本研究以社團法人中華安得烈慈善協會為單一個案，探討非營利公益組織如何透過「賦名」建立社會需要、回應方案與參與角色的共同理解，並將分散的金錢、物資、時間、專業與聲望轉化為可執行、可延續的集體行動。本文所稱賦名，係以集體行動構框為基礎的分析概念，並結合資源動員、志工參與、組織正當性與跨部門協作文獻，說明公益意義如何透過組織安排進入日常服務。
本研究採質性單一個案設計，以 2024 年與 2026 年形成之訪談逐字稿資料單元為主要材料，並輔以衍生摘要與公開資料進行資料定位、交叉檢核與負例分析。研究發現，安得烈慈善協會並非依靠單一名稱完成動員，而是透過「安得烈」的象徵故事、「食物銀行」的服務類別，以及不同方案名稱形成「組合式賦名」，使公益需要與參與角色變得可辨識。其次，名稱仍須透過服務紀錄、作業證據、領導者形象、公開資訊、第三方背書與現場驗證加以證信，才可能由能見度轉化為信任。再者，官網、LINE群組、企業窗口、學校與公部門網絡等行動接口，將異質支持者及資源導入服務流程；排程、物流、任務模組與標準作業程序則完成作業轉譯，使志工能在短時間內參與具體協作。志工在具身勞動中所產生的效能感、團隊經驗與再次參與意願，進一步構成經驗轉譯，並可能形成正當性—資源回饋循環。
然而，此一循環並非線性或必然成功。資料同時呈現名稱錯認、企業參與中的層級壓力線索、日間場次的時間可近性限制、志工衝突與不當觸碰、領導者形象集中與企業資源波動等治理風險。由於本研究未納入受助家庭觀點，故僅能分析組織如何意圖制度化尊重，不能判定受助者實際感受，亦不宣稱食物援助已改善長期食物不安全或建立因果成效。本文結論指出，公益動員的延續條件不在於一個動人名稱本身，而在於構框、證信、行動接口、日常作業、參與經驗與治理邊界之間能否持續對齊。

Nonprofit organizations do not automatically transform social goodwill into sustained collective action. Social needs must first be defined and communicated in ways that are understandable to the public; potential supporters must be provided with credible reasons and practicable roles for participation; and heterogeneous resources, including money, material goods, time, professional expertise, social networks, visibility, and trust, must be coordinated through organizational arrangements before they can become effective service capacity. This study examines how the Chinese Andrew Charity Association, a Taiwanese nonprofit organization, transforms dispersed goodwill and heterogeneous resources into executable and potentially sustainable collective action.
Drawing primarily on the collective action framing literature, this study conceptualizes framing as an analytical process through which organizational names, service categories, program labels, stories, interactional language, and operational practices define social needs, proposed responses, and participant roles. The study further integrates resource mobilization, volunteer participation, organizational legitimacy, accountability, and cross-sector collaboration to explain how meaning is translated into concrete participation and everyday service delivery.
Using a qualitative single-case study design, this research analyzes interview transcript data generated in 2024 and 2026, supplemented by official and publicly available materials for contextualization, cross-checking, and negative-case analysis. The findings show that the Association does not mobilize support through a single organizational name. Instead, it relies on composite framing, consisting of the symbolic story of “Andrew,” the recognizable service category of the “food bank,” and program-specific and interactional language that makes particular needs, responses, and roles more intelligible.
The findings further identify three interrelated translation mechanisms: meaning translation, operational translation, and experiential translation. Meaning translation makes social needs and participation roles understandable; operational translation converts willingness and heterogeneous resources into coordinated service through action interfaces, scheduling, task modules, logistics, and standard operating procedures; and experiential translation enables participants to transform abstract support into embodied experience, perceived efficacy, trust, and possible continued participation. These processes may generate a legitimacy–resource feedback loop, through which service evidence and participation experiences contribute to word of mouth, repeat volunteering, donations, partnerships, and renewed resources.
However, this process is conditional rather than linear. Hierarchical pressure in corporate volunteering, limited accessibility caused by weekday schedules, volunteer conflict and inappropriate physical contact, tensions between recipient dignity and eligibility verification, dependence on leader-centered visibility, and unstable corporate support reveal important governance boundaries. The study therefore concludes that sustained charitable collective action depends not on an appealing organizational name alone, but on the recurrent alignment of framing, credible evidence, action interfaces, operational routines, participant experience, and governance arrangements.

中文文獻
王永慈、黃彥宜（2024）。英國和德國食物銀行初探及其對臺灣帶來的省思。臺灣社區工作與社區研究學刊，14（2），57–106。https://doi.org/10.53106/222372402024101402002
洪世章（2016）。創新六策：寫給創新者的關鍵思維。聯經出版事業。https://www.linkingbooks.com.tw/books/149354
社團法人中華安得烈慈善協會（無日期-a）。核心宗旨。https://www.chaca.org.tw/OnePage.aspx?tid=2
社團法人中華安得烈慈善協會（無日期-b）。年度報告。https://www.chaca.org.tw/List.aspx?tid=131
社團法人中華安得烈慈善協會（無日期-c）。一份沉甸甸的禮物。https://www.chaca.org.tw/OnePage.aspx?id=1537&tid=6
衛生福利部社會救助及社工司（2026a，6月30日）。各縣市實（食）物銀行捐贈及申請窗口。https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/dosaasw/cp-569-61374-103.html
衛生福利部社會救助及社工司（2026b，1月5日）。實物給付服務國際經驗交流：跨部門攜手照顧弱勢族群。https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOSAASW/fp-609-84399-103.html
英文文獻
Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1_suppl), 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291S004
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012a). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part 1: Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012450777
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012b). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part 2: Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012454685
Bazerghi, C., McKay, F. H., & Dunn, M. (2016). The role of food banks in addressing food insecurity: A systematic review. Journal of Community Health, 41(4), 732–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-015-0147-5
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2008a). Pride and respect in volunteers’ organizational commitment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.415
Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2008b). Volunteer recruitment: The role of organizational support and anticipated respect in non-volunteers’ attraction to charitable volunteer organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1013–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1013
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516–1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516
Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.43
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7
Edwards, B., & McCarthy, J. D. (2004). Resources and social movement mobilization. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 116–152). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999103.ch6
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Finkelstein, M. A. (2008). Predictors of volunteer time: The changing contributions of motive fulfillment and role identity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(10), 1353–1363. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.10.1353
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1108–1119. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611007
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49(5), 583–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095417
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. https://doi.org/10.1086/226464
Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Sargeant, A. (2010). Charitable organizations’ storytelling influence on donors’ emotions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 754–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.013
Michel, G., & Rieunier, S. (2012). Nonprofit brand image and typicality influences on charitable giving. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 701–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.04.002
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE.
Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00270
Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.283
Purdam, K., Garratt, E. A., & Esmail, A. (2016). Hungry? Food insecurity, social stigma and embarrassment in the UK. Sociology, 50(6), 1072–1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515594092
Riches, G. (2002). Food banks and food security: Welfare reform, human rights and social policy. Lessons from Canada? Social Policy & Administration, 36(6), 648–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00309
Rowley, T. I., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416080
Salamon, L. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: Toward a theory of government–nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16(1–2), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976408701600104
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE.
Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Trust and relationship commitment in the United Kingdom voluntary sector: Determinants of donor behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21(8), 613–635. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20021
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action: Social movement participation across cultures (International Social Movement Research, Vol. 1, pp. 197–217). JAI Press.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095581
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Tarasuk, V., & Eakin, J. M. (2005). Food assistance through “surplus” food: Insights from an ethnographic study of food bank work. Agriculture and Human Values, 22(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-004-8277-x
van der Horst, H., Pascucci, S., & Bol, W. (2014). The “dark side” of food banks? Exploring emotional responses of food bank receivers in the Netherlands. British Food Journal, 116(9), 1506–1520. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2014-0081
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.