评论
打印
"There is one and only one social responsibility of business" wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist
诺贝尔经济学奖得主、经济学家米尔顿·弗里德曼写道，企业社会责任有且仅有一种，
"That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits."
“那就是，利用自身资源从事能让其获利的各种活动。”
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这种假设性的观点，并且认为企业社会责任政策是浪费股东的金钱，事情却并非完全如此清晰。
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，至少企业因腐败而被起诉的时候，企业社会责任或许能为企业创造经济价值。
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.
据咨询公司“EPG”估算，英美两国的大公司每年合计在企业社会责任上的花费超过150亿美元。
This could add value to their businesses in three ways.
这能从三个方面给他们的企业增加价值。
First, consumers may take CSR spending as a "signal" that a company's products are of high quality.
第一，消费者可能会把企业的企业社会责任开销当做是一个“信号”，即这一公司的产品质量上乘。
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，消费者可能愿意购买这一公司的产品，算是间接地为该公司所支持的事业贡献力量。
And third, through a more diffuse "halo effect" whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
第三，通过更广泛的“光环效应”，这一公司的善行能让消费者和其他人有购买需求时能更多地考虑该公司。
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three.
因为消费者可能是受到了以上三个方式的影响，所以先前对企业社会责任的研究难以区分这三种方式的影响。
A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under American's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（FCPA）.
最近的一项研究试图区分这三种方式的影响，它所用的方法就是研究因违反《美国反海外腐败法》而遭到行贿起诉的案例。
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.
研究认为，由于检察官并不购买那些作为其调查部分的公司产品，因此他们只能受到“光环效应”的影响。
The study found that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties.
这项研究发现，在被起诉的公司当中，那些拥有最全面的企业社会责任项目的企业往往会从轻处罚。
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.
他们的分析排除了这样的可能性，即：是当事公司的政治影响力，而非他们的企业社会责任立场才让它获得了较轻的处罚，因为那些支持政治运动更多的公司并没有得到更低的罚金。
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.
总之，这个研究的结论是：虽然检察官在评估一个案件时，应该基于其功绩，实际上还是受到了公司企业社会责任记录的影响。
"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.
其中的一位研究者说：“我们估计，要么消除一个实质性的劳工权益问题，例如童工问题，要么增加20%的企业捐赠，都会促成罚金减少，一般要比因贿赂外国官员而造成的典型罚款低40%。”
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.
研究者们承认他们的研究没有解决的问题是：针对企业社会责任各大企业到底该支出多少费用。
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.
也没有揭露当企业做慈善方面的决策时，会有多看重“光环效应”，而非其他潜在收益。
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.
但至少他们证明了一点，当企业遇到法律问题时，自身良好品质的证据将让企业付出更少的罚金。
