企業社會責任活動之動機層次與公司價值之關聯性

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：16

、訪客IP：18.226.177.223

姓名

陳泰諭(Tai-Yu Chen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

財務金融學系

論文名稱

企業社會責任活動之動機層次與公司價值之關聯性

相關論文

★ 半導體產業購併對股東財富效果之影響-以聯發科公司為例	★ 區塊鏈技術應用於金融科技公司企業資金電子調撥系統實作與驗證
★ 金融科技浪潮下銀行分行經營績效之探討－以個案銀行為例	★ 收購案後，主併公司與目標公司財務顧問之間開始合作原因之探討
★ 併購交易完成後，主併公司與目標公司財務顧問延續合作之因素探討	★ 產品組成變動與公司投資決策
★ CEO年齡與選擇併購目標公司之偏好	★ 外部董事產業經驗對於併購的影響
★ 目標公司執行長年齡與併購決策	★ 企業生命週期轉變對股利變化的影響
★ 經理人文化認同形成對風險承擔行為之影響 -以S&P500指數上市公司為例	★ 併購如何創造綜效──以台灣與韓國為例
★ CEO文化認同與債務期限選擇	★ 台灣上市櫃公司撰寫CSR報告書與公司價值之相關性探討
★ 經理人文化認同與公司CSR政策執行之關聯性-以S&P500指數上市公司為例	★ COVID-19疫情對全球航空產業營運之影響–以中華航空為例

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 (2024-7-1以後開放)

摘要(中)

本研究探討企業執行企業社會責任(Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR)活動背後潛在的動機層次，與公司價值之間的關聯性，引用Martin (2003)所提出的道德矩陣概念，歸納出企業執行CSR活動的動機層次。本研究嘗試以自願發布CSR報告書做為檢測因子，篩選出本質面企業(包含策略區與結構區)，接著使用利害關係人關注議題比重，從中區分策略區與結構區企業。若企業自願發CSR報告書，且利害關係人關注議題比重小於或等於0.5時，即被分類於策略區，而若公司自願發布CSR報告書，且利害關係人關注議題比重大於0.5時，即被分類於結構區。
企業若被分類於本質面，即代表其積極主動進行CSR活動，若進一步被分類於策略區，表示該CSR活動符合企業永續經營的利益，若被分類於結構區，則表示該活動未必符合企業發展的利益。本研究推測，被分類於策略區與結構區的企業特徵皆對公司價值有正向的影響，其中策略區將能提升更高的公司價值。
使用台灣上市櫃公司資料，期間涵蓋2009年至2016年，結果表明被分類於策略區與結構區的企業特徵皆與公司價值呈現正向的關聯性，且策略區特徵對於公司價值的正向效果提升幅度高於結構區特徵(使用嚴格的自願撰寫報告書定義)，代表公司若積極從事CSR活動，其公司價值將可以提升，其中若CSR活動符合企業永續經營的利益，其可以提升更高的公司價值幅度。

摘要(英)

In this paper, I explore the relationship between the motivation level of corporate execution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities and the corporate value. I cite the concept of virtue matrix proposed by Martin (2003) and sort out the motivation level of the company′s execution of CSR activities. I attempt to use the company’s characteristic of being voluntary to release the CSR report as a detection factor to screen out the essential area of virtue matrix (including strategic and structural area) . After that, I use the stakeholders focusing issue proportion to select the strategic area and structural area. If the company voluntarily issues a CSR report and the stakeholders focusing issue proportion is less than or equal to 0.5, it is classified in the strategic area. If the company voluntarily issues a CSR report and the stakeholders focusing issue proportion is greater than 0.5, it is classified in structural area.
If the company is classified in the strategic area of virtue matrix, it means that it has a positive attitude to execute CSR activities, and the activity is in line with the interests of the company’s operation. If the company is classified in the structural area of virtue matrix, it means that it still has a positive attitude, but the activity may not be in line with the interests of the company’s operation. I make hypotheses that when company is classified into strategic and structural areas, the characteristic will come with a positive impact on company’s value. Moreover, the characteristic of being in the strategic area will enhance the effect.
I use the data of Taiwan listed companies which covers the period from 2009 to 2016. The results show that the corporate characteristics when company is classified in the strategic area and the structural area are positively related to the corporate value, and the positive effect of the strategic area characteristic will be higher (using the strict definition of voluntarily releasing CSR report). If the company actively engages in CSR activities, its corporate value can be improved. Moreover, if the CSR activity is in line with the interests of the company′s sustainable operation, it can bring higher positive effect for the corporate value.

關鍵字(中)

★ 企業社會責任

關鍵字(英)

★ CSR

論文目次

目錄
摘要...i
ABSTRACT...ii
誌謝...iii
目錄...iv
表格目錄...v
第一章緒論...1
1-1研究背景與動機...1
1-2研究特徵...3
1-3研究貢獻...4
第二章文獻回顧...5
2-1道德矩陣的研究框架...5
2-2 從事企業社會責任活動對於企業經營影響...8
第三章研究設計...10
3-1研究假說...10
3-2樣本描述...12
3-3變數敘述...13
3-4敘述統計...19
3-5模型設計...21
第四章實證分析結果...24
4-1 假說一之實證分析結果...24
4-2 假說二之實證分析結果...26
4-3 額外檢測之分析結果...28
第五章研究結論與未來建議...32
5-1 研究結論...32
5-2 未來研究建議...33
第六章參考文獻...34

參考文獻

池祥麟 (2015)，「企業社會責任與財務績效的關聯」，社區發展季刊，152 期，19-34頁。
池祥麟 (2015)，「企業社會責任行為財務學的觀點」，證券市場發展季刊，29(4)，63-104頁。
趙御雲 (2018)，「台灣上市櫃公司撰寫CSR報告書與公司價值之相關性探討」，國立中央大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。
劉謹銓（2014），「強化企業社會責任報告書的公信力，透過獨立公正的第三方查證」，BSI集團。
Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
Adam L., Valérie S., Wesley J. J. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility: An Empirical Investigation of U.S. Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 303–323.
Barnett, M. L., & R. M. Salomon. (2006). Beyond Dichotomy–the Curvilinear Relationship between Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1101–1122.
Brammer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35(3), 97–116.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.
Coles, J. L., Daniel, N. D., & Naveen, L. (2008). Boards: Does one size fit all?. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(2), 329–356.
Davidson, W. N., & Worrell, D. L. (1988). The Impact of Announcements of Corporate Illegalities on Shareholder Returns. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 195–200.
Davidson, W. N., & Worrell, D. L. (1990). A Comparison and Test of the Use of Accounting and Stock Market Data in Relating Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Akron Business and Economic Review, 21, 7–19.
Dimson, E., Karakaş, O., & Li, X. (2015). Active ownership. The Review of Financial Studies, 28(12), 3225–3268.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy, Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, M. (2002). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Applied Ethics: Critical Concepts in Philosophy, 5, 57.
Hwang, B. H., & Kim, H. H. (2017). It pays to write well. Journal of Financial Economics, 124(2), 373–394.
John, L. C. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? an institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.
Kruger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304–329.
Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785-1824.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value , Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, T. (1999). Corporate Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and Business Benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455–469.
Martin, R. L. (2003). The Virtue Matrix: Calculating the Return on Corporate Responsibility, Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility. Harvard Business School Press.
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O. C. (2001). Antecedents and Benefits of Corporate Citizenship: An Investigation of French Businesses, Journal of Business Research, 51(1), 37–51.
Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1988). Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293–315.

指導教授

李韋憲(Wei‑Hsien Li)

審核日期

2019-7-10

推文