近年來，社會企業的觀念在各大機關中漸漸受到重視，而在2014年，政府亦宣示該年為「社會企業元年」，此項宣示也為社會企業的推動注入諾大的動力。但儘管社會創業類似一般的企業創業，但其面臨到其為包括經濟面和社會面兩種相異目的的混和型組織，營運上相對地困難。有時無力支付所提供的產品和服務、抑或創投對於社會企業經營獲利的質疑，以及調動人力和財力資源的困難，而同時卻又兼顧到社會使命。總結來說，面對如此兩方極端的需求，社會企業相較於其他形態的組織更難營運，導致目前台灣社會企業生態圈面臨顯著的障礙及挑戰。
因此，要成功地經營社會企業，必須具備善於動員和調動資源的能力，且運用到多重跨界，以建立起社會企業與相關利益人共創的生態系統，並同時確保最初的社會使命。
有鑑於此，由2004年Vargo學者提出之 服務導向邏輯(SD-Logic)架構，強調跨領域共創的特性，任何相關利益人均為Operant資源，同時為生產者與消費者，得以在此服務生態系統內互動、共創價值。而以此跨領域共創的核心概念與需運用多重跨界能力的社會企業不謀而合，故本研究探討 服務導向邏輯(SD-Logic)架構之於社會企業的配適度，來審視社會企業與其他相關利益人共同創造價值的關係，並且透過 服務導向邏輯(SD-Logic)架構來找出社會企業的衡量指標。
本研究訪談五家社會企業，共九位受訪者，以此共有四大結論：一、更易掌握社會企業與相關利益人互動的常態；二、相關利益人多「主動」的提出自身資源，以提升此生態系統；三、 服務導向邏輯(SD-Logic)適合審視社會企業；四、透過服務導向邏輯(SD-Logic)的概念，審視並建立了三項衡量指標，以補足原有衡量指標的不足，其中三項指標為「服務體系的完整度」、「複合機制的整合度」以及「心理層面」。

In recent years, the concept of the social enterprise has gradually been a global phenomenon. These social enterprise seek to achieve both of the social missions and business profits at the same time. For these extreme aspects, the social enterprise has faced the apparent obstacle and challenge. Consequently, the social enterprise might establish the ecosystem that include the social enterprises and their stakeholders to ensure the social mission.
By using the Service-Dominant Logic (SD-Logic), which is presented by Vargo, emphasized the cross-functional and cross-organizational characteristic. For this reason, the study discuss the suitable degree between Service-Dominant Logic(SD-Logic) and social enterprise. Through the Service-Dominant Logic(SD-Logic) framework, not only could find out the measurable indicators, but also evidence the co-creation relationship of social enterprise and their stakeholders.
The study interviewed five social enterprises, total nine interviewer. This means that comparing and summarizing from different companies. Finally, the study summarizes four conclusions. First, control the interaction between social enterprise and their stakeholders more easily by Service-Dominant Logic (SD-Logic). Second, most stakeholders raise their resource actively to enhance the ecosystem. Third, Service-Dominant Logic (SD-Logic) is suitable measurable way for the social enterprise. And last, the study establish the three measurable indicators through the Service-Dominant Logic (SD-Logic) framework: “Completion”, “Integration” and “Psychology”

Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Alter, K. (2007). Social enterprise typology. Virtue Ventures LLC.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship theory and practice.
Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2008). The service-dominant logic and the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(56).
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, (11:3), 369-386.
Borzaga, C., & Santuari, A. (2003). New Trends in the Non-profit in Europe: The Emergence of Social Entrepreneurship. The Non-profit Sector in a Changing Economy,OECD.
Callaway, S. K., & Dobrzykowski, D. D. (2009). Service-Oriented Entrepreneurship: Service-Dominant Logic in Green Design and Healthcare. Service Science, 1(4),225-240.
Chen, J., Chen, Y.-C., & Luo, M. M. (2015 ). Mobile Service Co-innovation and Service Performance: A Cross Industry Study Paper presented at the The Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2015), Singapore.
Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, HBR.
Doeringer, M. F. (2009). Fostering social enterprise: a historical and international analysis Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 20.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 417-436.
Drucker, P. F. (1989). What Business Can Learn from Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review.
DTI, D. o. T. a. I. (2002). Social Enterprise: a strategy for success.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(33).
Frankel, Bromberger, C., & Allen. (2013). The Art of Social Enterprise: Business as if People Mattered: Consortium Book Sales & Dist.
Iansiti, M., & R., L. (2004). The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability.
Kickul, J. Hybrid Models for Social Enterprises Stern Program in Social Entrepreneurship. New York: New York Unniversity.
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: a Service-Dominant Logic Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39(Service innovation in the digital age), 155-176.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach.
Meunier-FitzHugh, K. L. (2012). Service-Dominant Logic – How Does This Impact Today’s Agent? Keller Center Research Report. Baylor University.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and Prey: The New Ecology of Competition. Harvard Business Review, HBR(71:3), 75-83.
Ng, I., Parry, G., Smith, L., Maull, R., & Briscoe, G. (2012). Transitioning from a Goods-Dominant to a Service-Dominant Logic : Visualising the Value Proposition of Rolls-Royce. University of Warwick Publications service & WRAP, UK.
OECD. (1999). Social Enterprises.
Olson, J., & Russell, T. (1983 ). Science education in Canadian schools Vol.III: Case studies.
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K. and Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4).
Seelosa, C., & Mairb, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor.
Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(23).
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(32).
Somers, A. B. (2005). Shaping the Balanced Scorecard for use in UK social enterprise. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 43-56.
Terpstra, V., & Sarsthy, R. (1991). International Marketing.
Turchetti, G., & Geisler, E. (2009). Home Healthcare: a case in Service-Dominant Logic in the Marketing of Technology-based Services Naples Forum on Service. Italy.
Vargo, S. L. (2007). Alternative Logics for Service Science: The Service-Dominant Logic Perspective.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It's all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 181-187.
Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing.
Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business.
Wong, H. R. (2011). Social Entrepreneurship: A Radicalized Service Dominant Marketing Process (Doctoral Student), Fu-Jen Catholic, Taiwan.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.) Applied Social Research Series (Vol. Vol. 5.). London: Sage.
Yunus, M. (1999). The Grameen bank. Scientific American. 281(285).
众社會企業. (2015). 2015友善台北好餐廳指南：來自台灣的友善米其林」
吳佳霖. (2012). 社會企業促進社會融合之初探~以經濟弱勢婦女為例.
李慶芬. (2013). 質化經驗之經驗敘說─質化研究的六個修練. 台灣台北: 高立圖書有限公司.
林淑馨. (2013). 臺灣社會企業的現況與困境：以公益創投型社會企業為例. 社區發展季刊 143 期.
社企流. (2014). 【外部活動】「友善」台北，「友感」設計！. 社企流.
陳金貴. (2002). 非營利組織社會企業化經營探討. Paper presented at the 非政府組織夏季論壇, 台灣.
陳金貴. (2011). 社會企業家精神應用在非營利組織籌募資源的探討. 北京: 中國社會科學院社會政法學部、中華文化社會福利事業基金會.
陳淑蘭. (2013). 中華民國社會事業發展協會, 社企流.
勞動部勞動力發展署. (2014). 以複合模式營運的社會企業.
黃仲豪、林以涵. (2012). 看見平常看不見的自己－黑暗對話社會企業.
黃信傑. (2013). 社會企業經營模式之驗證與分析. (碩士), 國立政治大學, 台灣.
黃昭勇. (2014). 光原+瑪納 打造社會企業典範. 社企流.
潘淑滿. (2003). 質性研究：理論與應用. 台灣: 心理.
鄭勝分. (2007). 社會企業的概念分析. 政策研究學報(第 8 期).
謝邦俊, & 蔣筱鈺. (2014). 與黑暗對話1000日：社會企業經營實務三年初體驗: 愛盲基金會.