好时童工问题折射商界社会责任感缺失

    笔者与富士康董事会多位成员聊过，其中并不是所有人都认为劳工问题很重要。有些人甚至觉得《纽约时报》有些小题大做。他们认为，如果一件事情不会引起公司财务上的损失，就不是什么大事。

    这些持有功利主义态度的董事会成员，要为我们资本市场体系中徘徊不去的脆弱性负责。在跨国公司里，这些人将伦理道德的领导责任排除在了企业之外。当且仅当市场或者政府对他们的所作所为施以严厉的惩罚，他们才会重视道德缺失的情况。

    这类董事会成员看不到，利用员工的信息缺失或者无能为力来提高公司的生产效率，最终将得不偿失。他们不愿承认，市场参与者和整个社会对此付出的成本，最终也将由企业自己来承担。他们也不会意识到，放任此类行为不管，可能对公司短期不会造成什么影响，但长远来看，非常可能引起挥之不去的严重灾难。

    持有这种态度的董事会成员，也许会对环境保护问题有所关注，因为这类表态有可能对短期的收入提升有所帮助。他们会重视公司治理——形式远大于实质——因为不想在董事会选举中遇到阻力。但他们不太会关心劳工、裁员或者薪酬不平等的问题。“员工是我们最重要的资产。”CEO经常这么说。说出这句话很容易，但这些董事并不会将这个问题放入会议议程。他们也许从来不会落在纸面上，但他们心里其实并不重视企业文化或者员工的幸福。事实上，问题的本质在于，他们没有一个经过充分考虑的经营哲学。相反，他们把头埋在沙堆里，逃避这样的思考。他们为了短期的股价卑躬屈膝。他们对于自己应该承担的对股东的义务和企业的社会责任没有全面的认识。他们面临绝境了吗？还没有，但已经不远了。

    不到十年前，关心环保对企业还不是什么大事。但今天，明智的企业都会这么做。公司的内部治理尽管很难定义，众说纷纭，但几十年来都一直被认为是非同小可的重要问题。今天，董事会应当将劳工待遇——无论是公司内部还是公司外部——放上议程的头条。

    就像起诉书所要求的那样，让我们期待好时公司变得更加公开透明。这这样一来，它的巧克力尝起来会更加美味。

    埃莉诺•布洛克斯汉姆是一家董事会咨询公司“价值及公司治理同盟”的CEO。

    翻译：周详

    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.