社會企業法制化的回顧與未來發展 - 以社會企業與ESG之間的關係為中心

Abstract

有關「社會企業法制化」這個議題，不論是在政府的立法與行政部門，或是橫跨企業與民間團體，都曾在台灣引起不小的熱潮。例如，若水國際是台灣的第一家社會企業，早在2007年就已經創立。行政院也在2014年9月核定「社會企業行動方案」，並採取先行政後立法的施政方針。相關媒體更大肆報導時任行政院長的江宜樺，定調2014年就是台灣社會企業元年。因此在2014年之後的數年間，各種不同版本的立法或修法建議，紛紛被立法院或民間組織提出來討論。 但是從所謂的元年至今已過10年，這個立意良善的新組織型態，為何無法被具體落實在台灣各種相關的法人組織體系當中？在2018年《公司法》修法後，隨著社會企業行動方案的落日，雖然行政院又核定了「社會創新行動方案」，宣示將繼續朝向達成聯合國所倡議的人類永續目標邁進，但目光卻逐漸轉移到ESG相關法規的制定上。此後社會企業法制化在台灣的熱度不再，學術界的討論也逐漸出現冷卻的現象。 所謂鑒往知來，為了探索台灣社會企業法制化未來的發展方向，本文試從各種不同面向來解析「企業社會責任」，並透過人類歷史的反思，發現社會企業的起源可追溯至古典自由主義時期由社會企業家所設立的各種非營利團體，並在新自由主義時代演變為一種符合社會企業概念的組織。而有關企業社會責任的探究，則是先將社會責任的範圍限定在「解決現有的社會問題」與「避免產生新的社會問題」後，借助三部門架構的歷史脈絡，導引出社會上由企業來承擔社會責任的普遍期望。 本文接著透過企業社會責任相關文獻的探討，發現在企業社會責任金字塔的四種組成成分中，社會企業與ESG兩者分別是慈善責任與倫理責任的具體實踐方式，理應具有關聯性，而且是相生的正相關性，僅不過是具有自因性與他因性的區別實益罷了。但是經過比較法的研究後，本文則是發現兩者在台灣並不像美國可以產生正相關性，因此造成立法上的不同結果。實證研究的結果也證明，近6年來ESG的網路搜尋熱度，雖在美台兩地均有急速上升的趨勢，但不論是與社會企業或慈善捐款相關的網路搜尋，台灣卻都呈現出不同的趨勢變化。如果社會企業與ESG兩者分屬企業社會責任四種組成成分當中，有關慈善責任與倫理責任的具體實踐方式，而台灣卻無法在理應相輔相成的慈善責任與倫理責任之間取得適當的平衡點，這絕對不會是台灣社會之福。 本文最後根據以上四種研究方法來判斷美台兩地所以出現法制化上的不同結果，應該是肇因於幾個地區性的變因：一來是因為台灣的公司股東，對經營者實有欠缺較為有效的究責機制，所以具有社會企業家精神的經營者比較欠缺將社會企業法制化的驅動力，加上政府因為可能會犧牲稅收所以都轉趨保守；二來是因為因應世界上對於ESG投資的熱度之後可以熱絡國內的證券市場，加上ESG會加諸企業的經營成本而擴大金融與會計相關產業的產值，所以對政府具有較為強大的立法誘因。 總而言之，在適當的法制環境下，不論是慈善捐款或社會企業，都可擇一來達成相同的公益目的。如果台灣目前尚不須要對社會企業立法，好讓社會企業家來履行其自因性的企業社會責任，未來或許可以參考美國的法制生態，改善並增強慈善組織的財務透明性、經營多元性與財務永續性，讓具有社會企業家精神的公司，能與慈善團體充分合作，滿足其想善盡企業社會責任的渴望，並充分發揮彼此共同的慈善精神。本文甚至建議，可以充分運用ESG的法律上強制力與財務上誘因，逐步加入一些企業社會責任中的慈善責任成分，如此不但可以取代社會企業的部分功能，還可以讓較大型的企業來產生對於社會的正面影響力與解決問題的能力。

The issue of legalization of social enterprises has ever sparked considerable enthusiasm in Taiwan, whether within the government's legislative and administrative departments or across businesses and civil society organizations. For example, FLOW, Inc. was Taiwan’s first social enterprise, established as early as 2007. In September 2014, the Executive Yuan approved the “Social Enterprise Action Plan” and adopted a policy of administrative action before legislation. The media extensively reported that then-Executive Yuan Premier Jiang Yi-huah had declared 2014 as the first year of Taiwan’s social enterprise. Consequently, in the years following 2014, various legislative proposals or amendments were put forward by the Legislative Yuan or civil society organizations for discussion. However, over ten years have passed since the so-called first year, yet this well-intentioned new organizational form has not been effectively implemented within Taiwan’s various corporate systems. Following the 2018 amendment to the Company Act and the decline of the “Social Enterprise Action Plan”, despite the Executive Yuan approving the successive “Social Innovation Action Plan” and declaring its continued commitment towards achieving the UN-initiated Sustainable Development Goals, attention has gradually shifted towards the formulation of ESG regulations. Subsequently, in Taiwan, why has the enthusiasm for legalizing social enterprises waned, and why has there been a cooling trend in related academic discussions? The phrase “learning from the past to understand the future” embodies the essence of this article, which aims to explore the future development of social enterprise legislation in Taiwan. This article analyzes CSR from various aspects. Through a reflection on human history, it is revealed that the origins of social enterprises can be traced back to the classical liberalism era, where various non-profit organizations were established by social entrepreneurs. These organizations evolved in the era of neoliberalism into entities that align with the concept of social enterprises. The examination of CSR begins by defining its scope as “solving existing social problems” and “preventing the creation of new social problems”. Utilizing the historical context of the three-sector framework, this analysis leads to the prevalent expectation in society that business corporations should undertake social responsibility. This article proceeds to explore the relevant literature on CSR and finds that among the four components of the CSR pyramid, social enterprises and ESG are specific practices of philanthropic and ethical responsibilities, respectively. They should inherently be related and positively correlated, albeit with a distinction between endogenous and exogenous aspects. However, through comparative legal research, the article discovers that this positive correlation between the two does not manifest in Taiwan as it does in the United States, leading to different legislative outcomes. Empirical research also shows that while the online search interest for ESG has rapidly increased in both the U.S. and Taiwan over the past six years, the trends in online searches related to social enterprises or charitable donations in Taiwan show different patterns. If social enterprises and ESG are to be considered specific practices of philanthropic and ethical responsibilities within the four components of CSR, and Taiwan cannot achieve an appropriate balance between these mutually complementary responsibilities, it will not be beneficial for Taiwanese society. Based on the above four research methods, the article concludes that the different outcomes in legal frameworks between the U.S. and Taiwan can be attributed to several regional factors. Firstly, in Taiwan, shareholders lack an effective accountability mechanism for executives, resulting in a weaker drive among executives with a social entrepreneurial spirit to push for the legalization of social enterprises. Additionally, the government tends to be conservative due to potential tax revenue sacrifices. Secondly, aligning with the global enthusiasm for ESG investments can invigorate the domestic securities market. Additionally, ESG increases the operating costs for companies, thereby expanding the output of financial and accounting-related industries. Therefore, the government has a stronger legislative incentive. In summary, within an appropriate legal framework, either charitable donations or social enterprises can achieve the same public welfare goals. If Taiwan currently does not require legislation for social enterprises to allow social entrepreneurs to fulfill their endogenous CSR, it might consider the legal ecosystem of the United States in the future. This could involve improving and enhancing the financial transparency, operational diversity, and financial sustainability of charitable organizations. By doing so, companies with a social entrepreneurial spirit can fully collaborate with charitable organizations to satisfy their desire to fulfill CSR and to maximize their collective philanthropic spirit. The article even suggests that the legal enforcement and financial incentives of ESG could be effectively utilized to gradually incorporate some philanthropic responsibility components of CSR. This approach could not only substitute some functions of social enterprises but also enable larger enterprises to exert a positive influence on society and enhance capabilities to solve problems in society.