【简介】感谢网友“雕龙文库”参与投稿，这里小编给大家分享一些，方便大家学习。
IBM v Carnegie Corporation
IBM vs 卡耐基基金会
The centenarians square up
迎来百岁生日的IBM和卡耐基基金会一决高下
Both IBM and the Carnegie Corporation will turn 100this month. Has the multinational business oruniversal philanthropy done more for society?
本月，IBM和卡耐基基金会都将迎来100岁生日。谁对社会贡献更大呢，是IBM这个跨国集团还是遍布世界的慈善机构卡耐基基金会?
ONE simple way to assess the impact of any organisation is to answer the question: how isthe world different because it existed? That is the test set out by Sam Palmisano in theforeword to a new book celebrating the 100th birthday of IBM, the firm he has run since 2002.But another organisation is also turning 100 this monththe Carnegie Corporation of NewYork, a flagship of American philanthropy. Mr Palmisanos insight is too good to limit to onlyone of the centenarians. A better question is: which has done more for the world, one of itsleading companies or one of its most influential charities?
评定任何组织影响力的一种简单的方法就是回答一个问题：由于它的存在，世界有什么不同?这个测验是IBM的首席执行官彭明盛在一本庆祝IBM100周岁的新书的前言中提出的，他自2002年起掌管IBM。但是本月还有一个组织也将迎来100岁生日美国慈善的旗舰、纽约的卡耐基基金会。彭明盛先生的想法非常好，对这两家百年公司和机构都适用。一个更恰当的问题是：作为世界领先公司之一的IBM和世界上最具影响力的慈善机构的卡耐基基金会，哪个对世界的贡献更大?
At first glance, IBM and the Carnegie Corporation seem to be engaged in such differentendeavours that comparing them might seem about as sensible as comparing apple orchardsand orange groves. Making money has always been the main aim of the company formed in1911 by the merger of three small producers of mechanical accounting machines, scales andtime recorders, and renamed International Business Machines 13 years later. By contrast, theCarnegie Corporation explicitly set out to create a better world by giving away what remainedof the great fortune of its industrialist founder, Andrew Carnegie. Yet both can assert thatthey have made the world a better place during the past century, and it is far from obviouswhich claim is stronger.
乍一看，IBM和卡耐基基金会从事的是两种如此截然不同的事业，以至于比较它们就好像比较苹果园和橘子林一样不靠谱。1911年，三家生产会计机、磅秤和计时器的小型公司于合并成立了一间新公司，13年后改名为国际商业机器公司，赚钱一直是这家公司的主要目标。与之形成对比的是，卡耐基基金会在创立伊始就明确要通过捐赠其创始人工业家安德鲁??卡耐基巨大财富的剩余来创造一个更好的世界。但是两者都可以自称它们在过去的一个世纪中让世界变得更美好，不过还远远不清楚究竟哪一方的声明会更有力。
The answer matters, and not just in order to awardthe historical bragging rights. Comparing the recordsof those giants of 20th-century American capitalismor philanthrocapitalismcan shed light on aquestion that is keenly debated today: whetherphilanthropy or business is more effective atMaking the World Work Better, to borrow the titleof the book celebrating IBMs centenary.
这个问题的答案很重要，不只是为了奖励它们吹嘘自己的历史。比一比20世纪美国资本主义或慈善资本主义 那些巨头公司的记录，有助于理解一个今天被热烈讨论的问题：慈善事业或企业哪一个在借用那本庆祝IBM百年生日的书名使世界运行得更好的方面更有效?
The comparison can also help answer an old question about the proper role of business insociety. Many people would agree with Milton Friedmans view that the only social responsibilityof business is to increase its profits. But Michael Porter, a management guru, recentlycaused a stir by arguing that firms should seek instead to create shared value thatsimultaneously benefits both the firm and society. Andrew Carnegie would have sharedFriedmans view of business, saving the philanthropy until after the money has been made.IBM, at least after Thomas Watson senior took charge in 1914, has arguably been a case studyin how to create shared value, both through its formalised giving, which is among the mostgenerous in corporate America, but more fundamentally through its everyday business.
这样的比较还能回答一个古老的问题，有关企业在社会中扮演的适当角色。米尔顿??弗里德曼认为企业唯一的社会责任是提高它的利润，很多人都同意这个看法。但是最近管理大师迈克??波特却提出公司应该寻求而不是创造同时对自己和社会都有利的共享价值，这一论点引起了一番争议。卡耐基会同意弗里德曼对商业的看法，在挣到钱以后再做慈善。而IBM、至少在老托马斯??沃森于1914年掌舵后的IBM是一个可以论证如何创造共享价值的案例，既通过一定形式的捐献个角度看它属于最慷慨的国公司之一更根本地是通过平时的生意。
And the comparison can shed light on the role of the wealthy in society. Bill Gates, the AndrewCarnegie of today, is busily giving away the fortune he earned in businessa fact that hasirked some prominent critics. A few years ago, Robert Barro, an economist, argued in the WallStreet Journal that by switching from making money to giving it away, Mr Gates had failed toappreciate both the good he had done at Microsoft and the waste that he was about topreside over as a philanthropist. By any reasonable calculation, Microsoft has been aboon for society and the value of its software greatly exceeds the likely value of Mr Gatessphilanthropic efforts, concluded Mr Barro.
而且这样的对比还能让人们清楚地认识财富在社会中起到的作用。今天的卡耐基比尔??盖茨正忙于将他从生意中赚到的财富捐赠出去这一事实激怒了一些著名评论者。几年前，经济学家罗伯特??拜伦在《华尔街日报》上提出盖茨从挣钱到捐钱的转变证明他没能欣赏到自己对微软的贡献，也没注意到他即将以慈善家的姿态来管理的是废物。任何合理的计算都会得出微乳对社会是个福利，它软件的价值远远超过盖茨的慈善行为有可能带来的价值。拜伦这样总结道。
Yet Mr Gates and his partner in philanthropy, Warren Buffett, are not only confident theycan improve the world by giving away their money through a charitable foundation much likethe Carnegie Corporation . They are also trying to persuade other billionaires inAmerica and abroad to pledge publicly to give away at least half of their wealth during theirlifetimes.
但是盖茨和他在慈善事业上的伙伴沃伦??巴菲特不仅相信自己能通过一个很像卡耐基基金会的慈善机构捐钱、以此来改善这个世界，而且还试图说服美国国内外其他的亿万富翁公开承诺在他们的一生中把自己至少一半的财产捐出去。
IBM v Carnegie Corporation
IBM vs 卡耐基基金会
The centenarians square up
迎来百岁生日的IBM和卡耐基基金会一决高下
Both IBM and the Carnegie Corporation will turn 100this month. Has the multinational business oruniversal philanthropy done more for society?
本月，IBM和卡耐基基金会都将迎来100岁生日。谁对社会贡献更大呢，是IBM这个跨国集团还是遍布世界的慈善机构卡耐基基金会?
ONE simple way to assess the impact of any organisation is to answer the question: how isthe world different because it existed? That is the test set out by Sam Palmisano in theforeword to a new book celebrating the 100th birthday of IBM, the firm he has run since 2002.But another organisation is also turning 100 this monththe Carnegie Corporation of NewYork, a flagship of American philanthropy. Mr Palmisanos insight is too good to limit to onlyone of the centenarians. A better question is: which has done more for the world, one of itsleading companies or one of its most influential charities?
评定任何组织影响力的一种简单的方法就是回答一个问题：由于它的存在，世界有什么不同?这个测验是IBM的首席执行官彭明盛在一本庆祝IBM100周岁的新书的前言中提出的，他自2002年起掌管IBM。但是本月还有一个组织也将迎来100岁生日美国慈善的旗舰、纽约的卡耐基基金会。彭明盛先生的想法非常好，对这两家百年公司和机构都适用。一个更恰当的问题是：作为世界领先公司之一的IBM和世界上最具影响力的慈善机构的卡耐基基金会，哪个对世界的贡献更大?
At first glance, IBM and the Carnegie Corporation seem to be engaged in such differentendeavours that comparing them might seem about as sensible as comparing apple orchardsand orange groves. Making money has always been the main aim of the company formed in1911 by the merger of three small producers of mechanical accounting machines, scales andtime recorders, and renamed International Business Machines 13 years later. By contrast, theCarnegie Corporation explicitly set out to create a better world by giving away what remainedof the great fortune of its industrialist founder, Andrew Carnegie. Yet both can assert thatthey have made the world a better place during the past century, and it is far from obviouswhich claim is stronger.
乍一看，IBM和卡耐基基金会从事的是两种如此截然不同的事业，以至于比较它们就好像比较苹果园和橘子林一样不靠谱。1911年，三家生产会计机、磅秤和计时器的小型公司于合并成立了一间新公司，13年后改名为国际商业机器公司，赚钱一直是这家公司的主要目标。与之形成对比的是，卡耐基基金会在创立伊始就明确要通过捐赠其创始人工业家安德鲁??卡耐基巨大财富的剩余来创造一个更好的世界。但是两者都可以自称它们在过去的一个世纪中让世界变得更美好，不过还远远不清楚究竟哪一方的声明会更有力。
The answer matters, and not just in order to awardthe historical bragging rights. Comparing the recordsof those giants of 20th-century American capitalismor philanthrocapitalismcan shed light on aquestion that is keenly debated today: whetherphilanthropy or business is more effective atMaking the World Work Better, to borrow the titleof the book celebrating IBMs centenary.
这个问题的答案很重要，不只是为了奖励它们吹嘘自己的历史。比一比20世纪美国资本主义或慈善资本主义 那些巨头公司的记录，有助于理解一个今天被热烈讨论的问题：慈善事业或企业哪一个在借用那本庆祝IBM百年生日的书名使世界运行得更好的方面更有效?
The comparison can also help answer an old question about the proper role of business insociety. Many people would agree with Milton Friedmans view that the only social responsibilityof business is to increase its profits. But Michael Porter, a management guru, recentlycaused a stir by arguing that firms should seek instead to create shared value thatsimultaneously benefits both the firm and society. Andrew Carnegie would have sharedFriedmans view of business, saving the philanthropy until after the money has been made.IBM, at least after Thomas Watson senior took charge in 1914, has arguably been a case studyin how to create shared value, both through its formalised giving, which is among the mostgenerous in corporate America, but more fundamentally through its everyday business.
这样的比较还能回答一个古老的问题，有关企业在社会中扮演的适当角色。米尔顿??弗里德曼认为企业唯一的社会责任是提高它的利润，很多人都同意这个看法。但是最近管理大师迈克??波特却提出公司应该寻求而不是创造同时对自己和社会都有利的共享价值，这一论点引起了一番争议。卡耐基会同意弗里德曼对商业的看法，在挣到钱以后再做慈善。而IBM、至少在老托马斯??沃森于1914年掌舵后的IBM是一个可以论证如何创造共享价值的案例，既通过一定形式的捐献个角度看它属于最慷慨的国公司之一更根本地是通过平时的生意。
And the comparison can shed light on the role of the wealthy in society. Bill Gates, the AndrewCarnegie of today, is busily giving away the fortune he earned in businessa fact that hasirked some prominent critics. A few years ago, Robert Barro, an economist, argued in the WallStreet Journal that by switching from making money to giving it away, Mr Gates had failed toappreciate both the good he had done at Microsoft and the waste that he was about topreside over as a philanthropist. By any reasonable calculation, Microsoft has been aboon for society and the value of its software greatly exceeds the likely value of Mr Gatessphilanthropic efforts, concluded Mr Barro.
而且这样的对比还能让人们清楚地认识财富在社会中起到的作用。今天的卡耐基比尔??盖茨正忙于将他从生意中赚到的财富捐赠出去这一事实激怒了一些著名评论者。几年前，经济学家罗伯特??拜伦在《华尔街日报》上提出盖茨从挣钱到捐钱的转变证明他没能欣赏到自己对微软的贡献，也没注意到他即将以慈善家的姿态来管理的是废物。任何合理的计算都会得出微乳对社会是个福利，它软件的价值远远超过盖茨的慈善行为有可能带来的价值。拜伦这样总结道。
Yet Mr Gates and his partner in philanthropy, Warren Buffett, are not only confident theycan improve the world by giving away their money through a charitable foundation much likethe Carnegie Corporation . They are also trying to persuade other billionaires inAmerica and abroad to pledge publicly to give away at least half of their wealth during theirlifetimes.
但是盖茨和他在慈善事业上的伙伴沃伦??巴菲特不仅相信自己能通过一个很像卡耐基基金会的慈善机构捐钱、以此来改善这个世界，而且还试图说服美国国内外其他的亿万富翁公开承诺在他们的一生中把自己至少一半的财产捐出去。
