首页 500强 活动 榜单 商业 科技 领导力 专题 品牌中心
杂志订阅

美国公司CEO纷纷发声谴责哈马斯的恐怖行径,民间团体却集体失声

发声的CEO们明确无误地表明自己的道德立场尤其重要,因为许多民间团体似乎毫无动作。

文本设置
小号
默认
大号
Plus(0条)

图片来源:GETTY IMAGES

许多社会活动家和媒体评论员似乎条件反射式地认为,CEO们是公民社会唯一的声音。哈马斯对以色列发动残暴袭击几天后,美国政治光谱的两端都有一些善意的声音谴责CEO们的沉默,媒体的主流声音是商界领袖错过了这次展现企业社会责任的关键时刻。

这是错误的。毫无行动的是公民社会的其他支柱,包括主要非政府组织。相比之下,众多商界领袖,如摩根大通(JPMorgan)、微软(Microsoft)、谷歌(Google)、万事达卡(Mastercard)、英伟达(NVIDIA)、花旗集团(Citi)、宝维斯(Paul Weiss)、德勤(Deloitte)、星巴克(Starbucks)、UPS和沃尔玛(Walmart)等公司的CEO,纷纷站出来谴责哈马斯的入侵,展现出员工所期待的道德勇气。

但在误导性的媒体报道中却看不到这些信息。最近,一位著名人权活动家错误的评论,谴责CEO们的集体反应“往好了说是令人失望,往坏了说是灾难性的”。

这位人权活动家认为:“当[哈马斯]屠杀婴儿、强奸妇女和叫嚣消灭犹太复国主义者的时候,出于某些原因,大多数CEO却‘在袖手旁观’……大多数CEO认为这是一个过于政治化的问题。当问题已经非常明显的时候,他们的回应却如此混乱,这令人感到不安。”

《纽约邮报》的一篇专栏文章嘲讽称“美国公司在公开表达谴责时,表现得异常低调……觉醒派在美国公司高层中依旧是一股强大的力量;他们对发生在加沙地带的悲剧几乎保持沉默就是证明”,这似乎错误地试图将反觉醒政治运动卷入争论。

我们的研究团队粗略地浏览网页,就发现了超过75家家喻户晓的跨国公司发布了声明,强烈谴责哈马斯的恐怖主义行径,坚决谴责反犹主义和哈马斯的暴行,并对全球以色列和犹太人社区表达了支持和团结的态度。

各大公司发声的方式包括:

• 以明确的道德立场,强烈谴责哈马斯的袭击和全球反犹主义。例如,辉瑞(Pfizer)CEO艾伯乐情绪激动地发推文称:“发生在以色列的可怕新闻令我感到心碎和愤怒。将平民作为人质、亵渎尸体、屠杀儿童和老人等恐怖主义行径,违反了人类最基本的原则,全世界必须予以最强烈的谴责。我所说的话并非以公司领导者的身份,而是以科学家、儿子和父亲的身份。”宝维斯律师事务所的董事长布拉德·卡普同样发声明称:“作为一个团体,我们强烈谴责哈马斯的袭击……感同身受地谴责这种丑恶和肆意的恐怖主义……我们与以色列站在一起。”

• 慷慨地提供财务资助和慈善支持,总计达到数亿甚至数十亿美元。例如,沃尔玛(Walmart)CEO董明伦在LinkedIn上发帖称“上周末以色列遭遇袭击的消息传出后,我们看到越来越多反犹言论和仇恨犯罪,因此沃尔玛基金会(Walmart Foundation)将向美国大屠杀纪念博物馆(US Holocaust Memorial Museum)捐款100万美元,以支持宣传项目,宣讲大屠杀的历史教训,以及反犹主义的危险,从而鼓励人们直面仇恨和维护人类的尊严。”

• 表示与以色列以及全世界和其公司内部的犹太人团体站在一起。例如,德勤在LinkedIn页面自豪地展示了一面以色列国旗,而IBM CEO阿尔温德·克里希纳则对IBM团体成员的遇难表示哀悼,他写道“我很痛心地宣布,一位IBM员工在保护家人时被害,一位IBM退休员工也不幸遇难。我们对他们表示怀念……并将与以色列的两家组织以1比1的比例提供捐款。”

与公司大规模撤离俄罗斯不同,商界领袖们在以色列问题上强烈的道德立场更加微妙,因为各公司无法采取统一的有力措施。很少有西方公司在加沙地带经营或者与哈马斯存在交易,因此公司大规模撤离的情况不可能出现。同样,在意识到内部许多员工遭受的痛苦和伤害时,一些公司会合乎情理地优先通过内部员工邮件或举行员工会议的方式,而不是公开发布新闻稿来展现他们的团结。

做好事与取得好业绩并不抵触,而且投资者、客户、员工和其他支持者越来越希望CEO们能够做好事。此前,我们曾发现,有社会责任感的公司在股市的表现更出色,最近爱德曼(Edelman)信任晴雨表(Trust Barometer)的数据也显示,全球大多数员工希望公司老板能够在有争议的公共事务上表明立场。如果CEO能够在全球人权事务上发声,员工愿意加入公司的可能性会提高10倍。对于那些警告CEO们管好自己的事情,“别管闲事”,并将他们贬低为觉醒派的犬儒主义者,我们会问:“你说的闲事是什么?无能为力的闲事吗?”

发声的CEO们明确无误地表明自己的道德立场尤其重要,因为许多民间团体似乎毫无动作,对于哈马斯针对无辜平民的袭击(据报道10月7日的受害者有80%遭受了巨大痛苦,包括大规模强奸、捆绑、切割和活活烧死等)、数十名儿童的死亡、婴儿在父母面前被屠杀的场景以及欢呼的人群在加沙街头拖着赤身裸体的尸体的行为,这些团体却奇怪地保持沉默。难道你不认为人权组织会对这种暴行发表评论吗?

相反,这些人权组织却故意发表了模棱两可或闪烁其词的声明。在10月7月关于哈马斯罪行的第一份声明中,国际特赦组织(Amnesty International)却多次指控以色列的“战争罪”。在后续的一份声明中,该人权组织的秘书长批评“以色列军队”“引发了大量人口被迫流离失所……在加沙地带的居民中散播恐慌,导致数千名流离失所的巴勒斯坦人只能露宿街头”,但声明中对哈马斯却没有任何谴责。或许应该提醒国际特赦组织一下,毫无理由屠杀1,300名以色列平民、杀害儿童、绑架老人、在庆祝和平的音乐节上枪杀青少年、强奸、攻击和将女性作为战利品游行的,并不是“以色列军队”,而是哈马斯。同样,由美国任命的联合国儿童基金会(UNICEF)执行主任,在哈马斯发动袭击后的第一天,竟然荒唐地呼吁“立即停止敌对行动”,这种观点得到了救助儿童会(Save the Children)的呼应,它暗示的意思是以色列在遭遇自9·11事件以来最严重的恐怖袭击之后,无权自卫。而慈善乐施会(Oxfam)依旧表示,其首要任务是“结束以色列对巴勒斯坦的占领”。

或许唯一一个反应更迟钝的群体是高等教育领域,他们最初模棱两可的态度引起了普遍批评。宾夕法尼亚大学(UPenn)新任校长承认,她本可以更好地做出回应,这番迟来的表态在一定程度上平息了校友们的强烈不满。同样,哈佛大学(Harvard)新任校长最初的沉默,同样引起了多位知名教职人员的不满,包括拉里·萨默斯和贾森·弗曼。几天后,她才发表了一份言辞更激烈的声明。但也有一些好的例子。卫斯理大学(Wesleyan)备受尊敬的迈克尔·罗斯在袭击发生后几个小时内就发布了一份简短声明,谴责哈马斯。

这些民间团体负责人的逃避,让我回想起勇敢的前亚特兰大市市长、马丁·路德·金的密友、受戒牧师安德鲁·杨曾对我说过的话。他说道:“我对商界比对教堂、政治等更有信心。因为商界有更多自由,而且在我们自由的企业体系中他们更有勇气。”商界领袖们非常坚定地对哈马斯的恐怖主义表明立场,这与其他民间团体的沉默和怯懦的模棱两可形成了鲜明对比。现在,在哈马斯对以色列平民肆无忌惮的暴行之后,他们以明确的道德立场和社会良知,站到了风口浪尖。他们的表现应该得到赞扬和尊敬,而不是那些出于好意却弄巧成拙的活动家们毫无事实依据的抱怨和不满。(财富中文网)

本文作者杰富瑞·索南菲尔德现任耶鲁大学管理学院(Yale School of Management)管理实践莱斯特·克伦教授兼高级副院长。他被《Poets & Quants》杂志评为“年度管理学杂志”。

史蒂文·田为耶鲁大学首席执行官领导力研究所(Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute)研究主任,曾担任洛克菲勒家族办公室(Rockefeller Family Office)的量化投资分析师。

Fortune.com上的评论文章仅代表作者个人观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

翻译:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

许多社会活动家和媒体评论员似乎条件反射式地认为,CEO们是公民社会唯一的声音。哈马斯对以色列发动残暴袭击几天后,美国政治光谱的两端都有一些善意的声音谴责CEO们的沉默,媒体的主流声音是商界领袖错过了这次展现企业社会责任的关键时刻。

这是错误的。毫无行动的是公民社会的其他支柱,包括主要非政府组织。相比之下,众多商界领袖,如摩根大通(JPMorgan)、微软(Microsoft)、谷歌(Google)、万事达卡(Mastercard)、英伟达(NVIDIA)、花旗集团(Citi)、宝维斯(Paul Weiss)、德勤(Deloitte)、星巴克(Starbucks)、UPS和沃尔玛(Walmart)等公司的CEO,纷纷站出来谴责哈马斯的入侵,展现出员工所期待的道德勇气。

但在误导性的媒体报道中却看不到这些信息。最近,一位著名人权活动家错误的评论,谴责CEO们的集体反应“往好了说是令人失望,往坏了说是灾难性的”。

这位人权活动家认为:“当[哈马斯]屠杀婴儿、强奸妇女和叫嚣消灭犹太复国主义者的时候,出于某些原因,大多数CEO却‘在袖手旁观’……大多数CEO认为这是一个过于政治化的问题。当问题已经非常明显的时候,他们的回应却如此混乱,这令人感到不安。”

《纽约邮报》的一篇专栏文章嘲讽称“美国公司在公开表达谴责时,表现得异常低调……觉醒派在美国公司高层中依旧是一股强大的力量;他们对发生在加沙地带的悲剧几乎保持沉默就是证明”,这似乎错误地试图将反觉醒政治运动卷入争论。

我们的研究团队粗略地浏览网页,就发现了超过75家家喻户晓的跨国公司发布了声明,强烈谴责哈马斯的恐怖主义行径,坚决谴责反犹主义和哈马斯的暴行,并对全球以色列和犹太人社区表达了支持和团结的态度。

各大公司发声的方式包括:

• 以明确的道德立场,强烈谴责哈马斯的袭击和全球反犹主义。例如,辉瑞(Pfizer)CEO艾伯乐情绪激动地发推文称:“发生在以色列的可怕新闻令我感到心碎和愤怒。将平民作为人质、亵渎尸体、屠杀儿童和老人等恐怖主义行径,违反了人类最基本的原则,全世界必须予以最强烈的谴责。我所说的话并非以公司领导者的身份,而是以科学家、儿子和父亲的身份。”宝维斯律师事务所的董事长布拉德·卡普同样发声明称:“作为一个团体,我们强烈谴责哈马斯的袭击……感同身受地谴责这种丑恶和肆意的恐怖主义……我们与以色列站在一起。”

• 慷慨地提供财务资助和慈善支持,总计达到数亿甚至数十亿美元。例如,沃尔玛(Walmart)CEO董明伦在LinkedIn上发帖称“上周末以色列遭遇袭击的消息传出后,我们看到越来越多反犹言论和仇恨犯罪,因此沃尔玛基金会(Walmart Foundation)将向美国大屠杀纪念博物馆(US Holocaust Memorial Museum)捐款100万美元,以支持宣传项目,宣讲大屠杀的历史教训,以及反犹主义的危险,从而鼓励人们直面仇恨和维护人类的尊严。”

• 表示与以色列以及全世界和其公司内部的犹太人团体站在一起。例如,德勤在LinkedIn页面自豪地展示了一面以色列国旗,而IBM CEO阿尔温德·克里希纳则对IBM团体成员的遇难表示哀悼,他写道“我很痛心地宣布,一位IBM员工在保护家人时被害,一位IBM退休员工也不幸遇难。我们对他们表示怀念……并将与以色列的两家组织以1比1的比例提供捐款。”

与公司大规模撤离俄罗斯不同,商界领袖们在以色列问题上强烈的道德立场更加微妙,因为各公司无法采取统一的有力措施。很少有西方公司在加沙地带经营或者与哈马斯存在交易,因此公司大规模撤离的情况不可能出现。同样,在意识到内部许多员工遭受的痛苦和伤害时,一些公司会合乎情理地优先通过内部员工邮件或举行员工会议的方式,而不是公开发布新闻稿来展现他们的团结。

做好事与取得好业绩并不抵触,而且投资者、客户、员工和其他支持者越来越希望CEO们能够做好事。此前,我们曾发现,有社会责任感的公司在股市的表现更出色,最近爱德曼(Edelman)信任晴雨表(Trust Barometer)的数据也显示,全球大多数员工希望公司老板能够在有争议的公共事务上表明立场。如果CEO能够在全球人权事务上发声,员工愿意加入公司的可能性会提高10倍。对于那些警告CEO们管好自己的事情,“别管闲事”,并将他们贬低为觉醒派的犬儒主义者,我们会问:“你说的闲事是什么?无能为力的闲事吗?”

发声的CEO们明确无误地表明自己的道德立场尤其重要,因为许多民间团体似乎毫无动作,对于哈马斯针对无辜平民的袭击(据报道10月7日的受害者有80%遭受了巨大痛苦,包括大规模强奸、捆绑、切割和活活烧死等)、数十名儿童的死亡、婴儿在父母面前被屠杀的场景以及欢呼的人群在加沙街头拖着赤身裸体的尸体的行为,这些团体却奇怪地保持沉默。难道你不认为人权组织会对这种暴行发表评论吗?

相反,这些人权组织却故意发表了模棱两可或闪烁其词的声明。在10月7月关于哈马斯罪行的第一份声明中,国际特赦组织(Amnesty International)却多次指控以色列的“战争罪”。在后续的一份声明中,该人权组织的秘书长批评“以色列军队”“引发了大量人口被迫流离失所……在加沙地带的居民中散播恐慌,导致数千名流离失所的巴勒斯坦人只能露宿街头”,但声明中对哈马斯却没有任何谴责。或许应该提醒国际特赦组织一下,毫无理由屠杀1,300名以色列平民、杀害儿童、绑架老人、在庆祝和平的音乐节上枪杀青少年、强奸、攻击和将女性作为战利品游行的,并不是“以色列军队”,而是哈马斯。同样,由美国任命的联合国儿童基金会(UNICEF)执行主任,在哈马斯发动袭击后的第一天,竟然荒唐地呼吁“立即停止敌对行动”,这种观点得到了救助儿童会(Save the Children)的呼应,它暗示的意思是以色列在遭遇自9·11事件以来最严重的恐怖袭击之后,无权自卫。而慈善乐施会(Oxfam)依旧表示,其首要任务是“结束以色列对巴勒斯坦的占领”。

或许唯一一个反应更迟钝的群体是高等教育领域,他们最初模棱两可的态度引起了普遍批评。宾夕法尼亚大学(UPenn)新任校长承认,她本可以更好地做出回应,这番迟来的表态在一定程度上平息了校友们的强烈不满。同样,哈佛大学(Harvard)新任校长最初的沉默,同样引起了多位知名教职人员的不满,包括拉里·萨默斯和贾森·弗曼。几天后,她才发表了一份言辞更激烈的声明。但也有一些好的例子。卫斯理大学(Wesleyan)备受尊敬的迈克尔·罗斯在袭击发生后几个小时内就发布了一份简短声明,谴责哈马斯。

这些民间团体负责人的逃避,让我回想起勇敢的前亚特兰大市市长、马丁·路德·金的密友、受戒牧师安德鲁·杨曾对我说过的话。他说道:“我对商界比对教堂、政治等更有信心。因为商界有更多自由,而且在我们自由的企业体系中他们更有勇气。”商界领袖们非常坚定地对哈马斯的恐怖主义表明立场,这与其他民间团体的沉默和怯懦的模棱两可形成了鲜明对比。现在,在哈马斯对以色列平民肆无忌惮的暴行之后,他们以明确的道德立场和社会良知,站到了风口浪尖。他们的表现应该得到赞扬和尊敬,而不是那些出于好意却弄巧成拙的活动家们毫无事实依据的抱怨和不满。(财富中文网)

本文作者杰富瑞·索南菲尔德现任耶鲁大学管理学院(Yale School of Management)管理实践莱斯特·克伦教授兼高级副院长。他被《Poets & Quants》杂志评为“年度管理学杂志”。

史蒂文·田为耶鲁大学首席执行官领导力研究所(Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute)研究主任,曾担任洛克菲勒家族办公室(Rockefeller Family Office)的量化投资分析师。

Fortune.com上的评论文章仅代表作者个人观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

翻译:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

Many social activists and media commentators seem to think reflexively that CEOs are the only voices in civil society. In the days following Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel, prominent well-meaning voices on both ends of the political spectrum have been calling out CEOs for their perceived silence, with the prevailing media narrative that business leaders are missing this key moment for corporate social responsibility.

This is an error. Those missing in action are other pillars of civil society, including major NGOs. In contrast, business leaders, such as the CEOs of JPMorgan, Microsoft, Google, Mastercard, NVIDIA, Citi, Paul Weiss, Deloitte, Starbucks, UPS, and Walmart, are stepping up and showing the moral courage expected by their employees in condemning Hamas’s invasion.

Not that one would know from the misleading media coverage. One mistaken recent critique from a leading human rights activist slammed the collective response of the CEO community as “disappointing at best, disastrous at worst.”

“In a world in which they [Hamas] are butchering babies, and they are raping women and talking about destroying the Zionist entity, for some reason most CEOs are ‘sitting it out’…..Most CEOs think it’s too political. It’s troubling that in a moment where the issues are clear, the responses are so muddled,” the activist opined.

In a misinformed attempt to drag in anti-woke politics, a New York Post column jeered that “corporate America has been oddly understated in its public expressions of condemnation…..wokeness remains a potent force in the C-suite; its occupants’ near-silence on the tragedy in Gaza is proof.”

From even a casual scan, our research team found more than 75 household-name, multinational companies have issued statements with strong condemnation of Hamas’s terrorism, irrefutably denouncing antisemitism and the atrocities committed by Hamas, as well as expressing support and solidarity with Israel and Jewish communities worldwide.

Companies are making their voices heard through:

• Offering strong condemnation of Hamas’s attack and global antisemitism with unequivocal moral clarity. For example, Dr. Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, tweeted movingly: “I am heartbroken and furious to read the terrible news out of Israel. Terrorist actions, including the hostage-taking of civilians, the desecration of bodies, and the murder of children and the elderly, violate the most basic tenets of humanity and must be universally condemned in the strongest terms. I say this not as a corporate leader but as a scientist, as a son, and as a father.” Similarly, Brad Karp, the chair of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, stated: “We, as a community, unequivocally condemn the Hamas attack….empathically and swiftly condemn such grotesque and wanton terrorism….and stand in solidarity with Israel.”

• Offering financial largesse and philanthropic support, totaling hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. For example, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon posted on LinkedIn that “after the news of the attack on Israel by Hamas last weekend and seeing an increase in antisemitic speech and hate crimes, the Walmart Foundation will donate $1 million to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum to support outreach programs to educate about the history and lessons of the Holocaust and the dangers of antisemitism to inspire people to confront hate and promote human dignity.”

• Expressing solidarity with Israel and communities worldwide and within their own companies. For example, Deloitte is proudly displaying an Israeli flag on its LinkedIn page while IBM CEO Arvind Krishna conveyed the loss of members of the IBM community, writing “I am sad to share that one IBMer was killed defending their family, and an IBM retiree also lost their life. We honor their memories…and will match donations 1:1: with two organizations in Israel.”

Compared to the Russian business exodus, the strong moral stand by business leaders on Israel is different and more nuanced because taking identical forceful actions is not possible. Unlike Russia, few Western companies operated in Gaza or transacted with Hamas to begin with, so there is no mass corporate exodus. Similarly, in recognition of the suffering and anguish felt by many of their own employees, some companies are understandably prioritizing internal staff e-mail blasts and meetings with employee groups over news releases publicly trumpeting their solidarity.

Doing good is not antithetical to doing well–and it’s increasingly what investors, clients, employees, and other constituencies expect from CEOs. Not only did we previously find that socially responsible companies tend to outperform in the stock market, but recent Edelman Trust Barometer data shows that most employees around the world want to see their corporate bosses take stands on controversial public matters. Employees are 10 times more likely to accept employment at firms where CEOs speak out on global human rights matters. To those cynics who tell CEOs, “stay in your lane” and disparage them as woke, we ask, “What lane do you mean? The breakdown lane?”

The unmistakable moral clarity of the CEOs who spoke out is especially important since so much of the rest of civil society seems to be missing in action, oddly silent over Hamas’s targeting of innocent civilians, with the torture of reportedly 80% of the Oct. 7 victims including mass rapes, binding, knifing, and then torching people alive, the deaths of scores of toddlers, butchering infants before their parents’ eyes, and dragging bodies naked through the streets of Gaza to cheering crowds. Wouldn’t you imagine that human rights organizations would comment on such atrocities?

Instead, such groups offer intentionally ambivalent or evasive statements. Even in their initial statement about Hamas crimes on Oct. 7, Amnesty International repeatedly accused Israel of “war crimes.” In a subsequent statement, the secretary general of the human rights group blamed “Israeli forces” for “setting in motion mass forced displacement….sowing panic among the population of Gaza and leaving thousands of internally displaced Palestinians now sleeping on the streets”–without even a shred of condemnation for Hamas. Perhaps Amnesty International needs a reminder that it was Hamas, not “Israeli forces,” who murdered 1,300 Israeli civilians unprovoked, murdering babies, kidnapping grandmas, gunning down teens at a music festival celebrating peace, raping, assaulting, and parading women as trophies. Similarly, the U.S.-appointed executive director of UNICEF ludicrously called for the “immediate cessation of hostilities” the very first day of the Hamas attack, a call echoed by Save the Children, implying that Israel had no right to defend itself in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack since September 11. Meanwhile, Oxfam continues to state that its top priority is to bring “an end to the occupation of Palestine by Israel.”

Perhaps the only group with an even more insensitive response has been higher education, whose initial ambivalence drew widespread criticism. UPenn’s new president finally did quell some of the ample alumni backlash when, belatedly, she acknowledged she could have handled the response better. Likewise, Harvard’s new president faced serious blowback from several prominent faculty members, such as Larry Summers and Jason Furman, for her initial silence before finally releasing a strong statement days afterward. Nevertheless, there were some positive examples to celebrate. Wesleyan’s venerated Michael Roth released a brief statement condemning Hamas within hours if not minutes of the attack.

The evasiveness of some of these civil society leaders brings to mind the bold insight of heroic former Atlanta mayor and ordained Reverend Andrew Young who once told me, as a close ally of Martin Luther King, that “I have more faith in business than I have in the church, politics, almost anything else. And the reason is that there’s more freedom, and there’s more courage in our free enterprise system”. In stark contrast to the deafening science or cowardly ambiguity coming out of so much of the rest of civil society, business leaders have been uniquely strong in taking a stand against Hamas’s terrorism. Just as CEOs were at the forefront of global diplomacy pulling their companies out of Russia after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, they are now similarly on the front lines of moral clarity and social conscience after Hamas’s unconscionable atrocities against Israeli civilians. For this, they deserve kudos, not fact-free whines or howls of complaint from well-meaning but self-defeating activists.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the Lester Crown Professor in Management Practice and Senior Associate Dean at Yale School of Management. He was named “Management Professor of the Year” by Poets & Quants magazine.

Steven Tian is the director of research at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute and a former quantitative investment analyst with the Rockefeller Family Office.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

财富中文网所刊载内容之知识产权为财富媒体知识产权有限公司及/或相关权利人专属所有或持有。未经许可,禁止进行转载、摘编、复制及建立镜像等任何使用。
0条Plus
精彩评论
评论

撰写或查看更多评论

请打开财富Plus APP

前往打开