博碩士論文 107424017 詳細資訊




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:13 、訪客IP:3.236.170.171
姓名 李家君(Chia-Chun Li)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 產業經濟研究所
論文名稱 市場經濟制度、企業社會責任與企業財務績效關聯性之探討
(The Impact on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance by national institutions)
相關論文
★ 公平交易法對多層次傳銷定義之研究 -「給付一定代價」是否應予保留★ 產業群聚與ICT、電子商務技術擴散-以臺灣製造業為例
★ 人力資本與經濟成長:以TIMSS測驗分數作為人力資本代理變數可行性之探討★ 個人預計退休年齡的決定
★ 租稅幻覺與已婚婦女勞動供給之影響★ 宗教認知對修行投入時間影響之探討
★ 退休金給付制度及強制退休時點與員工互動之探討★ 台灣管理階層薪資結構 Tournament Theory 之實證研究
★ 人才移動、家庭遷移與技術移轉-以台商在上海地區就職為例★ 電子商務消費者行為計量分析
★ 台灣B2C電子商務市場商品價格變動因素之探討—兼論虛擬市場與實體市場間之整合★ 高科技產業垂直分工與群聚效果之分析—以新竹科學園區為例
★ 電信不對稱管制之研究★ 臺灣地區大學教育報酬率時間變化趨勢之分析
★ 肢體障礙勞工教育與就業狀況之探討 -以傳訊理論與歧視理論為基礎★ 教育的信號功能分析─以國內事業單位為例
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]   [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。

摘要(中) 眾多文獻調查了企業社會責任對經濟效益的影響,多著重於企業個體因素之分析,然而經濟制度造成的商業組織制度與廠商行為動機等總體經濟因素卻較少被討論。本文將CSR定義為管理利害關係者之能力,使用資本主義多樣性分析經濟制度如何影響企業社會責任績效與財務績效之關聯性,此方法以企業從事CSR之動機為研究重點,探討不同動機引發的CSR模式與財務績效之間的關聯性。
依資本主義多樣性觀點將國家分為自由市場經濟 (加拿大與澳洲)、協調市場經濟 (德國、瑞典、芬蘭、丹麥、挪威與奧地利) 與國家主導型市場經濟 (法國),使用湯森路透Eikon with datastream資料庫和企業財務金融資料庫 (Compustat on S&P Capital IQ) 的資料,分析企業CSR績效與財務績效之間的影響。透過實證模型本文得到三個主要結果,第一,CSR績效與財務績效之間具有雙向之正向影響;第二,與自由市場經濟制度相比,協調市場經濟制度、國家主導型市場經濟制度對CSR績效、財務績效皆有更大的正向影響;第三,不同經濟制度之下,CSR績效與財務績效之影響程度有所不同,兩者之關聯性在自由市場經濟中最為強烈,協調市場經濟次之,國家主導型市場經濟最微弱。此結果可能是由於各國對於CSR制度化之程度差異所造成的,也就是說,CSR制度化不僅有利於提升CSR水平,也能提高企業的財務績效表現。
摘要(英) Extensive research has investigated the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on economic benefits, focusing on the analysis of factors of individual enterprise. However, the macroeconomic factors, such as the business organization and the motivation of manufacturers′ behavior caused by the national cultures and institutions, are less discussed. In this thesis, we define CSR as the ability to manage stakeholders and analyze how aspects of motives for engaging in CSR affect the relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance using the varieties of the capitalism (VOC) approach.

The study uses data from Thomson Reuters Eikon database and Compustat on S&P Capital IQ for a sample of firms from countries classified as liberal market economies (Australia and Canada), coordinated market economies (Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Austria), and state‐led market economies (France). Three main results are obtained in this thesis through the empirical model. First, there is a two-way positive effect between CSR performance and financial performance. Second, compared with liberal market economies, coordinated market economies and state‐led market economies have a greater positive impact on CSR performance and financial performance. Third, under different market economies, the degree of CSR performance and financial performance of the mutual influence is different. These results may be due to the differences in the level of institutionalization of CSR, that is, CSR institutionalization not only helps to raise CSR levels but also improves the financial performance of enterprises.
關鍵字(中) ★ 企業社會責任
★ 資本主義多樣性
★ 制度理論
★ 利害關係人理論
關鍵字(英) ★ corporate social responsibility
★ varieties of the capitalism
★ institutional theory
★ stakeholder theory
論文目次 摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 v
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究架構 3
第二章 文獻回顧 4
2.1 CSR 4
2.2 財務績效與CSR之關聯性 6
2.3 制度對CSR之影響 10
第三章 研究方法與變數說明 14
3.1 研究方法 14
3.2 資料來源與變數說明 16
3.3 敘述統計分析 21
第四章 實證結果 25
4.1 單變數檢驗 25
4.2 聯立方程模型 27
4.3 本章小節 32
第五章 結論 34
5.1 實證結論與討論 34
5.2 研究限制與建議 36
參考文獻 37
參考文獻 Agudelo, M. A. L., Jóhannsdóttir, L., & Davídsdóttir, B. (2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(1), 1.
Arrow, K. J. (1973). Social responsibility and economic efficiency. Public Policy, 21(3), 303-317.
Barkemeyer, R. (2007). Legitimacy as a key driver and determinant of CSR in developing countries. Paper presented at “the 2007 Marie Curie Summer School on Earth System Governance”, Amsterdam.
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of business ethics, 97(1), 71-86.
Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. (2008). Corporate Social Reporting and Reputation Risk Management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337-361
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic management journal, 30(8), 895-907.
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair‐trade coffee. Journal of consumer affairs, 39(2), 363-385.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional‐stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management studies, 43(1), 47-73.
Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In Corporate ethics and corporate governance (pp. 173-178). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business ethics quarterly, 409-421.
Gallego‐Álvarez, I., & Quina‐Custodio, I. A. (2017). Corporate social responsibility reporting and varieties of capitalism: An international analysis of state‐led and liberal market economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(6), 478-495.
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 235-248.
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Hall PA, Soskice D (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford; 1–68.
Hong, H., Kubik, J. D., & Scheinkman, J. A. (2012). Financial constraints on corporate goodness (No. w18476). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1979). Rights and production functions: An application to labor-managed firms and codetermination. Journal of business, 469-506.
Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics, 106(1), 53-72.
Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2012). Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutional analysis of three capitalisms. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 85-108.
Kao, E. H., Yeh, C. C., Wang, L. H., & Fung, H. G. (2018). The relationship between CSR and performance: Evidence in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 51, 155-170.
Lys, T., Naughton, J. P., & Wang, C. (2015). Signaling through corporate accountability reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 56-72.
Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business & Society, 45(1), 20-46.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?. Strategic management journal, 21(5), 603-609.
—— (2001) ——Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review, 26(1), 117-127.
North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of economic perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
Pérez, A., & Del Bosque, I. R. (2013). Measuring CSR image: three studies to develop and to validate a reliable measurement tool. Journal of business ethics, 118(2), 265-286.
Preston, L. E., & O′bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36(4), 419-429.
Schlierer, H. J., Werner, A., Signori, S., Garriga, E., von Weltzien Hoivik, H., Van Rossem, A., & Fassin, Y. (2012). How do European SME owner–managers make sense of ‘stakeholder management’?: Insights from a cross-national study. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), 39-51.
Shiu, Y. M., & Yang, S. L. (2017). Does engagement in corporate social responsibility provide strategic insurance‐like effects?. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 455-470.
Tang, Z., Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2012). How corporate social responsibility engagement strategy moderates the CSR–financial performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1274-1303.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic management journal, 18(4), 303-319.
Wang, Z., & Sarkis, J. (2017). Corporate social responsibility governance, outcomes, and financial performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1607-1616.
Weber, M. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26(4), 247-261.
Young, S., & Marais, M. (2012). A multi‐level perspective of CSR reporting: The implications of national institutions and industry risk characteristics. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(5), 432-450
指導教授 單驥(Gee San) 審核日期 2020-8-20
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明