社會企業認證：身心障礙利害關係人的觀點

Social Enterprise Certification: The Perspective of Stakeholder with Disabilities

鄭勝分(Sheng-Fen Cheng)

社會企業 ； 認證 ； 指標 ； Social enterprise ； certification ； indicators

身心障礙研究季刊

18卷1期（2020 / 03 / 01）

43 - 57

繁體中文

歷經兩次石油危機後，歐美各國面臨沉重的財政壓力，社會企業此種兼具社會與經濟雙重目標的混合組織型態，逐漸受到歐美各國的注目，並被視為因應福利國危機之對策，解決身心障礙者的就業問題則是社會企業的核心議題之一，而社會企業也積極尋求本身的定位，社會企業認證就是其中一種策略思考。本文交叉比對經濟部商業司「商工登記公示資料查詢服務」查詢資料及台灣公益團體自律聯盟「社會企業自律平台」認證資料後，提出兩個問題：第一，認證必須付出一定成本，若無充足的誘因，為何與身心障礙服務有關的公司型態，仍有高比例願意參與民間機構的社會企業認證？第二，身心障礙服務只是眾多組織目標之一，社會企業認證指標是否能契合身心障礙組織的需求？對於前述兩項問題，目前仍欠缺解答。基此，本文之目的在於從身心障礙利害關係人的視角，分析身心障礙組織參與社會企業認證之動機及對於指標的評價，研究結果以供相關單位參考。本文透過深度訪談方式蒐集資料，採匿名亂序編碼方式，受訪者母體從政策制定、立法、法規研究、影響力投資者及社會企業組織等角度，從不同利害關係人角度選取最具代表性之樣本並進行資料分析，認證動機分析聚焦於政策誘因與民間專業支持之間的取捨，而認證指標分析則主要參照英國SEM、香港SEEMARK及美國的B Corp的指標內容，探討受訪者的相關評價，訪談期間為2017年4月至6月。研究結果發現，首先，身心障礙利害關係人主要是從營運模式角度思考是否參與社會企業認證，因為社會企業乃是其試圖突破當前庇護性就業或支持性就業困境的策略選擇，故去標籤化乃是其參與社會企業認證之重要動機；其次，對於社會企業的認證指標，受訪者就盈餘分配及社會影響力之營運思維的偏好，也顯現出身心障礙型態社會企業並非以商業收入為主要考量，透過社會企業翻轉社會大眾對於身心障礙者等同於弱勢的刻板印象，以達成協助身心障礙者爭取平權之目標。

After two oil crises, European and American countries are facing heavy financial pressures. The mixed organization pattern of social enterprises with both social and economic goals has gradually attracted the attention of European and American countries and is regarded as a solution against the crisis of the welfare state. Solving the employment problem of people with disabilities is one of the core issues of social enterprises. By the way, social enterprises are also actively seeking their own positioning; social enterprise certification is one of the strategic thinking. This paper ask two questions for cross-examines the data on the ＂Commercial Service Registration Information Enquiry Service＂ of the Commerce Department of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the ＂Social Enterprise Self-Regulatory Platform＂ certification data of the Taiwan NPO Self-Regulation Alliance. First, certification must pay a certain amount of cost. If there is no sufficient incentive, why is there a high proportion of companies that are related to the disabilities service, and are still willing to participate in the social enterprise certification of private institutions? Second, the disabilities service is only one of the multiple goals for organization. Can the social enterprise certification indicators designed meet the needs of the disabled organizations? For the above two issues, there is still no answer. Based on this, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the motives of the participation of disabled organizations in social enterprise certification and the evaluation of indicators from the perspective of stakeholders. The research results are for reference by relevant units. This paper collects data through in-depth interviews and analyzes them from the perspective of different stakeholders. Respondents' population selected the most representative samples from different stakeholders' perspectives and conducted data analysis from the perspectives of policy making, legislation, regulatory research, social impact investors and social enterprise organizations. The analysis of certification motivation focused on policy incentives and the choice of professional support and the analysis of the certification indicators mainly refer to the British SEM, Hong Kong SEE MARK and the United States B Corp indicators to discuss the relevant evaluation of respondents. The interview period is from April to June 2017. Research shows that, first of all, stakeholder with disabilities mainly think about whether to participate in social enterprise certification from the prefer to business model, because social enterprises are their strategic choices to try to break through the current distressed employment or supportive employment dilemma, so de-labeling can be said to be the important motivation for participating in social enterprise certification; Secondly, for the social enterprise's certification indicators, the respondents also showed their preference based on operational thinking. The indicators of distribution of surplus and social impact showed that social enterprises with physical and mental disabilities were not based on commercial income. Through social enterprises, the people are turned into a stereotype that is equal to the disadvantage of the disabilities, in order to achieve the goal of helping the disabled to fight for equal rights.

1. 吳明珠,鄭勝分(2012)。庇護工場轉型社會企業之研究。身心障礙研究季刊，10，148-162。
   連結：
2. 鄭勝分(2016)。補助或投資？政策工具對社會企業發展之影響。行政暨政策學報，62，127-157。
   連結：
3. Borzaga, C.(Ed.),Defourny, J.(Ed.)(2001).The Emergence of Social Enterprise.London:Routledge.
4. Defourny, J.,Hulgård, L.,Pestoff, V.(2014).Social Enterprise and The Third Sector: Changing European Landscapes in a Comparative Perspective.London:Routledge.
5. European Commission(2014).A Map of Social Enterprise and Their Eco-systems in Europe.London:European Commission.
6. Galera, G.,Borzaga, C.(2009).Social enterprise: An international overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implementation.Social Enterprise Journal,5(3),210-228.
7. Gidron, B.(Ed),Hasenfeld, Y.(Ed)(2012).Social Enterprises: An Organization Perspective.Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Lee, E. S.(2015).Social enterprise, policy entrepreneurs, and the third sector: The case of South Korea.International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,26(4),1084-1099.
9. OECD(1999).Social Enterprise.Paris:OECD.
10. OECD(2015).Social Impact Investment: Building the Evidence Base.Paris:OECD.
11. Ridley-Duff, R.,Southcombe C.(2011).The Social Enterprise Mark: A Critical Review of its Conceptual Dimensions.34th Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference,England:
12. SEE MARK Websites. (2019). General Chamber of Social Enterprises. Retrieve November 8, 2019 from the: https://seemark.hk/zh_tw/home-page-traditional/
13. SEM (2019). Social Enterprise Mark CIC. Retrieve November 8, 2019 from the: https://www.socialenterprisemark.org.uk/?s
14. Wilburn, K.,Wilburn, R.(2014).The double bottom line: Profit and social benefit.Business Horizons,57(1),11-20.
15. Zheng, S.(2018).Investigation into funding strategies of social enterprises.The China Nonprofit Review,10(1),34-61.
16. 台灣公益團體自律聯盟（2019）。2019年 10 月 1 日，取自http://www.twnpos.org.tw/home/home.php。
17. 官有垣(2017)。從社會經濟的觀點探討社會企業的意涵。社區發展季刊，160，10-27。
18. 官有垣(2008)。社會企業組織在經營管理的挑戰：以喜憨兒社會福利基金會為案例。兒童及少年福利期刊，14，63-84。
19. 陳俐雯（譯）(2015).B 型企業：現在最需要的好公司.臺北:城邦商業週刊.
20. 臺北市勞動力重建運用處(2015).另一種思考.臺北:臺北市勞動力重建運用處.
21. 鄭勝分(2018)。社會企業關鍵指標之研究：從盈餘分配到所有權。第三部門學刊，21，19-41。
22. 鄭勝分(2018)。我國社會企業認證之方式與指標。國土及公共治理，6，26-35。

1. 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。