English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113318/144297 (79%)
Visitors : 50953874      Online Users : 955
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
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 商學院 > 財務管理學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/152062
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152062


    Title: 高碳排產業對環境績效的影響
    The Impact of High Carbon Emission Industries on Environmental Performance: Evidence from Taiwan
    Authors: 陳妍安
    Chen, Yen-An
    Contributors: 湛可南
    Chan, Ko-Nan
    陳妍安
    Chen, Yen-An
    Keywords: 高碳排產業
    環境績效
    家族企業
    女性獨董
    High carbon emission industries
    Environmental performance
    Family firms
    Female independent directors
    Date: 2024
    Issue Date: 2024-07-01 12:38:48 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 直覺上,高碳排產業較容易對環境產生負面影響,使人們認為其對環境分數也有相當巨大的負面衝擊。但根據過往文獻分析,高碳排產業被認為將在當今日漸嚴格的永續法規下採取創新策略以改善環境績效評分,讓自家企業實踐永續經營。本文旨在檢測高碳排產業是否對其環境績效反而有正向的影響,而在分析了2010年至2022年共1499筆台灣企業樣本後,我們的統計回歸結果印證了高碳排放產業確實對環構面分數的影響是正向且顯著的。而根據我們的進一步探討,發現在高碳排產業下在非家族企業與擁有女性獨立董事的企業對環境績效有加強的效果,且為顯著正面,推論這分別與企業研發費用的增加與代理成本的降低有關。本次研究也透過差異法(DID)方法處理了內生性問題,回歸結果確認了高碳排變數對環境分數的影響一致。
    The conventional wisdom argues that high carbon emission industries that harm the environment would gain significantly lower environmental scores. However, high carbon emission industries can adopt innovative strategies under stringent regulations to improve their environmental performance. We test if firms with high carbon emissions exhibit better environmental performance using Taiwanese data from 2010 to 2022. We find that better environmental pillar scores are shown in high carbon emission industries. This industry effect is strengthened in non-family firms and firms including female independent directors and this may be due to sufficient innovation expenditure and lower agency costs, respectively. We address the endogeneity issues by adopting the Difference-in-Differences (DID) method. Our results hold under all robustness tests.
    Reference: Abeysekera, A. P., & Fernando, C. S. (2020). Corporate social responsibility versus corporate shareholder responsibility: A family firm perspective. Journal of Corporate Finance, 61, 101370.
    Anderson, R. C., Duru, A., & Reeb, D. M. (2012). Investment policy in family controlled firms. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(6), 1744-1758
    Aswani, J., Raghunandan, A., & Rajgopal, S. (2024). Are carbon emissions associated with stock returns? Review of Finance, 28(1), 75-106.
    Bae, K. H., Kang, J. K., & Kim, J. M. (2002). Tunneling or value added? Evidence from mergers by Korean business groups. Journal of Finance, 57(6), 2695-2740.
    Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 207-221
    Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82-113.
    Bertrand, M., Mehta, P., & Mullainathan, S. (2002). Ferreting out tunneling: An application to Indian business groups. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 121-148.
    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.
    Broadstock, D. C., Matousek, R., Meyer, M., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2020). Does corporate social responsibility impact firms' innovation capacity? The indirect link between environmental & social governance implementation and innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 119, 99-110.
    Chrisman, J. J., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of management Journal, 55(4), 976-997.
    Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302–339.
    DeAngelo, H., & DeAngelo, L. (2000). Controlling stockholders and the disciplinary role of corporate payout policy: A study of the Times Mirror Company. Journal of Financial Economics, 56(2), 153-207.
    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.
    El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Wang, H., & Kwok, C. C. (2016). Family control and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Banking & Finance, 73, p.131-146.
    Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338.
    Fernando, C. S., Sharfman, M. P., & Uysal, V. B. (2017). Corporate environmental policy and shareholder value: Following the smart money. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52(5), 2023-2051.
    Fowlie, M. (2010). Emissions trading, electricity restructuring, and investment in pollution abatement. American Economic Review, 100(3), 837-869.
    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, 101889.
    Gupta, V. K., Mortal, S., Chakrabarty, B., Guo, X., & Turban, D. B. (2020). CFO gender and financial statement irregularities. Academy of Management Journal, 63(3), 802-831
    Ho, J. L., Hsu, F. H., & Lee, C. L. (2022). Business strategy, corporate social responsibility activities, and financial performance. Journal of International Accounting Research, 21(1), 49-75.
    Hong, H., & Kacperczyk, M. (2009). The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), 15-36.
    Javeed, S. A., Latief, R., Jiang, T., San Ong, T., & Tang, Y. (2021). How environmental regulations and corporate social responsibility affect the firm innovation with the moderating role of Chief executive officer (CEO) power and ownership concentration? Journal of Cleaner Production, 308, 127212.
    Jin, R., Jiang, X., & Hu, H. W. (2023). Internal and external CSR in China: How do women independent directors matter? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 40(1), 169-204.
    Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697-1724.
    Lanoie, P., Laurent‐Lucchetti, J., Johnstone, N., & Ambec, S. (2011). Environmental policy, innovation and performance: new insights on the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(3), 803-842.
    Liang, H., & Renneboog, L. (2017). On the foundations of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Finance, 72(2), 853-910.
    Lin, Y. E., Li, Y. W., Cheng, T. Y., & Lam, K. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and investment efficiency: does business strategy matter? International Review of Financial Analysis, 73, 101585.
    Liu, C. (2018). Are women greener? Corporate gender diversity and environmental violations. Journal of Corporate Finance, 52, 118-142.
    Maury, B. (2022). Strategic CSR and firm performance: The role of prospector and growth strategies. Journal of Economics and Business, 118, 106031.
    McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011a). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1163–1172
    McGuinness, P. B., Vieito, J. P., & Wang, M. (2017). The role of board gender and foreign ownership in the CSR performance of Chinese listed firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42, 75-99
    McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.
    Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman Jr, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546-562.
    Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy‐making and environment: the third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221-235.
    Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses. Harvard Business Press.
    Pearson, A. R., Ballew, M. T., Naiman, S., & Schuldt, J. P. (2017). Race, class, gender and climate change communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.412
    Petersen, M. A. (2008). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435-480.
    Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 327-347
    Ren, X., Li, J., Wang, X., & Lei, X. (2024). Female directors and CSR: Does the presence of female directors affect CSR focus? International Review of Financial Analysis, 92, 103101.
    Stavins, R. N. (1998). What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from SO2 allowance trading. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 69-88.
    Stein, J. C. (1988). Takeover threats and managerial myopia. Journal of Political Economy, 96(1), 61-80.
    Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), 1-37.
    Wahid, A. S. (2019). The effects and the mechanisms of board gender diversity: Evidence from financial manipulation. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(3), 705-725
    Yuan, Y., Lu, L. Y., Tian, G., & Yu, Y. (2020). Business strategy and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 162, 359-377.
    Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443–457.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    財務管理學系
    111357003
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111357003
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[財務管理學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    700301.pdf1416KbAdobe PDF0View/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