|
我们为何只重富豪排名而轻社会责任排名？ 北京大军经济观察研究中心主任 仲大军 2006年11月8日 据美国《财富》周刊11月6日文章报道，今年全球第二届企业社会责任排名榜出来了，英国手机运营商沃达丰公司（Vodafone）超过英国石油公司（BP）排名第一。在这次排名中，欧洲企业比美国和亚洲企业更加靠前，石油企业排名下降，排名提高幅度最大的是大众公司，从第56位跳到第19位。对此西方媒体进行了大量的报道。 相比之下来看我国，当下社会最流行的是给财富排行，给富豪评地位，社会明星和明流多是成功的大公司，大企业家，而企业的社会责任无人问津。到底是需要花费精力为企业富豪排榜，还是为企业社会责任排榜？是什么原因导致我国社会风气如此热衷于财富排名？下面让我们作一下分析。 一、重福轻社的媒体炒作原因 我国的媒体每年都大肆报道外国媒体（如福布斯）为我国民营企业家制作的富豪榜，这种做法已经时兴了将近十年，但外国媒体从来没有为中国的企业家制作社会责任排名光荣榜。为什么外国某些媒体如此热衷于财富的评选，而忽视企业社会责任的评选？这其中有一定的原因，一是某些杂志热衷于财富这种具有新闻价值的评比，二是某些人只热衷于傍大款，而不愿做那些更费力气为平民大众服务的工作。三是当前的社会只有财富评价标准，缺少企业社会责任评价标准。 譬如，靠为中国富人排名而出名的那个外国人胡润，如果他去做企业社会责任排名，可能要付出更多的成本，获得较少的收益。而搞富人排行榜，一是可以获得更高的收入，二是可以引起更大的社会影响，名利双收。在一个追求财富的社会，媒体和服务业与企业一样，摆脱不了挣钱的影子。这就是当下我国社会只重财富、富豪，忽视社会责任、企业责任的一个原因。 但是，我国的企业真的不需要强调社会责任了吗？最近一则报道透露，经审计部门检查，发现我国房地产企业严重地违法作弊，隐瞒收入，偷税漏税，从而导致这一行业暴利严重，由此产生大批的亿万富翁。难道靠这种手段致富的富豪也值得排名吗？这种财富和富裕也值得社会去崇拜、跟风吗？ 二、重富轻社的历史和思想原因 当然，我国缺少企业社会责任评比和排名还有许多原因，一是在理念上整个社会对企业社会责任的认识还比较淡漠，对现代企业制度的认识还比较落后，一些从事企业理论研究的学者在观念上仍然停留在旧的和传统的公司理念里，从而不断误导着社会。 譬如，在企业性质和目的这一点上，企业到底是仅仅为股东服务，还是为员工和社会服务？目前在我国一直有不同的看法。传统的企业理念就是为股东服务，股东利益至高无上，企业利润最大化至高无上。这种理念迎合了我国现阶段发展的需求，中国是发展中国家，是改革转制中的国家，在这一阶段我国需要效益好的企业，有国际竞争力的企业，在国家政策上，就是不遗余力地扶植企业有实力去追赶国际先进，有能力在国际市场上打拼。 因此，在这一历史阶段，国家将全社会的工资水平和社会福利水平标准定得比较低，将劳动权利规定得更低，为的是壮大企业的国际竞争力。从国际比较看，日本在20世纪50年代到80年代这一段经济发展时期，年工资增长水平高过美国的将近一倍，在不到30年的时间里其工资水平撵上了美国。东亚四小龙国家和地区，在整个经济起飞阶段，经济增长都伴随着较高的工资增长。但我国在改革开放后的近30年里，工资水平增长缓慢，远远跟不上GDP的增长速度。这种条件与环境使企业可以较多地积累资本，使一些企业迅速发展壮大起来。 看一下每年的富豪财富就可以知道，中国富豪的企业资产增幅迅猛。曾经有记者问我，为什么中国富豪的财富增长这么快？我国说还是国家政策造成的，中国的企业和企业家今天正处在一个从来未有的黄金发展时期。这是因为压在他们身上的社会责任很小，劳动工资水平较低，员工成本很小。由于这些原因，导致我国的资本收入大大高于劳动收入，并导致我国优秀企业的迅猛发展和资产财富的急剧膨胀。这也是我国社会贫富差距迅速拉大的重要原因。 但这种情况是阶段性的现象，中国企业总要走上正规，总要追赶国际潮流，企业再发展，也要回报社会，反馈社会。企业规模和财富并不是企业追求的终极目标，为社会服务和均富才是企业最高的宗旨。 但遗憾的是，当前我国许多企业家并未意识到这一点，没有意识到巨大财富的积累是靠广大劳动群体牺牲自身利益换来的，很多企业家认为自己的成功完全是靠自己的聪明智慧和艰苦努力，自己无需对社会感恩戴德，由此造成这些企业家的社会责任意识薄弱。 特别是，中国的一些企业家在认识理念上仍然停留在封建所有制的水平上，在观点上受封建所有制思想的影响很重。这也与我国的经济体制改革有关。传统的全民所有制和公有制一旦放弃，就在一夜之间一下子退回到传统的封建所有制。 什么是封建所有制？封建所有制的核心是老板独揽由企业员工共同所创造的财富。现在我国存在着很多无限公司，员工都是打工者，在全社会低水平工资分配制度下，所有的企业利润都归老板所有。这种形式的企业虽然从制度上说属于合法，但从法理上讲并不公平合理。老板攫取了大部分由全体员工创造出的财富，由此产生了我国越来越多的富豪。 三、重富轻社的经济和政治原因 从大的社会环境上看，一味追求GDP的发展模式，也造成了全社会对企业社会责任的漠视。在以GDP论英雄的环境中，规模、效益成了企业的追求的首要目标。整个社会都在以规模、资产论英雄，在这种社会氛围下，必然产生财富崇拜，大企业崇拜，富豪崇拜。 看看当下我国的媒体宣传报道，除了企业家和成功的精英人物亮相于镜头，很少看到企业员工的身影，电视台和报纸的报道中没有普通工人和农民的拦目，更缺少对工会活动和职工维权活动的报道。好象这个社会只是为了打造财富，但不知是为谁打造财富。 当然这离不开我国经济发展阶段的特点，在改革开放后的一段时间里，我们的工作重点主要放在经济增长上，在一个以经济增长为中心的时代，必然出现GDP崇拜、财富崇拜和精英崇拜。但随着我国经济增长的不断发展和各种社会问题的不断出现，我国政府的工作重点已经转到和谐社会的发展目标上来。因此，企业的发展目标和追求目标也要进行转变。这一转变的重点是加强对普通劳动群体的关怀，增进广大劳动群体的利益，加强对环境、生态和资源的保护。 为此，下一步要做的工作有，加强劳动权利的建设，譬如加强工会组织的作用，调整不合理的收入分配制度，关注企业员工的工作情况与生存状态，关注员工的收入与福利待遇水平。 在这种情况下，我国理论界已经开始重新认识现代企业制度的精髓，那就是为社会公众服务，为相关利益者服务。西方国家的评比活动已经为我国传输了好的经验，中国社会应当紧跟这样的世界潮流，将发展的中心和要义转到正确的和谐发展道路上来。 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 阅读材料： 黄俊钦、黄光裕兄弟受查 《财经》杂志 龙雪晴 季敏华 本刊记者于宁、苏丹丹对此文亦有贡献 2006.10.31 11:04 黄俊钦私人所有的“新恒基系”全部资产被查封，银监会参与摸查“新恒基系”及黄光裕所控“鹏润系”的整体银行贷款和负债 39岁的黄俊钦正面临一项针对其早年贷款的官方调查；这项调查，也涉及他名气更大、财富更丰的弟弟，37岁的黄光裕。 “偷梁换柱”案 黄俊钦兄弟在20年前共同创立了国美电器。1993年二人“分家”后，哥哥转向房地产业，建立了“新恒基系”，在京城及东北拥有数栋著名的大厦；弟弟则独自经营“鹏润系”，国美电器、鹏润地产构成其主要资产。 勾兑中行 现年62岁的牛忠光已退休，历任北京中行信贷处处长、行长，中国银行总行董事，并曾于1999年负责筹办东方资产管理公司。牛忠光在金融界浸淫40年，人脉熟稔，颇有神通。 贷款去向 即便在1998年牛忠光调离北京分行之后，黄光裕名下的地产项目鹏润家园，也在北京分行获得逾3亿元的按揭贷款。 转移债务包 2004年6月，四大国有资产管理公司一齐参与了由央行及财政部主持的竞标，信达资产管理公司以账面资产50％的名义价格，竞得中国银行、建设银行总计2787亿元不良贷款。 “原罪”危机 1993年黄俊钦兄弟分家时，无论是新恒基还是国美，都远未完成资本的原始积累。 美国《幸福》杂志文章 Most 'accountable' company Vodafone Accountability score*: 72 Vodafone moved from No. 3 to No. 1 this year, overtaking last year's leader BP. While Vodafone, Europe's largest cellular telecom company, doesn't have the environmental or even political challenges that a big oil company does, it does a superb job of questioning shareholders, employees, customers, and outside experts about how its services and infrastructure impedes - or might be able to help - economic development. That has resulted in programs like Mpesa, a pilot project that helps Africans do banking with their mobile phones. Vodafone has also changed the way it builds networks to give emergency health-care workers better access, and helps screen mobile video content for users with kids. Separating smart from great Embedding accountability into business practices isn't easy. By Simon Zadek, Fortune October 23 2006: 9:53 AM EDT (Fortune Magazine) -- How could BP (Charts) and Ford (Charts), two global sustainability icons, have messed up so badly? The British oil company, widely acknowledged for its leadership in advancing public debate on climate change, was responsible earlier this year for the worst oil spill on Alaska's North Slope, and the American automaker, which has been campaigning for greener cars and factories, has seen its market share and profits erode because it hasn't made vehicles relevant to customers in a carbon-costly world. What these two cases show is that embedding accountability models into the heart of a business is tougher than most of us imagined. Comprehensive accountability - that is, accountability to stakeholders representing social and environmental interests as well as economic ones - requires companies to align their vision, strategies and innovation not only with today's competitive markets but also with the social and environmental conditions that will shape the markets of tomorrow. Yet notions about how to do this are just the start. They then need to be put into practice, which is what the Accountability Rating seeks to measure. Ford, while able to imagine the future, got stuck making yesterday's cars. The company's precipitous loss of market share and lack of real leadership in bringing carbon-light vehicles to market demonstrate just how out of touch William Ford Jr.'s vision was with ground-level performance. Such was the case with the sustainability icons of another era: the overextended and underperforming Ben & Jerry's, now surviving courtesy of Unilever, and the Body Shop, swallowed up by L'Or閍l, once its ideological foe. BP's acquisition strategy during the 1990s took it from being a second-class oil company to a first-class energy company. The "Beyond Petroleum" vision is, undoubtedly, core to its long-term strategy. But BP finds itself struggling with the far tougher execution challenge of integrating its acquisitions and delivering more efficient processes and outcomes. It's worth keeping these examples in mind when considering such recent converts to sustainability as Wal-Mart's Lee Scott, GE's Jeff Immelt, or Richard Branson, who has pledged to plow $3 billion of Virgin's profits into combating climate change. Certainly these companies have understood that their markets are undergoing fundamental change because of social and environmental factors. A decade ago topics like climate change, marketing to the bottom of the pyramid or obesity would have drawn blank looks from all but the most prescient of executives. Today no corporate social responsibility report is without mention of one or all of them. But from the examples of BP and Ford we can learn that the initial insight and reconfiguration of strategy is only the beginning. One clue as to what may increase a company's chances of making its strategic vision operational is contained in this year's Accountability Rating: How companies approach third-party assurance remains a significant differentiator. Companies that score high in this category by taking steps to have independent auditors monitor their performance tend to score higher across the board. The spread of such practices among the 64 companies in this year's ratings is worth considering more systematically, as it allows one to spot winning and losing characteristics and to group companies into four clusters: Rearview gazers These are companies that remain opaque about their nonfinancial performance and typically score below 15. Given the breadth and depth of the debate on sustainability issues, one may conclude that these companies have decided that more money can be made in the shorter term by ignoring what many - including their competitors - agree are critical drivers of tomorrow's markets. The most striking example is Berkshire Hathaway (Charts), where the publicly available information doesn't provide even a hint that the company takes into account its social and environmental impacts on stakeholders. Another is PEMEX, the Mexican oil company, which doesn't reflect at all in public on its obvious sustainability issues. Reluctant incrementalists These are companies with an average score of 35 that are cautiously addressing nonfinancial issues by demonstrating accountability to a small number of stakeholder groups such as customers, employees, governments and shareholders. But they are unlikely to be innovators in the development of tomorrow's markets. A good example is Exxon Mobil (Charts), which does not even recognize as legitimate stakeholder representatives the many civil-society organizations that have criticized its behavior. Engaged learners These are companies showing average scores of about 50 that are repositioning themselves as potential leaders. They are actively engaging with stakeholders, not only for reputation management but also to understand the world around them. They believe stakeholders are an asset and appreciate that getting them to play ball requires embracing their concerns. But companies in this group often fail to undertake a comprehensive impact assessment. Allianz, for example, is discussing microfinance schemes as part of its contribution to society, as well as the likely implications of climate change on its business. Both are commendable. But at the same time Allianz (Charts) doesn't adequately consider the social and environmental impact of its mainstream products, services and investment decisions. Strategic leaders These are companies scoring 60 or higher that are actively shaping societal expectations regarding their sectors, thereby creating tomorrow's markets and setting themselves up to profit from them. They have understood that to create what IBM chief executive Sam Palmisano has called a "globally integrated enterprise" requires that strategic learning and innovation take place throughout the company. To achieve this, these companies are pioneering new approaches to drive learning and innovation, supported by appropriate governance, systems, structures and incentives. At Shell, this process is institutionalized at the highest level, with sustainable development being the explicit responsibility of the CEO, who is chairman of the company's sustainable-development committee. This has resulted in a comprehensive consideration of most of the major sustainability issues currently facing Shell's industry. And the importance given to these issues has trickled down in the form of well-developed management systems. But gaps still remain in the stakeholder-engagement practices of many companies in this group, an area where further development is bound to unlock more potential by creating healthier relationships with key actors shaping the business environment. Smart companies make a big splash, but great companies develop comprehensive accountability practices to drive sustainable performance. They stumble at times but are more likely to get back on their feet. Identifying the great ones is a competitive sport among management gurus. The Accountability Rating, with its focus on how companies deal with the social and environmental factors that will become embedded in future markets, offers a unique quantitative approach to identifying great companies. SIMON ZADEK is chief executive of AccountAbility. He can be reached at simon@accountability21.net. -------------------------------------------- Top 11 most "accountable" companies Beyond the bottom line Our second annual ranking of Global 500 companies. By Telis Demos, Fortune reporter October 23 2006: 10:36 AM EDT (Fortune Magazine) -- About one in every ten dollars of assets under management in the U.S. - an estimated $2.3 trillion out of $24 trillion - is being invested in companies that rate highly on some measure of social responsibility. That's a $2.3 trillion wager that socially responsible companies will outperform companies that don't engage a wide array of stakeholders, from shareholders and customers to employees and activists, in an ongoing conversation about what can be done better. The survey, once again conducted by AccountAbility (a London think tank on corporate accountability) and CSRnetwork (a British for-profit consultancy), measures six criteria, ranging from stakeholder engagement to performance management, at the top 50 companies on Fortune's Global 500 list. Fourteen other large companies were included so that there were at least ten in each of five industry sectors. Many of the highest-ranking companies are not what you'd think of as do-gooders. Oil giants BP (Charts) and Shell (Charts) are No. 2 and No. 3, respectively, and four of the top ten on the list are utilities. That's because the rankings don't measure performance outcomes such as CO2 emissions. Instead, they look at management practices: Does a company have procedures for listening to critics? Are its executives and board members accountable? Has it hired an external verifier? This year the top-ranked company is Britain's Vodafone (Charts), the world's largest mobile-phone operator, edging out last year's leader, BP. "What we've tried to do is embed CSR," says Charlotte Grezo, the company's director for corporate responsibility. "The senior managers at Vodafone know it's really, really important." That has helped put good ideas into practice, Grezo says, pointing to the Mpesa program in Kenya, which enables people to do banking with their mobile phones. Vodafone has also made its networks more accessible to emergency workers and added a content-filtering system because customers said they were worried about their kids. There were four newcomers in the top ten this year - French water companies Suez (No. 5) and Veolia (No. 8), Italian utility Enel (No. 6), and British banking and insurance company HBOS (No. 9). That's partly explained by changes in methodology: Companies that did well last year had to keep improving - further developing management systems or engaging with a broader array of stakeholders - to maintain their ranking. The ratings this year also penalized companies that didn't address nonfinancial issues at the core of their business. A bank that switches to more energy-efficient light bulbs may be doing good, but that doesn't deal with the consequences of lending to a controversial client. Oil companies as a group rated lower this year. The ten companies in the petroleum-refining sector had an overall rating of 30, down from 45 last year, making it the only one of the five sectors that fell. Adding newcomer PDVSA to the group didn't help: Venezuela's state oil company had a score of only ten. Once again, European companies outperformed their counterparts in the U.S. and Asia. The top 11 companies on the list are headquartered in Europe, where corporate social responsibility is the lingua franca and CSR reporting is required for a company to list on some stock exchanges. The top U.S. company is General Motors (Charts) (No. 12); it moved ahead of Ford (Charts), which dropped ten places to No. 16. The most improved company this year was Volkswagen, which jumped from No. 56 to No. 19 after releasing its first comprehensive CSR report. Another big improver was Home Depot (No. 52). Its score doubled, in part because it now publishes a Web report on the nonfinancial impacts of its business, such as how the wood it sells affects forests in North America and the Amazon. That may sound like tree hugging, but managing the risks to your company's most important product is smart business too. Top 11 most "accountable" companies _________________________________________________________ 北京大军经济观察研究中心 电话：86-10-63071372，传真：66079391，信箱：zdjun@263.net 地址：北京市西城区温家街2号，邮编：100031， 网站网址：www.dajun.com.cn
|