How conscious investors can turn up the heat and make companies change | Vinay Shandal

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Yanyan Hong

We love to engage on the issues of the day.

我們熱愛參與每日熱門議題。

We love it.

我們很熱愛。 我們對新聞發表意見，

We comment on the news,

we post our views on social media,

我們在社交媒體上 張貼我們的看法，

we march, we protest ...

我們遊行，我們抗議……

But who among us is working on solutions,

但我們當中有誰在努力找解決方案，

big solutions to big issues,

大議題的大解決方案，

like gun violence,

像是槍枝暴力、

mistreatment of workers,

對工人的不當對待、

flood, famine, drought?

食物、饑荒、乾旱？

Who is on it?

誰在處理它？

Boom!

砰！

These guys.

這些人。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

What? You were hoping for Peter Parker?

怎樣？不然你們期待看到 彼得帕克（蜘蛛人）嗎？

The Avengers?

復仇者聯盟？

You don't expect this beacon of diversity,

你們不期望這種多樣性的指引，

these good-looking, nicely dressed dudes just oozing charisma to solve the issues?

這些長相好看穿著也好看的傢伙，

散發魅力來解決這些議題？

Well good, because they're actually not going to solve the issues.

嗯，很好，因為實際上 他們並不會解決議題。

But before you dismiss them,

但在你把他們打發掉之前，

let me say, they're not going to solve the issues,

讓我說句話，他們不會解決議題，

but they will show us how.

但他們會讓我們看到要怎麼做。

So who are they?

所以，他們是誰？

They're activist investors:

他們是行動派投資者：

Carl Icahn, Dan Loeb, Paul Singer, Barry Rosenstein.

卡爾伊坎、丹勒布、

保羅辛格、貝瑞羅森斯坦。

These are the modern-day OGs of Wall Street.

他們是現代的華爾街老前輩。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）這些可怕的傢伙。

These are scary dudes.

I don't mean Green Goblin scary.

不是綠惡魔（蜘蛛人反派）的 那種可怕。是真的可怕。

I mean real scary.

The fear they strike in the hearts of a company's CEO and board

當他們進入一間公司的股份，

會讓該公司的執行長 和董事發自內心感到恐懼，

when they enter its stock

is the same fear you feel when you hear a bear outside your tent,

有種情境也會產生同樣的恐懼：

就是你得知你的帳篷外面有隻熊，

and it's dark,

且外面很黑，

and you're sitting there with a mouthful of Doritos --

且你還滿口都是多力多滋 坐在那裡時——

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

that just moments ago,

沒多久之前，你溜出帳篷，

you had snuck out of the tent to pull down from the bear hang,

因為想吃零食而拿了包多力多滋。

because you had the munchies.

那種恐懼。

That fear.

And in that moment, you are praying,

在那一刻，你在祈禱：

"Oh Lord, please let this bear be passing through."

「喔，主啊，希望這隻熊只是路過。」

That bear is not passing through!

那隻熊並不是路過！

That bear made a detour for you.

那隻熊為了你專程繞路。

Bears like Doritos!

熊很愛多力多滋！

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Activists like money.

行動派喜歡錢。

Some activists also like Doritos, but they definitely want money.

有些行動派也愛多力多滋，

但他們肯定是想要錢的。

And the way they make money, the way they create value,

而他們賺錢的方式， 他們創造價值的方式，

is by getting management of corporations

是讓企業的管理階層

to make changes.

去做改變。

Now, some will argue that the changes they create,

有些人可能會主張， 他們所創造的改變，

the value they create, is too short-term in nature.

他們所創造的價值， 在本質上太短期了。

And others will say the tactics they use are egregious.

其他人則會說， 他們用的戰略很過份。

I agree.

我同意。

Long, drawn-out lawsuits,

拖很久的漫長法律訴訟，

public smear campaigns --

公開抹黑的宣傳活動——

there is no need for that.

這實在沒有必要。

But I must say, there's a small handful of activists,

但我必須要說，有一小群行動派，

very small,

非常小群，

that go to great lengths to be constructive and collaborative.

不遺餘力去做到 建設性和同心協力。

整體來說，我們必須要 歸功給應得功勞的人。

And overall, we have to give credit where credit is due.

As a group, they have managed to catalyze large-scale change

以群體來說，他們有辦法

在大企業中促進大規模的改變，

in large corporations,

and that's no small feat.

那可不是小功而已。

Now, imagine a world

想像一個世界，

where all investors were working with management to make change,

在那裡，所有投資者都 和管理層級合作創造改變，

not just to make more money,

不只是賺更多錢，

but to improve the environment and society.

還要改善環境和社會。

Imagine what a greener and better world this would be.

想像一下，那會是個 多麼綠意盎然、多麼棒的世界。

Now, why? Why would an investor bother?

那，為什麼？ 投資者為什麼要費心？

And at first, blush I'm with you: Why would an investor care?

一開始，我和你們一樣臉紅： 投資者為何在乎？

Because if doing well on ESG issues --

因為如果能處理好 ESG 的議題——

environmental, social and governance issues --

環境、社會、治理的議題——

was just an act of good corporate citizenship,

那只是一種好的企業公民行為而已，

then I agree, investors would not care.

那麼我同意投資者不會在乎。 可是，有好消息，

But the good news,

and perhaps the saving grace for our collective futures,

也許對我們集體的未來而言 是可補償缺點的優點，

is that it's so much more than an act of good corporate citizenship.

那就是它遠遠超過只是 一種好的企業公民行為。

It's good business.

它是好的生意。

There's now enough evidence that shows a clear correlation

現在有足夠的證據可以顯示，

在 ESG 表現和財務表現 之間有明確的相關性。

between ESG performance and financial performance.

Companies that do good for the environment and society

在環境和社會上做得很好的公司，

also do well financially.

在財務上也會很出色。

And some of the best companies are catching on.

一些最好的公司開始理解到這一點。

Like Adidas:

比如愛迪達：

Adidas is cleaning up the ocean and making money in the process.

愛迪達在清理海洋， 並在過程中賺錢。

Adidas teamed up with an organization called Parley for the Oceans.

愛迪達和海洋會議 （Parley for the Oceans）組織合作。

Parley goes out and collects plastic waste from the ocean.

該組織會實際行動， 收回在海洋上的塑膠廢物。

Adidas uses the plastic waste to make shoes.

愛迪達則用塑膠廢物來製作鞋子。

Shoes made with plastic from the ocean:

用海洋塑膠做成的鞋子：

good for the environment and good for business.

對環境很好，對事業也很好。

Because if you know that rapidly growing consumer segment known as hipsters --

因為如果你知道有一種快速成長的 客戶群叫做「文青 (hipsters)」——

and I know you know hipsters --

我知道你們都知道文青——

then you know that a hipster faced with the choice between a no-name shoe

那麼你們就知道，當文青要選擇

非名牌的鞋子或是 用海洋塑膠製成的愛迪達鞋子，

and an Adidas made with plastic from the ocean

will pick the Adidas every day of the week and twice on Sunday,

他們會選擇每天穿愛迪達， 星期日還要穿兩次，

and then walk around like it's no big deal

四處走動，好像這雙鞋 也沒什麼大不了的，

but look for every opportunity to talk about them.

卻完全不錯失任何可以 談論這雙鞋的機會。

Like, in an Uber Pool.

比如，在 Uber Pool 共乘時。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

"Hey, I noticed you looking at my feet."

「嘿，我注意到 你一直在看我的腳。」

"What? Dude, no, I'm just making slides. I'm a consultant. I make slides.

「什麼？老兄，沒有， 我只是在做投影片。

我是顧問，我做投影片， 我沒有在看——」

I'm making PowerPoint slides, I'm not looking --"

"No, it's fine.

「不，沒關係。

I get why you'd be looking.

我能了解你會想看。

我鞋子上的塑膠一定讓你覺得礙眼。

The plastic on my shoe must be bothering you.

Well, let me talk about it for the rest of this ride.

讓我用所有剩下的共乘時間 來跟你談談它吧。

我鞋子上的塑膠是來自海洋，

You see, the plastic on my shoe is from the ocean,

on my feet, not in your fish,

在我的腳上， 不是在你吃的魚的肚子裡，

being walked on, not being munched on.

是拿來穿的，不是拿來咀嚼的。

Happy feet. Happy fish. Happy ocean.

開心的腳。開心的魚。 開心的海洋。

Doing my part. I got eco-shoes. I got eco-shoes.

我盡我的本份。 我買環保鞋。我買環保鞋。

You need some eco-shoes?"

你需要環保鞋嗎？」

And so on, just cornering him. We've all been there.

諸如此類，一直嚕他。 我們都遇過這種事。

「嘿，把你的手機傳給我。 我要給你一個優惠碼。

"Hey, pass me your cell phone. I'll give you a discount code.

Let me give you a discount code."

讓我給你優惠碼。」

我們都遇過——

We've all been --

Folks, I have jumped out of moving Uber Pools.

我曾從行駛中的 Uber Pools 共乘車上跳車過。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Just, moving, highway, I'm out. I'm out.

就，行駛中，高速公路， 我要下車了。我要下車了。

But we've got to forgive the hipsters, we need to love the hipsters.

但，我們得要原諒文青。 我們得要愛文青。

We need hipsters, and we need companies like Adidas,

我們需要文青，我們需要 像愛迪達這樣的公司，

and what we need most is for investors to convince other companies

我們最需要投資者 能夠說服其他公司

to behave like Adidas.

做出像愛迪達這樣的行為。

And herein lies the challenge.

挑戰的地方就在這裡了。

There's a growing group of investors, call them "conscious investors."

有一種投資者叫「有意識的投資者」，

人數越來越多。

Conscious investors care about ESG issues.

有意識的投資者在乎 ESG 議題。

And they talk a lot about engaging management on ESG issues.

他們常會談論要讓 管理階層參與 ESG 議題。

But they don't actually get management to make changes

但他們並不會真的讓管理階層做出

that will improve the environment and society.

能夠改善環境和社會的改變。

And this is where conscious investors can take a page from the playbook

這就是有意識的投資者可以

向行動派投資者學習的地方了，

of the activist investors,

because the activist investors have no issues getting management to make changes.

因為要讓管理階層做出改變， 對行動派投資者來說並不是問題。

They have no issues turning up the heat.

要施壓完全不成問題。

Take Paul Singer.

比如保羅辛格。

He's an old-school Wall Street OG,

他是老派的華爾街前輩，

now in his 70s, loves Doritos, loves making money.

現在七十多歲了， 愛吃多力多滋，愛賺錢。

Argentina owed Paul 600 million dollars

阿根廷欠保羅六億美金，

and would not pay.

不願意付錢。

Big mistake.

大錯特錯。

You can't take money from an OG and not pay it back.

你不能拿了前輩的錢卻不還錢。

Paul went to war with Argentina.

保羅和阿根廷開戰。

I am not inventing.

我沒無中生有。

This is big. This was huge.

這是件大事，非常大。

This was bigger than Tyson vs Holyfield,

超越泰森和霍利菲爾德的對決，

Ali vs Foreman.

阿里和福爾曼的對決。

This was man vs country.

這是一個人和一個國家的對決。

Paul Singer started going around the world trying to seize up Argentinian assets.

保羅辛格開始遊走全世界，

試圖扣押阿根廷的資產。

At one point, he tried to seize an Argentinian navy vessel

他一度試圖扣押

阿根廷在迦納海岸的海軍船艦。

off the coast of Ghana.

He tried to take over a 350-foot ship

他試圖接管一艘 350 英呎的船艦，

while big navy officers with big guns were on the ship.

船艦上還有武裝的重要海軍軍官。

He got the police in Ghana to show up with a crane

他讓迦納的警方帶著 一台起重機一起現身，

and threaten to board the ship,

威脅要登上船艦，

and it wasn't until the navy officers drew their weapons

直到海軍軍官亮出武器，

that they called off the operation.

他們才取消行動。

That's what I call turning up the heat.

這就是我所謂的施壓。

Now, you may say

你們可能會說，

Paul lost the battle.

保羅輸了這場仗。

And I'll say, Paul won the war,

我會說，保羅贏了戰爭，

because Paul didn't get paid one time,

因為保羅拿回的錢不是一倍，

he got paid 20 times his original investment.

是他最初投資的二十倍。

Then you have Barry Rosenstein.

接著，還有貝瑞羅森斯坦。

His fund, Jana Partners,

他的基金，JANA Partners，

started stealth-mode buying up stock in Whole Foods,

開始偷偷摸模式， 買進所有全食超市股票，

at a time when Whole Foods was struggling.

當時全食超市經營得很辛苦。

They got to eight percent, came out,

他們得到了 8%，公開表態，

and pushed Whole Foods to sell itself to Amazon,

逼迫全食超市 把它自己賣給亞馬遜，

and not because Barry wanted same-day delivery of his organic Doritos.

並不是因為貝瑞希望他的 有機多力多滋當能日配送。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

He wanted to make some money.

他想要的是賺錢。

Now, the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, and the board

全食超市的執行長 約翰麥基以及董事會

did not want to sell themselves to Amazon,

並不想要把他們自己賣給亞馬遜，

because that would be the prime example of selling out.

因為這就是出售企業的例子。

But in the end, they caved.

但最終，他們屈服了。

Why? Because Barry turned up the heat,

為什麼？因為貝瑞施壓，

and he made 300 million dollars in the process.

過程中，他賺了三億美元。

And he did not leave a very nice impression on John.

他並沒有留給約翰很好的印象。

You're not going to see John and Barry just hugging it out

你們不會看到約翰和貝瑞 在全食超市的咖啡廳

at the Whole Foods café.

相互擁抱一下就沒事了。

Let's take a very different example now:

現在，咱們來舉個 很不一樣的例子：

the Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund,

芝加哥教師養老基金，

a $10 billion conscious investor.

這個有意識的投資者 擁有一百億美金。

They recently came out hard against private prisons in the US,

他們最近在美國嚴厲打擊私人監獄，

and good for them.

這對他們很好。

As a new parent, I tell you, I am troubled by devastating images

讓我這位新手家長 告訴各位，我很受不了

of young children being ripped out of the arms of their parents

一種毀滅性的影像：

在美國邊境，小孩子被從 父母的懷抱中強行拉開，

at the US border

and being placed in private detention facilities that did too little

被送到私人收容機構， 這些機構幾乎沒有做什麼

to help the kids maintain contact with their parents.

來協助這些孩子 維持和父母的聯絡。

So what did the Chicago teachers do?

所以，芝加哥的教師怎麼做？

Did they get management to make changes?

他們有讓管理階層做出改變嗎？

Did they turn up the heat?

他們有施壓嗎？

Did they look management in the eye and say,

他們有沒有看著管理階層的眼睛，

"This is no way to run a business.

說：「事業不是這樣經營的。

There's a different way to do things. Let me show you"?

有一種不同的做事方式。 讓我告訴你」？

No. They just sold their stock.

沒有，他們只是售出他們的股票。

Selling did nothing.

售出是沒有效果的。

It's not like management woke up the next day

管理階層並不會 在隔天早上起床時，

and had an epiphany and said,

突然頓悟並說：

"Gosh, the teachers sold their stock. We'd better be nice to the kids."

「天，教師們售出了他們的股票。 我們得要對孩子好一點。」

No. That didn't happen.

不，沒有發生這種事。

And despite a decade of several high-profile divestitures

儘管在美國，私人監獄 股票在十年間

in private prison stock in the US,

出現數次高調的剝奪財產事件，

the stock has continued to climb.

股票仍然持續攀升。

The stock over that same period has outperformed the market.

同時段的股票勝過了市場。

And the biggest issue is,

最大的議題是，

we went from a set of conscious investors owning the stock

股票本來是在一群 有意識的投資者手上，

to it potentially being owned by investors who don't care about these issues

可能變到完全不在乎 這些議題的投資者手上，

and don't care what you think about these issues.

他們也不在乎 你對這些議題的看法。

And this is my issue with conscious investors.

這就是我認為有意識的 投資者的問題所在。

Their MO is to divest

他們的主要目標是要撤資

or divert money into ESG-focused funds.

或將錢轉移到 以 ESG 為中心的基金。

You can't divest your way to a greener world.

你不能光靠撤資就創造出 更綠化的世界。

You can divest your way to a greener portfolio,

你可以靠撤資來達成 更綠化的投資組合，

not to a greener world.

但更綠化的世界是不可能的。

So what's it going to take?

那，要怎樣才能做到？ 怎樣才能出奇招，

What's it going to take to flip the script,

讓有意識的投資者 從撤資轉為參與，

to get conscious investors to go from divesting to engaging,

從談論參與轉為 真正和管理階層合作，

to go from talking about engaging to actually working with management

to make changes that will improve their ESG performance?

來做出改變，改善他們的 ESG 表現？

Because there's a lot suggesting they should and they could.

因為怎麼看他們都 應該或能夠這麼做。

他們應該這麼做，因為 ESG 表現

They should, given the clear correlation between ESG performance

和財務表現之間有明確的相關性。

and financial performance.

They could because the activists have shown us they could.

他們能夠這麼做，因為行動派 已經證明他們做得到。

A shareholder can drive change in a company.

股東能夠帶動公司的改變。

The difference is, Paul and Barry do what they do to make money.

差別在於，保羅和貝瑞 是為了賺錢而做。

The conscious investors would do it to improve society and the environment

有意識的投資者會為了 改善社會和環境而做，

and make money in the process

在過程中順便賺錢，

and do it a little more collaboratively and constructively.

且用比較同心協力、 有建設性一點的方式來做。

And they have the backing of the some of the largest investors.

有一些最大的投資者在支持他們。

Vanguard and BlackRock -- together, they manage trillions.

領航投資和貝萊德 合起來管理的金額是數兆美元。

They've been increasingly vocal about the importance of ESG.

對於 ESG 的重要性， 它們越來越暢所欲言。

The CEO of BlackRock has been increasingly vocal in his annual letters

貝萊德的執行長 在他的年度報告中，

對於這個議題越來越暢所欲言。

about this issue.

Even Jana Partners, the same OGs that John called "greedy bastards,"

就連 JANA Partners，

被約翰稱作 「貪心的雜種」的前輩，

recently co-wrote an open letter to the board of Apple,

最近也共同撰寫了一封公開信 給 Apple 的董事會，說：

saying, "Hey, your smartphones are addictive for children.

「嘿，你們的智慧手機 會讓孩子上癮。

Fix it."

解決這問題。」

Apple is working on it.

Apple 正在努力想辦法。

So what it's going to take is some pressure.

所以，需要的就是一些壓力。

It's going to take some pressure on conscious investors

需要對有意識的投資者 施加一些壓力，

to, in turn, put some pressure on management

他們接著就會 對管理階層施加壓力，

to make changes that will improve the environment and society.

做出改變，改善環境和社會。

And where do they start?

他們要從何開始？可以先挑選出

They start by picking an issue that matters to them

對他們有重要性的議題，

and taking a stand on it.

並對它採取堅定的立場。

Take a stand on an issue that lines up with your purpose:

對這個議題，採取 和你的目的一致的立場：

water preservation, labor rights, diversity.

水資源保育、勞工權益、多樣性。

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?

而最大的資金釋放呢？

Get the senior-most investment professionals focused on this.

讓最資深的投資專家

把注意力放在此。

Today, when an activist shows up to a campaign,

現今，當一個行動派 出現在一場宣傳活動中，

it's the senior investment professional talking to the CEO and the board

那就是資深投資家 去和執行長及董事會恰談，

每個人都會聽到這件事。

and everyone hears about it.

When a conscious investor shows up to talk about an ESG issue,

當一名有意識的投資出現 並談論 ESG 議題，

it's some junior person in the risk department

那只是風險部門的菜鳥

talking to some junior person in the investor relations department,

和投資者關係部門的菜鳥恰談，

沒有人會聽到這件事， 這點必須要改變。

and nobody hears about it, and that needs to change.

And it's not some massive leap.

這並不是什麼大躍進。

Today, when a company underperforms financially,

現今，當一家公司 在財務上表現差勁時，

who is on the hook?

誰要負責？資深的投資專家。

The senior investment professional.

So what do they do?

所以，他們會怎麼做？ 放下一切與管理階層合作，

They drop everything and work with management,

同心協力且有建設性地合作， 來做出改變，

collaboratively and constructively,

to make changes to improve the company's financial performance.

改善公司的財務表現。

The same should be true when the company underperforms on ESG issues.

當公司在 ESG 議題上的表現不佳時，

應該也是如此。

And yes, that requires standardization on how we measure ESG,

是的，我們會需要 訂定測量 ESG 的標準。

but we're on it.

但我們在努力了。

So folks, here's my call to action:

所以，各位，這是我的行動呼籲：

it's your money.

這是你的錢，

It's your pension fund,

這是你的退休金，

it's your sovereign wealth fund.

這是你的主權財富基金。

it's your university's endowment.

這是你的大學的資助。

It's your money.

這是你的錢。

And it's your right to have your money managed in line with your values.

你有權要求管理你的錢的方式 要和你的價值觀一致。

So use your voice

所以，要發聲，

and trust that it matters.

並且相信發聲是重要的。

It was your voice that got the investors more conscious in the first place.

一開始就是你的聲音 讓投資者更有意識的。

You protested for years,

你抗議了數年，

because you didn't feel right about your money being invested

因為你覺得你的錢被投資到

價值觀與你不同的公司， 讓你感覺不太對。

in companies whose values don't line up with yours.

It's time to use that voice again.

該是再次使用那聲音的時候了。

But this time, instead of pushing them to divest,

但這一次，不要迫使他們撤資，

push them to engage, truly engage, truly work with management

改成迫使他們參與，真正參與， 真正與管理階層合作，

to make changes that will improve their ESG performance.

做出改變，改善他們的 ESG 表現。

You made them aware of the issues.

你已經讓他們注意到這些議題。

You can now focus them on fixing them.

現在你可以讓他們專注於解決它們。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）