臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

永續經營的概念近年來蓬勃發展，越來越多的投資人不再僅將目光聚焦在公司的績效層面，也開始關注企業的永續發展資訊。因應氣候環境的變化以及投資人日益加重的資訊需求，國際金融穩定委員會所成立的氣候相關財務揭露小組(TCFD)提供了一套氣候相關財務揭露標準。本研究探討公司簽署並加入TCFD的行列是否影響公司的價值評估。同時，本研究亦討論董事會特性是否會影響公司簽署TCFD的意願。

本研究以1:2將有簽署TCFD的公司配對沒有簽署TCFD的公司，研究結果顯示，簽署TCFD對於公司市場績效的影響並不顯著，說明台灣的投資人目前並沒有因為企業簽署TCFD而改變投資策略。董事會規模與企業簽署TCFD呈正向顯著的關係，顯示董事會規模越大，越能集思廣益提出關於永續發展的建議;董事長兼任總經任與簽署TCFD顯著為負，顯示過大的權力有可能會影響企業推動永續經營。

The concept of sustainability has been developed vigorously in recent years. More and more investors not only focus on companies’ performance but also begin to pay attention to sustainability information. In response to the climate changes, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which is established by the Financial Stability Board, has provided a reporting framework for climate-related financial information. This study explores whether the firm publicly declaring support for the TCFD has an impact on the firm’s value and examines the associations between the firm’s board characteristics and the support of TCFD.


In the study, the firms who declared support for the TCFD are matched with the firms who have not declared support at the ratio of 1:2. The results show that there is no significant impact on the firm value for those declaring support for the TCFD, indicating that the investing strategy in Taiwan probably remains unchanged. The board size is positively related to the support for the TCFD, revealing that the bigger the board focuses more on the sustainable issue. The CEO duality is negatively related to the support for the TCFD, showing that overwhelming power is resistant to promoting sustainability.

目錄
摘要 i
目錄 iii
表目錄 v
壹、前言 1
貳、文獻探討與假說發展 7
第一節 氣候相關財務揭露介紹 7
第二節 企業社會責任與公司價值 9
第三節 環境績效與公司價值 10
第四節 氣候相關財務揭露與公司價值 11
第五節 董事會規模與氣候相關財務揭露 13
第六節 獨立董事與氣候相關財務揭露 15
第七節 董事長兼任總經理與氣候相關財務揭露 16
第八節 女性董事與氣候相關財務揭露 17
參、研究設計 18
第一節 資料來源與樣本篩選 18
第二節 實證模型一之迴歸 21
第三節 實證模型二之迴歸 24
肆、實證結果 28
第一節 敘述性統計 28
第二節 相關係數分析 30
第三節 實證結果分析 31
伍、額外測試 35
陸、結論與建議 39
參考文獻 41


表目錄

表 一 樣本公司產業分布 20
表 二 敘述性統計 29
表 三 相關係數表 30
表 四 TCFD對公司價值之影響 32
表 五 董事會特性對公司簽署TCFD之影響 34
表 六 公司治理評鑑與TCFD對公司價值的影響 35
表 七 公司治理評鑑對企業簽署TCFD之影響 36
表 八 電子業樣本 37
表 九 非電子業樣本 38

中文部分


BBC News中文，2021，台灣缺水為何吸引了全世界關注，這次到底有多嚴重？https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-56814382，搜尋日期:2022年6月18日。
Competitive，2021，什麼是 TCFD 氣候相關財務揭露？https://www.compet.com.tw/news.asp?NID=100，搜尋日期:2022年6月22日。
今周刊，2021，上市櫃公司近年熱議的ESG，為何必談TCFD、SASB？https://esg.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/180687/post/202104160033/%E4%B8%8A%E5%B8%82%E6%AB%83%E5%85%AC%E5%8F%B8%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B4%E7%86%B1%E8%AD%B0%E7%9A%84ESG%EF%BC%8C%E7%82%BA%E4%BD%95%E5%BF%85%E8%AB%87TCFD%E3%80%81SASB%EF%BC%9F%20%E4%B8%80%E5%88%87%E9%83%BD%E8%A6%81%E5%BE%9E2011%E5%B9%B4%E8%AA%AA%E8%B5%B7，搜尋日期:2022年6月22日。
天下雜誌，2021，IPCC氣候變遷報告出爐，https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5117709，搜尋日期:2022年6月16日。
王泰昌、周泓宇與劉嘉雯，2017，董事會組成與溫室氣體排放資訊揭露之關聯性，中華會計學刊，12卷特刊: 471-502。
行政院環保署，2021，氣候公約，https://www.epa.gov.tw/Page/DFCCDA9C072B8610#:~:text=2015%E5%B9%B4%E6%B3%95%E5%9C%8B%E5%B7%B4%E9%BB%8E%E6%B0%A3%E5%80%99,%E7%8F%BE%E6%9C%89191%E5%80%8B%E7%B7%A0%E7%B4%84%E6%96%B9%E3%80%82，搜尋日期:2022年6月21日。
李秀英、劉俊儒與楊筱翎，2011，企業社會責任與公司績效之關聯性，東海管理評論，13卷1期: 77-111。
李馨蘋與莊宗憲，2005，股權結構與董事會組成對公司績效之影響，第九屆科際整合管理研討會: 195-212。
沈中華與張元，2008，企業的社會責任為可以改善財務績效嗎?-以英國FTSE社會責任指數為例，經濟論文，36卷3期: 339-385。
林煜恩、池祥萱、黃德芳與林彤璐，2021，經理人能力對於公司從事企業社會責任活動與經營績效的影響，財務金融學刊，29卷2期: 37-64。
金融監督管理委員會證券期貨局，2020，公司治理3.0-永續發展藍圖，
https://www.sfb.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=992&parentpath=0,8,882,884，搜尋日期:2022年6月18日。
洪雪卿、陳薇如與傅雁鈴，2013，影響企業社會責任績效之重要因素為何?商管科技季刊，14卷4期: 405-441。
祝道松、盧正宗、洪晨桓與楊秀萍，2008，環境績效對環境揭露與經濟績效的影響，當代會計，9卷2期: 237-269。
高惠松與鄭品卉，2012，集團企業特性、公司治理與社會責任績效，中華管理評論國際學報，15(3)。
商周雜誌，2021，台灣減碳100強出列！https://www.businessweekly.com.tw/magazine/Article_mag_page.aspx?id=7004665，搜尋日期:2022年6月22日。
張育琳，2017，減碳會增加公司價值嗎？兼論高階經理人現金紅利之調節效果，中華會計學刊，13卷1期: 1-47。
張育琳，2019，節能減碳、企業綠色環境管理策略與公司績效之關連性，中山管理評論，27卷2期: 279-326。
張育琳與劉俊儒，2018，低水電有助於公司績效嗎？ 管理學報，35卷1期: 103-136。
戚靜玟、詹秋碧、張瑞晃與李馨蘋，2018，家族持股與董事會結構對企業社會責任之影響，東吳經濟商學學報，97期: 1-34。
陳振遠、王健聰與洪世偉，2017，公司治理對於企業社會責任、公司價值之影響，中山管理評論，25 卷 1 期：135-176。
湯惠雯，2017，CEO 雙重性、公司治理與公司績效─外部環境的角色，中山管理評論，25卷4期: 967-1008。
經濟日報，2022，全台上市櫃公司 54%為家族企業，https://money.udn.com/money/story/5612/6105076?from=edn_hotestlist_storybottom，搜尋日期:2022年6月22日。
綠色和平，2021，氣候緊急！臺灣面臨50年來最嚴重乾旱，https://www.greenpeace.org/taiwan/update/24930/%E6%B0%A3%E5%80%99%E7%B7%8A%E6%80%A5%EF%BC%81%E8%87%BA%E7%81%A3%E9%9D%A2%E8%87%A850%E5%B9%B4%E4%BE%86%E6%9C%80%E5%9A%B4%E9%87%8D%E4%B9%BE%E6%97%B1%EF%BC%8C%E5%8F%AF%E8%83%BD%E8%88%87%E3%80%8C%E5%AE%83/，搜尋日期:2022年6月16日。
劉美纓、丁碧慧與朱奐聿，2014，企業社會責任與公司治理、公司績效之關連性研究，第17屆科際整合管理研討會:17-30。
劉若蘭、許永聲與劉力維，2014，在不同生命週期下董事會組成特性對公司經營績效之影響，會計評論，58期: 133-165。


英文部分

Alabdullah, T. T. Y., Ahmed, E. R., and Muneerali, M. 2019. Effect of board size and duality on corporate social responsibility: What has improved in corporate governance in Asia? Journal of Accounting Science, 3(2): 121-135.
Amosh, A. H., and Khatib, S. F. A. 2022. Ownership structure and environmental, social and governance performance disclosure: The moderating role of the board independence. Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development, 2(1): 49-66.
Bacon, J. 1973. Corporate Directorship Practices: Membership and Committees of the Board. New York: The Conference Board, Inc.
Batten, J., and Vo, X. V. 2019. Liquidity and company value in emerging markets. The Singapore Economic Review, 64(2): 365-376.
Becchetti, L., Ciciretti, R., and Hasan, I. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder‘s value: An event study analysis. FRB of Atlanta Working Paper No. 2007-6.
Belkhir, M. 2009. Board of directors' size and performance in the banking industry. International Journal of Managerial Finance,5(2):201-221.
Bihari, S. C., and Pradhan, S. 2011. CSR and performance: The story of banks in India. Journal of Transnational Management, 16(1): 20-35.
Bing, T. and Li, M. 2019. Does CSR signal the firm value? Evidence from China. Sustainability, 11(15): 4255.
Calderón, E. P., Montero, P. M., and Rossell, F. J. O. 2012. Environmental performance and firm value: Evidence from Dow Jones Sustainability Index Europe. International Journal of Environmental Research, 6(4): 1007-1014.
Chen, B., Ioannau, I., and Serafeim, G. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 1-23.
Cheng, S. 2008. Board size and the variability of corporate performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(1): 157-176.
Cho, S. J., Chung, C. Y., and Young, J. 2019. Study on the relationship between CSR and financial performance. Sustainability, 11(2): 343.
Elsayih, J., Tang, Q. and Lan, Y. C. 2018.Corporate governance and carbon transparency: Australian experience. Accounting Research Journal, 31(3): 405-422.
Fatma, B. H., and Chouaibi, J. 2021. Corporate governance and CSR disclosure: Evidence from European financial institutions. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 18: 346–361
Friede, G., Busch, T., and Bassen, A. 2015. ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4): 210-233.
Gago, R. F., García, L. C., and Nieto, M. 2018. Independent directors' background and CSR disclosure. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5): 991-1001.
Ghoul, S. E., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C. Y., and Mishra, D., R. 2011. Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance,35(9): 2388-2406.
Giannarakis, G. 2014. The determinants influencing the extent of CSR disclosure. International Journal of Law and Management, 56(5): 393-416.
Guest, P., M. 2009. The impact of board size on firm performance: Evidence from the UK. The European Journal of Finance, 15(4): 385-404,
Hu, Y. Y., Chen, S., Shao, Y., and Gao, S. 2018. CSR and firm Value: Evidence from China. Sustainability, 10(12): 4597.
Husted, B. W., and Filho, J. M. D. S. 2019. Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research.102: 220-227.
Islam, S.M.T., Ghosh, R. and Khatun, A. 2021. Slack resources, free cash flow and corporate social responsibility expenditure: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 11(4): 533-551.
Ismail, A. M., Adnan, Z. H. M., Fahmi, F. M., Darus, F., and Clark, C. 2019. Board capabilities and the mediating roles of absorptive capacity on environmental social and governance (ESG) practices. International Journal of Financial Research, 10(3): 11-30.
Khanifah, K., Udin, U., Hadi, N. and Alfiana, F. 2020. Environmental performance and firm value: Testing the role of firm reputation in emerging countries. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(1): 96-103.
Kiliç, M. and Kuzey, C. 2019. The effect of corporate governance on carbon emission disclosures: Evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 11(1): 35-53.
Liao, L., Luo, L., and Tang, Q. 2015. Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4): 409-424.
Maignan, I. 2001. Consumers' perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30: 57–72.
Mashudi, Khoiriawati, N. and Nuswantara, D. A. 2021. Board characteristics and disclosure of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters: Evidence from ASEAN countries. Review of Business, Accounting, & Finance, 1(4), 374-391.
Nguyen, T., Duong, H. N., and Singh, H. 2016. Stock market liquidity and firm value: An empirical examination of the Australian market. International Review of Finance, 16(4): 639-646.
Padgett, R. C., and Galan, J. I. 2010. The effect of R&D intensity on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 93: 407–418.
Pamies, D. S. 2013. The relationship between women directors and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(6): 334-345.
Romano, M., Cirillo, A., Favino, C., and Netti, A. 2020. ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) performance and board gender diversity: The moderating role of CEO duality. Sustainability, 12(21): 9298.
Tamimi, N., and Sebastianelli, R. 2017. Transparency among S&P 500 companies: An analysis of ESG disclosure scores. Management Decision, 55(8): 1660-1680.
Tulung, J. E., and Ramdani, D. 2018. Independence, size and performance of the Board: An emerging market research. Corporate Ownership & Control, 15(2): 201-208.
Villiers, C. D., Naiker, V., and Staden, C. J. V. 2011. The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management, 37(6): 1636-1663
Vithessonthia, C., and Tongurai, J. 2015. The effect of leverage on performance: Domestically-oriented versus internationally-oriented firms. Research in International Business and Finance, 34: 265-280.
Yadav, P. L., Han, S. H., and Rho, J. J. 2016. Impact of environmental performance on firm value for sustainable investment: Evidence from large US firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(6): 402-420.
Yeh, M. L., Chu, H. P., Sher, P. J. and Chiu, Y. C. 2010. R&D intensity, firm performance and the identification of the threshold: Fresh evidence from the panel threshold regression model. Applied Economics, 42(3): 389-401.
Yermack, D. 1996. Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2): 185-211.
Zahra, S. A., and Pearce, J. A. 1989. Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2): 291-334.