有鑑於近年來國內外企業弊案頻傳，各國主管機關無不積極尋找防弊之道，然美國於2002年所頒布的沙賓法案（Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002）中，已針對加強公司治理列為該法案的重要項目之一，因此，在尚未找到有效解決企業弊案發生的方法前，公司治理仍是一帖有效的良方。由於董事會是公司治理的核心機制，故本研究探討董事會品質的形成，進而瞭解對盈餘管理的影響程度。而董事會品質係以董事會之多元性、專業性及獨立性三大層面所構成；盈餘管理則是以裁決性應計數絕對值為替代之衡量變數，藉此建立衡量關係之模型。此外，因台灣上市公司中，集團企業與電子產業之環境特殊，故另外考量以集團及產業別的情境下，探討董事會品質與盈餘管理之關係是否有所差異。
    實證結果發現(1)董事會多元性品質構面：機構法人董事比及董事會規模對盈餘管理變數呈顯著正及負相關，實證認為，機構法人董事比愈小董事會多元性品質較佳，盈餘管理程度也較小（電子及非電子業亦同）；而董事會規模愈大董事會多元性品質較佳，盈餘管理程度亦較小（集團、電子及非電子業亦同）。而在非電子業及集團企業情境下，公司若有設置審計或其他功能性委員會時，盈餘管理程度亦有抑制效果。因此，實證認為，非電子產業及集團企業中，有設置審計或其他功能性委員會時，董事會多元性品質較佳，盈餘管理的程度則愈趨緩和。(2)董事會專業性品質構面：在非電子業情境下，具有碩士以上程度的董事愈多，董事會專業性品質愈佳，而盈餘管理程度亦較緩和；另外，在集團企業情境下，公司若為董事投保責任險，則專業性品質較差，而有助於盈餘管理行為的加劇。(3)董事會獨立性品質構面：董事長兼任總經理與盈餘管理變數呈顯著正相關；而董事股權質押比與獨立董事兼任其他公司董事職務多寡對盈餘管理變數呈顯著負相關。實證認為，董事長兼任總經理時董事會獨立性品質較差，盈餘管理程度較大（集團、非集團企業及電子業亦同）；董事股權質押比愈高董事會獨立性品質較好，盈餘管理程度較小（集團企業及電子業亦同）；獨立董事兼任其他公司董事職務愈多董事會獨立性品質較好，盈餘管理程度較小（非電子業亦同）。最後，我發現在非電子產業的情境下，獨立董事席次愈高有助於緩和盈餘管理現象，但在集團企業的情境下卻有助長盈餘管理的行為。

Enterprise frauds of both domestic and international origins are reported in the media with increasing frequency, and the governing agencies of all countries also responded with aggressively seeking preventive measures for such abnormalities.  In the US, Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 refocused on one of its important items, the corporate governance as part of the endeavors. Thus, this becomes clear until an effective cure for preventing enterprise fraud is found; corporate governance remains to be one of the better solutions to fraud problems. Since board of directors is the core mechanism of corporate governance, this study intends to explore the quality formation for the board, in addition to further comprehend influences onto the extent of corporation earnings management.  The quality of board is comprised of three layered-profiles separated as diversity, professionalism and independence. And the earnings management employs absolute value of discretionary accruals as its replacement measuring variables, in order to establish the model of measuring relationships. Furthermore, due to special circumstances surrounded conglomerate enterprises and electronic industry of the listing companies in Taiwan, this study also takes into account conglomerate and industry factors, to explore whether there are any discrepancy of relationship between the board quality and earnings management.
  The findings of this study are (1) The diversified board quality composition: earnings management variables correlates with the ratios of institution board member in a positive way, but in a negative aspect with the board’s size and magnitude. Thus, this findings conclude that the lesser the institution member ratio,  the better the diversified board quality becomes with lesser extent of earnings management. ( This applies to both electronic and non-electronic industries).  Although the bigger the board sizes and magnitudes, the better the diversified board qualities become, with lesser extent of earnings management. (This applies to conglomerate enterprises, electronic and non- electronic industries).  Nevertheless, corporations under the non-electronic industry and conglomerate environment, those with setup of board mechanism with auditing or other functionalities, would have a restraining effect onto the extent of earnings management.  Consequently, the findings conclude that, within the conglomerate enterprise and non-electronics industry, those with the setup of board mechanism with auditing or other functionalities, the diversified board quality would perform better, and the extent of earnings management would be somewhat mitigated. (2)The professional quality composition of the board： Under the circumstances of non-electronic industry, the more the number of board member with academic degrees of Master and up, the milder the extent of earnings management becomes. Moreover, under the circumstance of conglomerate enterprise, if the corporation purchases liability insurance policies for its board member, this would result with poor quality in professionalism, and encourage the extensive behaviors of earnings management. (3)The quality composition of board independence： there is a positive correlation to earnings management variables if the chairman of the board holds a concurrent post of the president for that corporation. On the contrary, there is a negative correlation between earnings management variables with ratios of pledge of stock rights, in addition to independent director holding more or less concurrent post(s) of other corporation directors. The findings conclude that, with the chairman of the board holding concurrent position of the president, the quality of board independence suffers with greater extent of earnings management. (This applies to electronic industries, conglomerate and non-conglomerate enterprises). The higher the ratio of pledge of stock rights, the better the quality of board independence becomes, with lesser extent of earnings management. (This applies to both conglomerate enterprises and electronic industries).  The more the independent board member holding concurrent post of other corporations, the better the quality of board independence becomes, with lesser extent of earnings management. (This applies to non-electronic industries).  Lastly, I found out that under the non-electronic industry environment, greater number of independent director would mitigate the phenomenon of earnings management. On the contrary, the former would encourage the behavior of earnings management under the circumstances of conglomerate enterprise.

目 錄

第一章 緒論.............................................. 1
第一節 研究動機-------------------------------------------1
第二節 研究目的-------------------------------------------4
第三節 研究流程及預期貢獻---------------------------------6
第四節 論文架構------------------------------------------ 7
第二章 文獻探討.......................................... 8
第一節 代理理論與盈餘管理假說---------------------------- 8
第二節 董事會品質----------------------------------------15
第三節 盈餘管理------------------------------------------40
第三章 研究設計......................................... 45
第一節 觀念性架構及研究假說------------------------------45
第二節 研究模型與實證變數定義----------------------------48
第三節 樣本選取與資料來源--------------------------------57
第四章 實證結果與分析................................... 61
第一節 敘述統計分析--------------------------------------61
第二節 董事會品質與盈餘管理之線性迴歸結果分析------------70
第三節 集團及產業別之線性迴歸比較分析------------------- 80
第五章 結論與建議........................................91
第一節 研究結論------------------------------------------91
第二節 管理意涵------------------------------------------93
第三節 研究限制------------------------------------------96
第四節 研究建議------------------------------------------97
參考文獻................................................ 99

表目錄

【表2-1-1】代理理論文獻彙整架構表------------------------9
【表2-1-2】代理問題成因表--------------------------------10
【表2-1-3】代理問題解決方法彙整表------------------------13
【表2-2-1】先進國家公司治理實務準則對董事會規模比較表----23
【表2-2-2】先進國家公司治理實務準則對董事會委員會設置與組
           成比較表--------------------------------------26
【表2-2-3】我國上市公司董事及監察人持股比例統計表--------28
【表2-2-4】公司規模與董事平均人數及獨立董事比例分析------36
【表2-2-5】先進國家公司治理實務準則針對董事兼任其他公司董
           事上限比較表----------------------------------40
【表3-2-1】實證變數之定義與衡量彙總表--------------------55
【表3-3-1】實證變數之資料來源彙總表----------------------58
【表3-3-2】研究樣本（公司/年）篩選情況-------------------60
【表4-1-1】變數基本統計量--------------------------------62
【表4-1-2】董事會多元性構面產業別基本資料概況------------65
【表4-1-3】董事會專業性構面產業別基本資料概況------------66
【表4-1-4】董事會獨立性構面產業別基本資料概況------------67
【表4-1-5】自變數之變異數膨脹因素（VIF）-----------------68
【表4-1-6】相關係數矩陣----------------------------------69
【表4-2-1】裁決性應計數絕對值（|DA|）對董事會品質變數之迴
           歸結果----------------------------------------74
【表4-2-2】全部變數迴歸－假說實證結果彙整----------------75
【表4-2-3】裁決性應計數絕對值（|DA|）對董事會多元性構面之
           迴歸結果--------------------------------------77
【表4-2-4】裁決性應計數絕對值（|DA|）對董事會專業性構面之
           迴歸結果--------------------------------------78
【表4-2-5】裁決性應計數絕對值（|DA|）對董事會獨立性構面之
           迴歸結果--------------------------------------79
【表4-3-1】集團及非集團企業各變數基本統計量--------------81
【表4-3-2】集團及非集團企業之線性迴歸結果----------------84
【表4-3-3】集團及非集團企業迴歸－假說實證結果彙整--------85
【表4-3-4】電子及非電子產業各變數基本統計量--------------86
【表4-3-5】電子及非電子產業之線性迴歸結果----------------88
【表4-3-6】電子及非電子產業迴歸－假說實證結果彙整--------90

圖目錄

【圖1-3-1】研究流程圖------------------------------------6
【圖2-3-1】會計程序變動與公司價值之連結關係圖------------42
【圖3-1-1】研究架構圖------------------------------------45

參考文獻
王泰昌、鄭博文，1993，「代理問題與代理成本(上)、(下)」，會計研究月刊，第93、94期，P155-160、P123-127。
王鼎立，2002，董事會結構與公司盈餘的傳遞效果，東吳大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
沈維民，1997，「企業之盈餘管理：以「會計方法選用」和「應計項目認列」為例」，管理評論，第十六卷，第一期，P11-38。
林君玲，1999，企業財務危機預警資訊之研究--考慮公司監理因素，國立臺灣大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
林育雅，1994，我國上市公司董事會特性與盈餘操緃現象之研究，國立臺灣大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
周國泰，2005，員工紅利與董監酬勞對公司經營績效之影響，中原大學管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
胡永純，1997，盈餘預測與盈餘管理之關聯性研究，國立中興大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
高蘭芬，2002，董監事股權質押之代理問題對會計資訊與公司績效之影響，國立成功大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
高蘭芬、邱正仁，2002，「董監事股權質押對會計盈餘與股票報酬相關性之影響」，臺大管理論叢，13(1)，P127-162。
陳錦村、葉雅薰，2002，「公司改組、監督機制與盈餘管理之研究」，會計評論，34期，1-29。
張明峰，1991，股權結構對公司績效影響之研究，政治大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。 
戚務君、馬瑜霙，2003，「我國獨立董事以及獨立監察人制度對異常應計影響之研究」，金融風險管理季刊，卷1:1，P35-60。
楊雅嵐，2004，公費依存度、公司治理風險與盈餘管理穩健性之關係，輔仁大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文。
熊大中，2000，我國企業財務危機與董監股權質押關連性之研究，國立成功大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
廖益興，2004，董監事獨立性、企業結構特徵與盈餘管理之關聯性研究，國立臺北大學會計學研究所未出版博士論文。
劉紹樑，2003，「專題一：公司治理的理念、現況與改革」，證券暨期貨管理月刊， 第二十一卷，第四期，P1-19。
謝文馨，1999，家族企業管治機制與盈餘管理之關聯性研究，東吳大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
謝文馨、蘇裕惠，1999，「從美國COSO檢討報告檢視我國之董監制度與盈餘管理」，會計研究月究，第167期，P112~120。
蕭瓊枝，2006，我國獨立董監制度及董監酬勞對公司經營績效影響之研究，輔仁大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
Abbott, L. J., S. Parker, and G. F. Peters. 2002. Audit committee characteristics and financial misstatement: a study of the efficiency of certain Blue Ribbon committee recommendations. Working paper, the 2001 American Accounting Association.
Abbott, L. J., Y. Park, and S. Parker, 2000. The effects of audit committee activity and independence on corporate fraud. Managerial Finance 26(11): 55-67.
Abdullah, S. N. 2006, Directors' remuneration, firm's performance and corporate governance in Malaysia among distressed companies, Corporate Governance. Vol. 6, Iss. 2; p. 162
Adams, R. B., and D. Ferreira. 2002. Diversity and incentives in teams: Evidence from corporate boards. Working paper, University of Chicago.
Bange, M., and M. Mazzeo. 1996. Board composition, board effectiveness and the observed form of takeover bids. Working paper, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Barnea, A., R .A. Haugen, and L. W. Senbet. 1985. Agency Problem and Financial Contracting Prentice-Hall.
Bartov, E. 1993. The timing of asset sales and earnings manipulation. The Accounting review 68: 840-855.
Baysinger, B. D., and H.N. Butler, 1985. Corporate governance and the board of directors: value effects of changes in board composition, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 1, 101-124.
Beasley, M.S., 1996. An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director composition and financial statement fraud. The Accounting Review 71(4), 443-465.
Beasley, M.S., J. V. Carcello, D. R. Hermanson, and P. D. Lapides. 2000. Fraudulent financial reporting: consideration of industry traits and corporate governance mechanisms. Accounting Horizons 14(4): 441-454.
Berle, A. and G. Means. 1932. The modern corporation and private property.MacMillan. New York. N.Y.
Booth, J. R., and D. N. Deli. 1996. Factors affecting the number of outside directorships held by CEOs. Journal of Financial Economics 40: 81-104.
Booth, J. R., and D. N. Deli. 1999. On executives of financial institutions as outside directors. Journal of Corporate Finance 5: 221-250.
Borokhovich, K. A., K. R. Brunarski, M. S. Donahue and Y. S. Harman. 2006. The Importance of Board Quality in the Event of a CEO Death, The Financial Review, 41, P307-337
Bowen, R. M., S. Rajgopal, and M. Venkatachalam. 2003. Accounting choice, corporate governance and firm performance. Working paper, University of Washington.
Brook, Y., and R. K. S. Rao. 1994. Shareholder wealth effects of directors’ liability limitation provisions. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 29: 481-497.
Bushee, B. 1998. The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. The Accounting Review73(3), 305-333.
Cahan, S. F., and B. R. Wilkinson. 1999. Board composition and regulatory change: Evidence from the enactment of new companies legislation in New Zealand. Financial　Management 28: 32-42.
Carcello, J. V., and T. L. Neal. 2000. Audit committee characteristics and auditor reporting. The Accounting Review 75 (October): 453-467.
Carter, D. A., B. J. Simkins, and W. G. Simpson. 2003. Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. The Financial Review 38: 33-53. 
Ching, K. M. L., M. Firth, and O. M. Rui. 2002. Earnings management, corporate governance and the market performance of seasoned equity offerings. Working paper, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Chtourou, S. M., J. Bedard, and L. Courteau. 2001. Corporate governance and earnings management. Working paper, University of Laval.
DeAngelo, L. 1981. Auditor Size and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3(December):183-199.
Dechow, P. M., R. G. Sloan, and A. P. Sweeney. 1995. Detecting earnings management. The Accounting Review 70, 193-226.
Dechow, P. M., R. G. Sloan, and A. P. Sweeney. 1996.Causes and consequences of earnings manipulation : an analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the SEC.Contemporary Accounting Research 13, 1-36.
Dhaliwal, Dan S. 1980. The Effect of the Firm's Capital Structure on the Choice of Accounting Methods. The Accounting Review, Jan 1980. Vol. 55, Iss. 1; p. 78
Eisenberg, Sundgren and Wells.1998. Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics 48(1): 35-54
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.1989. Agency Theory: An Assessment And Review. The Academy of Management Review. Briarcliff Manor: Jan 1989. Vol. 14, Iss. 1; p. 57
Fama, E. F. 1980. Agency problem and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy. 88(2)：288-307.
Fama, E. F., and M. C. Jensen. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics 26, 301-325.
Farber, D. B. 2005. Restoring Trust after Fraud：Does Corporate Governance Matter? The Accounting Review, Apr. 2005, 80, 2,P539-561
Ferris, S. P., M. Jagannathan, and A. C. Pritchard. 2002. Too busy to mind the business? Monitoring by directors with multiple board appointments. Journal of Finance.
Finkle, T. A. 1998. The relationship between boards of directors and initial public offerings in the biotechnology industry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 5-29.
Guesnerie, Roger, Picard, Pierre, Rey, Patrick. 1989. Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard with Risk Neutral Agents. European Economic Review. Amsterdam: Apr 1989. Vol. 33, Iss. 4; p. 807.
Healy, P. 1985. The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 7, 261-279.
Healy, P. M., and J. M. Wahlen. 1999. A review of the earnings management literature anditsimplications for standard setting. Accounting Horizons 13, 365-383.
Hermalin, B. E., and M. S. Weisbach. 1991. The Effects of Board Composition and Direct Incentives on Firm Performance. Financial Management. Winter 1991. Vol. 20, Iss. 4; p. 101 
Hermalin, B. E., and M. S. Weisbach. 2003. Boards of directors as endogenously determined institutions: A survey of the economic literature, Economic Policy Review.7-26.
Howton, S. W. 2006. Effect of Governance Characteristics on the State of the Firm after an Initial Public Offering, The Financial Review. Tallahassee: Aug 2006. Vol. 41, Iss. 3; p. 419
Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling, 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360
Jensen, M. C. 1993. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance 48, 831-880
Jones, C. J. 1991. Earnings management during import relief investigation. Journal of Accounting Research 29: 193-228.
Juran, J. & F. Gryna（1980）. Quality Planning and Analysis, 2nd ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Kaplan, R. S. 1985. Comments on Paul Healy: evidence on the effect of bonus schemes on accounting procedure and accrual decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 7, 109-113.
Kesner, I. F. 1988. Directors’ characteristics and committee membership: an investigation of type, occupation, tenure, and gender. Academy of Management Journal 31, 66-84.
Keys, P. Y., K. M. Ellis, P. T. Newsome, and S. Friday. 2002. Shareholder benefits of diversity .Working paper, University of Delaware.
Klein, A. 1998. Firm performance and board committee structure. Journal of Law and Economics : 275-303.
Klein, A. 2002. Audit Committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 33, 375-400.
Kothari, S.P., Leoneb, A. J., Wasley, C. E. 2005. Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 39, P163–197.
Lev, B. and R. Thiagarajan, “Fundamental Information Analysis” ,Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.31, No.2, (1993), 190-215.
Lipton, M., and J. Lorsch. 1992. A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. Business Lawyer 59: 59-77.
Lisa F., and L. Joanne. 2005. Director Quality and Firm Performance. The Financial Review, 40, 257-279
Liu, Q., and Z. Lu. 2002. Earning management to tunnel: Evidence from China’s listed companies. Working paper, University of Hong Kong.
McMullen, D. A., and K. Raghundan. 1996. Enhancing audit committee effectiveness. Journal of Accountancy 182 (August): 79-81.
Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny. 1988. Management ownership and market valuation. Journal of Financial Economics 20, 293-315.
Oviatt, B. M.1988. Agency and Transaction Cost Perspectives on the Manager-Sha.  The Academy of Management Review. Briarcliff Manor: Apr 1988. Vol. 13, Iss. 2; p. 214.
Park, Y. W., and H. H. Shin. 2002. Board Composition and earnings management in Canada Journal of Corporate Finance 10 (2004) 431– 457
Peasnell, K. V., P. F. Pope, and S. Young. 1999. Directors: Who are they? Accountancy 123,114.
Peasnell, K. V., P. F. Pope, and S. Young. 2000. Accrual management to meet earnings targets:UK evidence pre-and post-Cadbury. British Accounting Review 32: 415-445.
Peasnell, K. V., P. F. Pope, and S. Young. 2001.Board monitoring and earnings management: Do outside directors influence abnormal accruals? Working paper, Lancaster University
Beekun, R. I., Y. Stedham, and G. J. Young. 1998. Board characteristics, managerial controls and corporate strategy: A study of U.S. hospitals , Journal of Management, Volume 24, Issue 1,, Pages 3-19
Rajgopal, S., and M. Venkatachalam. 1998. The role of institutional investors in corporate governance: An empirical investigation. Working paper, University of Washington.
Reitenga, A. L., and M. G. Tearney. 2003. Mandatory CEO retirements, discretionary accruals, and corporate governance mechanisms. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 18(2): 255-280.
Rosenstein, J.1988. The Board of Strategy: Venture Capital and High Technology, Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 3, Iss. 2; p159.
Rosenstein, S., and J. G. Wyatt. 1990. Outsider directors, board independence and stockholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics 26, 175-191.
Ryan, H. E. Jr, and R. A. Wiggins III. 2004. Who is in whose pocket Director compensation board independence and barriers to effective monitoring, Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 73, Iss. 3; p. 497
Schipper, K. 1989. Commentary on earnings management. Accounting Horizons 3, 91-102.
Shleifer, A., and R. W. Vishny. 1986. Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy: 461-488.
Shrader, C. B., V. B. Blackburn, and P. Iles. 1997. Women in management and firm financial value: an exploratory study, Journal of Managerial Issues 9, 355-372. 
Teoh, S. H., I. Welch, and T. J. Wong. 1998. Earnings management and the underperformance of seasoned equity offerings. Journal of Financial Economics 50: 63-99、53: 1935-1974.
Vafeas, N. 1999. Board meeting frequency and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics 53, 113-142.
Vafeas, N. 2000. Board structure and the informativeness of earnings. Journal of accounting and Policy 19: 139-160.
Vafeas, N. 2003. Length of board tenure and outside director independence. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. Vol. 30, Iss. 7/8; p. 1043
Vance, S. C. 1983. Corporate Leadership: Boards, Directors, and Strategy McGraw-Hill, New York.
Warfield, T. D., J. J. Wild, and K. L. Wild. 1995. Managerial ownership, accounting choices, and informativeness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20, 61-92.
Watts. R., and J. Zimmerman. 1986. Positive Accounting Theory, Prentice-Hall.
Weisbach, M. 1988. Outsider directors and CEO turnover. Journal of Financial Economics 20,431-460.
Williamson, O. E. 1983. Organizational form, residual claimants, and corporate control. Journal of Law and Economic 26, 351.
Xie, B., W. N. Davidson, and P. J. DaDalt. 2003. Earnings management and corporate governance: the role of the board and the audit committee. Journal of Corporate Finance 9: 295-316.
Yeh, Y. H., and T. S. Lee. 2002. “Corporate Governance and Corporate Equity Investments: Evidence from Taiwan.” The 9th Global Finance conference ,Beijing, China.
Yermack, D. 1996. Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors, Journal of Financial Economics 40, 185-211.
Zahra, S. A., and J. A. Pearce. 1989."Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and Integrated model, "Journal of Management, 15 (2), 291-334.
Zahra, S. A., and W. W. Stanton. 1988. The implications of board of directors composition for corporate strategy and value, International Journal of Management 5, 229-236