,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...

上周，沃爾瑪限制槍支銷售的公告看來和上個月的美國商業圓桌會議（BRT）聲明相符，后者表示要重新設定企業“服務所有美國人”的整體目標框架。它超越了服務股東的狹小境界，推廣的是以多個利益相關方為導向。180多位龍頭企業首席執行官都加入了進來。支持者和批評者都錯誤地認為這樣的延伸背離了1972年BRT成績以來的愿景。

實際上，BRT的那些創始人都強烈提倡企業社會責任，包括員工福利、公平機會、環境管理以及企業誠信行為——這和工商業界現在的ESG標簽一致，也就是環境、社會和治理。杜邦前CEO埃爾文·夏皮羅、IBM前董事長托馬斯·沃特森和通用電氣前CEO雷金納德·瓊斯等BRT領導者都是《超級基金清理和加速法》（Superfund Cleanup and Acceleration Act）和《反海外腐敗法》（Foreign Corrupt Practices Act）的倡導者，而且在工作中用行動予以肯定。

本次的最新BRT公告挑戰了經濟學家米爾頓·弗里德曼的訓誡，即“企業的社會責任是增加利潤”，并且只關注最主要的股東。實際上，弗里德曼這番話并非強調特權行為，而是意在矯正當時企業行善者猛增的局面。此外，盡管這番話的剩余部分已被人們遺忘，但它承認：“將資源用于向社區提供福利或許非常符合企業的長期利益……。”

不過，BRT最近提出的整體企業目標立即受到了批評。有些人擔心這偏離了股東資本主義，從而削弱業績責任制，同時是為了安撫極左翼改革派。對他人來說，這個目標似乎是一種粉飾行為，目的是掩蓋企業的自身利益。

但美國環境保護署（EPA）為工商業界提供了一個機會，以便后者履行承諾，用可信的行動來驗證那些崇高的話語。上周，EPA表示它有意放寬對天然氣開采過程中甲烷泄露的監管。此項政策將取消至關重要的環保措施，而如今解決溫室氣體排放和氣候變化的緊迫性已經達到了前所未有的程度。但EPA的數據顯示，甲烷約占美國全部溫室氣體排放量的10%，而大概三分之一的甲烷排放都來自天然氣和石油行業。

許多石油和天然氣公司已經表示反對放寬此項監管，它們擔心的問題和尾氣排放標準下降時四大汽車公司的顧慮類似。舉例來說，殼牌美國業務總裁格雷琴·沃特金斯強調，他們承諾在2025年以前將甲烷泄露比例降至0.2%以下。上上周，英國石油總裁蘇珊·迪歐表示支持EPA提高標準：“這不僅是有利于環境的正確行為，從商業角度講這樣做的依據也很清晰?！?/p>

在能源行業的其他領域，許多公用事業公司對EPA降低汞污染限定標準提出了警告，此項監管可以節省800億美元的醫療保健費用，原因是它減少了汞引發的健康和嬰幼兒夭折問題。在要求保留此項規定的同時，業內許多公司表示96億美元必要合規資金中的絕大部分已經花了出去。

為堅持整體目標原則，當政府推出的政策無法應對不斷增大的環境威脅時，龍頭企業有必要發揮帶頭作用。

首先，企業在這方面可以和想法類似的公司聯合。最近發表在《美國政治學評論》（American Political Science Review）上的一項研究指出，公司參與戰略性自我監管的廣度是其成功的關鍵。共同采取行動時影響更大，CEO們面臨政治報復的風險也較小。

其次，企業可以直接和別人分享他們對有害甲烷、水銀以及其他污染物排放的研究，從而找出控制方法，同時為自己設定更高的標注。

第三，企業負責人可以打造其意向的可信度，辦法是引進獨立審計機構，由后者來評估他們遵守這些標準的情況，從向公眾披露結果。

最后，他們可以和下游用戶及消費者聯手，讓后者將采購轉向遵守標準的公司，從而給其他公司帶來壓力，進而效仿其行為。

自我監管并不是新鮮事物。從中世紀起，職業行會就設定了行為規范，并且會懲罰違規者。在工業領域，這些規范形態不一，既有美國金融業監管局，也有美國保險商實驗室（UL）120年來通過強化安全、危險品和優質產品性能方面的自愿制造標準而在全球取得的成功。

采取這些行動將表面尊重整個社會利益的真正意愿，作為回報，就能得到民眾和社會的更大信任，甚至是在一定會存在一些懷疑者的情況下。這進而加大了公司運營的自由度，而且應當為包括股東在內的所有人創造長期價值。不作為，或者所認可的計劃在別人看來無法應對不斷增大的氣候變化威脅，不光會給企業本身帶來風險，還會將工商業績乃至整個社會置于風險之下。（財富中文網）

里奇·李瑟是波士頓咨詢公司首席執行官和美國商業圓桌會議成員。杰弗里·索南菲爾德是耶魯管理學院高級副院長。

譯者：Charlie

審校：夏林

This week’s announcement by Walmart on limiting its own gun sales seems to match last month’s Business Roundtable (BRT) statement to re-frame the broader purpose of a corporation “that serves all Americans.” Over 180 CEOs of leading companies joined this statement, which, beyond merely serving shareholders, promotes a multi-stakeholder orientation. Supporters and critics wrongly saw this extension as a departure from the mission of the Business Roundtable since its creation in 1972.

In fact, the BRT founders were strong advocates of corporate social responsibility regarding employee welfare, equal opportunity, environmental stewardship, and honest business practices—consistent with what the business community now labels “ESG,” environmental, social, and governance principles. BRT leaders—such as Irving Shapiro of DuPont, Thomas Watson of IBM, and Reginald Jones of GE—advocated for the Superfund Cleanup and Acceleration Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and affirmative action in the workplace.

This latest Business Roundtable edict supposedly challenged economist Milton Friedman’s admonition that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” with a focus only on the supremacy of shareholders. In reality, Friedman’s statement was not to underscore prevailing practice, but was meant as a correction to the then-surge of corporate do-gooders. Furthermore, even the forgotten rest of Friedman’s commentary acknowledged, “It may well be in the long-run interest of a corporation… to devote resources to providing amenities to that community.”

Nonetheless, the recent BRT statement of a broader business purpose was greeted with immediate criticism. Some raised concerns that this was walking away from shareholder capitalism, would lead to less accountability for performance, and was appeasement to far left progressives. To others, it seems like window-dressing to cover up corporations’ self-interest.

But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has provided an opportunity for the business community to demonstrate its commitment to match lofty words with credible actions. Last week, the EPA stated an intent to roll back regulations around methane leaks in natural gas extraction. This policy would eliminate critically important environmental protections when the need to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change have never been more urgent. Yet, according to the EPA, methane accounts for around 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Roughly a third of those emissions are generated by the natural gas and petroleum industry.

A number of oil and gas companies have already opposed this rollback in regulations, similar to the concerns expressed by four automakers to a rollback in emission standards. For example, Gretchen Watkins, Shell U.S. president, underscored their pledge to reduce its methane leaks to less than 0.2% by 2025. Also last week, BP President Susan Dio stated support for tighter EPA standards: “It’s not only the right thing to do for the environment, there is also a clear business case for doing this.”

Elsewhere in the energy industry, many utility companies, reacted with alarm over EPA rollbacks of mercury contamination limits, regulation which was linked to $80 billion in health care savings, due to the estimated reduction of Mercury-related health issues and premature deaths. In requesting the preservation of the rule, many in the industry reported that they already spent most of the $9.6 billion in necessary compliance costs.

To be true to their principles of a broader sense of purpose, when the government issues policies that fail to address the rising climate threat, it is necessary for leading companies to lead.

Businesses can do so by, first, aligning with other like-minded firms. A recent study published in the American Political Science Review indicates that the breadth of firm participation in strategic self-regulation is essential to its success. It is more impactful and CEOs face less risk of political reprisal when they act in concert.

Second, companies can directly share their research on harmful methane emissions, mercury, and other pollutants, thereby outlining a method of control, and articulating a higher set of standards for themselves.

And, third, corporate leaders can create credibility for their intent by engaging independent auditors who will assess their adherence to these standards and publicly communicate results.

Finally, they can engage downstream users and consumers to shift their purchases to those who follow these standards and thereby create pressure on other companies to follow suit.

Self-regulation is not new. Since medieval times, professional gilds set standards for practice and disciplined violators with sanctions. In industry, there are varied forms, ranging from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to the UL’s 120 years of global success enforcing voluntary manufacturing standards for safety, hazardous substances, and quality product performance.

Taking these types of actions will show real intent to respect broader societal interests, and in return, could earn greater trust from citizens and society, even if some skeptics are certain to remain. In turn, this will strengthen companies freedom to operate and should contribute to longer term value creation for everyone—including shareholders. Inaction, or being perceived to endorse an agenda that fails to meet the rising threat of climate change, poses a risk to not only the companies themselves, but the broader business community, and society as a whole.

Rich Lesser is CEO of the Boston Consulting Group and a member of the Business Roundtable. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management.