淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-0309201322305900
中文論文名稱 企業社會責任、財務績效與競爭力之關聯:台灣的證據
英文論文名稱 The Association of Corporate Social Responsibility, Financial Performance and Competitiveness: The Evidence of Taiwan
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 會計學系碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) Department of Accounting
學年度 101
學期 2
出版年 102
研究生中文姓名 戴瑋玲
研究生英文姓名 Wei-Ling Tai
學號 797600169
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2013-06-19
論文頁數 68頁
口試委員 指導教授-葉金成
委員-林鳳儀
委員-謝宜樺
中文關鍵字 企業社會責任  財務績效  競爭力 
英文關鍵字 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)  Financial Performance  Competitiveness 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本研究探討台灣企業社會責任得獎公司其CSR評價與財務績效及競爭力之關係,觀察CSR評價好的企業,其財務績效與競爭力是否呈現正向關係。以2007至2012年天下雜誌評選出「天下企業公民獎」TOP50之企業為樣本,透過得獎企業於企業社會責任項目獲得之評分,以ROA、ROE為財務績效之衡量指標,VAIC、MV/BV為競爭力之衡量指標,利用迴歸分析觀察企業社會責任評價與當年度財務績效及競爭力之關係。另外,觀察前期企業社會責任評價及後期競爭力之關係。進一步將得獎企業中CSR評價區分為高分組及低分組,觀察高分組企業其企業社會責任評價與短期財務績效及競爭力之關係是否較為顯著。實證結果顯示:一、全體樣本之企業社會責任整體評價與財務績效呈顯著正相關,與競爭力無顯著關係。二、以四項構面評價得分為自變數,發現全體樣本之公司治理評價與財務績效及競爭力均呈顯著正相關;環境保護評價則與財務績效及競爭力均呈顯著負相關。顯示企業公司治理能力普遍被視為有利於企業財務表現及長期競爭力,而企業投入環境保護被認為增加企業營運成本,不利於短期企業價值。三、高分組與低分組企業社會責任整體評價分析結果僅高分組與ROE成顯著正相關,其餘指標皆不顯著。四、高分組與低分組之四項構面關聯性顯示高分組社會參與評價與財務績效及競爭力呈顯著正相關,低分組公司治理評價與財務績效及競爭力呈顯著正相關。而環境保護評價無論是高分組或低分組皆為負向顯著性關係。
英文摘要 This paper examines whether CSR performance is positively related to financial performance and competitiveness among Taiwanese firms with good CSR performance. The sample comprised Top 50 winners of Excellence in CSR Award given by CommonWealth Magazine from 2007 to 2012. Using the four dimensions of CSR as CSR indices, ROA and ROE as financial performance indices, and VAIC and MV/BV as competitiveness indices, this study assessed how CSR is related to financial performance and competitiveness through regression analysis. Further, this study divided the sample by CSR score into high score and low score groups to examine whether firms in the high score group were superior to those in the low score group in terms of financial performance and competitiveness. In addition, observe the pre-and post-evaluation of corporate social responsibility competitive relationship. The main findings of this study are as follows: (1) In the entire sample, CSR is significantly and positively related to financial performance but not significantly related to competitiveness; (2) Among the four dimensions of CSR, corporate governance has a positive relation to both financial performance and competitiveness, and environmental protection has a negative relation to both financial performance and competiveness. This result suggests that corporate governance is helpful for financial performance and long-term competitiveness, and investment in environmental protection which will result in an increase in operational cost is disadvantageous to firm value; (3) Further analysis of the sample divided by overall CSR score into two groups suggests that high CSR score has a significant and positive effect on only ROE; (4) Among the four dimensions of CSR, social participation has a significantly positive effect on financial performance and competitiveness for firms in the high CSR group; corporate governance has a significantly positive effect on financial performance and competitiveness for firms in the low CSR group; environmental protection has a significantly negative effect on financial performance and competitiveness for both groups of firms.
論文目次 目 錄
第壹章 緒 論..........................1
第一節 研究背景與動機..................1
第二節 研究目的........................3
第三節 論文架構與研究流程..............4
第貳章 文獻回顧與假說建立..............6
第一節 企業社會責任....................6
第二節 企業社會責任與財務績效.........16
第三節 企業競爭力.....................19
第四節 假說建立.......................22
第參章 研究方法.......................25
第一節 研究對象與期間.................25
第二節 研究變數與衡量.................25
第三節 實證模型.......................28
第肆章 實證結果與分析.................31
第一節 敘述性統計及相關係數分析......31
第二節 迴歸分析......................34
第三節 遞延分析......................42
第四節 額外分析......................49
第伍章 結論與建議.....................60
第一節 研究結論......................60
第二節 研究限制......................62
第三節 研究建議......................62
參 考 文 獻...........................64
表目錄
表2-1 OECD多國企業指導綱領.....9
表2-2 社會擔當8000.....11
表4-1 全體樣本之敘述性統計量.....31
表4-2 全體變數之Pearson相關係數矩陣.....33
表4-3 企業社會責任整體評價與財務績效指標之實證結果.....34
表4-4 企業社會責任四項構面評價與財務績效指標之實證結果....35
表4-5 企業社會責任整體評價與競爭力指標之實證結果.....36
表4-6 企業社會責任四項構面評價與競爭力指標之實證結果.....37
表4-7 全體樣本各迴歸模型標準化係數之比較.....40
表4-8 假說驗證結果.....41
表4-9 遞延分析之全體樣本敘述性統計量 .....43
表4-10遞延分析之全體變數Pearson相關係數矩陣.....44
表4-11前期企業社會責任整體評價與後期競爭力指標之實證結果.....45
表4-12前期企業社會責任四項構面評價與後期競爭力指標之實證結果.....46
表4-13同期vs遞延分析迴歸模型標準化係數之比較.....48
表4-14高分組及低分組樣本之敘述性統計量.....49
表4-15高分組及低分組企業社會責任整體評價與財務績效指標之實證結果.....50
表4-16高分組及低分組企業社會責任四項構面評價與財務績效指標之實證結果.....51
表4-17高分組及低分組企業社會責任整體評價與競爭力指標之實證結果.....52
表4-18高分組及低分組企業社會責任四項構面評價與競爭力指標之實證結果.....53
表4-19高分組及低分組各迴歸模型標準化係數之比較.....56
表4-20高分組及低分組假說驗證結果.....57
表4-21高分組及低分組前期企業社會責任整體評價與後期競爭力指標之實證結果.....58
表4-22高分組及低分組前期企業社會責任四項構面評價與後期競爭力指標之實證結果.....59
圖目錄
圖1-1研究流程圖.....5
參考文獻 中文部分
司徒賢達,1994,台灣企業之環境分析,企銀季刊 (3)1。
朱俞靜,2006,企業社會責任對企業競爭力影響之探討,大葉大學事業經營研究所碩士論文。
林佳瑩,2009,企業社會責任績效與財務績效及無形資產價值之相關性研究-以台灣資訊電子產業為例,國立交通大學管理科學系碩士論文。
林品妤,2010,台灣企業社會責任與財務績效表現之關係,國立中正大學財務金融所碩士論文。
吳思華,1996,產業經理與產業合作網路體系,臺灣經濟研究月刊。
季惠生,1999,企業競爭力衡量指標之研究─以製造業為例,中國文化大學國際企業管理研究所碩士論文。
邱毅,2002,追求利潤成社會責任,經濟前瞻雙月刊,(89)9,71。
施振榮,2000,iO 聯網組織-知識經濟的經營之道,天下文化出版公司。
翁望回、黃俊英與劉水深,1998,企業正當性之實證研究-社會責任觀點,管理評論,頁153-172。
陳志忠,2004,智慧資本與公司價值之關聯性-從競爭力探討,國立彰化師範大學會計系碩士論文。
張雅琳,2004,我國企業獨立董事機制與經營績效之關聯性研究,大葉大學會計資訊系碩士論文。
葉旻其,2009,公司治理機制對企業績效與董監薪酬之影響,國立政治大學會計系碩士論文。
游輝城,2011,企業社會責任是企業競爭力的策略工具?(working paper)。
英文部分
Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., T. E. Christensen, and K. E. Hughes. 2004. The relations among environmental disclosure, environment al performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society 29 (5-6):447-471.
Ambastha, D. A., and Momaya, D. K. 2004. Competitiveness of Firms: Review of Theory, Frameworks and Models. Singapore Management Review 26(1), 45-61.
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. R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 4(4 ): 497-505.
Cornell, B. and A. C. Shapiro. 1987. Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management 16(1): 5-14.
Davis, K. 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? . California Management Review 2 (3): 70-76.
Dollar, D., and E. N. Wolf. 1993. Competitiveness, convergence, and international specialization. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone MS. 1997. Intellectual capital: realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden roots. HaroerCollins Publishers .
Friedman, M. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profit. New York Times Magazine September 13: 122-126.
Galbraith, J. K. 1967. The New Industrial State. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gompers, P., J. Ishii, and A. Metrick. 2003. Corporate governance and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118: 107-156.
Hall, R. 1992. The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal 13: 187-201.
Hill, C.W.L., and Jones, G.R. 1995. Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach. 3th ed. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.
Jaggi, B., and M. Freedman. 1992. An examination of the impact of pollution performance on economic and market performance: Pulp and paper firms. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 19 (5):697-713.
Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 404-437.
Konar, S., and M. A. Cohen. 2001. Does the market value environmental performance. The Review of Economics and Statistics 83 (2): 281-289.
Lynskey, M. J. 1999. The Transfer of Resources and Competencies for Developing Technological Capabilities-the Case of Fujitsu-ICL. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Abingdon, 11(3): 317-336.
Moore, M. H., L. D. Brown, and J. P. Honan. 2001. Toward a public value framework for accountability and performance management for international Non-Governmental Organization. Hauser Center/Keio University Workshop on Accountability for International Nongovernmental Foundation.
Porter, M. E.1985 . Competitive Advantage: Creating And Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer. 2006. Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review.
Prahalad, C. K., and G Hamel. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review May-June: 77-91.
Preston, L. E. and D. P. O’Bannon. 1997. The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship:A Typology and Analysis. Business and Society 36(3): 419-429.
Pulic, A. 2000. VAIC-an accounting tool for IC management. International Journal of Technology Management 20(5-8): 702-714.
Russo, M. V., and P. A. Fouts. 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal 40 (3): 534-559.
Schuler, D. A. and M. Gording. 2006. A Corporate Social Performance-Corporate Financial Performance Behavioral Model for Consumers. Academy of Management Review 31(1): 540-558.
Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation, Berkeley: Harper and Row.
Sethi, S. P. 1975. Dimensions of corporate social performance: an analytical framework. California Management Review 17(3): 58-64.
Stewart, T. A. 1997. Intellectual capital: the new wealth of organizations. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.
Vilanova, M. Lozano, M. J. and Arenas, D. 2009. Exploring the Nature of the Relationship Between CSR and Competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics 87(1): 57–69.
Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves. 1997. The Corporate Social Performance – Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal 18(1): 303-319.
Walley, N., and B. Whitehead. 1994. It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review 72 (3): 46-52.
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review 16(3): 691-718.
網路資源
台灣企業社會責任網站http://csr.moea.gov.tw/main.aspx
Oekom Resaerch AG http://www.oekom-research.com/index_en.php

論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2013-09-12公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-09-12起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信