本文利用 MIX Market 的資料，以多元迴歸分析來探討微型金融機構社會績效和財務績效間的正負向關係，並且使用 CERISE 評等機構的社會績效評估準則和模型進行研究。被解釋變數部分是關於微型金融機構的財務指標，使用每員工負責的借款人數衡量其生產力、超過三十天的逾期貸款比率加上沖銷比例衡量其資產品質，以及營運費用比例衡量其效率。解釋變數以每位借款人平均貸款額度除以國民人均所得、女性借款人數比率、貸款利率、顧客回流率、員工週轉率以及借款人數為社會指標。本研究結果顯示營運在越偏遠貧窮的地方帶給微型金融機構愈大的生產力，但也會帶來較低的效率；貸款利率的減少也能增加借款人數，提高生產力；對員工的社會責任越好，可以提升機構的生產力和效率。本文對財務績效和社會績效相關性的結果有呈現負相關，也有呈現正相關，展現財務績效和社會績效兼容並存的一面。

Adopting the data source from MIX Market and social performance criteria and model of CERISE rating agency, this paper studies the relationship between social performance and financial performance of Microfinance institutions(MFI) by using regression analysis. Dependent variables are about MFIs’ financial indicator: we use borrowers per staff member to measure productivity, portfolio at risk > 30 days plus write-off ratio to measure portfolio quality and operating expense ratio to measure efficiency. As to independent variables, we use average loan balance, percentage of female borrowers, yield, borrower retention rate, staff turnover rate and number of active borrowers as social indicators. Three results come out that: the remoter MFIs operate, the more productivity they have, but it also causes less efficiency; when yield is lower, it can increase active borrower to raise productive ; it can raise productivity and efficiency when social responsibility to staff is improved. This paper reveals negative and positive relationship between social performance and financial performance, and most importantly social performance and financial performance are compatible.

1. 穆罕默德‧尤努斯，打造富足新世界，曾育慧譯，初版，博雅書屋，台北市，民國九十七年。
2. Bédécarrats, F., S. Baur, and C. Lapenu (2011), “Combining Social and Financial Performance:A Paradox? ,” CERISE working paper.
3. Center for the Study of Financial Innovation (2011), Microfinance Banana Skins 2011, Losing its Fairy Dust, Heron, Dawson & Sawyer, UK.
4. Christen, R. P. (2001), “Commercialization and Mission Drift,” Occasional paper, CGAP , Washington D.C.
5. Chen, G., S. Rasmussen, X. Reille, and D. Rozas (2010), “Indian Microfinance Goes Public: The SKS Initial Public Offering,” CGAP report no. 65, Washington, D.C.
6. Cull, R., A. Demirguc-Kunt, and J. Morduch (2009), “Microfinance Meets the Market,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(1), 167–192.
7. Dewez, D., and S. Neisa (2009), “MFI’s Social Performance Mapping and the
Relationship between Financial and Social Performance,” Incofin Investment
Management.
8. Fernando, N. A. (2004), “Micro Success Story: Transformation of Nongovernmental Organizations into Regulated Financial Institutions,” Manila: Asian Development Bank.
9. Gonzalez, A. (2010), “Microfinance Synergies and Trade-offs: Social versus Financial Performance Outcomes in 2008,” MIX Data Brief, No. 7.
10. Kumar, K. A. (2010), “Sustainability and Mission Drift in Microfinance: Empirical Studies on Mutual Exclusion of Double Bottom Lines,” Hanken School of Economics.
11. Lieberman, I. W., A. Anderson, Z. Grafe, B. Campbell, and D. Kopf (2008), “Microfinance and Capital Markets: The Initial Listing/ Public Offering of Four Leading Institutions,” Council of Microfinance Equity Funds.
12. Mersland, R., and R. Ø. Strøm (2010), “Microfinance Mission Drift? ,” World Development, Vol. 38(1), 28-36.
13. Nair, T. S. (2010), “Commercial Microfinance and Social Responsibility: A Critique,” Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. XLV, No. 31, 32-37.
14. Rhyne, E. (1998), “The Yin and Yang of Microfinance: Reaching the Poor and Sustainability,” MicroBanking Bulletin.
15. Rosenberg, R. (2007), “CGAP Reflections on the Compartamos Initial Public Offering: A Case Study on Microfinance Interest Rates and Profits,” CGAP report no. 42, Washington, D.C.
16. Schmidt, R. H. (2008), ”Microfinance, Commercialisation and Ethics,” Working Paper Series: Finance and Accounting, No. 194, Goethe-University, Frankfurt.