April 30,2007
企業公益的興起
朋友寄來南方朔的新文，《新的企業家公益精神已告興起》，有些老生常談，但說理明白；通觀全篇，下面這個段落，對我最有趣：
一八九○年代，美國除了有民粹主義的風險外，當時也是資本主義擴張，政商勾結嚴重，奢侈腐化以及貧富嚴重的時刻，有懍於時代的凶險重重，當時的鋼鐵大王卡耐基遂於一八八九年發展〈論財富〉一文，聲稱「帶著如許財富而死去，乃是恥辱」。於是他本人遂將財富的百分之九十五用於公益，同業的洛克斐勒、福特、柏隆、范德比爾特、史丹福等也隨之跟進。於是「慈善」被「公益」所取代，就企業家而言，致富是個人能力的實現，而公益則是個人道德感與責任心的實踐這種價值觀遂告形成。
一段看似平淡的評述，已經把古典的「企業社會責任」觀念興起的時代背景，簡潔地勾勒出來。而且，也將「慈善」與「公益」的區別帶出來了，這一點，在台灣這個媒體經常把兩者混同的地方，也許是尤其有價值的。或許，也可以讓我們在對照於歷史後，更清楚「企業社會責任」觀念在此時此刻再度復興的宏觀歷史脈絡。
只是，這篇文字，因為是以「企業家」為論述對象，無意中似乎忽略了，當代的「企業社會責任」觀念，相對於古典的「企業公益」，有著至少兩個不同之處：
一、當代的「企業社會責任」觀念，針對的是做為法人的「公司」，而不是做為自然人的個別企業所有者或經營者。
二、當代的「企業社會責任」觀念， 當然乃是古典的「企業公益」觀念的延伸，只是，當代的「企業社會責任」觀念，在概念邏輯上，是首先關連著企業本身的商業活動的，講究的是企業如何減少自身的商業活動所可能造成的負面社會、生態衝擊，增加正面的影響。一旦失去了這個基本特性，與企業的核心商業活動和能力無關的「企業公益」，既使立意良善，也常會被批評是 window-dressing ，換言之，高級形象公關。
此外，文章中，還例舉了比爾蓋茲基金會作為「企業家公益」的正面範例，並如此描述：
比爾蓋茲基金會關切窮國人民的藥品問題，關切美國少數族裔受教權的不公平問題。
不過，南方朔沒有提及的，則是前一陣子比爾蓋茲基金會在歐美媒體上遭致著沸沸揚揚的批評與討論：
This issue flared up last week when the LA Times published two articles questioning the good works of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation because the Foundation invests its money according to how well the investments make money (more or less), rather than on whether the company does good deeds, doesn't hurt the environment, treats sweatshop workers less sweatily, etc.
只是，公益性質的基金會，要如何進行投資？是不是，也應該遵循「社會責任投資」（socially responsible investment）的原則，謹慎選擇「企業社會責任」表現良好的企業？這些與 SRI 相關的問題，在 SRI 觀念尚未主流化的台灣，確實，還是下個階段才會碰到的事情吧。
延伸連結：
Investors press Buffett over Darfur
“We think [that] Mr Buffett is an ethical person, and [that] he can help end the genocide,” Mr Porter told the FT. “If Warren Buffett was to announce Berkshire Hathaway was divesting from shares in PetroChina, it would have a huge effect on other shareholders. Are we talking about China or Sudan? Both. Genocide has continued because of China’s support of Sudan.”涉及南方朔文章中提及的另一位公益企業家：「股神巴斐勒」。也是一個關於「社會責任投資」的案例。
引用URL
這裡還有一個美國「社會投資論壇」的聲明新聞稿：
The Social Investment Forum
News Release: January 12, 2007
FOCUS ON GATES FOUNDATION INVESTMENT STRATEGY RAISES LONG-STANDING ISSUE FOR FOUNDATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C.///January 12, 2007///The Social Investment Forum, the national association of the social investment industry, today noted that news media coverage in recent days focused on the investment strategies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation illustrates the all-too-common “disconnect” that exists between foundation investment policies and their grant making.
Social Investment Forum CEO Lisa Woll said: “ A small, but growing, number of foundations have already pioneered socially responsible investing initiatives both in terms of the companies in which they invest and the shareowner initiatives they initiate or support through proxy voting to bring about important changes on social, environmental and governance issues. ‘Mission related investing’ is seen as important for foundations who wish to have their mission be consistent with their investments or in fact strengthen the impact of their grant making.”
In recent years, an increasing number of small and midsize foundations such as the Nathan Cummings Foundation, The Needmor Fund and the Tides Foundation, among others, have joined in sponsorship of shareowner resolutions on issues such as climate change, governance reforms, and diversity reporting. Other foundations -- including Ford, Rockefeller Brothers, and The Boston Foundation -- have developed and utilized active proxy voting policies to guide them in using their voice and vote with companies where they are investors. Finally, foundations such as Ford and MacArthur use Program Related Investments (PRIs) to bolster the impact of their grant dollars through community development investing.
Social Investment Forum President Timothy Smith, who also is senior vice president at Walden Asset Management, said: “The Social Investment Forum and its members have assisted many foundations in working through this process and our membership is in a position to provide the tools needed by the foundation community as they evaluate their investment policies. Socially responsible investing (SRI) allows foundations to ensure their mission is reflected in their investments by screening in or out of companies, investing in communities directly, and undertaking shareholder advocacy. With mission-related investing, foundation trustees and officers can begin to think more comprehensively about advancing their programmatic goals by leveraging the untapped potential of the full range of their philanthropic assets.”
Woll added: “The issues that have been brought to the public’s attention through the recent coverage of the Gates Foundation is a reminder to the hundreds of foundations — both small and large – that have traditional investment approaches that may work at cross purposes with their grant-making principles and strategies. We encourage foundations to seriously evaluate how and whether their investing strategies match their grant-making principles.”
In the first quarter of 2007, the Social Investment Forum Foundation will release a study on how SRI can strengthen fiduciary oversight of foundation endowments and enhance philanthropic missions.
順帶補充一個資料：
『華人地區與西方國家由於文化上的差異，在資本主義的落實上也有一段距離，而在西方資本主義邏輯下延伸出的企業社會責任，在台灣也還有很大的進步空間。由於華人文化中反商的意味較濃，一般民眾對於企業的期待上，停留在消極的拒絕造成環境或個人危害之外，尚未發展出積極要求企業善盡社會責任的成熟態度。因此台灣的資本主義是屬於一種佔有式的家族資本主義，加上傳統的「為善不欲人知」心態，因此許多企業公益是以企業家個人的行為來表現，而非企業本身的行為，反映出來的也是企業家個人的價值與信念。
在華人社會中，很容易就將企業公益與慈善捐款畫上等號，然而真正要落實「企業社會責任」則必須讓一般大眾瞭解，企業是社會的一份子，有責任為提供良好的社會環境而努力，其中當然包括對員工的關懷與責任、企業對社區的貢獻、生產過程是否符合環保標準以及對顧客的服務與照顧等等，都是企業的社會責任。企業成立基金會從事公益活動也不只是捐錢如此簡單而已，必須有永續發展的計畫、符合成立宗旨的長期社會關懷等，才能達到成立基金會除了節稅之外的重要目標。』
企業的社會責任不只有公益而已
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!SCyCpYWdEwPpWbn17FAELAAC2T3IXg--/article?mid=418&pk=%E5%85%AC%E7%9B%8A+%E8%A1%8C%E9%8A%B7+%E5%BE%AE%E8%BB%9F
![[Syndicate this site]](http://cdn.rimg.tw/images/blog/rss.gif "Syndicate RSS feed"){kind=small}
![[Syndicate this site]](http://cdn.rimg.tw/images/blog/atom.gif "Syndicate ATOM feed"){kind=small}
