臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

環保議題一直是眾所關切的焦點話題之一，也是企業經營上不可忽視的重要環節。台灣塑膠工業股份有限公司在柬埔寨施亞努城非法傾倒汞污泥事件，自八十七年十二月十五日經國際媒體大幅報導之後，不但引起當地居民暴動，同時約有一萬人大舉逃離家園。國內媒體也在同年十二月十六日開始報導，除演變成國際事件外，在國內也重新引起事業廢棄物最終去處的重視。本研究檢視汞污泥事件對台塑公司，及同產業的其他公司的股價行為有何影響？同時再就環保資訊揭露與環保處分金額兩層面，探討台塑汞污泥事件發生後的股價反應。由於台塑汞污泥事件歷經數年，故將觀察期區分為短觀察期（事件前一日至事件後七日）及長觀察期兩種。以市場模式檢視塑膠產業各公司及產業投資組合的股價反應。另研究中採用迴歸分析檢視15家塑膠類股公司的環保資訊揭露多寡與觀察期間股價反應間之關係。實證結果發現，台塑汞污泥事件發生後，在短觀察期方面，台塑公司本身及塑膠類股會產生負面的股價反應；在長觀察期方面，塑膠類股的股價反應並不明顯。此外，本研究同時發現，公司事前持續於年報中揭露環保資訊內容者，在台塑汞污泥事件發生後，公司的股價會呈現負向的反應。

News of the illegal dumping of toxic industrial waste（nearly 3000 tons of highly toxic mercury-tainted waste）near a Cambodian port of Sihanoukville by Taiwan’s biggest conglomerate, the Formosa Plastics Group (FPG), was first surfaced in Taiwan’s domestic press on December 16, 1998. Several tests of the waste were done by the independent parties produced a wide range of toxicity levels and determined that the waste materials were contaminated with high levels of mercury as well as a possible hazardous mixture of other metals. This study attempts to examine the relationship between the stock price behavior and the environmental disclosures on this environmental issue among plastics listed companies for which necessary data are available. This research adopts event study methodology and observes both short-window and long-window effects. The empirical results are: (1) For the short-window, both FPG and the plastic industry had negative stock price reaction upon the announcement of illegal dumping event; (2) For the long-window, the cumulative abnormal returns of plastics industry are positive but not significant statistically. (3) The consecutive environmental disclosures in the Annual Reports of plastics public companies had negative stock return on this environmental issue.

目 錄
第一章 緒論…………………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機…………………………………………1
第二節 研究問題與研究目的……………………………2
第三節 研究流程及論文架構……………………………3
本章註釋……………………………………………………5
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………8
第一節 台塑汞污泥事件之始末…………………………8
第二節 環保事件後之股價反應實證文獻………………18
第三節 環保資訊揭露與股價反應實證文獻……………22
第四節 國內環保資訊揭露之相關法規…………………28
本章註釋……………………………………………………30
第三章 研究設計…………………………………………32
第一節 觀念性架構及研究假說………………………32
第二節 研究方法………………………………………36
第三節 研究變數之操作性定義………………………42
第四節 研究範圍………………………………………47
本章註釋…………………………………………………49
第四章 實證分析………………………………………50
第一節 樣本資料彙整………………………………50
第二節 環保事件資訊內涵之分析…………………53
第三節 環保資訊揭露與股價反應之分析…………60
第四節 防治污染設備支出程度與股價反應之分析…62
本章註釋…………………………………………………67
第五章 結論與建議……………………………………69
第一節 研究結論…………………………………69
第二節 研究限制與建議……………………………71
參考文獻………………………………………………74
附錄……………………………………………………76
附錄一 環保資訊揭露評分彙總表……………76
附錄二 國內環保意外事件彙總表……………82

1.吳靜怡，（民83），「污染防治設備投資與企業經營績效之實證研究」，國立成功大學會計研究所碩士論文。
2.黃姵蓉，（民90），「環保支出資訊價值攸關性之研究」，國立中正大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
3.張倩綾，（民90），「我國上市公司環保資訊增額資訊內涵之研究」，國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。
4.張嘉麟，（民85），「環境保護資訊內涵之初探」，國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。
5.Blacconiere, W., Northcut, D.,（1997）,“Environmental Information and Market Reactions of Environmental Legislation”, Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 12 (2), pp.149-178.
6.Blacconiere, W., Patten, D.,（1994）,“Environmental Disclosures, Regulatory Costs, and Changes in Firm Value”, Journal of Accounting and Economics 18 (3) , pp.357-377.
7.Cormier, D., Magnan, M.,（1999）, “Corporate Environmental Disclosure Strategies : Determinants, Cost and Benefits”, Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance 14(4), pp.429-451.
8.Dowdell, T., S. Govindaraj, and P. C. Jain,（1992）,“The Tylenol Incident, Ensuing Regulation, and Stock Prices”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 27(2), pp.283-301.
9.Freedman, M. and A. Stagliano,（1991）, “Differences in Social-Cost Disclosures: A Market Test of Investor Reactions”, Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability 4(1), pp.68-82.
10.Freedman, M. and C. Wasley,（1990）, “The Association Between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure in Annual Reports and 10Ks”, In M. Neimark, B. Merino, and T. Tinker, Eds. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 3, pp.183-193. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
11.Guthrie, J. and L. Parker,（1990）, “Corporate Social Disclosure Practice: A Comparative International Analysis”, In M. Neimark, B. Merino, and T. Tinker, Eds. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 3, pp.159-176. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12.Hill, J. and T. Schneeweis,（1983）,“The Effect of Three Mile Island on Electric Utility Stock Prices: A Note”, Journal of Finance 38(4), pp.1285-1292.
13.Hughes, S., A. Anderson, and Golden S.,（2001）, “Corporate Environmental Disclosures : Are They Useful in Determining Environmental Performance?”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 20(3), pp.217-240.
14.Ingram, R. and K. Frazier, （1980）, “Environmental Performance and Corporate Disclosure”, Journal of Accounting Research 18(3), pp.614-622.
15.Patten, D.,（1992）,“Intra-Industry Environmental Disclosures in Response to The Alaskan Oil Spill : A Note on Legitimacy Theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(5), pp.471-475.
16.Patten, D., Nance, J.,（1998）,“Regulatory Cost Effects in A Good News Environment : The Intra-Industry Reaction to The Alaskan Oil Spill”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 17 (4/5), pp.409-429.
17.Rashigian, B.,（1984）, “The Effect of Environmental Regulation on Optimal Plant Size and Factor Shares”, Journal of Law and Economics 27(1), pp.1-28.
18.Reitenga, L.,（2000）,“Environmental Regulation, Capital Intensity, and Cross-Sectional Variation in Market Returns”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 19(2), pp.189-198.
19.Russo, M., Fouts, P.,（1997）, “A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental Performance and Profitability”, Academy of Management Journal 40 (3), pp.534-559.
20.Verrecchia, R.,（1983）, “Discretionary Disclosure”, Journal of Accounting and Economics 5(3), pp.179-194.
21.Wiseman, J.,（1982）, “An Evaluation of Environmental Disclosures Made in Corporate Annual Reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society 7(1), pp.53-63.
22.Walden, W., Schwartz, B.,（1997）, “Environmental Disclosures and Public Policy Pressure”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 16 (2), pp.125-154.