37中英文雙語(yǔ)外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯成品企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與馬來(lái)西亞公司績(jī)效

1、<p>　　外文標(biāo)題：Corporate Social Responsibility And Company Performance In The Malaysian Context</p><p>　　外文作者：Saed Adnan Mustafaa, Abdul Rahim Othmana, Selvan Perumala</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處:Procedia -

2、Social and Behavioral Sciences , 2012 , 65 (1) :897-905</p><p>　　英文3145單詞， 17699字符，中文5098漢字。</p><p>　　此文檔是外文翻譯成品，無(wú)需調(diào)整復(fù)雜的格式哦！下載之后直接可用，方便快捷！只需二十多元。</p><p>　　原文：Corporate Social Respon

3、sibility And Company Performance In The Malaysian Context</p><p>　　Saed Adnan Mustafaa, Abdul Rahim Othmana, Selvan Perumala</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　The concep

4、t of social responsibility of corporations has engendered considerable interest in Malaysia in recent years. While previous research on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and company performance has

5、 largely been based on international data, this paper reviews the relationship between the adoption of corporate social responsibility and the company performance of public listed companies. 200 responses were received f

6、rom a population that had already working in Malay</p><p>　　Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, company performance, public listed companies, Malaysia.</p><p>　　Introduction</p>&l

7、t;p>　　Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a very important addition to businesses and can be described as the main reason for competition and a company’s ability to survive and it had done the best result

8、ing success in business once it’s adopted in. It shows the relation and the impact of the business in the society and it will be stronger and more relevant when it has more connection with the core business of the organi

9、zation. Baron (2007) supported that corporate social responsibility h</p><p>　　CSR in Malaysia</p><p>　　Although CSR is rapidly becoming a worldwide phenomenon, in Malaysia, according to some st

10、udies (Abu-Baker & Naser, 2000; Belal, 2001; Imam, 2000; Tsang, 1998; Nik Nazsli, Maliah, & Siswantoro, 2003; Branco & Rodrigues, 2006), many public companies are slower in responding to the issue of CSR, suc

11、h as preservation and protection of the environment and the social welfare of the communities in which they operate. Furthermore, according to the New Straits Times Newspaper (2010), the Malaysian Gover</p><p&

12、gt;　　Furthermore, Ng (2008) reported that the Malaysian companies are far behind international standards when it comes to implementing CSR, with nearly two-thirds of those surveyed ranking between poor and average catego

13、ries.</p><p>　　The success of any company or organization depends on many variables, such as work place (Fulmer et al., 2003), capital structure (Shyan et al., 2008), information technology (Melville et al.,

14、 2004), corporate governance (Brown & Caylor, 2003), HRM (Agrawal, 2007), trust (Prema & Ashwani, 2004), employees (Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams 2006; Fulmer et al., 2003), ownership (Nazli & Gha

15、zali, 2007; Wang & Wong, 2008), customer relation management (Coltman et al., 2011) and corporate social</p><p>　　The Link Between CSR and Company Performance</p><p>　　Many studies have repo

16、rted that socially responsible activities by firms have a positive association with a firm’s performance, even though the results are decidedly mixed. Carroll and Buchholtz (2003) suggest three possible causal relationsh

17、ips between corporate reputation, CSR, and a firm’s performance. The first causal relationship is that good corporate performance produces a good CSR standing, and, in turn, generates a good reputation. This good reputat

18、ion enhances performance and leads to </p><p>　　According to the reputation perspective, CSR has external effects on corporate reputation. The financial benefits may arise from the positive reputation create

19、d by corporate involvement in socially responsible causes. Scholars have suggested that firms adopting socially responsible actions may develop a more positive reputation, yielding a competitive advantage. Serving the im

20、plicit claims of major stakeholders enhances a company’s reputation in a way that has a positive impact on its financial </p><p>　　The social impact of stakeholder theory implies that an external reputation

21、(favorable or unfavorable) develops first, and financial results (favorable or unfavorable) follow. In sum, serving stakeholders’ needs improves the company’s reputation, which can improve its performance and market posi

22、tion. The present study adopts an alternative approach to generating research questions based on a contingency approach in the relationship between CSR and company performance, since there are potentially</p><

23、p>　　Research method</p><p>　　A questionnaire survey was carried out to collect the view of top management in Malaysian public listed companies. As the purpose of the study is to examine the effect of CSR

24、on company performance in Malaysian public listed companies, our target population comprised all of the public listed companies in Malaysia without referring to any specific group of companies. Although the Malaysian pub

25、lic listed companies have a combined population of 941 companies, due to time constraints, a total of 225</p><p>　　17.0 and structural equation modeling (SEM).</p><p>　　Measurement of Variables&

26、lt;/p><p>　　A questionnaire was developed that measured the CSR of the PLCs in Malaysia, company performance and the mediating effects of reputation. This questionnaire was initially developed using measures ta

27、ken from previous studies (Carroll, 1979 & 1991; Sin et al., 2005; Olalekan, 2011; Kim, 2001; Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001). Before the questionnaire was finalized, it was pretested so that any weaknesses and problems

28、in the questions, as they relate to the research setting, could be identified. To enable t</p><p>　　The measures for CSR in the present paper were adopted from Carroll (1979, 1991). In the present paper CSR

29、consists of four dimensions: ethics, legal, economic and philanthropic. Each dimension has 7 items totaling 28 items. The measure for company performance in the present paper has 6 items adopted from Sin et al. (2005) an

30、d Olalekan (2011). The measure for reputation in the present paper has 5 items adopted from Kim (2001) and Nguyen & Leblanc (2001). A 5-point Likert scale “strongly disagree</p><p>　　All measures used we

31、re assessed for internal consistency as well as convergent and discriminant validity. The internal consistency results indicate that the consistency for each measure is high given the level of the Cronbach scores achieve

32、d (Nunnally 1988).</p><p>　　Results and Discussion</p><p>　　Confirmatory factor analysis was also used to determine if the data included in each of the four components of CSR, company performanc

33、e and reputation models is a strong fit. The results are shown in Figures 1, 2 & 3.</p><p>　　Thus, confirmatory factor analysis of CSR (Twenty-eight items), after having done the confirmatory factor anal

34、ysis the results showed that nine items (ECO1, ECO7, LEG2, LEG4, ETH1, ETH2, ETH7, PHI2 and PHI6) were deleted, while the other remaining Nineteen items (ECO2, ECO3, CO4, ECO5, ECO6, LEG1, LEG3, LEG5, LEG6, LEG7, ETH3, E

35、TH4, ETH5, ETH6, PHI1, PHI3, PHI4, PHI5 and PHI7) were analyzed and showed that all nineteen items have a factor loading of more than .30. This suggests that the items co</p><p>　　Reputation has five items.

36、Out of the five items, two items (REP1 and REP2) were deleted during the confirmatory factor analysis and three items (REP3, REP4 and REP5) remained to be analyzed, as shown in figure b. All three items have a factor loa

37、ding of more than .30. This suggests that the three items correlated significantly to the factor itself with factor loadings ranging more than .30 (Hair et al., 2006).</p><p>　　In this respect, company perfo

38、rmance has six items, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis reveals that two items (PERFO2 and PERFO3) were deleted after having conducted the confirmatory factor analysis. The remaining four items (PERFO1, PER

39、FO4, PERFO5 and PERFO6) indicated a factor loading of more than .30. This proposed that the four items correlated significantly to the factor itself with factor loadings ranging more than .30 (Hair et al., 2006), as show

40、n in figure c.</p><p>　　In Table 1 the CSR, company performance and reputation outcomes are shown. As can be seen, the fit between the four components of CSR (legal, ethics, economic and philanthropic) is go

41、od as indicated by GFI = 0.872, TLI= 0.817, and CFI = 0.846. The GFI, TLI, and CFI values are higher than the threshold values suggested by Hair et al. (1998). In addition, the most widely used CMIN/DF measure, with a sc

42、ore of 2.001 also suggests a very good fit. As can be seen, the fit for company performance and r</p><p>　　As Carmines and McIver (1981) have suggested, the smaller the value, the better the fit. Furthermore

43、, the Normed Fit Index (NFI) shows a good fit since values greater than 0.80 are desirable (Chakraborty et al., 2008). Finally, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) with a score of 0.080 also suggests that

44、 the model fit is acceptable (Browne & Cudeck 1993). Considering all these outcomes, it was concluded that the model fits the data well given that it exceeds all the basic requirem</p><p>　　Hypothesis Te

45、sting of Generating Model</p><p>　　Jöreskog & Sorbom (1993) pointed out that the re-specification (generating model) might be either theory or data driven; the ultimate objective is to find a model

46、that is both substantively meaningful and statistically well-fitting. From the hypothesized model, deletions of modification indices (MI) were used to achieve GOF of the generating model (GM).</p><p>　　As sh

47、own in figure 2, the hypotheses test, in determining the significance of each path coefficient, estimate of regression weight, standard error of regression weight, and critical ratio for regression weight (C.R.= dividing

48、 the regression weight estimate by the estimate of its standard error gives) were used.</p><p>　　Table 2, shows that the GFI results of the endogenous model are .931, and RMSEA is .075. Additionally, the p-v

49、alue is 0.000, which means that the value of the overall model has been achieved according to the recommended values (Hair, 2006), which is similar for AGFI of .883, CFI of .919, TLI of .886, NFI of .862, and CMIN/DF of

50、2.134 < 3 (Hair et al., 2006).</p><p>　　Table 3 shows that perceived CSR has a positive direct impact on company performance (β=0.340,C.R= 2.450, P= 0.014) – H1 is supported. CSR has a positive direct im

51、pact on reputation (β=0.601,C.R=4.741, P= ***) – H2 is supported. Company performance has a positive and direct effect on reputation -.216, C.R= 1.816; P= 0.069) – H3 is rejected.</p><p>　　For this paper,

52、the researcher tested the mediating effects of reputation in the relationship between CSR and company performance; the results are shown in table 4. The direct effect (.340) was greater than the indirect effect (.128), a

53、s shown in table 4. However, the direct effect was significant and the path from CSR to reputation was also significant. This indicates that reputation partially mediates the relationship between CSR and company performa

54、nce. To conclude, this finding supports H4.</p><p>　　Opportunities for Further Research</p><p>　　This study only focused on public listed companies in Malaysia. Other companies, such as small an

55、d medium size, and private companies, were excluded from the study. There is now an opportunity to research CSR in this broader sector. In particular, it would be interesting to undertake research on the small and medium

56、 size given the increased level of competition.</p><p>　　Brine et al. (2006) conducted a study to discover the relationship between CSR and company performance by determining the presence of CSR features on

57、public listed companies. They found that companies differ in the presence of CSR features, and that there is a positive relationship between CSR and company performance.</p><p>　　Many companies believe that

58、they will be successful if they invest more money by adopting CSR (Djordjija & Nigel, 2003; Sun-Tzu, 2008; Rahizah, Farah & Kasmah, 2011). The impact of CSR on company performance is real and so are the problems

59、for certain organizations in terms of successful implementation (Dilek & Kristoffer, 2007; Margarita, 2004). Orlitzky (2005) argues that organizations of all sizes may benefit from CSR financially; this paper has onl

60、y been conducted to investigate CSR in publi</p><p>　　References</p><p>　　Abu Baker, N., & Naser, K. (2000). Empirical evidence on corporate social disclosure CSD. International Journal of C

61、ommerce and Management, 10(3&4), 18–34.</p><p>　　Agrawal, K. (2007). Corporate excellence as an outcome of corporate governance: rethinking the role and responsibility of HRM, the ICFAI. Journal of Corp

62、orate Governance, 6(1), 6-16.</p><p>　　Amran, A., & Siti-Nabiha, A. K. (2009). Corporate social reporting in Malaysia: A case of mimicking the west or succumbing to local pressure. Social Responsibility

63、Journal, 5(3), 358 – 375.</p><p>　　Badawi,A.(2007).The2007BudgetSpeech. http://www.treasury.gov.my/index.php?ch=12&pg=149&ac=1647&lang=eng as download on May 10, 2008.</p><p>　

64、　Baron, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 16, 683-717.</p><p>　　Belal, A. T. (2001). A study of corporate social disclosure

65、s in Bangladesh. Management Auditing Journal, 16 (5), 274-289.</p><p>　　Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues L. L. (2006). Communication of corporate social responsibility by Portuguese banks: A legitimacy theory

66、perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 11(3), 232-248</p><p>　　Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspektives. Journal

67、of Business Ethics, 69,111-132.</p><p>　　Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. ( (2003). A temporal analysis of earnings management thresholds.</p><p>　　Working paper GA: J. Mack Robinson College of

68、 Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta.</p><p>　　Bursa Malaysia (2007). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) framework for Malaysian public listed companies.</p><p>　　Carroll, A. B. (1979

69、). A three dimensional model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(3), 497-505.</p><p>　　Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral man

70、agement of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.</p><p>　　Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management (5th ed.). Mason: Th

71、omson Learning.</p><p>　　Chakraborty, I., Hu, P.J & Cui, D. (2008). Examining the effects of cognitive style I individuals' technology use decision making. Decision Support Systems,45(2), 228-241.<

72、;/p><p>　　Chan, F., Qi, H. J., Chan, H. K., Lau, H., & Ip, R. (2003). A conceptual model of performance measurement for supply chain. Management Decision, 417 (7), 635-642.</p><p>　　Coldwell, D

73、. (2001). Perceptions and expectations of corporate social responsibility: theoretical issues and empirical findings. South African Journal of Business Management, 32(1), 49-55.</p><p>　　Fulmer, I. S., Gerha

74、rt, B., & Scott, K. S. (2003). Are the 100 best better? An empirical investigation of the relationship between being a ‘great place to work’ and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 56, 965-993.</p><p&

75、gt;　　Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6 ed.): Prentice Hall.</p><p>　　Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C.

76、(1998). Multivariate data analysis, (5th ed.), NJ: Upper Saddle River, Prentice-Hall.</p><p>　　Hopkins, M. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: An issues paper, ILO, Geneve: Working paper , 27. Imam, S.

77、(2000). Corporate social performance reporting in Bangladesh. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(3), 133-141.</p><p>　　Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and insti

78、tutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy Management Journal, 42(5), 564-576.</p><p>　　Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the

79、 SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.</p><p>　　Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business.</p>

80、;<p>　　Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.</p><p>　　McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of

81、Management Journal, 31, 854–872.</p><p>　　Melville, N,. Kraemer, K.., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Information technology and organization performance: an integrative model of IT business value. MIS quarterly

82、, 28(2), 283-321.</p><p>　　MIA (2005). Sustainability: Taking Corporate Governance One Step Further - Volume III. UK: ACCA. Najmi, M., Rigas, J., & Fan, I. (2005). A framework to review performance measu

83、rement systems.</p><p>　　Business Process Management Journal, 11(2), 109-122.</p><p>　　Nazli, A., & Ghazali, M. (2007). Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: so

84、me Malaysian evidence. Corporate Governance, 7 (3), 251 – 266.</p><p>　　Ng, J. (2008). Locally Listed Companies Perform Poorly in CSR, CSR Malaysia. Online Available: http://www.csr-malaysia.org/news/malaysi

85、an-reserve/locally-listed-companies-perform-poorly-csr- 20080408105.</p><p>　　Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students' retention decisions.

86、 International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6), 303–311.</p><p>　　Nik Ahmad, N. N., Sulaiman, M., & Siswantoro, D. (2002). Corporate </p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><

87、p>　　企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與馬來(lái)西亞公司績(jī)效</p><p>　　賽德 阿德南 穆斯塔法，阿都拉欣 奧斯曼娜，賽爾萬(wàn) 帕魯馬拉</p><p><b>　　摘要：</b></p><p>　　近年來(lái)，企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任這一概念在馬來(lái)西亞引起了人們相當(dāng)大的興趣。盡管之前關(guān)于企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與公司績(jī)效關(guān)系的研究主要源自于國(guó)際數(shù)據(jù)，但本文梳理了企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與公

88、眾上市公司績(jī)效之間的關(guān)系。在此次研究中，收到來(lái)自馬來(lái)西亞上市公司工作人員的200份問(wèn)卷調(diào)查。 研究的結(jié)果源自應(yīng)用AMOS 7.0軟件的多組結(jié)構(gòu)方程建模。此外，本文還發(fā)現(xiàn)了企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與公司績(jī)效之間的重要關(guān)系。這些發(fā)現(xiàn)契合了公開(kāi)上市公司的需要，特別是對(duì)于在主板和ACE板塊上市的公司，企業(yè)可從戰(zhàn)略上去利用企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的杠桿作用去影響企業(yè)的績(jī)效。</p><p><b>　　關(guān)鍵詞：</b><

89、;/p><p>　　企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，企業(yè)績(jī)效，公開(kāi)上市公司，馬來(lái)西亞</p><p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任（CSR）已成為企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)非常重要的補(bǔ)充，可以說(shuō)是企業(yè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和生存能力的主要因素，并且一旦被采納就會(huì)在企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)中取得最佳的效果。它顯示了企業(yè)在社會(huì)上的關(guān)系和以及企業(yè)對(duì)社會(huì)的影響，當(dāng)它與組織的核心業(yè)務(wù)有更多的聯(lián)系時(shí)

90、，它的影響將變得更大且更具相關(guān)性。 巴倫（2007）贊成支持讓企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任經(jīng)成為全球越來(lái)越多公司業(yè)務(wù)戰(zhàn)略中的重要組成部分，因?yàn)槠髽I(yè)組織的績(jī)效表現(xiàn)受到其市場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)略以及非市場(chǎng)環(huán)境的影響。 此外，企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任使人們的生活水平更高，同時(shí)也有益于組織保持其盈利能力（Hopkins，2004）。</p><p>　　馬來(lái)西亞企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任概況</p><p>　　根據(jù)一些相關(guān)的研究（Abu-Baker＆N

91、aser，2000; Belal，2001; Imam，2000; Tsang，1998; Nik Nazsli，Maliah，＆Siswantoro，2003; Branco＆Rodrigues），盡管企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任這一概念正迅速成為全球現(xiàn)象， 2006），但許多上市公司對(duì)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的問(wèn)題反應(yīng)較慢，他們還只停留在諸如保護(hù)環(huán)境以及維持他們所在社區(qū)的社會(huì)福利。此外，根據(jù)新海峽時(shí)報(bào)（2010）的報(bào)道，馬來(lái)西亞政府推動(dòng)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的努力至今仍

92、未受到許多公司的重視，因?yàn)橹挥猩贁?shù)的馬來(lái)西亞國(guó)際公司和大公司參與企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任活動(dòng)Amran＆Siti-Nabiha，2009年; MIA，2005年;馬來(lái)西亞Bursa，2007年;馬來(lái)西亞2007,2008,2009,2010）。</p><p>　　此外，Ng（2008）的報(bào)道還表示馬來(lái)西亞公司在實(shí)施企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任方面遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)落后于國(guó)際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，其中近三分之二的受訪公司排名在平均值以下。</p><

93、p>　　任何公司或組織的成功都取決于許多的變量，如工作環(huán)境（Fulmer等人，2003）、資本結(jié)構(gòu)（Shyan等人，2008）、信息技術(shù)（Melville等人，2004）、公司治理 Brown＆Caylor，2003）、HRM（Agrawal，2007）、信任（Prema＆Ashwani，2004）、員工（Rupp，Ganapathi，Aguilera和Williams 2006; Fulmer等人，2003）、所有權(quán)（Nazli

94、＆Ghazali，2007 ; Wang＆Wong，2008）、客戶關(guān)系管理（Coltman等人，2011）和企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任（Branco＆Rodrigues，2006; Mcguire等人，1988; Johnson＆Greening，1999）。 因此，由于環(huán)境不斷的變化，不時(shí)去審視企業(yè)的績(jī)效是非常重要的（Najmi，Rigas＆Fan，2005）。 在企業(yè)規(guī)劃和管理過(guò)程中，考慮到企業(yè)的績(jī)效也是非常重要的。（Chan，Qui，Chan

95、，Lau＆Ip，2003）。</p><p>　　企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與公司績(jī)效的關(guān)系</p><p>　　之前的許多研究報(bào)道稱表示公司的社會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)任活動(dòng)與公司的績(jī)效有正相關(guān)的關(guān)系，盡管這一觀點(diǎn)還是比較模糊的說(shuō)法。 Carroll和Buchholtz（2003）提出了企業(yè)聲譽(yù)、企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和企業(yè)績(jī)效之間存在的三種可能因果關(guān)系。第一個(gè)因果關(guān)系是良好的企業(yè)績(jī)效能夠產(chǎn)生良好的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，反過(guò)來(lái)也會(huì)產(chǎn)生良

96、好的聲譽(yù)。這個(gè)良好的聲譽(yù)提高了績(jī)效，并帶來(lái)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的改進(jìn)。 Carroll和Buchholtz（2003）指出，這種關(guān)系在過(guò)去的二十年中得到了廣泛的研究，但研究結(jié)果模棱兩可，部分人表示支持，而有些人提出的因果推論與之相矛盾。第二個(gè)因果關(guān)系表明良好的企業(yè)財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效可以帶來(lái)良好的企業(yè)聲譽(yù)，并產(chǎn)生良好的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任。普雷斯頓和奧班農(nóng)（1997）發(fā)現(xiàn)企業(yè)良好的財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效或多或少與良好的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任有關(guān)。這些變量之間的第三種關(guān)系表明了變量之間互為

97、因果的雙向關(guān)系。從這個(gè)角度來(lái)看，這三個(gè)變量之間相互影響，因此不可能確定主要的因果變量。然而，Coldwell（2001）提出了更進(jìn)一步的第四種觀點(diǎn)，他認(rèn)為良好的企業(yè)社會(huì)績(jī)效會(huì)產(chǎn)生良好的企業(yè)聲譽(yù)，最終帶來(lái)企業(yè)績(jī)效的提高。這種關(guān)系的經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)是比較少的，而且在大多數(shù)情況下，</p><p>　　從企業(yè)聲譽(yù)的角度來(lái)看，企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任對(duì)企業(yè)聲譽(yù)有著外部的影響。企業(yè)參與社會(huì)責(zé)任活動(dòng)會(huì)帶來(lái)良好的聲譽(yù)，從而帶來(lái)良好的財(cái)務(wù)收益。學(xué)者

98、們認(rèn)為，在社會(huì)責(zé)任方面有所行動(dòng)的公司可能會(huì)形成更良好的聲譽(yù)，從而產(chǎn)生競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)。主要利益相關(guān)方的隱含權(quán)利要求會(huì)以對(duì)財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效產(chǎn)生積極影響的方式來(lái)提升公司的聲譽(yù);相反，如果利益相關(guān)方對(duì)上市公司感到失望可能會(huì)降低公司的聲譽(yù)，進(jìn)而導(dǎo)致負(fù)面的財(cái)務(wù)影響。</p><p>　　利益相關(guān)者理論帶來(lái)的社會(huì)影響意味著必須首先注重外部聲譽(yù)（不管是有利或不利），其次是財(cái)務(wù)方面的結(jié)果（不管是有利或不利）?？傊?，服務(wù)利益相關(guān)者的需求提高了公司

99、的聲譽(yù)，這可以提高公司的績(jī)效和市場(chǎng)地位?；趯?duì)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和企業(yè)績(jī)效之間關(guān)系的權(quán)變方法，本研究采用另一種方法來(lái)產(chǎn)生研究問(wèn)題，因?yàn)榭赡苡性S多潛在的因素來(lái)調(diào)節(jié)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和公司績(jī)效之間的聯(lián)系（Margolis＆Walsh，2003）。</p><p><b>　　研究方法</b></p><p>　　為了收集馬來(lái)西亞上市公司高層管理人員的觀點(diǎn)，本文進(jìn)行了問(wèn)卷調(diào)查。 由于本

100、研究的目的是研究企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任對(duì)馬來(lái)西亞上市公司企業(yè)績(jī)效的影響，我們的目標(biāo)人群包括馬來(lái)西亞所有上市公司，未涉及任何特定的公司集團(tuán)。 盡管馬來(lái)西亞公開(kāi)上市公司總數(shù)為941家，但由于時(shí)間限制，總共只有225家公司被選為我們的受訪者，其中有200家公司全面參與了此項(xiàng)研究。調(diào)查問(wèn)卷分發(fā)給馬來(lái)西亞不同州的高層管理人員，包括雪蘭莪州和吉隆坡。羅斯科（Roscoe）（1975）推薦樣本量大于30和小于500是最適用于大多數(shù)研究。 使用SPSS17.0版