FRM杂谈丨当“直言不讳”的首席执行官们陷入争议时
行业资讯 | 2019-01-13
企业首席执行官们并不经常就公共问题发表意见。但当他们这样做时，他们的评论常常会被新闻媒体放大，并且可能会给公司及其股东带来影响。 因此，首席执行官、董事会和风险管理团队需要早做准备，评估和规划争议性言论可能带来的利弊。
以上是斯坦福大学商学院商业公司治理研究倡议（Corporate Governance Research Initiative, CGRI）主任大卫·拉克尔（David Larcker）去年11月发表的论文《CEO活动的双刃剑（The Double-Edged Sword of CEO Activism）》的主要发现。拉克尔本身是斯坦福大学会计学教授，他表示，首席执行官引起舆论风波的情况“远不如媒体描述的那么普遍。”但当CEO对一个有争议的话题表达强烈意见时，风险可能会有“严重”后果。“例如。客户和关键员工可能被冒犯，甚至转移忠诚。》》更多FRM金融风险问题点我咨询
大卫·拉克尔，斯坦福大学商学院
拉克尔分析了2000年1月1日至2018年7月31日期间，标准普尔500指数公司首席执行官出现在美国全国媒体和公司记录中的“过激”言论，138位首席执行官（占比28％）曾代表公司或以个人身份公开评论社会、环境或政治问题。只有48位（占比10％）明确地表示以个人身份发表言论。如果将研究范围扩大到标准普尔1500指数时，175位（12％）首席执行官亲自或代表公司发表了激进主义言论，其中63位（4％）是以个人身份作出这些陈述的。
拉克尔指出，即使首席执行官们再三努力说明这些观点是个人而非公司的，但员工和公众通常会将CEO的行为与其公司紧密联系在一起。他认为这“可能对公司业绩产生严重影响”，并使股价上涨或下跌。本文举例了几位最倾向于发表公众言论的美国首席执行官，以及他们最常讨论的一些话题。
话题选择和预期反应
The most frequent topic of CEO outspokenness is diversity, with 50% of the activist CEOs advocating for greater gender, racial or sexual-orientation diversity or equality.Environmental issues come next, addressed by 41% percent of activist CEOs, followed by immigration and human rights （23%）； other social issues （19%）， and political issues （17%）。
Only a small number of CEOs speak out on multiple issues; they are referred to as “repeat activists.” Most will take positions on no more than one or two.
Among the repeat-activist CEOs are Marc Benioff of Salesforce （and recent acquirer of Fortune magazine）， Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs Group （recently retired）， Tim Cook of Apple, Michael Corbat of Citigroup, Howard Schultz of Starbucks （now executive chairman, who has hinted at a possible run for president）， and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.
The “double-edged sword” aspect was on stark display when sports apparel company Nike launched an advertising campaign featuring former National Football League quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who caused controversy by kneeling in protest when the national anthem was played. Nike's ads included the words “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
The CGRI paper notes that although Nike experienced an initial, temporary spike in online sales, a Morning Consult report found that in reaction to the advertising, the brand's favorability and purchase-consideration ratings fell across all demographic groups, even when segmented by age, race, and political affiliation. In addition, Nike's stock price dropped 3% on the news of the ad campaign, though the price subsequently recovered, according to Larcker's research.
The CGRI paper cites a 2018 survey of 3,544 individuals by the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, which found that the public has a generally positive view of CEO activism. But views can vary depending on the issue. The public is most in favor of CEO activism about environmental issues such as clean air or water （78%）， health care （69%）， renewable energy （68%）， and income inequality （66%）。
Reactions are more mixed on diversity and equality: 54% support CEO activism about racial issues, and 29% do not （the rest have no opinion）。 On gun control, 45% are favorable and 39% not. On abortion, 37% are for, 38% against.
言论的负面影响
Survey respondents are more likely to remember products they stopped using, or use far less, because of reactions to CEO positions: 35% recalled a product or service they use less, while only 20% could think of one they use more because of CEO activism.
Therefore, Larcker concludes, there is potential to build loyalty with employees, customers or constituents, while inadvertently alienating important segments of those populations.
As a result, he says, “Corporate boards and company risk managers ought to have discussions with the CEO about whether being personally active is a good idea or not, as it can have a sizable and long-lasting impact on a company's sales, can increase the volatility of corporate performance, and the ability of the company to attract top people.”
Wright-Violich of Tideline suggests that boards' risk committees discuss CEO activism before it actually happens. These discussions should address whether or not activism should be limited to issues directly related to the business – as in an energy company CEO speaking about the dangers of oil spills – versus comments on topics that are not core to the business, which she says can be “a much more loaded situation.”
“Having a CEO activism policy in place can create clear guidance for a CEO, letting them know the rules of the road in advance,” Wright-Violich says.
Larcker says it is important for boards and management “to think through how activist statements will resonate and percolate through their customer base and employee set,” because the public response can be unpredictable.
前瞻性准备
The CGRI director also suggests developing a “thoughtful framework for thinking about the issues of the day and how – or whether – the company wants to be positioned.”
Miles of The Miles Group says there are three types of activist scenarios that CEOs should prepare for:
A crisis event due to the fault of the company that requires an “authentic” response from the CEO.
A societal issue that almost forces companies and CEOs “to pick a lane” and express a point of view. Example: gun violence in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting.
Business-related issues that are simmering as part of a public conversation, such as the build-up of plastic waste or the use of fur in clothing.
According to Larcker, frameworks for issues management will become increasingly important, as CEO activism will not be going away.
“Younger CEOs are more prone to taking activist stances and see the goal of their organizations in a far broader way,” he says. “For them, it's not just about increasing company value in monetary terms, and so, over time, we can expect to see more of a push to take into account – and address – these activist issues.”
Katherine Heires是一名商业自由撰稿人，也是MediaKat有限责任公司的创始人。
完善下表，48小时内查收全套FRM备考资料
.jpg)
.jpg)
FRM官方交流群：909308278（点击直接加群）
▎来源金程FRM，更多内容请关注微信号金程FRM。原创文章，欢迎分享，若需引用或转载请保留此处信息。
相关标签 FRM一级
