| 17 | 0 | 24 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
社会企业作为融合社会目的与市场机制的混合型组织，其健康发展亟须建立清晰的身份认同与制度化的身份承认。身份认同有助于组织有效整合多元逻辑、抵御使命漂移；而身份承认则对固化组织特性、降低交易成本、防范“漂绿”风险具有关键作用。目前，社会企业在身份承认方面面临现实困境：全球及地方认证体系呈现碎片化、互认性差与权威性不足的特征；既有各国立法尝试亦在刚性规则与灵活实践之间产生张力，又面临身份稀释与监管套利等风险。在我国，由于国家层面立法缺失，社会企业陷入法律身份模糊、组织形式依附与政策支持错配等多重困境。在评析相关学术争议并比较国际立法模式的基础上，我国应优先采取促进法先行的务实路径，通过制定《社会企业促进法》,构建全国统一的认证框架与核心规制体系，并在法律组织形式选择上保持包容性，在监管理念上平衡激励与问责。以此为社会企业提供稳定的身份承认与法治保障，从而推动其在社会治理与共同富裕进程中发挥更大作用。
Abstract：As hybrid organizations integrating social objectives with market mechanisms, social enterprises urgently require clear Organizational Identity and Identity Recognition for healthy development. Organizational Identity helps organizations effectively integrate diverse logics and resist “mission drift,” while Identity Recognition plays a crucial role in solidifying organizational characteristics,reducing transaction costs,and preventing “greenwashing” risks. Currently,social enterprises face practical challenges in identity recognition: global and local certification systems exhibit fragmentation, poor mutual recognition, and insufficient authority; existing national legislative attempts also create tensions between rigid rules and flexible practices,while facing risks of identity dilution and regulatory arbitrage. In China,due to the lack of national-level legislation,social enterprises are trapped in multiple dilemmas such as ambiguous legal identities,organizational form dependency,and misalignment of policy support. Based on analyzing relevant academic controversies and comparing international legislative models,China should prioritize a pragmatic approach of “promoting legislation first” by formulating the Social Enterprise Promotion Law, establishing a unified national certification framework and core regulatory system,maintaining inclusiveness in legal form selection,and balancing incentives with accountability in regulatory concepts. This will provide social enterprises with stable identity recognition and legal safeguards,thereby enabling them to play a greater role in social governance and the process of common prosperity.
① Albert S,Whetten D A,“Organizational Identity,” Research in Organizational Behavior,vol.7,no.1(1985),p.263.
(1)Battilana J,Lee M,“Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing:Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises,” Academy of Management Annals,vol.8,no.1(2014),pp.397-441.
(2)Thornton P H,Ocasio W,Lounsbury M,The Institutional Logics Perspective:A New Approach to Culture,Structure,and Process,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2012;刘志阳、陈咏昶:《社会企业混合逻辑与跨部门协同》,《学术月刊》2021年第11期。
(3)Battilana J,Lee M,“Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing:Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises,” Academy of Management Annals,vol.8,no.1(2014),pp.397-441.
(4)Albert S,Whetten D A,“Organizational Identity,” Research in Organizational Behavior,vol.7(1985),pp.263-295.
(5)Glynn M A,“When Cymbals Become Symbols:Conflict over Organizational Identity within a Symphony Orchestra,” Organization Science,vol.11,no.3(2000),pp.285-298.
(6)Pache A C,Santos F,“Inside the Hybrid Organization:Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics,” Academy of Management Journal,vol.56,no.4(2013),pp.972-1001.
(7)Ebrahim A,Battilana J,Mair J,“The Governance of Social Enterprises:Mission Drift and Accountability Challenges in Hybrid Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior,vol.34(2014),pp.81-100.
(8)Gioia D A,Patvardhan S D,Hamilton A L,et al.,“Organizational Identity Formation and Change,” Academy of Management Annals,vol.7,no.1(2013),pp.123-193.
(9)Ravasi D,Schultz M,“Responding to Organizational Identity Threats:Exploring the Role of Organizational Culture,” Academy of Management Journal,vol.49,no.3(2006),pp.433-458.
(10)Wry T,York J G,“An Identity-Based Approach to Social Enterprise,” Academy of Management Review,vol.42,no.3(2017),pp.437-460.
(11)Battilana J,Lee M,“Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing:Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises,” Academy of Management Annals,vol.8,no.1(2014),pp.397-441.
(12)Nicholls A,“The Legitimacy of Social Entrepreneurship:Reflexive Isomorphism in a Pre-paradigmatic Field,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,vol.34,no.4(2010),p.611.
(13)外观主义是指“行为人对于成文法规或交易观念上的一定权利、法律关系、其他法律上视为重要要素之外部要件事实为信赖,以至为法律行为时,如其要件事实是因其信赖保护受不利益人之协助而成立者,其信赖应受法律之保护。”——此乃首创外观主义理论的德国私法学者莫瑞茨·维斯派彻(Moritz Wellspacher) 于1906年在其论文《民法上外部要件事实的信赖》中的定义。转引自高金松《空白票据新论》,台北:台湾三民书局,1979年,第57-61页。
(14)Suchman M C,“Managing Legitimacy:Strategic and Institutional Approaches,” Academy of Management Review,vol.20,no.3(1995),p.571.
(15)Suchman M C,“Managing Legitimacy:Strategic and Institutional Approaches,” Academy of Management Review,vol.20,no.3(1995),pp.571-610.
(16)Pache A C,Santos F,“Inside the Hybrid Organization:Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics,” Academy of Management Journal,vol.56,no.4(2013),pp.972-1001.
(17)王鑫、韩爱玲、李彤等:《社会组织向社会企业转型的实践路径——以Z市H残疾人帮扶中心HD家园为例》,《公益研究》2025年第2期。
(18)Pfeffer J,Salancik G R,The External Control of Organizations:A Resource Dependence Perspective,New York:Harper & Row,1978.
(19)Tracey P,Phillips N,Jarvis O,“Bridging Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Creation of New Organizational Forms:A Multilevel Model,” Organization Science,vol.22,no.1(2011),pp.60-80.
(20)徐彩云、李健:《传统组织转型社会企业为何难以成功?——基于新制度主义理论的多案例分析》,《公共管理与政策评论》2025年第3期。
(21)Barinaga E,“Coopted! Mission Drift in a Social Venture Engaged in a Cross-Sectoral Partnership,” Voluntas:International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,vol.31,no.2(2020),pp.437-449.
(22)Ramus T,Vaccaro A,“Stakeholders Matter:How Social Enterprises Address Mission Drift,” Journal of Business Ethics,vol.143,no.2(2017),pp.307-322.
(23)Haugh H,Talwar A,“Linking Social Entrepreneurship and Social Change:The Mediating Role of Empowerment,” Journal of Business Ethics,vol.133,no.4(2016),pp.643-658.
(24)Staessens M,Kerstens P J,Bruneel J,et al.,“Data Envelopment Analysis and Social Enterprises:Analysing Performance,Strategic Orientation and Mission Drift,” Journal of Business Ethics,vol.159,no.2 (2019),pp.328-329.
(25)Getu M,“Does commercialization of microfinance programs lead to mission drift?,” Transformation,2007,pp.169-179.
(26)Nicholls A,“The Legitimacy of Social Entrepreneurship:Reflexive Isomorphism in a Pre-paradigmatic Field,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,vol.34,no.4(2010),pp.611-633.
(27)B Lab,“Explore the New B Lab Standards:A new framework for lasting business impact,” retrieved from https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/standards/performance-requirements/,2025-12-20.
(28)Social Enterprise UK (SEUK),“Social Enterprise Gold Mark,” retrieved from https://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/the-social-enterprise-gold-mark/,2025-11-27.
(29)Defourny J,Nyssens M,“Fundamentals for an International Typology of Social Enterprise Models,” VOLUNTAS:International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,vol.28,no.6(2017),pp.2469-2497.
(30)Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies,Community Interest Company Report and Accounts 2018/19,London:The National Archives,2019.
(31)Bodet C,Lamarque E,“The French Social Enterprise Movement:An Update and Some Lessons,” in Jacques Defourny and Marthe Nyssens eds.,Social Enterprise in Western Europe,New York:Routledge,2016,pp.67-84.
(32)金仁仙:《社会经济制度化发展——以韩国〈社会企业育成法〉为视角》,《科学学与科学技术管理》2016年第1期。
(33)Community Interest Company Regulations 2005,SI 2005/1788,s.17.
(34)Teasdale S,“What's in a Name?The Construction of Social Enterprise,” Voluntas:International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,vol.23,no.2(2012),pp.260-279;Ebrahim A,Battilana J,Mair J,“The Governance of Social Enterprises:Mission Drift and Accountability Challenges in Hybrid Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior,vol.34(2014),pp.81-100;陶溥:《比较法视野下的社会企业立法向度》,《中国非营利评论》2024年第2期。
(35)Model Benefit Corporation Legislation § 401(a) (2017).
(36)Chen R H,“The Certification Paradox:How Private Governance Can Undermine Public Goals,” Stanford Social Innovation Review,vol.18,no.4(2020),pp.38-45.
(37)CIC Regulator,Annual Report 2009-2010,London:Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies,2010,p.23.
(38)Bansal,Tima,“Does OpenAI's Non-Profit Ownership Structure Actually Matter?” Forbes,www.forbes.com/sites/timabansal/2023/10/13/does-openais-non-profit-ownership-structure-actually-matter/,2025-12-1.
(39)金仁仙:《韩国社会企业发展现状、评价及其经验借鉴》,《北京社会科学》2015年第5期。
(40)参见《北京市社会企业认证办法(试行)》(2018年);《成都市社会企业培育发展管理办法》(2021年);顺德社会创新中心历年社会企业认证公告。
(41)参见中国公益慈善项目交流展示会社会企业认证平台相关文件,http://www.cncf.org.cn。
(42)金锦萍:《社会企业立法的意义及基本思路》,《社会政策研究》2024年第4期。
(43)马更新:《社会企业的法律界定与规制》,《北京联合大学学报》(人文社会科学版)2021年第3期。
(44)例如,英国社区利益公司(CIC)的利润分配上限约为35%。参见陶溥《比较法视野下的社会企业立法向度》,《中国非营利评论》2024年第2期。
(45)王鹤翔:《民法典背景下社会企业法律形态的学理反思与中国选择》,《经济社会体制比较》2024年第5期;《中国社会企业与社会投资行业扫描调研报告(2019)》。
(46)金锦萍:《社会企业的兴起及其法律规制》,《经济社会体制比较》2009年第4期。
(47)马更新:《社会企业的法律界定与规制》,《北京联合大学学报》(人文社会科学版)2021年第3期。
(48)樊云慧:《论我国社会企业法律形态的改革》,《法学评论》2016年第5期;方元沂:《引入企业社会责任概念——应否建立公司型社会企业制度》,《月旦法学杂志》2018年第4期。
(49)陶溥:《比较法视野下的社会企业立法向度》,《中国非营利评论》2024年第2期。
(50)马更新:《社会企业的法律界定与规制》,《北京联合大学学报》(人文社会科学版)2021年第3期。
(51)金锦萍:《社会企业立法的意义及基本思路》,《社会政策研究》2024年第4期。
(52)王鹤翔:《民法典背景下社会企业法律形态的学理反思与中国选择》,《经济社会体制比较》2024年第5期。
(53)马更新:《社会企业的法律界定与规制》,《北京联合大学学报》(人文社会科学版)2021年第3期。
(54)王鹤翔:《民法典背景下社会企业法律形态的学理反思与中国选择》,《经济社会体制比较》2024年第5期。
(55)樊云慧:《论我国社会企业法律形态的改革》,《法学评论》2016年第5期。
(56)王涛:《社会企业的法律定位探析》,《社会科学战线》2022年第9期;陶溥:《比较法视野下的社会企业立法向度》,《中国非营利评论》2024年第2期。
(57)马更新:《社会企业的法律界定与规制》,《北京联合大学学报》(人文社会科学版)2021年第3期;陶溥:《比较法视野下的社会企业立法向度》,《中国非营利评论》2024年第2期。
(58)陶溥:《比较法视野下的社会企业立法向度》,《中国非营利评论》2024年第2期;王涛:《社会企业的法律定位探析》,《社会科学战线》2022年第9期。
(59)金锦萍:《社会企业立法的意义及基本思路》,《社会政策研究》2024年第4期。
(60)马更新:《社会企业的法律界定与规制》,《北京联合大学学报》(人文社会科学版)2021年第3期。
基本信息:
DOI：10.20280/j.cnki.cn33-1435/c.2026.01.002
中图分类号:D922.182.1;D922.291.91;F279.2
引用信息:
[1]金锦萍.论社会企业的身份认同和身份承认[J].公益研究,2026,No.7(01):16-29+137.DOI:10.20280/j.cnki.cn33-1435/c.2026.01.002.
基金信息:
国家社会科学基金重大项目“中国特色现代慈善体系建设研究”(编号：23&ZD181)
2026-01-08
2026-01-08