臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在最近這幾年企業開始意識到，在追求獲利的同時，也應該對社會盡一份心力，因此有眾多文獻調查了企業社會責任與CEO權力對公司績效的影響，以往的研究多顯示CEO權力越大越不好，會產生代理問題，然而CEO權力好的一面卻較少被討論。本研究有別以往研究，認為企業若有落實企業社會責任，公司績效會比較好；認為CEO權力越大，可以減少公司內部的歧見，更有效率的實施企業社會責任。最後本研究根據Baron與Kenny(1986)提出之中介效果分析進行驗證，結果顯示，企業社會責任對公司績效有正向顯著影響，支持假說一。企業社會責任對CEO權力之CEO薪酬有正向顯著影響，支持假說二。CEO權力的CEO薪酬對公司績效有正向顯著影響，而CEO權力的CEO年資、學歷對公司績效有負向顯著影響，支持假說三。最後接續前三步驟，其迴歸結果顯示，只有CEO薪酬從假說1至假說4都是顯著影響，表示加入中介變數(CEO薪酬)後，企業社會責任對公司績效的影響減弱，但還是具有顯著性，代表CEO權力(CEO薪酬)具有部分中介效果，即企業社會責任對公司績效還是有影響，但有另外一部份是透過CEO權力(CEO薪酬)影響公司績效，表示當CEO權力(CEO薪酬)越高，會使CEO其利益與公司趨近一致，帶領公司更有效率的執行企業社會責任，進而使公司績效的提升、成長。

In recent years, companies have begun to realize that while pursuing profit, they should also contribute to the society. Therefore, there are many documents that have investigated the impact of corporate social responsibility and CEO power on company performance. Previous studies have mostly shown that CEOs The greater the power, the worse it is, and there will be agency problems. However, the good side of CEO power is less discussed. This study is different from previous studies. It is believed that if a company implements corporate social responsibility, company performance will be better. It is believed that the greater the power of the CEO, the less discrepancy within the company, and the more efficient implementation of corporate social responsibility.In the end, this study was verified based on the intermediary effect steps proposed by Baron & Kenny (1986).The regression results show that only CEO compensation has a significant impact from Hypothesis 1 to Hypothesis 4. It means that after the intermediary variable (CEO compensation) is added, the impact of corporate social responsibility on company performance is weakened, but it is still significant . Representing CEO power (CEO compensation) has a partial intermediary effect, that is, corporate social responsibility still has an impact on company performance, but there is another part that affects company performance through CEO power (CEO compensation). Make the CEO's interests more consistent with the company, lead the company to perform corporate social responsibilities more efficiently, and then improve the company's performance and growth.

摘要 I
Abstract II
目錄 III
表目錄 V
圖目錄 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 6
第三節、研究流程 7
第二章、文獻探討 8
第一節、企業社會責任(CSR) 8
壹、經濟責任(Economic Responsibilities) 9
貳、法律責任(Legal Responsibilities) 9
參、倫理責任(Ethical Responsibilities) 9
肆、道德責任(Philanthropic Responsibilities) 9
第二節、企業社會責任與公司績效 10
第三節、CEO權力 11
第四節、企業社會責任、CEO權力與公司績效 12
壹、企業社會責任、CEO薪酬與公司績效 12
貳、企業社會責任、CEO持股與公司績效 12
參、企業社會責任、CEO年資與公司績效 13
肆、企業社會責任、CEO學歷與公司績效 13
第五節、中介效果分析 14
第三章、研究方法 15
第一節、研究架構 15
第二節、研究假說 16
第三節、實證模型 16
壹、企業社會責任與公司績效 16
貳、企業社會責任與CEO權力 16
參、CEO權力與公司績效 17
肆、企業社會責任與CEO權力對公司績效 17
第四節、變數定義與說明 19
壹、應變數 19
貳、自變數 20
參、中介變數 21
肆、控制變數 21
第五節、資料來源與樣本選取 25
第四章、實證結果 26
第一節、敘述性統計 26
第二節、相關性分析 28
第三節、迴歸結果 30
壹、企業社會責任和公司績效有正向顯著相關 30
貳、企業社會責任和CEO權力有正向顯著相關 31
參、CEO權力和公司績效有正向顯著相關 33
肆、CEO權力在企業社會責任與公司績效之間有中介效果 35
第五章、結論 38
參考文獻 39
第一節、中文部分 39
第二節、英文部分 40

中文部分:
李文瑞、黃啟瑞、胡秀華、陳律睿、謝芬蓉(民98)。CEO特質及廠商特性對海外市場進入時機與進入模式之影響－台商赴中國投資之實證分析。中華管理評論國際學報，12(4)，1-24。
呂欣樺、張淑清(民104)。研發支出與管理團隊特性對公司績效之影響。會計學報，6(1)，1-34。
俞海琴(民98)。內部人士持股比率與融資策略關係之實證研究。管理評論， 13(2)，109-131。
黃惠君、蘇淑慧、盧正宗(民106)。高階經理人薪酬、性別與企業社會責任之探討。管理資訊計算，6(特刊2)，158-170。
葉金成、李冠豪(民90)。盈餘與股價因果關係之實證研究。當代會計，2(1)，17-40。
劉韻僖、林玟廷(民99)。CEO權力與薪酬關係之實證研究－代理和資源依賴觀點。中原企管評論，8(1)，35-59。
丁碧慧、朱奐聿、劉美纓(民103)。企業社會責任與公司治理、公司績效之關連性研究。2014科際整合管理研討會，17-30，台北。DOI:10.6495/CIMBM.2014.002。
張妙慧(民102)。上市櫃公司CEO特質與企業社會責任之關聯性探討。碩士論文，台灣彰化縣，大葉大學。

英文部分:
Bowen, H. R. (1953). The social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY： Harpers.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management：A Stakeholder Approach. England, United Kingdom：Cambridge University Press.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. (1996). Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on Organizations, 102-103. Eagan, MN：West Publishing.
Hawkins, D. F. (1998). Corporate Financial Reporting and Analysis：Text and Cases. (4th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Arrow, K. J. (1973). Social Responsibility and Economic Efficiency. Public Policy, 21, 303.
Benston, G. J. (1985). The market for public accounting services：Demand, supply and regulation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 4(1), 33-79.
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., & Kobeissi, N. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder's value. Journal of Business Research, 65(11), 1628-1635.
Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 42-56.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility：Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
Chan, Louis K. C., Lakonishok, J., & Sougiannis, T. (2001). The Stock Market Valuation of Research and Development Expenditures. Journal of Finance, 56(6), 2431-2456.
Combs, J. G., Ketchen, D. J., Perryman, A. A., & Donahue, M. S. (2007). The Moderating Effect of CEO Power on the Board Compositionfirm Performance Relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1299-1323.
Choi, J. J., Park, S. W., & Yoo, S. S. (2007). The Value of Outside Directors: Evidence from Corporate Governance Reform in Korea. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42(4), 941-962.
Cardebat, J. M., & N. Sirven (2010). What Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting Adds to Financial Return? Journal of Economics and International Finance, 2(2), 20-27.
Duchin, R., Matsusaka, J. G., & Ozbas, O. (2010). When Are Outside Directors Effective？Journal of Financial Economics, 96(2), 195-214.
Fama, E. (1980). Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288-307.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. (1989). Chief Executive Compensation：A Study of the Intersection of Markets and Political Processes. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 121-134.
Finkelstein, S., & D’aveni, R. A. (1994). CEO Duality as a Double-Edged Sword：How Boards of Directors Balance Entrenchment Avoidance and Unity of Command. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1079-1108.
Fang, H., Lee, J. S., Chung, C. P., Lee, Y. H., & Wang, W. H. (2020). Effect of CEO power and board strength on bank performance in China. Journal of Asian Economics, 69, issue C.
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate：Twenty-Five Years of Incomparable Research. Business & Society, 36(5), 5-31.
Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic Decision Models: Integrating Different Perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 327-351.
Hambrick, D. C., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1993). Top executive commitment to the status quo : some tests of its determinants. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 401-418.
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). Market for Corporate Control: Empirical Evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 1, 5-50.
Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A Causal Model of Linkages Among Environmental Dimensions, Macro Organizational Characteristics, and Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 571-597.
Kramer, M. R., & Porter, M. E. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
Kor, Y. Y. (2006). Direct and interaction effects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27,1087-1099.
Lin, C. M., Chen, Clara C. S., Yang, S. Y., & Wang, W. R. (2020). The Effects of Corporate Governance on Credit Ratings：The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 56, 1093–1112.
Meyer, M. W. (1975). Leadership and organizational structure. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 514-542.
McGuire, J. B. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854-872.
Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1988). Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293-315.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance：Correlation or misspecification？Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603-609.
Preston, L. E., & O’Bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship. Business and Society, 36, 419-429.
Riahi‐Belkaoui, A., & Pavlik, E. L. (1993). Effects of Ownership Structure, Firm Performance, Size and Diversification Strategy on CEO Compensation：A Path Analysis. Managerial Finance, 19(2), 33-54.
Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance, and Organizational Size, Financial Performance, and Environmental Performance：An Empirical Examination. Journal of Business Ethics,17, 195–204.
Titman, S., & Wessels, R. (1988). The Determinants of Capital Structure Choice. The Journal of Finance, 43(1), 1-19.
Wernerfelt, B., & Montgomery, C. A. (1988). Tobins'q and the Importance of Focus in Firm Performance. American Economic Review, 78(1), 246-250.
Wiersema, M.F. and Bantel, K.A. (1992) Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategic Change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91-121.
Yermack, D. (1996). Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors”. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185-211.
Friedman, M. (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, 33, 122-126.
Molloy, L., Erekson, H., & Gorman, R. (2002). Exploring the Relationship between Environmental and Financial Performance. Working Paper, Miami University.
Tsoutsoura, M. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Working Paper, University of California.