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

A Study on Enterprise Ethics, Social Responsibility and Corporate Philanthropy-Taking the Hi-Tech Electronic Industry in Taiwan as an Example

10.7118/JHSS.200512.0065

黃營杉(Ing-San Hwang)；齊德彰(Der-Jang Chi)

企業倫理 ； 社會責任 ； 慈善公益作為 ； enterprise ethics ； social responsibility ； corporate philanthropy

人文暨社會科學期刊

1卷2期（2005 / 12 / 01）

65 - 82

繁體中文

在競爭激烈的現代社會，企業要生存就必須重視企業倫理的實踐，企業倫理即是指企業經營所遵循的方針原則，據此決定了股東、員工、顧客各層面的關係，凡是經營良好的企業，其內部必有健全的倫理制度；而社會責任更是企業倫理實踐中的具體表現。換言之，企業如能善盡社會責任，與社會保持良性的互動，則將更俱備長期生存下去的優勢與保有永續經營的競爭力。 另一方面，企業公民的觀念日漸形成之際，國內企業也將之視為一項重要的企業理念而積極投身於慈善公益活動，尤其在民國八十八年「九二一大地震」後，國內一些善盡社會責任的企業深感政府能為民眾所做的有限，唯有民問力量的結合才能彌補政府施政措施的不足。 本研究藉由質性研究之文獻分析法及問卷訪談法的方式，針對國內三家慈善公益作為表現傑出且具代表性的高科技電子產業進行個案研究。研究結果發現：(1)企業倫理與社會責任並非存在著單向因果關係，而是極高度的互動性；(2)企業從事慈善公益作為的內部動機主要為：順應世界潮流、公司的文化、企業形象與公共關係、得到社區與社會的認同、提升企業知名度、增加員工向心力、促進整體商業環境良性發展、提升國民生活品質、對鄉土國家的熱愛及節稅等，外部動機主要為：企業倫理的實踐、善盡社會責任、支持慈善公益團體等；(3)慈善公益作為的方式有：金錢與實物贊助、企業志工投入、專業技能的提供等，途徑則有：辦、透過公益團體或與其他企業合作辦理；(4)慈善公益作為對企業的影響為：企業形象的建立、知名度及員工向心力的提升等。 本研究的結果可提供企業經營者、政府、慈善公益團體、社會大眾及學術研究的參考。

In a highly competitive modem society, corporations must assign great importance to the practice of enterprise ethics in order to survive. Enterprise ethics refers to the guidelines and principles that corporations observe to operate socially-oriented business. Enterprise ethics determine the relationship between shareholders, employees and customers. A well-operated enterprise always has a good ethical system. Corporate enterprise ethics are embodied in the social responsibility of the institution. In other words, if an enterprise fulfills its social responsibility and has positive interaction with the community, it will acquire the advantage and competitiveness for an enduring business operation. While the concept of the corporate citizen is emerging, Taiwan-based enterprises are vehemently engaged in philanthropic activities. This has been particularly true since the 921 Earthquake that occurred in 1999, when Taiwan-based enterprises further realized the limits of the government and understood that members of the private sector had to cooperate with each other in order to supplement the work done by the government. This research is a qualitative study undertaken by means of literature analysis and questionnaire/interview. It was accomplished by case studies conducted on three Taiwan-based hi-tech electronic corporations whose past corporate philanthropy had been remarkable. The findings were fourfold. First, the relationship between enterprise ethics and social responsibility is highly reciprocal, but not causative. Second, the intrinsic motives of enterprises in performing corporate philanthropy are with the current trends, corporate culture, corporate image and public relations; being acknowledged and accepted by the community and the society; becoming famous, thereby augmenting employees' loyalty; promoting positive development of the overall commercial environment; enhancing people's well-being and providing them with a tax-saving means, etc. The extrinsic motives of enterprises in performing corporate philanthropy are practicing enterprise ethics, fulfilling social responsibility and supporting philanthropy. Third, philanthropy is implemented in the form of donations, volunteer work or technical support, whether independently, through charities or in cooperation with other enterprises. Fourth, the effects of corporate philanthropy on the enterprises themselves are that of creating their corporate image, increasing their fame and enhancing their employees' loyalty, etc. This research is presented to entrepreneurs, governments, charities, the general public and academics for reference.

1. Bowman, W. S.(1973).Patent and antitrust law: A legal and economic appraisal.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
2. Burlingame, D. F.,Frishkoff, P. A.(1996).How does firm size affect corporate philanthropy. Corporate Philanthropy at the Crossroads.Bloomington and Indianapolis:Indiana University.
3. Carroll, A. B.(1989).Business and society.OH:South-Western.
4. Carroll, A. B.(1995).Business and xociety: Ethics and stakeholder management.OH:South-Western.
5. Cullen, J. B.,Victor, B.,Stephens, C.(1989).An ethical weather report: assessing the organization`s ethical climate.Organizational Dynamics,33(4),50-62.
6. Delaney, J. T.,Huselid, M. A.(1996).The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance.Academy of Management Journal,40(1),171-188.
7. Demirag, I. S.(1987).Accountancy, Mar.
8. Ebert, R. J.,Griffin, R. W.(2000).Business essentials.New Jersey:Prentice-Hell.
9. Ferrell, O. C.,Geoffrey, H.(2000).Business: A changing world.New York:McGraw-Hill.
10. Frederick, W. C.,Post, J. E.,Davis, K.(1992).Business and society-corporate strategy, public policy, ethics (7th ed.).New York:McGraw-Hill.
11. Galaskiewicz, J.(1985).Professional networks and the institutionalization of a single mind Set.American Sociological Review,25(2),639-658.
12. Galaskiewicz, J.(1989).Corporate contributions to charity: nothing more than a marketing strategy?.Philanthropic Giving-Studies in Varieties and Goals,29(1),246-260.
13. Grahn, J. L.,Hannaford, W. J.,Laverty, K. J.(1987).Corporate philanthropy and marketing strategy: A review and directions for research in AMA educators proceeding. (Series53).Chicago:American Marketing Association.
14. Griffin, R. W.(1999).Management (6th ed).Boston:Houghton Muffin Company.
15. Harvey, J. W,McCrohan, K. F.(1988).Strategic issues for charities and philanthropies.Long Range Planning,21(6),44-45.
16. Holmes, S. L.(1978).California Management Review.
17. Homburg, C.,Pflesser, C.(2000).A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture: measurement issues and performance outcomes.Journal of Marketing Research,37,1-22.
18. Ireland, D.,Hitt, A.(1999).Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership.The Academy of Management Executive,13(1),43-57.
19. Lussier, R. N.(2000).Management fundamentals.New York:Thomson Learning, Inc.
20. Marx, J. D.(1996).Strategic philanthropy: an opportunity for partnership between corporations and health/human service agencies.Administration in Social work,20(3),57-73.
21. Marx, J. D.(1999).Corporate philanthropy: What is the strategy?.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,28(2),185-198.
22. Masher. P.(1984).Business Marketing, Dec.
23. Seel, K.,T. D. Connors (Ed.)(1995).The volunteer management handbook John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
24. Useem, S. L.(1988).California Management Review.
25. Venkatraman, N.,Ramanunjam, V.(1986).Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches.Academic of Management Review,11(4),801-814.
26. Walton, C. C.(1977).The ethics of corporate conduct.NJ:Prentice-Hall.
27. 天下編輯部(2002)。天下雜誌。
28. 王泰豐(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。高雄，國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
29. 余坤東(1995)。博士論文(博士論文)。台北，國立臺灣大學屬學研究所博士論文。
30. 吳成豐(1997)。行政院國科會專題研究補助計畫(NSC 86-2417-H-126-001)。
31. 吳復新(1996)。改進我國當前勞資關係之研究一從企業與職業倫理的觀點探討。空大行政學報，5，67-123。
32. 林宜欣(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義，南華大學非營利事業管理研究所碩士論文。
33. 林建煌(2002)。管理學。台北:智勝。
34. 林瑩滋(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。高雄，國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
35. 張英陣(1999)。企業與非營利組織的夥伴關係。社區發展季刊，85，62-69。
36. 陳光榮(1996)。企業的社會責任與倫理。經濟情勢暨評論季刊，1(4)，150-158。
37. 陳嫣如(1993)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，東吳大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。
38. 馮義方(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，國立臺灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。
39. 黃營杉(1999)。策略管理。台北:華泰出版社。
40. 楊炳韋(1995)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
41. 葉保強(1995)。金錢以外－商業倫理透視。台北:臺灣商務。
42. 趙義隆(2000)。行政院國科會專題研究補助計畫(NSC79-0301-H002-12)。
43. 劉念寧(1990)。博士論文(博士論文)。台北，國立臺灣大學商學研究所博士論文。
44. 蔡蔣菁(2000)。商業倫理一概念與應用。台北:文京。
45. 蕭新煌(1998)。民間企業與文化發展。文化發展與民問力量座談會論文集，台北:

1. 胡思元(2017)。以中華文化為本建立新儒商永續經營之道：以博而美關係企業為例。中原大學企業管理學系學位論文。2017。1-95。 
2. 楊意菁(Yie-Jing Yang)(2023)。從CSR到CSiR：企業不負社會責任的概念初探與媒體關注。臺灣傳播學刊。(44)。217-259。 
3. 李俊興(2016)。公司治理對企業捐贈之實證研究。長榮大學經營管理研究所學位論文。2016。1-44。