評論
打印
"There is one and only one social responsibility of business" wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist
諾貝爾經濟學獎得主、經濟學家米爾頓·弗里德曼寫道，企業社會責任有且僅有一種，
"That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits."
“那就是，利用自身資源從事能讓其獲利的各種活動。”
But even if you accept Friedman's premise and regard corporate social responsibility(CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders's money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut.
但是即使你同意弗里德曼的這種假設性的觀點，并且認為企業社會責任政策是浪費股東的金錢，事情卻并非完全如此清晰。
New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.
新的研究表明，至少企業因腐敗而被起訴的時候，企業社會責任或許能為企業創造經濟價值。
The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm.
據咨詢公司“EPG”估算，英美兩國的大公司每年合計在企業社會責任上的花費超過150億美元。
This could add value to their businesses in three ways.
這能從三個方面給他們的企業增加價值。
First, consumers may take CSR spending as a "signal" that a company's products are of high quality.
第一，消費者可能會把企業的企業社會責任開銷當做是一個“信號”，即這一公司的產品質量上乘。
Second, customers may be willing to buy a company's products as an indirect may to donate to the good causes it helps.
第二，消費者可能愿意購買這一公司的產品，算是間接地為該公司所支持的事業貢獻力量。
And third, through a more diffuse "halo effect" whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
第三，通過更廣泛的“光環效應”，這一公司的善行能讓消費者和其他人有購買需求時能更多地考慮該公司。
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three.
因為消費者可能是受到了以上三個方式的影響，所以先前對企業社會責任的研究難以區分這三種方式的影響。
A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under American's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（FCPA）.
最近的一項研究試圖區分這三種方式的影響，它所用的方法就是研究因違反《美國反海外腐敗法》而遭到行賄起訴的案例。
It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations, they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
研究認為，由于檢察官并不購買那些作為其調查部分的公司產品，因此他們只能受到“光環效應”的影響。
The study found that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties.
這項研究發現，在被起訴的公司當中，那些擁有最全面的企業社會責任項目的企業往往會從輕處罰。
Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firm's political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.
他們的分析排除了這樣的可能性，即：是當事公司的政治影響力，而非他們的企業社會責任立場才讓它獲得了較輕的處罰，因為那些支持政治運動更多的公司并沒有得到更低的罰金。
In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company's record in CSR.
總之，這個研究的結論是：雖然檢察官在評估一個案件時，應該基于其功績，實際上還是受到了公司企業社會責任記錄的影響。
"We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about 20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials." says one researcher.
其中的一位研究者說：“我們估計，要么消除一個實質性的勞工權益問題，例如童工問題，要么增加20%的企業捐贈，都會促成罰金減少，一般要比因賄賂外國官員而造成的典型罰款低40%。”
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.
研究者們承認他們的研究沒有解決的問題是：針對企業社會責任各大企業到底該支出多少費用。
Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they decide their do-gooding policies.
也沒有揭露當企業做慈善方面的決策時，會有多看重“光環效應”，而非其他潛在收益。
But at least they have demonstrated that when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
但至少他們證明了一點，當企業遇到法律問題時，自身良好品質的證據將讓企業付出更少的罰金。
