社會企業(social enterprise)是近年來順應各種社會問題與全球企業組織發展潮流，所因運而生之混合型組織(hybrid organization);其特色在於協助解決各式社會問題之餘，企業本身又能獲利並持續經營。台灣社會企業之發展尚屬初步階段，縱然社會企業是歐美非營利組織之新趨勢，但台灣是否應該師法或跟隨此一潮流，則仍有爭議;且囿於社會企業於法規面向之不確定性，是社會企業於台灣面臨困境之主因之一，故本文試行就國內外相關文獻，對社會企業之組織治理進行探究，並輔以美國社會企業之相關制度，對照台灣現行之各項相關法規與草案，分別提出解釋、分析，最後以質性分析之研究方法訪談三家社會企業與一家社團法人，綜合上述學理與實務之探究，提出台灣未來之修法建議，希冀為社會企業之發展注入活水和契機。

首先對社會企業之上位概念-企業社會責任(CSR)進行初步探討，除了聚焦於利害關係人理論和條款，並試行分析企業社會責任(CSR)和社會企業之關聯;後以美國法制為本，正式介紹社會企業之概念，並嘗試對社會企業進行定義，其中又以受託義務(Fiduciary Duty)為核心，並輔以非法律規範之市場上外部他律機制，包括認證、契約與監控等執行機制之探究，接續聚焦於美國之福祉型公司(Benefit Corporation)，其中又以德拉瓦州之福祉型公司-公益公司(PBC)為核心，探討受託義務與前述機制之發展，俾台灣法制之比較與借鏡。

最後針對台灣現行各項相關法制，如公司法和企業併購法等進行解釋與分析，並以上述討論與分析為基礎，輔以三家社會企業與一家社團法人為研究對象，進行實證之個案研究。結論之部分，乃綜合上述文獻分析與四項訪談成果，分別以近程、中程與長程之觀察角度，對台灣社會企業之法制發展提出修法建議與因應之道，盼對於社會企業於台灣之法制發展，有正面且實質之幫助。

Social enterprise is a type of hybrid organizations which originates from solving various social problems and with the development trend of global organizations in recent years. The character of social enterprise is not only to help solve a variety of social issues but also making profits and continuing operations itself. Taiwan is still on the preliminary stages for developing social enterprises. Although social enterprise is a new trend for non-profit organizations in Europe and America, it is controversial that Taiwan should follow this trend. Besides, regulatory uncertainty is one of the main difficulties that social enterprise encounters in Taiwan, so this paper will focus on the organizational governance issues of social enterprise that related to domestic and foreign literature. In addition to referring the structures and systems adopted by America, but comparing relevant regulations and the draft in order to interpret and analyze related issues. In the ends, this paper will interview three social enterprises and one corporate juristic person by the research method of qualitative analysis. Combining academic and practical research mentioned above, expecting to propose complete legislative suggestions of social enterprise in the future and to promote the development of social enterprise in Taiwan.

First, focusing on the superordinate concept of social enterprise - Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), in addition to emphasizing the stakeholder theory and constituency statutes, but finding and analyzing the connection between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social enterprises. Afterwards, based on the regulations in America, will formally introduced the concept of social enterprise, and try to define social enterprises. Then continuing to elaborate about the issue of fiduciary duty, including the introduction of certification, contract and monitoring mechanism. Especially focusing on benefit corporation in America, in the core of public benefit corporation (PBC) in Delaware, exploring the development of fiduciary duty and as the means to learn from and compare for the legal system in Taiwan.

At the last part, will interpret and analyze relevant regulations in Taiwan, such as Corporate Law and Business Mergers and Acquisitions Act. Also taking three social enterprises and one corporate juristic person into consideration as empirical cases study. In the conclusions, based on the analysis that accomplished above and interviews with three social enterprises and one corporate juristic person, proposing amendments for social enterprise legislation by short-range, medium-range and long-range of perspectives. Hope these suggestions would lead social enterprises to positive and essential progress in Taiwan.

一、中文部分

1. 王文宇 (2013)。〈閉鎖性公司修法方向建議〉，《全國律師》，17卷2期，頁
4-5。
2. 社企流（2014年)。《社企力》，頁253-260，台北：果力文化。

3. 易明秋（2013）。〈公司社會責任的實驗品─美國社會情企業制度〉，《成大法學》，26期，頁81。

4. 周振鋒（2014年）。〈評公司法第8條第3項之增訂〉，《中正財經法學》，頁
2-3。

5. 周振鋒（2013年11月）。〈談公益公司之興起〉，發表於《2013年東海大學財經法學術研討會》。東海大學法律學院、台灣法學會財經法委員會、東海大學企業法制研究中心（主辦），台中。

6. 邵慶平〈2008年〉，《公司法-組織與契約之間》，出版，頁35-36，台北：翰蘆圖書出版有限公司。

7. 高宜凡（2014年)。〈洞悉四大趨勢 社企將成為未來主流〉，《遠見雜誌》，342期，頁233。

8. 許杏宜(2015)。〈創業新選擇，有限合夥與閉鎖性公司?〉，《會計研究月刊》，
354期，頁66- 67。
9. 陳彥良（2014）。〈企業併購中股東最大利益暨董事相關忠實義務〉，《月旦裁判時報》，29期，頁50-51。

10. 曾宛如（2012）。〈新修正公司法評析-董事「認定」之重大變革(事實上董事
及影子董事)暨董事忠實義務之具體化〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，204期，頁136。

11. 黃朝琮（2015）。〈董事違反受託義務之事前救濟〉，《法令月刊》，66卷4期，頁115。

12. 黃銘傑（2013）。〈揮別天龍國時代的法人董監委任關係之解釋-評最高法院
101年度台上字第700號判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，215期，頁162。

13. 蔡昌憲〈2015〉。〈下市交易中利益衝突之淨化機制：從美國Dell公司收購案談起〉，《國立台灣大學法學論叢》，44卷2期，頁570-71。

14. 蔡昌憲（2013）。〈從經濟觀點論企業風險管理與董事監督義務〉，《中研院法學期刊》，12期，頁136。

15. 蔡昌憲（2012），〈評我國強制設置薪酬委員會之立法政策-從經濟分析及美國金融改革法談起〉，《中研院法學期刊》，第11期，頁265-266。

16. 蔡昌憲、溫祖德（2011），〈論商業判斷法則於背信罪之適用妥當性-評高雄高分院九十六年度金上重訴字第一號判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，195期，頁176。

17. 臺灣證券交易所（2015年)。《證券市場之概論與實務-集中交易市場》，頁
388-389，台北：臺灣證券交易所股份有限公司。

18. 劉連煜（2015）。〈阿里巴巴上市與公司治理〉，《月旦法學教室》，151期，頁26-27。

19. 劉連煜（2014年)，《現代公司法》，10版，頁35，台北：新學林出版社。

20. 劉連煜（2011）。〈企業併購時董事之受任人(受託)義務-農民銀行與合庫合併案最高法院九十九年度台上字第二六一號判決及其歷審判決評析〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，195期，頁234。

21. 賴若函（2014年)。〈上百家社會企業 卡在兩大難題〉，《今周刊》，935期，
頁46。

22. 賴英照（2011年)，《股市遊戲規則，最新證券交易法解析》，再版二刷，頁
162，台北：元照。

23. 薛夷風（2011）。〈社會企業對我國傳統公司觀念的挑戰一再論公司的營利性〉， 《當代法學》，2011卷3期，頁105-106。

二、英文部分

1. Afra Afsharipour & Shruti Rana, The Emergence of New Corporate Social
Responsibility Regimes in China and India, 14UC DAVIS BUS.L.J. 175, 176-85
(2014).

2. Alicia E. Plerhoples, Representing Social Enterprise, 20 CLINICAL L. REV. 701,
702-09 (2013).

3. Amanda Maine, J.D. (2015, May). Stein Hopes to Explore Problems with
Short-Termism, Lack of Board Diversity. Jim Hamilton’s World of Securities
Regulation. Retrived May 31, 2015 from the World Wide Web: http://jimhamiltonblog.blogspot.tw/2015/05/stein-hopes-to-explore-problems-with.html

4. Antony Page & Robert A. Katz, Is Social Responsibility the New Corporate Social
Responsibility?, 34 SEATTLE U.L. REV. 1351, 1355-58 (2011).

5. Antony Page & Robert A. Katz, Freezing Out Ben & Jerry : Corporate Law And
The Scale Of A Social Enterprise Icon, 35 Vt. L. Rev.211, 230-42(2010).

6. Arthur R. Pinto, Protection of Close Corporation Minority Shareholders in the
United States (Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies Research Papers Accepted
Paper Series No. 369, 2014), at 361-63, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2398059.

7. Beate Sjåfjell & Linn Anker-Sørensen, Directors’ Duties and Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) (University of Oslo Faculty of Law, University of Oslo
Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2013-26 Nordic &
European Company Law Working Paper No. 10-40, 2013), at 9-10, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2322680.

8. Brett H. McDonnell, Committing to Doing Good and Doing Well: Fiduciary Duty
in Benefit Corporations (Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No.14-21,2014), at17-20, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423346.

9. Brett H. McDonnell, Corporate Constituency Statutes and Employee Governance

(University of Minnesota Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 02-13,
2002), at1-4, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=349642.

10. Cassady V.(“Cass”) Brewe, A Novel Approach To Using LLCs For Quasi-Charitable Endeavors (A/K/A “Social Enterprise”), 2 WM. MITCHELL L.
REV. 38, at 680 (2012).

11. Christopher Geczy, Jessica S. Jeffers, David K. Musto, & Anne M. Tucker,
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTING WHEN SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT SUPREME,
5 HARV. BUS. L. REV. 73, 77-78 (2015).

12. Courtney A. Emerson, Delaware Public Benefit Corporations: Comparative
Analysis And Fiduciary Duties(2013), 1-3, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2493082.

13. Dana Brakman Reiser, Benefit Corporations – A Sustainable Form of
Organization? (Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies Research Papers Accepted
Paper Series No. 293, 2012), at 616-17, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144795.

14. Dana Brakman Reiser, Theorizing Forms for Social Enterprise (Brooklyn Law
School Legal Studies Research Papers Accepted Paper Series No. 310, 2012), at
32-40, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2166449.

15. Dana Brakman Reiser, Blended Enterprise And The Dual Mission Dilemma,
35:105 VT. L. REV., 114-16 (2010).

16. Daniel Kleinberger, On Behalf Of Its Committees On LLCs And Nonprofit
Organizations, Opposes Legislation For Low Profit Limited Liability Companies
(William Mitchell College of Law LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER
SERIES Working Paper No. 2012-05, 2012), at 7-10, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2055823.

17. David Groshoff, Contrepreneurship? Examining Social Enterprise Legislation’s
Feel-good governance giveaways, 16 U. PA. J. BUS. L. 233, 236-39 (2013).

18. Deal Professor (2015, May). France Answers Hostile Bids With the Two-Vote
Share. The New York Times. Retrived May 31, 2015 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/business/dealbook/france-answers-hostile-bids-with-the-two-vote-share.html?_r=0

19. Dr.Tineke Lambooy, Aikaterini Argyrou & Rosemarie Hordijk, Social
Entrepreneurship as a New Economic Structure that Supports Sustainable
Development: Does the law provide for a special legal structure to support
innovative and sustainable non-profit entrepreneurial activities?(A comparative
legal study)(University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper No.
2013-30,2013), 34-38, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2346684.

20. Elzabeth A.M. Searing, The Role Corporate Form in Social Enterprise Start-ups
(Georgia State University International Comparative Social Enterprise Mapping
Project Working Paper, EMES Research Group), at 1-4, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2534782.

21. Eric W. Orts, Beyond Shareholders: Interpreting Corporate Constituency Statutes,
61 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 14, 46 (1992).

22. Gail Elizabeth Henderson, A Fiduciary Duty to Minimize the Corporation’s
Environmental Impacts (University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Sudies Research
Paper Series No.2011-32, 2011), at 28-29, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1932032.

23. George W. Dent. Jr., CORPORATE GOVERNANCE WITHOUT SHAREHOLDERS: A CAUTIONARY LESSON FROM NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS (Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Forthcoming; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-15, 2013), at 1-2, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2285730.

24. Gustavo Visentini & Federico Raffaele (2011). From Shareholders’ Rights to
Directors’ Duties: Liability and Acoountability of Directors. In Sabrina Bruno &
Eugenio Ruggiero(Eds), Public Companies and the Role of Shareholders:
National Models towards Global Integration (pp.264-65). Great Britain, Kluwer
Law International.

25. Haskell Murray, Oregon Benefit Companies - Online List (Business Law Prof
Blog, June,12,2015), available at http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2015/06/oregon-benefit-companies-list-online.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+typepad/rMru+%28Business+Law+Prof+Blog%29

26. Jennifer Hughes (2015,March). Hong Kong regulator feels heat over decision on
dual-class shares. FINANCIAL TIMES. Retrived May 31, 2015 from the World
Wide Web:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8429f686-d203-11e4-b66d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bgqtCIqk.

27. J. Haskell Murray, Social Enterprise Innovation: Delaware’s Public Benefit
Corporation Law, 4 HARV. BUS. L. REV. 345, 351-54(2014).

28. J. Haskell Murray, Choose Your Own Master : Social Enterprise, Certifications,
And Benefit Corporation Statutes, 2 AM. U. BUS. L. REV.2, 3-5 (2012).

29. Joan MacLeod Heminway, To Be Or Not to Be (A Security) : Funding For-Profit
Social Enterprises, 25 REGENT U. L. REV., 326-27 (2013).

30. Joseph W. Yockey, Does Social Enterprise Law Matter? (University of Iowa Legal
Studies Research Paper Series No. 14-06, 2014), at 5-7, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=2389024.

31. J. William Callison, Benefit Corporations, Innovation And Statutory Design
(Regent L. Rev., Forthcoming, 2013), at 1-4, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2308941.

32. J. William Callison, Putting New Sheets On A Procrustean Bed : How Benefit
Corporations Address Fiduciary Duties, The Dangers Created, And Suggestions
For Change ( American Univ. Journal of Law & Business, Forthcoming,2012), at
1-3, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2102655.

33. Keren G. Raz, Toward An Improved Legal Form For Social Enterprise, 36 N.Y.U.
REV. L.& SOC. CHANGE 283, 287-88(2012).

34. Larry E. Ribstein (2009). Fiduciary duties and remedies. The rise of the
uncorporation (pp.68-69).United States of America: OXFORD UNIVERSITY
PRESS.

35. Larry E. Ribstein, Accountability and Responsibility in Corporate Governance, 4
Notre Dame L. Rev. 81, 1432-36 (2006).

36. Leo E. Strine, Jr., Making It Easier For Directors To “Do The Right Thing”?,
Harv. BUS.REV., VOL. 4, 235 (2014).

37. Leo E. Strine, Jr., Our Continuing Struggle With The Idea That For-Profit
Corporations Seek Profit, 47 WAKE FOREST L. Rev., 145-155(2012).

38. Lionel Smith, Fiduciary Relationships: Ensuring the Loyal Exercise of Judgement

39. Lisa Webley (2010). Qualitative Approaches To Empirical Legal Research. In Peter Cane & Herbert M. Kritzer(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal
Research, (p. 927).

40. Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer & Joseph R. Ganahl, Taxing Social Enterprise, 66 STAN. L.
REV. 387, 441-42 (2014).

41. Looser, Stéphanie & Wehrmeyer, Walter, An Emerging Template of CSR in
Switzerland (Corporate Ownership & Control , Volume 12, Issue 3, 2015), at 554-55, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2611488.

42. Lyman Johnson, Law And The History Of Corporate Responsibility: Corporate
Governance, 4 ST. THOMAS L.J. 10, 982-987(2013).

43. Lyman Johnson, Pluralism In Corporate Form: Corporate Law And Benefit
Corporations, 25 REGENT U. L. REV. 269, 281-93(2013).

44. Mark J. Roe, Corporate Short-Termism – In the Boardroom and in the Courtroom
(Business Lawyer;Vol 68, August 2013; ECGI - Law Working Paper No. 210;
Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 13-18, 2014), at 979-80, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2239132.

45. Nadelle Grossman, What Is The NBA (Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper
No. 14-27, 2014), at 14-18, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=2516014.

46. Nicholas Donatiello, David F. Larcker & Brian Tayan, What Can For-Profit and Nonprofit Boards Learn from Each Other About Improving Governance? (STANFORD CLOSER LOOK SERIES, April 28, 2015), at 2-3, available at http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/cgri-closer-look-49-profit-nonprofit-learn.pdf.

47. Ofer Eldar, The Role of Social Enterprise and Hybrid Organizations (Yale Law &
Economics Research Paper No.485, 2014), at 46-47, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2379012.

48. On Behalf of Another, (130 Law Quarterly Review 608-634; King's College
London Law School Research Paper No. 2015-20, 2014), at 26, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2559974.

49. Paul B. Miller & Andrew S. Gold, Fiduciary Governance, 57 WM.& MARY L.
REV., 67-68 (2015).

50. Robert T. Esposito, The Social Enterprise Revolution In Corporate Law: A Primer
On Emerging Corporate Entities In Europe And The United States And The Case
For Benefit Corporation, 4 WM. & MARY BUS. L. REV. 639, 650-62(2013).

51. Shareholder rights: Short-term or short-changed?, THE ECONOMIST, May. 2,
2015, at 54.

52. Stephen M. Bainbridge, Corporate Social Responsibility in the Night Watchman
State: A Comment on Strine & Walker (UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research
Paper No. 14-12, 2014), at 11-13, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2494003.

53. Sybren De Hoo & Mieke Olaerts, Sustainable Development and the Need for
Sustainable Oriented Corporate Law and Regulation (University of Oslo Faculty
of Law Research Paper No. 2011-29, 2011), at 16-17, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1926065.

54. Thomas E. Rutledge, Who Will Watch the Watcher? : Derivative Actions in
Nonprofit Corporations (Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 103, 2015), 40-41, available
at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587130.

55. Thomas Kelley, Law And Choice Of Entity On The Social Enterprise Frontier,
at29-30, available at: http://works.bepress.com/thomas_kelley/2 (2009).

56. William H. Clark, Jr. & Elizabeth K. Babson, Business Organization : When
“Business Purpose” Disappears: Article: How Benefit Corporations are
Redefining The Purpose Of Business Corporations, 38 WM. MITCHELL L. REV.
817,825-36(2012).

57. Zohar Goshen & Richard Squire, Principal Costs (Fordham Law Legal Studies
Research Paper No.2571739; Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 14-462,
2015), at 34-35, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2571739.

三、學位論文

鄭勝分（2004年）。《歐美社會企業發展及其在台灣應用之研究》，國立政治大學公共行政學系博士論文（未出版），台北，頁176。

四、 網路資源

1. 田裕斌（2015）。《金融業CSR 需揭露員工福利費用》。載於:
http://www.msn.com/zh-tw/money/topstories/%e9%87%91%e8%9e%8d%e6%a5%adcsr-%e9%9c%80%e6%8f%ad%e9%9c%b2%e5%93%a1%e5%b7%a5%e7%a6%8f%e 5%88%a9%e8%b2%bb%e7%94%a8/ar-AAa7iI5。

2. Kevin LaCroix (2015, March 11). An Alarming Liability Award Against Not-for-Profit Organization’s Directors and Officers. The D & O Diary. Retrieved May 12,2015 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.dandodiary.com/2015/03/articles/director-and-officer-liability/an-alarming-liability-award-against-not-for-profit-organizations-directors-and-officers/.

3. 吳碧娥 ( 2015年3月25日) : 台灣新創事業露曙光！閉鎖型公司修法為創業
謀生路。北美智權報。線上檢索日期:2015年5月25日。網址:
http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Editorial/publish-246.
htm.

4. 張書瑋 ( 2015年5月5日) : 創業新選擇 有限合夥與閉鎖性公司？聯合新聞
網雜誌。線上檢索日期: 2015年5月25日。網址: http://udn.com/news/story/6877/881988-%e5%89%b5%e6%a5%ad%e6%96%b0%e9%81%b8%e6%93%87-%e6%9c%89%e9%99%90%e5%90%88%e5%a4%a5%e8%88%87%e9%96%89%e9%8e%96%e6%80%a7%e5%85%ac%e5%8f%b8%ef%bc%9f.

5. 林奇伯〈2013〉。《台灣光華雜誌─用愛創業：社會企業正熱門》。載於：
http://www.seinsights.asia/story/257/794/1514。