本研究採哈佛式個案撰寫方法，以台灣南部一家中小型垃圾袋製造廠綠益企業為個案，探討高度同質化與通路主導之紅海市場中，中小製造業如何面對低價標案、通路價格錨定、制度門檻升高與現金循環壓力所形成的經營抉擇。個案時間點設定於2015年，聚焦於低價通路標案結果公布後、管理團隊須於限期內回覆是否承接的決策窗口。綠益企業原本並非處於虧損或衰退狀態，而是一家仰賴穩定出貨、產線連續運轉與現金回流維持營運的家族式製造廠；然而，一項低價標案結果公開後，價格迅速由單一交易條件轉變為通路端可引用的市場基準，導致原有毛利空間受到壓縮。
個案同時呈現環保標章、文件審查與合規要求如何逐漸由加分條件轉化為投標與供貨資格的基本門檻。綠益企業因此面臨多重選擇：接受低價以維持主要通路、拒絕低價以保住價格底線、投入制度建置以取得未來入場資格，或嘗試調整通路與產品組合以降低依賴。每一項選擇均附帶短期生存與中期發展之權衡。
本個案可用於策略管理、中小企業經營、通路管理、管理會計決策分析、制度理論與商業模式轉型等課程。教學指引以五力分析、資源基礎理論、交易成本理論、制度理論、組織韌性與商業模式觀點為主要架構，引導學員分析價格錨定、毛利壓縮、固定成本、現金循環、制度門檻與中小企業轉型之關聯。

This thesis develops a Harvard-style teaching case on Green-Benefit Enterprise, a small and medium-sized garbage bag manufacturer in southern Taiwan. The case examines how an SME operating in a highly homogeneous, buyer-driven, and price-competitive market responds to a low-price channel tender, price anchoring, rising institutional requirements, and cash conversion pressure. The case is set in 2015, focusing on the decision window between the announcement of a low-price tender and management’s deadline to respond on whether to accept it.
Green-Benefit Enterprise is not portrayed as a failing firm. Rather, it is a stable family-owned manufacturer that relies on continuous production, reliable delivery, and cash inflows to sustain operations. However, once the tender price becomes publicly visible, it quickly shifts from a single transaction price to a market reference point that can be cited by downstream channels. At the same time, environmental labeling, documentation, quality review, and compliance requirements gradually move from value-added conditions to necessary qualifications for tender participation.
The case is designed for courses in strategy, SME management, channel management, managerial accounting decision analysis, institutional theory, sustainability, and business model transformation. The teaching note uses Porter’s five forces, the resource-based view, transaction cost theory, institutional theory, organizational resilience, and the business model perspective to guide students in analyzing the decision trade-offs faced by the focal manager. The central question is not which option is risk-free, but which risk the firm can still afford to bear.

1. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
2. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
3. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
4. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
5. Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 94–110). Berrett-Koehler.
6. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.
7. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press