在永續發展與社會責任日益受到重視的背景下，企業被賦予更多回應環境、社會與治理議題的期待，因此，社會影響力的實踐已逐漸從選項轉變為必要的行動。對中小企業而言，不僅要面對資金、人力與技術等資源限制下的挑戰，隨著永續規範與ESG政策的逐步落實更須回應來自上游供應鏈、法規與社會……等的多重壓力，而在市場競爭激烈與經營風險升高的情境下，中小企業如何兼顧經濟效益與社會使命，並在變動的制度環境中調適與創新實現社會影響力，成為當代管理的重要研究課題。

儘管社會影響力受到實務界高度的重視，但是具體實踐方針仍然有待釐清。因此，本研究採用質性個案研究進行探索，以台灣中小企業品卓成立並經營包袋品牌「deya」為研究對象，以混合制度邏輯的視角來探索中小企業社會影響力的形塑歷程。具體而言，本研究以制度邏輯觀點出發，進一步分析創業行動與社會目標實踐如何在中小企業脈絡中交織展開，並聚焦在創業家做為行動者如何運用有限資源回應外在制度壓力，從而實踐兼具經濟與社會價值的策略，除了呈現不同多重制度邏輯的樣貌，也進而建構具制度適應性與永續導向的社會影響力。

研究結果指出，deya在面對資源有限與外在制度壓力交織的環境下，創業者能基於社會創業家精神，持續進行創新、適應和學習，不但具備利社會行為，也積極尋求新機會，運用人脈網絡、創辦人名聲與品牌號召力等非典型資源，結合現有的本土供應鏈以及手邊材料來進行資源的重組，進一步拼湊出具社會價值導向的產品設計並兼具營利價值。創業家採取此策略行動除了能主動回應制度邏輯的演變，更得以建構出商業邏輯與社會邏輯從共存、混合至融合的動態樣貌，將社會價值逐步內嵌於營運中，並在不同制度邏輯互動的過程中重塑其社會影響力的內涵與影響範圍。據此，本研究提出「中小企業社會影響力之形塑策略」架構，以混合制度邏輯的應用觀點為關注永續與社會價值的中小企業提供社會影響力發展的具體行動參考。

Amid growing emphasis on sustainability and social responsibility, the pursuit of social value has become imperative for contemporary enterprises. SMEs, face not only resource constraints but also increasing pressures from supply chains, regulations, and societal expectations. Balancing economic performance with social missions in dynamic institutional contexts has become a critical issue in management research. This study adopts a qualitative case study approach and draws on the institutional logic perspective to examine how SME entrepreneurs mobilize limited resources to respond to institutional pressures. It further explores how strategies integrating both economic and social value are enacted, and how social impact emerges through the interplay of multiple institutional logics.

The findings indicate that, in the context of limited resources and external institutional pressures, entrepreneurs in SMEs, driven by a spirit of social entrepreneurship, continue to innovate, adapt, and learn while actively seeking new opportunities. Driven by prosocial behavior, they reconfigure available resources by combining on-hand materials with local supply chains, thereby engaging in resource bricolage to develop products that are socially oriented yet commercially viable.

These strategic actions allow SMEs to respond to evolving institutional logics, gradually shifting from coexistence to integration of commercial and social logics. In this process, social value becomes increasingly embedded in business operations, while the meaning and scope of social impact are reshaped through ongoing interactions with multiple institutional logics.

胡哲生, & 張子揚. (2009). 社會企業創業議題: 社會創新與管理融入. 創業管理研究, 4(4), 85-105.
高明瑞, & 蔡依倫. (2009). 鑲嵌的社會創業歷程: 制度革新觀點. 創業管理研究, 4(4), 107-134.
陳意文, 吳思華, & 陳意文. (2009). 創新產品的資源拼湊與價值實現之研究: 採新資源基礎觀點之定性與定量分析 陳意文].
陳蕙芬, & 張瑜倩. (2021). 多元制度邏輯的共生之道—以甘樂文創為例. Journal of Management & Business Research (2521-4306), 37(4).
蕭瑞麟. (2020). 不用數字的研究: 質性研究的思辯脈絡. 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
蕭瑞麟, 歐素華, & 吳彥寬. (2017). 逆勢拼湊: 化資源制約為創新來源. 中山管理評論, 25(1), 219-268.
蕭瑞麟, 歐素華, & 陳蕙芬. (2014). 劣勢創新: 梵谷策展中的隨創行為. 中山管理評論, 22(2), 323-367.
Alter, K. (2007). Social enterprise typology. Virtue ventures LLC, 12(1), 1-124.
Annosi, M. C., Mattarelli, E., Dentoni, D., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2024). The micro-foundations of ambidexterity for corporate social performance: a study on sustainability managers’ response to conflicting goals. Long range planning, 57(1), 102412.
Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2013). Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring social return on investment (SROI). Voluntary sector review, 4(1), 3-18.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei–Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22.
Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32(2), 255-276.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329-366.
Baker, T., Pollock, T. G., & Sapienza, H. J. (2013). Winning an unfair game: How a resource-constrained player uses bricolage to maneuver for advantage in a highly institutionalized field. In Entrepreneurial resourcefulness: Competing with constraints (pp. 1-41). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of management Journal, 53(6), 1419-1440.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364-381.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42-51.
Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (2000). Why corporate demography matters: Policy implications of organizational diversity. California management review, 42(3), 148-163.
Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363-376.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
Cossey, J., Billiet, A., Dufays, F., & Bruneel, J. (2025). How do institutional prescriptions (fail to) address governance challenges under institutional hybridity? The case of governance code creation for cooperative enterprises. Journal of business ethics, 196(2), 451-470.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. In: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2006). Defining social enterprise. Social enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society, 7, 3-27.
Desa, G. (2012). Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 727-751.
Dezi, L., Hysa, X., Calabrese, M., & Mercuri, F. (2025). Open Total Quality Management in the Circular Economy age: a social enterprise perspective through the case of Patagonia. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 36(3-4), 309-323.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional patterns and organizations, 3-21.
Domingues, A. M., de Souza, R. G., & Luiz, J. V. R. (2024). Lifecycle social impacts of lithium-ion batteries: consequences and future research agenda for a safe and just transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 118, 103756.
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization, 1(1), 167-188.
Ebrahim, A. S., & Rangan, V. K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Harvard Business School General Management Unit Working Paper(10-099), 10-099.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological bulletin, 101(1), 91.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1980). Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs, and social change: Comparative analysis of traditional civilizations. American journal of Sociology, 85(4), 840-869.
Fisher, G. (2012). Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioral comparison of emerging theories in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 1019-1051.
Frankel, C., & Bromberger, A. (2013). The art of social enterprise: business as if people mattered. New Society Publishers.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.
Friedland, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 232-263.
Gammelgaard, B. (2017). The qualitative case study. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 28(4), 910-913.
Garrido-Skurkowicz, N., Wittek, R., & la Roi, C. (2024). Performance of hybrid organisations. Challenges and opportunities for social and commercial enterprises. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 15(3), 1058-1087.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277-300.
Geertz, C. (1973). Cultures. In: New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Advances in the methodology of grounded theory.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of management Journal, 49(1), 27-48.
Grieco, C., Michelini, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2015). Measuring value creation in social enterprises: A cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 44(6), 1173-1193.
Guclu, A., Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2002). The process of social entrepreneurship: Creating opportunities worthy of serious pursuit. Center for the advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 1-15.
Gundry, L. K., Kickul, J. R., Griffiths, M. D., & Bacq, S. C. (2011). Creating social change out of nothing: The role of entrepreneurial bricolage in social entrepreneurs' catalytic innovations. In Social and sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 1-24). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Hasseno, R., Tefera, O., & Taylor, S. (2024). The funding model of small and medium social enterprises in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 16(1), 711.
Heiscala, R. (2007). Social innovations: structural and power perspectives. Social Innovations, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Edward Elgar Publishing, 52-79.
Howaldt, J., & Schwarz, M. (2010). Social innovation. Concepts, research fields, and international trends. Dortmund: Sozialforschungstelle Dortmund.
Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797-811.
Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11), 1661-1674.
Junaidi, A., & Choerudin, A. (2024). Business Innovation for SMEs and Community Empowerment: Strategies to Enhance Income and Quality of Life. Jurnal Terobosan Peduli Masyarakat (TIRAKAT), 1(2), 133-146.
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of operations management, 32(5), 232-240.
King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry's responsible care program. Academy of management Journal, 43(4), 698-716.
Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, 840, 243-275.
Kurland, N. B., & Schneper, W. D. (2024). A social enterprise’s hybridising journey to reconcile goals and structure with identity. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 15(2), 686-711.
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155.
Lawrence Neuman, W. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.
Lee, J., & Park, T. (2024). Environmental factors, ambidexterity and performance in SMEs: does bricolage matter? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 39(3), 521-536.
Liu, W., Kwong, C. C., Kim, Y.-A., & Liu, H. (2021). The more the better vs. less is more: Strategic alliances, bricolage and social performance in social enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 137, 128-142.
Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of management Journal, 45(1), 255-266.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672.
Lvi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. University of Chicago Press.
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of management Journal, 47(5), 657-679.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. In: Stanford social innovation review Stanford.
Mateus, S., & Sarkar, S. (2024). Bricolage–a systematic review, conceptualization, and research agenda. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 36(7-8), 833-854.
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., & Hays, T. N. (2008). In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis. Pearson Education Australia.
Mom, T. J., Fourné, S. P., & Jansen, J. J. (2015). Managers’ work experience, ambidexterity, and performance: The contingency role of the work context. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), s133-s153.
Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating managers' exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top‐down, bottom‐up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910-931.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. innovations, 1(2), 145-162.
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation (Vol. 24). Nesta London.
Nicholls, A., & Murdock, A. (2011). Social innovation: Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets. Springer.
Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E., & Goodspeed, T. (2012). A guide to social return on investment.
O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2021). Lead and disrupt: How to solve the innovator's dilemma. Stanford University Press.
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 18(S1), 187-206.
Ocasio, W., Thornton, P. H., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Advances to the institutional logics perspective. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, 2, 509-531.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information systems research, 2(1), 1-28.
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001.
Pan, S. L., & Tan, B. (2011). Demystifying case research: A structured–pragmatic–situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Information and organization, 21(3), 161-176.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56-65.
Permatasari, A., Dhewanto, W., & Dellyana, D. (2025). Creative social entrepreneurial orientation: Developing hybrid values to achieve the sustainable performance of traditional weaving SMEs. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 230-244.
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. In: Stanford social innovation review Stanford.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.
Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82-115.
Renko, M. (2013). Early challenges of nascent social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1045-1069.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The leadership quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of business ethics, 111(3), 335-351.
Savaget, P., Ozcan, P., & Pitsis, T. (2025). Social Entrepreneurs as Ecosystem Catalysts: The Dynamics of Forming and Withdrawing from a Self‐Sustaining Ecosystem. Journal of Management Studies, 62(1), 246-278.
Scott, W. R. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. University of Chicago press.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource‐constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 211-230.
Seo, D., Bryson, J. M., & Williams, M. (2025). Nonprofit sector ambidexterity: a framework for understanding innovation and strategy change in nonprofit organizations. Public Management Review, 1-23.
Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448-469.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1-44.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
Soltani, M., Kashkooli, F. M., Souri, M., Rafiei, B., Jabarifar, M., Gharali, K., & Nathwani, J. S. (2021). Environmental, economic, and social impacts of geothermal energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 140, 110750.
Sonenshein, S. (2014). How organizations foster the creative use of resources. Academy of management Journal, 57(3), 814-848.
Stake, R. (1995). Case study research. Springer.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). sage Newbury Park, CA.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge university press.
Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of management Journal, 45(1), 81-101.
Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford University Press.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, 840(2008), 99-128.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60-80.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-29.
Vickers, I., Lyon, F., Sepulveda, L., & McMullin, C. (2017). Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing. Research Policy, 46(10), 1755-1768.
Weick, K. E. (2007). The generative properties of richness. Academy of management Journal, 50(1), 14-19.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative research methods, 5(14), 359-386.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
Yoon, S., & Ho, J. Y. (2025). Delivering sustainable development via social innovation: Cases of social entrepreneurship in South Korea and Singapore. Sustainable Development, 33(1), 416-430.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 308-325.
Zahoor, N., Khan, Z., Marinova, S., & Cui, L. (2024). Ambidexterity in strategic alliances: An integrative review of the literature. International journal of management reviews, 26(1), 82-109.