跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.211.34.178) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/11/15 11:26
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:尤昱婷
研究生(外文):Yu-Ting Yu
論文名稱:公司型社會企業中資訊揭露與認證制度之初探
論文名稱(外文):An Exploratory Study on Information Disclosure and Certification of Profit-With-Purpose Corporations
指導教授:蔡英欣蔡英欣引用關係
口試委員:邵慶平方元沂
口試日期:2018-05-29
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:法律學研究所
學門:法律學門
學類:一般法律學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2019
畢業學年度:107
語文別:中文
論文頁數:159
中文關鍵詞:社會企業兼益公司共益公司資訊揭露第三方標準認證B型企業
DOI:10.6342/NTU201900137
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:256
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
  社會企業這個名詞在我國已風行許久,實務上人們以不同組織型態的社會企業實踐其社會理念,也累積了許多相關的學術論文,然而實務的運作與學術的討論似乎遠遠趕在立法之前,我國至今仍未制定適宜的法規範,使得具有社會使命的公司缺乏一個法位格,「社會企業」一詞甚至逐漸氾濫,消費者們無法分辨此些企業是否確實實踐其宣稱的社會、環保理念,法規上缺乏對於資訊揭露的最低要求。本論文研究對象聚焦於公司型社會企業,並著重探討其資訊揭露規範與認證制度。
  本論文從現況我國已制定的法律與立法建議出發,檢視是否對於現行的公司型社會企業有良好的規範,再整理出英國、美國、比利時及南韓對於公司型社會企業的法規範,以及資訊揭露的相關規定,分析其優劣,並選取代表性的民間第三方標準、認證制度,比較不同類型的公司適合的不同標準或認證制度為何,最後,於結論處提出本論文的立法架構與細節立法建議。
  在第三章部分,上述四個國家的法規範,雖然規範密度有高低之差,然而,均至少要求公司型社會企業每一年或每兩年應繳交公益報告書,內容上至少應揭露公司如何實踐社會目標、具體公益作為。另外,有些法制也要求公司應更詳盡地揭露股東姓名、董事報酬或公益報告選擇參照第三方標準的理由等其他細節項目。本論文從中整理出揭露事項外,亦探討四個國家的實行成效,從中擷取值得我國借鏡之優、缺點。
  在第四、五章部分,本文選取了具有代表性的第三方標準與認證制度,包括著名的GRI、ISO 26000、B Lab等內容,介紹其發展背景與各個第三方標準要求公司應揭露的資訊項目,並配合近年公司法修法趨勢的大、小分流原則,整理出大、小不同規模或產業的公司各自適合適用的第三方標準,並評析認證制度在我國的實踐,並在第六章處,綜合各章內容列出本論文的立法建議,包括修法的態度、立法的架構以及新法新章節中的細節性內容建議。
  The term “Social Enterprise” has been in vogue in Taiwan recently. In practice, people organize different types of social enterprises in order to improve social well-being, and related academic papers has also accumulated. However, the progress of legislation seems to be slower than the development of social enterprises in practice and that of academic works. In Taiwan, we have not made appropriate laws for profit-with-purpose corporations, a type of social enterprise, and this leads to the result that they lack legitimacy under the present law. The term “Social Enterprise” is even abused, making customers unable to examine whether a social enterprise really practices social and environmental goodwill. There are also no rules requesting transparency of social enterprises. Therefore, this thesis focuses on profit-with-purpose corporations, and mainly researches on the systems of information disclosure and certification.
  This thesis proceeds from the present norms and legislation suggestions in Taiwan, trying to examine whether there are tailored regulations for profit-with-purpose corporations. After that, this thesis collects norms of social enterprises and transparency requirements of the United Kingdom, the United States, Belgium, and South Korea, and analyses their pros and cons. Furthermore, this thesis chooses representative third-parties’ and certifying bodies’ standards for benefit corporations, a type of profit-with-purpose corporations in the United States, to find out tailored standard for corporations with different scales and social performances. At last, the conclusion addresses the suggestions on the framework and the details of the legislation in Taiwan.
  In Chapter 3, this thesis concludes that although the density of standards is different among the four countries mentioned above, the essential requirement is to deliver benefit report once a year or every two years. A profit-with-purpose corporation shall reveal, at least, the ways in which it pursues public benefits and the overall social and/or environmental performances. In addition, there are also some legislations that require corporations to reveal other detailed contents, such as the names of shareholders, compensation for the Board of Directors, and even the reasons on referring to specific third-party standard to prepare the benefit report. This thesis not only addresses the contents that a profit-with-purpose corporation should disclose to the public, but also examines the practical effects of rules in the countries listed above, and analyses the pros and cons that are worth noted for Taiwan.
  In Chapter 4 and 5, this thesis selects representative third-parties’ and certifying bodies’ standards, including GRI, ISO26000, and B Lab, and introduces their backgrounds and the items therein. Along with the trend of categorizing rules for companies with different scales in Taiwan Company Law, these two chapters try to find out a suitable standard body and its transparency requirements for each profit-with-purpose corporation. Chapter 5 also analyses the possible advantages and worries if Taiwanese enterprises become certified B Corps of B Lab. Chapter 6 deals with suggestions for Taiwan legislation. It summarizes the above chapters and comes up with the proper attitude toward new regulations in the future. In conclusion, this thesis proposes the framework and the detailed contents of legislations regulating profit-with-purpose corporations under new Taiwan Company Law.
目錄 viii
表目錄 xi
圖目錄 xii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節、研究動機 1
第二節、研究範圍 1
第三節、研究方法 2
第四節、研究目標與預期結果 2
第二章、資訊揭露必要性與我國現況分析 4
第一節、前言 4
第二節、資訊揭露之必要性 4
第三節、我國法規現況分析 6
第一項、上市上櫃公司 7
第二項、社會行動方案 7
第三項、公益公司法草案 8
第四項、公司法全盤修正委員會 13
第五項、社會企業發展條例草案 16
第六項、公司法部分條文修正草案 17
第一目、兼益公司專節 18
第二目、共益公司專章 19
第三目、公司法部分條文修正草案 20
第七項、小結 24
第三章、各國公司型社會企業立法與資訊揭露規範要求 25
第一節、組織型立法 25
第一項、英國 25
第一目、英國社區利益公司立法簡介 25
第二目、英國CIC資訊揭露之相關法規範 27
第三目、CIC之登記審核 32
第四目、小結 35
第二項、美國 36
第一目、美國社會企業組織立法簡介 36
第二目、美國共益公司資訊揭露之相關法規範 38
第三目、小結 52
第二節、認證型立法 53
第一項、 比利時 53
第一目、比利時社會企業組織立法簡介 53
第二目、SFS及比利時相關的資訊揭露要求 55
第三目、小結 57
第二項、南韓 59
第一目、南韓社會企業促進法與認證要件 59
第二目、南韓社會企業之資訊揭露要求 67
第三目、小結 68
第三節、各國資訊揭露法規範之比較 70
第四章、第三方標準之定義與類型 73
第一節、第三方標準之定義與性質 73
第二節、第三方標準之要件 76
第三節、第三方標準之類型與評估項目 79
第四節、小結 102
第五章、認證制度-以英美為例 106
第一節、社會企業標章(Social Enterprise Mark) 106
第二節、社會企業徽章(Social Enterprise Badge) 114
第一項、背景 114
第二項、認證目的 114
第三項、類別 115
第三節、B Corp 117
第四節、社會企業認證在我國的實踐代小結 126
第六章、我國立法建議與結論 128
參考文獻 136
附錄、美國各州對共益公司資訊透明規定之內容 145
一、中文部分
(一)書籍
1.Michael E. Porter著(2001)。高登第、李明軒譯。《競爭論》,初版,台北:天下遠見。
2.社企流(2014)。《社企力:社會企業=翻轉世界的變革力量。用愛創業,做好事又能獲利》,初版。台北:果力文化。
3.劉子琦(2012)。《英國社會企業之旅-以公民參與實現社會得利的經濟行動》,初版。台北:新自然主義。

(二)期刊
1.方元沂、江永楨(2017)。〈社會使命型企業-社會企業概念分析及修法芻議〉,《華岡法粹》,第63期,頁67-129。
2.王文宇(2016)。〈從商法特色論民商合一制度〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第251期,頁85-103。
3.王世強(2012)。〈英國社會企業認證的經驗與啟示〉,《河南廣播電視大學學報》,第25卷第3期。
4.李宜樺、吳佳餘、杜育任(2016)。〈讓改變被發現,讓影響被看見,計算社會投資報酬六步驟〉,《資誠企業永續發展新訊》,頁1-4。
5.易明秋(2013)。〈公司社會責任的實驗品-美國社會企業制度〉,《成大法學》,第26期,頁59-144。
6.林盟翔(2017)。〈「B型企業」之法制構造與爭議研析〉,《南臺財經法學》,第三期,頁49-120。
7.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。
8.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。
9.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。
10.陳科里(2014)。〈GRI G4正體中文版發表會特別報導〉,《證券服務》,626期,頁23-26。
11.陳麗娟(2016)。〈EU公司治理下企業社會責任之研究〉,《月旦財經法學雜誌》,第39期,頁45-72。
12.蔡嘉昇(2014)。〈從國外立法看臺灣社會企業之法制發展〉,《會計研究月刊》,第348期,頁74-79。
13.鄭勝分(2017)。〈我國社會企業認證之方式與指標〉,《國土及公共治理》,第1期,頁26-35。

(三)學位論文
1.江永楨(2017)。《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》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),台北。
2.許哲瑋(2015)。《我國社會企業法制環境之研究-以「社會企業行動方案」為中心》,國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文(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。

(四)網路資料及其他
1.中華民國企業永續發展協會(2014),GRI G4永續性報告指南-報告原則與標準揭露,正體中文版, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Chinese-Traditional-G4-Part-One.pdf(最後瀏覽日:05/19/2018)。
2.中華民國企業永續發展協會(2014),GRI G4永續性報告指南-實施手冊,正體中文版, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Chinese-Traditional-G4-Part-Two.pdf(最後瀏覽日:05/19/2018)。
3.公司法全盤修正委員會修法建議,http://www.scocar.org.tw/pdf/section3.pdf(最後瀏覽日:05/21/2018)。
4.公司法全盤修正重要議題研討會會議手冊,2018年3月14日。
5.李昭安(2017),〈「逾半淨利要投入社會實踐」-綠委一部專法引爆社企圈論戰〉,《上報》, https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=23172(最後瀏覽日:01/09/2019)。
6.林珮萱(2017),〈台灣20家B型企業或認證榮登亞洲第一〉,《遠見雜誌》,2017年10月號,https://www.gvm.com.tw/article.html?id=40287(最後瀏覽日:05/21/2018)。
7.高宜凡(2014),〈韓國的社企經驗-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/article.html?id=19883(最後瀏覽日:05/21/2018)。
8.彭子珊(2016),〈SROI算出你的愛心值多少〉,《天下雜誌》,第604期,https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/38444(最後瀏覽日:05/21/2018)。
9.經濟部,公司法社企諮詢會議線上紀錄,http://sayit.archive.tw/2017-03-02-%E5%85%AC%E5%8F%B8%E6%B3%95%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%81%E8%AB%AE%E8%A9%A2%E6%9C%83%E8%AD%B0(最後瀏覽日:01/09/2019)。
10.經濟部,社會企業行動方案(民國103-105年)(核定本),https://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/RelFile/26/716149/8d8b6be7-0e21-4a37-9c72-871e28b325d2.pdf(最後瀏覽日:05/21/2018)。
11.蔡淑芬(2017),〈SROI 解碼公益投資價值〉,《中時電子報/工商時報》,http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20170213000108-260210(最後瀏覽日:05/21/2018)。
12.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,https://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/PageSystem/reportFileDownload/C10200506/001(最後瀏覽日:05/21/2018)。
13.顏和正(2018),〈全球第一家B型企業認證的銀行/副董驅邪/員工放感心假〉,《天下雜誌》,https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/40208(最後瀏覽日:05/21/2018)。
二、英文部分
(一)書籍
1.Dana Brakman Reiser & Steven A. Dean, (2017). Social Enterprise Law: Trust, Public Benefit, and Capital Markets, Oxford University Press.
2.OECD, (1999). Social Enterprises, OECD Publishing.

(二)書之篇章
1.Argyrou A., Lambooy T.E., Blomme R.J., Kievit H., Kruseman G.N., Siccama D.H. (2016). An Empirical Investigation of Supportive Legal Frameworks for Social Enterprises in Belgium: A Cross-Sectoral Comparison of Case Studies Concerning Social Enterprises in the Social Housing, Finance and Energy Sector. In Volker Mauerhofer (ed.), Legal Aspects of Sustainable Development (pp. 159-161). Switzerland: Springer, Cham.

(三)期刊
1.Christen Clarke, California''s Flexible Purpose Corporation: A Step Forward, a Step Back, or No Step at All?, 5 J. BUS. ENTREPRENEURSHIP & L. 301, (2012).
2.Dana B. Reiser, Governing and Financing Blended Enterprise, 85 CHI.-KENT. L. REV. 619 (2010).
3.Dana B. Reiser, Theorizing Forms for Social Enterprise, 62 EMORY L.J. 681 (2013).
4.Dana Brakman Reiser, The Next Big Thing: Flexible Purpose Corporations, 2 AM. U. BUS. L. REV. 55 (2012).
5.Elisabeth de Fontenay, Do the Securities Laws Matter? The Rise of the Leveraged Loan Market, 39 J. CORP. L. 725 (2014).
6.Felicia R. Resor, Benefit Corporation Legislation, 12 WYO. L. REV. 91 (2012).
7.Hiller, J.S., The Benefit Corporation and Corporate Social Responsibility, 118 J. BUS. ETHICS 287 (2013).
8.Jacques Defourny, Marthe Nyssens, Social enterprise in Europe: recent trends and developments, 4 SOCIAL ENTERPRISE JOURNAL 202 (2008).
9.Matthew F. Doeringer, Fostering Social Enterprise: A Historical and International Analysis, 20 DUKE J. COMP. & INT''L L. 291 (2010).
10.Michelle Cho, Benefit Corporations in the United States and Community Interest Companies in the United Kingdom: Does Social Enterprise Actually Work?, 37 NW. J. INT''L L. & BUS. 149 (2017).
11.Miriam A. Cherry & Judd F. Sneirson, Beyond Profit: Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility and Greenwashing After the BP Oil Disaster, 85 TUL. L. REV. 984 (2011).
12.Murray, J. Haskell, Choose your Own Master: Social Enterprise, Certifications, and Benefit Corporation Statutes, 2 AM. U. BUS. L. REV. 1 (2012).
13.Robert T. Esposito, 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).
14.Schorr Jim, Social Enterprise 2.0-moving toward a sustainable model, STAN. SOC. INNOVATION REV., Summer 2006, 12 (2006).
15.Shiva Mirzanian, Washington''s Social Purpose Corporation: Creating Accountability for Corporations or Simply Providing a Halo to Undeserving Corporations?, 5 SEATTLE J. ENVTL. L. 255 (2015).
16.Steven J. Haymore, Public(ly Oriented) Companies: B Corporations and the Delaware Stakeholder Provision Dilemma, 64 VAND. L. REV. 1311, (2011).
17.Wendy Stubbs & Chris Cocklin, An Ecological Modernist Interpretation of Sustainability: the Case of Interface Inc., 17 BUS. STRAT. ENV. 512 (2008).
18.Wendy Stubbs, Characterising B Corps as a sustainable business model: An exploratory study of B Corps in Australia, 144 Journal of Cleaner Production 299 (2017).

(四)網路資料及其他
1.A Whitepaper by Nbis, B Corporations, Benefit Corporations and Social Purpose Corporations: Launching a New Era of Impact-Driven Companies (2012), available at: http://nbis.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ImpactDrivenCompanies_NBIS_Whitepaper_Oct2012.pdf (last visited: May. 18, 2018).
2.Brad Edmondson, Social Purpose vs. Benefit Corporations: Small Distinction, Big Difference, Triple Pundit-people, planet, profit (2016), available at: https://www.triplepundit.com/2016/03/social-purpose-vs-benefit-corporations-small-distinction-big-difference/ (last visited: May. 18, 2018).
3.Dan Osusky, Assessing Impact: A Guide to Third Party Standards for Benefit Corporations (2012), available at: http://www.brevolutionconsulting.com/assets/Assessing-Impact-A-Guide-to-Third-Party-Standards-for-Benefit-Corporations.pdf (last visited: May. 19, 2018).
4.European Commission, A Map of Social Enterprises and Their Eco-systems in Europe, Country Report: Belgium (2014), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?pager.offset=10&&langId=en&mode=advancedSubmit&advSearchKey=socentcntryrepts (last visited: May. 18, 2018).
5.GRI & IoE, Small business, big impact-SME sustainability reporting from vision to action (2016), available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Small%20Business%20Big%20Impact%20Booklet%20Online.pdf (last visited: May. 19, 2018).
6.Hans-Jochen Lueckefett, Ute Binder, Corporate sustainability - Green image via company-related environmental labelling (2012), available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6360516 (last visited: May. 19, 2018), 2012 Electronics Goes Green 2012+.
7.Hyun Ahn, Social Enterprise and Social Capital Market in Korea: toward Creative Capitalism (2017), available at: http://www.cppl.ntu.edu.tw/newsfile/2017newsfile/20170520/20170520C.pdf (last visited: May. 19, 2018).
8.ISO, ISO 26000:2010 International Standard-Guidance on social responsibility (2010), first edition, available at: http://www.cnis.gov.cn/wzgg/201405/P020140512224950899020.pdf (last visited: May. 19, 2018).
9.J. Gregory Dees, The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship” (2001), available at: https://entrepreneurship.duke.edu/news-item/the-meaning-of-social-entrepreneurship/ (last visited: May. 21, 2018).
10.Jong Gul Kim, Current Social Enterprise Issues and Policies in Korea (2013), available at: http://www.rupp.edu.kh/projects/delphe/2013/pw2/Prof%20Jong%20Gul%20Kim.pdf (last visited: May. 19, 2018).
11.Julie Treppa & Lindsay Gehman & Jorge Lopez, Flexible Purpose Corporations (2013), Publications of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP, available at: http://www.coblentzlaw.com/images/uploads/content/Flexible_Purpose_Corporations_-_Article.pdf (last visited: May. 18, 2018), at 3.
12.Marleen Denef, Future of Social Purpose Company in Belgium (2016), European Social Enterprise Law Association NEWS, available at: https://esela.eu/news/not-belgian-corporate-specialists-question-use-social-purpose-company-adequate-legal-status-social-business (last visited: May. 18, 2018).
13.Neetal Parekh and David Jaber, Third Party Standards for Benefit Corporations (2012), available at: https://www.triplepundit.com/2012/03/third-party-standards-benefit-corporations/ (last visited: May. 19, 2018).
14.nef, Measuring value: a guide to Social Return on Investment (SROI) (2008), second edition, available at: https://commdev.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Measuring-Value-A-Guide-to-Social-Return-on-Investment.pdf (last visited: May. 19, 2018).
15.Office of Community Interest Company, Thinking of funding a CIC? - make an informed decision! (2018), available at: https://communityinterestcompanies.blog.gov.uk/author/jlewis2/ (last visited: May. 10, 2018).
16.Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies (2016), Complaints about community interest companies, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/605438/cic-14-1090-complaint-about-community-interest-companies.pdf (last visited: May. 18, 2018).
17.Rate the Raters, Phase Two Taking Inventory of the Ratings Universe (2010), available at: http://s10458.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sustain_ability_ratethe_raters2.pdf (last visited: May. 18, 2018).
18.Regulator of Community Interest Companies, Annual Report 2015/2016, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/538040/cic-16-3-community-interest-companies-annual-report-2015-2016.pdf (last visited: May. 17, 2018).
19.Regulator of Community Interest Companies, Annual Report 2016/2017, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/630211/cic-17-2community-interest-companies-annual-report-2016-2017.pdf (last visited: May. 17, 2018).
20.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 (2013), available at: http://benefitcorp.net/sites/default/files/Benefit_Corporation_White_Paper.pdf (last visited: May. 18, 2018).
21.Young-Chool Choi & Ji-Hyun Jang, Analysis of Current Conditions Facing Social Enterprises in Korea: Policy Issues Regarding Their Sustainable Development (2014), available at: https://thejournalofbusiness.org/index.php/site/article/view/460/349 (last visited: May. 19, 2018).
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊