The way we think about charity is dead wrong | Dan Pallotta

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

譯者: Josephine Yeung 審譯者: Sarah Zhang

I want to talk about social innovation

今天我想講的是社會創新

and social entrepreneurship.

和公益創業

我碰巧有三胞胎

I happen to have triplets.

They're little. They're five years old.

他們還小,他們五歲

Sometimes I tell people I have triplets. They say, "Really? How many?"

有時候我告訴人家我有三胞胎

他們說﹐ "真的嗎? 幾個?"

(Laughter)

這是他們的照片

Here's a picture of the kids -- that's Sage, and Annalisa and Rider.

那時Sage, Annalisa, 和Rider

Now, I also happen to be gay.

我同時也是同性戀者

Being gay and fathering triplets is by far

同時身為同性戀者和三胞胎的爸爸

the most socially innovative, socially entrepreneurial thing

應該是我做過

I have ever done.

最有創意和最大膽的事

(Laughter)

(笑) (掌聲)

(Applause)

The real social innovation I want to talk about involves charity.

我真正要談的公益創新是

關於慈善

I want to talk about how the things we've been taught to think

我想講的是我們從小怎樣被灌輸

about giving and about charity

對於幫助別人﹐慈善

和非牟利團體的看法

and about the nonprofit sector,

are actually undermining the causes we love,

其實它們潛意識破壞我們所愛護的

and our profound yearning to change the world.

以及我們潛在去改變世界的渴望

But before I do that, I want to ask if we even believe

我說這個以前﹐我想問一下我們其實相不相信

非牟利組織擔任著

that the nonprofit sector has any serious role to play

in changing the world.

改變世界的重要角色

A lot of people say now that business will lift up the developing economies,

很多人說既然一般的企業幫助促進發展中的經濟體

那麼就由社會型企業來負責餘下的那部分

and social business will take care of the rest.

我相信企業會帶動

And I do believe that business will move the great mass of humanity forward.

很大部份的人性前進

但同時, 它亦會放棄10%或以上的

But it always leaves behind that 10 percent or more

that is most disadvantaged or unlucky.

那些最不幸﹐最弱勢的人群

And social business needs markets,

社會型企業需要市場

and there are some issues for which you just can't develop

而它們亦沒有那些龐大的資金

the kind of money measures that you need for a market.

去拓展它們想開發的市場

I sit on the board of a center for the developmentally disabled,

我是一個專門針對成長發展障礙的中心的董事

and these people want laughter

他們需要的是笑容

關懷﹐他們需要愛

and compassion and they want love.

How do you monetize that?

你如何把它們金錢化?

And that's where the nonprofit sector and philanthropy come in.

非牟利團體和慈善事業

便是在這時上場

Philanthropy is the market for love.

慈善工作是一個愛的市場

It is the market for all those people

為了那些沒有其他市場

for whom there is no other market coming.

來幫助他們的人們

And so if we really want, like Buckminster Fuller said,

所以,尤如Buckminster Fuller (美國哲學家、建築師及發明家)說的

a world that works for everyone,

如果我們想要一個服務於所有人

with no one and nothing left out,

不遺漏一個人的世界

then the nonprofit sector has to be

非牟利團體必定

a serious part of the conversation.

要是很重要的一方

但這似乎不是太順利﹐

But it doesn't seem to be working.

Why have our breast cancer charities not come close

為什麼我們的乳癌組織

還沒有找到根治乳癌的方法

to finding a cure for breast cancer,

or our homeless charities not come close

或救助流浪兒團體

to ending homelessness in any major city?

還未解決大城市中無家可歸的問題?

Why has poverty remained stuck

為什麼美國四十年來

at 12 percent of the U.S. population for 40 years?

貧乏人口的比例還是停留在12%?

答案是﹐這些社會問題

And the answer is,

these social problems are massive in scale,

其實很大

our organizations are tiny up against them,

我們的團體相比之下猶如螳臂當車

and we have a belief system that keeps them tiny.

而且我們有一套信仰體系讓它們顯得更渺小

We have two rulebooks.

我們有兩套規章制度

We have one for the nonprofit sector,

一套是對非牟利團體

and one for the rest of the economic world.

另一套是對趨利的世界

這就是種族歧視

It's an apartheid, and it discriminates

against the nonprofit sector in five different areas,

它在五個方面歧視了非牟利團體

the first being compensation.

第一是回報

你在非牟利團體裡面製造的價值越多

So in the for-profit sector, the more value you produce,

the more money you can make.

你賺的錢越多

But we don't like nonprofits to use money

但我們不喜歡非牟利團體花錢

to incentivize people to produce more in social service.

激勵人們在公益服務上創造更多

We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone

我們對某些人通過幫助別人而獲利良多

would make very much money helping other people.

這個想法有本能的厭惡

Interestingly, we don't have a visceral reaction

但有趣的是我們對於那些賺賺得盆滿缽溢

to the notion that people would make a lot of money

而又不去幫助別人的人又不厭惡

not helping other people.

You know, you want to make 50 million dollars

要是你想靠售賣暴力電腦游戲

selling violent video games to kids, go for it.

賺五千萬﹐去吧﹗

We'll put you on the cover of Wired magazine.

我們會讓你登上Wired 雜誌的封面

But you want to make half a million dollars

但如果你想靠治好患瘧疾的小孩

trying to cure kids of malaria,

賺取五十萬

and you're considered a parasite yourself.

你自己就會被看作一條寄生蟲

(Applause)

And we think of this as our system of ethics,

我們都以為這是道德觀念

but what we don't realize is that this system

但我們不知道的其實這套觀念

has a powerful side effect, which is:

有一個非常顯著的弊病

It gives a really stark, mutually exclusive choice

它給出了一個非此即彼的選擇

要麼最好的給予自己和家人

between doing very well for yourself and your family

or doing good for the world,

要麼為世界作出貢獻

讓精英雲集的頂尖大學

to the brightest minds coming out of our best universities,

可以每年把數以千計能影響世界的人們

and sends tens of thousands of people

送進非牟利機構裡

who could make a huge difference in the nonprofit sector,

marching every year directly into the for-profit sector

就像數以千計直接送到牟利企業的人們一樣

because they're not willing to make that kind of lifelong economic sacrifice.

因為他們並不願意放棄經濟上的長期損失

《商業週刊》雜誌做了一項調查

Businessweek did a survey, looked at the compensation packages

for MBAs 10 years out of business school.

把不同工商管理碩士(MBAs)的收入進行統計

And the median compensation for a Stanford MBA,

斯坦福大學的MBA，在三十八歲時的收入中位數

with bonus, at the age of 38, was 400,000 dollars.

加上紅利，是四十萬美元

Meanwhile, for the same year, the average salary

同時，一家資產為五百萬以上的美國醫療慈善機構的

for the CEO of a $5 million-plus medical charity in the U.S.

行政總裁平均收入是二十三萬美元

was 232,000 dollars, and for a hunger charity, 84,000 dollars.

而一家致力解決飢饉問題的 慈善機構的總裁收入是八萬四千美元

要很多有能力去賺四十萬的人

Now, there's no way you're going to get a lot of people

現在放棄三十一萬六， 而當一家飢饉救助會的總裁

with $400,000 talent to make a $316,000 sacrifice every year

簡直是天方夜談

to become the CEO of a hunger charity.

有些人會說， "都是因為那些MBA貪婪"

Some people say, "Well, that's just because those MBA types are greedy."

Not necessarily. They might be smart.

其實不然,他們是聰明

一個人每年

It's cheaper for that person to donate

100,000 dollars every year to the hunger charity;

捐給飢饉救助會十萬元

從而少交五萬元的稅是比較便宜的

save 50,000 dollars on their taxes --

so still be roughly 270,000 dollars a year ahead of the game --

即使這樣他們還是比救助會 的總裁要多賺二十七萬美元

now be called a philanthropist because they donated

又會因為捐了十萬塊錢

100,000 dollars to charity;

被稱做大慈善家

有時還會出席飢饉慈善的董事會

probably sit on the board of the hunger charity;

監管那些不知死活

indeed, probably supervise the poor SOB

who decided to become the CEO of the hunger charity;

非要當飢饉救助會的行政總裁

(Laughter)

還能終生保有這些勢力和影響力

and have a lifetime of this kind of power and influence

and popular praise still ahead of them.

並廣受讚譽

第二方面的歧視來自宣傳跟廣告

The second area of discrimination is advertising and marketing.

So we tell the for-profit sector, "Spend, spend, spend on advertising,

我們告訴牟利機構，"花，花，把錢都花在廣告上

until the last dollar no longer produces a penny of value."

直到榨乾最後一滴價值"

But we don't like to see our donations spent on advertising in charity.

但我們偏不喜歡看到我們的捐款被花在為慈善做廣告上

Our attitude is, "Well, look, if you can get the advertising donated,

我們的態度是，"聽著，如是你真的要做那件事情

你在清晨四點鐘做，我沒意見。

you know, to air at four o'clock in the morning, I'm okay with that.

但我真的不想看到我的捐款用在廣告上

But I don't want my donation spent on advertising,

I want it go to the needy."

我是想它用在有需要的人身上啊。"

As if the money invested in advertising

誰說投資在廣告上

could not bring in dramatically greater sums of money

就不能帶來巨大的收益

to serve the needy.

去幫助有需要的人

1990 年，我的公司開辦了

In the 1990s, my company created

the long-distance AIDSRide bicycle journeys,

AIDSRide長途單車之旅

and the 60 mile-long breast cancer three-day walks,

和三天六十英哩長的乳癌步行活動

經過九年的時間

and over the course of nine years,

we had 182,000 ordinary heroes participate,

我們有18萬2千名平凡的勇士參與

and they raised a total of 581 million dollars.

一共籌得五億八千一百萬美元的善款

(Applause)

他們為了這些目標籌得的錢

They raised more money more quickly for these causes

than any events in history,

比以往任何活動籌得還要多還要快

all based on the idea that people are weary

因為他們曉得人們厭煩被要求做這些

of being asked to do the least they can possibly do.

起碼他們能夠做到的

People are yearning to measure the full distance of their potential

人們渴望瞭解自己在所關注的事業上

在所關注的事業上

on behalf of the causes that they care about deeply.

盡力得到的結果。

但得有人邀請他們

But they have to be asked.

We got that many people to participate

我們之所以有那麼多參賽者

by buying full-page ads in The New York Times,

全靠放在紐約時代雜誌

波士頓環球報的整版廣告， 還有電台，電視黃金時段的廣告

in The Boston Globe, in prime time radio and TV advertising.

Do you know how many people we would've gotten

你知道如果我們把宣傳放在自助洗衣店門口

if we put up fliers in the laundromat?

會有多少人參加嗎?

慈善捐助在美國一直停滯不前

Charitable giving has remained stuck in the U.S., at two percent of GDP,

從1970年至今一直維持在國内生產總值的2%

ever since we started measuring it in the 1970s.

That's an important fact, because it tells us

這個告訴我們很重要的一個事情

that in 40 years, the nonprofit sector

就是四十年來，非牟利行業

has not been able to wrestle any market share

到現在還有從牟利行業那處

away from the for-profit sector.

爭得一點點市場

And if you think about it, how could one sector

試想一下

possibly take market share away from another sector

一個連市場行銷都不被允許的行業

if it isn't really allowed to market?

又如何能夠從另一個行業那裡拿走市場?

And if we tell the consumer brands,

我們會告訴消費品品牌

"You may advertise all the benefits of your product,"

"你該宣傳產品所有的好處"

but we tell charities, "You cannot advertise all the good that you do,"

但那邊，我們告訴慈善機構， "你不能夠宣傳你做過什麼好事"

where do we think the consumer dollars are going to flow?

那你認為消費者的鈔票會落入哪一邊?

第三樣歧視是為提高收益而創新

The third area of discrimination is the taking of risk

in pursuit of new ideas for generating revenue.

所承受的風險

So Disney can make a new $200 million movie that flops,

迪士尼可以虧掉一部二億元的電影

沒有人會起訴它

and nobody calls the attorney general.

But you do a little $1 million community fundraiser for the poor,

但要是你為了貧困籌了區區一百萬的款項

而在頭一年

and it doesn't produce a 75 percent profit to the cause in the first 12 months,

沒有達到75%的盈餘

and your character is called into question.

你的聲譽就會遭到質疑

So nonprofits are really reluctant to attempt any brave,

所以非牟利機構其實真的對大膽的，銳意進取的

大型的籌款活動卻步

daring, giant-scale new fundraising endeavors,

for fear that if the thing fails,

怕的是一旦失敗

their reputations will be dragged through the mud.

它們便會聲名狼藉

你該知道禁止失敗

Well, you and I know

when you prohibit failure, you kill innovation.

我們便會泄氣。

要是在籌款活動上沒有創新， 就不會有任何收入提高

If you kill innovation in fundraising, you can't raise more revenue;

要是沒有收入，你便不會發展

if you can't raise more revenue, you can't grow;

不能夠發展，你便不能夠解決龐大的社會問題

and if you can't grow, you can't possibly solve large social problems.

The fourth area is time.

第四點是時間。

So Amazon went for six years without returning any profit to investors,

亞馬遜網站連續六年沒有發盈利給投資者

and people had patience.

人們都還有耐性

他們知道這是

They knew that there was a long-term objective down the line,

of building market dominance.

一個在市場中獨佔鰲頭的長線項目

But if a nonprofit organization ever had a dream

但要是公益機構夢想要花六年

of building magnificent scale that required that for six years,

創做一個龐大項目

no money was going to go to the needy,

而這些錢都不會被用在有需要的人上

全部金錢都用在投資在項目上

it was all going to be invested in building this scale,

we would expect a crucifixion.

它一定不會有好日子過

The last area is profit itself.

最後是盈餘

So the for-profit sector can pay people profits

牟利商業可以靠分紅

in order to attract their capital for their new ideas,

來吸引人們來投資它們的新概念

but you can't pay profits in a nonprofit sector,

但非牟利機構不可以，

so the for-profit sector has a lock

牟利能夠獨霸市場

on the multi-trillion-dollar capital markets,

and the nonprofit sector is starved for growth and risk and idea capital.

但非牟利機構得不到成長

跟機會以及理想的資本

你用五根指頭算算，

Well, you put those five things together --

you can't use money to lure talent away from the for-profit sector;

你未能把能幹的人從牟利機構中挖過來

you can't advertise on anywhere near the scale

你不能夠像牟利機構般

the for-profit sector does for new customers;

宣傳，賣廣告去吸引新客戶

you can't take the kinds of risks in pursuit of those customers

你沒有牟利機構的能力承受

that the for-profit sector takes;

追求那些客戶的風險

you don't have the same amount of time to find them as the for-profit sector;

你沒有像牟利機構那樣多的時間

去找那些客戶

你沒有股票市場去支助你所有這些行為

and you don't have a stock market with which to fund any of this,

就算你一開始能這麼做

even if you could do it in the first place --

相較於牟利企業非牟利機構已經在

and you've just put the nonprofit sector

非牟利機構已經在每個層面上

at an extreme disadvantage to the for-profit sector,

都處於極端的劣勢

on every level.

要是你對這雙種標準的效果有所質疑

If we have any doubts about the effects of this separate rule book,

this statistic is sobering:

這些統計數字能叫你醒悟過來

從1970年 到2009年

From 1970 to 2009,

the number of nonprofits that really grew,

真正超越了五百萬年收入大關的

非牟利機構

that crossed the $50 million annual revenue barrier,

is 144.

有144個

In the same time, the number of for-profits that crossed it

如此同時，能夠跨過那收入關卡的牟利機構

有46,136個

is 46,136.

我們在處理那些龐大的社會問題

So we're dealing with social problems that are massive in scale,

and our organizations can't generate any scale.

但我們的機構自己卻無法成長

All of the scale goes to Coca-Cola and Burger King.

全部的規模效益都落入到可口可樂和漢堡王

我們為何會這樣想?

So why do we think this way?

美國的這些狂熱信條

Well, like most fanatical dogma in America,

these ideas come from old Puritan beliefs.

來源于從前的清教徒的教義

The Puritans came here for religious reasons, or so they said,

清教徒們，或者按他們自己的說法，來這裡出於宗教理由

but they also came here because they wanted to make a lot of money.

但他們也是為了賺大錢

They were pious people,

他們是虔誠的教徒

but they were also really aggressive capitalists,

也是激進的資本家

and they were accused of extreme forms of profit-making tendencies,

比起其他殖民者

compared to the other colonists.

他們被指責使用極端手段來牟利

But at the same time, the Puritans were Calvinists,

但同時﹐清教徒也是加爾文主義者

so they were taught literally to hate themselves.

所以他們被教導要怨恨自己

They were taught that self-interest was a raging sea

他們被教導利己主義是罪惡的源頭

that was a sure path to eternal damnation.

是一條通向永恆詛咒必經的道路

This created a real problem for these people.

這樣不就會產生真正的問題?

Here they've come all the way across the Atlantic to make all this money,

他們不辭萬里越洋來賺錢

但賺這些錢又會把你直接推向地獄

but making all this money will get you sent directly to Hell.

What were they to do about this?

他們該怎樣做?

Well, charity became their answer.

慈善公益就是他們的答案

It became this economic sanctuary,

這是他們經濟的避難所

where they could do penance for their profit-making tendencies --

他們可以繼續

每一塊錢裡的五分錢懺悔

at five cents on the dollar.

So of course, how could you make money in charity

理所當然地﹐要是慈善是你為牟利而懺悔

if charity was your penance for making money?

那你怎樣能夠以它來賺錢?

Financial incentive was exiled from the realm of helping others,

在幫助別人的國度裡﹐經濟獎勵是不容許的

so that it could thrive in the area of making money for yourself,

因為那會促使你去為自己賺錢﹐

and in 400 years, nothing has intervened

四百年來﹐從來沒有聲音介入說

to say, "That's counterproductive and that's unfair."

"這只會適得其反﹐這是不公平的"

現在總有一個非常危險的問題縈繞著這種觀念

Now, this ideology gets policed by this one very dangerous question,

which is, "What percentage of my donation goes to the cause versus overhead?"

"我的捐款有多少是落到慈善事業? 有多少落入慈善機構的營運開銷?"

There are a lot of problems with this question.

這問題漏洞百出

I'm going to just focus on two.

我只說兩個

First, it makes us think that overhead is a negative,

第一﹐ 我們認為開銷是無意義的

that it is somehow not part of the cause.

它並不屬於慈善事業

但它絕對是﹐ 特別是假如它們被用於機構發展

But it absolutely is, especially if it's being used for growth.

日常開銷在某種程度上

Now, this idea that overhead is somehow an enemy of the cause

是慈善事業的大敵

creates this second, much larger problem,

由此衍生了第二個更大的問題

which is, it forces organizations to go without the overhead things

它逼迫這些機構拋開它們確實需要

they really need to grow,

用以發展的營運開銷來運作

in the interest of keeping overhead low.

為的只是將此開銷控制在低水準

So we've all been taught that charities should spend

我們提倡的是﹐慈善團體應該盡可能得在

as little as possible on overhead things like fundraising

像籌款這些活動上削減開支

under the theory that, well, the less money you spend on fundraising,

在這種觀念下﹐你在籌款上花費越少

the more money there is available for the cause.

便會有更多的錢花在慈善上

Well, that's true if it's a depressing world

假如在一個我們無法把事業做大的蕭條社會

in which this pie cannot be made any bigger.

那確是真的

但如果是在一個正常社會,越多捐款

But if it's a logical world in which investment in fundraising

actually raises more funds and makes the pie bigger,

便會有更多資金讓這餅變大

then we have it precisely backwards,

我們就是在背道而馳

and we should be investing more money, not less, in fundraising,

我們該投資更多錢在籌款上

而不是更少

because fundraising is the one thing

that has the potential to multiply the amount of money

因為籌款更有可能大量積聚財富

用我們真的關心的事情上

available for the cause that we care about so deeply.

I'll give you two examples.

我給你們兩個例子

We launched the AIDSRides

我們找風投融了五萬美元作為 初始資金投在AIDSRides活動上

with an initial investment of 50,000 dollars in risk capital.

Within nine years, we had multiplied that 1,982 times,

九年內﹐資金增長了1,982 倍

into 108 million dollars after all expenses, for AIDS services.

扣除所有開支以後﹐共一點八億美元用在愛滋事務上.

We launched the breast cancer three-days

我們投資了三十五萬美元

with an initial investment of 350,000 dollars in risk capital.

在三天乳癌步行活動上

Within just five years, we had multiplied that 554 times,

僅僅五年﹐增長了554倍

into 194 million dollars after all expenses,

扣除開支後達到一億九千四百萬美元

for breast cancer research.

用在乳腺癌研究上

Now, if you were a philanthropist really interested in breast cancer,

要是你是真的熱心於乳癌的慈善家

what would make more sense:

哪一樣比較合理

go out and find the most innovative researcher in the world

去找世上最頂尖的研究家

and give her 350,000 dollars for research,

給她三十五萬美元用作研究

還是給她的籌款部門三十五萬元

or give her fundraising department the 350,000 dollars

to multiply it into 194 million dollars for breast cancer research?

利用它來變出一億九千四百萬美金用作乳腺癌研究？

2002年是我們最成功的一年

2002 was our most successful year ever.

光在乳癌事業上，光在那一年

We netted for breast cancer alone, that year alone,

71 million dollars after all expenses.

我們就淨賺七千一百萬美元

And then we went out of business,

令人沮喪的是，忽然之間

suddenly and traumatically.

我們歇業了

Why? Well, the short story is, our sponsors split on us.

為什麼? 簡單來說﹐我們被贊助商背叛了

They wanted to distance themselves from us

他們想跟我們保持距離

because we were being crucified in the media

因為我們投資了四成的盈利

for investing 40 percent of the gross in recruitment

在招聘﹐和客戶服務還有體驗上

and customer service and the magic of the experience,

而被傳媒定罪了

因為這在財務報表上沒有專門的會計術語來對應

and there is no accounting terminology to describe

that kind of investment in growth and in the future,

那些用於成長與前景的投資

只有這欄邪惡的營運費用

other than this demonic label of "overhead."

一天間﹐我們全部350員工

So on one day, all 350 of our great employees

lost their jobs ...

統統失業了

because they were labeled "overhead."

因為他們是所謂的開銷

Our sponsor went and tried the events on their own.

我們的贊助上嘗試自己舉辦同類型的活動

The overhead went up.

開銷少了

Net income for breast cancer research went down by 84 percent,

用於乳癌研究的淨收入

減少了84個百分比﹐即是一年六千萬

or 60 million dollars, in one year.

This is what happens when we confuse morality with frugality.

當我們把道德與節儉渾淆起來

就會發生諸如此類的事

We've all been taught that the bake sale with five percent overhead

我們一直宣導的是，從道德角度來說，只營運費用率在5%的餅乾義賣活動

is morally superior to the professional fundraising enterprise

比營運費用率在40%的專業籌款機構更可取

with 40 percent overhead,

but we're missing the most important piece of information, which is:

但我們忽略了最重要的一環

究竟那塊餅有多大?

What is the actual size of these pies?

Who cares if the bake sale only has five percent overhead if it's tiny?

誰去理會用5%來辦糕點義賣但收益甚微？

What if the bake sale only netted 71 dollars for charity

假如因為他們沒有投資擴大規模

because it made no investment in its scale

它只能賺到71美元用來搞慈善？

and the professional fundraising enterprise netted

而專業募款機構因為這麼做了

71 million dollars because it did?

卻能夠籌到七千一百萬?

Now which pie would we prefer,

那麼﹐我們更喜歡哪張餅？

and which pie do we think people who are hungry would prefer?

那些飢餓的人更想要哪塊餅?

Here's how all of this impacts the big picture.

這就是這一切如何來影響大局的

I said that charitable giving is two percent of GDP in the United States.

我說過慈善捐款是在美國國內生產總值的百分之二

That's about 300 billion dollars a year.

這大約是一年三百億美金。

But only about 20 percent of that, or 60 billion dollars,

只有大概2成﹐或六十億美元

goes to health and human services causes.

用在衛生健康和人類服務。

The rest goes to religion and higher education and hospitals,

其他用在宗教﹐高等教育和醫療上

and that 60 billion dollars is not nearly enough

那六十億美元

to tackle these problems.

根本不夠解決這些問題

But if we could move charitable giving from two percent of GDP,

要是我們能夠把慈善捐贈

用那2%增加到

up just one step to three percent of GDP, by investing in that growth,

總生產力的3%

that would be an extra 150 billion dollars a year in contributions,

這一小步便是一年額外的150億美元

and if that money could go disproportionately

要是這筆款項的絕大部分能

to health and human services charities,

送到衛生健康和人類服務的公益團體上

because those were the ones we encouraged to invest in their growth,

因為我們鼓勵投資在它們的發展壯大上

那將會募集到三倍的款項

that would represent a tripling of contributions to that sector.

Now we're talking scale.

我們現在在談論規模

我們在談論真正改變的可能性

Now we're talking the potential for real change.

But it's never going to happen by forcing these organizations

但這不是強迫它們把眼光收回來

放到如何緊縮營運費用那些使人洩氣的目標

to lower their horizons

to the demoralizing objective of keeping their overhead low.

所能實現的

Our generation does not want its epitaph to read,

我們這一代可不希望

"We kept charity overhead low."

把"我們把慈善開支保持在最低" 刻在墓碑上

(Laughter)

(笑) (掌聲)

(Applause)

We want it to read that we changed the world,

我們希望被刻上“我們改變了世界”

and that part of the way we did that

我們能做到的部分原因正是

was by changing the way we think about these things.

我們改變了思考方式

So the next time you're looking at a charity,

所以下一次你見到一家公益機構

don't ask about the rate of their overhead.

不要問他們開支有多少

Ask about the scale of their dreams,

而要問他們夢想的大小

像蘋果，穀歌，亞馬遜那樣大的夢想

their Apple-, Google-, Amazon-scale dreams,

how they measure their progress toward those dreams,

他們怎樣衡量抵達夢想的進度

他們用什麼資源來使美夢成真

and what resources they need to make them come true,

regardless of what the overhead is.

而不管開支是多少

Who cares what the overhead is

要是那些問題真的被解決了﹐誰來理會開銷多少?

if these problems are actually getting solved?

If we can have that kind of generosity --

要是我們有這種慷慨

a generosity of thought --

這種思想的慷慨，那麼非牟利部門可以在改變

then the non-profit sector can play a massive role

這個人們亟待它改變的世界中

in changing the world for all those citizens

發揮巨大的作用

most desperately in need of it to change.

如果那能成為我們留給後世不朽的遺產

And if that can be our generation's enduring legacy --

that we took responsibility

即我們負擔起了

for the thinking that had been handed down to us,

反思，修正

that we revisited it, we revised it,

留傳給我們的思想的責任

and we reinvented the whole way humanity thinks about changing things,

並且我們徹底改變了人們思索變革的方法

永遠地，為每一個人

forever, for everyone --

well, I thought I would let the kids sum up what that would be.

我想該讓孩子們來總結這將會是怎樣的一回事

Annalisa Smith-Pallotta: That would be

Annalisa Smith-Pallotta (女兒): 這將是

Sage Smith-Pallotta (女兒): 一個真真正正的社會

Sage Smith-Pallotta: a real social

Rider Smith-Pallotta: innovation.

Rider Smith-Pallotta (兒子): 改革

Dan Pallotta: Thank you very much.

Dan Pallotta: 感謝大家。謝謝.

Thank you.

(Applause)

(掌聲)

Thank you.

謝謝 (掌聲)

(Applause)