簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 廖曉飛
Pichaya, Worapornpipat
論文名稱： 赤道原則的採納與退出對銀行績效的影響
The Impact of Equator Principles Adoption and Withdrawal on Bank Performance
指導教授： 張紹基
Chang, Shao-Chi
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 管理學院 - 國際企業研究所
Institute of International Business
論文出版年： 2025
畢業學年度： 113
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 55
中文關鍵詞： 赤道原則 、企業社會責任 、銀行績效 、事件研究法 、風險管理
外文關鍵詞： Equator Principles, Corporate Social Responsibility, Bank Performance, Event Study, Risk Management
相關次數： 點閱：32  下載：6 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 本研究探討採納與退出《赤道原則》（Equator Principles, EPs）對銀行績效之財務影響，分析三項財務指標：異常報酬率（Cumulative Abnormal Returns, CAR）、托賓 Q （Tobin's Q），以及股票報酬波動率。《赤道原則》是針對專案融資環境與社會風險管理的自願性準則，雖被全球多家金融機構廣泛採用，但近年亦出現多家主要金融機構相繼退出之現象。本研究運用事件研究法與迴歸分析方法，探討 EPs 採納與退出行為在短期與長期上的財務結果。
    研究結果顯示，EPs 採納具有正向的 CAR 及較高的 Tobin's Q，反映出市場的正面反應。然而，採納亦伴隨短期波動性略微上升，顯示投資人不確定性。相較之下，退出 EPs 並未對 CAR、Tobin's Q 或波動率產生顯著影響，說明其對長期市場的效果有限。
    儘管永續承諾可能帶來短期效益，若缺乏實質性的永續績效，其財務影響可能無法持續。本研究透過比較 ESG 框架在金融情境中之採納與退出，為永續金融文獻提供補充，並對在永續性與獲利性之間尋求平衡的機構決策者提供實務啟示。

    The study examines the financial effect of EPs adoption and withdrawal on bank performance based on three financial metrics: Cumulative Abnormal Returns (CAR), Tobin's Q, and stock return volatility. The Equator Principles, a voluntary framework for managing environmental and social risk in project finance, have been extensively adopted by financial institutions but also experienced leading financial institutions withdrawals in recent times. The study evaluates the short-term and long-term financial consequences of EPs-related actions by use of the event study method and regression analysis.
    The results show that EPs adoption is associated with positive short-term CAR and higher average Tobin’s Q, indicating a positive market response. However, it also leads to marginally higher short-term volatility, reflecting potential investor uncertainty. In contrast, EPs withdrawal does not significantly affect CAR, Tobin’s Q, or volatility, indicating limited long-term market penalty. These findings suggest that while sustainability commitments may generate short-term benefits, their financial effects may not persist without substantive performance.
    This study contributes to the growing literature on sustainable finance by evaluating both the adoption and withdrawal of ESG frameworks in financial context, offering practical insights for institutional decision makers balancing sustainability and profitability.

    Abstract i 摘要 ii Contents iii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background and Motivation 1 1.2 Research Problem and Rationale 2 1.3 Research Objectives 3 1.4 Significance of the Study 4 Chapter 2 Literature Review and Hypotheses 5 2.1 Current ESG Trends 5 2.2 ESG Trends in Banking Sector 6 2.3 Equator Principles 7 2.3.1 The Evolution of the Equator Principles 8 2.4 The Adoption of Equator Principles and Bank Performance 11 2.4.1 The Role of EPs in Corporate Social Responsibility 11 2.4.2 Financial Impact of EP Adoption 12 2.4.3 Market Reactions to EPs Adoption 13 2.5 The Phenomenon of Withdrawal from the Equator Principles 16 Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology 20 3.1 Research Approach 20 3.2 Population and Sample 20 3.2.1 Population 20 3.2.2 Sample 21 3.3 Variables 21 3.3.1. Independent Variables 22 3.3.2. Dependent Variables 22 3.3.3. Control Variables 23 3.4 Data Collection and Analysis Strategies 26 3.4.1. Event Study Methodology 26 3.4.2. Tobin’s Q Valuation Analysis 29 3.4.3. Tobin’s Q Regression Models 32 3.4.4. Stock Return Volatility Analysis 34 Chapter 4 Research Results 37 4.1 Sample Distribution 37 Table 1 Sample Distribution 38 4.2 Descriptive Statistics 38 Table 2 Sample Descriptive Statistics (Panel A Adoption Period) 39 Table 2 Sample Descriptive Statistics (Panel B Withdrawal Period) 40 4.3 Paired Sample t-Test 40 Table 3 Sample Test: Adopt vs. Withdraw Periods 41 4.4 Regression 42 Table 4 Regression (Panel A CAR Model) 43 Table 4 Regression (Panel B Volatility Model) 44 Chapter 5 Conclusion and Discussion 46 5.1 Summary of Findings 46 5.2 Discussion 46 5.3 Theoretical Contributions 47 5.4 Practical Implications 48 5.5 Limitations and Future Research 48 Reference 49

    Amalric, F. (2005). The Equator Principles: A Step Towards Sustainability? Environmental Finance. Retrieved from https://www.environmental-finance.com
    Chava, S. (2014). Environmental externalities and cost of capital. Management Science, 60(9),2223–2247.
    Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.
    Esty, B. C., Knoop, C. I., & Sesia, A. (2005). The Equator Principles: An Industry Approach to Managing Environmental and Social Risks. Harvard Business School Case, 205-104.
    Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1998). Value versus growth: The international evidence. Journal of Finance, 53(6), 1975–1999.
    Haack, P., Schoeneborn, D., & Wickert, C. (2012). Micro-institutional affordances and the adoption of CSR standards: How do firms decide on their voluntary commitments? Journal of Business Ethics.
    Ilhan, E., Krueger, P., & Zhong, M. (2021). Climate risk and corporate loan spreads. Journal of Banking & Finance, 106125.
    Kotsantonis, S., & Serafeim, G. (2019). Four Things No One Will Tell You About ESG Data. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31(2), 50–58.
    Nissim, D., & Penman, S. H. (2001). Ratio analysis and equity valuation: From research to practice. Review of Accounting Studies, 6(1), 109–154.
    S&P Dow Jones Indices. (2018). S&P 500 ESG Exclusions II Index Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.spglobal.com/spdji
    S&P Dow Jones Indices. (2024). S&P 500 ESG Index Methodology Update (April 30, 2024). Retrieved from https://www.spglobal.com/spdji
    S&P Global. (2019). S&P 500 ESG Index Exclusion Review. Retrieved from https://www.spglobal.com
    Transparency International. (n.d.). Corruption Perceptions Index. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi
    Weber, O., & Acheta, E. (2014). The Equator Principles: Ten years later. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 4(1), 1–14.
    Wright, C., & Rwabizambuga, A. (2006). Institutional pressures, corporate reputation, and voluntary codes of conduct: An examination of the Equator Principles. Business and Society Review, 111(1), 89–117.
    Yoon, A., Serafeim, G., & Syverson, C. (2018). Corporate ESG Profiles and Investor Horizons. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 18-067.

    下載圖示 校內：立即公開
    校外：立即公開
    QR CODE