許多傳統的非營利組織為應對財務上的不確定性，皆開始透過提供商品及服務來降低對於外界捐款或政府補助的依賴程度。若根據社會企業光譜(Dees, 1998)的概念，非營利組織正逐漸往兼顧社會目的及財務價值的混合型組織靠攏，也就是社會企業，但往往在這轉型過程中經常受到利害關係人的質疑。從工具性利害關係人理論的視角來解釋，利害關係人可被視為組織達成目標的手段，而好的利害關係人管理能為組織帶來正面的績效表現。因此，本研究旨在探討非營利組織轉型的過程中利害關係人的評價如何形成，進而影響到組織的發展抑或是雙重使命的達成。這項研究對非營利組織轉型領域做出貢獻，透過與台灣的非營利組織訪談，歸納出造成利害關係人正當化或污名化組織的要素；同時也揭示了組織在採取商業活動時，利害關係人的擔憂。

In response to financial uncertainty, many traditional nonprofits have begun to provide goods and services to reduce their reliance on donations or government grants. According to the concept of the social enterprise spectrum (Dees, 1998), non-profit organizations are gradually moving toward hybrid organization that takes into account both social purposes and financial autonomy, that is, social enterprises, but the transition is often challenged by stakeholders. From the perspective of instrumental stakeholder theory, stakeholders can be seen as a means for an organization to achieve its goals, and good stakeholder management can bring positive performance to an organization. Therefore, this study aims to explore how the evaluation of stakeholders is formed in the process of non-profit organization transformation, which in turn affects the development of the organization, in other words, the achievement of dual missions. This research contributes to the field of non-profit organization transformation. Through interviews with non-profit organizations in Taiwan, it summarizes the factors that cause stakeholders to legitimize or stigmatize organizations; it also reveals the concerns of stakeholders when organizations conduct business activities.

1.INTRODUCTION............6
2.LITERATURE REVIEW............11
2.1 NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION AND SOCIAL ENTERPRISES............11
2.2 PERSPECTIVE OF THE STAKEHOLDER THEORY............14
2.3 LEGITIMACY AND STIGMA FROM INSTITUTIONAL THEORY PERSPECTIVE............17
2.4 GAP OF RESEARCH............20
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............22
3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH............22
3.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS............23
4. FINDING............27
4.1 TRANSFORMATION PROCESS OF NPO............27
4.2 ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS............30
4.3 BUSINESS PLAN............34
5. DISCUSSION............39
5.1 INTENTION OF COMMERCIALIZATION............39
5.2 RELATIONSHIP WITH STAKEHOLDERS............40
5.3 BRANDING STRATEGY............41
6. CONCLUSION............44
REFERENCE............46

1. Ashforth, B. (2018). Stigma and Legitimacy: Two Ends of a Single Continuum or. Different Continua Altogether? Journal Of Management Inquiry, 28(1), 22-30.
2. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. Academy Of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441.
3. Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a Theory of Social Judgments of Organizations: The Case of Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status. Academy Of Management Review, 36(1), 151-179.
4. Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The “Macro” and the “Micro” of Legitimacy: Toward a Multilevel Theory of the Legitimacy Process. Academy Of Management Review, 40(1), 49-75.
5. Burke, D. (2020). Re-establishing legitimacy after stigmatization: Greenpeace in the. North American North. Polar Record, 56.
6. Bush, R. (1992). Survival of the nonprofit spirit in a for-profit world. Nonprofit and. Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(4), 391–410.
7. Cragg, W. (2002). Business Ethics and Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 113-142.
8. Dart, R. (2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and. inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290–310.
9. Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411-424.
10. Dees, J G. (1998). Enterprise Non-profits. Harvard Business Review 76 (1), pp.55-67.
11. Devers, C., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. (2009). A General Theory of. Organizational Stigma. Organization Science, 20(1), 154-171.
12. Dmytriyev, S., Freeman, R., & Hörisch, J. (2021). The Relationship between Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Differences, Similarities, and Implications for Social Issues in Management. Journal Of Management Studies, 58(6), 1441-1470.
13. Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of. Management Reviews, 16(4), 417-436.
14. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. The Academy Of Management Review, 20(1), 65.
15. Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research In Organizational Behavior, 34, 81-100.
16. Elms, H., & Phillips, R. (2009). Private Security Companies and Institutional Legitimacy: Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 403-432.
17. Elsbach, K. (1994). Managing Organizational Legitimacy in the California Cattle. Industry: The Construction and Effectiveness of Verbal Accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 57.
18. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy Of Management Review, 14(4), 532.
19. Freeman, R., Wicks, A., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”. Organization Science, 15(3), 364-369.
20. Friedman, A., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing Stakeholder Theory. Journal Of Management Studies, 39(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00280
21. Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice.
23. Golant, B. D., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). The constitution of organizational legitimacy: A narrative perspective. Organization Studies, 28: 1149–1167.
24. Goodstein, J. D. and Wicks, A. C. (2007). Corporate and stakeholder responsibility: Making business ethics a two-way conversation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 375–98.
25. Grassl, W. (2012). Business models of social enterprise: A design approach to hybridity. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 37–60.
26. Griffin, J. (2021). UK cuts grants for small aid charities to save ‘less than cost of No 10 press room’. the Guardian. Retrieved 2 November 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/may/06/uk-cuts-grants-for-small-aid-charities-to-save-less-than-cost-of-no-10-press-room.
27. Hampel, C., & Tracey, P. (2017). How Organizations Move from Stigma to Legitimacy: The Case of Cook’s Travel Agency in Victorian Britain. Academy Of Management Journal, 60(6), 2175-2207.
28. Hampel, C., & Tracey, P. (2018). Introducing a Spectrum of Moral Evaluation: Integrating Organizational Stigmatization and Moral Legitimacy. Journal Of Management Inquiry, 28(1), 11-15.
29. Harold, J. (2020). How many nonprofits will shut their doors? | Candid Blog. Candid Blog. Retrieved 28 October 2021, from https://blog.candid.org/post/how-many-nonprofits-will-shut-their-doors/.
30. Hudson, B. (2008). Against all Odds: A Consideration of Core-Stigmatized Organizations. Academy Of Management Review, 33(1), 252-266.
31. Jayawarna, D., Jones, O., & Macpherson, A. (2018). Resourcing Social Enterprises: The Role of Socially Oriented Bootstrapping. British Journal Of Management, 31(1), 56-79.
32. Jensen, M. (2002). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate. Objective Function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235-256.
33. Johnson, C. (2004). Introduction: Legitimacy processes in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 22: 1–24.
34. Kerlin, J. (2010). A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise. Voluntas, 21, pp. 162–179.
35. Ko, W. W., & Liu, G. (2015). Understanding the process of knowledge spillovers: Learning to become social enterprises. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(3), 263–285.
36. Ko, W., & Liu, G. (2020). The Transformation from Traditional Nonprofit. Organizations to Social Enterprises: An Institutional Entrepreneurship Perspective. Journal Of Business Ethics, 171(1), 15-32.
37. Kong, E., 2010. Innovation processes in social enterprises: an IC perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(2), pp.158-178.
38. Kuhn, I. W., & Shriver, D. W., Jr. 1991. Beyond success: Corporations and their critics in the 1390s. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86.
40. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.
41. Orts, E., & Strudler, A. (2002). The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215-233.
42. 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.
43. Patriotta, G., Gond, J., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining Legitimacy: Controversies, Orders of Worth, and Public Justifications. Journal Of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804-1836.
44. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25-41.
45. Piazza, A., & Perretti, F. (2015). Categorical Stigma and Firm Disengagement: Nuclear Power Generation in the United States, 1970–2000. Organization Science, 26(3), 724-742.
46. Reficco, E., Layrisse, F., & Barrios, A. (2021). From donation-based NPO to social enterprise: A journey of transformation through business-model innovation. Journal Of Business Research, 125, 720-732.
47. Small And Medium Enterprise Administration, Ministry of Economic Affairs. (2020). 2020 Taiwan Social Innovation Survey. Taipei: Taiwan institute of Economic Research.
48. So, S., Masanori, K. (2016). Elaborating upon the Social Enterprise Spectrum Through the Perspective of Ethical Capitalism. 12th International conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research.
49. Suchman, M. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy Of Management Review, 20(3), 571.
50. Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2016). Managing the Consequences of Organizational Stigmatization: Identity Work in a Social Enterprise. Academy Of Management Journal, 59(3), 740-765.
51. Tuckman, H. T., & Chang, C. F. (2006). Commercial activity, technological change and nonprofit mission. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 629–644). New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
52. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
53. Young, D.R. and Salamon, L.M. (2002). Commercialization and social ventures. In Salamon, L. (ed.), The State of Nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press, pp. 423–446.
54. Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 414–431.