评论
打印
We love to engage on the issues of the day. We love it.
我们热爱参与每日热门议题。我们很热爱。
We comment on the news, we post our views on social media, we march, we protest ...
我们对新闻发表意见，我们在社交媒体上张贴我们的看法，我们游行，我们抗议...
But who among us is working on solutions, big solutions to big issues,
但我们当中有谁在努力找解决方案，大议题的大解决方案，
like gun violence, mistreatment of workers, flood, famine, drought? Who is on it? Boom! These guys.
像是枪枝暴力、对工人的不当对待、食物、饥荒、干旱？谁在处理它？砰！这些人。
What? You were hoping for Peter Parker? The Avengers?
什么？不然你们期待看到彼得·帕克（蜘蛛人）吗？复仇者联盟？
You don't expect this beacon of diversity, these good-looking, nicely dressed dudes just oozing charisma to solve the issues?
你们不期望这种多样性的指引，这些长相好看穿着也好看的家伙，散发魅力来解决这些议题？
Well good, because they're actually not going to solve the issues.
嗯，很好，因为实际上他们并不会解决议题。
But before you dismiss them, let me say, they're not going to solve the issues, but they will show us how.
但在你把他们打发掉之前，让我说句话，他们不会解决议题，但他们会让我们看到要怎么做。
So who are they? They're activist investors: Carl Icahn, Dan Loeb, Paul Singer, Barry Rosenstein.
所以，他们是谁？他们是行动派投资者：卡尔·伊坎、丹·勒布、保罗·辛格、贝瑞·罗森斯坦。
These are the modern-day OGs of Wall Street. These are scary dudes.
他们是现代的华尔街老前辈。这些可怕的家伙。
I don't mean Green Goblin scary. I mean real scary.
不是绿恶魔（蜘蛛人反派）的那种可怕。是真的可怕。
The fear they strike in the hearts of a company's CEO and board when they enter its stock
当他们进入一家公司的股份，会让该公司的执行长和董事发自内心感到恐惧，
is the same fear you feel when you hear a bear outside your tent,
有种情境也会产生同样的恐惧：就是你得知你的帐篷外面有只熊，
and it's dark, and you're sitting there with a mouthful of Doritos --
且外面很黑，且你还满口都是多力多滋坐在那里时，
that just moments ago, you had snuck out of the tent to pull down from the bear hang, because you had the munchies.
没多久之前，你溜出帐篷，因为想吃零食而拿了包多力多滋。
That fear. And in that moment, you are praying, "Oh Lord, please let this bear be passing through."
那种恐惧。在那一刻，你在祈祷：“喔，主啊，希望这只熊只是路过。”
That bear is not passing through! That bear made a detour for you. Bears like Doritos!
那只熊并不是路过！那只熊为了你专程绕路而来。熊很爱多力多滋！
Activists like money. Some activists also like Doritos, but they definitely want money.
行动派喜欢钱。有些行动派也爱多力多滋，但他们肯定是想要钱的。
And the way they make money, the way they create value, is by getting management of corporations to make changes.
而他们赚钱的方式，他们创造价值的方式，是让企业的管理阶层去做改变。
Now, some will argue that the changes they create, the value they create, is too short-term in nature.
有些人可能会主张，他们所创造的改变，他们所创造的价值，在本质上太短期了。
And others will say the tactics they use are egregious. I agree.
其他人则会说，他们用的战略很过分。我同意。
Long, drawn-out lawsuits, public smear campaigns -- there is no need for that.
拖很久的漫长法律诉讼，公开抹黑的宣传活--这实在没有必要。
But I must say, there's a small handful of activists, very small, that go to great lengths to be constructive and collaborative.
但我必须要说，有一小群行动派，非常小群，不遗余力去做到建设性和同心协力。
And overall, we have to give credit where credit is due.
整体来说，我们必须要归功给应得功劳的人。
As a group, they have managed to catalyze large-scale change in large corporations, and that's no small feat.
以群体来说，他们有办法在大企业中促进大规模的改变，那可不是小功而已。
Now, imagine a world where all investors were working with management to make change,
想象一个世界，在那里，所有投资者都和管理层级合作创造改变，
not just to make more money, but to improve the environment and society.
不只是赚更多钱，还要改善环境和社会。
Imagine what a greener and better world this would be. Now, why? Why would an investor bother?
想象一下，那会是个多么绿意盎然、多么棒的世界。那，为什么？投资者为什么要费心？
And at first, blush I'm with you: Why would an investor care?
一开始，我和你们一样脸红：投资者为何在乎？
Because if doing well on ESG issues -- environmental, social and governance issues
因为如果能处理好ESG的议题--环境、社会、治理的议题，
was just an act of good corporate citizenship, then I agree, investors would not care.
那只是一种好的企业公民行为而已，那么我同意投资者不会在乎。
But the good news, and perhaps the saving grace for our collective futures,
可是，有好消息，也许对我们集体的未来而言是可补偿缺点的优点，
is that it's so much more than an act of good corporate citizenship. It's good business.
那就是它远远超过只是一种好的企业公民行为。它是好的生意。
There's now enough evidence that shows a clear correlation between ESG performance and financial performance.
现在有足够的证据可以显示，在ESG表现和财务表现之间有明确的相关性。
Companies that do good for the environment and society also do well financially.
在环境和社会上做得很好的公司，在财务上也会很出色。
And some of the best companies are catching on.
一些最好的公司开始理解到这一点。
Like Adidas: Adidas is cleaning up the ocean and making money in the process.
比如阿迪达斯：阿迪达斯在清理海洋并在过程中赚钱。
Adidas teamed up with an organization called Parley for the Oceans.
阿迪达斯和一个名叫Parley for the Oceans的机构合作。
Parley goes out and collects plastic waste from the ocean.
该机构采取实际行动，回收在海洋上的塑料废物。
Adidas uses the plastic waste to make shoes.
阿迪达斯则用塑料废物来制作鞋子。
Shoes made with plastic from the ocean: good for the environment and good for business.
用海洋塑料做成的鞋子：对环境很好，对事业也很好。
Because if you know that rapidly growing consumer segment known as hipsters -- and I know you know hipsters
因为如果你知道有一种快速成长的客户群叫做“潮人”--我知道你们都知道潮人，
then you know that a hipster faced with the choice between a no-name shoe and an Adidas made with plastic from the ocean
那么你们就知道，当潮人在选择非名牌的鞋子还是用海洋塑料制成的阿迪达斯鞋子的时候，
will pick the Adidas every day of the week and twice on Sunday,
他们会选择每天穿阿迪达斯，星期日还要穿两次，
and then walk around like it's no big deal but look for every opportunity to talk about them. Like, in an Uber Pool.
四处走动，好像这双鞋也没什么大不了的，却完全不错失任何可以谈论这双鞋的机会。比如，在Uber Pool共乘时。
"Hey, I noticed you looking at my feet."
“嘿，我注意到你一直在看我的脚。”
"What? Dude, no, I'm just making slides. I'm a consultant. I make slides.
“什么？老兄，没有，我只是在做投影片。我是顾问，我做投影片。
I'm making PowerPoint slides, I'm not looking..."
我在做PPT投影片，我没有在看...”
"No, it's fine. I get why you'd be looking. The plastic on my shoe must be bothering you.
“不，没关系。我能了解你会想看。我鞋子上的塑料一定让你觉得碍眼。
Well, let me talk about it for the rest of this ride.
让我用所有剩下的共乘时间来跟你谈谈它吧。
You see, the plastic on my shoe is from the ocean, on my feet, not in your fish, being walked on, not being munched on.
我鞋子上的塑料是来自海洋，在我的脚上，不是在你吃的鱼的肚子里，是拿来穿的，不是拿来咀嚼的。
Happy feet. Happy fish. Happy ocean. Doing my part.
开心的脚。开心的鱼。开心的海洋。我尽我的本份。
I got eco-shoes. I got eco-shoes. You need some eco-shoes?"
我买环保鞋。我买环保鞋。你需要环保鞋吗？”
And so on, just cornering him. We've all been there.
诸如此类，一直烦他。我们都遇过这种事。
"Hey, pass me your cell phone. I'll give you a discount code. Let me give you a discount code."
“嘿，把你的手机传给我。我要给你一个优惠码。让我给你优惠码。”
We've all been -- Folks, I have jumped out of moving Uber Pools.
我们都遇过--我曾从行驶中的Uber Pools共乘车上跳车过。
Just, moving, highway, I'm out. I'm out.
就是行驶在高速公路时，我要下车了。我要下车了。
But we've got to forgive the hipsters, we need to love the hipsters.
但我们得要原谅潮人。我们得要爱潮人。
We need hipsters, and we need companies like Adidas,
我们需要潮人，我们需要像阿迪达斯这样的公司，
and what we need most is for investors to convince other companies to behave like Adidas.
我们最需要投资者能够说服其他公司做出像阿迪达斯这样的行为。
And herein lies the challenge. There's a growing group of investors, call them "conscious investors."
挑战的地方就在这里了。有一种投资者叫“有意识的投资者”，人数越来越多。
Conscious investors care about ESG issues.
有意识的投资者在乎ESG议题。
And they talk a lot about engaging management on ESG issues.
他们常会谈论要让管理阶层参与ESG议题。
But they don't actually get management to make changes that will improve the environment and society.
但他们并不会真的让管理阶层做出能够改善环境和社会的改变。
And this is where conscious investors can take a page from the playbook of the activist investors,
这就是有意识的投资者可以向行动派投资者学习的地方了，
because the activist investors have no issues getting management to make changes.
因为要让管理阶层做出改变，对行动派投资者来说并不是问题。
They have no issues turning up the heat.
要施压完全不成问题。
Take Paul Singer. He's an old-school Wall Street OG, now in his 70s, loves Doritos, loves making money.
比如保罗·辛格。他是老派的华尔街前辈，现在七十多岁了，爱吃多力多滋，爱赚钱。
Argentina owed Paul 600 million dollars and would not pay.
阿根廷欠保罗六亿美金，不愿意付钱。
Big mistake. You can't take money from an OG and not pay it back.
大错特错。你不能拿了前辈的钱却不还钱。
Paul went to war with Argentina. I am not inventing. This is big. This was huge.
保罗和阿根廷开战。我没无中生有。这是件大事，非常大。
This was bigger than Tyson vs Holyfield, Ali vs Foreman. This was man vs country.
超越泰森和霍利菲尔德的对决，阿里和福尔曼的对决。这是一个人和一个国家的对决。
Paul Singer started going around the world trying to seize up Argentinian assets.
保罗·辛格开始游走全世界，试图扣押阿根廷的资产。
At one point, he tried to seize an Argentinian navy vessel off the coast of Ghana.
他一度试图扣押阿根廷在加纳海岸的海军船舰。
He tried to take over a 350-foot ship while big navy officers with big guns were on the ship.
他试图接管一艘350英尺的船舰，船舰上还有武装的重要海军军官。
He got the police in Ghana to show up with a crane and threaten to board the ship,
他让加纳的警方带着一台起重机一起现身，威胁要登上船舰，
and it wasn't until the navy officers drew their weapons that they called off the operation.
直到海军军官亮出武器，他们才取消行动。
That's what I call turning up the heat.
这就是我所谓的施压。
Now, you may say Paul lost the battle.
你们可能会说，保罗输了这场仗。
And I'll say, Paul won the war, because Paul didn't get paid one time, he got paid 20 times his original investment.
我会说，保罗赢了战争，因为保罗拿回的钱不是一倍，是他最初投资的二十倍。
Then you have Barry Rosenstein.
接着，还有贝瑞·罗森斯坦。
His fund, Jana Partners, started stealth-mode buying up stock in Whole Foods, at a time when Whole Foods was struggling.
他的基金，JANA Partners，开始地下模式，买进所有全食超市股票，当时全食超市经营得很辛苦。
They got to eight percent, came out, and pushed Whole Foods to sell itself to Amazon,
他们得到了8%，公开表态，逼迫全食超市把它自己卖给亚马逊，
and not because Barry wanted same-day delivery of his organic Doritos. He wanted to make some money.
并不是因为贝瑞希望他的有机多力多滋当能日配送。他想要的是赚钱。
Now, the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, and the board did not want to sell themselves to Amazon,
全食超市的首席执行官约翰·麦基以及董事会并不想要把他们自己卖给亚马逊，
because that would be the prime example of selling out.
因为这就是出售企业的例子。
But in the end, they caved. Why?
但最终，他们屈服了。为什么？
Because Barry turned up the heat, and he made 300 million dollars in the process.
因为贝瑞施压，在此过程中，他赚了三亿美元。
And he did not leave a very nice impression on John.
他并没有留给约翰很好的印象。
You're not going to see John and Barry just hugging it out at the Whole Foods café.
你们不会看到约翰和贝瑞在全食超市的咖啡厅相互拥抱一下就没事了。
Let's take a very different example now: the Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund, a $10 billion conscious investor.
现在，咱们来举个很不一样的例子：芝加哥教师养老基金，这个有意识的投资者拥有一百亿美金。
They recently came out hard against private prisons in the US, and good for them.
他们最近在美国严厉打击私人监狱，这对他们很好。
As a new parent, I tell you, I am troubled by devastating images
让我这位新手家长告诉各位，我很受不了一种毁灭性的影像：
of young children being ripped out of the arms of their parents at the US border and being placed in private detention facilities
在美国边境，小孩子被从父母的怀抱中强行拉开，被送到私人收容机构，
that did too little to help the kids maintain contact with their parents.
这些机构几乎没有做什么来协助这些孩子维持和父母的联络。
So what did the Chicago teachers do? Did they get management to make changes? Did they turn up the heat?
所以，芝加哥的教师怎么做？他们有让管理阶层做出改变吗？他们有施压吗？
Did they look management in the eye and say, "This is no way to run a business.
他们有没有看着管理阶层的眼睛说：“事业不是这样经营的。
There's a different way to do things. Let me show you"?
有一种不同的做事方式。让我告诉你”？
No. They just sold their stock. Selling did nothing.
没有。他们只是售出他们的股票。售出是没有效果的。
It's not like management woke up the next day and had an epiphany and said,
管理阶层并不会在隔天早上起床时突然顿悟并说：
"Gosh, the teachers sold their stock. We'd better be nice to the kids."
“天，教师们售出了他们的股票。我们得要对孩子好一点。”
No. That didn't happen.
不。没有发生这种事。
And despite a decade of several high-profile divestitures in private prison stock in the US, the stock has continued to climb.
尽管在美国，私人监狱股票在十年间出现数次高调的剥夺财产事件，股票仍然持续攀升。
The stock over that same period has outperformed the market.
同时段的股票胜过了市场。
And the biggest issue is, we went from a set of conscious investors owning the stock
最大的议题是，本来是在一群有意识的投资者手上的股票，
to it potentially being owned by investors who don't care about these issues
可能会来到完全不在乎这些议题的投资者手上，
and don't care what you think about these issues.
他们也不在乎你对这些议题的看法。
And this is my issue with conscious investors.
这就是我认为有意识的投资者的问题所在。
Their MO is to divest or divert money into ESG-focused funds.
他们的主要目标是要撤资，或将钱转移到以ESG为中心的基金。
You can't divest your way to a greener world.
你不能光靠撤资就创造出更绿化的世界。
You can divest your way to a greener portfolio, not to a greener world.
你可以靠撤资来达成更绿化的投资组合，但更绿化的世界是不可能的。
So what's it going to take?
那要怎样才能做到？
What's it going to take to flip the script, to get conscious investors to go from divesting to engaging,
怎样才能出奇招，让有意识的投资者从撤资转为参与，
to go from talking about engaging to actually working with management to make changes that will improve their ESG performance?
从谈论参与转为真正和管理阶层合作，来做出改变，改善他们的ESG表现？
Because there's a lot suggesting they should and they could.
因为怎么看他们都应该或能够这么做。
They should, given the clear correlation between ESG performance and financial performance.
他们应该这么做，因为ESG表现和财务表现之间有明确的相关性。
They could because the activists have shown us they could.
他们能够这么做，因为行动派已经证明他们做得到。
A shareholder can drive change in a company.
股东能够带动公司的改变。
The difference is, Paul and Barry do what they do to make money.
差别在于，保罗和贝瑞是为了赚钱而做。
The conscious investors would do it to improve society and the environment and make money in the process
有意识的投资者会为了改善社会和环境而做，在过程中顺便赚钱，
and do it a little more collaboratively and constructively.
并且用比较同心协力、有建设性一点的方式来做。
And they have the backing of the some of the largest investors.
有一些最大的投资者在支持他们。
Vanguard and BlackRock -- together, they manage trillions.
领航投资和贝莱德合起来管理的金额是数兆美元。
They've been increasingly vocal about the importance of ESG.
对于ESG的重要性，它们越来越畅所欲言。
The CEO of BlackRock has been increasingly vocal in his annual letters about this issue.
贝莱德的首席执行官在他的年度报告中对于这个议题越来越畅所欲言。
Even Jana Partners, the same OGs that John called "greedy bastards,"
就连JANA Partners，被约翰称作“贪心的杂种”的前辈，
recently co-wrote an open letter to the board of Apple,
最近也共同撰写了一封公开信给Apple的董事会，
saying, "Hey, your smartphones are addictive for children. Fix it." Apple is working on it.
说：“嘿，你们的智能手机会让孩子上瘾。解决这问题。”Apple正在努力想办法。
So what it's going to take is some pressure.
所以，需要的就是一些压力。
It's going to take some pressure on conscious investors to,
需要对有意识的投资者施加一些压力，
in turn, put some pressure on management to make changes that will improve the environment and society.
他们接着就会对管理阶层施加压力，做出改变，改善环境和社会。
And where do they start? They start by picking an issue that matters to them and taking a stand on it.
他们要从何开始？可以先挑选出对他们有重要性的议题，并对它采取坚定的立场。
Take a stand on an issue that lines up with your purpose: water preservation, labor rights, diversity.
对这个议题，采取和你的目的一致的立场：水资源保护、劳工权益、多样性。
As long as it lines up with your purpose, you are golden.
只要和你的目的一致就行了。
And the biggest unlock? Get the senior-most investment professionals focused on this.
而最大的资金释放呢？让最资深的投资专家把注意力放在此。
Today, when an activist shows up to a campaign,
现今，当一个行动派出现在一场宣传活动中，
it's the senior investment professional talking to the CEO and the board and everyone hears about it.
那就是资深投资家去和首席执行官及董事会恰谈，每个人都会听到这件事。
When a conscious investor shows up to talk about an ESG issue,
当一名有意识的投资者出现并谈论ESG议题，
it's some junior person in the risk department talking to some junior person in the investor relations department,
那只是风险部门的菜鸟和投资者关系部门的菜鸟恰谈，
and nobody hears about it, and that needs to change. And it's not some massive leap.
没有人会听到这件事，这点必须要改变。这并不是什么大跃进。
Today, when a company underperforms financially, who is on the hook?
现今，当一家公司在财务上表现差劲时，谁要负责？
The senior investment professional. So what do they do?
资深的投资专家。所以他们会怎么做？
They drop everything and work with management, collaboratively and constructively,
放下一切与管理阶层合作，同心协力且有建设性地合作，
to make changes to improve the company's financial performance.
来做出改变，改善公司的财务表现。
The same should be true when the company underperforms on ESG issues.
当公司在ESG议题上的表现不佳时，应该也是如此。
And yes, that requires standardization on how we measure ESG, but we're on it.
是的，我们会需要制定测量ESG的标准。但我们在努力了。
So folks, here's my call to action: it's your money.
所以，各位，这是我的行动呼吁：这是你的钱。
It's your pension fund, it's your sovereign wealth fund.
这是你的退休金，这是你的主权财富基金。
It's your university's endowment. It's your money.
这是你的大学的资助。这是你的钱。
And it's your right to have your money managed in line with your values.
你有权要求管理你的钱的方式要和你的价值观一致。
So use your voice and trust that it matters.
所以，要发声，并且相信发声是重要的。
It was your voice that got the investors more conscious in the first place.
一开始就是你的声音让投资者更有意识的。
You protested for years, because you didn't feel right about your money being invested in companies whose values don't line up with yours.
你抗议了数年，因为你觉得你的钱被投资到价值观与你不同的公司，让你感觉不太对。
It's time to use that voice again. But this time, instead of pushing them to divest,
现在是再次使用那个声音的时候了。但这一次，不要迫使他们撤资，
push them to engage, truly engage, truly work with management to make changes that will improve their ESG performance.
改成迫使他们参与，真正参与，真正与管理阶层合作，做出改变，改善他们的ESG表现。
You made them aware of the issues. You can now focus them on fixing them. Thank you.
你已经让他们注意到这些议题。现在你可以让他们专注于解决它们。谢谢。
