社會企業的社會面向初探

The Social Dimensions of Social Enterprise

黃浩然(HAW-RAN WONG)；韓文堯(WEN-YAO HAN)；林佳萍(CHIA-PING LIN)；李禮孟(LEEMEN LEE)

社會企業 ； 社會 ； 對話 ； 互為主體 ； 賦權 ； Social Enterprise ； Social ； Dialogue ； Inter-subjectivity ； Empowerment

輔仁管理評論

24卷1期（2017 / 01 / 01）

103 - 124

繁體中文

社會企業近來受到各界人士的熱烈討論，將其視為處理社會問題的新契機。然而，社會企業融合了「社會」與「企業」兩種內在可能衝突的本質，加上社會企業在世界各國皆有其發展特色，對其本質或定義並無明確共識。本研究發現目前社會企業的研究與討論多著墨於其「企業」面向，而「社會」面向不是遭到忽略，就是被當成已知的常識，未經審視即加以運用，因此目前許多社會企業定義發生「套套邏輯」(tautology)與「獨白」 (monological)的謬誤。本研究以質性研究法，對社會企業的「社會」 面向分析歸納，從社會企業的服務與行動出發，疏理其背後的意義，最後從意義歸納出社會企業的「社會」面向。本研究歸納社會企業的社會概念包括了互為主體、共善性、價值、對話、賦能、空間性和時間性這七個面向，其整體意涵為「在特定時間和空間裡的一群人(雖然可能各有不同的價值信念)，但(或多或少)願意付出努力維護其價值與信念，透過對話與賦權，尋求互為主體與共善的實踐。」

Social enterprises recently have been lively discussed among all sectors, the government and nonprofit organizations treat them as a new alternative solution of invested policies and public donation to deal with social problems. However, social enterprises consist of two innate characters - ＂social＂ and ＂enterprise＂ -which may be conflict to each other. In addition, social enterprises worldwide have developed distinctively; therefore there is no clear consensus on the nature or definition of social enterprise. In this study, observations showing that the current studies and discussions on social enterprises tend to focus on the ＂enterprise＂ aspect, while the ＂social＂ aspect is usually assumed without being carefully looked at, as it has been either ignored or known as a common sense. As the result, ＂tautology＂ and ＂monological＂ fallacy occurs when defining social enterprises. This study attempts to improve the way to define social enterprises. The definition was conducted according to the ＂social＂ aspect of the social enterprises rather than the social issues they are handling. In this study, qualitative research method was adopted to analyze and to induct the ＂social＂ aspect of the social enterprises. The analysis began with the phenomenon of social enterprise, identifying their services and actions. The social significance behind the theme was therefore explored. Finally, the dimensions of ＂social＂ were inducted based on the social significance. In this study, the analytical induction of the ＂social＂ concept of social enterprises was consisted of seven dimensions - inter-subjectivity, common good, value, empowerment, dialogue, spatial and temporal, which then defined ＂social＂ as ＂a relatively identifiable group of people, who hold values and beliefs (the values and beliefs held by different people may be different) and (to some extent) are willing to make efforts to act upon their values and beliefs, to pursue the actualization of inter-subjectivity and common good through the approaches of dialogue and empowerment, in a specific temporal and spatial context.＂

1. 呂朝賢(2008)。社會企業與創業精神：意義與評論。國立政治大學社會學報，39，81-117。
   連結：
2. 廖石(2003)。從「地方治理」的思潮變遷探討「社區賦權」在鄉村發展政策中的定位與課題。城市與設計學報，15/16，93-115。
   連結：
3. 方永泉，「Dialog, Dialogue (對話) 解釋」，國家教育研究院雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網， 2000 年12 月， http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1313106/。
4. Johnson, S., “Literature review on social entrepreneurship. Canadian Center for Social Entrepreneurship”, 2000, http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/ccse/Publications
5. United Nations, “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development”, General Assembly Resolution, Vol. 42(187), 1987, pp.154-156..
6. “Social Enterprise Coalition”, 2005 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/socialinnovationeurope/en/directory/organisation/social-enterprise-coalition
7. 社會企業人才培訓白皮書。
8. Rappaport, Edward, “Preliminary report”, Hurricane Andrew,: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center, Coral Gables, Fla., August 1992, pp.16-28..
9. Schuyler, G., “Social entrepreneurship: A prot as a means, not as an End. In Kauffman Centre for Entrepreneurial Leadership”, Clearing House on Entrepreneurial Education (CELCEE), 1998, http:// www.celcee.edu/products/digest/dig98-7html.
10. Dees, G., “The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship”, 2001, http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_SE.pdf#search=%22social%20entrepreneurship%22
11. 謝伯芳，「淺談“對話 ＂」，太平洋時報，2013 年3 月14 日。
12. Borzaga, C.(Ed.),Defourny, J.(Ed.)(2001).The emergence of social enterprise.London:Routledge.
13. Catford, J.(1998).Social entrepreneurs are vital for health promotion-but they need supportive environments too.Editorial.Health Promotion International,13,95-98.
14. Conyers, D.,Cumanzala, F.(2004).Community Empowerment and Democracy in Zimbabwe: A Case Study from Binga District.Social Policy & Administration,38(4),383-398.
15. Dalton, J. H.,Elias, M. J.,Wandersman, A.(2007).Community psychology: Linking individuals and communities.Stamford:Wadsworth.
16. Dees, J. G.(1998).Enterprising nonprots: What do you do when traditional sources of funding fall short?.Harvard Business Review,76(1),55-67.
17. Dobrin, L. M.(2008).From linguistic elicitation to eliciting the linguist: Lessons in community empowerment from Melanesia.Language,84(2),300.
18. Ducci, G.,Stentella, C.,Vulterini, P.(2002).The Social Enterprise in Europe.International Journal of Mental Health,31(3),76-91.
19. Ducci, M.,Gazzano, A.,Villani, C.,Cela, V.,Artini, P. G.,Martelli, F.,Genazzani, A. R.(2002).Membrane integrity evaluation in rabbit spermatozoa.European journal of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology,102(1),53-56.
20. Fernandez-Ballesteros, R.(2003).Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment.London:SAGE Publications Ltd.
21. Great Britain Department of Trade and Industry(2002).Social Enterprise: A Strategy for Success.Department of Trade and Industry.
22. Mair, J.,Marti, I.(2006).Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight.Journal of world business,41(1),36-44.
23. Mair, John(Ed.),Robinson, Jeffrey(Ed.),Hockerts, Kai(Ed.)(2006).Social Entrepreneurship.Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan UK.
24. OECD(2001).Social Enterprise: A Comparative Perspective.International Conference,Trento:
25. Orford, J.(2008).Community Psychology: Challenges, Controversies and Emerging Consensus.New Jersey:John Wiley & Sons, Ltd..
26. Perkins, D. D.,Zimmerman, M. A.(1995).Empowerment theory, research, and application.American Journal of Community Psychology,23(5),569-579.
27. Rappaport, J.(1987).Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology.American Journal of Community Psychology,15(2),121-148.
28. Rappaport, J.,Edward S.(2000).Handbook of Community Psychology.New York:Springer.
29. Rokeach, M.(1973).The Nature of Human Values.New York:The Free Press.
30. Sadan, Elisheva,Flantz, Richard(Translated)(2004).Empowerment and Community Planning: Theory and Practice of People-Focused Social Solutions.Tel Aviv:HakibbutzHameuchad.
31. Sanchez-Fernandez, R.,Iniesta-Bonillo, M. A.(2006).Consumer Perception of Value: Literature Review and A New Conceptual Framework.Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,19,40-58.
32. Schwartz, S. H.(1992).Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,25,1-65.
33. Schwartz, S. H.,Bilsky, W.(1987).Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values.Journal of Marketing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,53(3),550-562.
34. Smith, C.,Rees, G.(1998).Economic Development.Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
35. Thompson, J.,Alvy, G.,Lees, A.(2000).Social entrepreneurship-A new look at the people and the potential.Management Decision,38(5),328-338.
36. Wallerstein, N.(2002).Empowerment to reduce health disparities.Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,59,72-77.
37. 李怡娟、陳俞琪、王慧群(2006)。賦權／充能式的社區發展過程：以台北市某社區為例。護理雜誌，53(2)，23-29。
38. 李怡娟、葉若分、張麗春(2003)。建構賦權式以社區為基礎的獨居老人照護模式。護理雜誌，50(3)，49-55。
39. 李俊妮譯、周思中譯、弗弘索•鄔達(2011)。從「公共財產」到「人類共善」。羅莎盧森堡基金會布魯塞爾辦公室出版。
40. 翁開誠(1999)。互為主體性的人文主義與教育改革︰對來自另一個方向的迴響。應用心理研究，2，7-9。
41. 國立編譯館編(2000)。教育大辭書（一）。台北:文景。
42. 熊仁義(1999)。現代人的價值觀。台北:青年日報社。
43. 羅秀華(2001)。社區充權的行動研究─以木新永安組織經驗為例。臺大社工學刊，5，151-195。

1. 曾碧卿,陳姿汝(2018)。文化體驗設計與社會企業營運模式初探。輔仁管理評論，25(1)，83-107。
2. 陳慧如,張寶蓉(2019)。社企教學的跨領域探勘。輔仁管理評論，26(1)，21-54。
3. 張麗娟,常賽超(2022)。義利一元，如何可能？－從社會企業觀點析論。哲學與文化，49(9)，43-63。
4. 張雅婷(2020)。社會企業利害關係人之社會網絡分析－以里仁事業股份有限公司為例。中國行政評論，26(3)，30-63。
5. (2017)。社會企業的倫理議題。社區發展季刊，160，52-63。