精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

“很少有哪種趨勢，能像要求企業(yè)管理者去接受社會責(zé)任，而不是為股東盡可能多地賺錢那樣，動搖我們這個自由社會的根基。”

以上摘自諾貝爾經(jīng)濟學(xué)獎得主弗里德曼1962年出版的《資本主義和自由》一書。他在書中倡導(dǎo)限制政府的權(quán)力，解除對市場的約束。弗里德曼的思想整整影響了三代人。弗里德曼的擔(dān)憂是務(wù)實的，也是有原則的：“如果商人真的有除了為股東創(chuàng)造最大利潤之外的其他社會責(zé)任，他們是怎么知道這些社會責(zé)任是什么的？具有自我選擇傾向的個人能決定社會的利益是什么嗎？他們能決定他們?yōu)樽约汉凸蓶|選擇的社會責(zé)任能夠服從于社會利益嗎？”

弗里德曼幾十年前的這一串發(fā)問，直至今天仍值得我們深思，尤其是這些問題直至今天還在造成社會的分裂。圍繞這些問題，人們就企業(yè)應(yīng)在自由市場上扮演什么角色激辯不休——資本主義是否應(yīng)像很多人主張的那樣，做到“正義”和“自覺”？還是應(yīng)該專注于追逐利潤？

《財富》的意見是，這個矛盾其實是個偽命題，至少這種爭論是不必要的。企業(yè)在雄心勃勃地追逐自己的商業(yè)目標(biāo)的過程中，往往已經(jīng)為社會整體福祉做出了貢獻(xiàn)。這種努力對企業(yè)的自身運營是件好事，對股東也是如此。為了更好地闡述這一事實，我們連續(xù)第四年評選了幾十家公司，編制了一份“改變世界”排行榜。比如希爾頓集團在過去10年間，通過降低能耗和廢水，節(jié)省了10億美元的成本。目前，希爾頓酒店集團仍在快速擴張，但歸功于它在可持續(xù)發(fā)展項目上的努力，它的每平方米平均碳排放已經(jīng)比2008年下降了30%以上。

希爾頓集團的例子也回答了弗里德曼的第一個問題。在希爾頓動工興建每一幢酒店大樓時，在公司決定是否繼續(xù)在酒店大堂提供免費咖啡和甜甜圈時，“具有自我選擇傾向的個人”（即公司高管）的確做出了“怎樣做才符合社會利益”的判斷。但這些商業(yè)決策并未損害公司的業(yè)務(wù)。2017年，希爾頓酒店的住客人數(shù)還比上年增長了1000萬人次。

值得注意的是，在此過程中，希爾頓的股東也是獲益者。去年希爾頓的股價上漲23%，超過了標(biāo)普500的平均水平（16%）。而且自希爾頓自2013年上市以來，它的股市表現(xiàn)連年穩(wěn)步跑贏大盤。

美國超市連鎖巨頭克羅格（Kroger）近年來致力于削減食物浪費和為貧困人口提供食物。與此同時，克羅格的股東也獲益頗豐。該公司的股價去年上漲了27%。從2013年起，美國銀行通過發(fā)行所謂“綠色債券”，向低碳環(huán)保企業(yè)提供融資，其股價去年上升了28%。過去三年，其股票收益達(dá)到標(biāo)普500平均值的2倍。

此外還有我們熟悉的阿迪達(dá)斯。它從海洋里回收塑料垃圾，并把它們制成200美元一雙的運動鞋。（這也是一筆好生意。）過去三年，阿迪達(dá)斯的股票平均每年上漲44%之多。

在以上每個案例中，這些企業(yè)都做了偉大的企業(yè)才會做的事——滿足了市場的某個未被滿足的需求，并由此賺錢。你千萬不要以為他們在做慈善（雖說這些企業(yè)有時也做慈善），這并非慈善，而是正兒八經(jīng)、根正苗紅的資本主義。然而在解決問題上，這一套確實是有效的。

當(dāng)然，資本主義還存在許多棘手的問題。比如鈷的開采利用問題就應(yīng)引起企業(yè)的警惕——鈷是一種用于鋰電池的關(guān)鍵金屬，智能手機、電動汽車都用得著它。薇芙·沃爾特在一份名叫《血汗與電池》的特別報告中直截了當(dāng)?shù)刂赋觯衡挼拈_采成本，往往被轉(zhuǎn)嫁到世界上一些最貧窮的國家和人民身上。

或許有了正確的商業(yè)模式，我們也能改變這種現(xiàn)狀。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

注：本文的另一版本以《利潤與進步》為題，刊載于2018年9月1日刊的《財富》雜志上。

譯者：樸成奎

FEW TRENDS COULD SO THOROUGHLY UNDERMINE the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible.”

So wrote the late Nobel Prize–winning economist Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom, his 1962 paean to limited government and unfettered markets, which has influenced some three generations of readers and counting. Friedman’s concerns, it seems, were pragmatic as well as principled: “If businessmen do have a social responsibility other than making maximum profits for stockholders,” he asked, “how are they to know what it is? Can self-selected private individuals decide what the social interest is? Can they decide how great a burden they are justified in placing on themselves or their stockholders to serve that social interest?”

Such questions, posed decades ago, are worth pondering—in large part because they continue to divide people today. They are at the very center of the great debate over what role companies should play in our free-market society: Should capitalism be “just” or “conscious,” as many contend … or should its aim be just the conscious pursuit of profit?

At Fortune, we’ve concluded that trade-off is a false one, or at least unnecessary. Companies can and often do serve the social good by ambitiously pursuing their business objectives; indeed, such efforts can be a boon to their operations, and ultimately to shareholders as well. To illustrate this fact, for the fourth straight year, we’ve highlighted dozens of such companies in our Change the World list. Consider Hilton, which has shaved a billion dollars in costs over the past decade by reducing its energy and water waste. The fast-expanding hotel chain now generates 30% less carbon emissions on a square-foot basis than it did in 2008, thanks to its aggressive sustainability program.

To answer one of Friedman’s questions, “self-selected private individuals” (also known as corporate executives) did make a judgment as to what the social interest might be in this endeavor—just as they determined where to break ground on each new hotel property or whether to serve free coffee and doughnuts in the lobby. And all of these collective business decisions haven’t seemed to hurt business any. The chain had 10 million more guests in 2017 than in the year before.

Hilton shareholders, it’s worth noting, have gotten an upgrade too. The stock is up 23% over the past year compared with the S&P 500’s gain of 16%, and shares have outpaced the market since Hilton’s IPO in 2013.

Supermarket chain Kroger is simultaneously working to eliminate food waste and feed the hungry, while its shareholders get fat: The stock is up 27% over the past year. Bank of America is helping to finance earth-friendly, low-carbon businesses through so-called green bonds—a market it all but created in 2013. Shares are up 28% over the past year, and the stock’s returns have been twice as good as the S&P’s over the past three.

Then there’s Adidas, which is recovering plastic from the oceans and converting them into chic $200 shoes. (Hey, it’s a business.) And that stock, by the way, is up an annualized 44% over the past three years running.

In each case, these businesses are doing what great businesses do: meeting an unmet need and making money doing it. Don’t get fooled into thinking this is charity (though these companies do some of that as well). No, this is good, old-fashioned capitalism. When it comes to problem solving, it just works.

Plenty of seemingly intractable problems remain, of course. One of those involves cobalt, a key mineral in the lithium-ion batteries that power our ubiquitous smartphones, electric vehicles, and more. As Viv Walt writes in her unflinching special report, “Blood, Sweat, and Batteries,” the cost of mining that cobalt is often paid by some of the poorest people in the world.

Perhaps with the right business model, we can change that too.

A version of this article appears in the September 1, 2018 issue of Fortune with the headline “Profit For Progress.”