本研究以高層理論與利害關係人理論為基礎，探討高階經營團隊(top management team)的學歷、任期及性別多樣性與企業社會責任績效的影響，並加入家族企業控制及經理人持股作為公司治理的干擾效果。
研究採用次級資料收集方式，從台灣經濟新報及公開資訊觀測站取得上市企業之高階團隊及各企業相關資料，以及從天下雜誌取得公民獎得獎企業資料。統計方式採用羅吉斯迴歸，分析結果顯示：(1)高階經營團隊平均學歷與企業社會責任績效有正向關係；(2)家族企業控制在高階經營團隊人口特徵與企業社會責任績效的關係上不具負向調節效果；(3)經理人持股在高階經營團隊平均學歷、平均任期與企業社會責任績效的關係上有正向調節效果。
本研究嘗試以高層理論結合利害關係人理論來研究企業高層管理人員對於台灣的企業社會責任的助益情形，並在文末提出意涵與未來研究方向。

關鍵詞：高層理論、利害關係人理論、企業社會責任、公司治理、代理理論

Based on upper echelons theory and stakeholder theory, this study explored the impact of top management team's (TMT) academic qualifications, tenure and gender diversity on corporate social responsibility performance, and adds the family-owned business control and manager shareholding as interference factors of Corporate Governance.
The secondary data collection methods was used in this study. The TMT of publicly listed companies and related information were obtained from the Taiwan Economic Journal and Market Observation Post System. In addition, those companies that gained corporate social responsibility (CSR) Award were gathered from CommonWealth Magazine. The statistical method uses Logistic regression, and the analysis results show that: (1) the average academic qualifications of the TMT is positively related to CSR performance; (2) the family-owned business control do not negatively moderates the relationship between the Demographic Characteristics of the TMT and CSR performance; (3) Managers' shareholding positively moderates among the average academic background, average tenure of TMT and CSR performance.
This study was applied to upper echelons theory and stakeholder theory to investigate the contributions of TMT to CSR in Taiwan, and proposed implications and research directions for the future researches.


Keywords: Upper echelons theory, Stakeholder theory, Corporate social responsibility, Corporate Governance, Agency theory

論文審定書 i
致謝 ii
中文摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目錄 v
圖次 vi
表次 vii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 理論背景 5
第二節 變數介紹 12
第三節 假說推導 17
第三章 研究方法 21
第一節 研究架構 21
第二節 研究樣本 22
第三節 研究假說彙整 23
第四節 研究變數之操作性定義與衡量工具 24
第五節 統計分析方法 28
第四章 實證結果分析 29
第一節 敘述性分析 29
第二節 相關分析 31
第三節 羅吉斯迴歸分析 33
第五章 結論與建議 42
第一節 研究分析結果 43
第二節 研究意涵 45
第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 46
參考文獻 48

一、中文文獻
方妙玲 (2008)。高階主管薪資與財務績效及社會績效之關聯性：代理理論及利害
關係人理論觀點。企業管理學報，77，48-81。
史雅男、陳英傑與陳筱雯 (2019)。公司治理、國際化程度與經理人薪酬之關聯性
研究。台灣管理學刊，2，23-41。
池祥萱、繆文娟與莊瀅臻 (2014)。 企業社會責任對於公司財務績效之影響是雙
面刃嗎？ 來自全球 500 大公司的證據。管理學報，31(1)，1-19。
吳孟紋、孫鈴雅 (2014)。中國銀行業女性董事與銀行財務績效之關係。兩岸金融
季刊，2(2)，1-27。
杜榮瑞、陳煬楊與黃馨儀 (2019)。企業社會責任績效與 CEO 薪酬的關係。當代
會計，20(1)，1-28。
侍台誠、蔡麗雯與相惠萍 (2019)。臺灣上市公司企業社會責任履行績效之影響因
素研究-公司治理與智慧資本觀點。會計審計論叢，9(1)，119-166。
林文玲、傅鍾仁 (2011)。企業社會責任之揭露對會計資訊價值攸關性-以台灣資
訊電子業上市公司為例。Commerce & Management Quarterly，12(2)，209-
229。
林金賢、彭彥瑋與鍾采君 (2018)。策略相似性對高階管理團隊特性影響績效之中
介效果。商略學報，10(3)，169-184。
張元、王筱瑩 (2016)。董事會及高階管理階層的性別多樣性與企業社會責任的關
聯。亞太經濟管理評論，20(1)，1-44。
陳育成、許峰睿與黃聖雯 (2013)。企業社會責任與經營績效之關聯性研究。評價
學報，6，53-72。
陳振遠、王健聰與洪世偉 (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。

陳毅遠 (2018)。高階經理人薪酬結構、企業社會責任與公司績效之關聯性。國立
政治大學會計研究所碩士論文，台北市。
程心瑤 (2011)。公司治理與企業責任報告之揭露。會計評論，52，35-76。
黃惠君、蘇淑慧與盧正宗 (2017)。高階經理人薪酬、性別與企業社會責任之探
討。管理資訊計算，6，158-170。
黃瓊瑤，方世榮 (2012)。家族控制與企業社會責任績效之關聯性。中山管理評
論，20(2)，673-711。
劉韻僖 (2006)。 台灣高科技產業高階經營團隊及董事會權力與組織績效關係之
研究。交大管理學報，26，173-200。

二、英文文獻
Bromiley, P., & Rau, D. (2016). Social, behavioral, and cognitive influences on upper
echelons during strategy process: A literature review. Journal of Management,
42(1), 174-202.
Camelo‐Ordaz, C., Hernández‐Lara, A. B., & Valle‐Cabrera, R. (2005). The
relationship between top management teams and innovative capacity in
companies. Journal of Management Development, 24, 683-705
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. J. J. o. m. (2004). Upper
echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top
management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749-778.
Chen, A., Kao, L., Tsao, M., & Wu, C. (2007). Building a corporate governance index
from the perspectives of ownership and leadership for firms in Taiwan.
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2), 251-261.
Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Dai, Z. (2013). Family ownership and CEO turnovers.
Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(3), 1166-1190.
Chen, W. T., Zhou, G. S., & Zhu, X. K. (2019). CEO tenure and corporate social
responsibility performance. Journal of Business Research, 95, 292-302.
Fan, J. P., & Wong, T. J. (2002). Corporate ownership structure and the
informativeness of accounting earnings in East Asia. Journal of Accounting and
Economics, 33(3), 401-425.
Goll, I., Johnson, N. B., & Rasheed, A. A. (2008). Top management team
demographic characteristics, business strategy, and firm performance in the US
airline industry. Management Decision, 46(2), 201-222.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management
Review, 32(2), 334-343.
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of top management
team heterogeneity on firms' competitive moves. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 659-684.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a
reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
Hammond, S. A., & Slocum, J. W. (1996). The impact of prior firm financial
performance on subsequent corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics,
15(2), 159-165.
Jensen, M. C., & Ruback, R. S. (1983). The market for corporate control: The
scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1-4), 5-50.

Kahreh, M. S., Babania, A., Tive, M., & Mirmehdi, S. M. (2014). An examination to
effects of gender differences on the corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109(8), 664-668.
Leuz, C., Nanda, D., & Wysocki, P. D. (2003). Earnings management and investor
protection: an international comparison. Journal of Financial Economics,
69(3), 505-527.
Liu, K., Li, J., Hesterly, W., & Cannella Jr, A. (2012). Top management team tenure
and technological inventions at post-IPO biotechnology firms. Journal of
Business Research, 65(9), 1349-1356.
Liu, Y., Gulzar, M. A., Zhang, Z., & Yang, Q. (2018). Do interaction and education
moderate top management team age heterogeneity and corporate social
responsibility?. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal,
46(12), 2063-2079.
Luanglath, N., Ali, M., & Mohannak, K. (2019). Top management team gender
diversity and productivity: the role of board gender diversity. Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 38(1), 71-86.
Mallin, C. A., & Michelon, G. (2011). Board reputation attributes and corporate
social performance: An empirical investigation of the US best corporate
citizens. Accounting and Business Research, 41(2), 119-144.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended
theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management review, 30(1), 166-179.
McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO incentives and corporate social
performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 341-359.
Ming, F., & Jiuyi, D. (2017). Research on Relationship Between TMT Heterogeneity
and CSR Information Disclosure Performance: Listed Machinery
Manufacturing Companies in SME Board. Innovation and Management, 1149-
1154.
Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2004). Family control and the rent–seeking society.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 391-409.
Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. (2011). The role of top management team international
orientation in international strategic decision-making: The choice of foreign
entry mode. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 185-193.
Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. (2011). The effect of ownership structure
on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of
Business Ethics, 104(2), 283-297.
Peters, R., & Mullen, M. R. (2009). Some Evidence of the Cumulative Effects of
Corporate Social Responsibility on Financial Performance. Journal of Global
Business Issues, 3(1).

Reimer, M., Van Doorn, S., & Heyden, M. L. (2018). Unpacking functional
experience complementarities in senior leaders’ influences on CSR strategy: A
CEO–Top management team approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4),
977-995.
Shipilov, A., & Danis, W. (2006). TMG social capital, strategic choice and firm
performance. European Management Journal, 24(1), 16-27.
Singla, C., Veliyath, R., & George, R. (2014). Family firms and internationalizationgovernance
relationships: Evidence of secondary agency issues. Strategic
Management Journal, 35(4), 606-616.
Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims Jr, H. P., O'Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J.
A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social
integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 412-438.
Smith, W. J., Wokutch, R. E., Harrington, K. V., & Dennis, B. S. (2001). An
examination of the influence of diversity and stakeholder role on corporate
social orientation. Business & Society, 40(3), 266-294.
Thomas, A. S., & Simerly, R. L. (1994). The chief executive officer and corporate
social performance: An interdisciplinary examination. Journal of Business
Ethics, 13(12), 959-968.
Wang, G., Holmes Jr, R. M., Oh, I. S., & Zhu, W. (2016). Do CEOs matter to firm
strategic actions and firm performance? A meta‐analytic investigation based on
upper echelons theory. Personnel Psychology, 69(4), 775-862.
Xin, H., & Nakagawa, K. (2017). Top management team characteristics and team
processes: A review. 大阪大学経済学, 67(2-3-4), 1-39.
Zhang, C., & Wang, C. (2017). The impact of Top Management Team heterogeneity
on the performance of technology start-ups. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 13(12), 8057-8065.