臺灣偏鄉藝文教育長期面臨資源分配不均、專業師資不足與外部專案難以在地延續等困境。隨著企業社會參與模式改變，企業基金會逐漸由傳統的單向捐贈，轉向策略性社會投資。本研究以中國信託文教基金會「夢想家圓夢工程」為個案，在服務主導邏輯與多方利害關係人理論下，透過質性個案研究法，系統性梳理計畫文件、既有訪談、外部委員觀察資料、問卷資料，並參考SROI報告書評估結果，進而歸納出偏鄉藝文教育之價值共創框架。
研究發現，此一框架包含三個相互連動的層次：其一，企業基金會作為平台搭建者，串聯藝術團隊、種子教師、種子學校、種子學生與外部支持系統等行動者；其二，平台透過「議題倡議」、「賦能共創」、「網絡串聯」與「內化續航」四項動態互動機制，促成多方協作；其三，此協作歷程能促成外部資源轉化為多方共享之「品牌信任」、「核心素養」、「教學能力」、「關係網絡」與「在地延續」等五大關鍵資本。
本研究指出，偏鄉藝文教育的永續發展，關鍵不在於外部資源的一次性挹注，而在於能否透過平台協作，促成專業教學能力移轉與內化。此一價值共創框架，拓展了企業基金會作為偏鄉藝文教育平台搭建者的研究視角，並為企業推動策略性社會投資與偏鄉藝文教育永續發展，提供具體的實務參考。

Arts education in rural Taiwan faces structural challenges, including inequitable resource distribution, a shortage of professional arts teachers, and difficulties sustaining externally initiated projects. As corporate social engagement shifts from one-way giving toward strategic social investment, this qualitative case study examines the “Dreamers Project,” initiated by the CTBC Cultural and Educational Foundation. Grounded in Service-Dominant Logic and multi-stakeholder theory, it analyzes project documents, existing interview and written feedback records, external evaluators’ observations, and questionnaire data, while drawing on findings from the Social Return on Investment (SROI) report.
The findings reveal a value co-creation framework with three interconnected levels. First, the corporate foundation serves as a platform builder connecting professional arts groups, seed teachers, seed schools, seed students, and external support systems. Second, the platform facilitates collaboration through four dynamic mechanisms: issue advocacy, empowerment and co-creation, network building, and internalization and continuity. Third, these interactions transform external resources into five shared forms of capital: brand trust, core competencies, teaching capabilities, relational networks, and local continuity.
The study finds that sustainable rural arts education depends not on one-time resource injections but on platform-based collaboration that enables the “outside-in” transfer and internalization of professional teaching capabilities. The framework extends the understanding of corporate foundations as platform builders and provides practical implications for strategic social investment and sustainable rural arts education.

一、中文文獻
中國信託文教基金會（2019年4月）。2018年第二屆 LOVE & ARTS 夢想＋圓夢工程《那麼會跳的夢》社會投資報酬率報告書。中國信託文教基金會。https://www.ctbcbank.com/content/dam/twrbo/pdf/esg/SROI_Report_Dream_Initiative_Project.pdf
中國信託文教基金會（n.d.）。中國信託當代繪畫獎。https://www.ctbcculture.org/w/CTBC/ArtsAward
中國信託文教基金會（n.d.）。夢想家圓夢工程。https://www.ctbcculture.org/w/CTBC/Dream
中國信託文教基金會（n.d.）。新舞臺藝術節。https://www.ctbcculture.org/w/CTBC/ArtsFestival
文化部（n.d.）。富邦人壽美術館基金會。全國館所及團體查詢系統。https://cnpo.moc.gov.tw/FreePage/NationwideJPDetail.aspx?id=188
台新銀行文化藝術基金會（n.d.）。關於台新藝術獎。https://www.taishinart.org.tw/art-award-about.html
玉山銀行（n.d.）。2026畫家畫玉山：比賽辦法。https://event.esunbank.com.tw/mkt/drawesun/rules.html
吳美瑤（2019）。全球視野、在地理解：臺灣偏鄉教育的難題與未來。教育脈動電子期刊，19。國家教育研究院。https://teric.naer.edu.tw/wSite/ct?ctNode=655&mp=teric_b&xItem=2046233
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E7%B8%BD%E7%B6%B1.pdf
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要：國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校—藝術領域。https://stv.naer.edu.tw/data/course_outline/pta_18533_2143291_60289.pdf
偏遠地區學校教育發展條例（2017）。全國法規資料庫。
https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0070073
偏遠地區學校分級及認定標準（2021）。教育部主管法規共用系統。https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL001771
國泰金融控股股份有限公司（n.d.）。國泰金融控股股份有限公司。https://www.cathaycg.com.tw/
陳婉琪、陳易甫（2024）。為台灣而教：偏鄉教育問題及 TFT 介入成效評估。當代教育研究季刊，32(1)，77–117。https://doi.org/10.6151/CERQ.202403_32(1).0003
藝術教育法（2015）。全國法規資料庫。https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0170037
財團法人富邦藝術基金會（n.d.）。關於我們：基金會歷史。https://www.fubonart.org.tw/about/history
富邦美術館（n.d.）。關於我們：歷史沿革。https://www.fubonartmuseum.org/About?tab=history

二、英文文獻
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012a). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part I: Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012450777
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012b). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part II: Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012454685
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303
Chang, Y.-C. (2020). Creating value through the performing arts festival: The multi-stakeholder approach. Journal of Macromarketing, 40(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146719894627
Eccles, R. G., & Klimenko, S. (2019). The investor revolution. Harvard Business Review, 97(3), 106–116.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408177
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.07
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77. https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business School Press.
Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9573-3
UNESCO. (2010). Seoul Agenda: Goals for the Development of Arts Education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000190692
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001