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

From Profit to Benefit：A Paradigm Shift in Corporate Law, Developing Legal Systems Which Support Social Enterprise Growth

江永楨(Yung-Chen Chiang)

指導教授 ： 黃銘傑

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201702919

摘要

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。

關鍵字

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

並列摘要

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.

並列關鍵字

social enterprise ； profit-with-purpose business ； benefit corporation ； social mission business ； CSR ； shareholder value maximization

參考文獻

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。

22. 黃朝琮（2016）。〈受託義務之對象〉。《政大法學評論》，第145期，頁1-85。

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。

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。

3. 臺灣高等法院96年度重上字第145號民事判決