本文針對本國銀行推動企業社會責任對放款行為的影響做實證分析，期能瞭解銀行致力推動企業社會責任時，是否能使銀行在景氣衰退期間有更具穩定的資金放款表現，即是否有雨天不收傘的逆景氣循環放款行為。本文研究期間為2008年1月至2021年12月，共計29家銀行之樣本，採用了天下雜誌的天下永續公民獎來界定有無致力推動企業社會責任的CSR銀行與非CSR銀行，並運用兩種定義面向探討：年度有無獲獎的年度CSR以及研究期間曾有或未曾獲獎的長期CSR。其中，本文探討CSR銀行與非CSR銀行在景氣衰退(Economic Downturns)期間的放款行為時，分別以景氣循環指標、景氣正成長與負成長值以及國家發展委員會認定的景氣收縮期作為三種景氣指標變數，同時也區分了全體銀行、民營銀行及公股銀行等類別的放款表現進行分析。
經過實證結果發現，在年度CSR的界定中，整體CSR銀行在總放款有相較非CSR銀行呈現雨天不收傘的放款情形，而民營、公股的CSR銀行也在總放款可看出此情形，此外，在各放款細項中，民營的CSR銀行在消費相關放款具有雨天不收傘的放款情形，公股的CSR銀行反而是在企業相關的放款上呈現，民營、公股的CSR銀行剛好在不同的放款類型上呈現雨天不收傘放款差異。在長期CSR的界定中，整體CSR銀行以中小企業放款較有雨天不收傘的放款行為，而民營的CSR銀行對於中小企業放款與消費者放款較有雨天不收傘之放款行為，公股的CSR銀行則未有雨天不收傘之放款行為。總結來說，CSR銀行是較非CSR銀行在景氣衰退時期提供更穩定的資金供給，具有雨天不收傘之放款行為，整體的結果與過往文獻的雨天不收傘放款特性及企業社會責任的核心精神都具有關聯之處。

This study conducts an empirical analysis of the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) promotion on lending behavior of domestic banks, and aims to understand whether banks' efforts to promote CSR can enable banks to have more stable fund lending performance during the economic downturns, that is, whether there is a counter-cyclical lending behavior against the economic downturns.The research period of this paper is from January 2008 to December 2021, with a total of 29 banks as samples. This study uses Commonwealth Magazine's "Excellence in Corporate Social Responsibility Award" to define whether there are CSR banks and non-CSR banks that are committed to promoting corporate social responsibility, and use two This definition is oriented towards discussion: annual CSR with or without awards and long-term CSR with or without awards during the study period. In addition, when discussing the lending behavior of CSR banks and non-CSR banks during economic downturns, we use the business cycle index, economic positive growth and negative growth value, and the economic contraction period identified by the National Development Committee as three economic index variables. At the same time, it also differentiates the lending performance of all banks, private banks, and government-share banks for analysis.
The empirical results show that, in the definition of annual CSR, overall CSR banks have a counter-cyclical lending situation in total loans compared with non-CSR banks, and private and government CSR banks are also in total loans. In addition, among the various loan details, private CSR banks have a counter-cyclical lending situation in consumption-related loans, while government CSR banks appear in corporate-related loans. Private and government-stock CSR banks are just right There are differences in counter-cyclical lending in different types of lending. In the definition of long-term CSR, the overall CSR bank only has a counter-cyclical lending behavior in lending to small and medium-sized enterprises and non-residential-related consumption loans, while private CSR banks are more effective in lending to small and medium-sized enterprises and consumption-related loans. The counter-cyclicallending behavior, while government CSR banks do not have the counter-cyclical lending behavior. In summary, CSR banks provide a more stable supply of funds than non-CSR banks during the economic downturn, and have a counter-cyclical lending behavior. The overall results are also related to the characteristics of counter-cyclical lending in previous literature and the core spirit of corporate social responsibility.

論文審定書 i
誌謝 ii
中文摘要 iii
英文摘要 iv
目錄 vi
圖次 viii
表次 ix
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 銀行放款與景氣的影響 5
第二節 銀行雨天不收傘的放款行為 6
第三節 企業社會責任對於銀行放款的影響 8
第三章 研究方法與資料 11
第一節 研究方法 12
第二節 資料說明 19
第四章 實證分析結果 24
第一節 年度CSR對銀行放款之影響 24
第二節 長期CSR對銀行放款之影響 34
第五章 結論與建議 44
第一節 結論 44
第二節 未來研究建議 45
參考文獻 47
附錄 50

中文部分
1.李俊妍(2020)，台灣公股及民營銀行經營績效之實證研究，國立清華大學碩士論文。
2.陳家彬、許治文、賴怡洵、連琮勛(2012)，銀行放款行為之順景氣循環循環現象：機構記憶假說之檢測。管理評論第31卷第3期，1-20頁。
3.黃啟瑞、陳澤義、張彤、林志斌與林欣美(2019)，探討影響銀行企業社會責任之因素：以兩岸三地為例。東吳經濟商學學報第98期，31-66頁。
4.黃朝熙、謝依珊與林宜槿(2020)，臺灣公股與民營銀行在景氣衰退與金融危機期間放款差異性之實證研究。經濟研究第56卷第1期，29-78頁。
5.葉家妏、楊馥如、王譯賢與林靜雯(2017)，台灣銀行業企業社會責任與財務績效。會計與財金研究第10卷第1期，99-128頁。
6.劉永欽與陳乃菁(2012)，我國銀行放款行為與心理偏誤：實證研究。證券市場發展季刊第94期，87-123頁。

英文部分
1.Asea, P. and B. Blomberg (1998), “Lending Cycles,” Journal of Econometrics, 83, 89-128.
2.Avery, R.B. and M. Gordy (1998), “Loan Growth, Economic Activity and Bank Performance,” Working Paper, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
3.Ayuso, J., D. Perez, and J. Saurina (2004), “Are Capital Buffers Procyclical Evidence from Spanish Panel Data,” Journal of Financial Intermediation, 13, 249-264.
4.Bertay, A. C., A. Demirgüç-Kunt and H. Huizinga (2015), “Bank Ownership and Credit over the Business Cycle: Is Lending by State Banks Less Procyclical?” Journal of Banking & Finance,50, 326-339.
5.Brei, M. and A. Schclarek (2013), “Government bank Lending in Times of Crisis,”Journal of Financial Stability, 9:4, 820-830.
6.Carvalho, D. (2014), “The Real Effects of Government-Owned Banks:Evidence from an Emerging Market,” The Journal of Finance, 69:2, 577-609.
7.Cole, S. (2009), “Financial Development, Bank Ownership, and Growth: Or,Does Quantity Imply Quality?” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91:1, 33-51.
8.Dell’ Ariccia, G. and R. Marquez (2006), “Lending Booms and Lending Standards,” Journal of Finance, 61, 2511-2546.
9.Hu, V. I. and Scholtens, B. (2014), “Corporate Social Responsibility Policies of Commercial Banks in Developing Countries.” Sustainable Development, 22:4 , 276-288.
10.Meriläinen, J. M. (2016), “Lending Growth During the Financial Crisis and the Sovereign Debt Crisis: The Role of Bank Ownership Type,” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 41, 168-182.
11.Dinç, I. S. (2005), “Politicians and Banks: Political Influences on Government-Owned Banks in Emerging Markets,” Journal of Financial Economics, 77:2, 453-479.
12.Khwaja, A. I. and A. Mian (2005), “Unchecked Intermediaries: Price Manipulation in an Emerging Stock Market,” Journal of Financial Economics, 78:1, 203-241.
13.Leite, P., & Cortez, M. C. (2015). Performance of European socially responsible funds during market crises: Evidence from France. International Review of Financial Analysis, 40, 132-141.
14.Lown, C. and D.P. Morgan (2006), “The Credit Cycle and the Business Cycle:New Findings Using the Loan Officer Opinion Survey,” Journal of Money,Credit and Banking, 38, 1575-1598.
15.Mero, K. (2002), “Financial Depth and Procyclicality, Studies on the Procyclical Behaviour of Banks,” Working Paper, National Bank of Hungary occasional papers #10.
16.Micco, A. and U. Panizza (2006), “Bank Ownership and Lending Behavior,”Economics Letters, 93:2, 248-254.
17.Minsky, H. (1977), A Theory of Systematic Fragility, Financial Crisis. New York: Wiley Interscience.
18.Paulet, E., Parnaudeau, M. and Relano, F. (2015), “Banking with Ethics: Strategic Moves and Structural Changes of the Banking Industry in the Aftermath of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis.” Journal of Business Ethics, 131:1, 199-207.
19.Rajan, R. (1994), “Why Bank Credit Policies Fluctuate: A Theory and Some Evidence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics,109, 399-441.
20.Ruckes, M. (2004), “Bank Competition and Credit Standards,” Review of Financial Studies,17, 1073-1102.
21.Sapienza, P. (2004), “The Effects of Government Ownership on Bank Lending,” Journal of Financial Economics, 72:2, 357-384.
22.Scholtens, B. (2009), “Corporate Social Responsibility in the International Banking Industry.” Journal of Business Ethics, 86:2, 159-175.
23.Thakor, A.V. (2005), “Do Loan Commitments Cause Over-lending?” Journal of Money, Credit & Banking, 37, 1067-1098.
 
網站資料
1.金管會證券期貨局網頁https://www.sfb.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=888&parentpath=0,8,882)
2.金管會銀行局「統計資料庫動態查詢系統」
https://survey.banking.gov.tw/statis/webMain.aspx?k=defjsp
3.天下雜誌天下永續公民獎網站
https://topic.cw.com.tw/csr/
4.《遠見雜誌》
https://csr.gvm.com.tw/2022/
5.臺灣證券交易所「上市公司編製與申報永續報告書作業辦法」
http://www.selaw.com.tw/LawArticleHistory.aspx?LawID=G0100517
6.金管會證券期貨局網頁，〈企業社會責任與公司誠信經營〉
https://www.sfb.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=888&parentpath=0,8,882
7.金管會2014.9.18新聞稿〈強制上市(櫃)特定公司編製企業社會責任報告書〉
https://www.fsc.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=96&parentpath=0,2&mcustomize=news_view.jsp&dataserno=201409180005&dtable=News