評論
打印
Jesse Boot was steeped in a culture that expected much more of its leading businessmen.
杰西·布特浸透在一種文化中，這種文化對它的主要商人期望更多。
In 1919, in the first issue of the company newsletter, the Beacon, Boot wrote to his staff:
1919年，在公司第一期通訊《燈塔》中，布特給他的員工寫道：
“Fellowship in recreation, fellowship in ideals, common hope, common sympathies,
“休閑的伙伴關(guān)系，理想的伙伴關(guān)系，共同的希望，共同的同情，
and common humanity bind us together; and whatever fosters this happy union is valuable.”
共同的人性將我們團結(jié)在一起；任何能促進這一幸福結(jié)合的東西都是有價值的。”
Today we know to smile at this as paternalism.
今天，我們知道這是一種家長式的管理方式。
Yet we have no popular term to describe the worldview of business leaders such as Pessina.
然而，我們沒有一個流行的詞匯來描述像佩西納這樣的商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖的世界觀。
A Yiddish joke has it that to a worm in horseradish the whole world is horseradish.
意第緒語中有個笑話說，對于辣根中的蟲子來說，整個世界都是辣根。
When it comes to the culture of modern business, we are that worm.
當涉及到現(xiàn)代商業(yè)文化時，我們就是那條蟲子。
You hear it when the BBC and the press treat the economy as it were merely a synonym for business – and business as if it were just a synonym for finance.
當BBC和媒體把經(jīng)濟僅僅當作商業(yè)的同義詞時，你會聽到這種說法，而商業(yè)似乎僅僅是金融的同義詞。
You hear it when the term “entrepreneur” is applied to a carpetbagger with a good PR,
當你聽到“企業(yè)家”這個詞被用來形容一個有著良好公關(guān)的冒險家時，
or when chief executives defend corporate tax-dodging as being their duty to shareholders.
或者首席執(zhí)行官們辯解說，公司逃稅是他們對股東應(yīng)盡的責任。
Jesse Boot reminds us that this was not always so.
杰西·布特提醒我們，情況并非一直如此。
He would surely have recognised some of himself in Stefano Pessina: the wheeler-dealing, the gusto for marketing, the tireless expansionism. Jesse Boot was steeped in a culture that expected much more of its leading businessmen.
他肯定會在斯蒂法諾·佩希納身上看到一些自己的影子：精明的手腕，對營銷的熱情，不知疲倦的擴張主義。但是布特浸透在一種文化中，這種文化對它的主要商人期望更多。
The point about Pessina is not that he is uniquely bad, but that he operates in a milieu that asks so little of its capitalists – even when they are reliant on public money.
佩西納的問題不在于他的壞是獨一無二的，而在于他所處的環(huán)境對資本家要求甚少——甚至在他們依賴公共資金時也是如此。
