學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 台灣上市櫃公司機構投資人及經理人持股比率與ESG績效之關聯性研究
The association between institutional and managerial ownership and ESG performance of Taiwan listed companies作者 陳侑暄
Chen, You-Xuan貢獻者 林宛瑩
Lin, Wan-Ying
陳侑暄
Chen, You-Xuan關鍵詞 機構投資人持股
經理人持股
ESG績效
Institutional ownership
Managerial ownership
ESG performance日期 2023 上傳時間 6-Jul-2023 16:48:51 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究以台灣上市櫃公司（排除金融業）為樣本，樣本期間為2018年至2021年，探討機構投資人及經理人持股比率與ESG整體及個別構面績效之關聯性。實證結果顯示，外國機構投資人持股比率與ESG整體績效和個別之治理績效呈顯著正相關；外國機構投資人持股比率與個別之環境績效間雖呈正相關但不顯著；外國機構投資人持股比率與個別社會績效間則呈顯著負相關。在國內機構投資人持股比率方面，其與ESG整體績效、個別環境績效及社會績效呈顯著正相關；惟其與治理績效之關聯性雖呈正相關惟不顯著。以經理人持股比率而言，其和ESG整體績效、個別環境績效及治理績效呈顯著正相關；惟經理人持股比率與社會績效雖存在正相關但並不顯著。本研究以外國機構投資人、國內機構投資人與經理人前一期的持股比率，探討其與當期ESG績效（整體及個別構面）之關聯性作為額外測試。分析發現，前一期的外國機構投資人持股比率與當期的個別環境績效由主測試的正相關但並不顯著轉為顯著正相關；前一期之國內機構投資人持股比率與當期之個別治理績效由主測試的正相關但並不顯著轉為顯著正相關，其餘實證分析結果皆與主測試一致。
This study examines the relationship between institutional and managerial ownership and ESG performance, using a sample of Taiwanese listed companies (excluding the financial industry) over the period of 2018 to 2021.The results show that the foreign institutional ownership is significantly and positively associated with overall ESG performance and governance performance, and it is positively but not statistically significant correlated to environmental performance. However, there is a significant negative correlation between the foreign institutional ownership and social performance. As for the domestic institutional ownership, it is significantly and positively correlated to overall ESG performance, environmental and social performance. Nevertheless, its association with governance performance is positively but not statistically significant. With respect to the managerial ownership, it is significantly and positively correlated to overall ESG performance, environmental and governance performance. Nonetheless, there is a positive but not statistically significant correlation between the managerial ownership and social performance.The results of additional tests on the impact of the previous period`s institutional and managerial ownership on the current period`s ESG performance indicate that there is a significantly positive relationship between foreign (domestic) institutional ownership and environmental (governance) performance. The remaining empirical results remain consistent with the main test results.參考文獻 陸孝立，2020年11月13日，《會計師看時事》發展永續金融，留意赤道原則變動，2023年5月26日，參見網址https://www2.deloitte.com/tw/tc/pages/risk/articles/pr201113-cs-risk-perspectives.html陳冠宙、陳育成、陳雪如，2005，影響上市公司網站資訊透明度因子之實證，會計與公司治理，第二卷第一期，頁33-59。湯偉宏，2020，企業投入ESG效益之研究－以總體經濟、機構投資人探討，國立政治大學金融學系碩士論文。Abay, Z. (2022). The signalling role of voluntary ESG assurance. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, 14(3), 265-294.Al Amosh, H., & Khatib, S. F. (2021). Ownership structure and environmental, social and governance performance disclosure: the moderating role of the board independence. Journal of Business and Socio-Economic Development, 27 (April), 2022: 49-66.Bai, X., Han, J., Ma, Y., & Zhang, W. (2022). ESG Performance, Institutional Investors’ Preference and Financing Constraints: Empirical Evidence from China. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(S2), S157-S168.Bansal, S., Lopez-Perez, M. V., & Rodriguez-Ariza, L. (2018). Board independence and corporate social responsibility disclosure: The mediating role of the presence of family ownership. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 33-53.Bushee, B. J. (1998). The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Review, 73(3), 305-333.Chau, G., & Gray, S. J. (2010). Family ownership, board independence and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 19(2), 93-109.Chen, Z., Du, J., Li, D., & Ouyang, R. (2013). Does foreign institutional ownership increase return volatility? Evidence from China. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(2), 660-669.Cho, J., & Ryu, H. (2022). Impact of Managerial Ownership on Corporate Social Responsibility in Korea. Sustainability, 14(9), 5347.Chung, R., Firth, M., & Kim, J. B. (2002). Institutional monitoring and opportunistic earnings management. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8(1), 29-48.Cornett, M. M., Marcus, A. J., Saunders, A., & Tehranian, H. (2007). The impact of institutional ownership on corporate operating performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(6), 1771-1794.Ferreira, M. A., & Matos, P. (2008). The colors of investors’ money: The role of institutional investors around the world. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3), 499-533.Ghazali, N. A. M. (2007). Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: some Malaysian evidence. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 7(3), 251-266.Habbash, M. (2016). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: evidence from Saudi Arabia. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(4), 740-754.Husted, B. W., & de Sousa-Filho, J. M. (2019). Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 102(Sep.), 220-227.Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.Jensen, M. C., & Ruback, R. S. (1983). The market for corporate control: The scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1-4), 5-50.Jiang, L., & Kim, J. B. (2004). Foreign equity ownership and information asymmetry: Evidence from Japan. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 15(3), 185-211.Kim, I., Miller, S., Wan, H., & Wang, B. (2016). Drivers behind the monitoring effectiveness of global institutional investors: Evidence from earnings management. Journal of Corporate Finance, 40(Oct.), 24-46.Kim, J. B., Pevzner, M., & Xin, X. (2019). Foreign institutional ownership and auditor choice: Evidence from worldwide institutional ownership. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(1), 83-110.Kim, J. W., & Park, C. K. (2022). Can ESG Performance Mitigate Information Asymmetry? Moderating Effect of Assurance Services. Applied Economics, 55(26), 2993-3007.Lagasio, V., & Cucari, N. (2019). Corporate governance and environmental social governance disclosure: A meta‐analytical review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 701-711.Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1988). Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20(January-March), 293-315.Muttakin, M. B., & Subramaniam, N. (2015). Firm ownership and board characteristics: do they matter for corporate social responsibility disclosure of Indian companies?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(2), 138-165.Park, Y. K., & Chung, K. H. (2007). Foreign and local institutional ownership and the speed of price adjustment. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 34(9‐10), 1569-1595.Pound, J. (1988). Proxy contests and the efficiency of shareholder oversight. Journal of Financial Economics, 20(January-March), 237-265.Rees, W., & Rodionova, T. (2015). The influence of family ownership on corporate social responsibility: An international analysis of publicly listed companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(3), 184-202.Sarhan, A. A., & Al‐Najjar, B. (2022). The influence of corporate governance and shareholding structure on corporate social responsibility: The key role of executive compensation. International Journal of Finance & Economics, available at https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2663Sarkar, J., Sarkar, S., & Sen, K. (2008). Board of directors and opportunistic earnings management: Evidence from India. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 23(4), 517-551.Shan, Y. G., Tang, Q., & Zhang, J. (2021). The impact of managerial ownership on carbon transparency: Australian evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 317, 128480.Shin, I., & Park, S. (2020). Role of foreign and domestic institutional investors in corporate sustainability: Focusing on R&D investment. Sustainability, 12(20), 8754.Taglialatela, J., Barontini, R., Testa, F., & Iraldo, F. (2022). Blockholders and the ESG performance of M&A targets. Journal of Management and Governance, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09665-2Thanatawee, Y. (2014). Institutional ownership and firm value in Thailand. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 7(2), 1-22.The Equator Principles (EP). 2020. Equator Principles - EP4. Available at: https://equator-principles.com/app/uploads/The-Equator-Principles_EP4_July2020.pdf. Accessed: May 22, 2023.Velte, P. (2016). Women on management board and ESG performance. Journal of Global Responsibility, 7(1), 98-109.Velte, P. (2017). Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 8(2), 169-178.Velury, U., & Jenkins, D. S. (2006). Institutional ownership and the quality of earnings. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 1043-1051.Wang, T., & Cheng, D. (2022). Executive shareholding, institutional investor shareholding and enterprise innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, available at https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2021-0553Yu, H. C., Kuo, L., & Ma, B. (2020). The drivers of corporate water disclosure in enhancing information transparency. Sustainability, 12(1), 385-398. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
會計學系
110353004資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110353004 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 林宛瑩 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Wan-Ying en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳侑暄 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, You-Xuan en_US dc.creator (作者) 陳侑暄 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chen, You-Xuan en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 6-Jul-2023 16:48:51 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 6-Jul-2023 16:48:51 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 6-Jul-2023 16:48:51 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0110353004 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/145870 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 會計學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 110353004 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究以台灣上市櫃公司（排除金融業）為樣本，樣本期間為2018年至2021年，探討機構投資人及經理人持股比率與ESG整體及個別構面績效之關聯性。實證結果顯示，外國機構投資人持股比率與ESG整體績效和個別之治理績效呈顯著正相關；外國機構投資人持股比率與個別之環境績效間雖呈正相關但不顯著；外國機構投資人持股比率與個別社會績效間則呈顯著負相關。在國內機構投資人持股比率方面，其與ESG整體績效、個別環境績效及社會績效呈顯著正相關；惟其與治理績效之關聯性雖呈正相關惟不顯著。以經理人持股比率而言，其和ESG整體績效、個別環境績效及治理績效呈顯著正相關；惟經理人持股比率與社會績效雖存在正相關但並不顯著。本研究以外國機構投資人、國內機構投資人與經理人前一期的持股比率，探討其與當期ESG績效（整體及個別構面）之關聯性作為額外測試。分析發現，前一期的外國機構投資人持股比率與當期的個別環境績效由主測試的正相關但並不顯著轉為顯著正相關；前一期之國內機構投資人持股比率與當期之個別治理績效由主測試的正相關但並不顯著轉為顯著正相關，其餘實證分析結果皆與主測試一致。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study examines the relationship between institutional and managerial ownership and ESG performance, using a sample of Taiwanese listed companies (excluding the financial industry) over the period of 2018 to 2021.The results show that the foreign institutional ownership is significantly and positively associated with overall ESG performance and governance performance, and it is positively but not statistically significant correlated to environmental performance. However, there is a significant negative correlation between the foreign institutional ownership and social performance. As for the domestic institutional ownership, it is significantly and positively correlated to overall ESG performance, environmental and social performance. Nevertheless, its association with governance performance is positively but not statistically significant. With respect to the managerial ownership, it is significantly and positively correlated to overall ESG performance, environmental and governance performance. Nonetheless, there is a positive but not statistically significant correlation between the managerial ownership and social performance.The results of additional tests on the impact of the previous period`s institutional and managerial ownership on the current period`s ESG performance indicate that there is a significantly positive relationship between foreign (domestic) institutional ownership and environmental (governance) performance. The remaining empirical results remain consistent with the main test results. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第壹章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機與目的 1第二節 研究議題與預期貢獻 4第三節 論文架構 7第貳章 文獻探討 8第一節 股權結構 8第二節 CSR及ESG之績效與揭露 14第三節 CSR/ESG之績效與揭露和股權結構 17第參章 研究方法 20第一節 研究假說 20第二節 實證模型、變數定義與衡量方法 23第三節 樣本選取與研究資料來源 30第肆章 實證結果分析 32第一節 敘述性統計 32第二節 相關係數矩陣 36第三節 迴歸分析 39第四節 額外測試 55第伍章 結論與建議 78第一節 研究結論 78第二節 研究限制與未來研究建議 80參考文獻 82 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3220743 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110353004 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 機構投資人持股 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 經理人持股 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) ESG績效 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Institutional ownership en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Managerial ownership en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) ESG performance en_US dc.title (題名) 台灣上市櫃公司機構投資人及經理人持股比率與ESG績效之關聯性研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The association between institutional and managerial ownership and ESG performance of Taiwan listed companies en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陸孝立，2020年11月13日，《會計師看時事》發展永續金融，留意赤道原則變動，2023年5月26日，參見網址https://www2.deloitte.com/tw/tc/pages/risk/articles/pr201113-cs-risk-perspectives.html陳冠宙、陳育成、陳雪如，2005，影響上市公司網站資訊透明度因子之實證，會計與公司治理，第二卷第一期，頁33-59。湯偉宏，2020，企業投入ESG效益之研究－以總體經濟、機構投資人探討，國立政治大學金融學系碩士論文。Abay, Z. (2022). The signalling role of voluntary ESG assurance. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, 14(3), 265-294.Al Amosh, H., & Khatib, S. F. (2021). Ownership structure and environmental, social and governance performance disclosure: the moderating role of the board independence. Journal of Business and Socio-Economic Development, 27 (April), 2022: 49-66.Bai, X., Han, J., Ma, Y., & Zhang, W. (2022). ESG Performance, Institutional Investors’ Preference and Financing Constraints: Empirical Evidence from China. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(S2), S157-S168.Bansal, S., Lopez-Perez, M. V., & Rodriguez-Ariza, L. (2018). Board independence and corporate social responsibility disclosure: The mediating role of the presence of family ownership. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 33-53.Bushee, B. J. (1998). The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Review, 73(3), 305-333.Chau, G., & Gray, S. J. (2010). Family ownership, board independence and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 19(2), 93-109.Chen, Z., Du, J., Li, D., & Ouyang, R. (2013). Does foreign institutional ownership increase return volatility? Evidence from China. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(2), 660-669.Cho, J., & Ryu, H. (2022). Impact of Managerial Ownership on Corporate Social Responsibility in Korea. Sustainability, 14(9), 5347.Chung, R., Firth, M., & Kim, J. B. (2002). Institutional monitoring and opportunistic earnings management. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8(1), 29-48.Cornett, M. M., Marcus, A. J., Saunders, A., & Tehranian, H. (2007). The impact of institutional ownership on corporate operating performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(6), 1771-1794.Ferreira, M. A., & Matos, P. (2008). The colors of investors’ money: The role of institutional investors around the world. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3), 499-533.Ghazali, N. A. M. (2007). Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: some Malaysian evidence. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 7(3), 251-266.Habbash, M. (2016). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: evidence from Saudi Arabia. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(4), 740-754.Husted, B. W., & de Sousa-Filho, J. M. (2019). Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 102(Sep.), 220-227.Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.Jensen, M. C., & Ruback, R. S. (1983). The market for corporate control: The scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1-4), 5-50.Jiang, L., & Kim, J. B. (2004). Foreign equity ownership and information asymmetry: Evidence from Japan. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 15(3), 185-211.Kim, I., Miller, S., Wan, H., & Wang, B. (2016). Drivers behind the monitoring effectiveness of global institutional investors: Evidence from earnings management. Journal of Corporate Finance, 40(Oct.), 24-46.Kim, J. B., Pevzner, M., & Xin, X. (2019). Foreign institutional ownership and auditor choice: Evidence from worldwide institutional ownership. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(1), 83-110.Kim, J. W., & Park, C. K. (2022). Can ESG Performance Mitigate Information Asymmetry? Moderating Effect of Assurance Services. Applied Economics, 55(26), 2993-3007.Lagasio, V., & Cucari, N. (2019). Corporate governance and environmental social governance disclosure: A meta‐analytical review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 701-711.Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1988). Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20(January-March), 293-315.Muttakin, M. B., & Subramaniam, N. (2015). Firm ownership and board characteristics: do they matter for corporate social responsibility disclosure of Indian companies?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(2), 138-165.Park, Y. K., & Chung, K. H. (2007). Foreign and local institutional ownership and the speed of price adjustment. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 34(9‐10), 1569-1595.Pound, J. (1988). Proxy contests and the efficiency of shareholder oversight. Journal of Financial Economics, 20(January-March), 237-265.Rees, W., & Rodionova, T. (2015). The influence of family ownership on corporate social responsibility: An international analysis of publicly listed companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(3), 184-202.Sarhan, A. A., & Al‐Najjar, B. (2022). The influence of corporate governance and shareholding structure on corporate social responsibility: The key role of executive compensation. International Journal of Finance & Economics, available at https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2663Sarkar, J., Sarkar, S., & Sen, K. (2008). Board of directors and opportunistic earnings management: Evidence from India. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 23(4), 517-551.Shan, Y. G., Tang, Q., & Zhang, J. (2021). The impact of managerial ownership on carbon transparency: Australian evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 317, 128480.Shin, I., & Park, S. (2020). Role of foreign and domestic institutional investors in corporate sustainability: Focusing on R&D investment. Sustainability, 12(20), 8754.Taglialatela, J., Barontini, R., Testa, F., & Iraldo, F. (2022). Blockholders and the ESG performance of M&A targets. Journal of Management and Governance, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09665-2Thanatawee, Y. (2014). Institutional ownership and firm value in Thailand. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 7(2), 1-22.The Equator Principles (EP). 2020. Equator Principles - EP4. Available at: https://equator-principles.com/app/uploads/The-Equator-Principles_EP4_July2020.pdf. Accessed: May 22, 2023.Velte, P. (2016). Women on management board and ESG performance. Journal of Global Responsibility, 7(1), 98-109.Velte, P. (2017). Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 8(2), 169-178.Velury, U., & Jenkins, D. S. (2006). Institutional ownership and the quality of earnings. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 1043-1051.Wang, T., & Cheng, D. (2022). Executive shareholding, institutional investor shareholding and enterprise innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, available at https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2021-0553Yu, H. C., Kuo, L., & Ma, B. (2020). The drivers of corporate water disclosure in enhancing information transparency. Sustainability, 12(1), 385-398. zh_TW
