好時童工問題折射商界社會責任感缺失
????筆者與富士康董事會多位成員聊過,其中并不是所有人都認為勞工問題很重要。有些人甚至覺得《紐約時報》有些小題大做。他們認為,如果一件事情不會引起公司財務上的損失,就不是什么大事。 ????這些持有功利主義態度的董事會成員,要為我們資本市場體系中徘徊不去的脆弱性負責。在跨國公司里,這些人將倫理道德的領導責任排除在了企業之外。當且僅當市場或者政府對他們的所作所為施以嚴厲的懲罰,他們才會重視道德缺失的情況。 ????這類董事會成員看不到,利用員工的信息缺失或者無能為力來提高公司的生產效率,最終將得不償失。他們不愿承認,市場參與者和整個社會對此付出的成本,最終也將由企業自己來承擔。他們也不會意識到,放任此類行為不管,可能對公司短期不會造成什么影響,但長遠來看,非常可能引起揮之不去的嚴重災難。 ????持有這種態度的董事會成員,也許會對環境保護問題有所關注,因為這類表態有可能對短期的收入提升有所幫助。他們會重視公司治理——形式遠大于實質——因為不想在董事會選舉中遇到阻力。但他們不太會關心勞工、裁員或者薪酬不平等的問題。“員工是我們最重要的資產。”CEO經常這么說。說出這句話很容易,但這些董事并不會將這個問題放入會議議程。他們也許從來不會落在紙面上,但他們心里其實并不重視企業文化或者員工的幸福。事實上,問題的本質在于,他們沒有一個經過充分考慮的經營哲學。相反,他們把頭埋在沙堆里,逃避這樣的思考。他們為了短期的股價卑躬屈膝。他們對于自己應該承擔的對股東的義務和企業的社會責任沒有全面的認識。他們面臨絕境了嗎?還沒有,但已經不遠了。 ????不到十年前,關心環保對企業還不是什么大事。但今天,明智的企業都會這么做。公司的內部治理盡管很難定義,眾說紛紜,但幾十年來都一直被認為是非同小可的重要問題。今天,董事會應當將勞工待遇——無論是公司內部還是公司外部——放上議程的頭條。 ????就像起訴書所要求的那樣,讓我們期待好時公司變得更加公開透明。這這樣一來,它的巧克力嘗起來會更加美味。 ????埃莉諾?布洛克斯漢姆是一家董事會咨詢公司“價值及公司治理同盟”的CEO。 ????翻譯:周詳 |
????Of the dozens of board members I've talked to about Foxconn, not all think the labor issues there matter. Some board members feel that the concerns raised by the Times were much ado about nothing. They believe that if an action does not cause financial pain to the company, it's okay. ????Board members who adopt this Benthamite philosophy are responsible for staggering weaknesses in our capital markets system. In overseeing corporations, these individuals put the onus of ethical leadership outside the corporation itself. They grow concerned with ethical breakdowns if, and only if, the market or the government exacts a heavy penalty for their actions. ????These kinds of board members disregard the futility of relying on those with sparse information and circumscribed ability to enforce good corporate behavior. They do not admit that the costs market participants and society assume are ones the corporation itself should bear. Nor do they appreciate that by delaying their own involvement, their corporations may escape in the short run but could very well invite worse disasters that will haunt them in the long-term. ????Directors who take this approach may get involved with environmental causes if doing so can help the immediate bottom line. They may concern themselves with governance -- in form rather than substance -- because they'd rather avoid sour board elections. But they are much less likely to concern themselves with labor matters, layoffs, or pay inequality. ????"Employees are our most valuable asset," a CEO may say. And it's easy to say those six words. But these directors don't put that issue on the agenda. While they may never say so on the record, they don't really care about corporate culture or worker happiness. ????This is not because they have given it much thought. In fact, the problem is that they lack a thoroughly considered business philosophy. They run in a pack where they can avoid such thinking. They bow down to short-term shareholder value. They do not have an informed view on their duties to stakeholders or the corporation's role in society. ????Is it hopeless? No. But it is the next frontier. ????Although less than a decade ago, concern for the environment wasn't in, today it's considered smart for business. Governance, although many can't define it, is discussed widely and considered important, not irrelevant, as it was decades ago. Boards now need to put the treatment of employees -- whether they are inside or outside the company -- at the top of their agendas. ????Let's hope Hershey becomes more transparent, as the lawsuit requests. It will make the chocolate taste that much better. ????Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm. |