臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

我國政府部門已於103年要求特定產業之公司須出具企業社會責任(CSR)報告書，以供相關利害關係人參考和監督。至今，企業社會責任報告書資訊揭露的程度，卻仍然不一致。本研究在探討二個主要研究項目：(1) 我國電子業公司出具企業社會責任報告書資訊的概況分析；(2) 企業在受到外部監督時，會影響企業社會責任資訊揭露程度的重要因素分析。
本研究樣本為103年電子業國內上市公司，分析結果顯示，以臺灣最具代表性的上市電子公司為例，發現普遍企業社會責任資訊揭露的程度仍嫌不足，除僅四分之一的上市電子業出具企業社會責任(CSR)報告書，且按照GRI4.0並送付第三方認證的公司也僅約佔五分之一。進一步實證探討企業社會責任資訊揭露程度與國際資本市場、媒體曝光度及股東股權分散度，發現公司再受到上述三者利害關係人的監督時，公司的企業社會責任資訊揭露程度也會較佳，此與本研究預期相符。因此，強化利害關係人的監督功能，將有助於企業社會責任資訊揭露品質。

Since Taiwan’s full adoption of IFRSs in 2013, the listed companies are required to prepare financial information based on ROC GAAP and IFRSs in 2012 by the Financial Supervisory Commition. In addition, resulting from the retroactive exemption in IFRS 3 “Business Combation” in Taiwan, both financial information measuring under ROC GAAP 25 and IFRS 3 remains. This paper examines with Ohlson’s model (1995) whether the valuation revelance of information under IFRS 3 and ROC GAAP 25 has changed after the transition of IFRSs of listed companies in 2012 until 2014.
The empirical results include: (1) after the adoption of IFRS 3, goodwill including measuring by IFRS 3 is incrementally value-relevant in comparison of goodwill without measuring by IFRS 3; (2) in the sub-sample, goodwill components, the explanatory power of goodwill measuring under IFRS 3 is incremental to goodwill measuring under ROC GAAP 25; (3) additionally, gain on bargain purchase is associated with share price positively, supporting the IASB’s view of recognizing gain on bargain purchase. This paper provides supporting evidence of the adoption of IFRS 3. Investors may take goodwill and gain on bargain purchase into consideration when making investing decisions; assume information under IFRSs providing more Information Content than under ROC GAAP.

目錄
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景及動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究架構 4
第二章 文獻探討與假說發展 6
第一節 企業社會責任之定義 6
第二節 我國企業社會責任之相關規定 19
第三節 企業社會責任之觀點 24
第四節 企業社會責任資訊 27
第五節 與外部監督相關因素之文獻 32
第三章 研究設計 37
第一節 樣本敘述 37
第二節 變數衡量 38
第三節 研究方法 42
第四章 實證結果與分析 43
第一節 敘述性統計 43
第二節 研究變數的相關係數分析 47
第三節 實證結果迴歸分析 49
第五章 結論與建議 53
第一節 研究結論 53
第二節 研究建議 54
參考文獻 56
中文部分 56
英文部分 57
附錄 63

中文部分
1.臺灣服務業聯盟，http://www.twcsi.org.tw/。
2.中華民國企業永續發展協會http://www.bcsd.org.tw/
3.王友民，2015，公司治理評鑑與經營績效相關性之實證研究：以國內生技業之上市櫃公司為例。
4.朱珊瑩與陳忠榮，2015，臺灣網際網路使用種類、社會資本與快樂程度，中央研究院經濟研究所，經濟論文，頁535~587。
5.李宜樺2014，企業社會責任報告新趨勢:G4時代的來臨，會計研究月刊，第339期2月號。
6.李宜樺，2014， 如何提升企業社會責任報告的公信力，會計研究月刊第340 期53月號。
7.洪雪卿、陳薇如與傅雁鈴，2013，影響企業社會責任績效之重要因素為何？商管科技季刊，第14卷，第4期，頁405~441。
8.高蘭芬、陳振遠與李焮慈，2006，資訊透明度及席次控制權與現金流量權偏離對公司績效之影響-以臺灣電子業為例，臺灣管理學刊，第6卷，第2期，頁81~105。
9.陳冠志，2011，我國企業社會責任揭露概況與影響因素之探討，國立臺北大學會計系碩士論文。
10.陶文杰與金占明，2012企業社會責任信息披露、媒體關注度與企業財務績效關係研究，中國管理學報，第9卷，第8期，頁1225~1232。
11.張家鈞，企業社會責任—淺談「OECD多國企業指導綱領」與跨國企業時事案例，專欄報導。
12.甄友薇，2015，企業社會責任報告書揭露品質之決定因素及其與公司績效之關聯性，國立臺灣大學財務金融系碩士論文。

英文部分
1.Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. 2003. The cross-national diversity of corporate governance:Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 447-465.
2.Aupperle, K.E.,Carrol,A.B.,and Hatfield,J.D. 1985. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal,(28),446-463.
3.Belkaoui, A. and P. G. Karpik. 1989. Determinants of the Corporate Decision
to Disclose Social Information. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 2(1). pp. 36–51.
4.Brammer, S., and Pavelin, S. 2008. Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(2), 120–136.
5.Branco, M. C., and Rodrigues, L. L. 2008. Factors influencing social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 685–701.
6.Brown N and Deegan C. 1998. The public disclosure of environmental performance information: a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research 29(1): 21–41.
7.Chiu and Wang. 2015. Determinants of Social Disclosure Quality in Taiwan:
An Application of Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics (2015) 129:379–398.
8.Carmelo and Reverte. 2009. .Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure Ratings by Spanish Listed Firms”, 10, pp.358-359.
9.Chapple, W. and Moon, J. 2005. Corporate social responsibility in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR Website reporting. Business and Society, 44(4), 415–441.
10.Cormier, D. and Magnan, M. 2003. Environmental reporting management: A continental European perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(1), 43–62.
11.Cullen L and Christopher T. 2002. Governance disclosures and firm characteristics of listed Australian mining companies. International Journal of Business Studies 10(1): 37–58.
12.Deegan, C. 2002. The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.
13.Donaldson, L. 1990. The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15(3), 369-381.
14.Driver, C. and Thompson, G. 2002. Corporate governance and democracy: The stakeholder debate revisited. Journal of Management and Governance, 6(2), 111-130.
15.Erfle S and McMillan H. 1990. Media, political pressure, and the firm: the case of petroleum pricing in the late 1970s. Quarterly. Journal of Economics 105(1): 115–134.
16.Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman: Boston
17.Gray, R, Kouhy, R., and Lavers, S. 1995. Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.
18.Haniffa. R. and Cooke, T. 2005. The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), 391–430.
19.Huang, C. and Kung, F. 2010. Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 435–451.
20.Logsdon J. 1985. Organizational responses to environmental issues. In Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Preston L (ed.). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT. 47–71.
21.Mitchell, R., Agle, B., and Wood, D. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review,22(4), 853–886.
22.Muhammad Azizul Islam and Craig Deegan.2010. Media pressures and corporate disclosure of social responsibility performance information: a study of two global clothing and sports retail companies. Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 40. No. 2, pp. 131-148,2010.
23.Muller, A., and Kra¨usl, R. 2011. Doing good deeds in times of need: A strategic perspective on corporate disaster donations. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 911–929.
24.Neu, D., Warsame, H., and Pedwell, K. 1998. Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282.
25.Patten, D. M. 2002. The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note. Accounting, Organization and Society, 27(8), 763–764.
26.Preston, L. E. and P. O‟Bannon. 1997. "The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship：A Typology and Analysis," Business and Society, 36(4), 419-429.
27.Purushothaman, M., Tower, G., Hancock, P., and Taplin, R..2000. Determinants of corporate social reporting practices of listed Singapore companies. Pacific Accounting Review, 12(2),101–124.
28.Reverte, C. 2009. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 351–366.
29.Roberts, R. 1992. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.
30.Scott, T. 1994. Incentives and disincentives for financial disclosure: Voluntary disclosure of defined benefit pension plan information by Canadian firms. The Accounting Review, 69(1), 26–43.
31.Sharma and Nguan, 1999. The biotechnology industry and strategies of biodiversity conservation: the influence of managerial interpretations and risk propensity. Business Strategy and the Environment 8(1): 46–61.
32.Ullmann, A. A. 1985..Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships Among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms.
33.Van der Laan Smith, J., Adhikari, A., and Tondkar, R. H. 2005. Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(2), 123–151.
34.Watts, R. L. and J. L. Zimmerman. 1986. Positive Accounting Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
35.Xiao, J., Yang, H., and Chow, C. 2004. The determinants and characteristics of voluntary Internet-based disclosures by listed Chinese companies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 23(3), 191–225.