*

2008

2007

2011

2011

Koehn and Ueng2010

Caulkin2002
Campbell2007

Brammer and Millington2005Campbell et

al.1999Saiia et al.2003Zhang et al.2010 Zhang 2010

- 106 -

*
No. 10YJA630039

No. 2012QN210No. 2010001

()

2012 8

Carroll1991

Godfrey

2005Porter and Kramer2002

2

Carroll

Snchez20002010

Carroll1996

2010

Campbell et

al.1999
4

At
kinson and Galaskiewicz1988Galaskiewicz1997

Freeman1984

Freeman1984

Godfrey2005Koehn and Ueng

Chen

gel2000

Freeman1984Godfrey2005

Koehn and Ueng2010

2010

2008Koehn Ueng2010 McWilliams Sie

corporate social performanceCSPcor

porate financial performanceCFP

- 107 -

ISO9000

1aISO9000

1bISO9000

Burt1983

Brammer et al.2006

Gardberg and Fombrun2006

McWilliams Siegel2000

Turban and Greening1997Turban

and Cable2003

Belsie2005

Iannou2003

Godfrey2005Chen 2008

Williams Barrett2000

ISO9000

- 108 -

Koehn and Ueng2010

Fombrun and Gardberg

2000Williams and Barrett2000Campbell2007

()
2012 8

2008

2a

2b

Brammer
and Millington2005

backfire effect

Brown and Dacin1997Yoon et al.2003

Marsden2000Ksk2007

Perry and

Singh2001Quaak et al.2006

Hoffman

3a
3b

1999

2008

Godfrey2005Koehn

31

4000

and Ueng2010Brammer Millington2005

Chen

- 109 -

1779

2007

1
0

age
2007

1 0

8 8
7

ISO9000

ISO9000 2007 ISO9000

2007

1 0

2007

2007

ISO9000

1 0

2007

Adams and Hardwick

1998 2010
2010

Tobit
Newey
Stata11.0

=0.009p>0.1

2007

=0.203p>0.1

Newey

2007

Wald

2007 lever

Wald 2=

ROA

- 110 -

2 = 0.06p=0.813>0.1

()
2012 8

0.06p=0.465>0.1

0 44.69 709 ISO9000

39.9%

53.1

100 1.83 1009

56.7%

3640 0

20.72

1779 1159

15.64

2 2166.67%

65.1% 1700

-419.23%

10.11

158.55% 0857

5000
1 =1779

ISO9000

1
0
1700
5000

1
0
0
0

1
0
10.11
44.69

1159
620
1779
1779

65.1
34.9
100
100

1
0

1
0

0.01*

1
0

1.83

709
1070

39.9
60.1

1
0

1
0

1009
770

56.7
43.3

/ 53.1

1
0

3640
0
20.72
156449
2
2424.78
% 2166.67 -419.23 20.65
% 158.55
0
21.31

1
1
1

0
0
0

1779

1779
1779
1779
1779

48.2%

816 45.9% 328

18.4% 140
124 80
37 174

100

ISO9000

100
100
100
100

857
922

48.2
51.8

816
328
140
124
80
80
37
174

45.9
18.4
7.9
7.0
4.5
4.5
2.1
9.8

0.5

* 100

Logistic

2 Pearson

1
2
3
1
0.65 0.47
2
6.69 5.06 .969**
3
5.26 6.16 .196** .267**
4 ISO9000 0.40 0.49 .159** .224** .459**
5
9.55 0.75
.005 .046 .144**
6
0.57 0.50 .209** .272** .338**
7
4.94 5.42 .226** .290** .355**
8
15.30 1.95 .261** .378** .416**
9 20.65 85.90 .071** .071** .003
10 21.31 26.12 .100** .143** .136**
11
0.48 0.50 .233** .294** .268**
N=1779*p<0.05**p<0.01

10

.155**
.329**
.318**
.433**
.039
.158**
.235**

Tobit1958
.110**
.038
.267**
.045
.117**
.014

.331**
.448**
-.022
.232**
.325**

Tobit

.399**
.001 -.117**
.193** .339** -.079**
.259** .442** -.018 .149**

1.Logistic

Logistic

- 111 -

3 3 1

21

32

=0.116p<0.01ISO9000

ISO9000
6
2
6

=0.120p>0.1
1a

2a2b

1a1b

=-0.556p<0.05

2a

6
=0.030p<0.01ISO9000

=0.023p>0.1
1a

2a2b

=-0.218p<0.01

=0.254p<0.05

=1.102p<0.01
2b

3a3b

8
=
0.150p<0.01 3a

3.

Logistic Tobit

2a

3a3b

2b

ISO9000

=0.046p<0.01 3a

2.Tobit

Tobit

1a

4 4

121

2a 2b

2ISO9000
6
2

3a
4.

Tobit

1a1b

- 112 -

()
2012 8

=-0.150p>0.1

=-0.248p>0.1

=0.090p<0.01 ISO9000
3 Logistic

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

.007**
(.002)

.007**
(.002)

.007**
(.002)

.007**
(.002)

.007**
(.002)

.006**
(.002)

.243**
(.035)

.210**
(.036)

.002
(.002)

.002
(.002)

.593**
(.118)

ISO9000

.205**
(.037)
.002
(.002)

.233**
(.039)
.002
(.002)

.213**
(.040)
.001
(.002)

.188**
(.040)
.001
(.002)

.564**
(.119)

.563**
(.119)

.525**
(.119)

.486**
(.121)

.472**
(.121)

.035**
(.011)

.034**
(.011)

.037**
(.011)

.035**
(.011)

.030**
(.011)

-.228**
(.078)

-.230**
(.078)

-.218**
(.078)

.077
(.132)

.092
(.132)

.066
(.133)
.300*
(.122)

.023
(.134)
.254*
(.123)

.046**
(.012)

N
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
Chi-square (2) 201.734** 212.698** 213.038** 221.924** 227.915** 242.515**
-2 Log likelihood 2098.582 2087.619 2087.279 2078.393 2072.402 2057.801
Cox & Snell R2
.107
.113
.113
.117
.120
.127
: *p<0.05**p<0.01

4 Tobit

ISO9000

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1.075**
(.106)

.940**
(.109)

.917**
(.113)

.983**
(.116)

.905**
(.118)

.815**
(.119)

.006
(.007)

.006
(.007)

.006
(.007)

.007
(.007)

.005
(.007)

.003
(.007)

.009**
(.002)

2.200**
(.370)

.009**
(.002)

.009**
(.002)

.009**
(.002)

.009**
(.002)

.009**
(.002)

2.062**
(.369)

2.053**
(.369)

1.949**
(.370)

1.791**
(.372)

1.725**
(.370)

.140**
(.032)

.134**
(.033)

.141**
(.033)

.131**
(.033)

.116**
(.033)

-.605*
(.235)

-.606*
(.234)

-.556*
(.233)

.330
(.408)

.366
(.407)

.258
(.407)

1.260**
(.389)

.120
(.406)

1.102**
(.388)
.150**
(.035)

6.648
6.604
6.602
6.589
6.566
6.524
(.154)
(.153)
(.153)
(.152)
(.152)
(.151)
(N)
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
-2 Log likelihood -4410.78 -4401.41 -4401.08 -4397.76 -4392.52 -4383.24
Chi-square (2)
307.65** 326.41** 327.06** 333.69** 344.18** 362.73**
Pseudo R2
0.034
0.036
0.036
0.037
0.038
0.040

620
620
620
620
620
620
: *p<0.05**p<0.01

=0.909p<0.01

=
0.101p<0.01

2008

McWilliams Siegel

2000

ISO9000

ISO9000

OEM
ISO9000

- 113 -

Brammer Millington2005

1AdamsM. and P. Hardwick1998

An Analysis of Cor
porate Donations: United Kingdom EvidenceJournal of Man
agement StudiesVol.35No.5pp.641~654.
2AtkinsonL. and J. Galaskiewicz1988
Stock Owner
ship and Company Contributions to CharityAdministrative Sci
ence QuarterlyVol.33No.1pp.82~100.
3BelsieL.2005
Corporate Philanthropy as Ethical In
dicatorChristian Science MonitorSeptember 14.
4BrammerS. and A. Millington2005
Corporate Repu
tation and Philanthropy: An Empirical AnalysisJournal of Busi
ness EthicsVol.61pp.29~44.
5BrammerS.MillingtonA. and S. Pavelin2006
Is
Philanthropy Strategic? An Analysis of the Management of Chari
table Giving in Large UK CompaniesBusiness Ethics: A Europe

- 114 -

an ReviewVol.15No.3pp.234~245.
6BrownT. J. and P. A. Dacin1997
The Company and
the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Re
sponsesJournal of MarketingVol.61pp.68~84.
7BurtR. S.1983Corporate Profits and Co-optation:
Networks of Market Constraints and Directorate Ties in the Ameri
can EconomyNew York: Academic Press.
8CampbellJ. L.2007
Why Would Corporations Be
have in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory of
Corporate Social ResponsibilityAcademy of Management Re
viewVol.32pp.946~967.
9CampbellL.GulasC. S. and T. S. Gruca1999
Cor
porate Giving Behavior and Decision-Maker Social Conscious
nessJournal of Business EthicsVol. 19pp.375~383.
10CarrollA. B.1991
The Pyramid of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational
StakeholdersBusiness HorizonsVol.7No.8pp.39~48.
11CarrollA. B.1996Business & Society: Ethics and
Stakeholder Management3rd ed.Cincinnati: Southwestern.
12CaulkinS.2002
Good ThinkingBad PracticeThe
ObserverApril 7.
13ChenJ. C.PattenD. M. and R. W. Roberts2008
Corporate Charitable Contributions: A Corporate Social Perfor
mance or Legitimacy Strategy?Journal of Business Ethics
Vol.82pp.131~144.
14FombrunC. J. and N. A. Gardberg2000
Opportuni
ty Platforms and Safety Nets: Corporate Citizenship and Reputa
tional RisksBusiness and Society ReviewVol.105No.1pp.85~
106.
15FreemanR. E.1984Strategic Management: A Stake
holder ApproachBoston: PitmanMarshfield.
16GalaskiewiczJ.1997
An Urban Grants Economy Re
visited: Corporate Charitable Contributions in the Twin Cities
1979~19811987~1989Administrative Science Quarterly
Vol.42No.3pp.445~471.
17GardbergN. A. and C. J. Fombrun2006
Corporate
Citizenship: Creating Intangible Assets Across Institutional Envi
ronmentsAcademy of Management ReviewVol.34pp.329~346.
18GodfreyP. C.2005
The Relationship between Corpo
rate Philanthropy and Shareholder Wealth: A Risk Management
PerspectiveAcademy of Management ReviewVol.30pp.777~
798.
19HoffmanA. J.1999
Institutional Evolution and
Change: Environmentalism and the US. Chemical Industry
Academy of Management JournalVol.42pp.351~371.
20IannouL.2003
Corporate Americas Social Con
scienceFortuneMay 26.
21KoehnD. and J. Ueng2010
Is Philanthropy Being
Used by Corporate Wrongdoers to Buy Good Will?Journal of
Management & GovernanceVol.14pp.1~16.
22KskF.2007
From Necessity to Responsibility:
Evidence for Corporate Environmental Citizenship Activities from
a Developing Country PerspectiveCorporate Social Responsibili
ty and Environmental ManagementVol.14pp.74~87.
23MarsdenC.2000
The New Corporate Citizenship of
Big Business: Part of the Solution to Sustainability?Business
and Society ReviewVol.105No.1pp.9~25.
146

29PengMike W.2003
Institutional Transitions and
Strategic ChoicesAcademy of Management Review282pp.
275~96.
30PengMike W. & Y. D. Luo2000
Managerial Ties
and Firm Performance in a Transition Economy: The Nature of a
Micro-macro LinkAcademy of Management Journal433
pp. 486~501.
31PutnamR. D.1995
Bowling Alone: America's De
clining Social CapitalJournal of Democracy6pp. 65~78.
32QianYingyiGabriella Montinola & Barry Weingast
1995
FederalismChinese Style: The Political Basis for Eco
nomic Success in ChinaWorld Politics481pp. 50~81.
33QuinnRobert E. & Kim S. Cameron1983
Organiza
tional Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some
Preliminary EvidenceManagement Science291pp. 33~51.
34QuinnRobert E. & John Rohrbaugh1983
A Spatial
Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values
Approach to Organizational AnalysisManagement Science29
3pp. 363~77.
35ReddingS. G.1990The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism
New York: De Gruyter.
36ScheinEdgar H.1996
Culture: The Missing Con
cept in Organization StudiesAdministrative Science Quarterly
412pp. 229~40.
37TsuiAnne S.2006
Contextualization in Chinese

Management ResearchManagement and Organization Review2

1pp. 1~13.
38WeberMax1964The Theory of Social and Economic
OrganizationNew York: Free Press.
39WilkinsAlan L. & William G. Ouchi1983
Efficient
Cultures: Exploring the Relationship Between Culture and Organi
zational PerformanceAdministrative Science Quarterly289
pp. 468~81.
40XinKatherine R. & Jone L. Pearce1996
Guanxi:
Connections as Substitutes for Formal Institutional Support
Academy of Management Journal396pp. 1641~58.
41YinRobert K.2003Case Study Research: Design and
Methods3 ed.Thousand OaksCaliforniapp. Sage Publications.
42YuTianyuan & Nengquan Wu2009
A Review of
Study on the Competing Values FrameworkInternational Jour
nal of Business and Management7pp. 37~42.
43YuTianyuan & Nengquan Wu2011
Bureaucratic
Hierarchy vs. Feudal Hierarchy: A study on the Organizational
Culture of Chinas SOEsInternational Journal of Business and
Management62pp.139~146.
44ZhangJianjun & Hean Tat Keh2010
Interorganiza
tional Exchanges in China: Organizational Forms and Gover
nance MechanismsManagement and Organization Review6
1pp. 123~47.

114
24McWilliamsA. and D. Siegel2000
Corporate Social
Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Mis
specification?Strategic Management JournalVol.21pp.603~
609.
25PerryM. and S. Singh2001
Corporate Greening of
Foreign Transnationals in SingaporeSingapore Journal of Tropi
cal GeographyVol. 22No.1pp.52~73.
26PorterM. E. and M. R. Kramer2002
The Competi
tive Advantage of Corporate PhilanthropyHarvard Business Re
viewDecemberpp.5~16.
27QuaakL.AalbersT. and J. Goedee2006
Transpar
ency of Corporate Social Responsibility in Dutch Breweries
Journal of Business EthicsVol.76pp.293~308.
28SaiiaD. H.CarrollA. B. and A. K. Buchholtz2003
Philanthropy as Strategy When Corporate Charity Begins at
HomeBusiness & SocietyVol.42No.2pp.169~201.
29SnchezC. M. 2000
Motives for Corporate Philan
thropy in El Salvador: Altruism and Political LegitimacyJour
nal of Business EthicsVol.27No.4pp.363~375.
30TobitJ.1958
Estimation of Relationships for Limit
ed Dependent VariablesEconometricaVol.26No.1pp.24~36.
31TurbanD. B. and D. M. Cable2003
Firm Reputa

tion and Applicant Pool CharacteristicsJournal of Organization

al BehaviorVol.24pp.733~751.
32TurbanD. B. and D. W. Greening1997
Corporate
Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospec
tive EmployeesAcademy of Management JournalVol.40
pp.658~72.
33WilliamsR. J. and J. D. Barrett2000
Corporate Phi
lanthropyCriminal Activity and Firm Reputation: Is There a
Link?Journal of Business EthicsVol.26pp.341~350.
34YoonY.Gurhan-CanliZ. and B. Bozok2003
Draw
ing Inferences about Others on the Basis of Corporate Associa
tionsAcademy of Marketing ScienceVol.34No.2pp.167~173.
35ZhangR.ZhuJ.YueH. and C. Zhu2010
Corpo
rate Philanthropic GivingAdvertising Intensity and Industry
Competition LevelJournal of Business EthicsVol. 94pp.39~
52.
36 :

2010 4
37

2010 7
38

2007 5

- 146 -