企業社會責任與企業財務績效的相互關係-以工業電腦業為例

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：85

、訪客IP：18.188.107.57

姓名

鄭吉宏(Chi-Hung Cheng) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系在職專班

論文名稱

企業社會責任與企業財務績效的相互關係-以工業電腦業為例

相關論文

★ 台灣與大陸在ERP專案管理、專案成員向心力與離心力的不同之處	★ ERP專案成員離心力與向心力對代理問題之影響
★ 事業策略、人力資源管理與組織績效之實證研究	★ 商用飛機維修成本控制之研究-以某國籍航空公司為例
★ ERP系統更換關鍵成功因素研究-以Oracle系統導入為例	★ 中小企業自行開發ERP 系統關鍵成功因素研究- 以高科技產業為例
★ 文化創意產業產品策略選擇之影響因素-以國片為例	★ 專案管理風險對ERP專案成功之影響
★ 品質機能展開與多準則決策於設備開發應用	★ ERP導入品質因素對IFRS轉換專案之影響
★ ERP投資金額對服務品質及導入後IT治理目標之分析	★ ERP 導入問題對專案的影響
★ IFRS轉換對員工退休金計畫影響	★ IFRS轉換對企業績效評估的影響
★ IFRS轉換問題對IFRS效益的影響	★ ERP環境下企業集團自行編製合併報表能力對XBRL資訊透明度之研究

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)

隨著全球對永續發展及碳交易權益的重視日增，企業在環境、社會及公司治理（ESG）的表現已成為投資者選擇投資標的的關鍵指標。本研究選取2018年至2022年間台灣上市及上櫃的工業電腦業作為研究樣本，旨在探討在COVID-19疫情嚴重衝擊下，該產業的ESG表現如何影響其財務績效與公司價值。研究進一步比較了疫情期間與非疫情期間台灣工業電腦業的社會責任表現，探討其對財務績效和公司價值的影響是否有顯著差異。
研究結果顯示，在2018年至2022年期間，台灣工業電腦業的整體ESG表現對於資產回報率（ROA）、股東權益回報率（ROE）及Tobin’s Q 均有顯著正向影響。然而，ESG表現在COVID-19期間相較於非COVID-19期間，對財務績效的正面影響並未顯示更大的邊際解釋力。此外，雖然在COVID-19期間，ESG各構面（環境、社會、治理）對財務績效和公司價值的影響整體上不顯著，但在疫情期間社會構面對ROE的正向影響較非疫情期間更為顯著。
這些發現提示我們，在全球面臨公共衛生危機的當下，企業的社會責任表現可能在投資者和市場評價中扮演著日益重要的角色。未來研究可以進一步探索不同ESG構面如何在各種外部壓力下影響企業表現，並考慮對不同行業或不同規模的企業進行類似的研究，以獲得更全面的理解。
關鍵字：ESG、環境保護、社會責任、公司治理、工業電腦業、COVID-19

摘要(英)

As global emphasis on sustainable development and carbon trading rights increases, corporate performance in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) has become a key metric for investors when selecting investment targets. This study uses the industrial computer industry listed on Taiwan′s stock and OTC markets from 2018 to 2022 as a sample to investigate how ESG performance affects financial performance and corporate value under the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It further compares the social responsibility performance of the industry during and outside the pandemic period, examining whether there is a significant difference in its impact on financial performance and corporate value.
The results show that during the period from 2018 to 2022, the overall ESG performance of Taiwan′s industrial computer industry had a significant positive impact on Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE), and Tobin′s Q. However, the ESG performance did not exhibit greater explanatory power for financial performance during the COVID-19 period compared to the non-COVID-19 period. Additionally, although the impact of ESG aspects (environmental, social, governance) on financial performance and corporate value was not significant during the pandemic, the social aspect had a more pronounced positive impact on ROE during the pandemic than outside it.
These findings suggest that corporate social responsibility performance may play an increasingly important role in investor and market evaluations during global public health crises. Future research could further explore how different ESG aspects affect corporate performance under various external pressures, and consider similar studies across different industries or scales for a more comprehensive understanding.
Keywords: ESG, environmental protection, social responsibility, corporate governance, industrial computer industry, COVID-19

關鍵字(中)

★ 環境保護
★ 社會責任
★ 公司治理
★ 工業電腦業

關鍵字(英)

★ ESG
★ COVID-19

論文目次

摘要 .................................... i
ABSTRACT ................................. ii
誌謝 .....................................iii
目錄 ..................................... iv
表目錄...................................... vi
圖目錄......................................viii
第一章緒論 .................................. 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 ........................... 1
1-2 研究架構 ............................... 2
第二章文獻探討與假說發展 ............... 3
2-1 文獻探討 ............................... 3
2-1-1 環境、社會與公司治理 ................... 3
2-1-2 考量臺灣工業電腦業可能面臨底下問題 ............ 5
2-2 假說發展 .................... 5
第三章研究方法 ..................8
3-1 資料來源與選樣方法 ....................... 8
3-2 實證模型 .......................... 8
3-2-1 假說一模型建立 ..................... 8
3-2-2 假說二模型建立 ....................... 10
3-2-3 假說三模型建立 ...................... 11
3-3 變數衡量與說明 ......................... 13
3-3-1 應變數 .................................... 13
3-3-2 自變數 ..................................... 13
3-3-3 分組虛擬變數 .................... 14
3-3-4 控制變數 ................................... 14
第四章研究發現 ...................................... 16
4-1 敘述性統計 ...................................... 16
4-2 相關性分析 ................................... 18
4-3 迴歸分析 ........................................ 19
4-3-1 假說一回歸結果發現 ............................ 19
4-3-2 假說二的迴歸分析結果發現 ................ 22
4-3-3 假說三的迴歸分析結果發現 ............. 24
4-4 感性分析及額外檢測 .................................. 25
4-4-1 假說一敏感性分析的迴歸結果發現 ......... 25
4-4-2 控制變數敏感性分析 ............................ 38
4-4-3 變數間的互相影響中介控制變數分析Process............ 45
第五章結論與建議 ................ 53
5-1 研究結論 ..................... 53
5-2 研究限制與建議 ...................... 54
參考文獻 ....................................... 55

參考文獻

1. 經濟部統計處商業資料
https://www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/dos/bulletin/Bulletin.aspx?kind=9&html=1&menu_id=18808&bull_id=12376
2. 金融監督管理委員會. (2020). 公司治理 3.0-永續發展藍圖. Retrieved 2023/4/16from https://www.fsc.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=96&parentpath=0,2&mcustomize=news_view.jsp& dataserno=202008250004&dtable=News
3. 衛生福利部疾病管理署. (2020a). 疾病介紹. Retrieved 2023/4/3 from https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/Page/vleOMKqwuEbIMgqaTeXG8A
4. 衛生福利部疾病管理署. (2020b). 109 年衛生福利部疾病管理署新聞稿. Retrieved 2023/4/3 from https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Bulletin/Detail/mwGBh07PQ_2FeJvl9xhfZw?typeid=9
5. 衛生福利部疾病管理署. (2021). 110 年衛生福利部疾病管理署新聞稿. Retrieved 2023/4/3from https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Bulletin/Detail/E7bi2j8UYj1Rmz73OPE7Yg?typeid=9
6. 聯合國人類環境會議宣言. (2015). 《人類環境宣言》. Retrieved 2023/4/12 from
https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dunche/dunche.html
1. Alareeni, B. A., & Hamdan, A. (2020). ESG impact on performance of US S&P 500-listed firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.
2. Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., & Zhang, C. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science, 65(10), 4451-4469.
3. 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.
4. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
5. Chung, K. H., & Pruitt, S. W. (1994). A simple approximation of Tobin′s q. Financial management, 70-74.
Clark, G. L., Feiner, A., & Viehs, M. (2015). From the stockholder to the stakeholder: How sustainability can drive financial outperformance. Available at SSRN 2508281.
6. Ding, W., Levine, R., Lin, C., & Xie, W. (2021). Corporate immunity to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Financial Economics, 141(2), 802-830.
7. Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business. Environmental quality management, 8(1), 37-51.
8. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.
Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of sustainable finance & investment, 5(4), 210-233.
9. Friedman, M. (1970). A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13(1970), 32-33.
10. Gompers, P. A., & Metrick, A. (2001). Institutional investors and equity prices. The quarterly journal of Economics, 116(1), 229-259.
11. Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & society, 36(1), 5-31.
12. Ilyukhin, E. (2015). The impact of financial leverage on firm performance: Evidence from Russia. Корпоративные финансы, 9(2), 24-36.
13. Lee, E. M., Park, S.-Y., Rapert, M. I., & Newman, C. L. (2012). Does perceived consumer fit matter in corporate social responsibility issues? Journal of business research, 65(11), 1558-1564.
14. Mak, Y. T., & Kusnadi, Y. (2005). Size really matters: Further evidence on the 41
negative relationship between board size and firm value. Pacific-Basin finance journal, 13(3), 301-318.
15. Tobin, J. (1969). A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory. Journal of money, credit and banking, 1(1), 15-29.
16. Tsoutsoura, M. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance.
17. Yeganeh, Y. H., & Barzegar, G. (2014). The effect of disclosure level of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on corporate financial performance (CFP) in Tehran stock exchange. International Journal of Accounting
57
Research, 1(11), 43-51.
18. Hayes, Andrew F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications, 2017.
19. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management review, 32(3), 946-967.
20. Olivia, Devi, Yulian, Pompeng., Jettri, Eleonora, Rambak. (2022). Cash Flow Ratio Analysis as a Measuring Tool for The Company′s Financial Performance at PT. Astra International Tbk. 1(2):01-08. doi: 10.55606/iceb.v1i2.107
21. syahyunan. (2015). manajemen keuangan 1, edisi ketiga. medan: usu press
22. Bose, D. Chandra. Fundamentals of Financial management. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2011. Bose, D. Chandra. Fundamentals of Financial management. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2011.
23. Accounting Treatment of R&D Expenditures and Firm-Specific Characteristics of the R&D Capital (Pasi Karjalainen, 2003)
24. Nicholas, J., Cox. (1998). WINSOR: Stata module to Winsorize a variable. Statistical Software Components,

指導教授

蔡文賢

審核日期

2024-6-26

推文