总裁“内参”：不要回避企业责任

Corporate responsibility without the waffle

Passion, commitment, engagement, trust: it sounds like the start of a beautiful friendship. But when chief executives rely on these words to persuade a sceptical world of their company's responsible approach to society, they risk being a turn-off.


Almost every corporate responsibility report today kicks off with a message from the CEO or chairman. It presents an ideal opportunity to explain in concrete terms what being “responsible” means for your business. It is a chance to show shareholders and other stakeholders that you understand the social or environmental risks facing your industry and that you are tackling them at board level.

These are issues that big investors will want to know even more about in the coming year how companies are handling potential threats to long-term shareholder value such as climate change, the explosion in obesity, or human rights lawsuits. New regulations, such as the forthcoming operating and financial review in the UK, will reinforce the need for a broad approach to risk management.

Yet some chief executives' messages are curiously cut off from these developments. Indeed it can be hard to work out precisely what risks a company faces among the warm, fuzzy generalisations that still populate the language of corporate social responsibility.

Take the following from “A word with Franck Riboud”, chairman and chief executive of Danone, best known for dairy products such as yoghurt. “Danone Way is a response to a real need which is to preserve and pass on a culture based on our dual commitment to business success and social progress,” he says.

Or this from the foreword to Toshiba's latest corporate social responsibility report by Tadashi Okamura, president and CEO: “For almost 130 years, Toshiba has been a force for social progress . . . Along the way, we have earned the trust of society, and it is this trust that is our true reason for being. It is our motivation and our inspiration.”

John Elkington, co-director of SustainAbility, an international consultancy that tracks trends in non-financial reporting, says few forewords feel as if they have been written by the CEO as opposed to the public relations department. “You rarely get a sense from the foreword about whether the CEO or chairman has read the report, or what they have found interesting and surprising.”

To be effective, what should your introduction cover? First, specific examples of the challenges the company faces and how you are tackling them.

Arun Sarin, chief executive of Vodafone, talks about potential abuse of human rights and labour standards in the group's vast ￡23bn supply chain and how it is starting to manage these risks through a code of ethical purchasing.

But his opening lines risk leaving readers disoriented. “We already have a clear compass,” he states. “One of our four values is ‘passion for the world around us' and one of our six strategic goals is to ‘be a responsible business'.” He leaves us guessing what the other values and goals are.

The second thing is evidence of transparency. Bob Eckert, chairman and CEO of Mattel, refers to the global manufacturing principles that the toy manufacturer put in place in 1997. “We've welcomed independent, third-party auditing of our adherence to these principles and we've posted the results for public viewing on our corporate website (www.mattel.com),” he writes.

Third, a recognition of the importance of governance. In his letter, Mr Eckert says that corporate responsibility at Mattel will from now on be overseen by the board's nominations and corporate governance committee, which is renamed the governance and social responsibility committee.

Novo Nordisk, the Danish drugs group, links good governance directly to the way companies face up to society's changing expectations. “It is continuous hard work,” write Lars Rebien Sorensen, president and CEO, and Mads Ovlisen, chairman. Last year they strengthened their risk management system, continued their work on board self-evaluation and developed a new share-based incentive programme for executives. Fourth, credibility. In Gap's first social responsibility report this year, Paul Pressler, president and CEO, begins by telling readers that, when he decided to join the company in 2002, his teenage daughter asked him: “Doesn't Gap use sweatshops?” Much of the rest of his message is about what the company is doing to improve conditions in the garment industry and how difficult this is. It is both personal and believable.

It is high time for plain speaking across the board. The foreword to next year's corporate responsibility report will mark you out either as a leader who has contemplated the risks ahead or as a CEO who has jumped on to the bandwagon without really knowing why.

Tomorrow: training
总裁“内参”：不要回避企业责任

激情，承诺，约定，信任，这一切听来犹如一场美妙友谊的开端。但是，如果首席执行官们指望用这些词来让疑虑重重的世界相信，自己公司采取了对社会负责的手段，那他们可能会不被理睬。


如今，几乎每一份企业责任报告都以公司首席执行官或董事长的一段话来开头。这是一个理想的机会，来具体阐述“责任”对你的企业意味着什么。这是一个向股东和其它利益相关人表白的机会，让他们知道，你了解所处行业面临的社会或环境风险，而且你正在董事会层面解决这些风险问题。

这些都是大投资者在来年希望进一步了解的问题：公司将如何处理长期股东价值所受到的潜在威胁，比如气候变化，肥胖症的爆发，或者是人权诉讼等。一些新的监管规定，例如即将在英国实施的运营及财务评估等，将增强企业对全面风险管理手段的需求。

但奇怪的是，一些首席执行官的开场白毫不涉及这些问题。他们在企业社会责任的问题上泛泛而谈，全是些热情、模糊的言辞，从中确实很难明确地听出企业面临哪些风险。

弗兰克?里布(Franck Riboud)是达能(Danone)公司董事长兼首席执行官，该公司的酸乳酪等奶制品最为出名。我们就以下面这段来自“弗兰克?里布致辞”的话为例：“达能方式(Danone Way)是对一种实际需要的反应，这种需要就是，在我们对企业成功和社会进步的双重承诺基础上，保持并传承一种文化，”里布在致辞中说。

或者看看东芝公司(Toshiba)总裁兼首席执行官冈村正(Tadashi Okamura)为最新的一份企业社会责任报告所作的序言。“近130年来，东芝一直是推动社会进步的力量……一直以来，我们赢得了社会的信赖，而这种信赖正是我们存在的真正理由。这是我们的动力和灵感所在。”

跟踪非财务报告趋势的国际咨询公司SustainAbility的联合董事约翰?艾尔金顿(John Elkington)表示，此类报告中的序言很少让人感觉是首席执行官写的，看上去更象出自公关部门之手。“你从序言里几乎看不出，首席执行官或董事长是否读过报告，或者他们发现了哪些有趣和奇异之事。”

要想让人印象深刻，你的前言该说些什么呢？首先是公司所面临挑战的具体例子，以及你将如何应对这些挑战。

沃达丰公司(Vodafone)首席执行官阿伦?萨林(Arun Sarin)在报告序言中谈到，在该集团价值230亿英镑的巨型供应链中，可能发生违反人权和劳工标准的行为，并谈到了，该集团正如何着手通过一套合乎道德的采购准则来控制这些风险。

但他开头几句话可能会让读者摸不着头脑。“我们已经有了个清晰的指南针，”他说，“我们四大价值观之一是‘热爱周围的世界’，我们六大战略目标之一是‘做一家负责任的企业’。”他让我们去猜测，其它那些价值观和目标是什么。

第二点是透明度的证明。美泰玩具公司(Mattel)董事长兼首席执行官鲍勃?埃克特(Bob Eckert)提及公司在1997年实施的全球制造原则。“我们始终欢迎独立的第三方审计，检验我们是否坚守这些原则，而且我们已将审计结果公布在公司网站上(www.mattel.com)，”他在序言里写道。

第三，对公司治理重要性的认可。埃克特先生在他的信中说，从现在起，美泰的企业职责将由董事会委派的人员和公司治理委员会负责监督，公司治理委员会已更名为治理及社会责任委员会。

丹麦制药集团诺和诺德(Novo Nordisk)直接把良好的公司治理与企业勇敢面对社会期望变化的做法挂钩。“这是艰苦、持久的工作，”公司总裁兼首席执行官拉尔斯?勒比恩(Lars Rebien)、董事长马斯?厄夫利森(Mads Ovlisen)写道。去年他们增强了公司的风险管理系统、继续进行在董事会自我评估方面的工作，并开发了一个新的、股票形式的管理人员激励计划。

第四，可信度。在Gap公司今年的首份社会责任报告中，公司总裁兼首席执行官保罗?普雷斯勒(Paul Pressler)一开头就告诉读者，当他在2002年决定加入公司时，他十几岁的女儿问他：“难道Gap不用血汗工厂吗？”在他接下去的致辞中，大部分都是关于公司采取了哪些措施来改善服装业的工作条件，以及这么做有多困难。这样的致辞既有个人特色又很可信。

现在该是在董事会直言不讳的时候了。你在今年企业责任报告中所作序言将会决定，你究竟是个未雨绸缪的领导人，还是个糊里糊涂跳上大篷车赶潮流的首席执行官。

总裁“内参”：养老金计划

MEMO TO THE CEO: lessons for pension plans

Some companies felt trapped by pension promises in 2004, writes . The new year is likely to offer little respite


For many companies in the US and the UK, the pensions imperative of the past few years has been to move away from potentially ruinous defined benefit pension schemes and towards more manageable defined contribution plans. Companies in other countries, where governments are encouraging the growth of private sector pensions, are watching with interest.

Defined benefit plans give employees pensions based on salary and years of service. The investment risk falls entirely on the company. If there is insufficient money in the pension fund, the employer has to make up the difference. Defined contribution schemes involve employees and companies paying into a plan, with the final pension depending on the performance of the money invested. If it underperforms, the employee has to make do with a smaller pension.

To many UK companies, defined benefit pension schemes had become a nuisance. Poor stock market returns and increased longevity resulted in ballooning pension deficits, exacerbated by the contribution holidays that many companies took during the boom years. Many companies tried to draw a line under their def-ined benefit schemes, closing them to new entrants, who were offered defined contribution plans instead.

The UK companies were following the US example, where the number of def-ined benefit schemes has fallen to less than a third of the level of the 1980s. But in both the US and the UK the staff in defined benefit plans have gone to court to assert their rights, causing problems for several companies.

United Airlines of the US, which is attempting to restructure after two years in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, has struggled to turn its defined benefit pensions into defined contribution 401(k) programmes. In November, Independent Fid-uciary Services, the trustee representing United's pension funds, sought a court order forcing it to make up missed contributions.

IBM has found itself in court accused of age discrimination over changes made to its defined benefit pensions. The company's attempts to create hybrids of defined benefit and 401(k) plans led to complaints from older workers that they had been disadvantaged. IBM then closed its plan to new employees, who will have 401(k) pensions instead, but that does not spare the company from deciding what to do with its existing schemes.

In England, the high court ruled in July that KPMG could not reduce pension benefits its staff had already earned, even though a clause in the pension trust deed allowed it to do just that.

Pensions have also prevented takeovers. Permira, a private equity firm, had to abandon a bid to buy WH Smith, the UK retailer, because of pension issues. The WH Smith pension fund's trustees were not satisfied with Permira's plans to protect the scheme's members.

Employers have also been criticised over the way they have moved to defined contribution plans. In the UK, many companies have used the change as an opportunity to cut back on contributions to employees' pensions. In a government-commissioned report published this month, a taskforce led by Sir Peter Davis, former chairman of J. Sainsbury, the UK retailer, warned companies that they could face greater compulsion if they did not make better provision for staff. What are the lessons? First, that employers will be dealing with defined benefit schemes for decades to come. Second, that companies need to rethink the way they deal with new staff's pensions. Defined benefit plans are not the answer for all of them; the change to defined contribution programmes may well be justified. Defined benefit pensions work best for people who stay with the same company for many years; frequent job-changers are disadvantaged by them. Defined benefit plans can also be unsuitable for women who stop working for some years to have children.

Chief executives who attempt to short-change new employees by cutting their pension contributions are asking for trouble. It may not hit them immediately, because few young people think about pensions and even fewer understand them. But as retiring staff find that their defined contribution pensions are too small to provide them with a decent retirement, word will begin to get around.

It is the brightest, most desirable recruits who will understand the implications first. They will gravitate towards those companies that provide them with decent pensions. Failing that, they will demand higher salaries to compensate for the lack of pension provision. There are no easy pension answers for chief executives who want to attract the best, and few cheap ones either.
总裁“内参”：养老金计划

鉴于固定收益养老金计划可能有灾难性影响，近年许多美英企业已向更容易对付的固定缴款计划过渡。在政府鼓励私人部门养老金发展的其它一些国家，企业正饶有兴趣地关注这一现象。


固定收益养老金计划根据工资和服务年限向员工提供养老金。投资风险完全落在公司头上。如果养老金基金的资金不充足，雇主必须补足缺少的部分。固定缴款计划涉及员工和公司，双方都要向养老金计划缴款，最后的养老金取决于资金的投资表现。如果资金的投资表现不佳，员工就不得不将就一下，拿较少的养老金。

对许多英国公司来说，固定收益养老金计划已成了件麻烦事。股市回报糟糕，而人们更加长寿，导致养老金赤字迅速增大。在股市繁荣时期，许多公司享用了贡献假期（即可以不缴款的年份），导致养老金赤字恶化。许多公司试图中止固定收益养老金方案，不再向新员工提供该方案，而代之以固定缴款计划。

英国公司正在效仿美国。在美国，固定收益计划的数量已降至不到 80年代水平的三分之一。但在美英两国，都有加入固定收益计划的员工为了维护自己的权益而诉诸法院，给好几家公司带来了麻烦。

美国联合航空公司(United Airlines)已在《破产法》第11章的保护下渡过两年，如今正试图重组。该公司已竭力把自己的固定收益养老金计划变为固定缴款的401(k)计划。11月，代表联合航空养老金基金的托管人“独立信托服务”(Independent Fiduciary Services)请求法庭命令该公司补足未缴的养老金款项。

IBM也被告上法庭，称其在固定收益养老金改革中存在年龄歧视。该公司曾试图创立固定收益与401(k)混合的养老金计划，但这导致老年员工的抱怨，称他们被置于不利地位。随后IBM不再对新员工开放这一计划，而以401(k)养老金代之，但该公司还是免不了要处理原有的养老金计划。

在英国，高等法院7月份裁定，毕马威(KPMG)不能减少其员工已经挣得的养老金福利，哪怕在养老金信托协定中有一条允许它这么做。

养老金问题还阻止了数起收购。由于养老金问题，私人股本公司珀米拉(Permira)被迫放弃了对英国零售商WH Smith的收购。WH Smith养老金基金的托管人对珀米拉保护该基金成员的计划不满意。

雇主们还遭到批评，称它们向固定缴款计划过渡的方式有问题。在英国，许多公司利用这个机会削减对雇员养老金的缴款额。在本月公布的一份政府委托调查报告中，以彼得?戴维斯爵士(Sir Peter Davis)为首的调查小组警告企业：如果它们不为员工提供更好的养老金安排，它们可能面临更大的强制义务。彼得?戴维斯曾是英国零售商J. Sainsbury的董事长。

教训是什么呢？首先，在长达数十年的时间内，雇主将不得不处理固定收益养老金计划；第二，企业需要反思其处理新员工养老金的方式。不能对所有员工都采用固定收益计划；改用固定缴款计划可能很有道理。固定收益养老金计划对于在同一家公司工作多年的人来说是最好的，但对频繁换工作的人不利。另外，固定收益计划可能不适合那些为生儿育女而中断数年工作的妇女。

如果企业经理企图削减新员工的养老金缴款数额，而让他们吃亏，那么这些经理是在自找麻烦。他们或许不会立即受到惩罚，因为很少有年轻人考虑养老金，知道养老金是怎么回事的人甚至更少。但随着即将退休的员工发现，其固定缴款养老金数额太少，致使他们无法过上体面的退休生活时，消息就会传开去。

首先懂得养老金意义的是那些最聪明，最合人意的新员工。这些人将被提供优厚养老金的公司所吸引。如果不能跳槽，他们就会要求公司提高薪水，以补偿养老金方面的不足。对那些想要吸引最佳人才的总裁们来说，在养老金方面没有轻易、廉价的答案。

总裁“内参”：外包三大关键

Don't let your rivals leave you behind

You have read a lot this year about jobs being exported to low wage economies such as China, India and the Philippines. In common with most companies, your supply chain went global in the 1990s. The jobs now migrating offshore are not manufacturing but technical and clerical: financial analysis, computer programming, customer service, back office finance and human resources.


If you have not considered getting this kind of work done offshore, you should. The cost savings can be substantial. In a low margin industry, this could be the difference between profit and loss.

Perhaps more importantly, the drift of white collar jobs offshore is a sign that your competitors are starting to rethink what functions and processes need to be kept within the company. For the sake of long-term competitiveness you do not want to be left behind.

Ask yourself why your company remains vertically integrated in areas such as after sales services, finance and human resources. You would not dream of manufacturing your own roller bearings or making the paper that goes into your packaging. So why do you process your own invoices?

Until recently, of course, you had no choice. There were no third-party suppliers to take these drudge tasks off your hands. But that is changing. Professional services companies such as Accenture and Bearingpoint, information technology outfits such as International Business Machines and EDS, and specialist outsourcers such as Infosys and Wipro all believe they can make money by handling business processes more efficiently.

The proximate cause is the onward march of information technology. Remember the enterprise software systems, typically from the German provider SAP, that you spent most of the 1990s grappling with? Well, it turns out that almost every company in your industry has the same software and, by implication, almost identical business processes. The potential for economies of scale should be obvious.

Of course, cost savings are not the only reason to look at outsourcing. Remember all that talk in your MBA course about “core competencies” being the only enduring source of competitive advantage? Well, is form-filling really a core competence for your organisation?

Once you have taken the decision to outsource, it is inevitable that the work will be done in the location that offers the best combination of low cost and high quality of service. Increasingly, but not always, that means offshore.

The good news is that you do not need to dive head first into this new wave of outsourcing. Many of your competitors have organised their back office functions into a single “shared services” organisation that supports every company in the group. As a first step, you should do the same. It might even make sense to build your own offshore administration or information technology centre.

Once this has been accomplished, decide whether these services contribute to your competitive advantage. If not, outsourcing may be the answer.

For an example of best practice, look to General Electric. In the late 1990s, the conglomerate built an administrative and technical centre in India to provide GE companies with everything from financial analysis to software engineering. Last month it sold majority control of the operation to a private equity group, in effect outsourcing a wide range of services.

A few words of caution, however. First, today's non-core business process could be tomorrow's core competence. JP Morgan Chase recently cancelled a $5bn (￡2.6bn), seven-year IT outsourcing contract with IBM because Jamie Dimon, the bank's CEO-in-waiting, believes information technology is a core competency in financial services.

Second, the terms of any outsourcing contract are vital. How will the supplier get paid? What key performance indicators will be used to judge whether the service provided is up to scratch? What happens if you want to walk away from the deal? Third, keep employees informed at all times. People do not appreciate having their jobs shipped to Mumbai or Shanghai. Tread carefully.

Also, take nothing for granted. Your competitors may be rushing headlong into offshoring and outsourcing. That does not mean that it makes sense for yourcompany.

Consider Dell's approach. While most of its competitors have outsourced computer assembly to contract manufacturers, or moved their factories offshore, Dell continues to make computers for the North American market on US soil.

The company believes that having factories close to customers gives it a competitive advantage; it continues to be the lowest-cost producer of PCs.

The moral: blindly following your competitors is the equivalent of outsourcing strategy. This is not a good idea.

Tomorrow: A corporate response to the growing pensions crisis
总裁“内参”：外包三大关键

今年你已经读到关于工作岗位转移到中国、印度和菲律宾等低薪经济体的许多报道。与多数公司的情况一样，你的供应链在90年代就已走向全球。现在转移到海外的已不是制造业岗位，而是技术和文职岗位：金融分析、电脑编程、客户服务、后台财务和人力资源等。


如果你还没考虑让此类工作在海外完成，你应该考虑一下了。成本节省有可能相当大。在一个低利润率行业，这可能成为盈亏的决定因素。

或许更重要的是，白领岗位向海外转移是个迹象，表明你的竞争对手正开始重新考虑：哪些功能和流程需要保留在公司内部。为了保持长期竞争力，你不想被甩在后面。

扪心自问，为何你的公司仍在售后服务、财务和人力资源等领域垂直整合？你不会想到去自行制造滚珠轴承或包装纸。那么你为何要自行处理发票呢？

当然，直到不久前你别无选择。过去没有第三方供应商来为你代劳这些苦力活。但这一状况正在改变。埃森哲(Accenture)和毕博(Bearingpoint)等专业服务公司、IBM和EDS等信息技术企业，还有Infosys和Wipro等专业外包商，都认为自己能够通过更高效地处理业务流程来赚钱。

这应主要归功于信息技术的进步。还记得你在90年代大部分时间里费心应对的德国SAP公司的企业软件系统吗？现在，几乎你所在行业的每家公司都在使用同样的软件，这就意味着，它们有着几乎同样的业务流程。因此规模效益的潜力应当是很明显的。

当然，节约成本并非考虑外包的唯一原因。还记得你在功读MBA课程时，所有关于“核心竞争力”是保持竞争优势唯一持久源泉的说法吗？那好，填表格真是你企业的核心竞争力吗？

一旦你决定要外包，这些工作就势必应在低成本和高质量结合得最好的地方完成。在越来越多的情形下，这就意味着把工作外包到海外，尽管并非总是如此。

好消息是，你不必率先投身于这波外包新浪潮中。你的许多竞争对手已把它们的后台支持功能组织成独立的“共享服务”机构，能为集团内每家企业提供支持。作为第一步，你应该做同样的事情。甚至建立你自己的离岸行政或IT中心也可能是可取的。

一旦完成这些事，你就可以判断，这些服务是否对你的竞争优势作出了贡献。如果没有，那么外包可能就是解决办法。

以通用电气(GE)作为最佳实践的案例。90年代后期，这家企业集团在印度建立了一个行政与技术中心，为GE旗下各公司提供从金融分析到软件工程的各种服务。上月，GE把该中心的多数控股权卖给一家私人股本集团，实际上就是外包了一整套服务。

不过，还要提醒几句。首先，今天的非核心业务流程可能成为明天的核心竞争力。摩根大通银行(JP Morgan Chase)最近取消了与 IBM之间一宗50亿美元、为期7年的IT外包合约，因为该银行的候任首席执行官杰米?迪蒙(Jamie Dimon)认为，信息技术是金融服务业的核心竞争力之一。

其次，外包合同的具体条款关系重大。如何向外包服务提供商付款？用什么关键绩效指标去衡量所提供的服务是否达到标准？假如你退出交易会有什么后果？第三，要始终把情况告知员工。人们不喜欢自己的工作被转移到孟买或上海。务必小心行事。

另外，任何事情不要想当然。你的竞争者也许正匆忙将业务迁移到海外和外包。这并不意味着你的公司也适合这么做。

看看戴尔(Dell)的做法。尽管它的大多数竞争对手都把电脑组装业务外包给合约制造商、或者把它们的工厂搬到海外，但戴尔继续在美国本土为北美市场制造电脑。

该公司认为，拥有接近客户的工厂是自己的一项竞争优势，它仍然是成本最低的个人电脑生产商。

教训是：盲目追随你的竞争对手，就等于把自己的战略也外包了。这不是个好主意。

明日预告：企业如何应对日益加大的养老金危机