政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/141057
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113325/144300 (79%)
Visitors : 51158576      Online Users : 938
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141057


    Title: 採SASB準則下ESG重大性議題與機構投資人之探討
    A study of Material ESG SASB Factors and Institutional Ownership
    Authors: 黃浩瑜
    Huang, Hao-Yu
    Contributors: 楊曉文
    黃浩瑜
    Huang,Hao-Yu
    Keywords: 機構投資人
    ESG
    SASB
    重大性議題
    Institutional ownership
    ESG
    SASB
    Material issues
    Date: 2022
    Issue Date: 2022-08-01 17:28:07 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: SASB準則及氣候風險揭露在金融業跟投資界重要性日益增加，然而過去大多文獻皆探討機構投資人持股比例與ESG分數之關聯性，而較少研究與SASB準則關聯文獻，因此本文將著重於機構投資人持股如何影響公司在SASB準則提及之重大性議題之表現。本文將2012年至2018年台灣的上市櫃公司當作樣本，利用Bloomberg的ESG資料庫及SASB準則所提及各行業的重大性議題，端看機構投資人持股比例與公司是否揭露SASB準則及SASB表現之關聯。
    本文從回歸結果得到機構投資人持股比例較高時，公司不只更有意願揭露SASB準則提及項目，在ESG的項目揭露數以及重大性議題的表現也皆會較佳。另機構投資人持股比例越高，公司在重大性議題上表現較可能優於同行業平均及提升下年的SASB分數，代表機構投資人對於重大性ESG議題上確實有一定影響力，促使企業積極改善公司在重大性議題上之表現，機構投資人亦會促使公司揭露氣候風險相關議題，在社會責任報告書中揭露相關議題。機構投資人促使企業積極改善公司在重大性議題上及氣候風險之揭露及表現，不僅滿足投資人的資訊需求，也利於企業向投資者展現公司長期之價值及往永續目標邁進。
    The importance of the SASB Standard and climate risk for financial industry and investment communities has grown exponentially. However, in the past, most of the papers has discussed the relationship between institutional ownership and ESG scores, and less research has been done on the relationship between institutional ownership and SASB standards. Therefore, this paper will focus on how institutional ownership affect the company`s performance on the issues mentioned in the SASB standard(material issues). This article takes listed companies in Taiwan from 2012 to 2018 and Bloomberg`s ESG database as a sample, and then research about if the company has disclosed material issues and the performance of SASB standard.
    The results of the study found that the higher the institutional ownership, not only more willing to disclose material issues, but the better the company`s performance in ESG disclosure and material issues. At the same time, the empirical results also found that the higher the institutional ownership, the more likely the company`s performance on material issues is better than the industry average and the SASB score for the next year will be improved, which means that institutional investors are really interested in SASB issues. Institutional investors will also urge companies to disclose climate risk-related issues, and disclose climate risk issues in social responsibility reports, urging companies to actively improve the company`s performance on major issues. Institutional investors not only meet investors` information needs, but also be helpful for companies to show investors the long-term value of the company and move towards sustainable goals.
    Reference: Aggarwal, R., Erel, I., Ferreira, M., & Matos, P. (2011). Does governance travel around the world? Evidence from institutional investors. Journal of financial economics, 100(1), 154-181.
    Ameli, N., Drummond, P., Bisaro, A., Grubb, M., & Chenet, H. (2020). Climate finance and disclosure for institutional investors: why transparency is not enough. Climatic Change, 160(4), 565-589.
    Barko, T., Cremers, M., & Renneboog, L. (2021). Shareholder engagement on environmental, social, and governance performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-36.
    Benlemlih, M., Arif, M., & Nadeem, M. (2022). Institutional Ownership and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Comparative Study of the UK and the USA. British Journal of Management.
    Buchanan, B., Cao, C. X., & Chen, C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, firm value, and influential institutional ownership. Journal of Corporate Finance, 52, 73-95.
    Burns, N., Kedia, S., & Lipson, M. (2010). Institutional ownership and monitoring: Evidence from financial misreporting. Journal of Corporate Finance, 16(4), 443-455.
    Busco, C., Consolandi, C., Eccles, R. G., & Sofra, E. (2020). A preliminary analysis of SASB reporting: Disclosure topics, financial relevance, and the financial intensity of ESG materiality. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 32(2), 117-125.
    Cantele, S., Tsalis, T. A., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2018). A new framework for assessing the sustainability reporting disclosure of water utilities. Sustainability, 10(2), 433.
    Chen, T., Dong, H., & Lin, C. (2020). Institutional shareholders and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 135(2), 483-504.
    Chen, X., Harford, J., & Li, K. (2007). Monitoring: Which institutions matter?. Journal of financial Economics, 86(2), 279-305.
    Cheng, X., Wang, H. H., & Wang, X. (2021). Common Institutional Ownership and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Banking & Finance, 106218.
    Consolandi, C., Eccles, R. G., & Gabbi, G. (2020). How material is a material issue? Stock returns and the financial relevance and financial intensity of ESG materiality. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 1-24.
    Cordeiro, J. J., & Tewari, M. (2015). Firm characteristics, industry context, and investor reactions to environmental CSR: A stakeholder theory approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 833-849.
    Crane, A. D., Michenaud, S., & Weston, J. P. (2016). The effect of institutional ownership on payout policy: Evidence from index thresholds. The Review of Financial Studies, 29(6), 1377-1408.
    Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The accounting review, 86(1), 59-100.
    Dimson, E., Karakaş, O., & Li, X. (2015). Active ownership. The Review of Financial Studies, 28(12), 3225-3268.
    Dyck, A., Lins, K. V., Roth, L., & Wagner, H. F. (2019). Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 131(3), 693-714.
    Elyasiani, E., & Jia, J. (2010). Distribution of institutional ownership and corporate firm performance. Journal of banking & finance, 34(3), 606-620.
    Elyasiani, E., Jia, J. J., & Mao, C. X. (2010). Institutional ownership stability and the cost of debt. Journal of Financial Markets, 13(4), 475-500.
    Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., & Kaiser, S. (2018). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal, 38, 45-64.
    Ferrell, A., Liang, H., & Renneboog, L. (2016). Socially responsible firms. Journal of
    Financial Economics, 122(3), 585-606.
    Flammer, C. (2015). Does product market competition foster corporate social responsibility? Evidence from trade liberalization. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1469-1485.
    Fu, X., Tang, T., & Yan, X. (2019). Why do institutions like corporate social responsibility investments? Evidence from horizon heterogeneity. Journal of Empirical Finance, 51, 44-63.
    Grewal, J., Hauptmann, C., & Serafeim, G. (2021). Material sustainability information and stock price informativeness. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(3), 513-544.
    Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2015). Legal vs. normative CSR: Differential impact on analyst dispersion, stock return volatility, cost of capital, and firm value. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 1-20.
    Hartzell, J. C., & Starks, L. T. (2003). Institutional investors and executive compensation. The journal of finance, 58(6), 2351-2374.
    Henriksson, R., Livnat, J., Pfeifer, P., & Stumpp, M. (2019). Integrating ESG in portfolio construction. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 45(4), 67-81.
    Hwang, C. Y., Titman, S., & Wang, Y. (2021). Investor Tastes, Corporate Behavior, and Stock Returns: An Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility. Management Science.
    ing 2020. Available at: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/
    Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The accounting review, 91(6), 1697-1724.
    KPMG, 2020. The Time Has Come: The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Report-
    Li, Z., Wang, P., & Wu, T. (2021). Do foreign institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? Evidence from listed firms in China. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 48(1-2), 338-373.
    Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. the Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785-1824.
    Madison, N., & Schiehll, E. (2021). The Effect of Financial Materiality on ESG Performance Assessment. Sustainability, 13(7), 3652.
    Neubaum, D. O., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32(1), 108-131.
    Nofsinger, J. R., Sulaeman, J., & Varma, A. (2019). Institutional investors and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Finance, 58, 700-725.
    Owen, D. (2005). CSR after Enron: A role for the academic accounting profession?. European Accounting Review, 14(2), 395-404.
    Preston, L. E., & O`bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36(4), 419-429.
    Rodriguez, A., Cotran, H., & Stewart, L. S. (2017). Evaluating the effectiveness of sustainability disclosure: Findings from a recent SASB study. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 29(2), 100-108.
    Siegel, D. S., & Vitaliano, D. F. (2007). An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3), 773-792.
    the-time-has-come.pdf
    Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of management journal, 40(3), 658-672.
    World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2021), The reality of materiality: insights from real-world applications of ESG materiality assessments, http://www.wbcsd.org/work-program/business-role/previous-work/corporate-social-responsibility .as p x
    陳振遠、王健聰、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(1)，135-176
    黃正忠、林泉興、謝孟哲（2017）。企業如何整合運用GRI準測及TCFD指引報導氣候變遷議題。證券服務，(660)，56-62。
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    金融學系
    109352005
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109352005
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202200791
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Money and Banking] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    200501.pdf1877KbAdobe PDF20View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback