學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 企業社會責任實踐之決定因素-以臺灣上市銀行為例
Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility in Taiwan Listed Banks作者 詹佳蓉
Jhan, Jia-Rong貢獻者 黃智聰
Jr-Tsung Huang
詹佳蓉
Jhan, Jia-Rong關鍵詞 企業社會責任
企業經營績效
公司治理
內部利害關係人
Corporate Social Responsibility
Financial Performance
Corporate Governance
Internal stakeholders日期 2022 上傳時間 1-Aug-2022 18:39:03 (UTC+8) 摘要 以往，在研究銀行實踐企業社會責任時的決定因素時，很少去考慮到銀行間彼此相互持股多寡，是否會對社會責任的行為造成影響。本研究考量臺灣上市銀行間，彼此間具有相互持股的關係下，探討彼此間的持股占比多寡是否會使企業在經營績效、公司治理及利害關係人等構面上，對實踐企業社會責任行為造成影響，而產生關鍵決策因素。本研究以2011年至2020年間臺灣上市銀行資料為樣本，在考慮相互持股占比的情形下，利用空間計量模型進行假說驗證。分析結果發現，銀行間相互持股行為，確實會影響企業社會責任行為的實踐意願，即表示當銀行間相互持股占比率越高，越會促使雙方銀行積極落實企業社會責任行為。而在經營績效層面，當銀行資產報酬比率越高時，因為越有能力及資源去實踐社會責任行為，會使得銀行較積極實踐社會責任，因而使得企業社會責任績效越佳；其次，在公司治理層面，當銀行資產規模越高，因為受大眾關注提高，亦會更積極實踐社會責任行為，且當銀行最終控制持者持股比例越高時，最終控制持股者對於公司實踐社會責任行為，議會表現得更加積極；最後，在利害關係人層面，當銀行前十大持股者越重視社會責任行為，持股比例越高，會使銀行更積極主動去從事社會責任相關行為。
In the past, the studying the factors for banks to practice corporate social responsibility, they seldom considered whether the mutual shareholding between banks would affect their social responsibility behavior.Under the characteristics of mutual shareholding between banks‚whether it has an impact on corporate social responsibility performance from the aspects of business performance‚corporate governance and stakeholders. This study collects research data from 2011 to 2020 of the listed bank in Taiwan. Spatial Econometrics to test the hypothesis. The analysis results show that mutual shareholding among banks will indeed affect the willingness to practice corporate social responsibility.higher Return on Assets（ROA）‚the more capable of practicing social responsibility behavior‚the better enhancement to CSR performance；secondly‚at the level of corporate governance‚the higher the bank`s asset scale‚the greater the shareholding of the ultimate controlling shareholder‚the more actively engaged in CSR behaviors‚and the better the performance of corporate social responsibility；finally‚when the top ten shareholders of a bank attach more importance to social responsibility behavior, they will also be more actively engaged in socially responsible behavior.參考文獻 一、中文文獻丁捷軒（2017）。探討公司治理、企業社會責任及企業績效之關聯性：臺灣銀行業的實證研究。國立台北大學國際企業研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。池祥麟、陳廷宣（2004）。銀行業企業責任之探討。臺灣金融財務季刊，5（2），111-127。李秀英、劉俊儒、楊筱翎（2011）。企業社會責任與公司績效之關聯性。東海管理評論期刊，13，77-112。李蘋馨、莊宗憲（2007）。公司治理機制與企業績效的實證研究。東吳經濟商學學報，57（1），1-27。杜榮瑞、陳煬楊、黃馨儀（2019）。企業社會責任績效與 CEO 薪酬的關係。當代會計，20（1），1-28。洪雪卿、陳薇如、傅雁鈴（2013）。影響企業社會責任績效之重要因素為何？，商管科技季刊，14（4），405-441。黃惠君、蘇淑慧、盧正宗（2017）。高階經理人薪酬、性別與企業社會責任之探討，管理資訊計算，6（2），158-170。詹場、柯文乾、池祥麟（2016）。CSR 能為公司經營策略帶來什麼好處？—來自世界頂級學術期刊之證據，商略學刊，8（2），77-86。劉漢榆、陳文姿（2012）。從綠色智慧資本探討我國銀行業永續經營導向之效益，輔仁管理評論，19（1），73-94。鄧美貞、王琬青（2012）。企業社會責任與財務績效：以經營效率為中介效果。朝陽商管評論，11（2），77-104。二、英文文獻Aupperle, K., A. Carroll, and J. Hatfield (1985), “An Empirical Examination of The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability.” Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.Bowen, H. (2013), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (pp. 107-151). Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.Cai, Y., H. Jo, and C. Pan (2011), “Vice or Virtue? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Executive Compensation.” Journal of Business Ethics, 104 (2), 159-173.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.Cornell, B. and A.C. Shapiro (1987), “Corporate Stakeholder and Corporate Finance.” Financial Management, 16(1), 5-14.Elhorst, J. P. (2014), “Maltab Software for Spatial Panels.” International Regional Science Review, 37(3), 389–405.Frederick, W. C. (1986), “Toward CSR3: Why Ethical Analysis Is Indispensable and Unavoidable in Corporate Affairs.” California Management Review, 28 (2),126-141.Freeman, R. E. (1984), A Stakeholder Approach, Strategic Management. Boston: Pitman.Godfrey, Paul C., Craig B. Merrill, and Jared M. Hansen (2008), “The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Value: An Empirical Test of The Risk Management Hypothesis.” Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425-445.Helgesen S. (1995), The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership. New York: Doubleday Currency.Jensen, M. C. and R. S. Ruback (1983), “Market for Corporate Control: Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Financial Economics, 1, pp.5-50.Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling (1976), “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure.” Journal of Financial Economics, 3(1), 305-360.Levin, A., C. F. Lin, and C. S. J. Chu (2002), “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptoticand Finite-Sample Properties.” Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24.Mahoney, L. S. and L. Thorne (2005), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Long-Term Compensation: Evidence from Canada.” Journal of Business Ethics, 57 (3), 241-253.McGuire, J. B.‚S. Alison, and S. Thomas (1988), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance.” Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854-72.Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. W. Vishny (1988), “Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293-315.Porter, M. and M. Kramer (2006), “Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Harvard Business Review, 2006(12), 78-92.Rose, Caspar (2007), “Does Female Board Representation Influence Firm Performance? The Danish Evidence.” Journal compilation‚15(2), 946-967.Schuler, D. A. and M. Cording (2006), “A Corporate Social Performance-Corporate Financial Performance Behavioral Model for Consumers.” The Academy of Management Review‚ 31(3), 540-558.Setó-Pamies, Dolors (2015), “The Relationship between Women Directors and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(1), 335-345.Tobin, J. (1969), “A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory.” Journal of Money, Credit & Banking, 1, 15-29.Turban, Daniel B. and Daniel W. Greening (1997), “Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees.” The Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658-672.Ullmann, A. (1985), “Data in Search of A Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationship among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms.” Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540-577. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
行政管理碩士學程
109921062資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109921062 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 黃智聰 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Jr-Tsung Huang en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 詹佳蓉 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Jhan, Jia-Rong en_US dc.creator (作者) 詹佳蓉 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Jhan, Jia-Rong en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Aug-2022 18:39:03 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Aug-2022 18:39:03 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Aug-2022 18:39:03 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109921062 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141300 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 行政管理碩士學程 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109921062 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 以往，在研究銀行實踐企業社會責任時的決定因素時，很少去考慮到銀行間彼此相互持股多寡，是否會對社會責任的行為造成影響。本研究考量臺灣上市銀行間，彼此間具有相互持股的關係下，探討彼此間的持股占比多寡是否會使企業在經營績效、公司治理及利害關係人等構面上，對實踐企業社會責任行為造成影響，而產生關鍵決策因素。本研究以2011年至2020年間臺灣上市銀行資料為樣本，在考慮相互持股占比的情形下，利用空間計量模型進行假說驗證。分析結果發現，銀行間相互持股行為，確實會影響企業社會責任行為的實踐意願，即表示當銀行間相互持股占比率越高，越會促使雙方銀行積極落實企業社會責任行為。而在經營績效層面，當銀行資產報酬比率越高時，因為越有能力及資源去實踐社會責任行為，會使得銀行較積極實踐社會責任，因而使得企業社會責任績效越佳；其次，在公司治理層面，當銀行資產規模越高，因為受大眾關注提高，亦會更積極實踐社會責任行為，且當銀行最終控制持者持股比例越高時，最終控制持股者對於公司實踐社會責任行為，議會表現得更加積極；最後，在利害關係人層面，當銀行前十大持股者越重視社會責任行為，持股比例越高，會使銀行更積極主動去從事社會責任相關行為。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In the past, the studying the factors for banks to practice corporate social responsibility, they seldom considered whether the mutual shareholding between banks would affect their social responsibility behavior.Under the characteristics of mutual shareholding between banks‚whether it has an impact on corporate social responsibility performance from the aspects of business performance‚corporate governance and stakeholders. This study collects research data from 2011 to 2020 of the listed bank in Taiwan. Spatial Econometrics to test the hypothesis. The analysis results show that mutual shareholding among banks will indeed affect the willingness to practice corporate social responsibility.higher Return on Assets（ROA）‚the more capable of practicing social responsibility behavior‚the better enhancement to CSR performance；secondly‚at the level of corporate governance‚the higher the bank`s asset scale‚the greater the shareholding of the ultimate controlling shareholder‚the more actively engaged in CSR behaviors‚and the better the performance of corporate social responsibility；finally‚when the top ten shareholders of a bank attach more importance to social responsibility behavior, they will also be more actively engaged in socially responsible behavior. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論1第一節 研究背景與目的1第二節 研究架構與流程6第二章 文獻回顧8第一節 企業社會責任理論8第二節 影響企業實踐社會責任相關因素理論12第三章 臺灣銀行業社會責任現況分析18第一節 金融業企業社會責任發展進程18第二節 臺灣金融業社會責任現況分析21第四章 研究方法25第一節 單根與共線性檢定25第二節 空間計量模型及矩陣設定27第三節 實證模型與變數設定31第四節 研究範圍與限制41第五章 實證結果與模型相關檢定42第一節 單根與共線性檢定42第二節 模型實證估計分析45第六章 研究結論與建議51第一節 研究結論51第二節 研究建議52參考文獻54 zh_TW dc.format.extent 765877 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109921062 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業社會責任 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業經營績效 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公司治理 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 內部利害關係人 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corporate Social Responsibility en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Financial Performance en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corporate Governance en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Internal stakeholders en_US dc.title (題名) 企業社會責任實踐之決定因素-以臺灣上市銀行為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility in Taiwan Listed Banks en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文文獻丁捷軒（2017）。探討公司治理、企業社會責任及企業績效之關聯性：臺灣銀行業的實證研究。國立台北大學國際企業研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。池祥麟、陳廷宣（2004）。銀行業企業責任之探討。臺灣金融財務季刊，5（2），111-127。李秀英、劉俊儒、楊筱翎（2011）。企業社會責任與公司績效之關聯性。東海管理評論期刊，13，77-112。李蘋馨、莊宗憲（2007）。公司治理機制與企業績效的實證研究。東吳經濟商學學報，57（1），1-27。杜榮瑞、陳煬楊、黃馨儀（2019）。企業社會責任績效與 CEO 薪酬的關係。當代會計，20（1），1-28。洪雪卿、陳薇如、傅雁鈴（2013）。影響企業社會責任績效之重要因素為何？，商管科技季刊，14（4），405-441。黃惠君、蘇淑慧、盧正宗（2017）。高階經理人薪酬、性別與企業社會責任之探討，管理資訊計算，6（2），158-170。詹場、柯文乾、池祥麟（2016）。CSR 能為公司經營策略帶來什麼好處？—來自世界頂級學術期刊之證據，商略學刊，8（2），77-86。劉漢榆、陳文姿（2012）。從綠色智慧資本探討我國銀行業永續經營導向之效益，輔仁管理評論，19（1），73-94。鄧美貞、王琬青（2012）。企業社會責任與財務績效：以經營效率為中介效果。朝陽商管評論，11（2），77-104。二、英文文獻Aupperle, K., A. Carroll, and J. Hatfield (1985), “An Empirical Examination of The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability.” Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.Bowen, H. (2013), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (pp. 107-151). Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.Cai, Y., H. Jo, and C. Pan (2011), “Vice or Virtue? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Executive Compensation.” Journal of Business Ethics, 104 (2), 159-173.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.Cornell, B. and A.C. Shapiro (1987), “Corporate Stakeholder and Corporate Finance.” Financial Management, 16(1), 5-14.Elhorst, J. P. (2014), “Maltab Software for Spatial Panels.” International Regional Science Review, 37(3), 389–405.Frederick, W. C. (1986), “Toward CSR3: Why Ethical Analysis Is Indispensable and Unavoidable in Corporate Affairs.” California Management Review, 28 (2),126-141.Freeman, R. E. (1984), A Stakeholder Approach, Strategic Management. Boston: Pitman.Godfrey, Paul C., Craig B. Merrill, and Jared M. Hansen (2008), “The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Value: An Empirical Test of The Risk Management Hypothesis.” Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425-445.Helgesen S. (1995), The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership. New York: Doubleday Currency.Jensen, M. C. and R. S. Ruback (1983), “Market for Corporate Control: Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Financial Economics, 1, pp.5-50.Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling (1976), “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure.” Journal of Financial Economics, 3(1), 305-360.Levin, A., C. F. Lin, and C. S. J. Chu (2002), “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptoticand Finite-Sample Properties.” Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24.Mahoney, L. S. and L. Thorne (2005), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Long-Term Compensation: Evidence from Canada.” Journal of Business Ethics, 57 (3), 241-253.McGuire, J. B.‚S. Alison, and S. Thomas (1988), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance.” Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854-72.Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. W. Vishny (1988), “Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293-315.Porter, M. and M. Kramer (2006), “Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Harvard Business Review, 2006(12), 78-92.Rose, Caspar (2007), “Does Female Board Representation Influence Firm Performance? The Danish Evidence.” Journal compilation‚15(2), 946-967.Schuler, D. A. and M. Cording (2006), “A Corporate Social Performance-Corporate Financial Performance Behavioral Model for Consumers.” The Academy of Management Review‚ 31(3), 540-558.Setó-Pamies, Dolors (2015), “The Relationship between Women Directors and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(1), 335-345.Tobin, J. (1969), “A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory.” Journal of Money, Credit & Banking, 1, 15-29.Turban, Daniel B. and Daniel W. Greening (1997), “Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees.” The Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658-672.Ullmann, A. (1985), “Data in Search of A Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationship among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms.” Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540-577. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201014 en_US
