跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.77.92) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/02/25 03:31
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:鄧文碩
研究生(外文):Van Thac Dang
論文名稱:企業社會責任與智慧資本對於企業財務績效之影響: 路徑分析模型
論文名稱(外文):Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Intellectual Capital on Corporate Financial Performance: A Path Analysis Model
指導教授:林金賢林金賢引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chin-Shien Lin
口試委員:池祥麟蕭子誼
口試日期:2011-06-13
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中興大學
系所名稱:企業管理學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:英文
論文頁數:55
中文關鍵詞:企業社會責任智慧資本企業績效路經分析
外文關鍵詞:Corporate social responsibilityIntellectual capitalCorporate performancePath analysis
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:331
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
企業社會責任多年以來受到大量學術界與實務界廣泛討論的議題。然而學術的研究呈現不一致的結果,因而引起如何解釋此一結果的探討。此外,企業從事企業社會責任活動帶來的利益是否大於付出的成本使得實務界有保留的態度。另一方面,由於智慧資本被認為是最有價值的資產,也是企業的最有競爭力武器,然而智慧資本的分類與衡量以及探討智慧資本因素互相關係和這些智慧資本因素對績效的影響對於企業管理與發展智慧資本有重要的義涵。因此本研究主要目的是探討企業社會責任與智慧資本對於企業財務績效之影響。為了深入了解這些構面之間的關係,本研究將企業社會責任區分為七個因素包括公司治理,社區關係,多樣化,員工關係,環境,人權,和產品品質與安全,智慧資本區分為四個因素包括人力資本,創新資本,流程資本,和顧客資本。研究樣本從Compustat 和KLD資料庫取得,最後樣本為1315筆年度資料從1998年到2008年。本研究實證結果顯示企業社會責活動與企業財務績效的直接效果呈現不一致的結果,此結果與先前文獻結果一致。然而,除了人權活動對企業財務績效沒有間接效果外,其他企業社會責任因素都間接透過智慧資本因素影響企業財務績效。此外,實證結果也顯示智慧資本因素有正向互相關係並且正向影響到企業財務績效。除了社區關係活動對企業財務績效有負向總效果外,其他企業社會責任因素和智慧資本因素對企業財務績效都有正向總效果。本研究結果對於學術界與實務界有重要的義涵。

CSR is one of the issues that have been received great focus attentions of both researchers and practitioners. However, the inconsistent and mixed results of CSR and firm performance in literatures have become a question need to be explained. The tradeoff between benefits and costs of engaging in CSR activities is also a doubtful point for practitioners. In addition, intellectual capital is regarded as the most valuable assets and the most powerful competitive weapon in business. However, its classification and measurement as well as examining the interrelationship between intellectual capital elements and their effects on firm performance have important meanings in managing and developing intellectual capital. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of corporate social responsibility and intellectual capital on corporate financial performance. In order to better understand these effects, corporate social responsibility is divided into seven elements which include corporate governance, community relations, diversity, employee relations, environment, human rights, and product quality and safety. Intellectual capital is broken down into four elements which include human capital, innovation capital, process capital, and customer capital. Using a sample data set of 1315 firm-years listed in the Compustat’s S&P500 and KLD databases from 1998 to 2008. The empirical results show that the direct impacts of CSR elements on firm financial performance are discordant and mixed as consistent with previous CSR literatures. However, except human right activity, CSR elements will positively indirect affect firm financial performance through intellectual capital elements. In addition to community relations activity has negative total effects on firm financial performance, other elements of CSR activities all have positive total effects on firm financial performance. Furthermore, the results also showed the positive interrelationship between intellectual capital elements and their positive effects on firm financial performance. All four elements of intellectual capital are shown to have direct positive effects on firm financial performance. Human capital is shown to positively affect innovation capital, process capital and customer capital and indirectly positive affects firm financial performance through these variables; innovation is significantly positive related to process capital and customer capital and indirectly positive related to firm financial performance through these variables; and process capital is also significantly positive related to customer capital and indirectly positive related to firm financial performance through customer capital. This study offers some implications for both research and practice.

Contents
Abstract II
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Study Background 1
1.2 Study Purposes 4
1.3 Study Process 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review and Hypotheses Development 6
2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 6
2.2 Intellectual Capital 7
2.3 Direct Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Performance 9
2.4 Indirect Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Performance 10
2.5 Interrelationship between Intellectual Capital Elements and Their Effects on Corporate Performance 14
Chapter 3 Methods 19
3.1 Sample and Data Collection 19
3.2 Measures 20
3.2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility 20
3.2.2 Corporate Performance 21
3.2.3 Intellectual Capital 22
3.2.4 Control Variables 26
3.3 Analysis Method 26
Chapter 4 Empirical Results 28
4.1 Descriptive Statistics 28
4.2 Path Analysis Results 31
4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Financial Performance 31
4.2.2 Interrelationship between Intellectual Capital Elements and Their Effects on Firm Financial Performance 38
4.2.3 Overall Model Fit 41
4.3 Discussion 44
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Future Research 46
References 48


List of Tables
Table 1 Definitions and proxy variables for constructs 27
Table 2 Means, standard deviations and vif of the variables 29
Table 3 Correlation matrices 30
Table 4 Direct, indirect, and total effects of csr elements on firm financial performance 38
Table 5 Effects of intellectual capital elements on firm financial performance 40
Table 6 Summary of fit indexes for the path analysis 41
Table 7 Correlation residuals for the path analysis model 42
Table 8 Standardized residuals for the path analysis model 43


List of Figures
Figure 1 Process of the Study 5
Figure 2 Conceptual Framework of the Study 18
Figure 3 Direct effects of CSR elements on firm financial performance 31
Figure 4 Indirect effects of human rights on firm financial performance 32
Figure 5 Indirect effects of corporate governance on firm financial performance 33
Figure 6 Indirect effects of community relations on firm financial performance 34
Figure 7 Indirect effects of diversity on firm financial performance 34
Figure 8 Indirect effects of employee relations on firm financial performance 35
Figure 9 Indirect effects of environment on firm financial performance 36
Figure 10 Indirect effects of product quality & safety on firm financial performance 37
Figure 11 Interrelationship between intellectual capital elements and their effects on firm financial performance 40


Acquaah, M., & Chi, T. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of firm resources and industry characteristics on firm-specific profitability. Journal of Manage Governance, 11, 179-213.
Bansal, P., & Clellend, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93-103.
Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy Management Review, 32, 794-816.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Becchetti, L., Ciciretti, R. & Hasan, I. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder’s value: An event study analysis. Working paper, Federal reserve Bank of Atlanta.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S. K., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy Management Journal, 42, 488-506.
Bertels, S., & Peloza, J. (2008). Running just to stand still? Managing CSR reputation in an area of ratcheting expectations. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(1), 56-72.
Bharadwaj, G., Bharadwaj, S. and Konsynski, B. (1999). Information technology effects on firm performance as measured by Tobin’s q. Management Science, 45(6), 1008-24.
Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the methods used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 41-58.
Brooking, N. (1996). Intellectual capital: Core assets for the third millennium enterprise. Thomson Business Press, London, United Kingdom.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review. 4(4), 497-505.
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N. & Tencati, A. (2008). The missing link between corporate social responsibility and consumer trust: The case of fair trade products. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 1-15.
Chan, K. H. (2009). Impact of intellectual capital on orgazisational performance: An empirical study of companies in the hang seng index (part1). The Learning Organization., 16(1), 4-21.
Chen, J., Zhu, Z. H., & Xie, H. Y. (2004). Measuring intellectual capital: a new model and empirical study. Journal of Intellectual capital, 5(1), 195-212.
Chen, M.C., Cheng, S.J. & Hwang, Y. (2005). An empirical investigation of the relationship between intellectual capital and firm’s market value and financial performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), 159-212.
Clarkson, P., Li, Y., Richardson, G., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 3, 303-327.
Cowen, S., L. Ferreri & L. Parker. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency- based analysis. Accounting, Organization and Society, 12, 111-122.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing your Company’s True Value by Finding its Hidden Brainpower, 1st ed., Collins, New York, NY.
File, K. M. & Prince, R. A. (1998). Cause related marketing and corporation philanthropy in the privately held enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1529-1539.
Firer, S. & Williams, S.M. (2003). Intellectual capital and traditional measures of corporate performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(3), 348-360.
Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A. & Barnett, M. L. (2000). Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate reputation and reputational risk. Business Society Review, 105(1), 85-106.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York times Magazines, 13.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy Management Review, 24, 191-206.
Ghosh, D. & Wu, A. (2007). Intellectual capital and capital markets: additional evidence. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(2), 216-235.
Gomez, G, F., Manzanares, M. J. & Skerlavaj, M. (2010). The integration of corporate social responsibility into the strategy of technology-intensive firms: A case study. Original scientific paper, 28(1). 9-34.
Haley, U. (1991). Corporate contributions as managerial masques: Reframing corporate contributions as strategies to influence society. Journal of Management Study, 28, 485-509.
Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy Management Journal, 42, 479-485.
Lai, C. S., Chiu, C. J., Yang, C. F. & Pai, D. C. (2010). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industry brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 457-469.
Mary, B. H. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: An examination of accounting issues. American Accounting Association Annual Meeting. Anaheim, CA.
Mahoney, L. S. & Thorne, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and long-term compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 241-253.
Marin, L., Ruiz, S. & Rubio, A. (2008). The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 65-78.
Nazari, J. A. & Herremans, I. M. (2007). Extended VAIC model: Measuring intellectual capital components. Journal of Intellectual capital, 8(4), 595-609.
Perrini, F., Pogutz. S. & Tencati, A. (2006). Developing corporate social responsibility: A Europian perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward elgar publishing.
Plumlee, M., Brown, D., & Marshall, R. S. (2009). Voluntary environmental disclosure quality and firm value: Roles of venue and industry type. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1517153.
Preston, L. E. & O’Bannon. P. (1997). The corporate social financial performance relationship. Business and society, 36, 419-429.
Prior, d., Surrroca, J. & Tribo, J. A. (2008). Are socially responsible managers really ethical? Exploring the relationship between earnings management and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Compilation, 16(3).
Pulic, A. (2004). Intellectual capital: Does it create or destroy value?. Measuring Business Exelence. 8(1), 62-68.
Richardson, A. J., Welker, M, & Hutchinson, I. R. (1999). Managing capital market reactions to corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(1), 17-43.
Russo, M. V. & Harrison, N. S. (2005). Organizational design and environmental performance: Clues from the electronics industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 582-593.
Russo, M., & Fouts, P. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534-559.
Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B. & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “begins at home”. Business Society, 42, 169-201.
Shen, C. H. & Chang. Y. (2008). Ambition verus conscience, does corporation social responsibility pay off? The application of matching methods. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 133-153.
Shiu, H. J. (2006). The application of the value added intellectual coefficient to measure corporate performance: Evidence from technological firms. International Journal of Management, 23(2), 356-365.
Silverman, B. S. (1999). Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 45, 1109-1124.
Stanwick, P. A. & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The relationship between corporate social performance, and organization size, financial performance, and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 195-204.
Stewart, T.A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Currency Doubleday, New York, NY.
Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A. & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangibal resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 000-000.
Sveiby, K. E. (2005). Method of measuring intangible assets, pp.1-8, available at : www.sveiby.com/articles/IntangibleMethods.htlm.
Tan, H. P, Plowman, D. & Hancock, P. (2007). Intellectual capital and financial returns of companies. Journal of Intellectual capital, 8(1). 76-95.
Turban, D. B. & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy Management Journal, 40, 658-672.
Valentine, S. & Fleischman, G. (2007). Ethics grograms, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 159-172.
Vilanova, M., Lozano, J. M. & Arenas, D. (2008). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 57-69.
Wang, C. J. (2005). Investigating market value and intellectual capital for S&P 500. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(4), 546-563.
Wang, H, Choi. J. & Li. J. (2008). Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organization Science, 19(1), 143-159.
Wang, W. J. & Chang, C. (2005). Intellectual capital and performance in causal models: Evidence from the information technology industry in Taiwan. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), 222-236.
Wartick, S. L. & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review. 10(4), 758-769.
Turban, D. B. & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658-672.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review. 16(4), 691-718.
Zeghal, D. & Maaloul, A. (2010). Analyzing value added as an indicator of intellectual capital and its consequences on company performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1), 39-60.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top