社會企業在各國發展下行之多年，而近年其從以獎勵補助性質逐漸轉向投資導向，加上永續風潮興起，社會企業雙重底線特性也引起企業更加重視，而政府及民間單位皆會透過中介組織給予職能培訓或相關資金的支援，在此社會投資的趨勢下，中介組織作為社會企業供需雙方間的溝通媒介，經濟合作暨發展組織即在2015年社會影響力報告書中明確揭示中介組織在社會企業發展中的重要性。然而現有文獻中少有探討中介組織在社會企業發展過程中的角色定位及實際運作情形，故引發本研究動機，試圖藉由了解目前國內中介組織實際運作情形歸納出中介組織之角色分類，以及其隨著社會企業發展中中介組織工作重點的轉變。
本研究目的在於探討國內中介組織在社會企業中的整體運作情形，首先探討中介組織對於社會企業之社會需求，並分析國內中介組織的發展型態及角色定位，藉此剖析其對於社會企業組織供需端如何發揮功能，並聚焦在其執行成效之評估，並分析中介組織所面臨之困境。本論文結合專書及碩博士論文、學術期刊及報章雜誌等資料進行分析，希望能夠檢視社會企業發展過程中中介組織的角色及具體執行情形，歸納出中介組織未來可能發展方向，並作為日後修正相關政策的參考。
本研究採質化研究，為國內中介組織作一探索性的歸納分析，並以深度訪談法進行訪談，訪談對象為民間各類型中介組織，依據研究問題進行訪談大綱的設計及文獻蒐集，最後得出研究結論及相關建議。本研究結果發現目前國內並無專門獨立為社會企業服務對象之中介組織，成立型態多元且依照不同專業主要分為兩大角色分類以提供社會企業相關協助，而中介組織的執行重點會因社會企業發展歷程隨之轉變。隨著近期淨零碳排的永續理念仍持續帶領全球，中介組織持續存在其重要性，期待政府對於中介組織的生態圈投入資源以利其長期發展。

The development of social enterprises has been declining in various countries for many years, and in recent years, they have gradually shifted from being rewarded and subsidized to investment-oriented. Coupled with the rise of the sustainable trend, the double bottom line characteristics of social enterprises have also attracted more attention from enterprises, and both government and private organizations will use intermediary organizations. Provide functional training or related financial support. Under the trend of social investment, intermediary organizations are the communication media between the supply and demand sides of social enterprises. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development clearly stated in the 2015 Social Impact Report importance in business development. However, the existing literature rarely discusses the role positioning and actual operation of intermediary organizations in the development process of social enterprises, so the motivation of this research is to try to summarize the role classification of intermediary organizations and there with the change of the work focus of intermediary organizations in the development of social enterprises.
The purpose of this research is to explore the overall operation of domestic intermediary organizations in social enterprises, first of all to discuss the social needs of intermediary organizations for social enterprises, and to analyze the development pattern and role positioning of domestic intermediary organizations, so as to analyze their supply and demand for social enterprise organizations. how the terminal functions, focus on the evaluation of its implementation effectiveness, and analyze the dilemma faced by the intermediary organization. This paper analyzes the data of books, master's and doctoral dissertations, academic journals and newspapers and magazines, hoping to examine the role and specific implementation of intermediary organizations in the development process of social enterprises, and summarize the possible future development directions of intermediary organizations, which will be used as a reference for future revisions policy reference.
In this research, qualitative research is conducted to make an exploratory inductive analysis for domestic intermediary organizations, and conduct interviews with in-depth interviews. The interview objects are various types of non-governmental intermediary organizations. According to the research questions, the interview outline design and literature collection are carried out. draw conclusions and recommendations. The results of this study found that there is currently no intermediary organization dedicated to serving social enterprises independently in China. They are established in diverse forms and are divided into two major roles according to different majors to provide social enterprise-related assistance. The implementation focus of intermediary organizations will vary according to social development has changed accordingly. As the sustainable concept of net zero carbon emissions continues to lead the world recently, the importance of intermediary organizations continues to exist, and it is expected that the government will invest resources in the ecosystem of intermediary organizations to facilitate their long-term development.

王秉鈞、鄭勝分、吳佳霖、劉育欣（2013）。我國非營利組織社會企業化之研究。國家發展委員會委託研究計劃，未出版。

丘昌泰（2004）。《公共政策─基礎篇》，台北：巨流。

行政院（2014）。社會企業行動方案，2014年12月3日，取自：https://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/RelFile/27/716149/8d8b6be7-0e21-4a37-9c72-871e28b325d2.pdf

行政院（2018）。社會創新行動方案，2018年8月9日，取自：https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/448DE008087A1971/f1eed6f0-a226-4ebd-9e71-3327ae0bcef

吳英明（2016）。公私部門協力關係之研究：兼論公私部門聯合開發與都市發展。高雄；復文圖書出版社。

李月霞（2003）。中介組織與會員組織間關係之研究。社會政策與社會工作學系碩士班，南投市。

李宜興（2009）。社區型基金會與台灣公民社會發展─以嘉義新港文教基金會為例。國立中正大學社會工作學系碩士班，嘉義市。

汪玉凱（2018）。公共管理與非政府公共組織。新北市：崧博。

林子堯，2019 我國社會企業法律問題分析及其立法模式。國立臺灣大學科技整合法律學研究所碩士班，臺北市。

林淑馨（2014）。地方政府與非營利組織協力之初探：以東日本大地震為例。社區發展季刊，148，293-302。

林德昌（2007）。台灣公民社會指標之研究：兼論青年公共參與。行政院青年輔導委員會。

林豔玉（2007）。政府在社會中介組織發展中的作用。沙洋師範高等與學校學報，5，19-22。

孫書恩（2016）。台灣 B 型企業之企業社會責任的實務研究。國立政治大學企業管理學系碩士班，臺北市

孫智麗、周孟嫻（2016）。全球社會企業之發展現況與各國相關政策分析。臺灣經濟研究月刊，39（3），16-28。

徐震、林萬億（1983）。當代社會工作。臺北：五南。

翁慧圓（2006）。兒童福利專業資源網絡之探討。115，173-185。

翁慧圓（2006）。兒童福利專業資源網絡之探討。社區發展季刊，115，173-185。

張采明、蔡余傑（2016）。內部創業：傳統企業的組織裂變、模式升級與管理變革。中國：鐵道出版社。

張雨婷（2017）。貿易中介組織在政府與企業互動中之定位與角色：台灣與南韓之比較分析。國立成功大學政治經濟學系碩士班，臺南市。

張英陣（2004）。社區照顧與非營利組織。社區發展季刊，106，60-67。

張英陣（2011）。縣市合併對非營利組織的影響。社區發展季刊。134，228-236。

郭靜晃、曾華源（2000）。建構社會福利資源網絡策略之探討─以兒童少年服務輸送為例。社區發展季刊，89，107-118。

陳政智（2009）。公私協力下政府部門如何協助非營利組織生存。126，181-190。

陳瑋慈（2017）。社會企業行動方案建平臺之政策執行研究─以育成輔導平台為例。國立師範大學社會教育學系碩士班，臺北市。

程航（2020）。內生型與外衍型中介組織網絡連結之比較研究─從社區照顧與社會資本建構觀點。社會發展研究學刊，26（1），1-42。

黃瑞琴（1994）。質的教育研究方法。臺北：心理出版社。

黃銘惇（2000）。社會科學研究法：社會關係研究取向。臺北：桂冠。

新創公司的100件大小事（2021）。戚務君、劉福運、吳宗翰。臺北：時報。

劉子琦（2015）。英國社會企業之旅：以公民參與實現社會得利的經濟行動。臺北：新自然主義。

鄭勝分（2005）。歐美社會企業發展及其在臺灣應用之研究。國立政治大學公共行政學系博士班，臺北市。

鄭勝分（2007）。社會企業的概念分析。政策研究學報，7，65-108。

鄭勝分（2016）。補助或投資？政策工具對社會企業發展之影響。行政暨政策學報，62，127-157。

蕭新煌、官有垣、陸宛蘋（2017）。非營利部門：組織與運作。臺北：巨流出版。

Abramson, J.A., & McCarthy, R. (2003). Infrastructure organization. In Lester M.

Andrew, K. (2003). What role for intermediaries?. Retrieved from: https://www.alliancemagazine.org/feature/what-role-for-intermediaries/https://www.alliancemagazine.org/feature/what-role-for-intermediaries/

Barend, M., & Maria, N. & Dietmar, B. (2005). Intermediaries Organisation and Preocesses: theory and research issues, the Netherlands: Position Paper for PRIME Workshop, 6-7.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univesity Press.

Bedeian, A.G. (1980). Organizations: Theory and Analysis, Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press.

Belbin, R.M. (2010). Team Roles at Work(2nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge

Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, Identities, and Behaviors. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent Developments in Role Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67-92.

Brinkerhof, J. M. (2002). Public-Nonprofit Partnership: Adefining Framwork. Administration and Development, 22,19-30.

Burkett, I. (2013). Reaching Underserved Markets: The Role of Specialist Financial Intermediaries in Australia. Australia: Foresters.

Coburn, J. & Rijsdijk, R. (2010). Evaluating the Success Factors for Establishing a Thriving Social Enterprise in Scotland.Scotland: Scottish Government.

Cohen, S.L(2013). What do accelerators do? Insights from incubators and angels. Innovations(pp. 19-25).VA: Management faculty publications.

Dees, J. G. & J.Elias (1998). The challenges of combing social and commercial enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 1, 165-178.

Dees, J.G. (1998). Enterprising Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76, 55-67.

DTI. (2002). Social Enterprise: A Strategy for Success. London: Department of Trade and Industry.

Emile, D. (1893). De la Division du Travail Social. France: Presses universitaires.

Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 320–333. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.2.320

Floyd, S.W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25, 154-177. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.2307/259268

Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process.

取自http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/442411

H, Spencer (1873). The study of sociology. London: Henry S. King.

Hollingworth , A.& Roth, J.A. (2006). Implementing Performance Management and Enabling Partnership in Child Welfare. Philadelphia Department of Human Service.

Hynes, B. (2009). Growing the social enterprise: issues and challenges. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(2), 114-125.

Jackson, E.T. & Associates (2012). Accelerating Impact: Achievements, Challenges and Whats Next in the Impact Investing Industry. NY: The Rockefeller Foundation.

Jenner, P.(2016). The role of the intermediary in social enterprise sustainability: An international comparative study. Journal of New Business Ideas and Trends, 14(1), 23-40.

Jenson, J (2012).Redesigning citizenship regimes after neoliberalism: moving towards socialinvestment. In N. Morel, B. Palier, & J. Palme eds., Towards a Social Investment Welfare State? .61-87. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Katz, D, & Kahn, R.L. (1978) The social psychology of organizations (2nd eds). New York , NY: Wiley.

Kerry, O. H. (2012). The Profits of Charity. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Madsen, M.T. (2002). Managerial roles in a dynamic world. Finland: Proceedings of the 12th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research.

Margaret, E. B.(1969). Voluntary social action: A history of the National Council of Social Service, 1919-1969. London: National Council of Social Service.

Melissa, P. (2005). Organizational Role Theory and the Multi-Faceted Worker. Master's thesis, University of Tasmania of Management, Australia. Retrieved from: https://eprints.utas.edu.au/1709/1/Parker_and_Wickham_ANZAM.pdf

Mendell, M. & Nogales, R. (2009). Social enterprises in OECD Member Countries: What are the financial streams? in A Noya (ed.), The Changing Boundaries of Social Enterprises, OECD.

Meyskens, M., Carsrud, A. & Cardozo, R. (2010). The symbiosis of entities in the social engagement network: The role of social ventures, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(5), 425-455.

Micheal, W.(1995). The Civil Society Argument. In Julia, S. (Ed.). Group Rights: Perspectives since 1900. New York, NY: Thoemmes Press.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

OECD (1999). Social Enterprise. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2015). Social Impact Invest: Building the Evidence Base. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2015). Social Impact Invest: Building the Evidence Base. Paris: OECD.

Oonagh, B. B., Alison, D. & Mark, S. (2017). Regulatory Waves: Comparative Perspectives on State Regulation and Self-regulation Policies in the Nonprofit Sector. England: Cambridge University Press.

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. New York: Free Press.

Peter, J. (2016). The role of the intermediary in social enterprise sustainability: an international comparative, 14,1, 23-39.

Salamon (ed.). The state of nonprofit America, pp. 331-354. Washington: Brookings Institution.

Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rattonal, Natural, and Open Systems (3rd ed.) NJ: Englewood Cliffs.

Shanmugalingam, C., Graham, J., Tucker, S., & Mulgan, G. (2011). Growing Social Ventures London: NESTA.

Taylor, M., & Kendall, J. (1996). History of the Voluntary Sectoty. Manchester, the UK: Manchester University Press.

The World Economic Forum. (2013). From the Margins to the Mainstream: Assessment of the Impact Investment Sector and Opportunities to Engage Mainstream Investors. Retrieved from:https://fr.weforum.org/reports/margins-mainstream-assessment-impact-investment-sector-and-opportunities-engage-mainstream-investors

Volkhart, F. H., Lorenzo, F. (2007). CIVICUS global survey of the state of civil society: Comparative perspectives. Connecticut, CT : Kumarian Press.

Wolfenden Committee (1978). The Future of voluntary organisations: The report of the Wolfenden Committee. London: Croom Helm.

Young, D.R(1967). New trends in the US non-profit sector: Towards market integration. In Noya, Antonella & Nativel, Corinne (Eds.). The Non-profit Sector in a Changing Economy (pp.61-77). Paris: OECD.