公司捐贈與相關代理成本問題之研究

Study on Corporate Donations and Problems of Agency Costs

10.6199/NTULJ.2013.42.02.02

周振鋒(Cheng-Fong Chou)

公司捐贈 ； 慈善捐贈 ； 政治捐贈 ； 政治支出 ； 代理成本 ； 資訊揭露 ； 經營判斷原則 ； corporate donations ； charitable donations ； political donations ； political spending ； agency cost ； information disclosure ； business judgment rule

臺大法學論叢

42卷2期（2013 / 06 / 01）

259 - 315

繁體中文

公司係以營利為目的之法人，經營者自當為公司股東創造最大利益，然捐贈指無償讓與公司資源予他人，此與公司本質是否相容本非無疑，惟現行學說與法令均已肯定公司捐贈之能力，故此部分暫有定論。具爭議者，大型公司存有企業經營與所有分離之特質，經營者之捐贈決定雖應盡受任人義務，惟如何防止其濫行捐贈或虛偽捐贈，則為重要之問題。現今學說多數肯認慈善捐贈有助公司企業形象提升，對公司並非完全不利且可為盡社會責任之表現，應予鼓勵，但此見解忽略慈善捐贈亦有被經營者作為不法利益輸送之工具。政治捐贈除有上述弊端外，更可能伴隨著賄賂、買票等政商勾結之情事。捐贈雖牽涉股東權益、甚至清廉政治等公私益問題，但現行法令缺乏具體且有效之規範，似不妥當。論及公司捐贈之重要性，本文擬分析捐贈之相關法律問題，尤以代理成本為主要討論中心。本文認為，股東於事後挑戰不法捐贈之困難度頗高，故可考慮制定強制揭露捐贈之規定，使經營者決策時有所警戒，股東則得以知悉與檢驗公司所為捐贈是否妥適，另外，亦可規定公司捐贈時應經董事會決議通過，使捐贈決定之作成更為謹慎。本文結論建議將來能整合運用「事後追訴有責者」、「內部決定程序」與「資訊揭露」等多種措施，防堵不法與虛偽之捐贈，同時達到降低代理成本、維護股東權益之作用。

As a corporation in nature is a legal entity for profit-seeking, management shall maximize the profits for corporation and its shareholders. Theoretically and legally speaking, corporations are allowed to donate their resources for particular charitable or political purposes. However, such donations usually raise the agency cost problem that is normally seen in the scenario of separation between ownership and management. Charitable donations could be used as a way to promote a corporation's reputation and to perform corporate social responsibility; however, under current legal system, shareholders who like to challenge an illegal or fake donation made by management and board of directors will confront many procedural difficulties. Thus, there may be no effective methods to prevent fake donations as used for management's utility. What makes political donations worse is that they have other concerns such as bribery or vote-buying, which could seriously harm politics integrity. Unfortunately, there are almost no rules existed to regulate corporate donations, charitable or political, which have above concerns. This Article will analyze relevant legal issues on corporate donations, particularly focusing on the agency cost problem. Based on the analysis, this Article concludes that the shareholder derivative suit provides little hope as used to be the only method to prevent fake or illegal donations. Other complementary devises, such as internal procedures and disclosure, shall be introduced and integrated to help alleviate the agency cost problem that we are currently facing.

1. 林仁光(2004)。公司治理之理論與實踐：經營者支配與股東支配之衝突與調整。臺大法學論叢，33(3)，201-280。
   連結：
2. Business Roundtable (2012). 2012 principles of corporate governance. Retrived from http://businessroundtable.org/uploads/studies-reports/downloads/BRT_Principles_of_Corporate_Governance_-2012_Formatted_Final.pdf
3. Schapiro, M. L. (2011). Say on pay leading to better communication about compensation (video presentation). Retrived from http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2011/spch110211mls.htm
4. Tonello, M. (2012). Sustainability practices in 2012. Retrived from http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/08/09/sustainability-practices-in-2012/#more-31597
5. Bebchuk, L. A., et al. (2011). Petition from Bebchuk et al. to Securities and Exchange Commission [On file with Securities and Exchange Commission]. Retrived from http://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/2011/petn4-637.pdf
6. Hirst, S. (2012). Corporations and political spending: A new lobbying focus in the 2012 proxy season. Retrived from https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/03/10/corporations-and-political-spending-a-new-lobbying-focus-in-the-2012-proxy-season
7. Coates, J. C. IV (2010). Corporate governance and corporate political activity: What effect will citizens united have on shareholder wealth? (Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 684). Retrived from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1680861
8. Bainbridge, S. M., et al. (2012). Petition from Baibbridge et al. to Securities and Exchange Commission [On file with Securities and Exchange Commission]. Retrived from http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-637/4637-318.pdf
9. Katz, D. A. (2011). Limitations on contributions would undercut directors. Retrived from http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2011/08/11/limitations-on-contributions-would-undercut-directors/
10. Coates, J. C. IV, & Lincoln, T. (2011). Fulfilling Kennedy's promise: Why the SEC should mandate disclosure of corporate political activity (Public Citizen Working Paper). Retrived from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1923804.
11. Bebchuk, L. A., & Jackson, R. J. (2012). Shining light on corporate political spending (Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 431). Retrived from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2142115
12. Rodrigues, U. (2012). A conflict primacy model of the public board (UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-15). Retrived from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2167300
13. California Public Employees Retirement System (2011). Global principles of accountable corporate governance. Retrived from http://www.calpers-governance.org/docs-sof/principles/2011-11-14-globalprinciples-of-accountable-corp-gov.pdf
14. TIAA-CREF (2011). TIAA-CREF policy statement on corporate governance. Retrived from https://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/pdf/pubs/pdf/governance_policy.pdf
15. Aggarwal, R. K.,Meschke, F.,Wang, T. Y.(2012).Corporate political donations: Investment or agency?.AFA 2012 Chicago Meetings
16. Bebchuk, L. A.,Jackson, R. J.(2010).Corporate political speech: Who decides?.Harvard Law Review,124,83-117.
17. Brudney, V.,Ferrell, A.(2002).Corporate charitable giving.University of Chicago Law Review,69,1191-1218.
18. Butler, H. N.,McChesney, F. S.(1999).Why they give at the office: Shareholder welfare and corporate philanthropy in the contractual theory of the corporation.Cornell Law Review,84,1195-1226.
19. Clark, R. C.(1986).Corporation law.New York:Aspen.
20. Cooper, M. J.,Gulen, H.,Ovtchinnikov, A. V.(2010).Corporate political contributions and stock returns.The Journal of Finance,65,687-724.
21. Gevurtz, F. A.(2000).Corporation law.St. Paul:West Group.
22. Jalilvand, A.(Ed.),Malliaris, T.(Ed.)(2010).Risk management and corporate government.New York:Routledge.
23. Johnson, O.(1996).Corporate philanthropy: An analysis of corporate contributions.The Journal of Business,39,489-504.
24. Joo, T. W.(2005).People of color, women, and the public corporation: Corporate hierarchy and racial justice.St. John Review,79,955-975.
25. Kahn, F. S.(1997).Pandora's box: Managerial discretion and the problem of corporate philanthropy.UCLA law review,44,579-676.
26. Langvardt, K.(2012).The sorry case for Citizens United: Remarks at the 2012 Charleston Law Review and Riley Institute of Law and Society Symposium.Charleston Law Review,6,569-583.
27. Levitt, J.(2010).Confronting the impact of Citizens United.Yale Law and Policy Review,29,217-234.
28. Misawa, M.(2008).An overview of problems concerning political donations in Japan.Columbia Journal of Asian Law,21,161-181.
29. Romiti, J.(2012).Playing politics with shareholder value: The case for applying fiduciary law to corporate political donations post-Citizens United.Boston College Law Review,53,757-774.
30. Sachs, B. I.(2012).Unions, corporations, and political opt-out rights after Citizens United.Columbia Law Review,112,800-869.
31. 方嘉麟(2012)。論經營判斷法則於我國法下適用之可能：以明基併購西門子手機部門一案為例。政大法學評論，128，261-349。
32. 王文宇(2012)。論大型企業之公司治理法制。月旦法學雜誌，200，282-301。
33. 王文宇(2008)。公司法論。台北=Taipei:元照=Angle。
34. 王泰銓、王志誠修訂(2009)。公司法新論。台北=Taipei:三民=San-Min。
35. 王銘勇(1997)。公司政治獻金之研究。全國律師，1(12)，31-39。
36. 甘培忠編、樓建波編(2009)。公司治理專論。北京=Beiging:北京大學出版社=Peking University Press。
37. 何曜琛(2008)。公司慈善捐贈之研究：以美國法為中心。台灣法學雜誌，110，107-122。
38. 吳敏菁(2009)。台北=Taipei，中國文化大學法律研究所=College of Law, Private Chinese Culture University。
39. 李基勝(2011)。虧損企業之政治獻金法制問題研析。全國律師，15(8)，64-82。
40. 周振鋒(2010)。論股東代表訴訟的變革方向：以美國法為研析基礎。政大法學評論，115，243-308。
41. 林國全(2003)。股份有限公司董事民事賠償責任之追究。月旦民商法雜誌，1，50-63。
42. 林國全(2000)。證券交易法研究。台北=Taipei:元照=Angle。
43. 邵慶平(2008)。公司法：組織與契約之間。台北=Taipei:翰蘆=Han-Lu。
44. 邵慶平(2008)。商業判斷原則的角色與適用：聯電案的延伸思考。科技法學評論，8(1)，103-139。
45. 柯芳枝(2002)。公司法論。台北=Taipei:三民=San-Min。
46. 莊永丞(2007)。從公司治理觀點論我國上市上櫃公司之慈善捐贈行為。台灣本土法學雜誌，94，110-125。
47. 陳彥良(2007)。公司治理法制：公司內部機關組織職權論。台北=Taipei:翰蘆=Han-Lu。
48. 陳春山(2000)。公司董事的使命、義務與責任：構建企業健全經營之規則（上）。法令月刊，51(8)，21-30。
49. 章瑞卿(1992)。析論遏阻金權政治之途徑：從中日一九九二年金權政治弊案談起。律師通訊，150，18-23。
50. 曾宛如(2008)。公司之經營者、股東與債權人。台北=Taipei:元照=Angle。
51. 黃銘傑(2006)。公司治理與公司金融法制之挑戰與興革。台北=Taipei:元照=Angle。
52. 黃銘傑(2005)。組織內部不法資訊揭露法制之研究。台灣本土法學雜誌，70，1-5。
53. 黃錦堂(2004)。政治獻金法之釋義與評價。月旦法學雜誌，111，235-245。
54. 廖大穎(2009)。公司法原論。台北=Taipei:三民=San-Min。
55. 廖大穎(2003)。公司制度與企業金融之法理。台北=Taipei:元照=Angle。
56. 劉連煜(2006)。公司捐贈的法律問題。日新，7，55-63。
57. 劉連煜(2011)。公司社會責任、公司治理與年報。月旦法學教室，105，20-21。
58. 劉連煜(2012)。現代公司法。台北=Taipei:新學林=New Sharing。
59. 劉連煜(1995)。公司監控與公司社會責任。台北=Taipei:五南=Wu-Nan。
60. 劉靜怡(2006)。政治結社、競選活動相關經費之規範與言論自由。月旦法學教室，44，32-41。
61. 賴英照(2007)。從尤努斯到巴菲特：公司社會責任的基本問題。台灣本土法學雜誌，93，150-180。
62. 賴英照(2011)。股市遊戲規則：最新證券交易法解析。台北=Taipei:自版=Author。

1. 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。