,亚洲欧美日韩国产成人精品影院,亚洲国产欧美日韩精品一区二区三区,久久亚洲国产成人影院,久久国产成人亚洲精品影院老金,九九精品成人免费国产片,国产精品成人综合网,国产成人一区二区三区,国产成...

首頁(yè) 500強(qiáng) 活動(dòng) 榜單 商業(yè) 科技 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力 專題 品牌中心
雜志訂閱

企業(yè)行善,不應(yīng)只為業(yè)績(jī)

Azish Filabi
2021-09-05

企業(yè)現(xiàn)在是,而且一直是驅(qū)動(dòng)社會(huì)影響的強(qiáng)大力量,無(wú)論是積極的還是消極的影響。

文本設(shè)置
小號(hào)
默認(rèn)
大號(hào)
Plus(0條)

如今,商業(yè)媒體對(duì)于為非財(cái)務(wù)事項(xiàng)提供商業(yè)理由的做法非常興奮。當(dāng)我在搜索框輸入“商業(yè)理由”時(shí),谷歌(Google)就會(huì)用“種族平等”、“好奇心”和“母乳喂養(yǎng)”等主題自動(dòng)輸完我打算查詢的短語(yǔ)。

學(xué)術(shù)期刊,以及像本刊這類備受推崇的商業(yè)出版物經(jīng)常關(guān)注這種理由和報(bào)道。個(gè)人和機(jī)構(gòu)投資者也越來(lái)越關(guān)注他們的資金如何幫助推進(jìn)環(huán)境和社會(huì)事業(yè),以至于83%的企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者表示,環(huán)境、社會(huì)和治理(ESG)因素將影響他們?cè)谖磥?lái)幾年的并購(gòu)決策。

關(guān)注解決社會(huì)問(wèn)題的商業(yè)理由,當(dāng)然出于一番好意,但從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看可能是有害的。這意味著,對(duì)于困擾我們整個(gè)社會(huì)的所有問(wèn)題,都有一個(gè)財(cái)務(wù)成本效益分析,而企業(yè)就是解決方案。此外,如果你的財(cái)務(wù)理由最終沒有獲得預(yù)期的回報(bào),它就會(huì)使領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)投資最重要的事項(xiàng)(也就是人)產(chǎn)生質(zhì)疑。

我們需要開始問(wèn)一個(gè)不同的問(wèn)題,專注于企業(yè)如何為人類的底線服務(wù),而不是反過(guò)來(lái)。

企業(yè)現(xiàn)在是,而且一直是驅(qū)動(dòng)社會(huì)影響的強(qiáng)大力量,無(wú)論是積極的還是消極的影響。自“股東至上”在20世紀(jì)70年代成為主導(dǎo)觀點(diǎn)以來(lái),我們已經(jīng)取得了長(zhǎng)足的進(jìn)展。這通常被歸功于米爾頓·弗里德曼和芝加哥學(xué)派的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家,他們認(rèn)為企業(yè)的主要目的就是為股東服務(wù)。

如今,另一種利益相關(guān)者資本主義框架成為主流思潮。許多企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者正在與股東和債權(quán)人以外的利益相關(guān)者進(jìn)行接觸,并有意義地評(píng)估企業(yè)對(duì)所有利益相關(guān)者的影響。除了慈善事業(yè),投資者還在優(yōu)先考慮那些提供好工作或緩解氣候變化的公司,而企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者也更愿意公開發(fā)表他們對(duì)種族平等和包容性企業(yè)文化等社會(huì)問(wèn)題的看法。

然而,他們往往宣稱這些努力不僅有益于社會(huì),而且對(duì)各自公司的成功至關(guān)重要。一些學(xué)者認(rèn)為,為有意識(shí)的資本主義提供商業(yè)理由,有損于助力管理者更好地運(yùn)營(yíng)組織這一更廣泛的目標(biāo)。正如哈佛商學(xué)院(Harvard Business School)的羅賓·J·埃利教授和莫爾豪斯學(xué)院(Morehouse College)的大衛(wèi)·A·托馬斯教授在談到多元化的商業(yè)理由時(shí)所寫的那樣,專注于底線意味著,“采取一種‘增加多樣性和融合’的方法”就足夠了。

當(dāng)多樣性在實(shí)踐中發(fā)揮作用時(shí),那是因?yàn)轭I(lǐng)導(dǎo)者允許組織的基本權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)發(fā)生變化,以接納新的聲音。專注于商業(yè)理由往往會(huì)忽略一項(xiàng)更艱難的任務(wù):為不同的聲音和對(duì)話、流程,以及更難以衡量的結(jié)果創(chuàng)造空間。

相反,讓我們?yōu)楹玫钠髽I(yè)提供社會(huì)理由,通過(guò)顛倒等式來(lái)確定企業(yè)給社會(huì)帶來(lái)的價(jià)值。我們可以問(wèn):企業(yè)如何影響組織中的人和受組織影響的人?這就開啟了一場(chǎng)涉及廣泛考量的對(duì)話,其中包括工作質(zhì)量、工作場(chǎng)所的尊嚴(yán)、工人的福祉、供應(yīng)鏈中的人權(quán),以及其他難以量化的事項(xiàng)。

一個(gè)令人鼓舞的趨勢(shì)是,正如商業(yè)圓桌會(huì)議(Business Roundtable)發(fā)布的更新版《企業(yè)宗旨聲明》(Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation)所示,政策制定者和企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者正在越來(lái)越多地討論商業(yè)目的。有意義地專注于商業(yè)目的,是一個(gè)展示企業(yè)有資質(zhì)在社會(huì)中運(yùn)營(yíng)的機(jī)會(huì)。

如果有必要,我們就能夠繼續(xù)使用金融術(shù)語(yǔ)、影響措施和商業(yè)語(yǔ)言來(lái)激勵(lì)和鼓舞領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。但切勿忽視真正重要的東西,即把人置于等式的中心。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

本文作者阿齊什·菲拉比是美國(guó)金融服務(wù)學(xué)院金融服務(wù)倫理中心(American College Center for Ethics in Financial Services)的執(zhí)行主任、美國(guó)金融服務(wù)學(xué)院(American College of Financial Services)的倫理學(xué)副教授。

譯者:任文科

如今,商業(yè)媒體對(duì)于為非財(cái)務(wù)事項(xiàng)提供商業(yè)理由的做法非常興奮。當(dāng)我在搜索框輸入“商業(yè)理由”時(shí),谷歌(Google)就會(huì)用“種族平等”、“好奇心”和“母乳喂養(yǎng)”等主題自動(dòng)輸完我打算查詢的短語(yǔ)。

學(xué)術(shù)期刊,以及像本刊這類備受推崇的商業(yè)出版物經(jīng)常關(guān)注這種理由和報(bào)道。個(gè)人和機(jī)構(gòu)投資者也越來(lái)越關(guān)注他們的資金如何幫助推進(jìn)環(huán)境和社會(huì)事業(yè),以至于83%的企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者表示,環(huán)境、社會(huì)和治理(ESG)因素將影響他們?cè)谖磥?lái)幾年的并購(gòu)決策。

關(guān)注解決社會(huì)問(wèn)題的商業(yè)理由,當(dāng)然出于一番好意,但從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看可能是有害的。這意味著,對(duì)于困擾我們整個(gè)社會(huì)的所有問(wèn)題,都有一個(gè)財(cái)務(wù)成本效益分析,而企業(yè)就是解決方案。此外,如果你的財(cái)務(wù)理由最終沒有獲得預(yù)期的回報(bào),它就會(huì)使領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)投資最重要的事項(xiàng)(也就是人)產(chǎn)生質(zhì)疑。

我們需要開始問(wèn)一個(gè)不同的問(wèn)題,專注于企業(yè)如何為人類的底線服務(wù),而不是反過(guò)來(lái)。

企業(yè)現(xiàn)在是,而且一直是驅(qū)動(dòng)社會(huì)影響的強(qiáng)大力量,無(wú)論是積極的還是消極的影響。自“股東至上”在20世紀(jì)70年代成為主導(dǎo)觀點(diǎn)以來(lái),我們已經(jīng)取得了長(zhǎng)足的進(jìn)展。這通常被歸功于米爾頓·弗里德曼和芝加哥學(xué)派的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家,他們認(rèn)為企業(yè)的主要目的就是為股東服務(wù)。

如今,另一種利益相關(guān)者資本主義框架成為主流思潮。許多企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者正在與股東和債權(quán)人以外的利益相關(guān)者進(jìn)行接觸,并有意義地評(píng)估企業(yè)對(duì)所有利益相關(guān)者的影響。除了慈善事業(yè),投資者還在優(yōu)先考慮那些提供好工作或緩解氣候變化的公司,而企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者也更愿意公開發(fā)表他們對(duì)種族平等和包容性企業(yè)文化等社會(huì)問(wèn)題的看法。

然而,他們往往宣稱這些努力不僅有益于社會(huì),而且對(duì)各自公司的成功至關(guān)重要。一些學(xué)者認(rèn)為,為有意識(shí)的資本主義提供商業(yè)理由,有損于助力管理者更好地運(yùn)營(yíng)組織這一更廣泛的目標(biāo)。正如哈佛商學(xué)院(Harvard Business School)的羅賓·J·埃利教授和莫爾豪斯學(xué)院(Morehouse College)的大衛(wèi)·A·托馬斯教授在談到多元化的商業(yè)理由時(shí)所寫的那樣,專注于底線意味著,“采取一種‘增加多樣性和融合’的方法”就足夠了。

當(dāng)多樣性在實(shí)踐中發(fā)揮作用時(shí),那是因?yàn)轭I(lǐng)導(dǎo)者允許組織的基本權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)發(fā)生變化,以接納新的聲音。專注于商業(yè)理由往往會(huì)忽略一項(xiàng)更艱難的任務(wù):為不同的聲音和對(duì)話、流程,以及更難以衡量的結(jié)果創(chuàng)造空間。

相反,讓我們?yōu)楹玫钠髽I(yè)提供社會(huì)理由,通過(guò)顛倒等式來(lái)確定企業(yè)給社會(huì)帶來(lái)的價(jià)值。我們可以問(wèn):企業(yè)如何影響組織中的人和受組織影響的人?這就開啟了一場(chǎng)涉及廣泛考量的對(duì)話,其中包括工作質(zhì)量、工作場(chǎng)所的尊嚴(yán)、工人的福祉、供應(yīng)鏈中的人權(quán),以及其他難以量化的事項(xiàng)。

一個(gè)令人鼓舞的趨勢(shì)是,正如商業(yè)圓桌會(huì)議(Business Roundtable)發(fā)布的更新版《企業(yè)宗旨聲明》(Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation)所示,政策制定者和企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者正在越來(lái)越多地討論商業(yè)目的。有意義地專注于商業(yè)目的,是一個(gè)展示企業(yè)有資質(zhì)在社會(huì)中運(yùn)營(yíng)的機(jī)會(huì)。

如果有必要,我們就能夠繼續(xù)使用金融術(shù)語(yǔ)、影響措施和商業(yè)語(yǔ)言來(lái)激勵(lì)和鼓舞領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。但切勿忽視真正重要的東西,即把人置于等式的中心。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

本文作者阿齊什·菲拉比是美國(guó)金融服務(wù)學(xué)院金融服務(wù)倫理中心(American College Center for Ethics in Financial Services)的執(zhí)行主任、美國(guó)金融服務(wù)學(xué)院(American College of Financial Services)的倫理學(xué)副教授。

譯者:任文科

There's much excitement in the business press these days about making the business case for nonfinancial matters. When I enter “the business case for” in my search box, Google completes my phrase with “racial equity,” “curiosity,” and “breastfeeding,” among other topics.

Academic journals and highly regarded business publications like this one often focus on such cases and coverage. Individual and institutional investors are also increasingly focused on how their money can help advance environmental and social causes, so much so that?83% of corporate leaders say that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors will drive their merger and acquisition decisions in the next couple of years.

Focusing on the business case for social issues is well-meaning, but it can be damaging in the long run. It implies that there is a financial cost-benefit analysis for all that ails us as a society, and that business is the solution. Moreover, if your financial case ends up not reaping the anticipated rewards, it leaves leaders skeptical of investing in what matters most—people.

We need to start asking a different question, focusing on how business serves the bottom line of humanity, not the other way around.

Business is and has always been a powerful driver of social impact, both positive and negative. We’ve come a long way since the dominant shareholder primacy view of the 1970s. Often attributed to Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economists, they argued that the main purpose of business is to serve shareholders.

Today, the alternate framing of stakeholder capitalism is dominant. Many business leaders are engaging with stakeholders beyond their shareholders and creditors, and meaningfully assessing the business’s impact on all stakeholders. Beyond charity, investors are prioritizing companies that provide good jobs or mitigate climate change, and corporate leaders are more vocal on social issues such as racial equity and inclusive corporate culture.

Yet they often frame such efforts as not only beneficial to society but also crucial to their company’s success. Some scholars argue that making the business case for conscious capitalism detracts from the broader goal of enabling managers to run better organizations. As professors Robin J. Ely and David A. Thomas of Harvard Business School and Morehouse College, respectively,?write about the business case for diversity, focusing on the bottom line implies that “taking an ‘a(chǎn)dd diversity and stir’ approach” is sufficient.

When diversity works in practice, it is because leaders allow the fundamental power structure of the organization to shift to include new voices. Focusing on the business case loses sight of the more difficult task of creating space for dissenting voices and dialogue, processes, and outcomes that are more difficult to measure.

Let’s instead make the social case for good business, flipping the equation to determine the value companies bring to society. We can ask: How does business affect people in organizations and people impacted by organizations? This opens up the conversation to a broad array of considerations, including job quality, dignity in the workplace, worker well-being, human rights in supply chains, and other hard-to-quantify matters.

One encouraging trend is that policymakers and corporate leaders are increasingly discussing the purpose of business, as demonstrated by the Business Roundtable’s updated Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation. Meaningfully focusing on business purpose is an opportunity to demonstrate a company’s license to operate in society.

If we must, we can continue to use financial jargon, impact measures, and the language of business to motivate and inspire leaders. But let’s not lose sight of what really matters: keeping people at the center of the equation.

Azish Filabi is executive director of the American College Center for Ethics in Financial Services and an associate professor of ethics at the American College of Financial Services.

0條Plus
精彩評(píng)論
評(píng)論

撰寫或查看更多評(píng)論

請(qǐng)打開財(cái)富Plus APP

前往打開