臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：運用混合式決策模型於企業社會責任之評估與改進
作者：王亞蘭
作者(外文)：Ya-Lan Wang
校院名稱：國立臺灣科技大學
系所名稱：管理研究所
指導教授：欒斌
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2021
主題關鍵詞：多準則決策；決策試驗與評估實驗室；DEMATEL之Analytic Network Process分析；模糊評估；企業社會責任；公司治理；永續發展；信息不對稱；multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM)；decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL)；DEMATEL-based ANP (DANP)；fuzzy assessment；corporate social responsibility (CSR)；corporate governance；sustainable development；information asymmetry
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:2
企業社會責任（Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR）的重要性已經得到世界各國政府及企業界廣泛認可，但如何有效進行評估和改善企業社會責任績效的研究卻相對較少。本文依據聯合國CSR主要框架，採用混合式多準則決策分析(Multiple Criteria Decision Making, MCDM)的方法，提出了一個改進式的企業社會責任模型，做為公司企業社會責任成效評估及改善建議，並可進一步降低企業潛在資訊不對稱(Information Asymmetry) 問題。本研究以四家資訊科技製造業上市公司為研究對象，在資深領域專家的參與下，運用所提出的方法，分析四家公司的社會責任績效。通過各種分析得出一致的企業社會責任績效排名結果，這與2019年臺灣知名機構舉辦的年度企業社會責任競賽結果相符。此外，我還舉例說明如何運用本模型提出之改進建議，以供管理階層做出改善企業社會責任之決策。
While the importance of Corporate Sociable Responsibility (CSR) has been widely acknowledged, research on how to guide a company in evaluating and improving its CSR performance is relatively under-explored. This work adopts the predominant framework from the United Nations (UN) and proposes a refined CSR model by using a hybrid multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. The proposed approach is expected to mitigate the potential information asymmetry issue that might deteriorate the CSR performance of a company. To illustrate the hybrid approach, this study analyzes the CSR performance of four publicly listed information technology (IT) manufacturing companies with the participation of senior domain experts, by using the proposed approach. The CSR performance ranking results are consistent by using various experiments, which is similar to the annual CSR contest held by a prominent organization from Taiwan in 2019. In addition, I illustrate how to apply this refined model to gain managerial insights and pursue sustainable CSR improvement with a priority.
1. Elkington, J. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 1998, 8, 37–51, doi:10.1002/tqem.3310080106.
2. Govindan, K.; Khodaverdi, R.; Jafarian, A. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 345–354, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014.
3. Carroll, A.B.; Buchholtz, A.K. Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management; Cengage Learning: Stamford, CT, USA, 2014.
4. Costa, R.; Menichini, T. A multidimensional approach for CSR assessment: The importance of the stakeholder perception. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 150–161, doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.07.028.
5. Lukomnik, J. State of Integrated and Sustainability Reporting 2018; Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance Boston, MA, USA. Available online: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/12/03/ (accessed on December 2019).
6. Corporate Governance Center, TWSE. Available online: https://cgc.twse.com.tw/frontEN/index (accessed on February 2020).
7. Grigoris, G. (2016). The challenges of corporate social responsibility assessment methodologies.
8. Rahman, S. Evaluation of definitions: Ten dimensions of corporate social responsibility. World Rev. Bus. Res. 2011, 1, 166–176.
9. GRI official website. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on December 2019).
10. Dyck, A.; Lins, K.V.; Roth, L.; Wagner, H.F. Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence. J. Financ. Econ. 2019, 131, 693–714, doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.08.013.
11. Sustainable Development Goals. UN Official Website. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ (accessed on January 2020).
12. Eisenhardt, K.M. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 57–74, doi:10.2307/258191.
13. Cui, J.; Jo, H.; Na, H. Does corporate social responsibility affect information asymmetry? J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 148, 549–572, doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-3003-8.
14. Tzeng, G.H.; Shen, K.Y. New Concepts and Trends of Hybrid. Multiple Criteria Decision Making; CRC Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2017.
15. Eells, R. Social responsibility: Can business survive the challenge? Bus. Horizons 1959, 2, 33–41, doi:10.1016/0007-6813(59)90006-0.
16. Klick, M.T. The political economy of corporate social responsibility and community. Economics 1960, 3, 1–44.
17. Davis, K. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? Calif. Manag. Rev. 1960, 2, 70–76, doi:10.2307/41166246.
18. Carroll, A.B. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Bus. Soc. 1999, 38, 268–295, doi:10.1177/000765039903800303.
19. Gilbert, D.U.; Rasche, A. Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA 8000. Bus. Ethics Q. 2007, 17, 187–216, doi:10.5840/beq200717230.
20. Nuryani, N.N.J.; Satrawan, D.P.R.; Gorda, A.A.N.O.S.; Martini, L.K.B. Influence of human capital, social capital, economic capital towards financial performance & corporate social responsibility. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2018, 2, 65–76, doi:10.29332/ijssh.v2n2.128.
21. OECD Official Website. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/ (accessed on December 2019).
22. UN Global Compact, Official Website. Available online: https://www.unglobalcompact.org (accessed on December 2019).
23. Aupperle, K.E.; Carroll, A.B.; Hatfield, J.D. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 1985, 28, 446–463, doi:10.5465/256210.
24. Zahra, S.A.; LaTour, M.S. Corporate social responsibility and organizational effectiveness: A multivariate approach. J. Bus. Ethics 1987, 6, 459–467, doi:10.1007/BF00383288.
25. Hussain, S.S. The ethics of ‘going green’: The corporate social responsibility debate. Bus. Strategy Environ. 1999, 8, 203–210, doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836.
26. Wood, D.J. Corporate social performance revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991, 16, 691–718, doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279616.
27. Shleifer, A.; Vishny, R.W. A survey of corporate governance. J. Financ. 1997, 52, 737–783, doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x.
28. Judge, W.Q.; Douglas, T.J. Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. J. Manag. Stud. 1998, 35, 241–262, doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00092.
29. Stafford-Smith, M. UN sustainability goals need quantified targets. Nat. News 2014, 513, 281, doi:10.1038/513281a.
30. Hák, T.; Janoušková, S.; Moldan, B. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators, Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 565–573, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003.
31. Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), United Nations, Official website. Available online: https://www.unpri.org/ (accessed on January 2020).
32. Gond, J.P.; Piani, V. Enabling institutional investors’ collective action: The role of the principles for responsible investment initiative. Bus. Soc. 2013, 52, 64–104, doi:10.1177/0007650312460012.
33. Majoch, A.A.; Hoepner, A.G.; Hebb, T. Sources of stakeholder salience in the responsible investment movement: Why do investors sign the principles for responsible investment? J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 723–741, doi:10.1177/0007650312460012.
34. Jenson, M.C.; Meckling, W.H. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financ. Econ. 1976, 3, 305–360, doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9257-3_8.
35. Davies, P.J. Payments giant Wrecard’s shares plunge on $2 billion audit deception. Wall Street J. Available online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/payments-giant-wirecards-shares-plunge-on-2-billion-audit-deception-11592474551 (accessed on Jun 2020).
36. Cormier, D.; Ledoux, M.J.; Magnan, M.; Aerts, W. Corporate governance and information asymmetry between managers and investors. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2010, 10, 574–589, doi:10.1108/14720701011085553.
37. Huang, J.Y.; Shen, K.Y.; Shieh, J.C.; Tzeng, G.H. Strengthen financial holding companies’ business sustainability by using a hybrid corporate governance evaluation model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 582, doi:10.3390/su11030582.
38. Shen, K.Y.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Tzeng, G.H. Updated discussions on ‘Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: A review of applications for sustainability issues. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraž. 2018, 31, 1437–1452, doi:10.1080/1331677X.2018.1483836.
39. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Kildienė, S. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2014, 20, 165–179, doi:10.3846/20294913.2014.892037.
40. Chatterjee, K.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Tamošaitienė, J.; Adhikary, K.; Kar, S. A hybrid MCDM technique for risk management in construction projects. Symmetry 2018, 10, 46, doi:10.3390/sym10020046.
41. Liu, Y.; Zhou, P.; Li, L.; Zhu, F. An interactive decision-making method for third-party logistics provider selection under hybrid multi-criteria. Symmetry 2020, 12, 729, doi:10.3390/sym12050729.
42. Matić, B.; Jovanović, S.; Das, D.K.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Stević, Ž.; Sremac, S.; Marinković, M. A new hybrid MCDM model: Sustainable supplier selection in a construction company. Symmetry 2019, 11, 353, doi:10.3390/sym11030353.
43. Simon, H.A. Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow. Mind Soc. 1991, 1, 25–39, doi:10.1007/BF02512227.
44. Saaty, T.L. Decision making—The analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2005, 13, 1–35, doi:10.1007/s11518-006-0151-5.
45. Kou, G.; Ergu, D. AHP/ANP theory and its application in technological and economic development: The 90th anniversary of Thomas L. Saaty. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2016, 22, 649–650, doi:10.3846/20294913.2016.1202353.
46. Lee, H.S.; Tzeng, G.H.; Yeih, W.; Wang, Y.J.; Yang, S.C. Revised DEMATEL: Resolving the infeasibility of DEMATEL. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 6746–6757, doi:10.1016/j.apm.2013.01.016.
47. Shen, K.Y.; Tzeng, G.H. Combining DRSA decision-rules with FCA-based DANP evaluation for financial performance improvements. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2015, 22, 685–714, doi:10.3846/20294913.2015.1071295.
48. Stojčić, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Pamučar, D.; Stević, Ž.; Mardani, A. Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: A literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry 2019, 11, 350, doi:10.3390/sym11030350.
49. Liao, H.; Mardani, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Bedregal, B. Editorial message: Special issue on fuzzy systems in intelligent systems and applications. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2020, 22, 476, doi:10.1007/s40815-020-00834-9.
50. Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inf. Manag. 2004, 42, 15–29, doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002.
51. Linstone, H.A.; Turoff, M. (Eds.) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications; Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: Chicago, IL, US, 1975; ISBN 0201042932.
52. Flostrand, A.; Pitt, L.; Bridson, S. The Delphi technique in forecasting—A 42-year bibliographic analysis (1975–2017). Echnol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119773, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119773.
53. Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G.H. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 178, 514–529, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020.
54. Chiu, W.Y.; Tzeng, G.H.; Li, H.L. A new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR to improve e-store business. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2013, 37, 48–61, doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2012.06.017.
55. Shen, K.Y.; Yan, M.R.; Tzeng, G.H. Combining VIKOR-DANP model for glamor stock selection and stock performance improvement. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2014, 58, 86–97, doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2013.07.023.
56. Huang, C.Y.; Hsieh, H.L.; Chen, H. Evaluating the investment projects of spinal medical device firms using the real option and DANP-mV based MCDM methods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3335, doi:10.3390/ijerph17093335.
57. Huang, C.Y.; Shyu, J.Z.; Tzeng, G.H. Reconfiguring the innovation policy portfolios for Taiwan's SIP Mall industry. Technovation 2007, 27, 744–765, doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.04.002.
58. Liou, J.J.; Tamošaitienė, J.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Tzeng, G.H. New hybrid COPRAS-G MADM Model for improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 114–134, doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1010747.
59. CommonWealth Magazine (Excellence in Corporate Social Responsibility) Official Website. Available online: https://topic.cw.com.tw/csr/report_EN.aspx (accessed on February 2020).
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：998（臺灣：948，外國：50） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1586744 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67389707
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上