學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 永續發展下企業回應複數制度邏輯之歷程研究-以創投企業為例
The Study on the Evolution of Corporate Responses to Multiple Institutional Logics under Sustainable Development: A Case Study of the Venture Capital Enterprise作者 潘佳韻
Pan, Chia-Yun貢獻者 鄭至甫
ZHENG, ZHI-FU
潘佳韻
Pan, Chia-Yun關鍵詞 永續導入
企業社會責任
制度環境
複製制度邏輯
組織轉型
Sustainable integration
Corporate social responsibility
Institutional environment
Institutional logics
Organizational transformation日期 2023 上傳時間 1-Sep-2023 14:49:52 (UTC+8) 摘要 隨著永續發展議程問世近 30 年，我們仍然面臨著區域發展不均和環境惡化的 問題，且情況日益嚴重。各國領導者開始採取更積極的淨零承諾，根據《氣候變遷 因應法》，明訂台灣的長期溫室氣體減量目標，為在 2050 年實現溫室氣體的淨零排 放。此一法案的通過表明永續發展之重要性，也提高並加速了企業對於永續發展的 要求。 在企業引入永續的過程中，也帶來組織內部的制度變遷、制度邏輯中的商業邏輯與永續邏輯之間的轉換和互動，如何正確回應內外制度環境、考量所有利害關係人，複數制度邏輯之策略成為企業管理者之重要課題。 過往研究對於組織內部制度邏輯衝突之探討，多聚焦於解決之結果，而非過 程之制度變遷以及企業引導過程中行動之探討，且缺乏跨越時長之長期時間維度研 究，故本研究以 A 公司為個案研究對象，以此研究缺口展開。研究發現永續導入 企業為漸進式之動態過程，此個案中永續投資歷程總共分為三個階段:企業社會責 任階段、結合業務階段以及 ESG 投資階段，外部制度變化為組織內部邏輯制度變 化之驅動力;企業經理人為內部引導制度邏輯互動之重要驅動力。在引導複數制度 邏輯協調上，組織、人員以及實物運作上皆缺一不可，且面對複數制度邏輯衝突創 投採取共存模式策略，而非妥協於其中之一邏輯，以達成制度邏輯的和諧並實現策 略性永續目標。本研究藉由分析企業面對永續發展之回應歷程，對制度邏輯文獻以 及企業永續發展有所啟示，並對企業實務與後續研究提出洞見以及建議。
Over the past three decades since the emergence of the sustainable development agenda, we still face the challenges of regional disparities in development and worsening environmental conditions, which are becoming increasingly severe. Leaders of various countries have started to take more proactive net-zero commitments, and according to the Climate Change Response Act, Taiwan has set clear long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The passage of this act signifies the importance of sustainable development and has also heightened and accelerated the demands for sustainability in the corporate sector. In the process of introducing sustainability into businesses, there often comes the transformation of organizational systems, the interaction between business logic and sustainability logic within institutional frameworks. It becomes crucial for corporate managers to respond appropriately to internal and external institutional environments, considering all stakeholders and developing strategies that accommodate multiple institutional logics. Prior research on internal institutional logic conflicts in organizations has mainly focused on resolving outcomes rather than exploring the process of institutional transformation and actions taken during the corporate sustainability introduction. Additionally, there has been a lack of long-term time dimension studies. Thus, this study focuses on company A as a case study to fill this research gap. The research finds that sustainability integration into companies is a gradual and dynamic process, categorized into three stages: corporate social responsibility, business integration, and ESG investments. External institutional changes drive the transformation of internal organizational logics, while corporate managers play a vital role in guiding the interaction of institutional logics within the organization. Achieving coordination among multiple institutional logics requires a holistic approach encompassing organizational structures, personnel, and operations. When faced with conflicts between plural institutional logics, companies adopt a coexistence strategy rather than compromising on one logic, in order to achieve harmony among institutional logics and realize strategic sustainability goals. Through the analysis of how companies respond to sustainable development, this research sheds light on institutional logic literature and corporate sustainable development. It also offers insights and recommendations for practical implementation and future research.參考文獻 一、英文文獻 Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 314-332. Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E. (1990). Entrepreneurial ability, venture investments, and risk sharing. Management Science, 36(10), 1233-1246 Andersson, T., & Liff, R. (2018). Co-optation as a response to competing institutional logics: Professionals and managers in healthcare. Journal of Professions and Organization, 5(2), 71-87 Barry, C. B. (1994), New directions in research on venture capital finance. Financial Management, 23(3),3-15 Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122-136 Battilana, J., Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2, 128-162. Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364-381. Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 3-28. Cable, D. M., & Shane, S. (1997). A Prisoner’s Dilemma Approach to Entrepreneur- venture capitalist relationships. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 142-176 Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. Chemmanur, T. J., & Loutskina, E. (2006, September). The role of venture capital backing in initial public offerings: certification, screening, or market power?. In EFA 2005 Moscow Meetings Paper. Chemmanur, T. J., & Loutskina, E., & Tian, X. (2014). Corporate venture capital, value creation, and innovation. The Review of Financial Studies, 27(8), 2434-2473. Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. (2016). Combining logics to transform organizational agency: Blending industry and art at Alessi. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 347-392. DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional Patterns and Organizations, 3-21. Dominguez, J. R. (1974). Venture Capital. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90- 100. Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (2012). Resource theory of social exchange. In Handbook of Social Resource Theory (pp. 15-32). New York: Springer. Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Payne, A. (2016). Co-creation practices: Their role in shaping a health care ecosystem. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 24-39. Gladstone, D. (1988) Venture Capital Investing: The Complete Handbook for Investing in Small Private Business for Outstanding Profits. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2001). The venture capital revolution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 145-168. Gönenç, R. (1984). Venture Capital: Key Ingredient in High-tech Start-up. The OECD Observer, (131), 11. Greenwald, Y. (1982). The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Modern Economics: A Handbook of Terms and Organizations, New York: McGraw-Hill. Hsu, D. H. (2006). Venture capitalists and cooperative start-up commercialization strategy. Management Science, 52(2), 204-219. Jain B.A. & O. Kini, (1995). Venture capitalist participation and the post-issue operating performance of IPO firms. Managerial and Decision Economics. 16, 593-606. Liles, P. R. (1974). Venture capital: What it is and how to raise it, New Business Ventures and the entrepreneur, (pp. 461-494) London: Irwin-Dorsey International. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university press. Peters, B. G. (1999). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism. New York: Willing House. Rossi, M., Festa, G., Papa, A., Kolte, A., & Piccolo, R. (2020). Knowledge management behaviors in venture capital crossroads: a comparison between IVC and CVC ambidexterity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(10), 2431-2454. Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2010). Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 207-221. Siltaloppi, J., Rajala, R., & Hietala, H. (2021). Integrating CSR with business strategy: A tension management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 174, 507-527. Tian, X. (2011). The causes and consequences of venture capital stage financing. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(1), 132-159. Organski, A. F. K. (1969). Political Order in Changing Societies. By Samuel P. Huntington. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 921-922. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001. Pfeffer, J. & G.R. Salancik (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Quindlen, R. (2000). Confessions of a venture capitalist: inside the high-stakes world of start-up financing. New York: Warner. Rubel, Stanely M., (1972), Guide to Venture Capital Sources, 3th Edition, Chicago: Capital Publishing Corp. Sahlman, W.A., (1990), The Structure and Governance of Venture-capital Organizations, Journal of Financial Economics, 27, 453-521. Sapienza, H. J. (1992), When do venture capitalists add value?. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 9-27 Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2001). The venture capitalist-entrepreneur relationship: control, trust and confidence in co-operative behaviour. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 3(2), 129-149. Tyebjee, T. T., & Bruno, A. V. (1984). A model of venture capitalist investment activity. Management Science, 30(9), 1051-1066. 二、中文文獻 王琬昀、張筱祺(2022)，臺灣創育產業關鍵報告，財團法人資訊工業策進會產業 情報研究所。 方世杰(2015)，價值基礎策略，2015 兩岸科技管理學術年會，清華大學。 池祥麟、陳庭萱(2004)，銀行業企業社會責任之探討，台灣金融財務季刊，2，111-127。 林秀英(2022)，權威研究機構對 2023 年 ICT 趨勢預測綜整，FINDIT。 翁晶晶、易莉翔(2022)，制度邏輯之演化:從企業社會責任的發展探討商業永續，中山管理評論，5，809-856。 陳蕙芬、張瑜倩(2021)，多元制度邏輯的共生之道—以甘樂文創為例，管理學報，4，2521-4306。 簡淑綺(2021)，從全球創投看未來投資趨勢，臺灣經濟研究月刊，10，2-22。 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
109364133資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109364133 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 鄭至甫 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor ZHENG, ZHI-FU en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 潘佳韻 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Pan, Chia-Yun en_US dc.creator (作者) 潘佳韻 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Pan, Chia-Yun en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Sep-2023 14:49:52 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Sep-2023 14:49:52 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Sep-2023 14:49:52 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109364133 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146871 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109364133 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著永續發展議程問世近 30 年，我們仍然面臨著區域發展不均和環境惡化的 問題，且情況日益嚴重。各國領導者開始採取更積極的淨零承諾，根據《氣候變遷 因應法》，明訂台灣的長期溫室氣體減量目標，為在 2050 年實現溫室氣體的淨零排 放。此一法案的通過表明永續發展之重要性，也提高並加速了企業對於永續發展的 要求。 在企業引入永續的過程中，也帶來組織內部的制度變遷、制度邏輯中的商業邏輯與永續邏輯之間的轉換和互動，如何正確回應內外制度環境、考量所有利害關係人，複數制度邏輯之策略成為企業管理者之重要課題。 過往研究對於組織內部制度邏輯衝突之探討，多聚焦於解決之結果，而非過 程之制度變遷以及企業引導過程中行動之探討，且缺乏跨越時長之長期時間維度研 究，故本研究以 A 公司為個案研究對象，以此研究缺口展開。研究發現永續導入 企業為漸進式之動態過程，此個案中永續投資歷程總共分為三個階段:企業社會責 任階段、結合業務階段以及 ESG 投資階段，外部制度變化為組織內部邏輯制度變 化之驅動力;企業經理人為內部引導制度邏輯互動之重要驅動力。在引導複數制度 邏輯協調上，組織、人員以及實物運作上皆缺一不可，且面對複數制度邏輯衝突創 投採取共存模式策略，而非妥協於其中之一邏輯，以達成制度邏輯的和諧並實現策 略性永續目標。本研究藉由分析企業面對永續發展之回應歷程，對制度邏輯文獻以 及企業永續發展有所啟示，並對企業實務與後續研究提出洞見以及建議。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Over the past three decades since the emergence of the sustainable development agenda, we still face the challenges of regional disparities in development and worsening environmental conditions, which are becoming increasingly severe. Leaders of various countries have started to take more proactive net-zero commitments, and according to the Climate Change Response Act, Taiwan has set clear long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The passage of this act signifies the importance of sustainable development and has also heightened and accelerated the demands for sustainability in the corporate sector. In the process of introducing sustainability into businesses, there often comes the transformation of organizational systems, the interaction between business logic and sustainability logic within institutional frameworks. It becomes crucial for corporate managers to respond appropriately to internal and external institutional environments, considering all stakeholders and developing strategies that accommodate multiple institutional logics. Prior research on internal institutional logic conflicts in organizations has mainly focused on resolving outcomes rather than exploring the process of institutional transformation and actions taken during the corporate sustainability introduction. Additionally, there has been a lack of long-term time dimension studies. Thus, this study focuses on company A as a case study to fill this research gap. The research finds that sustainability integration into companies is a gradual and dynamic process, categorized into three stages: corporate social responsibility, business integration, and ESG investments. External institutional changes drive the transformation of internal organizational logics, while corporate managers play a vital role in guiding the interaction of institutional logics within the organization. Achieving coordination among multiple institutional logics requires a holistic approach encompassing organizational structures, personnel, and operations. When faced with conflicts between plural institutional logics, companies adopt a coexistence strategy rather than compromising on one logic, in order to achieve harmony among institutional logics and realize strategic sustainability goals. Through the analysis of how companies respond to sustainable development, this research sheds light on institutional logic literature and corporate sustainable development. It also offers insights and recommendations for practical implementation and future research. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論......................................1 第一節 研究背景 ......................................1 第二節 研究動機 ......................................6 第三節 研究目的與問題 ......................................7 第四節 論文架構 ......................................8 第二章 文獻探討......................................10 第一節 名詞解釋 ......................................10 第二節 創業投資 ...................................... 20 第三節 企業實踐永續之動機觀點.............................32 第四節 制度邏輯衝突之回應 ........................35 第三章 研究方法......................................38 第一節 質性研究 ......................................38 第三節 研究架構 ......................................41 第四節 個案選擇 ...................................... 42 第四章 研究分析 ......................................44 第一節 第一階段:企業社會責任階段(2010 年之前)........44 第二節 第二階段:結合業務階段(2011年-2020年).......47 第三節 第三階段:永續投資階段(2020年-)....................52 第五章 結論與建議 ......................................58 第一節 研究發現 ......................................58 第二節 研究結論 ......................................65 第三節 研究貢獻......................................67 第四節 研究限制與建議 ..............................68 參考文獻......................................70 附錄......................................74 訪談大綱......................................74 zh_TW dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109364133 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 永續導入 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業社會責任 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 制度環境 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 複製制度邏輯 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 組織轉型 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Sustainable integration en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corporate social responsibility en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Institutional environment en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Institutional logics en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Organizational transformation en_US dc.title (題名) 永續發展下企業回應複數制度邏輯之歷程研究-以創投企業為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Study on the Evolution of Corporate Responses to Multiple Institutional Logics under Sustainable Development: A Case Study of the Venture Capital Enterprise en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、英文文獻 Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 314-332. Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E. (1990). Entrepreneurial ability, venture investments, and risk sharing. Management Science, 36(10), 1233-1246 Andersson, T., & Liff, R. (2018). Co-optation as a response to competing institutional logics: Professionals and managers in healthcare. Journal of Professions and Organization, 5(2), 71-87 Barry, C. B. (1994), New directions in research on venture capital finance. Financial Management, 23(3),3-15 Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122-136 Battilana, J., Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2, 128-162. Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364-381. Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 3-28. Cable, D. M., & Shane, S. (1997). A Prisoner’s Dilemma Approach to Entrepreneur- venture capitalist relationships. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 142-176 Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. Chemmanur, T. J., & Loutskina, E. (2006, September). The role of venture capital backing in initial public offerings: certification, screening, or market power?. In EFA 2005 Moscow Meetings Paper. Chemmanur, T. J., & Loutskina, E., & Tian, X. (2014). Corporate venture capital, value creation, and innovation. The Review of Financial Studies, 27(8), 2434-2473. Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. (2016). Combining logics to transform organizational agency: Blending industry and art at Alessi. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 347-392. DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional Patterns and Organizations, 3-21. Dominguez, J. R. (1974). Venture Capital. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90- 100. Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (2012). Resource theory of social exchange. In Handbook of Social Resource Theory (pp. 15-32). New York: Springer. Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Payne, A. (2016). Co-creation practices: Their role in shaping a health care ecosystem. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 24-39. Gladstone, D. (1988) Venture Capital Investing: The Complete Handbook for Investing in Small Private Business for Outstanding Profits. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2001). The venture capital revolution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 145-168. Gönenç, R. (1984). Venture Capital: Key Ingredient in High-tech Start-up. The OECD Observer, (131), 11. Greenwald, Y. (1982). The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Modern Economics: A Handbook of Terms and Organizations, New York: McGraw-Hill. Hsu, D. H. (2006). Venture capitalists and cooperative start-up commercialization strategy. Management Science, 52(2), 204-219. Jain B.A. & O. Kini, (1995). Venture capitalist participation and the post-issue operating performance of IPO firms. Managerial and Decision Economics. 16, 593-606. Liles, P. R. (1974). Venture capital: What it is and how to raise it, New Business Ventures and the entrepreneur, (pp. 461-494) London: Irwin-Dorsey International. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university press. Peters, B. G. (1999). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism. New York: Willing House. Rossi, M., Festa, G., Papa, A., Kolte, A., & Piccolo, R. (2020). Knowledge management behaviors in venture capital crossroads: a comparison between IVC and CVC ambidexterity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(10), 2431-2454. Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2010). Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 207-221. Siltaloppi, J., Rajala, R., & Hietala, H. (2021). Integrating CSR with business strategy: A tension management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 174, 507-527. Tian, X. (2011). The causes and consequences of venture capital stage financing. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(1), 132-159. Organski, A. F. K. (1969). Political Order in Changing Societies. By Samuel P. Huntington. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 921-922. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001. Pfeffer, J. & G.R. Salancik (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Quindlen, R. (2000). Confessions of a venture capitalist: inside the high-stakes world of start-up financing. New York: Warner. Rubel, Stanely M., (1972), Guide to Venture Capital Sources, 3th Edition, Chicago: Capital Publishing Corp. Sahlman, W.A., (1990), The Structure and Governance of Venture-capital Organizations, Journal of Financial Economics, 27, 453-521. Sapienza, H. J. (1992), When do venture capitalists add value?. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 9-27 Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2001). The venture capitalist-entrepreneur relationship: control, trust and confidence in co-operative behaviour. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 3(2), 129-149. Tyebjee, T. T., & Bruno, A. V. (1984). A model of venture capitalist investment activity. Management Science, 30(9), 1051-1066. 二、中文文獻 王琬昀、張筱祺(2022)，臺灣創育產業關鍵報告，財團法人資訊工業策進會產業 情報研究所。 方世杰(2015)，價值基礎策略，2015 兩岸科技管理學術年會，清華大學。 池祥麟、陳庭萱(2004)，銀行業企業社會責任之探討，台灣金融財務季刊，2，111-127。 林秀英(2022)，權威研究機構對 2023 年 ICT 趨勢預測綜整，FINDIT。 翁晶晶、易莉翔(2022)，制度邏輯之演化:從企業社會責任的發展探討商業永續，中山管理評論，5，809-856。 陳蕙芬、張瑜倩(2021)，多元制度邏輯的共生之道—以甘樂文創為例，管理學報，4，2521-4306。 簡淑綺(2021)，從全球創投看未來投資趨勢，臺灣經濟研究月刊，10，2-22。 zh_TW
