Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141306
題名: 以察覺-動機-能力觀點探究ESG對企業的影響
Exploring the corporates` impact of ESG from the Awareness-Motivation-Capability Perspective
作者: 吳其芳
Wu, Chi-Fang
貢獻者: 侯勝宗
吳其芳
Wu, Chi-Fang
關鍵詞: 察覺-動機-能力
AMC觀點
ESG
利害關係人理論
ESG
AWARENESS-MOTIVATION-CAPABILITY
AMC Perspective
Stakeholder theory
日期: 2022
上傳時間: 1-Aug-2022
摘要: 環境變遷的風險已成為全球都必須面對的難題,ESG的浪潮席捲而來,社會大眾開始監督企業ESG的發展,對於企業寄與厚望,他們認為企業立足於社會,也是社會的一份子,所以企業在創造利潤、爭取對股東最大利益的同時,還要承擔員工與相關利害關係人之社會、環境責任。\n本文以華碩和宏碁兩間電腦品牌公司為個案分析,兩間個案在全球電腦品牌銷售佔比約為第五名與第六名,ESG的發展偏向業界後進者的角色,研究中運用察覺(AWARENESS)-動機(MOTIVATION)-能力(CAPABILITY)觀點(以下簡稱AMC觀點)去探究ESG對個案企業的發展影響。首先運用利害關係人理論分成「制度的變更」、「同業的競爭」和「消費者偏好」的三類影響,將個案企業收集而來的相關ESG發展之次級資料統整後,透過與個案企業高階主管進行半結構式的訪談,分析整理出其發展動機和個案企業ESG的行動能力展現,最後透過個案企業能力的兩相比較,得出ESG對企業的影響的為何。\n本研究發現,AMC觀點適用於個案企業ESG發展的探討,但是在針對兩間個案企業的ESG行動能力比較分析時,會發現兩間個案公司擁有不同的技術能力與發展背景,在環境面與社會面的發展有著趨同的行為,在公司治理面上才有較明顯的發展差異。\n故本文認為ESG的全球發展備受社會注目,但個案企業較偏向業界的後進者,所以企業在不可抗拒的外在環境影響因素,如環境面與社會面的發展趨於保守,但在公司治理面中力求突破與創新,以期能在商場中脫穎而出。
The risk of climate change has become a problem that the world must face. The wave of ESG is sweeping everyone, and the public has begun to supervise the development of corporate ESG. The public wishes while the corporate is creating profits and striving for the best interests of shareholders, enterprises must also undertake social and environmental responsibilities of employees and relevant stakeholders.\nThis research is based on the case analysis of the two computer brand companies of ASUS and Acer, to explore the corporates` impact of ESG from AWARENESS -Motivity –Capability(AMC) Perspective. First of all, use the stakeholder’s theory to divide the influences into three categories: "Change of system", "Competition in the industry" and "Consumer preferences". Then make a semi-structure interview with the senior executive of the cases’ corporates, analyzed and sorted out the development of its development motivation and the ability of the ESG of the enterprise. In the end, compared with the two cases of the company`s ESG capabilities, the impact of ESG on the cases was obtained.\nThis research finds that the AMC perspective is suitable for the discussion of ESG development of the case companies, but when comparing and analyzing the ESG action capabilities of the two case companies, it were found that the two case companies have different technical capabilities and development backgrounds, but the ESG Environment and Social capability abilities are very similar. In terms of ESG Governance, there are obvious development differences.\nTherefore, this research speculates that the global development of ESG has attracted the attention of the public, so companies tend to be conservative in the development of irresistible external environmental factors, such as ESG Environment and Social development, but strive to make breakthroughs and innovations in ESG Governance, in order to stand out in the market.
參考文獻: 中文文獻\n(譯)林豪傑、喬友慶、侯勝宗(2008)。動態競爭策略探微:理論、實證與應用(陳明哲)。台北:智勝文化事業公司。\n中華中道領導文化總會祕書處、中華民國品質學會品質專案規劃委員會ZDALC-CSQ ESG企業永續經營服務團隊 (2021),ESG--整合管理系統,品質月刊,57卷3期頁30-40。\n中華中道領導文化總會秘書處、中華民國品質學會品質專案規劃委員會ZDALC-CSQ ESG企業永續經營服務團隊 (2021),ESG上市上櫃公司的永續發展藍圖,品質月刊,57卷1期頁10-17。\n吳慧玲(2009)。淺談我國企業社會責任相關規範及推動情形。證券暨期貨月刊,第29卷第8期,頁5-21。\n吳淑鶯、陳瑞和、陳燕柔 (2015),企業社會責任對消費者品牌關係影響之研究,中華管理評論,頁(6)1-(6)27。\n李佳頤. (2016). 企業,品牌競爭策略的可為與不可為。台灣財團法人經濟研究院,Taiwan economic research monthly, 39(9)。\n林公孚(2021)。認識ESG及其實施之道,品質月刊,57卷8期頁4-7。\n侯勝宗(2017)。小國大品牌:從委託代工到自創品牌的競合轉身。台北:財團法人中衛發展中心。\n洪緯典、吳宜螢(2016)。文化創意產業的同質化與多元化:制度理論與新媒體的觀點.” 中華管理發展評論 5.2 (2016)。\n施振榮(1996)。再造宏碁。台北:天下文化出版。\n胡木成、李秀玉(2017)。公司利害關係人相關問題之探討。華人經濟研究,15(2),1-11。\n張詠晴、李啟華(2021)。實踐永續發展目標之決定因素。中華會計學刊 17.1 (2021)。\n張國義、陳淑玲、呂依璇(2015)。團隊競爭氣候對業務人 員任務績效之影響歷程:察覺-動機-能耐觀點。臺大管理論叢,25(3),133-162。\n張雅婷、Chang, Ya-ting (2020),社會企業利害關係人之社會網絡分析--以里仁事業股份有限公司為例,中國行政評論,26卷3期頁30-63。\n許艷、彭耀平、唐資文、鄧天強、李慶章(2020)。以「察覺-動機-能力」觀點與「網絡關係觀點」初探「新南向政策」對企業國際化歷程之影響:以餐飲服務產業個案為例。臺大管理論叢,30(3),1-44。doi:10.6226/NTUMR.202012_30(3).0001\n陳育成,許峰睿,黃聖雯(2013),企業社會責任與經營績效之關聯性研究,會計之友-管理論壇,13,28-31。\n喬友慶、蕭櫓、黃俊儒、廖仲威(2012)。廠商採取市場導向行為會有較佳的績效嗎?動態競爭觀點。臺大管理論叢,22(2),27-58。\n曾真真、賴勇成、簡俊成(2020)。行為理論及AMC模型對管理人風險承擔的影響-以台灣電子資訊製造業赴大陸投資為例。管理與系統,27(1),53-76。\n曾憲立(Hsien-Lee Tseng), 朱斌妤(Pin-Yu Chu) & 吳濟華(Jih-Hwa Wu) (2015)。影響企業環境友善行為之關鍵因素:法令制度與利害關係人之整合觀點。公共行政學報,48, 043–072\n蔡進雄(2012)。從教育評鑑論大學系所同形化。臺灣教育評論月刊 1.8: 019–020. Web。\n蔡源成(Yuan-Cheng Tsai),李淑芳(Su-Fang Lee)&薛昭義(Chao-Yi Hsueh) (2014)。企業內部市場導向、外部市場導向、內部組織績效與外部組織績效關聯之實證研究。績效與策略研究,11(2), 045–076。\n蕭宏金、Hsiao, Luke (2010),網絡社會的責任領導,文官制度季刊,頁1-24。\n賴勇成、洪明洲(2006)。廠商之創新活動路徑,同形與績效間研究:以台灣半導體製造業為例。東吳經濟商學學報,(55),頁95-123。\n羅志敏(2007)。教育政策的运行原则与效率分析。34(6),201–204。\n蘇威傑(2017),為什麼企業要發佈永續報告書?從非市場觀點解釋,管理學報,頁331-353。\n外文文獻\nBanasal, P. and T. Hunter. (2003). Strategic explanations for the early adoption of ISO 14001. Journal of Business Ethics 46(3):289-299.\nBarreto, & Patient, david l. (2013). Toward a theory of intraorganizational attention based on desirability and feasibility factors. Strategic Management Journal, 34(6), 687–703.\nChen, M. &Miller, (1994). SOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES OF COMPETITIVE INERTIA - A STUDY OF THE UNITED-STATES AIRLINE INDUSTRY. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 1–23.\nChen. (1996). Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical Integration. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100–134.\nChen, & Miller, D. (2015). Reconceptualizing competitive dynamics: A multidimensional framework. Strategic Management Journal, 36(5), 758–775.\nChen, Su, K.-H., & Tsai, W. (2007). Competitive Tension: The Awareness-Motivation-Capability Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 101–118.\nChen, Chen, L., & Wu, D. (2018). Factors That Influence Employees’ Security Policy Compliance: An Awareness-Motivation-Capability Perspective. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 58(4), 312–324.\nClementino, & Perkins, R. (2020). How Do Companies Respond to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(2), 379–397.\nDAMIANO-TEIXEIRA, & POMPERMAYER, M. M. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility: Profile and Diagnosis of 797 Programs Developed in Brazil. Business and Society Review (1974), 112(3), 343–367.\nDiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American sociological review 48.2 (1983): 147–160. Web.\nDrempetic, Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2019). The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 333–360.\nDutton, & Duncan, R. B. (1987). The creation of momentum for change through the process of strategic issue diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal, 8(3), 279–295.\nFerrier. (2001). Navigating the Competitive Landscape: The Drivers and Consequences of Competitive Aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 858–877.\nFreeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.\nGale. (1972). Market Share and Rate of Return. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 54(4), 412–423.\nHaigh, N., & A. J. Hoffman. 2012. Hybrid Organizations: The Next Chapter of Sustainable Business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2): 126-134.\nLee, Zhang, W., & Abitbol, A. (2017). What Makes CSR Communication Lead to CSR Participation? Testing the Mediating Effects of CSR Associations, CSR Credibility, and Organization–Public Relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 413–429.\nLan. (n.d.). 2015 CSR Adoption by Chinese Firms for Global Competitiveness: An AMC Perspective. In Sustainable Development and CSR in China (pp. 55–64). Springer International Publishing.\nMendelow, A. 1991. Stakeholder Mapping. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Systems, Cambridge, MA.\nSavage, G. T., T. W. Nix, C. J. Whitehead & J. D. Blair. 1991. Strategies for Assessing and Managing Stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5: 61-75.\nSchniederjans, & Khalajhedayati, M. (2021). Competitive sustainability and stakeholder engagement: Exploring awareness, motivation, and capability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 808–824.\nShi, Connelly, B. L., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ketchen, D. J. (2021). Portfolio spillover of institutional investor activism: An awareness-motivation-capability perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 63(6), 1865–1892.\nSlater, & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–.\nvan Duuren, Plantinga, A., & Scholtens, B. (2016). ESG Integration and the Investment Management Process: Fundamental Investing Reinvented. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 525–533\nWooster, & Paul, D. L. (2016). Leadership positioning among U.S. firms investing in China. International Business Review, 25(1), 319–332.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
行政管理碩士學程
109921081
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109921081
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
108101.pdf4.43 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.