企業爲何不願就蘇獨問題表態

There is a strong case for companies to stay out of politics. First, their top executives are not, in my experience, startlingly better informed than most interested people. In years of listening to business leaders talk about politics, usually off the record, I have heard few say anything more insightful than you hear at the average dinner party.

有充分理由認爲，企業應該遠離政治。首先，以我的經驗來看，企業高管的政治見解並不比大多數關心政治的人高明太多。多年來，我聽企業領袖談論政治的時候（通常是在非正式場合），很少聽到他們中有人能說出比你在一般晚宴上所聽到的更爲深刻的見解。

An exception was a Danish management consultant who, at the time the euro was created, told me it was like setting household thermostats to the same temperature everywhere from Finland to Greece.

丹麥的一名管理諮詢顧問是個例外：他在歐元誕生之際對我說，統一使用歐元，就好像把從芬蘭到希臘的暖氣全都調成一個溫度。

His was a more arresting simile than most European senior executives’. At the time, their favourite was that the EU project was like a bicycle and if you stopped pedalling you would fall off.

他打的這個比方，比歐洲大多數高管打的比方都更有吸引力。後者當時最喜歡打的比方是，歐盟(EU)項目就像一輛自行車，如果你不踩，就會從車上掉下來。

There is an even stronger argument for companies not to take political decisions: their leaders do not represent only themselves.

說企業不應有政治立場還有一個更充分的理由：企業領袖不只代表他們自己。

Whether you believe managers should answer to shareholders or to a broader group of stakeholders – employees, suppliers, the local community – they represent a wide group of people, all of whom have their own political opinions.

無論你認爲企業管理者應對股東負責，還是應對更廣泛的利益相關羣體——員工、供應商、當地社會——負責，總之他們都代表一大羣人，這羣人中的每個人都有自己的政治見解。

Rather than trying to speak for them, you could argue that companies should allow shareholders and staff to vote for their own opinions and fund the political candidates they support.

你可以主張，企業與其試圖代表股東和員工發聲，不如讓他們去投票表達自己的見解、資助自己支持的政治候選人。

You could, but it would be a waste of time. Companies have always been deeply engaged in politics, from the United Fruit company’s involvement in the overthrow of the Guatemalan government in 1954 and its backing of the 1961 Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion to legislative lobbying to the everyday funding of candidates for office.

你可以這樣主張，但這是在浪費時間。企業一直深深地介入政治：從1954年聯合果品公司(United Fruit Company)參與推翻危地馬拉政府，到該公司1961年支持入侵古巴豬灣(Bay of Pigs)；從遊說議會，到向競選公職的候選人提供日常經費。

Some corporate political activity is clearly meant to help shareholders and employees, even if it is deeply damaging to citizens’ health, such as tobacco companies’ agitating against plain cigarette packaging.

有些企業的政治活動顯然是爲了增進股東和員工的利益，即便這些活動對民衆健康危害巨大，比如菸草企業鼓動反對簡單香菸包裝（plain cigarette packaging，上面的吸菸有損健康警示信息更鮮明——譯者注）。

Even where there is no obvious benefit to the organisation, corporate leaders have justified their political involvement by saying it will help produce a society more hospitable to business. Rupert Murdoch used this argument in 2010 when his company made donations to the Republican Governors Association.

即便有時介入政治不會給企業帶來明顯的好處，企業領袖也會以可幫助打造對企業更友好的社會爲由這麼做。2010年，魯珀特•默多克(Rupert Murdoch)的公司向美國共和黨州長聯合會(Republican Governors Association)捐款時，就用了這個理由。

So deeply are companies embedded in the political process that it is particularly striking when they refuse to have anything to do with it.

考慮到企業如此深地介入政治進程，當它拒絕與政治扯上任何關係時，就顯得格外引人注目。

One example was the US gun control debate. When I contacted American companies last year to ask them where they stood, normally chatty corporate spokesmen were suddenly out of the office and unable to return my calls.

美國槍支管控辯論就是個例子。去年我聯繫美國的一些企業、詢問它們對這個問題持何立場時，那些通常很健談的企業發言人突然變得全都不在辦公室、也無法回覆我的電話。

This was true even of those companies whose leaders had bravely backed same-sex marriage on the grounds that gay employees needed to know that their bosses were on their side and potential recruits had to be assured that this was a hospitable place to work. I pointed out to these companies that more US gun attacks happened at workplaces than at any other institution. Wasn’t this a company issue too? The few that got back to me – some with views on everything from fair trade sourcing (in favour) to genetically modified ingredients (against) – said they did not want to talk about guns.

即便是那些勇敢地支持了同性婚姻（他們的理由是：必須讓同性戀員工知道，他們的老闆站在他們這邊；必須讓潛在的新員工知道，這是家很友善的公司）的企業領袖，也是如此。我向這些企業指出，在美國，發生在工作場所的槍擊事件比發生在任何其他場所的都多。這難道不也是一個跟企業有關的問題嗎？極少數回覆我電話的企業發言人說，他們不想談槍的問題。他們中的有些人，其實對一切問題都有自己的看法，從公平貿易採購（持支持態度），到轉基因原料（持反對態度）。

The referendum on Scottish independence is another example of corporate reticence. The plebiscite is a hugely consequential event. It could have an impact on the pound, the UK’s world standing and its future in the EU.

蘇格蘭獨立公投是企業變啞巴的另一個例子。此次公投是個後果重大的事件。它可能影響英鎊，影響英國的國際地位、以及它在歐盟的前途。

Yet while some British business leaders, such as Sir Richard Branson, have warned of the dangers of a UK break-up, most had to be pushed by 10 Downing Street into saying anything. And when they did, such as the retailers who warned that Scottish prices could go up, they did so late in the campaign and largely in the safety of others saying the same things. Several big companies said nothing.

然而，儘管有些英國企業領袖，比如理查德•布蘭森爵士(Sir Richard Branson)，曾就英國分裂的危害發出警告，但大多數企業領袖只是在英國政府敦促下才作了一些表態。儘管他們表態了（比如當零售商警告稱蘇格蘭物價可能會上漲），但他們是很晚才這麼做的，並且是在別人說過同樣的話後才放心表態的。

Why? Some said they did not want to interfere with the Scottish people’s right to decide. The vote has also deeply divided Scotland. These companies’ employees and customers probably reflect that split.

這是爲什麼？有些企業領袖說，他們不願干涉蘇格蘭人民的決定權。公投還讓蘇格蘭內部產生了深刻的分歧，這種分歧在這些企業的員工和顧客中或許同樣存在。

But I doubt deep divisions will stop companies from speaking out on Britain’s EU membership if and when that is the subject of a referendum.

但假如公投的主題是英國是否應該脫離歐盟，我不認爲深刻的分歧屆時能夠阻止企業表態。

I think the answer, in the very different arguments over guns and Scotland, is that opponents of gun control and supporters of Scottish independence are formidably well organised and tough on their opponents.

我認爲，企業就自己在槍和蘇格蘭問題上的做法給出反常理由的原因是，反對控槍和支持蘇格蘭獨立的人組織非常嚴密，並且無情打壓異己。

Large companies are powerful. But some groups seem to scare even them.

大企業是強大的。但有些組織似乎連它們都能嚇倒。