臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近幾年來，臺灣天災人禍不斷，2014年的高雄石化氣爆、餿水油事件、食安危機；2013年的日月光廢水污染、毒澱粉事件…等，搞得人心惶惶，喚起大眾對企業良知 (即企業社會責任) 的看重。
本研究採用2011年度臺灣證券交易所股票上市公司為研究對象，將企業董事會成員與高階管理階層過去或現在曾經在國有企業、中央政府或地方政府擔任具影響力之要職，或曾任立法委員、議員、縣市長等職務來定義該企業具有政商關係，探討企業之政商關係對環保與公共安全違法處分之間的關聯性。實證結果顯示政商關係與企業其因環境污染與違反公共安全而遭受處分兩者為負相關，符合門神效應，政商間透過檯面下之關說、利益掛勾等行為，可降低企業受罰；但在具有較高污染與違反公共安全風險之企業中，反而呈現正相關，顯示在高違法風險的情況下，具有政商關係之上市公司更容易受到社會大眾的放大檢視，或因其違法情節已見諸媒體，導致政府機關無法冒險徇私包庇，反而積極給予適當的處分。

In recent years, there are more and more disasters in Taiwan, like Kaohsiung gas explosion, dirty recycled waste oil events and food security crisis in 2014, ASE wastewater pollution tainted starch storms in 2013, and so on. Everyone is getting well aware of the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility.

In this study, I use the 2011 Taiwan Stock Exchange companies as the research samples to discuss about the impact of corporate political connections on the penalties for environmental violations and public safety. The member of Board of directors has the experience of government’s important position, Legislator, or councillor, and have at least one politician on company’s board of directors. Politicians are defined as mayor, county magistrate, in-service Legislator or councilor that may have influence on business activities. The result is the higher political connections, the penalties is lower. It meet our hypotheses, under-table lobbying and tunnelling through the political connections. However, in higher risk of illegal companies, They has have the positive correlation. It means that all public figures are closely watched by all and the medias. Regardless how carefully they behave, one misstep, small and otherwise, will invite merciless criticism. So they will enhance the reputation by penalties for environmental violations and public safety.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究架構與流程 3
第二章 文獻探討 6
第一節 企業社會責任相關文獻 6
第二節 政商關係相關文獻 10
第三節 政商關係與環保和公共安全違法處分之關連性 11
第三章 研究方法 13
第一節 實證模型設計 13
第二節 變數說明 14
第三節 資料來源及樣本選取 19
第四章 實證結果與分析 25
第一節 敘述性統計分析 25
第二節 相關係數分析 30
第三節 實證結果 35
第四節 額外分析測試 39
第五章 結論與建議 43
第一節 研究結論 43
第二節 研究限制 44
第三節 後續研究建議 45
參考文獻 46

壹、 中文文獻
丁仁方,王慶輝(2001)，政府與企業-第二版，台北：空大出版，出版日期：2001-02-01
吳必然、賴衍輔(2006)，企業社會責任概念的理論與實踐，證券櫃檯月刊122期，31-42
吳家慧(2014)，政商關係與財務報表重編之關聯性，國立成功大學財務金融研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文
李馨蘋、莊宗憲(2007)，公司治理機制與公司績效之實證研究，東吳經濟商學學報，第五十七期，1-27
周德宇(2007)，政商關係－企業營運的助力？經濟發展的阻力？，臺灣民主季刊，第4卷第1期，187-194
洪雪卿、陳薇如、傅雁鈴(2013)，影響企業社會責任績效之重要因素為何？，商管科技季刊，第14卷第4期，405-441
張琬喻(2005)，政商網絡的建立必然使企業獲利嗎?，管理學報，第22卷第2期，155-172
黃宗昊(2004)，台灣政商關係的演變：歷史制度論分析，問題與研究，第四十三卷第四期，35-72
楊舜涵(2013)，政商關係、審計委員會與部門別報導品質之關聯，國立成功大學會計研究所碩士論文
葉銀華、邱顯比(1996)，資本結構、股權結構與公司價值關聯性之實證研究：代理成本理論，台大管理論叢，第七卷第二期，57-90
劉美纓、丁碧慧、朱奐聿(2014)，企業社會責任與公司治理、公司績效之關連性研究，科際整合管理研討會，2014第17屆(2014/06/22)，17-30

貳、英文文獻
Agrawal, A. and C. R.,Knoeber (1996). Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31(3), 377-397
Aguilera, R. V., ＆ Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 447-465
Abbott, L. J., Parker, S., ＆ Peters, G. F. (2004). Audit committee characteristics and restatements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice ＆ Theory, 23(1), 69-87
Bowen, H. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York: Harper.
Beltratti, A. (2005). The complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. The Geneva Papers, 30, 373-386.
Cornell B. and Shapiro A. C. (1987). Corporate Stakeholders and Corporate Finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5-14.
Carroll, AB (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholder. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., ＆ Wells, M. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 48(1), 35-54.
Fombrun, C. J., and M. Shanley. (1990). What’s in a name? reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal 33, 233-258.
Fan, P. H. and T. J. Wong (2002). Corporate Ownership Structure and the Information of Accounting Earnings in East Asia. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, 401-425.
Fan, J. P. H., Wong, T. J.,and Zhang, T. (2007). Politically connected CEOs,corporate governance, and Post-IPO performance of China's newly partially privatized firms. Journal of financial economics, 84(2), 330-357.
Guedhami, O., Pittman, J. A., ＆ Saffar, W. (2014). Auditor choice in politically connected firms. Journal of Accounting Research, 52, 107–162.
Hudson, C., J. Jahera, and W. Lloyd (1992). Further Evidence on the Relationship Between Ownership and Performance. The Financial Review, 27, 227-239.
Hung, M., Wong, T. J. and Zhang T. (2012). Political considerations in the decision of Chinese SOEs to list in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53(1-2), 435-449.
Houston J., Liangliang Jiang, Chen Lin, and Yue Ma. (2014). Political Connections and the Cost of Bank Loan. Journal of Accounting Research, 52(1),193-243.
Jensen, M. C., ＆ Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
Jensen, M. C., ＆ Ruback, R. S. (1983). The market for corporate control: The scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1-4), 5-50.
Matsumura, E. M., Prakash, R., ＆ Vera-Muñoz, S. C. (2014). Firm-value effects of carbon emissions and carbon disclosures. The Accounting Review, 89(2), 695-724.
Oswald, S. L. and Jahera Jr. (1991). The Influence of Ownership on Performance: An Empirical Study. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 218-228.
Porter, M. E., and C. Van der Linde. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review 73 (5), 120-134.
Preston L. E. and O'Bannon D. P.(1997). The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis. Business and Society, 36(4), 419-429.
Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., and Paul, K.( 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.
Seifert B., Morris S. A. and Bartkus B. R. (2004). Having, Giving, and Getting: Slack Resources,Corporate Philanthropy, and Firm Financial Performance. Business Society, 43(2), 135-161.
Srinivasan, S. (2005). Consequences of financial reporting failure for outside directors:Evidence from accounting restatements and audit committee members.　Journal of Accounting Research, 43(2), 291-334.
Shahin, A., ＆ Zairi, M. (2007). Corporate governance as a critical element for driving excellence in corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 24(7), 753-770.
Shen C. H., and Y. Chang. (2009). Ambition versus conscience, does corporate social responsibility pay off? the application of matching methods. Journal of Business Ethics 88, 133-153.
Vance, S. (1995). Inside or Outside Directors: Is There Really a Difference. Across The Board, 15-17.
Waddock S. A. and Graves S. B. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance–Financial performance Link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319
Wan, S. W. J. (2006). Defining corporate social responsibility. Journal of Public Affairs,6 (3-4), 176-184.
Yermack, D. (1996), Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185-211.