社會企業的經營挑戰與因應：比較個案研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探討社會企業如何管理商業營利與社會使命之間的制度邏輯衝突，以及組織韌性的建構與演化，以補足過往研究的不足。社會企業需同時兼顧商業與公益的雙重目標，這種內在張力如何治理，攸關其能否永續經營，具有深刻的理論與實務意涵。本研究以「八百金」、「甘樂文創」及「木酢達人」三家社會企業為案例，採用制度邏輯與組織韌性理論，探究不同階段的挑戰、策略及韌性展現。以質性研究的跨個案研究法，透過半結構式訪談、次級資料蒐集及主題分析（融入敘事分析），比較三家企業的治理策略與韌性來源。研究目的包括：（1）探索社會企業在生命週期中的挑戰與因應策略；（2）分析混合型組織如何治理制度邏輯衝突；（3）探討組織韌性如何透過變革與合作實現使命與經濟平衡。研究發現，社會企業的挑戰與策略隨生命週期呈現階段性演化，從生存正當性、內部系統化到制度倡議。三個個案分別採「策略性融合」、「策略性區隔」及「策略性並存」治理衝突，皆能有效駕馭張力。研究歸納出五項通則：（1）創辦人敘事乃韌性的基石；（2）制度邏輯衝突隨階段演化；（3）韌性透過「感知、掌握、轉化」持續發展；（4）社會資本有助於克服資源限制；（5）治理策略採權變組合。研究解釋了社會企業如何透過治理制度邏輯衝突以建構組織韌性，豐富了制度邏輯框架及組織韌性理論。揭示創辦人敘事如何從個人層次擴展至產業，並將制度邏輯與韌性理論橋接，提出「制度張力—治理手段—韌性階段」的演化鏈結，也為社會企業家、政策制定者及投資者提供決策參考。透過臺灣本土案例，本文不僅深化在地實踐理解，也為全球社會創業研究提供新的視角。This study aims to examine how social enterprises manage the institutional-logic tensions between profit-seeking and social mission, and how they construct and evolve organizational resilience, thereby addressing a significant gap in the literature. Because social enterprises must simultaneously pursue commercial viability and social impact, the way they govern this inherent tension is critical to their long-term sustainability, carrying profound theoretical and practical implications.Using three Taiwanese social ventures—“八百金,”“甘樂文創,”and“木酢達人”—as cases, the study draws on institutional-logic and organizational-resilience theories to investigate stage-specific challenges, strategies, and manifestations of resilience. A qualitative, cross-case design was employed, collecting data through semi-structured interviews, secondary sources, and thematic analysis enriched with narrative techniques. The research objectives are threefold: (1) to explore the challenges and coping strategies across the organizational life cycle; (2) to analyze how hybrid organizations govern institutional-logic conflicts; and (3) to examine how organizational resilience enables the balancing of mission and economic objectives through transformation and collaboration.The findings reveal that both challenges and strategies evolve in distinct life-cycle stages—from legitimacy building and internal systematization to institutional advocacy. The three cases deploy “strategic integration,” “strategic differentiation,” and “strategic coexistence,” respectively, to effectively navigate tensions. Five universal principles are distilled: (1) founders’ narratives serve as the bedrock of resilience; (2) institutional-logic conflicts evolve with life-cycle stages; (3) resilience develops continuously via “sensing, seizing, and transforming”; (4) social capital mitigates resource constraints; and (5) governance strategies employ contingent combinations.By explaining how social enterprises build organizational resilience through governing institutional-logic conflicts, this study extends the institutional-logic framework and enriches organizational-resilience theory. It reveals how founders’ narratives scale from the individual to the industry level, and it bridges institutional-logic and resilience perspectives by proposing an evolution chain of “institutional tension–governance mechanism–resilience stage.” The study also offers actionable insights for social entrepreneurs, policymakers, and investors. Through Taiwanese cases, it not only deepens local understanding but also provides a fresh, non-linear life-cycle governance lens for global social-entrepreneurship research.