社會企業的概念在2001年時引進台灣，經過幾年的推廣和努力，此領域越來越受到關注和重視。近兩年，政府更是提出社會企業行動方案、社企循環基金、社發基金，協助社企在台灣的發展。

雖然社企是同時兼顧利潤和社會利益的企業組織，但仍屬於企業組織型態之一，必須經歷籌措資本的階段。對於種子或創建階段的社會企業，公益創投為募資管道之一。然而，公益創投的概念在全球處於發展階段，在台則處於萌芽階段，因此公益創投的相關文獻和案例頗為稀少。為了提供後續相關實務、研究的基礎，本研究採用個案研究法，探討如此創新且正在發展的概念，並針對國內的案例進行深入分析和討論。透過實務案例，了解公益創投評估流程和指標的現況，協助未來想轉型公益創投的創投或公益組織，有系統且有效率的評估投資標的物(社會企業)，並協助社會企業了解創投的評估指標和流程，以增加成功募資的可能性。

公益創投和創投有著相同的組織架構，但評估標的物的指標，卻因兩者不同的價值主張而有些許的不同:創投著重報酬率和未來的市場性，公益創投則是注重公共利益和可行的商業模型。然而，哪些評估指標較為重要，取決於公益創投在光譜中的位子，越往右邊則越著重可行的商業模型，越往左邊較看重社會利益的部分。透過文獻和實務個案，發現社會影響力、可行的商業模型、信賴的團隊、成長的可能性為評估投資標的物(社會企業)的優先考量指標。尤其，社會企業的報酬是在公共利益和商業利益間擺盪，所以值得信賴且有誠信的團隊非常重要，以免最終該企業背離社會企業的精神。

In order to lessen financial burdens of the social welfare budget, a new type of the organizations was created- social enterprise. It produces the financial benefit and social benefit at the same time. Besides, it breaks the conflict between the creation of social value and of economic value. However, social enterprises also need to raise capital, and there is few research to explore this issue; therefore, there is a demand for conducting a research relating to the source of fund of social enterprises. For start-up companies, they usually raise capital from venture capital so that this research would focus on social enterprises and venture philanthropy.

For venture philanthropy, the investment dimensions mainly expand upon the two basic constructs- public interest and economic interest, but the investment criteria might vary from venture philanthropy to venture philanthropy. Besides, the importance of the measurement variables depends on the position of philanthropy spectrum. Aside from that, venture philanthropy shares with the same theoretical organizational model of venture capital, but it does not mean that they have the same selection dimensions.

Even though the investment criteria might vary from venture philanthropy to venture philanthropy, the investment criteria must have the dimension of social impact and self-sufficiency for venture philanthropy. However, the trustworthy entrepreneur, along with the potential for social impact growth and for earnings growth are also important because the successful investment highly depends on the funding team.

Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Objectives 2
1.3 Research Structure 3
1.4 Research Process 3
2 Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………4
2.1 Social Enterprise 4
2.1.1 Origin of Social Enterprise 4
2.1.2 Definition of Social Enterprise 5
2.1.3 Social Enterprise Spectrum 6
2.2 Venture Philanthropy 8
2.2.1 Origin of Venture Philanthropy 8
2.2.2 Definition of Venture Philanthropy 8
2.2.3 Venture Philanthropy Spectrum 9
2.2.4 The Nature of Venture Philanthropy Spectrum 11
2.3 Investment Criteria for Venture Capital 13
2.4 Research Gap 15
2.5 Summary 15
3 Research Methodology 17
3.1 Research Objectives 17
3.2 Research Method 18
3.3 Data Sources 19
3.4 Limitations and Potential Bias 21
3.5 Summary 22
4 Case Studies 23
4.1 Case Study 1 23
4.1.1 Background of Living Water Social Ventures 23
4.1.2 Evaluation Criterion 24
4.1.3 Exit Strategy 26
4.2 Case Study 2 27
4.2.1 Background of Catalyst 27
4.2.2 Evaluation Criterion 27
4.2.3 Exit Strategy 30
4.3 Case Study 3 31
4.3.1 Background of Philose 31
4.3.2 Evaluation Criterion 31
4.3.3 Exit Strategy 33
5 Discussion 35
5.1 Expected Return and Exit Strategy 35
5.2 Venture Philanthropy Position 37
5.3 Social Enterprises Investment 39
5.3.1 Social Enterprises Position 39
5.3.2 Issue in Donation of Social Enterprises 40
5.4 Venture Philanthropy Investment Criteria 41
5.5 Comparison with Venture Capital 43
5.6 Summary 44
6. Conclusion 45
6.1 Theoretical Foundation 45
6.2 Research Findings 46
6.3 Research Limitations and Future Research 48
Reference 49

Alemany, Luisa, Scarlata, Mariarosa, & Cumming, Douglas J. (2010). Philanthropic venture capital: A new model of financing for social entrepreneurs: Wiley Online Library.

Anheier, Helmut. (2000). Dimensions of the third sector: comparative perspectives on structure and change.
Bachher, Jagdeep Singh. (2000). Venture capitalists' investment criteria in technology-based new ventures.

Borzaga, Carol, & Santuari, Alceste. (2003). New trends in the non-profit sector in Europe: The emergence of social entrepreneurship. The Non-profit Sector in a Changing Economy, 31-59.

Bryman, Alan. (2003). Research methods and organization studies: Routledge.

Chesters, Graeme. (2004). Global complexity and global civil society. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(4), 323-342.

Dees, J Gregory. (1996). Social enterprise spectrum: Philanthropy to commerce. Boston: Harvard Business School, Publishing Division, 9-393.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management research: An introduction: Sage Publications Ltd.

Emerson, Jed. (2003). The Blended Value Proposition: Integrating Social and Financial Returns.

European Venture Philanthropy Association (2007), European Venture Philanthropy directory, http://evpa.eu.com/

Fried, Vance H, & Hisrich, Robert D. (1994). Toward a model of venture capital investment decision making. Financial management, 28-37.

Grossman, ALLEN, Appleby, SARAH, & Reimers, CAITLIN. (2013). Venture Philanthropy: Its evolution and its future. Harvard Business School.

Hisrich, Robert D, & Jankowicz, Andrew D. (1990). Intuition in venture capital decisions: An exploratory study using a new technique. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 49-62.

Kettl, Donald F. (2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 488-497.

Khanin, Dmitry, Baum, J Robert, & Mahto, Raj V. (2008). VENTURE CAPITALISTS’INVESTMENT CRITERIA: 40 YEARS OF RESEARCH. SMALL BUSINESS INSTITUTE® RESEARCH.

Kingston, John, & Bolton, Margaret. (2004). New approaches to funding not‐for‐profit organisations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(2), 112-121.

Knight, Russell M. (1994). Criteria used by venture capitalists: a cross cultural analysis. International Small Business Journal, 13(1), 26-37.

MacMillan, Ian C, Siegel, Robin, & Narasimha, PN Subba. (1986). Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new venture proposals. Journal of Business venturing, 1(1), 119-128.

MacMillan, Ian C, Zemann, Lauriann, & Subbanarasimha, PN. (1987). Criteria distinguishing successful from unsuccessful ventures in the venture screening process. Journal of business venturing, 2(2), 123-137.

Milward, H Brinton, & Provan, Keith G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359-380.

Muzyka, Dan, Birley, Sue, & Leleux, Benoit. (1996). Trade-offs in the investment decisons of European venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(4), 273-287.
Robinson, Richard B. (1988). Emerging strategies in the venture capital industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 53-77.

Salamon, Lester M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: Toward a theory of government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 16(1-2), 29-49.

Scarlata, Mariarosa, & Alemany, Luisa. (2008). Financing social entrepreneurs: philanthropic venture capital vs. foundations.

Simon, Jeffrey D. (1984). A theoretical perspective on political risk. Journal of International Business Studies, 15(3), 123-143.

Tyebjee, Tyzoon T, & Bruno, Albert V. (1984). A model of venture capitalist investment activity. Management science, 30(9), 1051-1066.

Wells, W. A., 1974, Venture Capital Decision Making, Unpublished doctoral disseration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh

Yin, Robert K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods: Sage publications

Young, Dennis. (2003). New trends in the US non-profit sector: Towards market integration. The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy, OECD: Paris.