企业价值观不能计算

The last fortnight may have been the most damaging period ever for the reputation of large British businesses. GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical group, was fined $3bn for abusive practices in marketing drugs in the US. Royal Bank of Scotland and its subsidiaries failed to process their customers’ transactions. Both companies must have been relieved that Bob Diamond and Barclays successfully dominated the headlines. And these events follow BP’s disaster in 2010.

过去这两周，是英国大型企业声誉遭受前所未有沉重打击的两周。制药集团葛兰素史克(GlaxoSmithKline)被处以30亿美元的罚款，原因是该集团在美国市场上推销药品的过程中做出了不法行为。苏格兰皇家银行(RBS)及其分支机构因系统故障导致客户交易中断。应该令这两家企业感到庆幸的是，与鲍勃·戴蒙德(Bob Diamond)和巴克莱银行(Barclays)有关的资讯成功占据了各大媒体的头条。而在更早的2010年，还发生了英国石油(BP)的漏油灾难。

Conspiring to rig interest rates is probably fraudulent; failing to report the side effects of a drug is severely reprehensible but probably not illegal; cutting corners on an oil installation is negligent; systems failure in a computer system seems like bad luck. The degrees of culpability vary as do the incidents themselves. But is there a common underlying cause?

串通一气操纵利率或许算得上欺诈；瞒报药物的副作用理应受到严厉指责，但或许并不违法；在石油钻井安装中偷工减料算得上不负责任；计算机系统故障似乎是运气不太好。这些事故本身各不相同，过失程度也各有轻重，但在这些事故背后，是否隐含了一个共同的原因？

All four companies made decisions that benefited them in the short term but came back to haunt them. And yet to describe the problem as short-termism, though true, is not to get quite to the heart of the problem.

这四家公司所做的决策有一个共同的特点：在短期内有利，却为日后带来麻烦。但如果说这些公司的问题是目光短浅，虽然没说错，却远未说到点子上。

Some commentators have suggested that the $3bn fine on GSK was less than the profits the company made from its misconduct. BP clearly made a bad call, but we say that with hindsight. On the strong balance of probabilities, the well would have been fine and the consequential damage was far larger than could reasonably have been expected. What would we think of GSK, or BP, if we discovered that the companies had weighed the costs and benefits and decided to go ahead anyway with doctors’ spa weekends and cutting corners on the rig installation?

一些评论人士指出，葛兰素史克被处以的30亿美元罚款尚不及该公司从不法行为中获得的收益。英国石油在事故发生时显然错误判断了形势，但说这话的人也不过是事后诸葛亮。从概率来看，发生事故的油井本有很大可能平安无事，而事故导致的损失规模也远远超出合理预期。如果我们发现，葛兰素史克在决定请医生去水疗中心度周末（或英国石油决定在钻井安装中偷工减料）之前，曾衡量过这样做的成本和收益，我们又会如何看待它呢？

Not much, because the Ford Motor Company was – and is still – pilloried for acting in this way. The Pinto is notorious as one of the worst cars Ford – or any company – ever made. But it is more notorious still for its exploding fuel tank. Ford knew how to fix the problem at a cost of $11 per car.

我们肯定会觉得这家公司不怎么样，因为福特汽车(Ford Motor)就曾因这种行为受到公众的指责，现在依然没有获得原谅。众所周知，福特的平托(Pinto)是该公司（或任何其他汽车制造商）迄今为止生产过的最差车型。这个车型更广为人知的地方是它动不动就爆炸的油箱。福特事前就知道该如何解决油箱的隐患，只是每辆车要多花11美元。

But they estimated that only 180 people would die, and if you value life at $200,000 per head (including $900 for funeral expenses and an extra $10,000 because burning to death at the roadside is pretty unpleasant), it is cheaper to let accidents happen.

然而，福特估计这个隐患只会导致180人死亡，按照每位死者20万美元（这其中已经包括了900美元的葬礼费用，以及为在公路旁被烧死这种颇为惨烈的死亡方式而额外支付的1万美元）的赔偿标准计算，容许发生事故的可能性存在更合算。

The calculation is beyond parody or contempt. And yet while it is easy to say that safety, or human life, is priceless, in the real world trade-offs have to be made. Every cheap car could be made safer, but then it would cease to be a cheap car, and people who take a modest risk every time they leave the house (or, more dangerously still, stay at home) would not be able to benefit.

这个计算已经让人无力讽刺或鄙视。另外，尽管安全无价或生命无价这样的话嘴上说说容易，但在现实世界中，权衡成本与收益是不可避免的。我们可以把任何一辆廉价汽车变得更安全，但这样一来，这辆汽车就将变得不再廉价，原本在出门时因乘坐的这辆汽车而承担一定安全风险（更危险的情况是，即使呆在家里也因停放着的这辆汽车而承担一定安全风险）的人，将买不起这辆已经变得“更安全的汽车。

But as soon as that calculation was disclosed, Ford’s case was lost: both in the court where the relatives of a Pinto victim were suing the company, and in the court of public opinion. Not because we think the value of life is actually $500,000 – the level at which the calculation breaks even – or because we think the discount rate used is too high, but because we find unacceptable the instrumentality of making the calculation at all.

但这个计算一经披露，福特的案子就输定了：无论是在法庭上、面对平托受害者家属的指控时，还是在面对公共舆论的审判时。福特输定了的原因不在于，我们认为一条命应该值50万美元（按照这个数字，福特预计将支付的赔偿金将与解决油箱隐患的成本相等），也不在于我们认为福特在计算中采用的贴现率过高，而在于我们根本无法接受“计算这种处理方式。

We detest what it tells us about the values of the company. In Ford’s case this is unfair because, as the company tried vainly to persuade the court, the cost-benefit analysis was not its own idea: the analysis was a requirement of the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency, which was staffed by young enthusiasts for cost-benefit analysis.

令我们反感的，是这种计算所折射出的这家企业的价值观。在福特的例子中，这样说对福特并不公平，因为福特努力说服法庭相信，这种“成本收益分析并非它自己的想法，而是美国国家公路运输安全署(National Highway Transportation Safety Agency)的要求，该署成员主要是一些热衷“成本收益分析的年轻人。但法庭没有接受福特的这个说法。

That points to the real issue at GSK, RBS, Barclays and BP. We are not interested in whether these companies made good or bad calculations. We are interested in what these incidents tell us about the values of the companies concerned. We need to be able to trust pharmaceutical companies. We expect banks to be run and populated by honest people, to keep our money safe, and to give us our money back when we need it. We want oil companies to have a strong culture of engineering professionalism and commitment to health and safety.

而葛兰素史克、苏格兰皇家银行、巴克莱和英国石油几家企业的真正问题也恰恰出在价值观上。我们并不关心这些公司是否“计算失误。我们关心的是这些事件所折射出的这些公司的价值观。我们需要可以信赖的制药企业。我们希望银行在由一些诚实的人经营和管理，能够保证我们的资金安全，并在我们需要时做出偿付。我们希望石油公司在工程建设中富有专业精神，视保证健康和安全为己任。

If we are ever to have confidence in these companies, we want them to pursue these objectives, not because they are good policy, but because such goals are integral to the companies’ identity. Otherwise their literal or figurative licences to operate will be in jeopardy. The common mistake of all these businesses was to raise doubts about their values in the instrumental search for earnings.

如果有朝一日我们对这些企业有了信心，那一定是因为这些企业已经把追求这些目标作为自身的必要属性，而不再只是作为一项合乎时宜的政策。否则，这些企业的营业执照和公众形象都将岌岌可危。所有企业常犯的一个错误是，在利用一些工具追逐利润的过程中，令公众对自己的价值观产生怀疑。