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 U0002-0607201112320800
中文論文名稱 股東利益觀點、社會績效及企業價值關聯性之研究
英文論文名稱 The Relationship among Stockholder-oriented view, Social Performance and Firm Value
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 會計學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Accounting
學年度 99
學期 2
出版年 100
研究生中文姓名 蕭立群
研究生英文姓名 Li-Chen Hsiao
學號 698600482
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2011-06-11
論文頁數 65頁
口試委員 指導教授-黃振豊
共同指導教授-孔繁華
委員-林孟彥
委員-蔡瑤昇
委員-徐志順
中文關鍵字 股東利益觀點  社會績效  企業價值  利害關係人 
英文關鍵字 stockholder-oriented view  social performance  firm value  stakeholder 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學商學
中文摘要 本研究以S&P 500企業為對象,探討股東利益觀點、社會績效與企業價值間之關聯性。股東為企業利害關係人之一,然而,股東兼具企業之法定所有人身分,企業為了滿足股東之利益,常會違背其他利害關係人對於企業之期望,以往企業經營總以股東為重,隨著企業社會責任之發展,企業經營從以往重視單一股東需求的觀念慢慢轉變成照顧多元利害關係人,開始逐漸重視各方利害關係人之期望,故股東與其他利害關係人間之關係,對於企業價值有何影響,乃是十分值得研究之議題。
本研究參考Axinn, Blair and Thack (2004)的倫理道德與社會責任認知量表,分為股東與其他利害關係人等兩個群體,藉此來研究股東與其他利害關係人間之關係對於企業價值有何影響。以Axinn et al, (2004)之股東觀點問項,選用企業之獲利能力、營運效率與競爭力等來衡量其股東利益觀點。社會績效則是採用KLD Database所提供之社會績效指標作為衡量,企業價值部分選用能反映有形與無形資產相對價值之Tobin’s Q。
本研究以結構方程模式(Structural equation model)分析同年度之股東利益觀點、社會績效與企業價值間之關聯性,並加入時間序列之概念,進行跨期間的比較,以此建構股東利益觀點、社會績效與企業價值間之關聯性模型。實證結果顯示,股東利益觀點有助於提升當年度或下年度之企業價值,此外,驗證了在資源寬鬆理論的主張下,企業之股東利益觀點能透過擁有寬鬆的資源分配,使其社會績效之提升。而社會績效有助於提高企業價值,則是驗證了良好管理理論之主張。
英文摘要 This research investigates the relationship among stockholder-oriented view, social performance and firm value of the constituents of S&P 500. Stockholders are considered as one of the many stakeholders of a firm and act as legal owner. In the past, profits are often stockholder oriented. Many times, decisions have been made to favor stockholders at the cost of sacrificing stakeholders’ interests and expectations. However, as corporate social responsibility prevails, firms in turn have switched their attention to the satisfactory of the stakeholders. Hence, whether the relationship among stockholders and the rest of the stakeholders will impose effect on firm value is ripe for further analysis.
This research references the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility from Axinn, Blair and Thack (2004), meanwhile, distinguishes stockholders from the rest of the stakeholders in order to analyze the possible effect that the relationship (i.e. among stockholders and stakeholders) may have imposed on the firm value. Based on Axinn et al, (2004)’s stockholder-oriented view, this research includes firm profit yields, operating efficiency and competitiveness as proxies to evaluate stockholder-oriented view, and in the mean time, adopts social performance index provided by KLD Database to evaluate social performance. As for measuring firm value, the Tobin’s Q serves as proxy since it reflects the relative value of a firm’s tangible and intangible assets.
The relation among stockholder-oriented view, social performance, and firm value is analyzed using structural equation model, meanwhile, time-series’ analysis is adopted for cross-period comparative evaluation. Finally, these modules construct the relational model of stockholder-oriented view, social performance and corporate social performance.
The main implication of this study indicates that the stockholder-oriented view helps in raising firm value in current year or subsequent year. In addition, the result evidences that under the slack resource theory, stockholder-oriented view can enhance social performance via allocating slack resource. Furthermore, the fact that social performance raises firm value evidences the good management theory.
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 研究架構 3
第四節 研究流程 5
第貳章 文獻探討 6
第一節 企業社會責任 6
第二節 利害關係人理論 10
第三節 股東利益觀點 11
第四節 社會績效 13
第五節 股東利益觀點、社會績效與企業價值間之關係 15
第参章 研究方法 19
第一節 觀念性架構 19
第二節 研究期間與對象 20
第三節 變數定義與衡量 21
第四節 資料分析方法 25
第肆章 實證結果與分析 27
第一節 相關分析 27
第二節 效度分析 28
第三節 差異分析 31
第四節 結構方程模式分析 37
第伍章 結論與建議 49
第一節 研究結論 49
第二節 管理意涵 51
第三節 研究貢獻 52
第四節 研究限制與建議 53
參考文獻 55
中文文獻 55
英文文獻 55

表 目 錄
表2- 1 PRESOR量表 13
表2- 2 利害關係人關係與競爭優勢 14
表2- 3 社會績效行為 14
表3- 1 研究假說與問題彙總表 20
表3- 2 財務績效與社會績效關聯性之研究 21
表3- 3 股東利益觀點 21
表3- 4 KLD涵蓋範圍 22
表3- 5 KLD社會績效實證研究 23
表3- 6 KLD指數 24
表3- 7 結構方程式之整體適合指標 26
表4- 1 2006年度各研究構面之相關分析 27
表4- 2 2007年度各研究構面之相關分析 28
表4- 3 2008年度各研究構面之相關分析 28
表4- 4 2006年度股東利益觀點之個別項目效度與適合度 29
表4- 5 2007年度股東利益觀點之個別項目效度與適合度 29
表4- 6 2008年度股東利益觀點之個別項目效度與適合度 30
表4- 7 2006年度股東利益觀點之相關分析 30
表4- 8 2007年度股東利益觀點之相關分析 30
表4- 9 2008年度股東利益觀點之相關分析 31
表4- 10 產業別對股東利益觀點(2006)差異之單因子變異數分析 33
表4- 11 產業別對社會績效(2007)差異之單因子變異數分析 34
表4- 12 產業別對企業價值(2008)差異之單因子變異數分析 34
表4- 13 年度對股東利益觀點差異之單因子變異數分析 36
表4- 14 年度對社會績效差異之單因子變異數分析 36
表4- 15 年度對企業價值差異之單因子變異數分析 36
表4- 16 2006年度之結構方程模型分析表 38
表4- 17 2006年度之殘差分析表 38
表4- 18 2007年度結構方程模型分析表 40
表4- 19 2008年度結構方程模型分析表 41
表4- 20 2008年度之殘差分析表 41
表4- 21 2006年~2007年結構方程模型分析表 43
表4- 22 2006年~2007年之殘差分析表 43
表4- 23 2006年~2008年結構方程模型分析表 45
表4- 24 2006年~2008年殘差分析表 45
表4- 25 研究假說彙總表 48


圖 目 錄
圖1- 1 研究流程圖 5
圖2- 1 企業社會責任金字塔圖 8
圖2- 2 企業社會責任三個範疇 9
圖3- 1 本研究之觀念性架構圖 19
圖4- 1 2006年度股東利益觀點、社會績效與企業價值結構方程模式圖 39
圖4- 2 2007年度股東利益觀點、社會績效與企業價值結構方程模式圖 40
圖4- 3 2008年度股東利益觀點、社會績效與企業價值結構方程模式圖 42
圖4- 4 2006年~2007年股東利益觀點、社會績效與企業價值結構方程模式圖 44
圖4- 5 股東利益觀點、社會績效與企業價值動態結構方程模式圖 46



參考文獻 參考文獻
中文文獻
廖婉鈞、林月雲、虞邦祥,2009,知覺組織利害關係人重要程度與組織績效之關係:企業社會責任作為中介之效果,管理學報,第26卷第2期,213-232。
李義昭、洪沛甫和鄭魁香,2008,企業價值之衡量指標-以台灣精品獎通訊類得獎企業為例,中華管理評論國際學報,第十一卷第四期。
吳明隆,2008,結構方程模式:Amos的操作與應用,台北:五南出版社。
方妙玲,2008,高階主管薪資與財務績效及社會績效之關聯性:代理理論及利害關係人理論觀點,企業管理學報,第77卷,47-80。
陳順宇,2007,結構方程模式:Amos操作。台北市:心理出版社股份有限公司
黃芳銘,2007,結構方程模式:理論與應用,台北:五南出版社。
英文文獻
Aupperle, K. E., 1991. The use of forced choice survey procedures in assessing corporate social orientation. In J. E. Post (ed), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 12: 269-280.
Aupperle, K. E., A. B. Carroll, and J. D. Hatfoeld. 1985. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal 28(2): 446-463.
Avian, V. A., Y. Ge, and J. Qiu. 2005. The impact of leverage on firm investment: Canadian evidence. Journal of Finance 11: 277-291
Axinn, C. N., M. E. Blair, A. Heorhiadi, and S. V. Thach. 2004. Comparing ethical ideologies across cultures. Journal Of Business Ethics 54: 103-119.
Bagozzi, R.P., and Y. Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marking Science 16: 76-94.
Berman, S., A. C.Wicks, S.Kotha, and T. Jones. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 42: 488-505.
Bourgeois, L. J., 1981. On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review 6: 29-39.
Bowen, F. E., 2002. Organizational slack and corporate greening: Broadening the debate. British Journal of Management 13(4): 305–316.
Bowen, H. R., 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
Bragdon, J. H., and J. A. T. Marlin. 1972. Is pollutionp rofitable? Risk Management 19 (4): 9-18.
Carroll, A. B., 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review 4(4): 497-505.
Carroll, A. B., 2000. A commentary and an overview of key questions on corporate social performance measurement. Business and Society 39(4): 466-478.
Clarkson M., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 92–117.
Cornell, B., and A. C. Shapiro. 1987. Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management 16: 5-14.
Donaldson, T., and L. E. Preston. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 43–65.
Dyer, W. G., and D. A. Whetten. 2006. Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 30(6): 785–802.
Etheredge, J. M., 1999. The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: An alternative scale structure. Journal of Business Ethics 18: 51–64.
Ferrell, O. C., and H. Geoffrey. 2000. Business: A changing world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Folger, H., and F. Nutt. 1975. A note on social responsibility and stock valuation. Academy of Management Journal 18: 155-159.
Frederick, W. C., 1994. Classic paper: From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Business & Society 33: 150-164
Freeman, R. E., 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Friedman, M., 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine September 13 32-33, 122, 124, 126
Garcia-Castro, R., M. A. Arin˜o, and M. A. Canela. 2010. Does social performance really lead to financial performance? Accounting for endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics 92: 107-126
Gephart, R. P., 1991. Multiple methods for tracking corporate social performance: Insights from a study of major industrial accidents. In J. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate social performance and policy 12: 359-385.
Goodpaster, K. E., 1991. Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics 1: 53-73.
Grant, R. M., 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review 33: 114-135.
Hamel, G., and C. K. Prahalad. 1989. Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review 3: 63–76.
Heyes, C. L., and G. Ceton. 2009. An investigation of real versus perceived CSP in S&P-500 firms. Journal of Business Ethics 89:283-296.
Hill, C. W. L., and G. Jones. 1998. Strategic management theory : An Integrated Approach, 4th Edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hill, C. W. L., and T. M. Jones. 1992. Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies 29: 131-154.
Hillman, A. J., and G. D. Keim. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social Issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal 22(2): 125-139.
Hitt, M. A., R. D. Ireland, and R. E. Hoskisson. 1996. Strategic management: competitiveness and globalization 2ed. Minn :West Publishing Company.
Hull, C. E., and S. Rothenberg. 2008. Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal 29: 781–789.
Hunt, S. D., And R.M. Morgan. 1995. Marketing and the comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing 59: 1-15.
Huselid, M. A., 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 38(3): 635–672.
Ichniowski, C., 1990. Manufacturing businesses. NBER working paper series no. 3449, Na-tional Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA.
Jamali, D., and R. Mirshak. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Theory and practice in a developing country context. Journal of Business Ethics 72: 243-262.
Jensen, M., 1991. Corporate control and the politics of finance. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 4(2): 13-33.
Jones T. M. and A. C. Wicks. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of management Review 24(2): 206-221.
Lindenberg, E. B., and S. A. Ross. 1981, Tobin’s Q ratio and industrial organization. Journal of Business 54: 1–32.
Mattingly, J. E., and S. L. Berman. 2006. Measurement of corporate social action: discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data, Business & Society 45(1): 20–46.
McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren, and T. Schneeweis. 1988. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 31(4): 854-872.
McGuire, J., K. Argheyd, and S. Dow. 2003. CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics 45: 341-359.
Miles, R. A., 1987. Managing the corporate social environment: A grounded theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Trade.
Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts. 1986. Price and advertising signals of product quality. Journal of Political Economy 94: 796-821.
Murths, T. P., and S. A. Lenway. 1998. Country capabilities and the strategic state: How national political institutions affect MNC strategies. Strategic Management Journal 15(5): 113–119.
Nohria, N., and R. Gulati. 1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation. The Academy of Management Journal 39(5): 1245-1264
Parthiban, D., M. Bloom, and A. J. Hillman. 2007. Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1): 91–100.
Penrose, E., 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York:Wiley.
Pfeffer, J., and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Porter, M. E., 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Preston, L., and J. Post. 1975. Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility.
Pritchard, R. D., 1992. Organizational productivity. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2d ed.) 3: 443-471.
Quinn, D. P., and T. M. Jones. 1995. An agent morality view of business policy. Academy of Management Review 20: 22-42.
Robbins, S. P., and D. A. DeCenzo. 2001. Fundamentals of management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Ruf, B. M., K. Muralidhar, R. M. Brown, J. J. Janney and K. Paul. 2001. An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 32: 143-156.
Schuler, D. A., and M. Cording. 2006. Corporate social performance- Corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of Management Review 31(3): 540-558.
Schwartz, M. S., and A. B. Carroll. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (4): 503-530.
Sethi, V., and S. Carraher. 1993. Developing measures for assessing the organizational impact of information technology: A comment on mahmood and soon’s paper. Decision Science 24(4): 867-877
Sharma, S., 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 681–697.
Simpson, W. G., and T. Kohers. 2002. The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics 35(2):97-109.
Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell, K. C. Rallapalli, and K. L. Kraft. 1996. The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 1131–1140.
Smith, C., 1996. Corporate citizens and their critics. The New York Times: September 8.
Turban, D. B., and D. W. Greening. 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal 40: 658-672
Vilanova, M., J. M. Lozano, and D. Arenas. 2008. Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competiveness. Journal of Business Ethics 87: 57-69.
Waddock, S. A., and S. B. Graves. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal 18: 303-319.
Waddock, S. A., and S. B. Graves. 1994. Industry performance and investment in R&D and capital goods. Journal of High Technology Management Research 5(1): 1-17.
Weiss, J., and M. Tschirhart. 1994. Public information campaigns as policy instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(1): 82-119.
Wiggins, R. R., and T. W. Rueffli. 2002. Sustained competitive advantage: Temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic performance. Organization Science 13: 82-105.
Wolfe, R., and K. Aupperle. 1991. Introduction to corporate social performance: Method for evaluating an elusive construct. In J. E. Post (ed), Research in corporate social performance and policy 12: 265-268
Wood, D. J., 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review 16(4): 691-718

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2013-07-06公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-07-06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