Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 社會科學院
  3. 公共事務研究所
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/90184
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor王宏文zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorHongwung Wangen
dc.contributor.author許薰文zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorShiun-Wen Hsuen
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-22T17:45:50Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-09-
dc.date.copyright2023-09-22-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.date.submitted2023-08-07-
dc.identifier.citation壹、 中文文獻
李貴英,1999,阿姆斯特丹條約關於歐洲聯盟機構改革事宜之評估,問題與研究,第38卷第1期,49-62。
李淑菁,2017,想像與形構:臺灣多元文化教育發展之論述分析,臺灣教育社會學研究,第17卷第2期,1-44。
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, 商管科技季刊,第12卷第2期, 209-229.
陳麗娟,2022,永續企業社會責任在歐盟市場之實踐與未來發展趨勢,華岡法粹,(72),1-44。
黃柏叡,2022,歐洲多元文化社會與促進尊重教育之研究,台灣教育研究期刊,第3卷第3期,239-258.
黃啟瑞,2021,ESG 永續報告書與國際規範解析,會計研究月刊,第432期: 70-76.
黃營杉、齊德彰,2005, 企業倫理,社會責任與慈善公益作為之研究—以台灣高科技電子產業為例,Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences,,第1卷第2期,,65-82.
褚麗絹、許崑峰,2004,公益行為之探討—有線電視系統台業者的觀點,南華大學管理科學研究所。
蔡秉庭、王茂昌,2019,企業社會責任與企業價值之相互關聯性: 兼論無形資產的影響,會計與公司治理,第14卷第2期:63-82.
蕭文珒、潘怡君、蕭文姃、謝易峻,2022, 分析企業社會責任執行與公司營運績效之相關性—以電腦周邊設備與電子零組件業為例.,管理資訊計算, 第11卷第1期,45-54。
貳、 學位論文
林宜欣,2001,台灣企業公益行為之研究,南華大學非營利事業管理研究所碩士論文。
陳昱蓁,2010,金融集團公益行為之研究—以我國金控為例,淡江大學保險學系保險經營在職專班碩士論文。
曾思齊,2016,台灣強制編製企業社會責任報告書之事件研究,臺灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
湯偉宏,2020,企業投入 ESG 效益之研究–以總體經濟、機構投資人探討,政治大學金融學系研究所未出版之碩士論文。
黃蒼進,2003,台灣企業公益行為之研究:以金融業之銀行為例,南華大學非營利事業管理研究所碩士論文。
賴昭銘,2019,臺灣電子製造廠商的企業社會責任與社會參與,臺灣師範大學東亞學系研究所碩士論文。
羅仕倫,2009,傳播媒體參與公益行為之研究—以其基金會運作方式為例,台灣師範大學圖文傳播學系研究所碩士論文。
參、 外文文獻
Aaronson, S.A., (2003). Corporate responsibility in the global village: the British role model and the American laggard. Bus. Soc. Rev. 108 (3): 309-338.
Bredgaard, T. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in Denmark: between public policy and enterprise policy. In IIRA 13th World Congress Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of management review, 4(4): 497-505.
Chaffee, E. C. (2017). The origins of corporate social responsibility. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 85: 347-373.
Dowling, G., and Moran, P. (2012). Corporate reputations: built-in or bolted-on? California Management Review, 54(2): 25-42.
Durrani, A., Rosmin, M., and Volz, U. (2020). The role of central banks in scaling up sustainable finance–what do monetary authorities in the Asia-Pacific region think?. Journal of sustainable finance & investment, 10(2): 92-112.
Elkington, J. (1997). The triple bottom line. Environmental management: Readings and cases, 2: 49-66.
Freeman, R. E., and McVea, J. (2005). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. The Blackwell handbook of strategic management: 183-201.
Friedman, M. (2010). Social responsibility of business is to increase its profit. The New York Times Magazine.
Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and International Business: A Conceptual Overview. In: Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. and Leonard, L., Eds., International Business, Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice), Emerald Group Publishing Limited: 1-35.
Griffin, J. J. & Mohan, J. E. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Business and society, 36(1), 5-31.
Hawn, O., and Ioannou, I. (2016). Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strategic management journal, 37(13): 2569-2588.
Henke, H. M. (2016). The effect of social screening on bond mutual fund performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 67: 69-84.
Iamandi, I. E., Constantin, L. G., Munteanu, S. M., and Cernat-Gruici, B. (2019). Mapping the ESG behavior of European companies. A holistic Kohonen approach. Sustainability, 11(12), 3276.
Kocmanová, A., and Dočekalová, M. (2012). Construction of the economic indicators of performance in relation to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) factors. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 60(4), 195-206.
Kim, Y., Li, H., and Li, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 43: 1-13.
Kotler, P., and Lee, N. (2005). Best of breed: When it comes to gaining a market edge while supporting a social cause, “corporate social marketing” leads the pack. Social marketing quarterly, 11(3-4): 91-103.
Kotler, P., Hessekiel, D., and Lee, N. R. (2012). Good works!: Marketing and corporate initiatives that build a better world... and the bottom Line. John Wiley & Sons.
Lantos, G. P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of consumer marketing, 18(7): 595-632.
Latapí Agudelo, M. A., Jóhannsdóttir, L., and Davídsdóttir, B. (2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(1): 1-23.
Li, T. T., Wang, K., Sueyoshi, T., and Wang, D. D. (2021). ESG: Research progress and future prospects. Sustainability, 13(21), 11663.
Lindgreen, A., and Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International journal of management reviews, 12(1): 1-7.
Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., and Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. the Journal of Finance, 72(4): 1785-1824.
Lokuwaduge, C. S. D. S., and Heenetigala, K. (2017). Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for sustainable development: An Australian study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4): 438-450.
Martirosyan, E., and Vashakmadze, T. (2013). Introducing stakeholder-based frameworks for post-merger integration success. In Global Business Conference Proceedings: 169-175
Matthews, M. R. (1993). Socially Responsible Accounting (Chapman Hall, London).
Ortas, E., Álvarez, I., Jaussaud, J., and Garayar, A. (2015). The impact of institutional and social context on corporate environmental, social, and governance performance of companies committed to voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108: 673-684.
Pizzi, S., Principale, S., & De Nuccio, E. (2022). Material sustainability information and reporting standards. Exploring the differences between GRI and SASB. Meditari Accountancy Research, (ahead-of-print).
Prasad, A. A., and Kumar, R. S. (2022). Challenges and opportunities of brand corporate social responsibility classification: A review, new conceptualization and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(6): 2071-2103.
Schuler, D. A., and Cording, M. (2006). A corporate social performance–corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 540-558.
Smith, N. C. (2001). Changes in corporate practices in response to public interest advocacy and actions. Handbook of Marketing and Society.
Tai, F. M., and Chuang, S. H. (2014). Corporate social responsibility. Ibusiness, 6(03), 117.
Toppinen, A., Li, N., Tuppura, A., and Xiong, Y. (2012). Corporate responsibility and strategic groups in the forest‐based industry: Exploratory analysis based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 19(4), 191-205.
Waddock, S. A., Bodwell, C., and Graves, S. B. (2002). Responsibility: The new business imperative. Academy of management perspectives, 16(2): 132-148.
Welford, R. (2004). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and Asia: Critical elements and best practice. Journal of corporate citizenship, (13): 31-47.
Welford, R. (2005). Corporate social responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia. Journal of corporate citizenship, (17).
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of management review, 16(4): 691-718.
-
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/90184-
dc.description.abstract近年來國際環境以及投資人非常重視企業在ESG,也就是E(Environment)環境保護、S(Social)社會責任以及G(Corporate governance)三個層面的表現,因應國際環境及投資人的要求,現今絕大多數企業每年按照全球報告倡議組織(GRI,Global Reporting Initiative)所發佈的GRI準則,或是永續會計準則委員會(Sustainability Accounting Standards Board)所發佈的SASB準則定期發佈永續報告書。本研究摘錄台灣與歐洲共12家電子通訊公司於2021年所發佈的永續報告書中與社會層面相關的永續行為,按照GRI準則重新編碼加以分類,以內容分析法探討永續行為的具體內容,藉此了解台灣與歐洲的電子通訊公司在社會層面的永續行為是否有差異,並且具有哪些特性。
研究結果顯示,在GRI 405員工多元化與平等機會、「捐贈服務、實物或金錢」、「提供學生職涯發展規劃」三個分類,歐洲與臺灣電子通訊公司有一些差異。在GRI 405員工多元化與平等機會這個分類,歐洲電子通訊公司相較起來更為重視促進員工族群多樣性及包容性的行動;在「捐贈服務、實物或金錢」的分類上,臺灣電子通訊公司較多捐贈物品、金錢及服務的行為,而歐洲電子通訊公司傾向為開發中國家孩童及本國孩童提供STEM,也就是科學(Science)、科技(Technology)、工程(Engineering)及數學(Math)的教育;在「提供學生職涯發展規劃」這個分類,臺灣電子通訊公司傾向提供頂尖大學學生獎學金、實習機會及職涯導師;歐洲電子通訊公司則重視兒童及青少年弱勢族群的技術發展,協助他們培養一技之長。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractIn recent years, the international community and investors have placed significant emphasis on companies' performance in ESG, which stands for Environment (E), Social (S), and Governance (G) aspects. In response to international environmental concerns and investor demands, the majority of companies now publish sustainability reports annually, following either the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines or the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards, to showcase their sustainability efforts.
This study extracted and categorized sustainability actions related to the social aspect from the sustainability reports of 12 electronic communication companies in Taiwan and Europe for the year 2021. These actions were then re-coded according to GRI guidelines, and content analysis was employed to explore the specific details of these sustainability practices. The goal was to understand whether there were differences in social sustainability actions between Taiwanese and European electronic communication companies and to identify their unique characteristics.
The research findings revealed some distinctions between European and Taiwanese electronic communication companies in three categories: GRI 405 Diversity and Equal Opportunity, "Donations of services, goods, or money," and "Career development planning for students." European electronic communication companies showed a greater focus on promoting diversity and inclusivity among their workforce in the GRI 405 category. Regarding the "Donations of services, goods, or money," Taiwanese companies were more involved in donating goods, money, and services, while European companies tended to provide STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education for children in developing countries as well as their own nation's children. In the "Career development planning for students" category, Taiwanese electronic communication companies were inclined to offer scholarships, internship opportunities, and career mentoring for top university students. On the other hand, European companies emphasized supporting the technical development of disadvantaged children and adolescents, helping them cultivate specific skills.
Overall, this research sheds light on the differences in social sustainability practices between Taiwanese and European electronic communication companies and highlights their unique approaches to fostering a more sustainable future.
en
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-09-22T17:45:50Z
No. of bitstreams: 0
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2023-09-22T17:45:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.tableofcontents口試委員會審定書............................................................................................................................... I
誌謝 .................................................................................................................................................... II
中文摘要............................................................................................................................................ III
英文摘要............................................................................................................................................ IV
目錄 ................................................................................................................................................... VI
表目錄 ............................................................................................................................................. VIII
第一章 緒論.......................................................................................................................................1
第二章 文獻回顧................................................................................................................................ 6
第一節 企業社會責任與 ESG 之定義與基礎理論 ............................................................................... 6
第二節 臺灣永續報告書的發展歷程以及臺灣上市櫃公司之永續作為.......................................... 10
第三節 企業在 ESG 中有關社會層面行動之研究與分類方式 ......................................................... 12
第三章 研究設計與方法 ...................................................................................................................21
第四章 臺灣與歐洲電子通訊業永續報告書編制情形 ......................................................................25
第一節 台灣電子品牌廠商簡介與永續報告書編制情形.................................................................. 25
第二節 台灣電信公司簡介與永續報告書編制情形 ......................................................................... 41
第三節 歐洲電子品牌廠商簡介與永續報告書編制情形.................................................................. 55
第四節 歐洲電信公司簡介與永續報告書編制情形 ......................................................................... 75
第五章 臺灣電子通訊公司 2021 年永續報告書比較 ........................................................................95
第六章 歐洲電子通訊公司 2021 年永續報告書比較 ......................................................................121
第七章 台灣與歐洲電子通訊廠商於社會層面永續行為差異性分析..............................................161
第八章 結論....................................................................................................................................174
參考文獻..........................................................................................................................................178
附錄 .................................................................................................................................................184
第一節 華碩電腦 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形 ............................................................................. 184
第二節 宏碁 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形 ..................................................................................... 186
第三節 研華 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形..................................................................................... 187
第四節 中華電信 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形............................................................................. 189
第五節 台灣大哥大 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形......................................................................... 191
第六節 遠傳電信 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形............................................................................. 193
第七節 NOKIA 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形 .................................................................................... 195
第八節 LOGITECH 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形 ................................................................................ 196
第九節 SIEMENS 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形 ................................................................................. 198
第十節 ORANGE TELECOM 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形 .................................................................... 200
第十一節 TELECOM ITALIA 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形.................................................................... 202
第十二節 DEUTSCHE TELEKOM 2021 年永續報告書呈現情形.............................................................. 204
-
dc.language.isozh_TW-
dc.subjectESGzh_TW
dc.subjectGRI 準則zh_TW
dc.subject永續行為zh_TW
dc.subjectCSRzh_TW
dc.subject企業社會責任zh_TW
dc.subjectGRI principlesen
dc.subjectCorporate social responsibilityen
dc.subjectCSRen
dc.subjectSustainable behavioren
dc.subjectESGen
dc.title臺灣與歐洲電子通訊廠商履行 ESG 社會層面行動之差異性分析zh_TW
dc.titleAnalysis of Differences in ESG Social Actions Implementation between Taiwanese and European Electronic Communication Companiesen
dc.typeThesis-
dc.date.schoolyear111-2-
dc.description.degree碩士-
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee孫煒;陳秋政zh_TW
dc.contributor.oralexamcommitteeWay Sun;JOSÉ CHIU-C. CHENen
dc.subject.keyword企業社會責任,CSR,ESG,永續行為,GRI 準則,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordCorporate social responsibility,CSR,ESG,Sustainable behavior,GRI principles,en
dc.relation.page205-
dc.identifier.doi10.6342/NTU202302460-
dc.rights.note同意授權(全球公開)-
dc.date.accepted2023-08-07-
dc.contributor.author-college社會科學院-
dc.contributor.author-dept公共事務研究所-
顯示於系所單位:公共事務研究所

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
ntu-111-2.pdf6.26 MBAdobe PDF檢視/開啟
顯示文件簡單紀錄


系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved