跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.213.60.33) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/21 12:49
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:林子馨
研究生(外文):Tzu-Hsin Lin
論文名稱:環境社會治理風險與企業財務績效之關聯性:從董事會和經理人特性來探討
論文名稱(外文):The Association of Environmental, social, governance risk and corporate financial performance: Evidence from board and managers’ perspective
指導教授:李德冠李德冠引用關係
指導教授(外文):Te-Kuan Lee
口試委員:黃朝信林瑞嘉
口試委員(外文):Chao-Hsin HuangLin, Jui-Chia
口試日期:2023-06-29
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:中原大學
系所名稱:會計學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:會計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2023
畢業學年度:111
語文別:中文
論文頁數:49
中文關鍵詞:董事會特性經理人薪酬ESG 評分企業財務績效
外文關鍵詞:Board characteristicsCEO compensationESG Risk ScoresCorporate financial performance
DOI:10.6840/cycu202301307
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:121
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:30
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
  本研究欲了解環境社會治理風險與企業財務績效之關聯性,並分別探討董事會及經理人特性對該關聯性之影響。由於係採用 Sustainalytics ESG 風險評分衡量ESG,故預期與企業財務績效呈負相關,使用經理人薪酬衡量經理人特性,了解經理人對 ESG風險評分與財務績效關聯性的影響;使用董事會規模、董事長同時擔任總經理、獨立董事比例衡量董事會特性,了解董事會對ESG風險評分與財務績效關聯性的影響,探討女性擔任決策角色對ESG風險評分與財務績效關聯性之影響。研究結果發現ESG風險評分與企業財務績效(Tobin’s Q、ROA)之間確實存在負相關,經理人現金紅利顯著強化ESG風險評分與企業市場財務績效之關聯性,對ESG風險評分與財務績效(ROA)則有顯著弱化影響。
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the association of Environmental, social, governance risk and corporate financial performance: Evidence from board and managers’ perspective.This research estimate that ESG is negative related with Corporate financial performance, and used Sustainalytics ESG risk ratings to measure ESG. Used Board size, Duality, Independent Directors to measure Board characteristics. Used CEO compensation, Cash Bonus, to measure The Characteristics of Managers. This study also examines the effect of Female characteristics. The results indicate a negative correlation between ESG risk ratings and corporate financial performance (Tobin's Q, ROA)., and the CEO cash dividends is significantly and positive related with ESG risk scores and Corporate financial performance (Tobin's Q), and negative related with ESG risk score and financial performance (ROA).
目次

摘要 I
AbstractII
目次 III
圖目次 IV
表目次 V
第一章 研究動機與目的1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 2
第三節 研究流程 2
第二章 文獻與假說發展4
第一節 ESG風險與企業財務績效4
第二節 董事會特性6
第三節 經理人特性7
第三章 研究方法 10
第一節 樣本選取 10
第二節 實證模型 10
第三節 變數衡量 13
第四章 實證結果 16
第一節 敘述性統計16
第二節 相關係數 18
第三節 實證結果分析20
第四節 額外測試 24
第五章 結論與建議39
參考文獻 41

圖目次

圖1 研究流程圖 3
圖2 ESG風險劃分 6
圖3 Sustainalytics ESG風險評分組距 13

表目次

表 1 樣本選取 10
表2 變數定義 11
表3 敘述性統計表 17
表4 產業別之ESG風險評分分布情形表 18
表5 Pearson相關係數矩陣表 19
表6 ESG風險評分與財務績效(Tobin’s Q)之關聯性-ESG風險評分、董事會特性 22
表7 ESG風險評分與財務績效(Tobin’s Q)之關聯性-經理人特性 23
表8 ESG風險評分與財務績效(ROA)之關聯性-ESG風險評分、董事會特性 26
表9 ESG風險評分與財務績效(ROA)之關聯性-經理人特性 27
表10 ESG風險評分與財務績效(ROE)之關聯性-ESG風險評分、董事會特性 29
表11 ESG風險評分與財務績效(ROE)之關聯性-經理人特性 30
表12 疫情前期ESG風險評分與財務績效(Tobin’s Q)之關聯性 33
表13 疫情後期ESG風險評分與財務績效(Tobin’s Q)之關聯性 34
表14 高污染高耗能產業產業別之ESG風險評分分布情形表 36
表15 高汙染產業ESG風險評分與財務績效(Tobin’s Q)之關聯性-ESG風險評分、董事會特性 37
表16 高汙染產業ESG風險評分與財務績效(Tobin’s Q)之關聯性-經理人特性 38
李德冠、陳禹竹、陳計良、張慧珊。(2015)。董事會職能與獨立董事角色:從企業競爭策略和獨立董事背景來探討。證券市場發展季刊。 27(4)。43- 79。
陳育成、許峰睿、黃聖雯。(2013)。CSR與經營績效之關聯性研究. 評價學報(6). 53- 72。
劉俊儒、張育琳、傅彧偉。(2019)。環境資訊揭露程度與資金成本之關係-以我國電子產業為例。當代會計。20(2)。217- 264。
鄭皓元、陳秋美、闕于能、劉宇倫、簡淑婉、許建邦、李佳琳、郭宏偉。(2022)。2022年新型冠狀病毒疫情流行病學簡要分析。疫情報導。38(24)。366-370。
Aggarwal. R.. Erel. I.. Stulz. R.. & Williamson. R. (2010). Differences in governance practices between US and foreign firms: Measurement. causes. and consequences. Review of Financial Studies. 23(3). 3131-3169.
Ahern. K. R.. & Dittmar. A. K. (2012). The changing of the boards: the impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 127(1): 137-197.
Alexandre Garel .Arthur Petit-Romec. (2021) Investor rewards to environmental responsibility: Evidence from the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Corporate Finance. 101948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101948
Alotaibi. K. O.. and K. Hussainey. (2016). Determinants of CSR disclosure quantity and quality: Evidence from non-financial listed firms in Saudi Arbia. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance. 13(4): 364-393.
B´enabou. R.. Tirole. J.. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica 77 (305). 1–19.
Bamber. L.. J. Jiang. & I. Wang. (2010). What’s my style? The influence of top managers on voluntary corporate financial disclosure. The Accounting Review. 85(4): 1131–1162.
Paul Elliott.. Barbara Bodinier.. Oliver Eales.. Haowei Wang.. David Haw.. Joshua Elliott.. Matthew Whitaker.. Jakob Jonnerby.. David Tang.. Caroline E. Walters.. Christina Atchison.. Peter J. Diggle.. Andrew J.. Alexander J. Trotter.. Deborah Ashby.. Wendy Barclay.. Graham Taylor.. Helen Ward.. Ara Darzi.. Graham S. Cooke..Marc Chadeau-Hyam‡. Christl A. Donnelly. (2022). Rapid increase in Omicron infections in England during December 2021: REACT-1 study. Science. 375(6587): 1406-1411.
Bernard. Cristiana; Stark. Andrew W. (2018). Environmental. social and governance disclosure. integrated reporting. and the accuracy of analyst forecasts. The British Accounting Review. 50(1). 16- 31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2016.10.001
Borghesi. R.. Houston. J. F.. & Naranjo. A. (2014). Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism. reputation. and shareholder interests. Journal of Corporate Finance. 26. 164-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.03.008
Boyd. B. K. (1995). CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal. 16. 301-312
Brooks. Chris; Oikonomou. Ioannis. (2018). The effects of environmental. social and governance disclosures and performance on firm value: A review of the literature in accounting and financ. The British Accounting Review. 50(1). 1- 15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.11.005
Carter. D. A.. D’Souza. F.. Simkins. B. J.. & Simpson. W. G. (2010). The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 18(5): 396-414.
Chang Yuk Ying.. Dasgupta Sudipto.. Hilary Gilles. (2010). CEO Ability. Pay. and Firm Performance. Management science.56 (10):1633-1652.
Charness. G.. & Gneezy U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 83(1): 50-58.
Choi. J. J.. S. W. Park. and S. S. Yoo. (2007). The Value of Outside Directors: Evidence from Corporate Governance Reform in Korea. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. Vol. 42. No. 4. 941-962.
De Villiers. C.. Naiker. V.. & Van Staden. C. J. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management. 37 (6). 1636-1663.
Fuerst. O.. & Kang. S. H. (2004).Corporate governance. expected operating performance. and pricing. Corporate Ownership and Control. 1(2): 13-30.
Gillan. S.. Hartzell. J.C.. Koch. A.. Starks. L..(2010). Firms’ Environmental. Social and Governance ESG Choices. Performance and Managerial Motivation. Unpublished working paper.
Gillan. S. L.. Koch. A.. & Starks. L. T. (2021). Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance. 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101889
Healy. P. and Palepu. K..(1988). Earnings information conveyed by dividend initiations andomissions. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 21. No. 2. 149-175.
Jensen. Michael C.; Meckling. William H.(1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior. agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. Oct76. Vol. 3 Issue 4. p305-360.
Jian. M.. & Lee. K.-W. (2015). CEO compensation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Multinational Financial Management. 29. 46-65.
Larmou. S.. and N. Vafeas. (2010). The relation between board BSize and firm performance in firms with a history of poor operating performance. Journal of Management and Governance.14(1). 61-85.
Li. Yiwei; Gong. Mengfeng; Zhang. Xiu-Ye; Koh. Lenny. (2018). The impact of environmental. social. and governance disclosure on firm value: The role of CEO power. The British Accounting Review. 50(1). 60- 75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.09.007.
Liao. C. H. 2011. The effect of stock-based incentives and governance mechanisms on voluntary disclosure of intangibles. Advances in Accounting 27 (2). 294–307.
Owen. D.. Swift. T.. & Hunt. K. (2001). Questioning the role of stakeholder engagement in social and ethical accounting. auditing and reporting. Accounting Forum. 25(3). 264 -282.
Richard Borghesi. Joel F. Houston and Andy Naranjo. (2014). Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism. reputation. and shareholder interests.Journal of Corporate Finance. . vol. 26. issue C. 164-181.
Robb. A.. & Watson. J. (2010). Comparing the performance of female-and male-controlled SMEs: Evidence from the United States and Australia. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. 30(8): 1-12.
Schuler. D. A.. & Cording. M. (2006). A corporate social performanceecorporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of Management Review. 31(3). 540-558.
Song. F.. & Thakor. A. V. (2006). Information control. career concerns. and corporate governance. The Journal of Finance. 61(4). 1845-1896.
Waddock. S.A.. Graves. S.B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strat.Strategic Management Journal.. 18: 303-319.
Jensen. M. C. and W.H. Meckling. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior. agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. 3: 305-360.
John A. Wagner. J. L. Stimpert and Edward I. Fubara. (1998).Board Composition and Organizational Performance: Two Studies of Insider. Journal of Management Studies. 35(5): 655-677.
Yiwei Li . Mengfeng Gong . Xiu-Ye Zhang . Lenny Koh. (2018). The impact of environmental. social. and governance disclosure on firm value: The role of CEO power. The British Accounting Review. (50):60-75.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top