近年來，企業社會責任與員工福祉（如職場安全）對公司價值的影響備受多
方領域關注。然而，過去文獻對於公司複雜度如何影響企業職場安全結果，仍缺
乏直接的實證證據。本研究以 2001 年至 2021 年美國公開發行公司為樣本，結合
Violation Tracker 資料庫之裁罰紀錄作為職場安全之代理變數，加入 Loughran and
McDonald (2024) 基於 10-K 年報文字探勘所建構之文字複雜度指標，實證檢驗公
司複雜度與職場安全違規之間的關聯性。
實證結果顯示，在控制公司特徵以及產業與年度固定效應後，公司複雜度與
次年職場安全罰金及受罰機率呈顯著負向關聯，且在違規次數上亦觀察到負向趨
勢。此結果顯示，公司複雜度所反映之多面向企業複雜性，可能與較佳之職場安
全表現存在關聯，因而有助於降低職場安全違規風險。
此外，本研究亦以會計報導複雜度（Accounting Reporting Complexity, ARC）
作為替代性複雜度衡量方式進行測試。結果顯示，ARC 與職場安全違規次數呈顯
著負向關聯，而其他職場安全指標則未達統計顯著。不同複雜度衡量方式雖反映
企業不同面向之複雜性，但在違規次數上均呈現一致之負向關聯，支持本文研究
發現具有一定程度之穩健性。

While employee welfare and workplace safety have received increasing attention in
recent years, empirical evidence on how firm complexity affects workplace safety out-
comes remains limited. Using a sample of U.S. public firms from 2001 to 2021, this study
examines the relationship between firm complexity and workplace safety violations by
combining penalty records from the Violation Tracker database with the firm complexity
measure developed by Loughran and McDonald (2024) using textual analysis.
The empirical results show that, after controlling for firm characteristics as well as
industry and year fixed effects, firm complexity is significantly and negatively associated
with subsequent workplace safety penalties and the probability of being fined. A negative
relationship is also observed for the number of workplace safety violations. These find-
ings suggest that the multidimensional nature of firm complexity may be associated with
workplace safety outcomes and may help reduce the risk of workplace safety violations.
Furthermore, this study employs Accounting Reporting Complexity (ARC) as an al-
ternative measure of firm complexity. The results indicate a significant negative associa-
tion between ARC and the number of workplace safety violations, while the other work-
place safety measures are not statistically significant. Overall, the findings provide some
support for the robustness of the main findings.

論文審定書 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
誌謝 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
摘要 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
目錄 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
表次 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
第一章 緒論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 研究動機 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 研究目的 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
第二章 文獻回顧與假說建立 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 職場安全相關文獻 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 公司複雜度相關文獻 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 假說建立 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
第三章 研究方法 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 樣本與資料來源 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 變數介紹 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1 解釋變數－公司複雜度（Complexity） . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2 解釋變數－會計報導複雜度（ARC） . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3 被解釋變數－職場安全違規（Workplace Safety） . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4 控制變數 (Control Variables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3 實證模型 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
第四章 實證結果與分析 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1 敘述統計量與相關係數分析 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2 公司複雜度與職場安全違規 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3 穩健性測試 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.1 子樣本分析－財務限制（Size & Age Index） . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.2 子樣本分析－資訊不對稱（Information Asymmetry Index） . . . . . . . 15
4.3.3 替代變數－ ARC 與職場安全違規 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
第五章 結論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
參考文獻 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
附錄 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Lewellen, W. G. (1971). A pure financial rationale for the conglomerate merger.Journal of Finance, 26(2), 521-537.

Kim, E. H., & McConnell, J. J. (1977). Corporate mergers and the coinsurance of corporate debt.Journal of Finance, 32(2), 349-365.

Jones, J. J. (1991). Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of accounting research, 29(2), 193-228.

Hayes, B. E., Perander, J., Smecko, T., & Trask, J. (1998). Measuring perceptions of workplace safety: Development and validation of the work safety scale. Journal of Safety research, 29(3), 145-161.

Palich, L. E., Cardinal, L. B., & Miller, C. C. (2000). Curvilinearity in the diversification–performance linkage: an examination of over three decades of research. Strategic management journal, 21(2), 155-174.

Bushman, R., Chen, Q., Engel, E., & Smith, A. (2004). Financial accounting information, organizational complexity and corporate governance systems. Journal of accounting and economics, 37(2), 167-201.

Hay, D. C., Knechel, W. R., & Wong, N. (2006). Audit fees: A meta analysis of the effect of supply and demand attributes. Contemporary accounting research, 23(1), 141-191.

Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of applied psychology, 94(5), 1103.

You, H., & Zhang, X. J. (2009). Financial reporting complexity and investor underreaction to 10-K information. Review of Accounting studies, 14(4), 559-586.

Dyck, A., Morse, A., & Zingales, L. (2010). Who blows the whistle on corporate fraud?.Journal of finance, 65(6), 2213-2253.

Hadlock, C. J., & Pierce, J. R. (2010). New evidence on measuring financial constraints:Moving beyond the KZ index. Review of financial studies, 23(5), 1909-1940.

Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of sustainable finance & investment, 5(4), 210-233.

Cohn, J. B., & Wardlaw, M. I. (2016). Financing constraints and workplace safety.Journal of Finance, 71(5), 2017-2058.

Caskey, J., & Ozel, N. B. (2017). Earnings expectations and employee safety. Journal of accounting and economics, 63(1), 121-141.

Hoitash, R., & Hoitash, U. (2018). Measuring accounting reporting complexity with XBRL. Accounting Review, 93(1), 259-287.

Heese, J., & Pérez-Cavazos, G. (2020). When the boss comes to town: The effects of headquarters’ visits on facility-level misconduct. Accounting Review, 95(6), 235-261.

Hoitash, R., Hoitash, U., & Yezegel, A. (2021). Can sell-side analysts’experience, expertise and qualifications help mitigate the adverse effects of accounting reporting complexity?. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting.

Arte, P., & Larimo, J. (2022). Moderating influence of product diversification on the international diversification-performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1408-1423.

Heese, J., Pérez-Cavazos, G., & Peter, C. D. (2022). When the local newspaper leaves town: The effects of local newspaper closures on corporate misconduct. Journal of Financial Economics, 145(2), 445-463.

Bae, J. W., Belo, F., Li, J., Lin, X., & Zhao, X. (2023). The opposing effects of complexity and information content on uncertainty dynamics: Evidence from 10-K filings.Management Science, 69(10), 6313-6332.

Haga, J., Huhtamäki, F., Sundvik, D., & Thor, T. (2024). Nothing to fear: strong corporate culture and workplace safety. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 63(2),519-550.

Loughran, T., & McDonald, B. (2024). Measuring firm complexity. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 59(6), 2487-2514.

Islam, E., Loriot, B., & Rahman, L. (2025). The impact of product market competition on workplace safety. Journal of Corporate Finance, 93, 102778.

Chen, Y., Obuobi, N. K., Ofosu, E., & Pittman, J. (2025). Cutting Corners: Does Pay Transparency Impair Workplace Safety?. Available at SSRN 5163968.

Mazur, M., Dang, M., Puwanenthiren, P., Nadarajah, S., Nguyen, Q. T., & Hoang, A. (2025). Firm complexity and credit ratings. Available at SSRN 5227287.

Loughran, T., McDonald, B., & Yang, J. (2026). Board Size and Firm Complexity. Available at SSRN 6800606.