本研究旨在探討經理人文化背景認同對公司風險承擔行為之影響。不同於傳 統僅以國籍作為文化代理變數之做法，本文將經理人的生涯分為三個關鍵階段— —出生地、大學教育及工作經歷，透過Hofstede（ 2010）與Schwartz（ 2008）所 提出之文化價值指標，量化各階段的文化屬性，並進一步計算該文化與公司所在 地文化之差距，作為衡量經理人文化認同差異的基礎。 研究樣本涵蓋1992 年至2022 年間S&P 1500 指數所屬公司之高階經理人， 並以非系統風險作為公司風險承擔的衡量指標，藉由多元回歸模型，控制公司與 經理人層級之變數、產業與年度固定效果後，探討文化價值差異對公司風險承擔 行為的實證影響。 實證結果顯示，出生階段與大學階段所對應之文化背景呈現較多顯著文化構 面，而工作階段之顯著結果相對有限。部分達顯著水準之文化價值，其影響方向 與主要理論預期不一致，顯示文化價值可能透過權力集中、不確定性控制、聲譽 與職涯風險等不同機制影響經理人決策。;This study examines the effect of managers’ cultural background and cultural identification on corporate risk-taking. Unlike conventional approaches that rely solely on nationality as a proxy for culture， this study divides managers’ life trajectories into three key stages—place of birth， university education， and work experience. The cultural attributes associated with each stage are quantified using the cultural value indices developed by Hofstede (2010) and Schwartz (2008). The cultural distance between each manager’s background and the culture of the company’s home country is then calculated as the basis for measuring differences in managers’ cultural backgrounds.
The sample consists of senior executives from firms included in the S&P 1500 Index between 1992 and 2022. Corporate idiosyncratic risk is employed as the proxy for corporate risk-taking. Using multivariate regression models that control for firm-level and manager-level characteristics， as well as industry and year fixed effects， this study investigates the empirical relationship between cultural value differences and corporate risk-taking.
The empirical results show that the cultural backgrounds corresponding to the birth and university stages exhibit significant associations across a greater number of cultural dimensions， whereas significant results are relatively limited for the work stage. For some cultural values that reach statistical significance， the estimated directions are inconsistent with the primary theoretical predictions. These findings suggest that cultural values may influence managerial decision-making through various mechanisms， including the concentration of decision-making authority， the desire to control uncertainty， reputational concerns， and career risk.
