本論文以臺灣地區作為研究樣本，探討國內銀行業投入企業社會責任(Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR)活動與經營績效優劣之關聯性，且有別於過去的研究，亦進一步觀測對於銀行本身風險承擔的影響。在近年相關文獻的研究中，可發現評估企業社會責任高低多以質化指標進行分析，並無法有效觀測投入程度差異所帶來的影響。有鑑於此，採用CSRHUB對臺灣地區銀行產業所提供之CSR量化數據進行經營績效與不同風險類別的迴歸模型估計。迴歸模型與拔靴複製(bootstrap)模擬結果證實當銀行投入企業社會責任活動，將有助於提升公司經營會計基礎與市場基礎之績效表現，並對降低預期違約風險具有顯著性成效，特別是具有金控公司背景的國內銀行，其效果將可大幅度的提升，但這些助益並未對當期營運風險產生影響。最後，當銀行為金控公司之控股銀行時，正面助益的效果將較非金控公司鋃行的效果明顯。

This dissertation aims to investigate the relationship between the domestic banking devoting to the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with their operating performance. In contrast to existing literatures, this dissertation further observes the degree of CSR related to the bank risk taking degree. Regarding recent studies, it can be found the level of corporate social responsibility usually being access by qualitative indicators, but cannot observe the differences brought by the degree of the corporate devotion to CSR. In view of this, by using the CSR quantitative data provided by CSRHUB to the banking industry of Taiwan, taking into account of the operating performance and various levels of risk categories regression models, the empirical results from the regression model and bootstrapping method confirm that when the banks devote to CSR actions, it will be helpful for the company performance levels of both accounting-based and market-based indicators. It can effectively reduce the potential risk of default. In addition, the bank possess the characteristics of financial holding company has large the positive effects than the bank with non-financial holding company. However, the results are not found in current operating risk indicator.

CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT	I
ABSTRACT IN CHINESE	II
ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH	III
CONTENTS 	IV
LIST OF TABLES	VI
LIST OF FIGURES	VII












CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION	1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW	4
CHAPTER 3 DATA AND METHODOLOGY	8
3.1 Variables Definition	8
3.2 Empirical Model Specification	14
3.3 Bootstrap Method	16
CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS	19
4.1 Data Source	19
4.2 Summary Statistics	23
CHAPTER 5 EMPIRICAL RESULTS	27
5.1 Estimated Results from linear Regression Method	27
5.2 Testing Results from Bootstrap Method	34
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS	50
REFERENCES	52
APPENDIX		57
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-2-1. Taiwan domestic bank financial data statistics	26
Table 5-1-1. Estimated results from Taiwan domestic bank market-based and accounting-based performance indicator	30
Table 5-1-2. Estimated results from Taiwan domestic bank market-based and accounting-based risk indicators	33
Table 5-2-1. Taiwan domestic bank accounting-based indicator bootstrap simulation results-1	36
Table 5-2-2. Taiwan domestic bank accounting-based indicator bootstrap simulation results-2	37
Table 5-2-3. Taiwan domestic bank accounting-based indicator bootstrap simulation results-3	38
Table 5-2-4. Taiwan domestic bank market-based indicator bootstrap simulation results
	46






LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 5-2-1. Taiwan domestic bank accounting-based indicator bootstrap simulation distribution results-1	39
Figure 5-2-2. Taiwan domestic bank accounting-based indicator bootstrap simulation distribution results-1	40
Figure 5-2-3. Taiwan domestic bank accounting-based indicator bootstrap simulation distribution result-3	41
Figure 5-2-4. Taiwan domestic bank accounting-based indicator bootstrap simulation distribution results-5	42
Figure 5-2-5. Taiwan domestic bank accounting-based indicator bootstrap simulation distribution results-5	43
Figure 5-2-6. Taiwan domestic bank market-based indicator bootstrap simulation results-1	47
Figure 5-2-7. Taiwan domestic bank market-based indicator bootstrap simulation results-2	48
Figure 5-2-8. Taiwan domestic bank market-based indicator bootstrap simulation results-3	49

王健聰、闕河士，2005年，臺灣與大陸企業資本結構決定因素比較之研究，輔仁管理評論，第十二卷，第一期，頁93-120。
沈中華、吳孟紋，2002年，銀行治理、銀行失敗與銀行績效：以臺灣為例，亞太經濟管理評論，第六卷，第一期，頁27-46。
沈中華、張元，2008年，企業的社會責任行為可以改善財務績效嗎? 以英國FTSE社會責任指數為例，經濟論文，第三十六卷，第三期，頁339–385。
高惠松，鄭品卉，2012年，集團企業特性、公司治理與社會責任績效，中華管理評論國際學報，第十五卷，第三期，頁1-34。
張元，2011年，社會責任公司有較高的股票報酬嗎?，輔仁管理評論，第十八卷，第一期，頁79-118。
黃健銘、簡郁蓉和鄭婉秀，2008年，臺灣金融機構公司治理特性與違約風險之探討，會計與公司治理，第五卷，第一期，頁33-54。
鄭伶如，2006年，不良債權與經營績效關係性之研究－以臺灣銀行業為例，聖約翰學報，第二十三期，頁189-202。
陳文魁，曹耀鈞，2008年，有社會責任會有較好的股價嗎？財務與股價連結研究，證券櫃檯月刊， 第136期，頁106-121。
鄧美貞，王琬青，2012年，企業社會責任與財務績效：以經營效率為中介效果，朝陽管理評論，第十一卷，第二期，頁77-104。
Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., and Hughes, K. E., 2004, The Relations among Environmental Disclosure. Environmental Performance, and Economic Performance: a Simultaneous Equations Approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5-6), pp. 447-471.
Anderson, J. and Smith, G., 2006. A Great Company Ban be a Great Investment, Financial Analysts Journal, pp. 86 -93.
Anginer, D., Fisher, K. L., and Statman, M., 2008, Stocks of Admired Companies and Despised Ones, Working Paper.
Antunovich, P., Laster, D., and Mitnick, S., 2000. Are High-Quality Firms also High-Quality Investments?, Current Issues in Economics and Finance, 6(1), pp. 1-6.
Bettis, R. A., 1981, Performance Differences in Related and Unrelated Diversified Firms, Strategic Management Journal, 2, pp. 379-394.
Becchetti, L., Ciciretti. R. and Hasan, I., 2007, Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder’s Value: An Event Study Analysis, Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
Black, F. and Scholes, M. S., 1973, The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities, Journal of Political Economy, 81, 637-654.
Burgman, T. A., (1996), An Empirical Examination of Multinational Corporate Capital Structure, Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), pp. 553-570.
Busch, T. and Hoffmann, V. H., 2011, How Hot Is Your Bottom Line? Linking Carbon and Financial Performance, Business Society, 50(2), pp. 233-265.
Chang, T. C., Yan, Y. C., and Chou, L. C., 2013, Is Default Probability Associated with Corporate Social Responsibility?. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics, 4, pp. 457-472.
Chava, S. and Purnanandam, A., 2010, CEOs vs CFOs: Incentives and Corporate Policies, Journal of Financial Economics, 97, pp. 263-278.
Cornell, B. and Shapiro, A. C., 1987. Corporate Stakeholders and Corporate Finance, Financial Management, 16, pp. 5-14.
Contrill, M. T., 1990, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Marketplace, Journal of Business Ethics, 9, pp.723-729.
Duffie, D., Saita, L. and Wang, K., 2007, Multi-period Corporate Default Prediction with Stochastic Covariates, Journal of Financial Economics, 83, pp.635-665.
Friend, I. and Lang, L. H. P., 1988. An Empirical Test of the Impact of Managerial Self-Interest on Corporate Capital Structure, Journal of Finance, 43, pp. 271-281.
Friedman, M., 1970, The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
Garlappi, L., Shu, T., and Yan, H., 2008, Default Risk, Shareholder Advantage, and Stock returns, Review of Financial Studies, 21, 2743-2778.
Gianluca, O., Dacorogna, M. M., and Jung, T., 2003, Credit Risk Models—Do They Deliver Their Promises? A Quantitative Assessment, Economic Notes, 32, pp. 177-195.
Kester, C. W., 1986, Capital and Ownership Structure: a Comparison of United States and Japanese Manufacturing Corporations, Financial Management, 15, pp. 5-16.
Konar, S. and Cohen, M. A., 2001, Does the Market Value Environmental Performance, Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2), pp.281-289.
Lehmann E., Warning, S., and Weigand, J., 2004, Governance Structures, Multidimensional Efficiency and Firm Profitability, Journal of Management and Governance, 8, pp. 279-304.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D., 2000, Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification?. Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), pp. 603-609.
McGuire, J., Sundgren, A., and Schneeweis, T., 1988, Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 31, pp. 854–872.
Merton, R. C., 1974, On the Pricing of Corporate Debt: The Risk Structure of Interest Rates, Journal of Finance, 29(2), pp. 449-470.
Preston, L. E. and O'Bannon, P., 1997, The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship, Business and Society, 36, pp. 419-429.
Schuler, D. A. and Cording, M., 2006, A Corporate Performance-Corporate Financial Performance Behavioral Model for Consumers, Academy of Management Review, 31, pp. 540-558.
Shefrin, H. and Statman, M., 2003, Style of Investment Expectation, The Handbook of Equity and Style Management, Coggin and Fabozzi eds. New York: Wiley.
Tsao, W. and Chen, W. K., 2006, Socially Responsible: Investment for Asian Sustainability, AFBE 2006 Annual Meeting Hanoi, Vietnam.
Ulmann, A. A., 1985, Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms, Academy Management Review, 10, pp. 540-557.
Waddock, S. A. and Graves, S. B., 1997, The Corporate Social Performance- Financial Performance Link, Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), pp. 303-319.	
Wald, J. K., 1999, How Firm Characteristics Affect Capital Structure: An International Comparison, Journal of Financial Research, 22(2), pp. 161-188.








APPENDIX
The Appendix provides a brief overview of the four corporate social responsibility dimensions from CSRHUB (2012). The dimensions include community, governance, environment and employees. It is as follows.
1. Community
The Community Category covers the company’s commitment and effectiveness within the local, national and global community in which it does business. It reflects a company’s citizenship, charitable giving, and volunteerism. This category covers the company’s human rights record and treatment of its supply chain. It also covers the environmental and social impacts of the company’s products and services, and the development of sustainable products, processes and technologies.
2. Governance
The Governance category covers disclosure of policies and procedures, board independence and diversity, executive compensation, attention to stakeholder concerns, and evaluation of a company’s culture of ethical leadership and compliance. Corporate governance refers to leadership structure and the values that determine corporate direction, ethics and performance. This category rates factors such as: are corporate policies and practices aligned with sustainability goals; is the management of the corporation transparent to stakeholders; are employees appropriately engaged in the management of the company; are sustainability principles integrated from the top down into the day-to-day operations of the company. Governance focuses on how management is committed to sustainability and corporate responsibility at all levels.
3. Employees
The Employees category includes disclosure of policies, programs, and performance in diversity, labor relations and labor rights, compensation, benefits, and employee training, health and safety. The evaluation focuses on the quality of policies and programs, compliance with national laws and regulations, and proactive management initiatives. The category includes evaluation of inclusive diversity policies, fair treatment of all employees, robust diversity (EEO-1) programs and training, disclosure of workforce diversity data, strong labor codes (addressing the core ILO standards), comprehensive benefits, demonstrated training and development opportunities, employee health and safety policies, basic and industry-specific safety training, demonstrated safety management systems, and a positive safety performance record.
4. Environment
The Environment category data covers a company’s interactions with the environment at large, including use of natural resources, and a company’s impact on the Earth’s ecosystems. The category evaluates corporate environmental performance, compliance with environmental regulations, mitigation of environmental footprint, leadership in addressing climate change through appropriate policies and strategies, energy-efficient operations, and the development of renewable energy and other alternative environmental technologies, disclosure of sources of environmental risk and liability and actions to minimize exposure to future risk, implementation of natural resource conservation and efficiency programs, pollution prevention programs, demonstration of a strategy toward sustainable development, integration of environmental sustainability and responsiveness with management and the board, and programs to measure and engage stakeholders for environmental improvement.