English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 118658/149719 (79%)
Visitors : 80681558      Online Users : 358
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 商學院 > 資訊管理學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/159098


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159098


    Title: 高階經理人長期發展導向與企業永續：以美國退出及重返巴黎協定為例
    Executives’ Long-Term Development Orientation and Firm Sustainability: The Case of the U.S. Withdrawal and Reentry into the Paris Agreement
    Authors: 洪沁毅
    Hung, Chin-Yi
    Contributors: 李曉惠
    Lee, Hsiao-Hui
    洪沁毅
    Hung, Chin-Yi
    Keywords: 氣候政策
    高階經理人
    未來導向
    碳排放
    永續治理
    climate policy
    executives
    future orientation
    carbon emissions
    sustainable governance
    Date: 2025
    Issue Date: 2025-09-01 15:05:47 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究探討氣候政策制度變遷與高階管理者們的心理特質對企業碳排放行為之影響，聚焦於美國退出《巴黎協定》的制度事件，並以高階管理團隊語言中的未來導向（Future Orientation, FO）作為關鍵心理變數。研究樣本涵蓋2010至2023年間美國上市企業，以財報電話會議（earnings calls）逐字稿為語料來源，運用語意分析工具 LIWC-22 建構管理者們未來導向指標，並結合 Trucost 碳排放數據與 Compustat 財務變數，建立不平衡面板資料進行迴歸分析。實證結果顯示：（1）美國作為《巴黎協定》成員期間，企業碳排放顯著下降；（2）退出協定後，企業碳排放顯著上升；（3）高未來導向企業整體碳排放強度顯著較低；（4）未來導向能顯著強化《巴黎協定》政策期間的減碳效果，但未顯著緩衝政策退出衝擊。研究支持高階理論（Upper Echelons Theory）與組織時間觀之預測，並強調心理特質與制度設計於永續治理中的互補關係。
    This study examines how shifts in climate policy interact with top management teams’ psychological traits to influence corporate carbon emissions, focusing on the United States’ participation in and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Leveraging on prior studies, we first investigate the effectiveness of the participation and withdrawal of the Paris Agreement on carbon emission intensity. Next, we conceptualize managerial future orientation (FO), derived from the linguistic patterns of top management teams, as a key determinant of firms’ sustainability behavior. Building on upper echelons theory and organizational time perspective, we hypothesize that FO shapes corporate responses to both policy tightening and loosening. Empirical analysis reveals that corporate carbon intensity declined significantly during U.S. membership in the Paris Agreement but increased after the withdrawal. Firms led by top management team with higher FO exhibit lower carbon intensity overall, and FO amplifies the emission-reduction effects of the Agreement; however, its buffering role during the withdrawal period is not supported. These findings highlight the asymmetric interplay between managerial cognition and institutional context, underscoring the importance of aligning leadership traits with policy stability in advancing corporate sustainability.
    Reference: Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. T. (2023). Global pricing of carbon-transition risk. The Journal of Finance, 78(6), 3677–3754. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13272

    Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 10, 1–47.

    Bushee, B. J., & Huang, A. H. (2024). Do analysts and investors efficiently respond to managerial linguistic complexity during conference calls? The Accounting Review, 99(4), 143–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0358

    Call, A. C., Campbell, J. L., Dhaliwal, D. S., & Moon, J. R. (2024). Corporate managers’ perspectives on forward-looking guidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 79(2–3), 101574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2024.101731

    Chen, J., Lien, W. C., Miller, D., & Chen, T. (2024). Competitive actions under analyst pressure: The role of CEO time horizons. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1916–1945. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12964

    Choi, J. J., Kim, J., & Shenkar, O. (2023). Temporal orientation and corporate social responsibility: Global evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 60(1), 82-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12861

    DesJardine, M. R., & Shi, W. (2021). How temporal focus shapes the influence of executive compensation on risk taking. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 265–292. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1470

    Duan, T., Li, F. W., & Wen, Q. (2025). Is carbon risk priced in the cross-section of corporate bond returns? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 60(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109023000832

    Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management journal, 56(3), 758-781. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0744

    Florackis, C., Louca, C., Michaely, R., & Weber, M. (2023). Cybersecurity risk. The Review of Financial Studies, 36(1), 351–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhac024

    Gamache, D. L., McNamara, G., Mannor, M. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1261-1282. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0377

    Gamache, D. L., & McNamara, G. (2019). Responding to bad press: How CEO temporal focus influences the effectiveness of impression management tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 499–522. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0526

    Gormsen, N. J., & Koijen, R. S. (2020). Coronavirus: Impact on stock prices and growth expectations. The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, 10(4), 574-597. https://doi.org/10.1093/rapstu/raaa013

    Griffin, P. A., Lont, D. H., & Sun, E. Y. (2017). The relevance to investors of greenhouse gas emission disclosures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 1265–1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12298

    Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24345254
    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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628

    Hassan, T. A., Hollander, S., van Lent, L., & Tahoun, A. (2019). Firm-level political risk: Measurement and effects. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(4), 2135–2202. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz021

    Huang, X., Teoh, S. H., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Tone management. The Accounting Review, 89(3), 1083–1113. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50684

    Li, F. (2010). The information content of forward-looking statements in corporate filings—A naïve Bayesian machine learning approach. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(5), 1049–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2010.00382.x

    Nadkarni, S., & Chen, T. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1810–1833. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0401

    Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015.

    Ramadorai, T., & Zeni, F. (2024). Climate regulation and emissions abatement: Theory and evidence from firms’ disclosures. Management Science, 70(12), 8366–8385. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.00482

    Ramelli, S., & Wagner, A. F. (2020). Feverish stock price reactions to COVID-19. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 9(3), 622-655. https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfaa012

    Reuters. (2009, November 14). Binding climate treaty may slip far into 2010. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AE0Z5

    Shi, Y., Tang, C. S., & Wu, J. (2025). Are firms voluntarily disclosing emissions greener? Production and Operations Management, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/10591478251318917

    Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. (2015). Time in individual-level organizational studies: What is it, how is it used, and why isn't it exploited more often? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111245

    Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001

    Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0960

    UNFCCC. (2010). The Cancun Agreements. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    資訊管理學系
    112356039
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112356039
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[資訊管理學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    603901.pdf1115KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback