The governance of social enterprise in Taiwan and Hong Kong: a comparison

Abstract

In Taiwan and Hong Kong, social enterprises are in a stage of growth and are becoming more diversified. This article aims to explore the governance of social enterprises in Taiwan and Hong Kong, including the analysis of several dimensions on issues such as the dynamics of the governance structure and function, board composition and CEO, and institutional adjustments in the board and CEO within the social enterprise sectors in both regions. The theoretical concepts in a social enterprise context employed in this article include the corporate governance model and the democratic governance model. The data used for this article are the surveys conducted in 2010. In addition, the collection of the qualitative data from interviews with key leaders (e.g. board member and CEO) of eight social enterprises in these two Chinese communities is supplemented. Through such comparisons, we have obtained significant findings on governance issues such as the transformation of organizational structure and the institutional adjustments of the board members and CEO in the development of social enterprises in Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Keywords:

• social enterprise
• governance
• non-profit organizations
• Taiwan
• Hong Kong

Notes

1. According to EMES European Research Network definition, the ideal-typical social enterprise is formed on a collective dynamics as well as on the participation of different stakeholders in the organization's governance, which may include beneficiaries, volunteers, public authorities, donors, etc. This is normally portrayed as the ‘multiple-stakeholder ownership’ (Bachiegga and Borzaga 2003). Therefore, if the board of directors of social enterprises comprise a narrow group of people, for example, volunteers or donors, it is considered a ‘single-stakeholder ownership’. As for the definition of ‘philanthropic governance’, Alexander and Weiner (1998) indicate that, compared to ‘corporate governance’, the model of ‘philanthropic governance underscores: large board size, separation of management and governance, no limit to consecutive terms, no compensation for board service and emphasis on assets and mission preservation (p. 225).