學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 家族企業與非家族企業高碳排特徵對公司財務指標之影響
How Family Business and Non-Family Business’s High Carbon Emission Feature Affects Firms’ Financial Performance作者 黃詩媛
Huang, Shih-Yuan貢獻者 江彌修
Chiang, Mi-Hsiu
黃詩媛
Huang, Shih-Yuan關鍵詞 家族企業
碳排放
股權結構
公司治理
研究發展
企業社會責任
Family Business
Carbon Emission
Ownership Structure
Corporate Governance
Research & Development (R&D)
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)日期 2022 上傳時間 1-Aug-2022 17:28:20 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究旨在探討自2015至2020年，共2796筆公司樣本中，台灣上市上櫃的家族企業是否因高碳排放特徵對於財務指標有不利的影響，其中也探討家族企業與非家族企業董事會結構與股權結構，以及若加入公司治理因子與研究發展因子會如何使高碳排特徵去影響財務指標等。研究結果顯示，高碳排特徵對於家族企業的負面影響較非家族企業大，尤其是短期績效影響甚大，若為出口導向科技產業因國際碳管制更加嚴格，會對於高碳排特徵更加敏感。但能藉由投入公司治理改善股權與董事會結構，與投入研發技術創新增強市場競爭力，進而提升公司營運表現，尤其是家族企業更需要重視這塊。
This study investigates whether the high carbon emission feature affects financial performance of family firms and adds moderating variables, such as Governance and R&D factors, to observe how the high carbon emission feature affects financial performance. Also, we want to know the difference between ownership structure and board structure in family firms and non-family firms. In this research, our data come from TEJ, including Taiwan’s listed companies from 2015 to 2020, resulting in 2796 firm-year samples. The results show that the high carbon emission feature negatively affects the financial performance of family firms more than non-family firms, especially for the short-term financial performance – return on asset (ROA). The results are more sensitive if this firm depends on the international market due to severely national greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions standards in this market. However, we can improve the family firms’ performance by investing in Corporate Governance and Research & Development (R&D). Corporate Governance can modify ownership structure and board structure, and Research & Development can enhance market competitiveness. That is important for family firms in Taiwan.參考文獻 資誠聯合會計師事務所PwC (2021)。2021年全球暨台灣家族企業調查報告。1-10。安永聯合會計師事務所EY(2022)。家族治理對家族企業傳承之影響。8-46。臺灣證券交易所 (2020)。109年公司治理評鑑系統作業手冊。1-10。胡吉祥、童英與陳玉宇。(2011)。國有企業上市對績效的影響：一種處理措施。經濟學(季刊)，10(3)，965-988。許育進與賴宗志 (2018). 處理效果文獻回顧. 經濟論文叢刊，46(4)，501-521。葉銀華與邱顯比 (1996)。資本結構、股權結構與公司價值關聯性之實證研究： 代理成本理論。臺大管理論叢，7 (2)，057-090。Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2006). Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica, 74(1), 235-267Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., Zhang, C. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: theory and empirical evidence. Manag. Sci. 65 (10), 4451–4949.Ammann, M., Oesch, D., & Schmid, M. M. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: International evidence. Journal of Empirical Finance, 18(1), 36-55.Bliss, M. A., & Gul, F. A. (2012). Political connection and cost of debt: Some Malaysian evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(5), 1520-1527.Brenes, E. R., Madrigal, K., & Requena, B. (2011). Corporate governance and family business performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(3), 280-285.Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31-72.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.Conyon, M. J., & Peck, S. I. (1998). Board size and corporate performance: evidence from European countries. The European Journal of Finance, 4(3), 291-304.Cubbin, J., and D. Leech, 1983, “The Effect of shareholding dispersion on the degree of control in British companies: theory and measurement,” The Economic Journal 93, pp.351-369.Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1993). Board of directors leadership and structure: Control and performance implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(3), 65-81.Demsetz, H., & Lehn, K. (1985). The structure of corporate ownership: Causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93(6), 1155-1177.Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D., & Cannella, A. A. (1996). Strategic leadership. St. Paul: West Educational Publishing, 9780429430794-12.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.Goss, A., & Roberts, G. S. (2011). The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(7), 1794-1810.Haque, F. (2017). The effects of board characteristics and sustainable compensation policy on carbon performance of UK firms. The British Accounting Review, 49(3), 347-364.Ho, S. S., & Wong, K. S. (2001). A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 10(2), 139-156.Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880.Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling(1976), Theory of the firm：Managerial behavior, agency cost and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, pp.305-360Jensen, M. C., & Ruback, R. S. (1983). The market for corporate control: The scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1-4), 5-50.La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer and R. Vishny (1998), "Law and Finance`, Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1113-1155.La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (2000), "Investor Protection and Corporate Governance`, Journal of Financial Economics, 58, 3-28.Lee, K. H., Min, B., & Yook, K. H. (2015). The impacts of carbon (CO2) emissions and environmental research and development (R&D) investment on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 167, 1-11.Lefort, F., & Urzúa, F. (2008). Board independence, firm performance and ownership concentration: Evidence from Chile. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 615-622.Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409-424.Lorca, C., Sánchez-Ballesta, J. P., & García-Meca, E. (2011). Board effectiveness and cost of debt. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 613-631.Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2003). Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 367-382.Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55.Rubin, Donald B. (1974), Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Ran- domized and Nonrandomized Studies, Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.Sharma, P., & Sharma, S. (2011). Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategy in Family Firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), 309-334.Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-783.Smith, J. A., & Todd, P. E. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde`s critique of nonexperimental estimators?. Journal of Econometrics, 125(1-2), 305-353.Trinks, A., Mulder, M., & Scholtens, B. (2020). An efficiency perspective on carbon emissions and financial performance. Ecological Economics, 175, 106632.Tuggle, C. S., Sirmon, D. G., Reutzel, C. R., & Bierman, L. (2010). Commanding board of director attention: investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members` attention to monitoring. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 946-968.Yazici, Ö., Mcwilliams, D., & Ercan, S. (2018). CSR comparison between family businesses and non-family business. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(1), 256-280.Yeh, Y. H., Lee, T. S., & Woidtke, T. (2001). Family control and corporate governance: Evidence from Taiwan. International Review of finance, 2(1‐2), 21-48Zhou, Z., Zhang, T., Wen, K., Zeng, H., & Chen, X. (2018). Carbon risk, cost of debt financing and the moderation effect of media attention: Evidence from Chinese companies operating in high‐carbon industries. Business Strategy and The Environment, 27(8), 1131-1144. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
金融學系
109352007資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109352007 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 江彌修 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Chiang, Mi-Hsiu en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 黃詩媛 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Huang, Shih-Yuan en_US dc.creator (作者) 黃詩媛 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Huang, Shih-Yuan en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Aug-2022 17:28:20 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Aug-2022 17:28:20 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Aug-2022 17:28:20 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109352007 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141058 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 金融學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109352007 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在探討自2015至2020年，共2796筆公司樣本中，台灣上市上櫃的家族企業是否因高碳排放特徵對於財務指標有不利的影響，其中也探討家族企業與非家族企業董事會結構與股權結構，以及若加入公司治理因子與研究發展因子會如何使高碳排特徵去影響財務指標等。研究結果顯示，高碳排特徵對於家族企業的負面影響較非家族企業大，尤其是短期績效影響甚大，若為出口導向科技產業因國際碳管制更加嚴格，會對於高碳排特徵更加敏感。但能藉由投入公司治理改善股權與董事會結構，與投入研發技術創新增強市場競爭力，進而提升公司營運表現，尤其是家族企業更需要重視這塊。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study investigates whether the high carbon emission feature affects financial performance of family firms and adds moderating variables, such as Governance and R&D factors, to observe how the high carbon emission feature affects financial performance. Also, we want to know the difference between ownership structure and board structure in family firms and non-family firms. In this research, our data come from TEJ, including Taiwan’s listed companies from 2015 to 2020, resulting in 2796 firm-year samples. The results show that the high carbon emission feature negatively affects the financial performance of family firms more than non-family firms, especially for the short-term financial performance – return on asset (ROA). The results are more sensitive if this firm depends on the international market due to severely national greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions standards in this market. However, we can improve the family firms’ performance by investing in Corporate Governance and Research & Development (R&D). Corporate Governance can modify ownership structure and board structure, and Research & Development can enhance market competitiveness. That is important for family firms in Taiwan. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 摘要 IABSTRACT II目次 III表次 IV第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機與目的 1第二節 研究架構 2第二章 文獻探討 3第一節 家族企業與董事會結構 3第二節 家族企業與公司治理 5第三節 家族企業與環境政策 7第三章 研究方法 9第一節 資料來源 9第二節 研究模型與變數定義 11第四章 實證結果與分析 23第一節 敘述統計與相關性分析 23第二節 多元迴歸分析 27第三節 傾向分數配對法分析 42第五章 結論與建議 46參考文獻 49附錄 53 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1802427 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109352007 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 家族企業 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 碳排放 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 股權結構 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公司治理 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 研究發展 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業社會責任 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Family Business en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Carbon Emission en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Ownership Structure en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corporate Governance en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Research & Development (R&D) en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) en_US dc.title (題名) 家族企業與非家族企業高碳排特徵對公司財務指標之影響 zh_TW dc.title (題名) How Family Business and Non-Family Business’s High Carbon Emission Feature Affects Firms’ Financial Performance en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 資誠聯合會計師事務所PwC (2021)。2021年全球暨台灣家族企業調查報告。1-10。安永聯合會計師事務所EY(2022)。家族治理對家族企業傳承之影響。8-46。臺灣證券交易所 (2020)。109年公司治理評鑑系統作業手冊。1-10。胡吉祥、童英與陳玉宇。(2011)。國有企業上市對績效的影響：一種處理措施。經濟學(季刊)，10(3)，965-988。許育進與賴宗志 (2018). 處理效果文獻回顧. 經濟論文叢刊，46(4)，501-521。葉銀華與邱顯比 (1996)。資本結構、股權結構與公司價值關聯性之實證研究： 代理成本理論。臺大管理論叢，7 (2)，057-090。Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2006). Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica, 74(1), 235-267Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., Zhang, C. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: theory and empirical evidence. Manag. Sci. 65 (10), 4451–4949.Ammann, M., Oesch, D., & Schmid, M. M. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: International evidence. Journal of Empirical Finance, 18(1), 36-55.Bliss, M. A., & Gul, F. A. (2012). Political connection and cost of debt: Some Malaysian evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(5), 1520-1527.Brenes, E. R., Madrigal, K., & Requena, B. (2011). Corporate governance and family business performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(3), 280-285.Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31-72.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.Conyon, M. J., & Peck, S. I. (1998). Board size and corporate performance: evidence from European countries. The European Journal of Finance, 4(3), 291-304.Cubbin, J., and D. Leech, 1983, “The Effect of shareholding dispersion on the degree of control in British companies: theory and measurement,” The Economic Journal 93, pp.351-369.Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1993). Board of directors leadership and structure: Control and performance implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(3), 65-81.Demsetz, H., & Lehn, K. (1985). The structure of corporate ownership: Causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93(6), 1155-1177.Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D., & Cannella, A. A. (1996). Strategic leadership. St. Paul: West Educational Publishing, 9780429430794-12.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.Goss, A., & Roberts, G. S. (2011). The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(7), 1794-1810.Haque, F. (2017). The effects of board characteristics and sustainable compensation policy on carbon performance of UK firms. The British Accounting Review, 49(3), 347-364.Ho, S. S., & Wong, K. S. (2001). A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 10(2), 139-156.Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880.Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling(1976), Theory of the firm：Managerial behavior, agency cost and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, pp.305-360Jensen, M. C., & Ruback, R. S. (1983). The market for corporate control: The scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1-4), 5-50.La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer and R. Vishny (1998), "Law and Finance`, Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1113-1155.La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (2000), "Investor Protection and Corporate Governance`, Journal of Financial Economics, 58, 3-28.Lee, K. H., Min, B., & Yook, K. H. (2015). The impacts of carbon (CO2) emissions and environmental research and development (R&D) investment on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 167, 1-11.Lefort, F., & Urzúa, F. (2008). Board independence, firm performance and ownership concentration: Evidence from Chile. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 615-622.Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409-424.Lorca, C., Sánchez-Ballesta, J. P., & García-Meca, E. (2011). Board effectiveness and cost of debt. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 613-631.Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2003). Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 367-382.Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55.Rubin, Donald B. (1974), Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Ran- domized and Nonrandomized Studies, Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.Sharma, P., & Sharma, S. (2011). Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategy in Family Firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), 309-334.Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-783.Smith, J. A., & Todd, P. E. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde`s critique of nonexperimental estimators?. Journal of Econometrics, 125(1-2), 305-353.Trinks, A., Mulder, M., & Scholtens, B. (2020). An efficiency perspective on carbon emissions and financial performance. Ecological Economics, 175, 106632.Tuggle, C. S., Sirmon, D. G., Reutzel, C. R., & Bierman, L. (2010). Commanding board of director attention: investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members` attention to monitoring. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 946-968.Yazici, Ö., Mcwilliams, D., & Ercan, S. (2018). CSR comparison between family businesses and non-family business. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(1), 256-280.Yeh, Y. H., Lee, T. S., & Woidtke, T. (2001). Family control and corporate governance: Evidence from Taiwan. International Review of finance, 2(1‐2), 21-48Zhou, Z., Zhang, T., Wen, K., Zeng, H., & Chen, X. (2018). Carbon risk, cost of debt financing and the moderation effect of media attention: Evidence from Chinese companies operating in high‐carbon industries. Business Strategy and The Environment, 27(8), 1131-1144. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201042 en_US
