政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/152009
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113648/144635 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51572312      線上人數 : 752
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152009


    題名: ESG對公司財務績效之影響＿以全球半導體產業為例
    ESG Impact to the Enterprise Financial Performance- Study in the Global Semiconductor Industry
    作者: 吳沂珈
    Wu, Yi-Chia
    貢獻者: 陳立民
    許書瑋
    Chen, Li-Min
    Hsu, Ryan Shu-Wei
    吳沂珈
    Wu, Yi-Chia
    關鍵詞: ESG
    環境保護
    半導體產業
    財務績效
    公司治理
    Semiconductor industry
    ESG
    Environmental protection
    Financial performance
    Corporate governance
    日期: 2024
    上傳時間: 2024-07-01 12:23:43 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本研究主要探討公司投入ESG 中的環境面向E 是否能有效提升半導體產業之公司財務績效。接下來，以討論半導體公司之外部條件是否會對其財務績效產生影響，本研究以GDP及Unemployment兩大指標作為外部條件，因GDP常被視為一國經濟活動之好壞指標，也代表一個國家的生產力，而經濟或生產力則為民眾收入之來源，會影響其購買半導體終端產品之意願，故本研究將GDP視為半導體產業產品終端消費者之消費力；此外，Unemployment則為勞工失業指標，因失業會使消費者收入降低，進而影響民眾對半導體終端產品之購買力，因此本研究將此作為判斷終端消費者之消費力變動依據。上述兩個條件作為探討半導體公司是否會因此受到波及之因素，進而影響其財務表現。而最後以公司治理G作為調節變數，剖析G是否會加強E對半導體公司財務績效表現之正向影響。本
    研究樣本為2018-2022年間，全球131間上市半導體公司，共418筆有效樣本。由迴歸分析結果所示，半導體公司揭露及投入環境保護之行動確實能有效提升公司之財務績效 (ROE)。然而，當消費者之消費力呈現衰退時，半導體公司財務績效也會受到影響。接著本研究進一步分析，若單考慮GDP與ROE之關係，可以發現當GDP成長率下降時，半導體公司ROE反而能有更好的表現。然若討論GDP及Unemployment同時對ROE產生之效果，Unemployment對ROE具正向影響力，且其中Unemployment相較於GDP，對ROE更具顯著性。而當半導體公司之公司治理G表現提高時，會使得E對於公司ROE之正向影響減少，也就是說當董事會集中使G 提升時，董事會因重視股東權益，追求利益最大化，將E投入視為成本支出，且在沒有受到外界要求進行環境保護時，董事會之決策往往不會重視環境保護相關之策略，因此會不利於半導體公司參與環境保護對財務績效之正向效益。本研究認為半導體公司投入環境保護確實能有效提升公司財務績效，然而，也必須同時關注外部條件之變化，像是GDP、Unemployment 等，以免公司財務績效受到損害。最後，半導體公司應由追求股東利益最大化轉為利害關係人效益最大化，並積極投入環境保護行動，以回應社會大眾之期待與國際組織之規範，讓這個高污染之產業能對社會、環境有所回饋及產生正向效益，達成淨零碳排之願景。
    This study mainly explores whether a company's investment in the environmental aspect (E) of ESG can effectively enhance the financial performance of companies in the semiconductor industry. Subsequently, it discusses whether external conditions of semiconductor companies affect their financial performance, using GDP and unemployment as two major indicators. GDP is often seen as a measure of a country's economic activity and productivity, which influences the income of the population and their willingness to purchase semiconductor end products. Therefore, this study considers GDP as the purchasing power of consumers of semiconductor industry products. In addition, the unemployment rate (Unemployment) is an indicator of labor layoffs, as Unemployment reduces consumer income and thus their purchasing power for semiconductor end products. Consequently, this study uses it as a basis for judging changes in consumer purchasing power. These two conditions are examined to see if semiconductor companies are affected and thereby influence their financial performance. Finally, corporate governance (G) is used as a moderating variable to
    analyze whether G enhances the positive impact of E on the financial performance of semiconductor companies. The sample for this study consists of 131 publicly listed semiconductor companies worldwide, with a total of 418 valid samples from 2018 to 2022.
    According to the regression analysis results, the actions taken by semiconductor companies to disclose and invest in environmental protection can indeed effectively improve the company's financial performance (ROE). However, when consumer purchasing power declines, the financial performance of semiconductor companies is also affected. Further analysis shows that if only the relationship between GDP and ROE is considered, it can be observed that when the GDP growth rate decreases, the ROE of semiconductor companies tends to perform better. However, when discussing the effects of GDP and Unemployment on ROE simultaneously, Unemployment has a positive impact on ROE, and Unemployment has a more significant effect on ROE compared to GDP. When the corporate governance (G) performance of semiconductor companies improves, it reduces the positive impact of E on ROE. This means that when the board of directors focuses on shareholder interests and pursues profit maximization, they view E investments as a cost expenditure. In the absence of external demands for environmental protection, the board's decisions often do not prioritize environmental protection strategies, which is detrimental to the positive financial benefits of semiconductor companies' participation in environmental protection.
    This study concludes that investing in environmental protection can indeed effectively enhance the financial performance of semiconductor companies. However, changes in
    external conditions, such as GDP and Unemployment, must also be considered to avoid damage to financial performance. Finally, semiconductor companies should shift from pursuing shareholder profit maximization to stakeholder benefit maximization and actively engage in environmental protection actions. This is to meet societal expectations and international regulations, allowing this high-pollution industry to contribute positively to society and the environment, and also achieve the vision of net zero carbon emissions.
    參考文獻: 英文文獻
    Adidu, F. A., & Olannye, P. A. (2006). Basic small business entrepreneurship: A modern approach. Agbor: Royal Pace Publishers.
    Alareeni, B. A., & Hamdan, A. (2020). ESG impact on performance of US S&P 500-listed firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in
    Society, 20(7), 1409-1428.
    Antoneac, A., & Iordan, O. (2021). Analysis of the macroeconomic factors influence on the performance of financial markets. Journal of Financial Studies, 11(6),
    9-23.
    Arouri, M., Gomes, M., & Pukthuanthong, K. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and M&A uncertainty. Journal of Corporate Finance, 56, 176-198. doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2019.02.002.
    Binsaddig, R., Ali, A., Al-Alkawi, T., & Ali, B. J. (2023). Inventory Turnover, Accounts Receivable Turnover, and Manufacturing Profitability: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Economics and Finance Studies, 15(1), 1-16.
    Broadstock, D. C., Shu, Y., & Xu, B. (2011). The heterogeneous impact of macroeconomic conditions on firms’ earnings forecast. In Proceedings of Macao international symposium on accounting and finance.
    Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of business Ethics, 69, 111-132.
    Bushman, R. M., & Smith, A. J. (2001). Financial accounting information and corporate governance. Journal of accounting and Economics, 32(1-3), 237-333.
    Cek, K., & Eyupoglu, S. (2020). Does environmental, social and governance performance influence economic performance?. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(4), 1165-1184. doi:10.3846/jbem.2020.12725.
    Chen, Z., & Xie, G. (2022). ESG disclosure and financial performance: Moderating role of ESG investors. International Review of Financial Analysis, 83, 102291.doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102291.
    Chen, S., Song, Y., & Gao, P. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: Analyzing the impact of ESG on financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118829.
    Dioha, C., Mohammed, N. A., & Okpanachi, J. (2018). Effect of firm characteristics on profitability of listed consumer goods companies in Nigeria.
    Duque-Grisales, E., & Aguilera-Caracuel, J. (2021). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of multilatinas: Moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial
    slack. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(2), 315-334. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04177-w.
    Egbunike, C. F., & Okerekeoti, C. U. (2018). Macroeconomic factors, firm characteristics and financial performance: A study of selected quoted manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 3(2), 142-168. doi：10.1108/AJAR-09-2018-0029
    Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.
    Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In Corporate ethics and corporate governance (pp. 173-178). Berlin, Heidelberg: springer berlin heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14.
    Gupta, L., & Jham, J. (2021). Green Investing: Impact of pro-environmental preferences on stock market valuations during turbulent periods. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 15(5), 59-81.
    Haider, S., Anjum, N., Sufyan, M., Khan, F., & Ullah, A. (2018). Impact of macroeconomic variables on financial performance: evidence of automobile assembling sector of Pakistan stock exchange. Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences, 4(2), 212-213.
    Han, J. J., Kim, H. J., & Yu, J. (2016). Empirical study on relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in Korea. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 1, 61-76.
    Haque, F., & Ntim, C. G. (2018). Environmental policy, sustainable development, governance mechanisms and environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3), 415-435.
    Hermalin, B. E. (2005). Trends in corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 60(5), 2351-2384.
    Holderness, C. G., Kroszner, R. S., & Sheehan, D. P. (1999). Were the good old days that good? Changes in managerial stock ownership since the great depression. The Journal of Finance, 54(2), 435-469. doi: 10.1111/0022-1082.00114.
    Issah, M., & Antwi, S. (2017). Role of macroeconomic variables on firms’ performance: Evidence from the UK. Cogent Economics & Finance, 5(1), 1405581.
    Joseph, V. (1993). Cost Reduction in Us Semiconductor Fabrication Environment. In Proceedings. IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference and Workshop (pp. 211-211). IEEE.
    Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. journal of Business Ethics, 41, 297-311.
    Kalia, D., & Aggarwal, D. (2023). Examining impact of ESG score on financial performance of healthcare companies. Journal of Global Responsibility, 14(1), 155-176. doi:10.1108/JGR-05-2022-0045.
    Kim, S., & Li, Z. (2021). Understanding the impact of ESG practices in corporate finance. Sustainability, 13(7), 3746.
    Khidmat, W. B., & Rehman, M. (2014). Impact of liquidity & solvency on profitability chemical sector of Pakistan. Economics management innovation, 6(3), 34-67.
    Lee, K. H., Cin, B. C., & Lee, E. Y. (2016). Environmental responsibility and firm performance: The application of an environmental, social and governance model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(1), 40-53.
    Lefort, F., & Urzúa, F. (2008). Board independence, firm performance and ownership concentration: Evidence from Chile. Journal of business research, 61(6), 615-622. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.036.
    Mwangi, F. K. (2013). The effect of macroeconomic variables on financial performance of aviation industry in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).
    Ndlovu, C., & Alagidede, P. (2018). Industry structure, macroeconomic fundamentals and return on equity: Evidence from emerging market economies. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(6), 2047-2066. doi:10.1108/IJoEM-06-2017-0210.
    Nor, N. M., Bahari, N. A. S., Adnan, N. A., Kamal, S. M. Q. A. S., & Ali, I. M.(2016). The effects of environmental disclosure on financial performance in Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 117-126.
    Odalo, S. K., Achoki, G., & Njuguna, A. (2016). Relating company size and financial performance in agricultural firms listed in the Nairobi securities exchange in Kenya. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 8(9), 34-40.
    Olofsson, P., Råholm, A., Uddin, G. S., Troster, V., & Kang, S. H. (2021). Ethical and unethical investments under extreme market conditions. International Review of Financial Analysis, 78, 101952.
    Oxelheim, L. (2003). Macroeconomic variables and corporate performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 59(4), 36-50. doi: 10.2469/faj.v59.n4.2544.
    Pandey, U. C., Sethi, V. C., Schischke, K. Z., Griese, H., & Reichl, H. (2004, January). Environmental management in semiconductor and printed circuit board industry in India. Part I: Survey results and case studies. In 2004 International IEEE Conference on the Asian Green Electronics (AGEC). Proceedings of (pp. 139-149). IEEE. doi:10.1109/AGEC.2004.1290889.
    Pervan, M., & Višić, J. (2012). Influence of firm size on its business success. Croatian Operational Research Review, 3(1), 213-223.
    Purwanti, T. (2019). An analysis of cash and receivables turnover effect towards company profitability. International Journal of Seocology, 037-044. doi: 10.29040/seocology.v1i01.6.
    Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of management Journal, 40(3), 534-559. doi:10.2307/257052.
    Taner, M., Sezen, B., & Mıhcı, H. (2011). An alternative human development index considering unemployment. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 6(1), 45-60.
    Triyani, A., Setyahuni, S. W., & Kiryanto, K. (2020). The effect of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure on firm performance: The role of CEO tenure. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 10(2), 261-270. doi:
    10.22219/jrak.v10i2.11820.
    Udu, A. A. (2015). Environmental factors and business operations in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(11), 144-154.
    Vithessonthi, C., & Tongurai, J. (2015). The effect of leverage on performance: Domestically-oriented versus internationally-oriented firms. Research in International Business and Finance, 34, 265-280.
    World Bank Group (2015). Kenya economic update, available at:wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/10/14/090224b08314473e/1_0/Rendered/PDF/Kenya0economic0public0participation.pdf (accessed 15, June 2015).
    Zhu, S., Hu, H., Yang, H., Qu, Y., & Li, Y. (2023). Mini-review of best practices for greenhouse gas reduction in Singapore’s semiconductor industry. Processes, 11(7), 2120.
    網路資源
    Thomson Reuters Refinitiv ESG 評分說明書 2020。取自:
    https://www.lseg.com/en/data-analytics/sustainable-finance/esg-scores
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    企業管理研究所(MBA學位學程)
    111363012
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111363012
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[企業管理研究所（MBA學位學程）] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    301201.pdf1604KbAdobe PDF0檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    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 ©   - 回饋