TE||Working for a purpose
1
导读
感谢思维导图作者
Bruce,爱好英语，经济学人爱好者
2
听力|精读|翻译|词组
Working for a purpose
工作的意义与价值
英文部分选自经济学人Business版块
Bartleby巴托比专栏
注：（老生常谈）
Bartleby这个名字来自Herman Melville的短篇小说Bartleby the Scrivener，余光中先生曾把它译为《录事巴托比》。
这个短篇讲的是Bartleby的故事。他在华尔街为一位律师工作，话不多，本分老实，活儿干得也很漂亮。不过突然有一天，他开始拒绝做老板给他安排的任务，后来甚至就在办公室里呆着，拒绝任何工作。他拒绝的方式也很奇葩，软硬不吃，每次都幽幽地、语调乏力地说：I would prefer not to （恕难从命）。
Working for a purpose
工作的意义与价值
An academic calls for an overhaul of the conventional company
学术界呼吁：重新定义“传统公司”概念
The modern company has morphed into a “money monster” enslaved to the doctrine of shareholder value. That is the thesis of a new book* by Colin Mayer, a professor at the Saïd Business School in Oxford. It is the latest challenge to the principle enunciated by Milton Friedman, an economist: namely, that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.” An influential paper** by Oliver Hart and Luigi Zingales last year argued that profitability is not the only criterion that should apply and that shareholders’ welfare is affected by a broad range of factors, including social and environmental conditions.
现代公司都变成了股东利益至上的“赚钱怪兽”。这是牛津大学赛德商学院(the Saïd Business School)科林·迈尔(Colin Mayer)教授新书中的观点，也是对经济学家米尔顿·弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)观点的最新质疑。后者认为, “商业有且仅有一种社会责任 – 利用其资源在游戏规则内从事可以增加盈利的活动。”去年，奥利弗·哈特(Oliver Hart)与路易吉·津加莱斯(Luigi Zingales)联合发表了一篇颇有影响力的论文，他们认为盈利能力不是唯一适用的指标，股东福利还受到其他广泛因素的影响，包括社会条件和环境条件等。
Mr Mayer takes a similar line, arguing that companies have relationships with many more people than just shareholders. As well as financial capital, they use several other types—human, intellectual, material (buildings and machinery), natural (the environment) and social (public goods like infrastructure).
迈尔先生也在书中表达了类似的观点，认为公司不仅与股东有关，还和其他更多人相关。除了资金之外，公司还运用了其他类型的资源—人力、知识、物资（建筑和机器设备）、自然资源（环境）以及社会资源（诸如基础设施等公共物资）。
He also notes that the original conception of a firm was quite different from now. The societas publicanorum were Roman bodies that performed public functions such as tax-collecting or maintaining buildings. They raised finance from shareholders and their shares were traded. The medieval idea of a company revolved around a family business. The founders were people who took bread together (hence the term cum panis). In the early-modern era, firms such as the Dutch and English East India Companies` were set up in order to pursue national trade objectives.
他还指出，现如今公司的原始概念已经不复存在。税吏协会是罗马时期履行诸如征税或维护建筑等公共职能的机构。他们从股东那里筹集资金，他们的股份可以进行交易。中世纪的公司概念则是围绕家族事业演化而来。公司的创始人就是那些一起分享面包的人（因此公司一词的词源是拉丁语cum panis，意为和面包在一起）。现代社会初期，诸如荷兰、英国东印度公司的建立初衷是为了实现国家的贸易目标。
注释：
societas publicanorum
The societas was an association of persons that could be established to pursue any goal, ranging from personal affairs to purely financial relationships. The societas publicanorum was a modification of the societas meant to carry out state contracts. Such contracts covered a range as wide as the tasks and items that the government put out to tender: the collection of taxes (vectigalia); the lease of mines and quarries for minerals such as gold (aurum), silver (argentum), or iron (ferrum); the erection or maintenance of public infrastructure like temples (templum), water pipes (aqua), or roads (via); the support of the army (exercitus), or the import of grain (frumentum). 摘自
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/06/19/corporate-law-lessons-from-ancient-rome/
This mix of family and state-linked businesses still exists in many developing nations. The countries with a really narrow focus on shareholder value are America and Britain, and this is where Mr Mayer concentrates his criticism.
许多发展中国家仍存在这种家族和国有混合的商业模式。但实际上只关注股东利益的国家却只有美国和英国，而这恰恰就是迈尔先生批评的焦点所在。
Mr Mayer thinks that companies should find a purpose that is broader than the amassing of profits. They should be “doing well by doing good”. With that principle in place, the law should then require firms to demonstrate how their governance, leadership and incentives are organised so that purpose can be realised. Financial accounts should be redrawn to reflect the company’s effect on human, social and natural capital, as well as its financial performance. He also proposes (along with other proponents of “long-term” capitalism) that interest payments on debt should no longer be tax-deductible and that the voting rights of shareholders should reflect the length of time that they have owned their certificates.
迈尔先生认为企业应该寻求一种比积累利润更为广泛的目标。它们应当“行善以得福”。有了适当的原则之后，法律就应该要求企业验证如何将管理、领导力和激励机制有效组织起来从而实现企业目标。应当重新编制会计准则，以便反映企业对人类、社会和自然资产的影响，同时也能反映企业的财务状况。他同时也建议（与其他“长期”资本主义支持者们一起）债务利息的支付不再免税，股东投票权应该如实反映出他们持股时间的长短。
Mr Mayer’s riposte to the charge that his ideas are overly idealistic is that the current system is simply not working according to conventional measures of economic success. Britain has a corporate model that is very friendly to investors, with dispersed share ownership, an active takeover market and strong creditor rights. The result, he posits, has been a poor national record on investment, productivity and innovation.
对于那些嘲笑其观点过于理想化的言论，迈尔先生巧妙反击道：根据传统经济成功的衡量标准现行体系根本不起作用。英国的公司模式对于投资者十分友善：分散的股权，活跃的收购市场及强有力的债权人权益保障。他断定，结果就导致了英国在投资、生产力和创新方面表现不佳。
He also notes that firms which pursue approaches that come under the heading of “sustainability” or “social responsibility” enjoy higher returns, lower risks and lower costs of capital. (A recent paper by Robert Eccles, Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim showed as much.)
他还指出，那些奉行“可持续性”或“社会责任”方针的企业，可以在享有更低的风险和成本的同时获得更高的回报。(罗伯特·埃克勒斯(Robert Eccles)、约阿尼斯·约阿努(Ioannis Ioannou)和乔治·塞拉菲姆(George Serafeim)三位学者最近联合发表的论文也说明了这一点。***)
Yet this line of reasoning also raises some objections to the author’s broad thesis. If sustainability is profitable, then shareholders should push more companies in that direction without the need for an overhaul of the current system.
然而，这种推理方式也对作者宽泛（不够严谨）的论点提出了一些反对意见。如果可持续发展有利可图，股东就会推动更多企业朝这个方向发展，而无需对现有体系再进行全面改革。
And the change of financial accounting that Mr Mayer recommends would create all sorts of headaches. Social and environmental costs would be tricky to calculate. Financial profits form the basis for corporate taxation and for the distribution of dividends. It is hard to see a new, lower figure being used for tax purposes (government receipts would fall) or dividend calculation (cash would pile up on companies’ balance-sheets). So the main use of the number would be as a benchmark for incentive plans. And that would give scope to senior executives to game the new measure. Mr Mayer’s prescriptions may be laudably virtuous overall, but there would be lots of devils in the details.
迈尔先生所倡导的会计准则变更会引发各式各样的棘手问题。譬如社会和环境成本将变得难以计算。而财务利润是构成公司税收和股息分配的基础。人们不愿意看到较低的新数字用于计税（政府税收减少）或计算股息（公司资产负债表上现金额将居高不下）。财务利润的主要用途是作为激励政策的基准。而且企业的管们也会利用新规则的漏洞，找到应对方案。迈尔先生的方案总体上或许值得称赞，但细节处存在的漏洞更是不容忽视。
翻译组：
Lili, 女，互联网民工， 榴莲爱好者
Yifei，女，英专硕士，专八，catti二笔
VeRy，男，电气民工，经济学人资浅爱好者
校核组：
Ema, 女，外贸民工，经济学人粉丝
Li Xia, 女，爱爬山的健身小白，美食狂人
3
观点|评论|思考
本次观点由Veryyang独家奉献
Veryyang，教育民工，主攻演讲、戏剧
本篇文章主要讲的是在现代条件下企业发展是“以盈利为唯一社会责任”和“更多关注人力、社会和环境条件”的讨论。作为一个非企业发展领域的人士，我尝试着用生活中类似案例来理解这个问题，比如说这一季《奇葩说》的一个辩题——“如果爸爸一周陪孩子不足12个小时，就取消爸爸称号，你支持吗？”联系本文的语境，可以换成：爸爸（企业）为了挣钱（盈利）而缺少对孩子的陪伴（对社会环境的关注），那这个爸爸是负责任的有父爱的爸爸吗？会有利于这个家庭的发展吗（有利于企业发展吗）？
我们大部分人的直觉是批判爸爸这个“为了挣钱而不顾家”的行为的。尤其当节目组播放了孩子们因为爸爸不在身边而失落、嘟囔着希望爸爸陪自己一天的视频时，我们的心里充满了感伤，爸爸们可能充满了愧疚。正反双方的辩论也一致认为挣钱是不对的。这个时候，薛兆丰发表了一个不一样的观点。相比蔡康永的善解人意、高晓松的诗和远方，薛兆丰被称为是冷血的经济学家。他的原则是利益优先感情第二。他提出了两个观点：
首先，过去100年间，人们对于“有效陪伴”和“有效生活质量”的标准改变了，过去讲童话是一种爱的表现，现在爱的表现还要增加带TA去丹麦，而两个行为对于家庭经济的要求是不一样。
其次，挣钱也是一种父爱。挣钱意味着更多的机会，意味着更多的分工和合作。比如他不会谈钢琴，但是可以拿自己挣的钱让孩子学钢琴。让专业的人做专业的事，这也是一种有效陪伴。
这个讨论的直接影响，是我这个曾经的留守儿童，在那个瞬间，更懂得了父母过往打拼时的身不由己和取舍不易。在当时的条件下，他们为了创造更好的生活而“放弃”了一些作为家长陪伴孩子的义务和责任，并不能被认为缺乏对我的爱。也正是因为这样的付出，我们现在的物质条件才能达到基本无忧的水准。如果当时他们知道陪伴孩子对于孩子成长的重要性，如果当时他们就可以拥有现在物质基础和空余时间，我相信他们也愿意花更多时间陪我而不是一直漂泊在外。
当然企业发展比起家庭发展涉及到的因素会更复杂，但是底层的逻辑是一致的：企业在不同发展阶段，在不同社会条件和标准，采取的发展策略是不一样的。我认识不少创业的朋友，他们都受过良好的教育、有着改变社会的情怀。但从情怀落地变成商业的那一刻，他们就要衡量盈利和社会责任的关系。在《离开华为三年，我才真正认同狼性文化》这篇文章里，作者焱公子讲到了自己创业初始想要做一家有温度、有情怀、有归属感、有幸福感的新型创业公司。他们圆了大概所有员工的梦想：经常性团建聚餐、每周分享会、按员工意愿与特长分配工作、老父亲般对待员工失职借口。最终的结果呢？才过了几个月，就有员工提出辞职。为什么呢？公司业务情况不是很理想，也没有发展空间。后来他成为了一个“冷血”的老板：作为销售，一个月如果连月薪的订单都签不下来，请另谋高就。三年后的今天，他不仅让自己的公司存活下来，还把自己的经历还在“选择自己“、”馒头商学院”这样的大号上分享。他的感悟就是：盈利是公司最核心甚至初期唯一的目的。
在企业追求盈利的同事，管理者也应保持着对于社会、自然、环境、人力的关注，在合适的时机付诸行动。我的一位做策划公司的朋友，在他创业8年、拥有了30人的稳定团队之后，去实践他一直想做的公益项目。这不仅为社会传递了正能量，也给他的品牌做了很好的传播。
正如文中最有意思的一句话所说：“如果可持续发展有利可图，股东就会推动更多企业朝这个方向发展，而无需对现有体系再进行全面改革。”
希望这一天早日来临。