1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 高階經理人長期發展導向與企業永續：以美國退出及重返巴黎協定為例
Executives’ Long-Term Development Orientation and Firm Sustainability: The Case of the U.S. Withdrawal and Reentry into the Paris Agreement
作者 洪沁毅
Hung, Chin-Yi
貢獻者 李曉惠
Lee, Hsiao-Hui
洪沁毅
Hung, Chin-Yi
關鍵詞 氣候政策
高階經理人
未來導向
碳排放
永續治理
climate policy
executives
future orientation
carbon emissions
sustainable governance
日期 2025
上傳時間 1-Sep-2025 15:05:47 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究探討氣候政策制度變遷與高階管理者們的心理特質對企業碳排放行為之影響，聚焦於美國退出《巴黎協定》的制度事件，並以高階管理團隊語言中的未來導向（Future Orientation, FO）作為關鍵心理變數。研究樣本涵蓋2010至2023年間美國上市企業，以財報電話會議（earnings calls）逐字稿為語料來源，運用語意分析工具 LIWC-22 建構管理者們未來導向指標，並結合 Trucost 碳排放數據與 Compustat 財務變數，建立不平衡面板資料進行迴歸分析。實證結果顯示：（1）美國作為《巴黎協定》成員期間，企業碳排放顯著下降；（2）退出協定後，企業碳排放顯著上升；（3）高未來導向企業整體碳排放強度顯著較低；（4）未來導向能顯著強化《巴黎協定》政策期間的減碳效果，但未顯著緩衝政策退出衝擊。研究支持高階理論（Upper Echelons Theory）與組織時間觀之預測，並強調心理特質與制度設計於永續治理中的互補關係。
This study examines how shifts in climate policy interact with top management teams’ psychological traits to influence corporate carbon emissions, focusing on the United States’ participation in and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Leveraging on prior studies, we first investigate the effectiveness of the participation and withdrawal of the Paris Agreement on carbon emission intensity. Next, we conceptualize managerial future orientation (FO), derived from the linguistic patterns of top management teams, as a key determinant of firms’ sustainability behavior. Building on upper echelons theory and organizational time perspective, we hypothesize that FO shapes corporate responses to both policy tightening and loosening. Empirical analysis reveals that corporate carbon intensity declined significantly during U.S. membership in the Paris Agreement but increased after the withdrawal. Firms led by top management team with higher FO exhibit lower carbon intensity overall, and FO amplifies the emission-reduction effects of the Agreement; however, its buffering role during the withdrawal period is not supported. These findings highlight the asymmetric interplay between managerial cognition and institutional context, underscoring the importance of aligning leadership traits with policy stability in advancing corporate sustainability.
參考文獻 Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. T. (2023). Global pricing of carbon-transition risk. The Journal of Finance, 78(6), 3677–3754. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13272 Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 10, 1–47. Bushee, B. J., & Huang, A. H. (2024). Do analysts and investors efficiently respond to managerial linguistic complexity during conference calls? The Accounting Review, 99(4), 143–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0358 Call, A. C., Campbell, J. L., Dhaliwal, D. S., & Moon, J. R. (2024). Corporate managers’ perspectives on forward-looking guidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 79(2–3), 101574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2024.101731 Chen, J., Lien, W. C., Miller, D., & Chen, T. (2024). Competitive actions under analyst pressure: The role of CEO time horizons. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1916–1945. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12964 Choi, J. J., Kim, J., & Shenkar, O. (2023). Temporal orientation and corporate social responsibility: Global evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 60(1), 82-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12861 DesJardine, M. R., & Shi, W. (2021). How temporal focus shapes the influence of executive compensation on risk taking. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 265–292. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1470 Duan, T., Li, F. W., & Wen, Q. (2025). Is carbon risk priced in the cross-section of corporate bond returns? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 60(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109023000832 Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management journal, 56(3), 758-781. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0744 Florackis, C., Louca, C., Michaely, R., & Weber, M. (2023). Cybersecurity risk. The Review of Financial Studies, 36(1), 351–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhac024 Gamache, D. L., McNamara, G., Mannor, M. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1261-1282. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0377 Gamache, D. L., & McNamara, G. (2019). Responding to bad press: How CEO temporal focus influences the effectiveness of impression management tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 499–522. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0526 Gormsen, N. J., & Koijen, R. S. (2020). Coronavirus: Impact on stock prices and growth expectations. The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, 10(4), 574-597. https://doi.org/10.1093/rapstu/raaa013 Griffin, P. A., Lont, D. H., & Sun, E. Y. (2017). The relevance to investors of greenhouse gas emission disclosures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 1265–1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12298 Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24345254 Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628 Hassan, T. A., Hollander, S., van Lent, L., & Tahoun, A. (2019). Firm-level political risk: Measurement and effects. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(4), 2135–2202. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz021 Huang, X., Teoh, S. H., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Tone management. The Accounting Review, 89(3), 1083–1113. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50684 Li, F. (2010). The information content of forward-looking statements in corporate filings—A naïve Bayesian machine learning approach. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(5), 1049–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2010.00382.x Nadkarni, S., & Chen, T. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1810–1833. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0401 Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Ramadorai, T., & Zeni, F. (2024). Climate regulation and emissions abatement: Theory and evidence from firms’ disclosures. Management Science, 70(12), 8366–8385. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.00482 Ramelli, S., & Wagner, A. F. (2020). Feverish stock price reactions to COVID-19. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 9(3), 622-655. https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfaa012 Reuters. (2009, November 14). Binding climate treaty may slip far into 2010. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AE0Z5 Shi, Y., Tang, C. S., & Wu, J. (2025). Are firms voluntarily disclosing emissions greener? Production and Operations Management, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/10591478251318917 Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. (2015). Time in individual-level organizational studies: What is it, how is it used, and why isn't it exploited more often? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111245 Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001 Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0960 UNFCCC. (2010). The Cancun Agreements. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
112356039
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112356039
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 李曉惠zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lee, Hsiao-Huien_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 洪沁毅zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hung, Chin-Yien_US
dc.creator (作者) 洪沁毅zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Hung, Chin-Yien_US
dc.date (日期) 2025en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Sep-2025 15:05:47 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Sep-2025 15:05:47 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Sep-2025 15:05:47 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0112356039en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159098-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 資訊管理學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 112356039zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究探討氣候政策制度變遷與高階管理者們的心理特質對企業碳排放行為之影響，聚焦於美國退出《巴黎協定》的制度事件，並以高階管理團隊語言中的未來導向（Future Orientation, FO）作為關鍵心理變數。研究樣本涵蓋2010至2023年間美國上市企業，以財報電話會議（earnings calls）逐字稿為語料來源，運用語意分析工具 LIWC-22 建構管理者們未來導向指標，並結合 Trucost 碳排放數據與 Compustat 財務變數，建立不平衡面板資料進行迴歸分析。實證結果顯示：（1）美國作為《巴黎協定》成員期間，企業碳排放顯著下降；（2）退出協定後，企業碳排放顯著上升；（3）高未來導向企業整體碳排放強度顯著較低；（4）未來導向能顯著強化《巴黎協定》政策期間的減碳效果，但未顯著緩衝政策退出衝擊。研究支持高階理論（Upper Echelons Theory）與組織時間觀之預測，並強調心理特質與制度設計於永續治理中的互補關係。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study examines how shifts in climate policy interact with top management teams’ psychological traits to influence corporate carbon emissions, focusing on the United States’ participation in and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Leveraging on prior studies, we first investigate the effectiveness of the participation and withdrawal of the Paris Agreement on carbon emission intensity. Next, we conceptualize managerial future orientation (FO), derived from the linguistic patterns of top management teams, as a key determinant of firms’ sustainability behavior. Building on upper echelons theory and organizational time perspective, we hypothesize that FO shapes corporate responses to both policy tightening and loosening. Empirical analysis reveals that corporate carbon intensity declined significantly during U.S. membership in the Paris Agreement but increased after the withdrawal. Firms led by top management team with higher FO exhibit lower carbon intensity overall, and FO amplifies the emission-reduction effects of the Agreement; however, its buffering role during the withdrawal period is not supported. These findings highlight the asymmetric interplay between managerial cognition and institutional context, underscoring the importance of aligning leadership traits with policy stability in advancing corporate sustainability.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章、緒論 1 第一節、研究動機 1 第二節、研究問題與目的 3 第三節、預期貢獻 3 第二章、文獻回顧與假說發展 5 第一節、氣候政策與企業碳排放行為 5 第二節、高階管理團隊心理特質：時間焦點與未來導向 6 第三節、管理團隊時間焦點對政策衝擊之調節作用 8 第三章、方法論 10 第一節、資料與樣本 10 第二節、變數建構 12 2.1因變數：企業碳排放強度（GHG） 12 2.2自變數：氣候政策衝擊（ParisIn 與 ExitShock） 12 2.3調節變數：高階管理團隊未來導向 13 2.4控制變數 14 第三節、事件研究法分析設計 14 第四章、實證結果與分析 19 第一節、模型設計與假說對應 19 第二節、描述性統計 21 第三節、假說一檢驗：氣候政策退出的主效應分析 23 第四節、假說二檢驗：高階管理團隊未來導向的主效應分析 25 第五節、假說三檢驗：高階管理團隊未來導向的調節效果分析 26 第六節、理論意涵與研究限制 27 參考文獻 30 附錄A 全體企業未來導向之年度變化趨勢（ΔFO）33zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1142414 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112356039en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 氣候政策zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 高階經理人zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 未來導向zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 碳排放zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 永續治理zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) climate policyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) executivesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) future orientationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) carbon emissionsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) sustainable governanceen_US
dc.title (題名) 高階經理人長期發展導向與企業永續：以美國退出及重返巴黎協定為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Executives’ Long-Term Development Orientation and Firm Sustainability: The Case of the U.S. Withdrawal and Reentry into the Paris Agreementen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. T. (2023). Global pricing of carbon-transition risk. The Journal of Finance, 78(6), 3677–3754. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13272 Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 10, 1–47. Bushee, B. J., & Huang, A. H. (2024). Do analysts and investors efficiently respond to managerial linguistic complexity during conference calls? The Accounting Review, 99(4), 143–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0358 Call, A. C., Campbell, J. L., Dhaliwal, D. S., & Moon, J. R. (2024). Corporate managers’ perspectives on forward-looking guidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 79(2–3), 101574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2024.101731 Chen, J., Lien, W. C., Miller, D., & Chen, T. (2024). Competitive actions under analyst pressure: The role of CEO time horizons. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1916–1945. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12964 Choi, J. J., Kim, J., & Shenkar, O. (2023). Temporal orientation and corporate social responsibility: Global evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 60(1), 82-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12861 DesJardine, M. R., & Shi, W. (2021). How temporal focus shapes the influence of executive compensation on risk taking. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 265–292. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1470 Duan, T., Li, F. W., & Wen, Q. (2025). Is carbon risk priced in the cross-section of corporate bond returns? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 60(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109023000832 Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management journal, 56(3), 758-781. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0744 Florackis, C., Louca, C., Michaely, R., & Weber, M. (2023). Cybersecurity risk. The Review of Financial Studies, 36(1), 351–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhac024 Gamache, D. L., McNamara, G., Mannor, M. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1261-1282. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0377 Gamache, D. L., & McNamara, G. (2019). Responding to bad press: How CEO temporal focus influences the effectiveness of impression management tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 499–522. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0526 Gormsen, N. J., & Koijen, R. S. (2020). Coronavirus: Impact on stock prices and growth expectations. The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, 10(4), 574-597. https://doi.org/10.1093/rapstu/raaa013 Griffin, P. A., Lont, D. H., & Sun, E. Y. (2017). The relevance to investors of greenhouse gas emission disclosures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 1265–1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12298 Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24345254 Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628 Hassan, T. A., Hollander, S., van Lent, L., & Tahoun, A. (2019). Firm-level political risk: Measurement and effects. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(4), 2135–2202. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz021 Huang, X., Teoh, S. H., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Tone management. The Accounting Review, 89(3), 1083–1113. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50684 Li, F. (2010). The information content of forward-looking statements in corporate filings—A naïve Bayesian machine learning approach. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(5), 1049–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2010.00382.x Nadkarni, S., & Chen, T. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1810–1833. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0401 Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Ramadorai, T., & Zeni, F. (2024). Climate regulation and emissions abatement: Theory and evidence from firms’ disclosures. Management Science, 70(12), 8366–8385. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.00482 Ramelli, S., & Wagner, A. F. (2020). Feverish stock price reactions to COVID-19. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 9(3), 622-655. https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfaa012 Reuters. (2009, November 14). Binding climate treaty may slip far into 2010. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AE0Z5 Shi, Y., Tang, C. S., & Wu, J. (2025). Are firms voluntarily disclosing emissions greener? Production and Operations Management, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/10591478251318917 Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. (2015). Time in individual-level organizational studies: What is it, how is it used, and why isn't it exploited more often? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111245 Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001 Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0960 UNFCCC. (2010). The Cancun Agreements. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdfzh_TW