臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究以利潤極大化與代理理論為基礎，針對1997年至2009年台灣證券交易所公開發行上市、上櫃公司為樣本，驗證影響公司慈善捐款與否以及影響捐款程度多寡之因素。研究所獲得的結果: (一)、由Logistic迴歸分析結果顯示，在有獨立董事及法人持股比率較高的公司，較少捐款；董事規模、內部人士持股比率越高、自由現金流量越大、有財團法人的公司，越會慈善捐款。前述結果符合代理理論。廣告費用越高、企業規模越大，越會慈善捐款，符合利潤極大化。 (二)、複迴歸結果顯示，有獨立董事及負債比率較高的公司，捐款較少；有財團法人的公司，越會進行慈善捐款，符合代理理論。廣告費用、勞動密集度、獲利能力越高的公司，捐款越多，符合利潤極大化。

Based on the profit maximization theory and agency theory, this research, using samples from Taiwan Listed and OTC Listed Companies, 1997 to 2009, verified and studied the influential factors on the enterprise charity donation possibility and amount. The research results are exhibited as follows: (1) The logistic regression analysis displayed that an enterprise with independent directors and higher institutional holding contributes donated less, while companies having larger board scale, higher insider shareholding ratio, higher free cash flow and foundation donated more. The agency theory, hence, was proved. A firm with higher advertisement expense and larger enterprise scale makes more charity donation, which matches the profit maximization theory. (2) According to the results of multiple regression analysis, corporations having independent directors donated less, while those with foundation donated more. Thus, the agency theory was confirmed. Companies having higher advertisement budget, labor intensity and profit ability made more charitable donation, which matches profit maximization.

摘要 I
Abstract II
目 錄 III
圖目錄 V
表目錄 VI
第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究背景與動機 1
第二節、研究目的 4
第三節、研究架構 5
第二章、文獻探討 7
第一節、利潤極大化 7
第二節、代理理論 10
第三節、國內外對企業捐贈行為的論述 13
第三章、研究方法 16
第一節、資料來源與範圍 16
第二節、變數操作性定義 16
第三節、迴歸分析 21
第四章、實證結果與分析 24
第一節、敘述統計量 24
第二節、Logistic 迴歸結果分析 37
第三節、複迴歸結果分析 40
第四節、討論 46
第五章、結論與建議 47
第一節、結論 47
第二節、建議 48
第三節、研究限制 48
參考文獻 49
一、中文參考文獻 49
二、英文參考文獻 49

一、中文參考文獻
1.田坤立(2007)。企業慈善捐助—原因與結果之探討。未出版之碩士論文，輔仁大學，新北市。
2.許瀛心(2000)。企業捐贈行為及其所得彈性、稅率彈性之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立台灣大學，台北市。
3.陳光榮(1996)。公司的社會責任與倫理。經濟情勢暨評論，第1卷4期。
4.陳潤卿(2003)。企業捐贈行為之分析─以中部六縣市營利事業為例。未出版之碩士論文，逢甲大學，台中市。
5.黃書芸(1999)。中大型企業捐贈行為之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立台灣大學，台北市。

二、英文參考文獻
1. Adams, M., Hardwick, P. (1998). An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence, Journal of Management Studies, 35, pp. 641–654.
2. Belkaoui, A., Karpik, P. G. (1988). Determinants of the corporate decision to disclose social information. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 2, 1, pp. 36-51.
3. Bergen, M. S., Dutta O. C. Walker, Jr. (1992). Agency relationships in marketing: A review of the implications and applications of agency and related theories, Journal of marketing, 56, pp. 1-24.
4. Boatsman, J. R., Gupta, S. (1996). Taxes and corporate charity. Empirical evidence from micro-level panel data. National Tax Journal, 49, pp. 193-213.
5. Booth, J. R. (1992). Contract costs, bank loans, and the cross-monitoring hypothesis. Journal of Financial Economics, 31, 1, pp. 25-41.
6. Brown, William O., Eric Helland, Janet Kiholm Smith (2006). Corporate philanthropic practices, Journal of Corporate Finance, 12, pp. 855-877.
7. Clotfelter, C. T. (1985). Federal tax policy and charitable giving. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
8. Cornell, B. and Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial management, 16, 1, pp. 5-14.
9. Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B. Parker. L. D. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility- disclosure: a typology- and frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 2, pp.111-122.
10. Cowton, C. J. (1986). A study of the disclosure of charitable donations by companies in the United Kingdom. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
11. Cowton, C. J. (1987). Corporate philanthropy-in the United Kingdom. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 7, pp. 553-558.
12. Dorfman, R. Steiner, P. O. (1954). Optimal advertising and optimal quality, American Economic Review, 44, pp. 826–836.
13. Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., Wells, M. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics 48, pp. 35–54.
14. Eisenhardt, K M. (1985). Organizational Economic Approach, Management Science, 31, pp. 134-149.
15. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review, Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 57-74.
16. File, K. M. and Prince, R. A. (1995）. Cause-related marketing, Philanthropy and the arts. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 5, 3, pp. 249-260.
17. Fryxell, G. E., Wang, J. (1994). The fortune corporate ‘reputation’ index: reputation for what? Journal of Management, 20, pp. 1-14.
18. Galaskiewicz, J,（1989）. Contributions to charity . Nothing more than a marketing strategy. In R Magat（Ed）. Philanthropic giving. Studies in varieties and goals, pp. 246-260.
19. Grossman, S., Hart, O. (1980). Takeover bids, the free rider problem, and the theory- of the corporation. Bell Journal of Economics, 11, 1, pp. 42-64.
20. Haley, U. C. V. (1991). Corporate contributions as managerial masques: reframing corporate contributions as strategies to influence society. Journal of Management Studies, 28, 5, pp. 485-509.
21. Hambrick, D. C., Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers, Academy of Management Review, 9, 2, pp. 193-206.
22. Hart O. (1993). An economist's view of fiduciary duty. LSE Financial Markets Group Discussion Paper No. 157, London School of Economics, London, UK.
23. Hay, R., Gray, E. (1974). Social responsibiities of business managers. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 1, pp. 135-143.
24. Hill, C.W. L., Snell, S. A. (1989). Effects of ownership structure and control on corporate productivity, Academy of Management Review, 32, 1, pp. 25–46.
25. Hill, C. W. E., Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 2, pp. 131-154.
26. Jensen, Michael C., William H. Meckling (1976). Theory of the firm. managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economies, 3, pp. 305-360.
27. Jensen, M. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48, pp. 831–880.
28. Jensen, M. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76, pp. 323–329.
29. Johnson, O. (1966). Corporate philanthropy: An analysis of corporate contributions, Journal of Business, 39, pp. 489–504.
30. Lehn, K., Poulsen, A. (1989). Contractual resolution of bondholder -stockholder conflicts in leveraged buyouts. Journal of Law and Economics, 34, pp. 645-673.
31. Lenway, S. A., Rehbein, K. (1991). Leaders, followers and free riders: an empirical test of variation in corporate political involvement. Academy of Management Review, 34, 4, pp. 893-905.
32. Levy, F. K., Shatto, G. M. (1978). The evaluation of corporate contributions, Public Choice, 33, pp. 19–28.
33. McElroy, K.M., Siegfried, J. J. (1985). The effect of firms size on corporate philanthropy, Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 25, 2, pp. 18–26.
34. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., Schneeweiss, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Review, 31, pp. 854–872.
35. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective, Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, pp. 117–127.
36. Mescon, T.S., Tilson, D.J. (1987). Corporate philanthropy: a strategic approach to the bottom-line. Management Review, 29, 2, pp. 49-61.
37. Moore, G. (1995). Corporate community - investment in the UK - investment oratonement? Business Ethics: A European Review, 4, 3 , pp. 171-178.
38. Navarro, P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business, 61, pp. 65–93.
39. Roberts, R.W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility- disclosure: an application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 6, pp. 595-612.
40. Schwartz, R. A. (1968). Corporate philanthropic contributions, Journal of Finance, 23, pp. 479–497.
41. Stein, J. C. (1989). Efficient capital markets, inefficient firms: A Model of Myopic Corporate Behavior, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, pp. 655-669.
42. Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory - a critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 10, 12, pp. 540-557.
43. Watts, R. E., Zimmerman, J. E. (1978). Towards a positive theory- of the determination of accounting standard. The Accounting Review, 53, 1, pp. 112-134.
44. Williams, R. J., Barrett, J. D. (2000). Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm Reputation: Is there a link. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, pp. 341-350.
45. Yermak, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, pp. 185-211.