzalov.2014. Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2): 43-79.
Banker, R. D., R.Flasher, and D.Zhang. 2014. Strategic positioning and asymmetric cost behavior. American Accounting Association.
Bentley, K. A., T. C.Omer, and N.Y.Sharp. 2013. Business strategy, financial reporting irregularities, and audit effort. Contemporary Accounting Research 30(2): 780-817.
Barney, J.B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120.
Calleja, K., M.Steliaros, and D. C.Thomas. 2006. A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research 17(2): 127-140.
Kama, I., and D. Weiss. 2013. Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect sticky costs? Journal of Accounting Research 51(1): 201-224.
Mintzberg, H. 1987. The strategy concept 1: five p′s for strategy. California management review 30(1):11-24.
Mintzberg, H. 1987. The Strategy Concept II: Another Look at Why Organizations Need Strategies. California management review 30(1):25-32.
Noreen, E., and N. Soderstrom.1997.The Accuracy of Proportional Cost Models: Evidence from Hospital Sevice Departments. Review of Accounting Studies 2: 89-114.
Peteraf, M. 1993. The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal 14(3): 179-191.
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New York: Free Press.
Teece, D.J., G.Pisano, and A.Shuen. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal18: 509-533.
Venieris, G., V. C.Naoum, and O.Vlismas. 2015. Organisation capital and sticky behaviour of selling, general and administrative expenses. Management Accounting Research 26:54-82.
Ward, P., and R.Duray. 2000. Manufacturing Strategy in Context: Environment, Competitive Strategy and Manufacturing Strategy. Journal of Operations Management 18(2):123-138.
White, R. 1986. Generic Business Strategies, Organizational Context and Performance: An Empirical Investigation. Strategic Management Journal 7(3): 217-231.
Williamson, O.E. 1979. Transaction-cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations. Journal of Law and Economics 22: 233-261.
Weiss, D. 2010. Cost behavior and analysts’earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review 85(4):1441-1471.

指導教授

陳建中(Chien-chung Chen)

審核日期

2015-7-8

推文