跨國企業經營海外市場的議題日益受到學界重視，企業社會責任是近年來企業管理領域之重要焦點，跨國企業也藉由投入企業社會責任促進於地主國經營的合法性。近年來新興市場對於跨國企業而言是海外投資的選擇之一，因此探討廠商於海外市場經營的投入因素與企業社會責任認同的關係與其影響是很重要的，值得進一步瞭解與探討。

本研究是針對資源投入、社會關係、國家風險、文化距離以及企業社會責任認同進行相關研究，並運用統計軟體SPSS第22版進行敘述性統計分析、相關分析以及迴歸分析進行探討。

主要研究結果如下：
一、 廠商的資源投入程度對於企業社會責任認同有正向且顯著的影響
二、 地主國的社會關係對於企業社會責任認同有正向且顯著的影響
三、 地主國的國家風險對於企業社會責任認同有負向影響，但未呈現顯著影響
四、 地主國的文化距離對於企業社會責任認同有正向且顯著的影響

The issue of multinational corporation’s action in overseas market becomes much more important, and MNCs implement corporate social responsibility to gain access to legitimacy; therefore, CSR has it importance as well. Recently, MNCs choose emerging markets as one of the choice of their investment, so the relation between MNCs’ inputs and identification of CSR worth further discussion.

The research will mainly focus on the relation among resources, social network, country risk, cultural distance and identification of CSR. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and regression analysis were conducted by means of SPSS 22th version.


The main results of the research are indicated below:

1. Resource input has a positive and significant influence on the identification of CSR.
2. Social network has a positive and significant influence on the identification of CSR.
3. Country risk has a negative but insignificant influence on the identification of CSR.
4. Cultural distance has a positive and significant influence on the identification of CSR.

第壹章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機
第二節 研究目的
第三節 研究流程
第貳章 文獻探討
第一節 進入模式理論文獻探討
第二節 地主國特性文獻探討
第三節 企業社會責任文獻探討
第參章 研究方法
第一節 研究架構
第二節 研究假說
第三節 變數衡量
第四節 研究對象與資料收集
第五節 資料分析方法
第肆章 資料分析與研究結果
第一節 敘述性統計分析
第二節 相關分析
第三節 迴歸分析
第伍章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結論
第二節 研究貢獻與限制
第三節 管理意涵與研究建議
參考文獻
附錄

表目錄


表3-1 進入模式觀點量表
表3-1 進入模式觀點量表(續)
表3-2 地主國特性量表
表3-3 企業社會責任量表
表3-4 問卷回收統計表
表4-1 樣本結構表
表4-2 相關係數大小與意義關係表
表4-3 控制變數及自變項與依變項相關分析表
表4-4 迴歸分析表
表5-1 研究假說檢定結果

圖目錄


圖1-1 本研究之流程圖
圖3-1 本研究之研究架構圖

一、中文部分：
1.于卓民與廖采如(2005)。影響子公司控制機制選擇之研究-以台灣企業為例。交大管理學報，25(2)，27-56。
2.古永嘉與孫明德(2011)。外人直接投資偏誤之衡量與決定因素-行為財務觀點。商管科技季刊，12(2)，113-144。
3.池祥萱、繆文娟與莊瀅臻(2014)。企業社會責任對於公司財務績效之影響是雙面刃嗎？來自全球500大公司的證據。管理學報，31(1)，1-19。
4.李文瑞(2000)。廠商海外投資股權模式關鍵影響因素之研究-台商赴東南亞投資之實證分析。管理評論，19(3)，25-49。
5.吳思華(2000)。策略九說。台北市：臉譜出版。
6.高長與陳威如(1998)。台商赴大陸投資所有權進入模式決定因素分析。管理學報，15(3)，393-418。
7.許主峯(2012)。台灣科技產業企業社會責任的鑲嵌策略：一個嘗試性的分析模式。中華行政學報，10，23-40。
8.陳律睿、王俊如與鄭怡如(2011)。社會關係、資源投入與進入模式之研究-以進入中國大陸之台灣中小企業為例。中原管理評論，9(1)，75-96。
9.陳律睿、蔡顯童與劉峰旭(2012)。子公司外部網絡鑲嵌之決定因素與影響效果。管理評論，31(1)，21-44。
10.張君立、蔡莉與朱秀梅(2008)。社會網絡、資源獲取與新創企業績效關係研究。工業技術經濟，27(5)，87-90。
11.張義杰、高銘淞與邱志芳(2012)。文化距離之雙重立論與地主國制度環境之調節效果。中山管理評論，20(3)，731-773。
12.程恩富與彭文兵(2002)。社會關係網絡：企業新的資源配置形式。上海行政學院學報，2，79-90。
13.廖明坤、于卓民與司徒達賢(2006)。台商大陸子公司決策自主權影響因素之研究。中山管理評論，14(2)，397-427。

二、英文部分：
1.Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2.Altuntas, C., & Turker, D. (2015). Local or global: Analyzing the internationalization of social responsibility of corporate foundations. International Marketing Review, 32(5), 540-575.
3.Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17, 1-26.
4.Aswicahyono, H., & Hill, H. (1995). Determinants of foreign ownership in LDC manufacturing: An Indonesia case study. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(1), 139-158.
5.Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
6.Barney, J. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
7.Beamish, P. (1985). The characteristics of joint ventures in developed and developing countries. Columbia Journal of World Business, 13-19.
8.Blumentritt, T. P., & Nigh, D. (2002). The integration of subsidiary political activities in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1), 57-77.
9.Brainard, S. L. (1997). An empirical assessment of the proximity-concentration trade-off between multinational sales and trade. American Economic Review, 87(4), 520-544.
10.Brouthers, K. D. (2002). Institutional cultural and transaction cost influences in entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2), 203-221.
11.Brouthers, L. E., & Hennart, J. F. (2007). Boundaries of the firm: Insight from international entry mode research. Journal of Management, 33, 395-425.
12.Campbell, J. T., Eden, L., & Miller, S. R. (2012). Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in host countries: Does distance matter. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1), 84-106.
13.Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
14.Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2007). CSR agendas for Asia. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14(4), 183-188.
15.Chen, H. Y., & Hu, M. Y. (2002). An analysis of determinants of entry mode and its impact on performance. International Business Review, 11(2), 193-210.
16.Cheung, Y. L., Tan, W., Ahn, H. J., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Does corporate social responsibility matter in Asian emerging markets. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0164-3
17.CLSA CG Watch: 2001, 2002, 2004, Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets (Credit Lyonnais).
18.Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 386-405.
19.Contractor, F. J. (1990). Ownership patterns of U.S. joint ventures abroad and the liberalization in the 1980s: Evidence from the benchmark surveys. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(1), 55-73.
20.Cruz, L., & Boehe,, D. M. (2010). How do leading retail MNCs leverage CSR globally? Insight from Brazil. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 243-263.
21.Daft, R. L. (1998). Essentials of organizational theory and design. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
22.Davidson, W.H. (1980). The location of foreign direct investment activity: Country characteristics and experience effect. Journal of International Business Studies, 9-22.
23.DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
24.DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1-38.
25.Dunning, J. H. (1980). Toward an eclectic theory of international production-some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1), 9-31.
26.Dunning, J. H. (1988). The eclectic paradigm of international production- A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(1), 1-31.
27.Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing Inc.
28.Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
29.Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Penguin.
30.Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 137–147.
31.Grosse, R., & Trevino, L. J. (1996). Foreign direct investment in the united states: An analysis by country of origin. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(1), 139-155.
32.Habib, M., & Zurawicki, L. (2002). Corruption and foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2), 291-307.
33.Hah, K., & Freeman, S. (2014). Multinational enterprise subsidiaries and their CSR: a conceptual framework of the management of CSR in smaller emerging economies. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1753-8
34.Hill, C., Hwang, P., & Kim, W. C. (1990). An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry mode. Strategy Management Journal, 11, 117-128.
35.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
36.Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 838-849.
37.Ikechi, E., & Sivakumar, K. (2004). International market entry mode strategies of manufacturing firms and service firms: A resource-based perspective. International Marketing Review, 21(1), 68-101.
38.Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213-231.
39.Jamali, D. (2010). The CSR of MNC subsidiaries in developing countries: Global, local substantive or diluted? Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 181-200.
40.Kobrin, S. J. (1976). The environmental determinants of foreign direct manufacturing investment: An ex post empirical analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 7, 29-42.
41.Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A conceptual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 308-324.
42.Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64-81.
43.Kumar, V., & Subramaniam, V. (1997). A Contingency Framework for the Mode of Entry Decision. Journal of World Business, 32(1), pp.53-72.
44.Li, S., & Filer, L. (2007). The effect of the governance environment on the choice of investment mode and the strategic implications. Journal of World Business, 42(1), 80-98.
45.Lopez-Duarte, C., ＆Vidal-Suarez, M. M. (2010). External uncertainty and entry mode choice: Cultural distance, political risk and language diversity. International Business Review, 19(6), 575-588.
46.Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424.
47.Muller, A. (2006). Global versus local CSR strategies. European Management Journal, 24, 189-198.
48.Najah, A., & Jarboui, A. (2013). The social disclosure impact on corporate financial performance: Case of big French companies. International Journal of Business Management and Research, 3(4), 337-351.
49.Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Management Studies, 27(4), 753-779.
50.North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24 (3), 403-441.
52.Park, S. H., & Luo, Y. (2001). Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational network in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
53.Peng, M. W., &Pleggenkuhle-Miles, E. G. (2009). Current debates in global strategy. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 51-68.
54.Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley.
55.Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. L. (1987). The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and global vision. New York: Free Press.
56.Rodriguez, P., Siegel, D. S., Hillman, A., & Eden, L. (2006). Three lenses on the multinational enterprise: Politics, corruption, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 733-746.
57.Root, F. (1987). Entry strategies for international markets, Washington: D.C., Health and Company.
58.Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource based perspective on corporate environment performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 534-559.
59.Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.Slangen, A. H. L., & Beugelsdijk, S. (2010). The impact of institutional hazards on foreign multinational activity: A contingency perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(6), 980-995.
61.Slangen, A. H. L., & Van Tulder, R. J. M. (2009). Cultural distance, political risk, or governance quality? Towards a more accurate conceptualization and measurement of external uncertainty in foreign entry mode research. International Business Review, 18(3), 276-291.
62.Tan, J., & Wang, L. (2011). MNC strategic responses to ethical pressure: An institutional logic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 373-390.
63.Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implication for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-352.
64.UNCTAD (2015). World Investment Report 2015: Reforming International Investment Governance, United Nations, New York and Geneva.
65.Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
66.Werther, W. B., & Chandler, D. (2006). Toward a responsible society, Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment (pp. 1-24). London: Sage.
67.Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-trust Implications, New York: Free Press.
68.Williamson, O. E. (1981). The modern corporation: Origins, evolution, attributes. Journal of Economic Literature, 19, 1537-1568.
69.Yang, X., & Rivers, C. (2009). Antecedents of CSR practices in MNC’s subsidiaries: A stakeholder and institutional perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(SUPPL.2), 155-169.
70.Yiu, D., & Makino, S. (2002). The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective. Organizational Science, 13, 667-683.
71.Young, S., & Marais, M. (2012). A multi-level perspective of CSR reporting: The implications of national institutions and industry risk characteristics. Corporate Governance: An International Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2012.00926.x