請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92616
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林博文 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Bou-Wen Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 洪華薇 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Hua-Wei Hung | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-05-14T16:04:40Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-05-15 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2024-05-14 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2024-04-25 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | References
Adam, A. M., & Shavit, T. 2008. How can a ratings-based method for assessing corporate social responsibility (CSR) provide an incentive to firms excluded from socially responsible investment indices to invest in CSR? Journal of Business Ethics, 82: 899-905. Aguilera, R. V., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Marano, V., & Tashman, P. A. 2021. The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management, 47(6): 1468-1497. Ahmadi, S. 2020. A tokenization system for the Kurdish language. In M. Zampieri, P. Nakov, N. Ljubešić, J. Tiedemann, & Y. Scherrer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects: 114-127. Barcelona, Spain: International Committee on Computational Linguistics (ICCL). Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. 2018. Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3): 87-103. Arvidsson, N. 2009. Exploring tensions in projectified matrix organisations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(1): 97-107. Banerjee, S. B. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical sociology, 34(1): 51-79. Barkemeyer, R., Comyns, B., Figge, F., & Napolitano, G. 2014. CEO statements in sustainability reports: Substantive information or background noise? Accounting Forum, 38(4): 241-257. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1): 611-639. Blei, D. M. 2012. Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4): 77-84. Blei, D. M., & Lafferty, J. D. 2009. Topic models. In Text mining, 101-124. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. 2003. Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3: 993-1022. 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. Brandon, R., Krueger, P., & Schmidt, S. 2021. ESG rating disagreement and stock returns. Financial Analysts Journal, 77(4): 104-127. Cai, Y., Pan, C. H., & Statman, M. 2016. Why do countries matter so much in corporate social performance? Journal of Corporate Finance, 41: 591-609. Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W. 2018. Strategic silence: Withholding certification status as a hypocrisy avoidance tactic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1): 130-169. Chang, J., Boyd-Graber, J., Gerrish, S., Wang, C., & Blei, D. M. 2009. Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. Advances in Neutral Information Processing Systems, 22: 1-9. Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. 2010. How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9): 917-945. Chen, M., von Behren, R., & Mussalli, G. 2021. The Unreasonable Attractiveness of More ESG Data. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 48(1): 147-162. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. 2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10 (1): 103-126. Chrun, E., Dolšak, N., & Prakash, A. 2016. Corporate environmentalism: Motivations and mechanisms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41: 341-362. Clementino, E., & Perkins, R. 2021. How do companies respond to environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 171: 379-397. Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. 2014. Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1): 181-235. Cort, T., & Esty, D. 2020. ESG standards: Looming challenges and pathways forward. Organization & Environment, 33(4): 491-510. Davidson, R. H., Dey, A., & Smith, A. J. 2019. CEO materialism and corporate social responsibility. The Accounting Review, 94(1): 101-126. DiMaggio, P., Nag, M., & Blei, D. 2013. Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to newspaper coverage of US government arts funding. Poetics, 41(6): 570-606. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550. Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members'' responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative science quarterly, 442-476. Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4): 51-58. Espeland, W. N., Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. 2016. Engines of anxiety: Academic rankings, reputation, and accountability. Russell Sage Foundation. Falchetti, D., Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. 2022. Start with “Why,” but only if you have to: The strategic framing of novel ideas across different audiences. Strategic Management Journal, 43(1): 130-159. Fiol, C. M. 1995. Corporate communications: Comparing executives'' private and public statements. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 522-536. Fligstein, N., Stuart Brundage, J., & Schultz, M. 2017. Seeing like the Fed: Culture, cognition, and framing in the failure to anticipate the financial crisis of 2008. American Sociological Review, 82(5): 879-909. Gauthier, J., & Wooldridge, B. 2018. Sustainability ratings and organizational legitimacy: the role of compensating tactics. Sustainability and social responsibility: Regulation and reporting, 141-157. 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. Gillan, S., Hartzell, J. C., Koch, A., & Starks, L. T. 2010. Firms’ environmental, social and governance ESG choices, performance and managerial motivation. Unpublished working paper, University of Texas, Austin. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15-31. Giorgi, S., & Weber, K. 2015. Marks of distinction: Framing and audience appreciation in the context of investment advice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2): 333-367. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Golob, U., & Podnar, K. 2014. Critical points of CSR‐related stakeholder dialogue in practice. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(3): 248-257. Grimmer, J., Roberts, M. E., & Stewart, B. M. 2022. Text as data: A new framework for machine learning and the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gurses, K., & Ozcan, P. 2015. Entrepreneurship in regulated markets: Framing contests and collective action to introduce Pay TV in the US. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6): 1709-1739. Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. 2014. Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4): 463-487. Hannigan, T. R., Haans, R. F., Vakili, K., Tchalian, H., Glaser, V. L., Kaplan, S., & Jennings, P. D. 2019. Topic modeling in management research: Rendering new theory from textual data. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2): 586-632. Hickman, L., Thapa, S., Tay, L., Cao, M., & Srinivasan, P. 2022. Text preprocessing for text mining in organizational research: Review and recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1): 114-146. Holley, R. 2009. How good can it get? Analysing and improving OCR accuracy in large scale historic newspaper digitisation programs. D-Lib Magazine, 15(3/4): 1-13. Hossain, M., Islam, M., Momin, M. A., Nahar, S., & Alam, M. 2019. Understanding communication of sustainability reporting: Application of symbolic convergence theory (SCT). Journal of Business Ethics, 160(2): 563-586. Ihlen, Ø. 2008. Mapping the environment for corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders, publics and the public sphere. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(2): 135-146. Jackson, R. B., Friedlingstein, P., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Le Quéré, C., & Peters, G. P. 2019. Persistent fossil fuel growth threatens the Paris Agreement and planetary health. Environmental Research Letters, 14(12): 121001. Jain, P., Taneja, K., & Taneja, H. 2021. Which OCR toolset is good and why: A comparative study. Kuwait Journal of Science, 48(2): 1-12. Jeppesen, C., & Bjerregaard, P. 2012. Consumption of traditional food and adherence to nutrition recommendations in Greenland. Scandinavian journal of public health, 40(5): 475-481. Kaplan, S. 2011. Strategy and PowerPoint: An Inquiry into the Epistemic Culture and Machinery of Strategy Making. Organization Science, 22(2): 320-346. Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. 2016. Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6): 1697-1724. Kim, S., & Yoon, A. 2023. Analyzing active fund managers’ commitment to ESG: Evidence from the United Nations principles for responsible investment. Management Science, 69(2): 741-758. Kissos, I., & Dershowitz, N. 2016. OCR error correction using character correction and feature-based word classification. In 2016 12th IAPR Workshop on Document Analysis Systems (DAS): 198-203. Santorini, Greece: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Kobayashi, V. B., Mol, S. T., Berkers, H. A., Kismihók, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2018. Text classification for organizational researchers: A tutorial. Organizational Research Methods, 21(3): 766-799. Lewis, J. R. 2018. The system usability scale: past, present, and future. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(7): 577-590. Liang, H., Marquis, C., Renneboog, L., & Sun, S. L. 2018. Future-time framing: The effect of language on corporate future orientation. Organization Science, 29(6): 1093-1111. MacNeil, I., & Esser, I. M. 2022. From a financial to an entity model of ESG. European Business Organization Law Review, 23(1): 9-45. Martins, H. C. 2022. Competition and ESG practices in emerging markets: Evidence from a difference-in-differences model. Finance Research Letters, 46: 102371. Matten, D., & Moon, J. 2008. “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review, 33(2): 404-424. McAdam, D., McCarthy J., & Zald, M. 1996. Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing strcutures, and framing process - toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings: 1-20. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Memon, J., Sami, M., Khan, R. A., & Uddin, M. 2020. Handwritten optical character recognition (OCR): A comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR). IEEE Access, 8: 142642-142668. Mimno, D., Wallach, H. M., Talley, E., Leenders, M., & McCallum, A. 2011. Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: 262-272. Edinburgh, Scotland: Association for Computational Linguistics. Mohr, J. W., & Bogdanov, P. 2013. Introduction–Topic models: What they are and why they matter. Poetics, 41: 545-569. Nofsinger, J. R., Sulaeman, J., & Varma, A. 2019. Institutional investors and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Finance, 58: 700-725. Power, M. 1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. OUP Oxford. Rouen, E., Sachdeva, K., & Yoon, A. 2022. The evolution of ESG reports and the role of voluntary standards. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 23-024. Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. 2009. The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American sociological review, 74(1): 63-82. Scalet, S., & Kelly, T. F. 2010. CSR rating agencies: What is their global impact? Journal of Business Ethics, 94: 69-88. Schmiedel, T., Müller, O., & vom Brocke, J. 2019. Topic modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational research: A tutorial with an application example on organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4): 941-968. Sharkey, A. J., & Bromley, P. 2015. Can ratings have indirect effects? Evidence from the organizational response to peers’ environmental ratings. American Sociological Review, 80(1): 63-91. Sharma, P., Tulsian, D., Verma, C., Sharma, P., & Nancy, N. 2022. Translating speech to Indian sign language using natural language processing. Future Internet, 14(253): 1-17. Shore, C., & Wright, S. 2015. Audit culture revisited: Rankings, ratings, and the reassembling of society. Current Anthropology, 56(3): 421-444. Sievert, C., & Shirley, K. 2014. LDAvis: A method for visualizing and interpreting topics. Proceedings of the Workshop on interactive language learning, visualization, and interfaces: 63-70. Baltimore, MD: Association for Computational Linguistics. Slager, R., & Gond, J. P. 2022. The politics of reactivity: Ambivalence in corporate responses to corporate social responsibility ratings. Organization Studies, 43(1): 59-80. Smith, R. 2007. An overview of the Tesseract OCR engine. Proceedings of the Ninth international conference on document analysis and recognition (ICDAR 2007): 629-633. Curitiba, Brazil: IEEE. Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D., Garud, R., & Phillips, N. 2022. Entrepreneurial framing: A literature review and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(3): 578-606. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D. Morris, & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory: 133-155. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Statman, M. 2017. Finance for normal people: how investors and markets behave. Oxford University Press. Stevens, K., Kegelmeyer, P., Andrzejewski, D., & Buttler, D. 2012. Exploring Topic Coherence over many models and many topics. Proceedings of the 2012 Joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning: 952-961. Jeju Island, Korean: Association for Computational Linguistics. Tsai, H. J., & Wu, Y. 2022. Changes in corporate social responsibility and stock performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 178: 1-21. Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4): 758-769. Whelan, T., Atz, U., Van Holt, T., Clark, C, & CFA. 2021. ESG and financial performance: Uncovering the relationship by aggregating evidence from 1,000 plus studies published between 2015-2020. Rockefeller Asset Management: 1-19. Yin, R. K. 1984. Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage. Zook, C., & Allen, J. 2003. Growth outside the Core. Harvard Business Review, 81(12): 66-73. | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92616 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究運用賦名分析觀點,解讀台灣的企業如何對外溝通他們的在環境保護、社會責任以及公司治理等永續議題上(environmental, social, governance,簡稱ESG)的實踐。我們蒐集2015年至2021年12家台灣企業的永續報告書,進行主題建模分析,並輔以質性方法來進行解讀。研究顯示,高科技產業在ESG的溝通上傾向採用面向未來的框架,著重在業務創新和品牌願景。金融業的溝通植根於永續,強調商業誠信和監管合規性。製造業則較為注重當下,強調環境保護和能源效率。我們的研究也指出,產業差異在塑造組織如何理解和傳達他們的ESG實踐中,發揮著關鍵作用。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Drawing on the framing perspective, this study investigates and de-constructs how companies in Taiwan communicate their ESG practices. Using data from ESG/sustainability reports of twelve Taiwanese companies from 2015 to 2021, we employed a mix of topic modeling and qualitative procedures to examine differences in their ESG communications. Our findings reveal that the high-tech industry adopts a future-oriented approach, with a focus on business innovation and brand vision. The financial sector’s communication is rooted in the past, highlighting business integrity and regulatory compliance. Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector focuses on the present, emphasizing environmental protection and energy efficiency. Our findings suggest that sector differences play a crucial role in shaping how organizations perceive and communicate their ESG practices. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-05-14T16:04:39Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-05-14T16:04:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of Contents
中文摘要 III ABSTRACT IV CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 3 2.1 THE RISE OF ESG ACROSS THE MODERN BUSINESS 3 2.2 FRAMING PERSPECTIVE 6 2.3 OPTICAL CHARACTER RECOGNITION (OCR) TECHNOLOGY 7 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 9 3.1 RESEARCH SETTING 9 3.2 DATA COLLECTION 10 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS 11 3.4 DATA PRE-PROCESSING 11 3.5 IDENTIFYING TOPICS THROUGH LDA 12 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 14 4.1 MEDIATEK’S TOPICS 14 4.2 TSMC’S TOPICS 17 4.3 FOXCONN’S TOPICS 20 4.4 ACER’S TOPICS 23 4.5 CATHAY FINANCIAL HOLDINGS’ TOPICS 27 4.6 FUBON FINANCIALS’ TOPICS 30 4.7 CHINA DEVELOPMENT FINANCIALS’ TOPICS 33 4.8 CHINA STEEL’S TOPICS 35 4.9 NAN YA PLASTICS’ TOPICS 38 4.10 EVA AIR’S TOPICS 42 4.11 PRESIDENT CHAIN STORE’S TOPICS 45 4.12 FAR EASTERN NEW CENTURY’S TOPICS 48 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 50 5.1 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS 50 5.2 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 51 5.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 52 REFERENCES 53 List of Figures Figure 1 Coherence score under different topics for MediaTek 16 Figure 2 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for MediaTek 16 Figure 3 Coherence score under different topics for TSMC 19 Figure 4 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for TSMC 19 Figure 5 Coherence score under different topics for Foxconn 22 Figure 6 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for Foxconn 22 Figure 7 Coherence score under different topics for Acer 26 Figure 8 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for Acer 26 Figure 9 Coherence score under different topics for Cathay Financials 29 Figure 10 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for Cathay Financials 29 Figure 11 Coherence score under different topics for Fubon Financials 32 Figure 12 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for Fubon Financials 32 Figure 13 Coherence score under different topics for China Development Financials 34 Figure 14 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for China Development Financials 34 Figure 15 Coherence score under different topics for China Steel 37 Figure 16 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for China Steel 37 Figure 17 Coherence score under different topics for Nan Ya Plastic 41 Figure 18 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for Nan Ya Plastics 41 Figure 19 Coherence score under different topics for Eva Air 44 Figure 20 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for Eva Air 44 Figure 21 Coherence score under different topics for President Chain Store 47 Figure 22 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for President Chain Store 47 Figure 23 Coherence score under different topics for Far Eastern New Century 49 Figure 24 Visualization results using pyLDAvis for Far Eastern New Century 49 | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.title | 解構ESG的社會認知框架:混合方法的研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Deconstructing the Socio-Cognitive Frames of ESG: A Mixed-Method Study | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳忠仁;劉念琪;丘宏昌;林俊裕;涂敏芬 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chung-Jen Chen;Nien-Chi Liu;Hung-Chang Chiu;Jun-You Lin;Min-Fen Tu | en |
dc.subject.keyword | ESG,社會認知框架,賦名,時間性,主題建模, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | ESG,socio-cognitive frame,framing,temporality,topic modeling, | en |
dc.relation.page | 60 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202400776 | - |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2024-04-25 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學研究所 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 商學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-112-2.pdf | 6.09 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。