Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141399
|
| Title: | 台灣企業供應鏈中CSP外溢效應與財務績效研究探討
The Spillover Effect of Corporate Social Performance in the Supply Chain: the Evidence in Taiwan |
| Authors: | 呂佳樺
Lu, Chia-Hua |
| Contributors: | 陳嬿如
Chen, Yenn-Ru
呂佳樺
Lu, Chia-Hua |
| Keywords: | 企業社會責任
ESG
中小企業
台灣供應鏈
外溢效應
財務績效
CSR
ESG
SMEs
Supply chain in Taiwan
Spillover effect
Financial performance |
| Date: | 2022 |
| Issue Date: | 2022-08-01 19:01:11 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 企業成功實踐企業社會責任(Corporate Social Responsibility)的關鍵因素之一為，企業本身以及其利害關係人是否認同企業社會責任帶來的價值。而其中因為企業客戶對於其供應商的財務表現與價值影響甚大，企業客戶若傾向與對社會和環境負責任的供應商建立關係，供應商即可能為了維護與主要利害關係人的關係而去實踐企業社會責任以提高企業社會績效表現。
雖然國外文獻有相關的探討，但是針對像台灣較小型甚至以中小企業為主的經濟體目前還尚未得到廣泛的研究。大型企業因為資源較豐富，實踐起企業社會責任商業活動較不像小型規模企業短期可能會受到資金還有資源上的限制，於是引發探討供應鏈企業社會責任外溢效應是否存在於台灣之中的動機。
本研究以2016到2020間台灣1157組企業客戶-供應商組合作為樣本，其中再以不同規模之供應商進行分群，探討企業社會責任外溢效應是否存在於台灣供應鏈之間並且同時影響著雙方的財務績效表現。本研究結果發現，在台灣中客戶的CSR得分每增加一個百分比，將平均為其供應商下一個階段帶來0.0697%的改進CSP表現績效值(相對於平均供應商CSP評級)。在台灣的供應鏈之中，企業客戶的企業社會責任外溢效應影響相較於Dai, Liang, & Ng (2021) 針對國際上供應鏈研究外溢效應影響0.016%高一些。本研究其中又以上市供應商最為強烈，上櫃與經常雇傭人數少於200人中小企業則可能受限於規模能投入永續的資源，結果多為不顯著。經濟價值的部分，意外的是規模為200人以下之供應商，其銷售增長率係數為正，且具有統計意義，即供應商前一年CSP表現提升能夠增加其下一年度的銷售增長。其於結果多為負向或不顯著，可能因為CSR實踐的大規模成本提升，短期間還未看到有明顯提高財務績效表。
Using 1157 customer-supplier observations in Taiwan from 2016 to 2020, this study examines whether there exists the spillover effect of enterprise social responsibility in the supply chain in Taiwan. The result shows that one percent increase of the CSP score of one firm in Taiwan would bring a 0.0697% improvement to the CSP score of its suppliers next year on average. In the supply chain of Taiwan, the spillover effect of the social responsibility from the enterprise`s customers is higher than that of the international supply chain from the research of Dai, Liang, & Ng (2021). Among all subsamples, the TSE-listed suppliers show the highest effect. Surprisingly, the suppliers whose employees under 200 (SMEs) have the positive result on sales growth. It means if the supplier fulfill ESG in the past year, their sales revenue will grow in the next year. However, the value economics might not be increased because of the large-scale cost of CSR practice, and thus mostly no improvement in financial performance in the short run. |
| Reference: | Barnard, C. I. 1958. Elementary conditions of business morals. California Management Review, 1 (1) : 1-13.
Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3) : 794-816.
Barnett, M. and Salomon, R. Does it pay to be really good? addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11): 1304-1320
Bénabou, R., Tirole, J. 2010. Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305):1-19.
Balotti, F., Hanks, J. 1999. Giving at the Office: A Reappraisal of Charitable Contributions by Corporations. Business Lawyer, 54(3): 965-996
Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38 (3) : 268-295.
Carroll, A. 2008. A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices. In Crane, A., Matten, D., McWilliams, A., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 19-46). Oxford University Press.
Dai, R. Liang, H. & Ng,L. 2021. Socially responsible corporate customers, Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2): 598-626.
Davis, K. 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2 (3) : 70-76.
Dowell,G., Hart, S., Yeung, B. 2000. Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Management Science, 46(8): 1059-1074
Dyck, A., Lins, L.V., L. Roth & Wagner, H.F. 2019. Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? international evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 131(3) 693-714.
Edmans, A. 2011. Does the stock market fully value intangibles? employee satisfaction and equity prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(3): 621-640
Ferrell, A., Liang, H., & Renneboog, L. 2016. Socially responsible firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 112(3): 585-606.
Freeman, K.M. 2017. The effects of common ownership on customer-supplier relationships. Unpublished working paper, Indiana University.
Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Barnett, M. L. 2000. Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and Society Review, 105: 85-106.
Fombrun, C., Shanley M. 1990. What`s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2): 233-259.
Gillan, S.L., Hartzell, J.C., Koch, A., Starks, L.T. 2010. Firms’ environmental, social and governance (ESG) choices, performance and managerial motivation. Unpublished working paper. University of Texas at Austin.
Gibson, T. 2008. Defining SMEs: A Less Imperfect Way of Defining Small and Medium Enterprises, Freepress.
Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. 2012. What drives corporate social performance? the role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43:834-864
Kitzmueller, M., Shimshack, J. 2012. Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(1): 51-84.
Krüeger, P. 2015. Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2):304-329.
Margolis, J.D., Elfenbein, H.A., Walsh, J.P. 2010. Does it pay to be good? a meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Unpublished working paper, Harvard University.
Masulis ,R. Reza, S. 2015. Agency Problems of Corporate Philanthropy. Review of Financial Studies, 28(2): 592-636.
Nelson, J., 2004. Leadership, Accountability, and Partnership: Critical Trends and Issues in Corporate Social Responsibility. Report of the CSR Initiative Launch Event, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Report No. 1. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
OECD. 2017. OECD. Enhancing the Contributions of SMEs in a Global and Digitalised Economy. Paris.
OECD. 2017. OECD Publishing. Small, Medium, Strong. Trends in SME Performance and Business Conditions. Paris.
OECD. 2018. OECD Green Growth Studies. Environmental Policy Toolkit for SME Greening in EU Eastern Partnership Countries. Paris.
Shawn L. Berman, Andrew C. Wicks, Suresh Kotha and Thomas M. Jones. 1999. Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship between Stakeholder Management Models
and Firm Financial Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 488-506.
Shashwat Koirala. 2018. SMEs: Key Drivers of Green and Inclusive Growth. Paper presented at Green Growth and Sustainable Development Forum & Green Growth Knowledge Platform 6th Annual Conference. Paris.
United States International Trade Commission. 2010. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises : Overview of Participation in U.S. Exports. http://www.usitc.gov. Search date: 7/6/2022.
經濟新報(TEJ)官方網站，2022。TESG永續發展指標。
https://www.tej.com.tw/solution/TESG%E6%B0%B8%E7%BA%8C%E7%99%BC%E5%B1%95%E6%8C%87%E6%A8%99。搜尋日期: 2022年7月10日。
王健全、林柏君、彭素玲、賴偉文、陳穎萱、林宜蓁，2021/10。中小企業白皮書，經濟部中小企業處。
洪志銘，2020.。臺灣中小企業出口樣貌分析。經濟前瞻，118期: 121-128。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所(MBA學位學程)
109363101 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109363101 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202201012 |
| Appears in Collections: | [企業管理研究所（MBA學位學程）] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 310101.pdf | | 970Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
