請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/2361
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 黃銘傑 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yung-Chen Chiang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 江永楨 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-13T06:39:26Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2017-08-24 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-13T06:39:26Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2017-08-24 | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2017-08-14 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文部分
(一)書籍 1. Brad Edmonson(著),翁雅如(譯)(2015)。《別註銷我們財報上的乳牛!:熱血冰淇淋與市場巨人的非典型社企使命戰爭》。台北:大寫出版。 2. John Mackey & Raj Sisodia(著),許瑞宋(譯)(2014)。《品格致勝:以自覺資本主義創造企業的永續及獲利》。台北:天下文化。 3. John Micklethwaite & Adrian Wooldridge(著),夏荷立(譯)(2005)。《公司的歷史》。台北:左岸文化。 4. Michael Kinsley(著),李芳齡(譯)(2009)。《從貪婪到慈悲:啟動金字塔底層的商機》。台北:天下雜誌。 5. Michael Quinn Patton(著),吳芝儀、李奉儒(譯)(2008)。《質性研究與評鑑:下》。嘉義市:濤石文化。 6. Muhammad Yunus(著),李宛蓉(譯)(2011)。《誰說偉大的事都被有錢人做完了!:你可以改變世界,別只是立志賺錢》。台北:大是文化。 7. Robert J. Shiller(著),林麗冠譯(2014)。《金融與美好社會:諾貝爾經濟學家帶你認識公平、效率、創新的金融運作》。台北:天下文化。 8. Ryan Honeyman(著),陳俐雯(譯)(2015)。《B型企業,現在最需要的好公司:想買他們的好東西,還想加入他們一起賺錢!》。台北:商業周刊。 9. 王誠之、戴佑如、高美雯(著),葉秋高、劉康身(編)(2016)。《NGO的治理:現在與未來進行式》。台北:元照。 10. 官有垣、陳錦棠、陸宛蘋、王仕圖(編)(2012)。《社會企業:台灣與香港的比較》。高雄市:巨流。 11. 楊岳平(2011)。《公司治理與公司社會責任:企業併購下股東、債權人、員工、投資人之保護》。台北:元照。 12. 劉子琦(2015)。《英國社會企業之旅:以公民參與實現社會得利的經濟行動》。台北:新自然主義。 13. 劉文良(2014)。《網路行銷:3A時代來臨》。台北:碁峰。 14. 劉連煜、曾宛如、張新平、江朝國(2012)。《當代案例商事法》。台北:新學林。 (二)書之篇章 1. 徐如賓(2012)。〈臺灣包容性成長的發展評估與政策建議〉,收於:行政院經濟建設委員會綜合計劃處編著,《綜合規劃研究(101年)》,頁225-250,台北:經建會。 2. 陳彥良(2016)。〈公司社會責任與永續發展原則之交錯〉,收於:賴英照講座教授七秩華誕祝賀論文集編輯委員會,《當前公司與證券法制新趨勢:賴英照講座教授七秩華誕祝賀論文集》,頁65-88,台北:元照。 3. 陳盈如,(2016)。〈公益公司之董事受託義務-以德拉瓦州公司法為中心〉,收於:賴英照講座教授七秩華誕祝賀論文集編輯委員會,《當前公司與證券法制新趨勢:賴英照講座教授七秩華誕祝賀論文集》,頁89-103,台北:元照。 4. 黃銘傑(2006)。〈公司法制修正之背景因素與基礎理論〉,收於:氏著,《公司治理與企業金融法制之挑戰與興革》,頁5-34,台北:元照。 (三)期刊 1. Heerad Sabeti(2011)。〈不一樣的新企業〉。《哈佛商業評論》,2011年11月號,頁113-118。 2. 王世強(2012)。〈社會企業概念解析〉。《武漢科技大學學報》,第14卷第5期,頁495-500。 3. 王志誠(2006)。〈股東之盈餘分派請求權〉。《月旦法學教室》,第41期,頁26-27。 4. 江朝聖(2015)。〈論社會企業組織法制—以公益公司法為中心〉。《全國律師》,第19卷第9期,頁40-52。 5. 周振鋒(2015)。〈談美國社會企業立法—以公益公司為中心〉。《國立中正大學法學集刊》,第46 期,頁55-108。 6. 易明秋(2013)。〈公司社會責任的實驗品〉。《成大法學》,第26期,頁59-144。 7. 易明秋(2014)。〈美國社會企業法律之創建—制度分析與觀察〉。《非營利組織管理學刊》,第16期,頁80-104。 8. 林江亮、李岫穎、江長賢(2011)。〈非營利組織租稅舞弊之類型與防治〉。《稅務旬刊》,第36卷第2期,頁47-49。 9. 林江亮、張秋桂、黃美玲(2004)。〈非營利組織租稅問題之研究〉。《財稅研究》,第36卷第2期,頁12-25。 10. 林國彬(2013)。〈公司出售或控制權出售時之股東利益最大化原則-論德拉瓦州法院Revlon/QVC Doctrine之適用範圍〉。《臺北大學法學論叢》,第87期,頁119-176。 11. 洪令家(2015)。〈社會企業之治理架構初探:以英美規範為基礎〉。《全國律師》,第19卷第9期,頁62-74。 12. 洪秀芬(2009)。〈德國企業社會責任之理論與實踐〉。《萬國法律》,第164期,頁37-63。 13. 莊永丞(2007)。〈從公司治理觀點論我國上市上櫃公司之慈善捐贈行為〉。《台灣法學雜誌》,第94期,頁110-127。 14. 郭大維(2015)。〈股份有限公司可否發行黃金股?〉。《月旦法學教室》,第150期,頁21-23。 15. 郭大維(2016)。〈從企業社會責任到社會企業-論英國公司型態社會企業法制對我國之啟示〉。《月旦法學雜誌》,第258期,頁5-19。 16. 陳文智(2009)。〈英國企業社會責任之內涵及其演變〉。《萬國法律》。第164期,頁2-11。 17. 陳金貴(2002)。〈非營利組織社會企業化經營探討〉。《新世紀智庫論壇》,第19期,頁31-51。 18. 陳彥良(2008)。〈企業社會責任與公司治理於股份有限公司中交錯實踐之可行性-德國股份法中企業利益對董事職權影響之初探〉。《台灣法學雜誌》,第111期,頁49-72。 19. 陳盈如(2016)。〈社會企業之定義與其對於傳統公司法挑戰之迷思〉。《政大法學評論》,第145期,頁87-145。 20. 陳盈如(2017)。〈美國社會企業立法模式之研究〉。《中正財經法學》,第14期,頁1-46。 21. 曾宛如(2002)。〈公司外部監督之分析〉。《臺大法學論叢》,第31卷第1期,頁147-213。 22. 黃朝琮(2016)。〈受託義務之對象〉。《政大法學評論》,第145期,頁1-85。 23. 黃銘傑(1999)。〈中小企業保護與競爭政策-憲法增修「中小企業保障條款」的問題提起〉。《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,第27卷第3期,頁47-78。 24. 廖大穎(2008)。〈社會公益捐助與公司章程〉。《台灣法學雜誌》。第111期,頁132-138。 25. 劉連煜(2011)。〈公司社會責任、公司治理與年報〉,《月旦法學教室》。第105期,頁20-21。 26. 潘景華(2004)。〈「社會責任型投資」(SRI)在台灣發展之芻議〉。《證券暨期貨月刊》,第22卷第12期,頁23-49。 27. 鄭勝分(2007)。〈社會企業的概念分析〉。《政策研究學報》,第8期,頁65-108。 28. 鄭勝分(2008)。〈社會企業:市場、公共政策與公民社會的交叉點〉。《公共行政學報》,第27期,頁199-206。 29. 盧俊偉(2014)。〈社會企業家政府:公共治理的第四條路初探〉。《國會月刊》,第42卷第4期,頁51-77。 30. 賴英照(2007)。〈公司治理:為誰而治理?為何而治理?〉。《萬國法律》,第155期,頁2-15。 31. 賴英照(2007)。〈從尤努斯到巴菲特-公司社會責任的基本問題〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,第93期,頁156-164。 (四)學位論文 1. 邢瑜(2015)。《台灣社會企業的內涵與範圍圖像建構》。臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系博士論文(未出版),台北。 2. 陳方隅(2012)。《「社會經濟」的在地實踐:論合作經濟與花蓮案例可行性》,國立臺灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文(未出版),台北。 3. 劉容妤(2015)。《社會企業─企業典範轉移之研究》。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),台北。 4. 鄭勝分(2004)。《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系博士論文(未出版),台北。 (五)實務見解(判決) 1. 臺灣高等法院94年度上字第194號民事判決 2. 臺灣高等法院94年度抗字第2125號民事裁定 3. 臺灣高等法院96年度重上字第145號民事判決 4. 臺灣高等法院102年度上訴字第1797號刑事判決 5. 臺北高等行政法院96年度訴字第915號判決 6. 臺灣高等法院台中分院98年度非抗字第156號民事裁定 (六)網路資料及其他 1. 公司法全盤修正修法委員會修法建議,http://scocar.org.tw/pdf/section3.pdf(最後瀏覽日:02/11/2017)。 2. 台灣經濟研究院(2016年12月),〈社會企業特徵與調查〉,發表於:《豐社企–社會企業 攜手共好 三年有成 成果發表會》,經濟部中小企業處(主辦),台北。 3. 余孟勳(2016),〈在針尖上起舞:社會企業的概念與現實〉,NPOst公益交流站,http://npost.tw/archives/27785(最後瀏覽日:06/06/2017)。 4. 高宜凡(2014),〈訂專法救弱勢,沒補助如何撐下去?〉,《遠見雜誌》,第342期,https://www.gvm.com.tw/Boardcontent_26697.html(最後瀏覽日:06/06/2017)。 5. 楊家彥(2016),〈社會影響力投資──社會企業的「階段性共創夥伴」〉, http://opinion.cw.com.tw/blog/profile/382/article/4210(最後瀏覽日:06/08/2017)。 6. 鄭志凱(2013),〈今天我們談影響力,不談ROI〉,http://opinion.cw.com.tw/blog/profile/60/article/804(最後瀏覽日:06/08/2017)。 7. 賴樹立、施淑惠、劉岳屏(2013),〈韓國社會企業政策推動及發展考察報告〉,行政院勞工委員會職業訓練局, http://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/report_detail.jspx?sysId=C10200506(最後瀏覽日:06/06/2017)。 二、英文部分 (一)書之篇章 1. Cafaggi, F. & Iamiceli, P. (2009). New Frontiers in the Legal Structure and Legislation of Social Enterprise in Europe:A Comparative Analysis. In A. Noya (Ed.), The Changing Boundaries of Social Enterprise (pp. 25-88). Paris, France: OECD. 2. Defourny, J. & Hulgård, L. & Pestoff, V. (2014). Introduction to the SE field. In J. Defourny & L. Hulgård & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social Enterprise and the Third Sector: Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Routledge. 3. Defourny, J. (2001). From Third Sector to Social Enterprise. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny(Eds.), The Emergence of Social Enterprise (pp.1-28). London, England: Routledge. 4. Defourny, J. (2014). From Third Sector to Social Enterprise: a European Research Trajectory. In J. Defourny & L. Hulgård & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social Enterprise and the Third Sector: Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective (pp. 17-41). New York, NY: Routledge. (二)期刊 1. Ahdieh, R. B., Law’s Signal: A Cueing Theory of Law in Market Transition, 77 S. CAL. L. REV. 215 (2004). 2. Alexander, M. M., A Comparative Look at International Approaches to Social Enterprise: Public Policy, Investment Structure, and Tax incentives, 7:2WM. & MARY POL'Y REV. 1 (2016). 3. André, R., Assessing the Accountability of the Benefit Corporation: Will This New Gray Sector Organization Enhance Corporate Social Responsibility?, 110 J. BUS. ETHICS 133 (2012). 4. Bainbridge, S. M., Director Primacy: The Means and Ends of Corporate Governance, 97 NW. U. L. REV. 547 (2003). 5. Bishop, C. G., The Low-Profit LLC (L3C): Program Related Investment by Proxy or Perversion?, 63 ARK. L. REV. 243 (2010). 6. Blount, J. & Offei-Danso, K., The Benefit Corporation: A Questionable Solution to a Non-Existent Problem, 44 ST. MARY’S L.J. 617 (2013). 7. Blounta, J. & Nunley, P., Social Enterprise, Corporate Objectives, and the Corporate Governance Narrative, 52 AM. BUS. L.J. 201 (2015). 8. Callison, J. W. & Vestal, A. W., The L3C Illusion: Why Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies Will Not Stimulate Socially Optimal Private Foundation Investment in Entrepreneurial Ventures, 35 VT. L. REV. 273 (2010). 9. Cherry, M. A., The Law and Economics of Corporate Social Responsibility and Greenwashing, 14 U.C. DAVIS BUS. L.J. 281 (2014) 10. Choudhury, B, Serving Two Masters: Incorporating Social Responsibility into the Corporate Paradigm, 11 U. PA. J. BUS. L. 631 (2009). 11. Cummings, B., Benefit Corporations: How to Enforce a Mandate to Promote the Public Interest, 112 COLUM. L. REV. 578 (2012). 12. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M., Social Enterprise in Europe: Recent Trends and Developments, 4 SOCIAL ENTERPRISE JOURNAL 3 (2008). 13. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M., The Breakthrough of Social Enterprise: Conceptual Clarifications, 33 L'OPTION DE CONFRONTATIONS EUROPE 23 (2014). 14. Doeringer, M. F., Fostering Social Enterprise: A Historical and International Analysis, 20 DUKE J. COMP. & INT'L L. 291 (2010). 15. Escobar, J. J. & Gutiérrez, A. C. M., Social economy and the fourth sector, base and protagonist of social innovation, 73 SPECIAL ISSUE 33 (2011). 16. Esposito, R. T., The Social Enterprise Revolution In Corporate Law: A Primer On Emerging Corporate Entities In Europe And The United States And The Case For The Benefit Corporation, 4 WM. & MARY BUS. L. REV. 639 (2013). 17. Hiller, J. S., The Benefit Corporation and Corporate Social Responsibility, 118 J BUS ETHICS 287 (2013). 18. Kerlin, J. A., Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and Learning from the Differences, 17 VOLUNTAS 247 (2006). 19. Khatib, K., The Harms of the Benefit Corporation, 65 AM. U. L. REV. 151 (2015). 20. Kleinberger, D. S., A Myth Deconstructed: The 'Emperor's New Clothes' on the Low-Profit Limited Liability Company, 35 DEL. J. CORP. L. 879 (2010). 21. Lang, R. M. & Carrott, E. M., The L3C, History, Basic Construct, and Legal Framework, 35 VT. L. REV. 15 (2010). 22. Lang, R. M., The L3C: The New Way to Organize Socially Responsible and Mission Driven Organizations, 36 ALI-ABA CONTINUING LEGAL EDUC. 251 (2007). 23. Lloyd, S, Transcript: Creating the CIC, 35 VT. L. REV. 31 (2010). 24. McAdams, R. H., A Focal Point Theory of Expressive Law, 86 VA. L. REV. 1649 (2000). 25. McAdams, R. H., The Origin, Development, and Regulation of Norms, 96 MICH. L. REV. 338 (1997). 26. McDonnell, B., Committing to Doing Good and Doing Well: Fiduciary Duty in Benefit Corporations, 20 FORDHAM J. CORP. FIN. LAW 19 (2014). 27. Millon, D., Radical Shareholder Primacy, 10 U. ST. THOMAS L.J. 1013 (2013). 28. Murray, J. H. & Hwang, E. I., Purpose with Profit: Governance, Enforcement, Capital-Raising and Capital-Locking in Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies, 66 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1 (2011). 29. Murray, J. H., Choose Your Own Master: Social Enterprise, Certifications, and Benefit Corporation Statutes, 2 AM. U. BUS. L. REV. 1 (2012). 30. Murray, J. H., Social Enterprise Innovation: Delaware’s Public Benefit Corporation Law, 4 HARV. BUS. L. REV. 345 (2014). 31. Murray, J. H., The Social Enterprise Law Market, 75 MD. L. REV. 541 (2016). 32. Pearce, J. A. II & Hopkins, J. P., Regulation of L3Cs for Social Entrepreneurship: A Prerequisite to Increased Utilization, 92 NEB. L. REV. 259 (2014). 33. Plerhoples, A. E., Social Enterprise as Commitment: A Roadmap, 48 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'Y 89 (2015). 34. Rana, S., Philanthropic Innovation and Creative Capitalism: A Historical and Comparative Perspective on Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility, 64 ALA. L. REV. 1121 (2013). 35. Reiser, D. B. & Dean, S. A., Hunting Stag with Fly Paper: A Hybrid Financial Instrument for Social Enterprise, 54 B.C. L. REV. 1495 (2013). 36. Reiser, D. B., For-Profit Philanthropy, 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 2437 (2009). 37. Reiser, D. B., Governing and Financing Blended Enterprise, 85 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 619 (2010). 38. Reiser, D. B., Regulating Social Enterprise, 14 U.C. DAVIS BUS. L.J. 231 (2014). 39. Reiser, D. B., Theorizing Forms of Social Enterprise, 62 EMORY L.J. 681 (2013). 40. Robson, R., A New Look at Benefit Corporations: Game Theory and Game Changer, 52 AM. BUS. L.J.501 (2015). 41. Smith, B. R. & Knapp, J. & Barr, T. F. & Stevens, C. E. & Cannatelli, B.L., Social Enterprises and the Timing of Conception: Organizational Identity Tension, Management, and Marketing, 22 J. NONPROFIT & PUB. SECTOR MKTG. 123 (2010). 42. Strine, L. E. Jr. Securing Our Nation’s Economic Future: A Sensible, Nonpartisan Agenda to Increase Long-Term Investment and Job Creation in the United States, 71 BUS. LAW. 1081 (2016). 43. Strine, L. E. Jr., Making It Easier for Directors to “Do the Right Thing”?, 4 HARV. BUS. L. REV. 235 (2014). 44. Strine, L. E. Jr., Our Continuing Struggle with the Idea That For-Profit Corporations Seek Profit, 47 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 135 (2012). 45. Yockey, J. W., Does Social Enterprise Law Matter?, 66 ALA. L. REV. 767 (2015). 46. Yockey, J. W., The Compliance Case for Social Enterprise, 4 MICH. BUS. & ENTREPRENURIAL L. REV. 1 (2014). (四)英文判決 Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984). Dodge v. Ford, 170 N.W. 668 (MI. 1919). eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Newmark, 16 A.3d 1 (Del. Ch. 2010). Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc., 637 A.2d 34 (Del. 1994). Revlon Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986). Unocal v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985). BCE Inc v. 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69, 3 SCR 560 (CanLII). (五)網路資料及其他 1. Advisory panel to mission-led business review, On a Mission in the UK Economy: Current state of play, vision and recommendations from the advisory panel to the Mission-led Business Review 2016 (2016), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/574694/Advisory_Panel_Report_-_Mission-led_Business.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 2. Alissa Pelatan & Roberto Randazzo, The First European Benefit Corporation: blurring the lines between ‘social’ and ‘business’ (2016), available at http://www.bwbllp.com/file/benefit-corporation-article-june-16-pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 3. Andrew J. Hoffman & John R. Ehrenfeld, The Fourth Wave: Management Science and Practice in the Age of the Anthropocene (2014), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2317423 (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 4. Arendt & Medernach, Luxembourg newsflash (Dec. 2016), available at http://www.arendt.com/publications/documents/newsflash/2016.12.15%20-%20luxembourg%20newsflash%20-%20social%20impact%20company.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 5. B Lab, MODEL BENEFIT CORPORATION LEGISLATION With Explanatory Comments (Sep16, 2016), available at http://benefitcorp.net/sites/default/files/Model%20benefit%20corp%20legislation%20_4_17_17.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 6. Big Innovation Centre, The Purposeful Company Interim Report (2016), available at http://www.biginnovationcentre.com/media/uploads/pdf/The%20Purposeful%20Company%20Interim%20Report.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 7. Blueprint for Better Business, Purpose and Performance (Oct. 2015), available at http://www.blueprintforbusiness.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Research-Purpose-and-Performance.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 8. Deloitte, Driving Corporate Growth through Social Impact (2015), available at https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/strategy/us-strategy-operations-social-impact-corporate-archetypes.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 9. Deloitte, The Deloitte Millennial Survey (2013-2017), available at www.deloitte.com/MillennialSurvey (last visited Jun. 9, 2017 ). 10. Department for Business Innovation & Skill, Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies: Leaflets, Information Pack (May 2016), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/605429/13-783-community-interest-companies-information-pack.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 11. Department for Business Innovation & Skills, Companies: Leaflet, Frequently Asked Questions (May 2016), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/605430/13-786-community-interest-companies-frequently-asked-questions.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 12. Department for Business Innovation & Skills, Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies: Information and guidance notes, Chapter 6: The Asset Lock (May 2016), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524154/14-1089-community-interest-companies-chapter-6-the-asset-lock.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 13. Department for Business Innovation & Skills, Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies: Information and guidance notes Chapter 1: Introduction (May 2016), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/588175/cic-12-1333-community-interest-companies-guidance-chapter-1-introduction-Feb-2017.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 14. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, A Guide to Legal Forms for Social Enterprise (2011), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31677/11-1400-guide-legal-forms-for-social-enterprise.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 15. Eun Ae Lee & Young-Sik Kim, Social Economy and Public Policy Development: A South Korean Case (2013), available at http://www.reliess.org/centredoc/upload/SocialEconomy_KoreanCaseStudy_FinalRevision_201309_.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 16. European Commission, A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe (2015), available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=12987&langId=en (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 17. European Commission, Social Business Initiative: Creating a Favourable Climate for Social Enterprises, Key Stakeholders in the Social Economy and Innovation (2011), available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/docs/COM2011_682_en.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 18. European Commission, Social enterprises and their eco-systems: A European mapping report, Updated country report: Italy (2016), available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=en&newsId=2649&moreDocuments=yes&tableName=news (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 19. European Commission, Social Enterprises and their Eco-systems: A European mapping report Updated country report: France (2016), available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=en&newsId=2649&moreDocuments=yes&tableName=news (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 20. European Social Enterprise Law Association, Social Enterprise in Europe Developing Legal Systems which Support Social Enterprise Growth( Oct. 2015), available at http://esela.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/legal_mapping_publication_051015_web.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 21. European Venture Philanthropy Association, A Practical Guide to Venture Philanthropy and Social Impact Investment (Jan. 2016), available at http://www.canopusfund.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Documents/A-Practical-Guide-to-VP-and-SI-29.01.2016.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 22. Heerad Sabeti, The Emerging Fourth Sector (2009), available at https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/4th%20sector%20paper%20-%20exec%20summary%20FINAL.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 23. J. Haskell Murray, Corporate Forms of Social Enterprise: Comparing the State Statutes (Jan. 15, 2015), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1988556 (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 24. Jacques Defourny & Marthe Nyssens, The EMES Approach of Social Enterprise in a Comparative Perspective (2012), available at http://hdl.handle.net/2078/114773 (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 25. Kim Alter, Social Enterprise Typology (2014) , available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/32431718/SE_typology.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1486740549&Signature=BGawMaH6MLkhWDtc37r%2BXN8Wp30%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DSocial_Enterprise_Typology_Updated_Novem.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 26. Legislation.gov.uk, Explanatory Memorandum to The Community Interest Company Regulations 2005 (2005 No.1788), available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1788/memorandum/contents (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 27. Luther S.A., Luxembourg Newsletter Q2 (2015), available at http://www.luther-lawfirm.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Newsletter/Luxembourg/Newsletter_Luxembourg_Q2-2015.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 28. Marco Mazzeschi & Giuditta De Ricco, The Italian benefit corporation: to profit and …. beyond! (Feb. 21, 2017), LAWYERSISSUE, available at http://www.lawyerissue.com/italian-benefit-corporation-profit-beyond (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 29. Mark A. Underberg, Benefit Corporations vs. 'Regular' Corporations: A Harmful Dichotomy, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL FORUM ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL REGULATION BLOG (May 13, 2012), http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/05/13/benefit-corporations-vs-regular-corporations-a-harmful-dichotomy (last visited Jun. 5, 2017). 30. Mission Alignment Working Group, Social Impact Investment Taskforce established under the UK's Presidency of the G8, Profit-with-Purpose Businesses, (Sep. 2014), available at http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/reports/Mission%20Alignment%20WG%20paper%20FINAL.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 31. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, The Social Enterprise Sector: A Conceptual Framework (2012), available at http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/37753595.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 32. Remus Valsan, The Legacy of B Lab: Italy’s Società Benefit (Mar. 31, 2017), EDINBURGH CENTRE FOR COMMERCIAL LAW BLOG, available at http://www.ecclblog.law.ed.ac.uk/2017/03/31/the-legacy-of-b-lab-italys-societa-benefit/ (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 33. Robert Lang, The L3C - Background & Legislative Issues-A New Way to Organize Social Enterprise (2009-2013), available at https://www.americansforcommunitydevelopment.org/downloads/The%20L3C%20Law%20-%20Background%20&%20Legislative%20Issuesrev01-13.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 34. SEUK, Social Enterprise UK Impact Report 2015/2016, available at https://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=aca6521d-bb53-4ee9-9f3e-f53c6ad2caa7 (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 35. Social Enterprise London, Social co-operatives in Italy: Lessons for the UK (2002), available at http://socialeconomyaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SocialCooperativesInItaly.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 36. Social Enterprise Mark, Social Enterprise Mark- Eligibility Criteria, available at http://www.socialenterprisemark.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SEM-Qualification-criteria-May-16.pdf (last visited Feb. 10, 2017). 37. Social Enterprise UK, What makes a social enterprise a social enterprise? (2012), available at http://www.employeeownership.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Social-enterprise-what-makes-a-social-enterprise-a-social-enterprise.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 38. Social Impact Investment Taskforce, Impact investment: The invisible heart of markets (Sep. 2014), available at http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/reports/Impact%20Investment%20Report%20FINAL[3].pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 39. Social Impact Investment Taskforce, TASKFORCE CALLS FOR ACTION TO UNLEASH $1 TRILLION IN SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT (Sep. 15, 2014), available at http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/reports/SIITF%20Report%20Press%20Notice%20Final.docx (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 40. Soo Hyun Ahn (May 2017), Social Enterprises and Social Capital Market in Korea : Toward Creative Capitalism , in Wen-Yeu Wang (chair), International Symposium on Social Enterprise and the Legal System, symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Taiwan University, Taipei . 41. The Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies, Annual Report 2015/2016, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/538040/cic-16-3-community-interest-companies-annual-report-2015-2016.pdf (last visited Jun. 6, 2017 ). 42. Tomorrow’s Company, UK Business: What’s Wrong? What’s Next? (2016), available at http://tomorrowscompany.com/publication/uk-business-whats-wrong-whats-next/ (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 43. William H. Clark & Larry Vranka, White Paper: The Need and Rationale for the Benefit Corporation: Why It Is the Legal Form That Best Addresses the Needs of Social Entrepreneurs, Investors, and, Ultimately, the Public (Jan. 18, 2013), available at http://benefitcorp.net/sites/default/files/Benefit_Corporation_White_Paper.pdf (last visited Jul. 16, 2017). 44. William H. Clark (Jul. 2016), An Introduction to Benefit Corporation Legislation, Symposium on Benefit Corporation Legislation, symposium conducted at the meeting of the Asia Pacific B Corp Association, Taipei. 45. Young-Chool Choi & Ji-Hyun Jang, Analysis of Current Conditions Facing Social Enterprises in Korea: Policy Issues Regarding Their Sustainable Development (Mar. 2014), available at http://thejournalofbusiness.org/index.php/site/article/viewFile/460/349 (last visited Jul. 6, 2017). | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/2361 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 對於如何處理棘手的社會問題,世界正面臨著一場革命。能夠驅動這場革命的力量是「影響力投資」,它擁有巨大的潛力去解決社會和環境問題,駕馭創業、創新、資本和市場的力量以帶來福祉、並驅動社會進步,它帶來了市場無形的核心來指導其看不見的手。對應於影響力投資者,乃是影響力光譜上的影響力驅動組織,這種混合營利與社會目的之混合價值組織,一般被統稱為「社會企業」。
本文從頭探索、辨析社會企業概念,認為其應為光譜性之概念。並且,相較於傳統「為社會目的而營利」,須解決特定社會問題且具備資產鎖定機制的社會企業,另外一種「於營運中伴隨社會目的」之使命導向營利企業/兼益企業正在興起,其與社會企業概念略有交疊,得以並稱為「社會使命型企業」,同為影響力光譜上構成員。 又,歐陸的社會企業概念較為狹隘,乃是在第三部門/社會部門中位於非營利組織與合作社組織交叉點而生的企業動力,其立法亦偏向非營利組織之管制型立法,並常配套政府政策支持,例如英國之社區利益公司立法即是;而美國的社會企業概念較為廣義,且偏向定位於市場經濟脈絡下,著重社會創新,指涉所有「以使命為導向的商業模式」,立法上則以營利公司的改革為主,較為彈性且不配套政府政策支持。兩種概念與立法,乃位於影響力光譜上的不同端點,互不矛盾,相輔相成。 更應注意者係,歐陸與美國改革之起點不同,乃源於其歷史文化及經濟背景之差異。美國採取「股東資本主義」,認為公司為股東存在,重視者乃是股東之利益,因此需公司法之改革以將社會性深植於公司中;歐陸則具有深遠的社會團結傳統,採取「利害關係人資本主義」,認為公司為服務社會而存在,社會性質深植於公司中,因此改革公司法之動力並不顯著,自然以第三部門之商業化改革為始。 我國若欲鼓勵混合價值組織,以駕馭商業與資本的力量解決社會問題,仍應以營利組織基本法-公司法之改革為始。因我國並無歐陸社會經濟之相關歷史脈絡,反而近似美國之股東資本主義,認為公司為營利而存在,因而需要公司法之改革。況且,與其以全面性的作用法定義社會企業、限制市場進入及抑制創新,不如創造市場,建立新型態之社會使命型公司-共益公司,賦予社會使命型企業組織法上的位格與選項,將社會承諾收斂於組織運作中,以博取公眾的信賴,為社會企業以及所有混合價值組織開闢自由發展、媒合與競爭的場域。並得以進而將社會性注入公司的基因序列中,期許未來所有的公司,除追求獲利之外,亦能以社會為念,平衡股東與利害關係人之福祉,找回公司的靈魂,構成公司法上的典範轉移。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The world is on the brink of a revolution in how we solve society’s toughest problems. The force capable of driving this revolution is “social impact investing”. It not only has massive potential in solving social and environmental problems, but also harnesses the forces of entrepreneurship, innovation and capital and the power of markets to bring benefit and power social improvement. Moreover, it brings the invisible heart of markets to guide their invisible hand. Corresponding to social impact investing, the impact-driven organizations, as hybrid entities which are run with profit motivation and social purpose simultaneously, are generally called “social enterprises.”
The first part of this article reviews and analyses the concept of social enterprise from its origin, and regards it as a spectrum. Social enterprise, traditionally, “earns profit for social purposes”. It deals with particular social problems and has asset locking mechanism. However, a new business concept called “mission-led for-profit business”, or “profit-with-purpose business”, is on the rise. It aims at “working with and alongside the social purposes”, and is different from traditional social enterprise. Whereas, these two concepts have some overlaps; thus they are both on the impact continuum. As a result, they are collectively known as “social mission businesses”. This article then finds that the concept of social enterprise in Europe is narrower than the one in the United States. The social enterprise in Europe which belongs to the third sector (social sector) is an entrepreneurial dynamic that drives from the crossroads between the non-profit and cooperative organizations. The legislations in Europe tend to impose strict rules for restricting social enterprises and have governmental policy supports. This structure of regulations resembles that of the non-profit organizations. For example, the Community Interest Company in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the concept of social enterprise is broader in the United States, under the context of market economy, and focus on social innovation. It includes all “commercial mode with social mission.” The legislations in the United States are more flexible and emphasize on the reformation of the corporation. There is no governmental support, unlike the case in Europe. These two models of social enterprise and legislations are on the opposite ends of the impact continuum. They complement each other rather than conflict with each other. Moreover, because of the difference in history, cultural background and economic context, the European countries and the United States take action from the two ends of the impact continuum. The U.S. believes in “stockholder capitalism”, emphasizing the goal of a company is for the stockholders’ interests and benefits. Hence, the Americans start the reform of the corporate law to embody sociality in the structure of corporations. On the contrary, the European countries believe in “stakeholder capitalism”, considering that a company is pursuing the benefit of the society as a whole. Therefore, companies in Europe care more about stakeholders. To those European countries, it is more essential to start the reform from the commercialization of the third sector organization, rather than from the company law. Finally, this article suggests that if we want to encourage people to establish social mission enterprise and solve social problems by commercial and capital power, we could begin with the reformation of the Company Act. Since our social and economic background is significantly different from Europe and is more similar to American stockholder capitalism, it is more important for us to focus on reform the corporate law first. We should not enact a comprehensive “social enterprise legislation” to define and regulate social enterprise, which limits the entrance of market and suppresses innovation. Instead, we would be better off by creating market and encouraging establishment of social mission corporations, i.e. benefit corporations. Establishing benefit corporation legislation will give social entrepreneurs a new option in social mission business, bring social commitment in business and gain public confidence. In addition to creating a free market for social enterprise and hybrid organization, it embeds sustainable social mission into the DNA of corporation. It inspires all of the corporations to pay more attention to the public welfare when pursuing profit, to balance the interests between shareholders and stakeholders and eventually leads to a paradigm shift in the corporate law. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-13T06:39:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R02a21101-1.pdf: 5344088 bytes, checksum: 985cdb63663701148252e8955fd1ceed (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄 xi
圖目錄 xv 表目錄 xv 詳目 ix 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究方法 3 第三節 研究目的 3 第四節 研究範圍與架構 4 第五節 名詞對照與解釋 5 第一項 社會企業或社會事業 5 第二項 混合價值組織、影響力驅動組織、社會使命組織、福祉組織以及三重基線 6 第三項 社會使命型企業 6 第四項 社會責任企業、使命導向(營利)企業、兼益企業、影響力驅動企業 7 第五項 社會部門或第三部門 7 第二章 解構社會企業光譜 9 第一節 社會企業概念的世界地貌 9 第一項 社會企業的起源 9 第二項 社會企業的概念內涵 17 第三項 社會企業的定位 33 第二節 使命導向企業的興起 43 第一項 全新商業模式的出現 43 第二項 八大工業國報告 46 第三項 英國之「使命導向的商業運動」 57 第三節 本章結論:社會企業概念的匯流,再訪社會企業光譜 61 第三章 國際社會企業立法趨勢與比較法研究-法制框架鳥瞰與社會部門下之立法 65 第一節 世界社會企業立法圖像 65 第二節 法制框架鳥瞰 68 第一項 現行法制之難題 68 第二項 建議內容 72 第三項 建構步驟 84 第四項 小結 86 第三節 社會部門下之社會企業立法 90 第一項 前言 90 第二項 合作社型立法 91 第三項 認證型立法 94 第四項 公司型立法 101 第五項 小結 114 第四章 國際社會企業立法趨勢與比較法研究-市場部門下之立法 119 第一節 市場部門下之社會企業相關立法 119 第一項 美國社會企業立法之背景:從企業社會責任到社會企業 120 第二項 低獲利有限責任公司 123 第三項 公益公司 128 第四項 社會目的公司 173 第五項 小結 178 第二節 比較法結論 181 第五章 台灣社會使命型企業修法建議芻議 185 第一節 台灣社會企業概念 185 第一項 歷史與概況 185 第二項 定義 189 第三項 小結:台灣社會企業概念應如何「接地氣」 192 第二節 台灣發展社會使命型企業之法制障礙與草案評析 195 第一項 現有組織法制障礙 195 第二項 過往草案與修法建議評析 202 第三節 我國法制建議 216 第一項 建構適合社會企業發展之法制結構-以組織法為核心 216 第二項 公司法第1條及第23條之放寬 219 第三項 我國社會使命型公司立法必要性探討 221 第四項 社會使命型公司修法內容建議 225 第四節 台灣社會使命型企業整體發展之展望 238 第六章 結論 241 參考文獻 247 附錄 265 附錄一:本文圖表彙整 265 圖一:歐盟社會企業概念的三面向 265 圖二:歐洲的福利組合圖 265 圖三:社會企業位於合作社和非營利部門的交界處 266 圖四:私部門邊界的模糊 266 圖五:政府和社會部門邊界的模糊 267 圖六:組織圖像的改變-第四部門的興起 268 圖七:影響力光譜 269 圖八:兼益企業要素 269 圖九:社會使命組織之型態 270 圖十:再訪社會企業光譜 270 圖十一:混合價值組織光譜 271 圖十二:社會使命型企業 271 圖十三:台灣影響力光譜理想圖 272 圖十四:台灣社會使命型企業整體發展展望 272 表一:社會企業光譜 273 表二:狹義與廣義的社會企業範圍 273 表三:影響力投資生態系統 274 表四:兼益企業之效益分析 275 表五:世界社會企業立法圖像 276 表六:韓國社會企業認證標準 277 表七:社會企業相關立法歸類 279 附錄二:公益公司法草案 280 附錄三:公司法修正草案(103年賴士葆委員等提案) 290 附錄四:共益公司法草案 296 附錄五:公司法全盤修正修法委員會建議 301 壹、公司法全盤修正修法委員會修法建議 301 貳、公司法全盤修正修法委員會有關媒體報導的進一步說明與澄清 317 參、公司法全盤修正修法委員會建議條文 323 附錄六:公司法修正草案(106年5月經濟部版本) 327 附錄七:社會企業發展條例草案 329 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 從營利到共益的公司法典範轉移-建構適合社會企業發展之法制 | zh_TW |
dc.title | From Profit to Benefit:A Paradigm Shift in Corporate Law, Developing Legal Systems Which Support Social Enterprise Growth | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 105-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 方元沂,朱德芳 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 社會企業,兼益公司,公益公司,共益公司,企業社會責任,社會使命型企業,股東利益最大化原則, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | social enterprise,profit-with-purpose business,benefit corporation,social mission business,CSR,shareholder value maximization, | en |
dc.relation.page | 336 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201702919 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2017-08-14 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-106-1.pdf | 5.22 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。