華爾街往何處去？

1. 華爾街往何處去？ Charging Bull (Wall Street Bull by Arturo Di Modica) 高11呎，重7,000磅的華爾街銅牛。

2. 壹、佔領華爾街…………………………....………..………5壹、佔領華爾街…………………………....………..………5 一、肥貓…………………………………..………………20 二、蓋茲的創新資本主義…………………….………37 三、福特二世………………………………....…………44 四、威廉諾立思…………………………....……………45 五、巴菲特………………………………….……………46 六、Toms Shoes……………………………....…………49 貳、股東利益優先論 vs. 企業社會責任論….......……55 一、柏雷和杜德的辯論……………………….………55 二、股東利益優先論 vs.企業社會責任論…...……63 三、福特 vs. 道奇…………………...........….…………81 四、捐款……………....……..………….…….………….86

3. 五、美國公司法…………………………..……....….….92 六、美國捐款統計……………………..………….….…93 七、得考量利害關係人利益……………..………..….94 八、英國公司法………………………………….….….101 九、履行社會責任的其他行為………………...……103 十、聯合國全球盟約及反貪腐公約…………..…...105 十一、Triple Bottom Lines………………...…....…....110 十二、我國相關法律與企業社會責任問題….......111 （一）公司的目的為何？………………………..…111 （二）經營者的選任－外國制度……....………..…112 （三）經營者的選任－我國法的規定….............…115 （四）捐贈及其他社會責任行為……...…..….....…121 （五）企業併購………….....................…………..…....124

4. 十三、主管機關的行政命令－要求揭露履行 企業社會責任的情形………...……………....128 （一）公開發行公司年報應行記載事項準則…...128 （二）公司募集發行有價證券公開說明書應行 記載事項準則…..................................................129 十四、證交所及櫃買中心的章則………….………130 （一）上市上櫃公司治理實務守則….....................130 （二）上市上櫃公司企業社會責任實務守則…..131 （三）單元論－社會責任與股東利益相輔相成.146 （四）上市上櫃公司誠信經營守則….....................147 （五）履行企業社會責任的實務作法…................148 十五、公司企業的地位………………………….…..163

5. 2011年9月17日開始的「佔領華爾街運動」，由Adbusters雜誌發起，這是運動的標幟。2011年9月17日開始的「佔領華爾街運動」，由Adbusters雜誌發起，這是運動的標幟。

7. Zuccotti Park, New York. Washington Square, New York City.

8. 2011年10月5日全國護士工會走上街頭，響應OWS 。

9. 示威者走到紐約警察總局。

10. 2011年10月1日群眾穿越 Brooklyn Bridge的車道， 700多人被捕。

11. 11

12. 12

17. 2012年9月17日，警察保護華爾街銅牛，防止示威者破壞。2012年9月17日，警察保護華爾街銅牛，防止示威者破壞。

18. 2011年10月15日全球約有90個城市，響應佔領運動，台北是其中之一。2011年10月15日全球約有90個城市，響應佔領運動，台北是其中之一。

20. 一、肥 貓

21. 1、2007年美國CEO的酬勞，是一般勞工的344倍。1980年，是42倍， 1965年只有24倍。（CEO做一年， 工人要做344年！ ） 2、2004~2006年，美國大企業的CEO，一年酬勞平均為1,330萬美元。同時期，歐洲的公司為660萬美元，日本公司為150萬美元。 CEO薪酬比較(2004~2006) 資料來源：Michael J. Sandel, Justice – What’s the Right Thing to Do ？(Farrar, Straus and Girour, 2009) at 12~18.

22. 3.2008~2009，美國政府撥款1,730億美元，挽救大企業，但其中1億6,500萬元，企業卻用來發放紅利給公司的高階人員；有73個人，每人領取的紅利，超過100萬美元。3.2008~2009，美國政府撥款1,730億美元，挽救大企業，但其中1億6,500萬元，企業卻用來發放紅利給公司的高階人員；有73個人，每人領取的紅利，超過100萬美元。 4.公司要倒了，納稅人出錢挽救，但錢卻進了經理人口袋！ 5.美國國會議員提案，對這種紅利課徵90%的稅。許多CEO在輿論壓力下繳回紅利，法案沒有通過。

23. 美國財富分配(2007年) 平均收入96萬美元，約2,800萬新台幣 2010年，美國約4,620萬人(占總人口15.1％) ，生活在貧窮線下(四口之家，年收入22,314美元或以下) 。 美國總人口313,282,767人(2012.04.01) 資料來源：Congressional Budget Office of the United States.

24. 美國所得分配 根據美國商業部(Department of Commerce)的統計，2010年，有4,990萬美國人，占總人口16.3％，沒有健康保險。2009年為4,900萬人。

25. June 28, 2012 Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law, 5-4, in Victory for Obama By ADAM LIPTAK WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Obama’s health care overhaul law, saying its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members.

26. 世界財富分配 1.全球半數人口，每日 生活費不到2美元。 2.逾10億人，每天生活 費不到1美元。 世界人口：7,004,189,547 (2012.4.1) the botton 50% owned 1% 資料來源：World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (2006).

27. 台灣所得分配表 資料來源：財政部財稅資料中心。

28. 28 2011年上市公司董監酬勞前十名 資料來源：公開資訊觀測站，造訪日期：2012年3月。

29. 杜甫：自京赴奉先詠懷五 百字※ 朱門酒肉臭，路有凍死骨。 …… 入門聞號咷，幼子餓已卒。 …… 所愧為人父，無食致夭折。 ※杜甫西元746年到長安，755年11月從長安到奉先（今陜西蒲城）探視妻小。時當安祿山兵變前夕。 29

30. 過去30年，美國經濟成長所創造的財富，每100元中，有36元被1%的人拿走。中產階級明顯縮小，貧富差距擴大。 Jacob S. Hacker Stanley B. Resor Professor of Political Science, Yale University. Paul Pierson John Gross Prosessor of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley. 2010年9月,Simon & Schuster.

31. 美國所得最高的400人的租稅負擔

32. August 14, 2011 Stop Coddling the Super-Rich By WARREN E. BUFFETT Omaha OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched. Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf— was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. (1930~)

33. If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot. But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate. My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. 郭董的富人稅：台灣前300大富人，每年多繳180億 元的稅（2012.06.06）。 33

34. Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address, Jan. 24, 2012 But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up. You're the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You're the ones who need relief. Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

35. We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference - like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That's not right. Americans know it's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country's future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's an America built to last.

36. In Senate, Republicans Block Debate on “Buffett Rule” The New York Times, by Jonathan Weisman, Apr. 16, 2012 WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Monday blocked a move to open debate on the so-called Buffett Rule, ensuring that a measure pressed for months by President Obama and Senate Democrats to ensure that the superrich pay a tax rate of at least 30 percent will not come to a decisive vote. But the fierce debate preceding the 51-45 vote — the Democrats were nine votes short of the 60 they needed — set off a week of political wrangling over taxes that both parties insist they are already winning. Democrats have known for weeks that the Buffett Rule would not win the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster, but they pressed forward in part to try to make the Republicans’ likely presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, the face of economic “unfairness.” Mr. Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent on $21.7 million in income in 2010, the only full year’s tax returns he has released. The Obama re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee again pressed Mr. Romney on Monday to release more than a decade’s worth of tax returns, something his campaign has refused to do.

37. 二、蓋茲的創新資本主義（CREATIVE CAPITALISM） 比爾蓋茲（Bill Gates, 1955~）在2008年世界經濟論壇（World Economic Forum）上，提出「創新資本主義」概念，主張營利企業，在追求獲利的同時，也應兼顧窮人的福祉。這項觀點，引起支持者與反對者的激烈爭辯。

38. The great advances in the world have often aggravated the inequities in the world. The least needy see the most improvement, and the most needy see the least － in particular the billion people who live on less than a dollar a day. There are roughly a billion people in the world who don’t get enough food, who don’t have clean drinking water, who don’t have electricity － the things that we take for granted. Diseases like malaria that kill over a million people a year get far less attention than drugs to help with baldness.

39. As I see it , there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest, and caring for others. Capitalism harnesses self-interest in helpful and sustainable ways, but only on behalf of those who can pay. Philanthropy and government aid channel our caring for those who can’t pay, but the resources run out before they meet the need. But to provide rapid improvement for the poor, we need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today.

40. Such a system would have a twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who don’t fully benefit from market forces. To make the system sustainable, we need to use profit incentives whenever we can. At the same time, profits are not always possible when business tries to serve the very poor. In such cases, there needs to be another market-based incentive － and that incentive is recognition. Recognition enhances a company’s reputation and appeals to customers; above all, it attracts good people to the organization.

41. As such, recognition triggers a market-based reward for good behavior. In markets where profits are not possible, recognition is a proxy; where profits are possible, recognition is an added incentive. The challenge is design a system where market incentives, including profits and recognition, drive the change. I like to call this new system creative capitalism － an approach where governments, business, and nonprofits work together to stretch the of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world’s inequities.

42. 比爾蓋茲（Bill Gates）認為，在資本主義制度下，市場只回應需求（demand），而忽視人類真正的需要（need）。因此，有錢消費的人，才能得到科技進步的恩惠，愈有錢的人，愈能獲得更好的服務。由於貧富差距懸殊，全球有超過10億人一天只靠1美元生活，這些沒有錢消費的人，連最基本的需要（need）也被忽視。例如每年死於瘧疾的人超過100萬人，但治療瘧疾的藥，還不如治禿頭的藥受到藥廠的重視。對地球暖化最沒有責任的人，卻是在氣候變遷中受害最深的人。 42

43. 為匡正資本主義的偏差，創新資本主義主張，除繼續以企業自利（self-interest）的誘因發展經濟以外，更應善用表揚行善（recognition）的方法，激發人類關懷他人（caring for others）的天性，照顧窮人。在創新資本主義之下，企業應與政府及非營利組織合作，採取具體可行的措施，包括捐贈，差別定價(亦即以較低價格將商品賣給窮人)，幫助窮國的企業到富國發展等，將營利和關懷社會相結合，以改善窮人的生活。 43

44. 三、福特二世 1967年，亨利福特二世（Henry Ford II）增僱6,500名員工，保留5,000名優先雇用貧民。 亨利福特二世（Henry Ford II, 1917~1987），是福特汽車公司創辦人亨利福特的孫子，1945~1960年間擔任福特汽車公司CEO ，1960~1980年間擔任董事長及CEO。

45. 四、威廉諾立思（William C. Norris 1911～2006）： 把工廠設在貧民窟，雇用長期失業的工人。 1957年諾立思創設Control Data Corp.，1964年推出的CDC6600超級商用電腦，速度比當時市場上任何電腦快10倍；1984年公司的市值達50億美元，是當年全球第4大電腦資料處理公司。 IBM公司1981年8月12日推出個人電腦(personal computer, PC)，從此改變人類的歷史。

46. 1. 1965年5月10日，柏克夏公司由巴菲特接手經營，淨值為2,200萬美元，每股18美元。1988年11月29日，在紐約證交所掛牌上市。2012年2月16日柏克夏A股每股為118,340美元。 2. 1975年〜1984年間，柏克夏紡織廠雖有5,300萬美元營業額，仍虧損1,000萬美元。 3. 1985年4月巴菲特決定關廠，寫信給股東，述說他決策的心路歷程。 五、巴菲特（Warren Buffett）

47. 3.巴菲特為了關廠寫信給股東 我不會只為增加公司整體報酬率的一個小數點，就把不賺錢或少賺錢的工廠關掉。但我也不能讓一家即使是非常賺錢的公司，永遠支持一間老是虧錢的工廠。亞當史密斯不會贊成前面一句話，馬克斯會反對後面一句，我則採取折衷的立場。

48. 資本主義 VS.社會主義 亞當‧史密斯（Adam Smith,1723~1790） 卡爾‧馬克斯（Karl Marx, 1818~1883）

49. 六、 Toms Shoes: One for One 2006年2 月，Blake Mycoskie到阿根廷鄉間旅行，看到許多窮苦的小孩，光著腳在路上走。他注意到小孩的腳上，有許多傷痕， 有些已經結疤， 有些還在長膿。他心有所感，發願要讓小孩有鞋子穿。 回美國後， Mycoskie 在加州的Santa Monica開了一家鞋店，叫Toms Shoes，每賣一雙鞋，就捐出一雙新鞋，送給沒有鞋子穿的小孩。

50. Toms Shoes賣阿根廷傳統的輕便鞋(alpargata)。第一年就賣了一萬雙，也依約回阿根廷送出一萬雙。它進一步跟國內外的慈善機構合作，共同推動送鞋計畫(Shoes for tomorrow)。這項「賣一雙送一雙」的活動，引發熱烈迴響。到2010年9月，Toms再回阿根廷，慶祝他們總共送出100萬雙鞋子。活動還在繼續進行，送鞋的對象，也從阿根廷擴大到世界其他地方。