跨国公司社会责任的全球治理

随着全球一体化的持续发展,跨国公司日益成为经济全球化的主要载体和受益人。跨国公司的国际性、生产经营的全球化决定了其社会责任的实现需建构有效的全球治理。     

股东共益权平等:公司法的基础权利--兼论股权分置与公司治理

源于所有制的差异,中国的资本市场形成了一种制度安排的股权二元结构.这种安排与资本市场固有的属性是不相容的,它背离了同股同权的基本原则,亦与公司法关于股东共益权的平等理念相去甚远.由此引起中国上市公司为解决股权分置而采取相应的措施.股权分置的局面对公司治理有很大的消极影响,尤其是对治理中的控制权市场的形成,对股权平等原则的滥用等.解决股权分置,则能较好地达到公司治理的目的.在解决股权分置过程中仍应关注包括国有经济战略调整及二级市场的操纵等问题.     

The subordination of shareholder loans in bankruptcy

Bankruptcy and corporate laws in several countries allow or require courts to subordinate loans by shareholders to corporations. Examples include the German Eigenkapitalersatzrecht and the equitable subordination and recharacterization doctrines in the US. I use a model to show the incentive effects of subordination when a controlling shareholder attempts to rescue a closely held corporation by extending a loan. Even though subordination has some beneficial effects, it deters some desirable rescue attempts and is an insufficient deterrent for some undesirable ones. Legal reform should thus focus on narrowing down the scope of application to undesirable shareholder loans, where more severe penalties than subordination should apply.     

湖南省私营经济发展法制环境问题与对策

为了给私营企业健康发展提供良好的法制环境 ,必须树立平等主体观念 ;对不同经济成分统一立法 ;规范执法行为以及加强执法力度等。     

公司交互持股要论--写在新订《公司法》颁行之际

诸多方面的原因催生出了公司交互持股现象,其自身价值及其多重影响随即给现行法律制度提出了全方位的挑战。新修订的《公司法》忽略了针对交互持股的相关规范。我国公司法应借鉴各国的立法经验,分别对公司间的横向交互持股和母子公司交互持股在持股比例、表决权限制、通知和公告义务等方面做出法律规制,以期发挥交互持股的积极作用,抑制其消极后果。     

挑战与回应--跨国公司与国家主权

跨国公司是“利害双面体” ,在给世界各国带来利益的同时 ,也对主权国家的政治、经济、文化和科技主权构成了威胁和挑战。主权国家为了维护国家主权和国家利益 ,应积极地应对 ,进行技术创新 ,巩固信息主权 ;主动地“限制”政府管理权限 ,转变政府职能 ,增强本国企业和国家的竞争力 ;建构文化的主体意识 ,实现民族文化的现代化 ,从而编扎起一道防护跨国公司消解国家主权的“防火墙”。     

经济全球化背景下跨国公司制度创新的特点及分析

上世纪90年代以后 ,全球各大跨国公司所处的经济环境发生了质的变化 ,对企业而言交易成本不再是衡量其效率高低的关键因素 ,以隐性形式存在的机会成本反而更具有说服力 ,它直接反映了企业潜在收益向现实收益转化的能力。经济全球化在促进世界经济增长的同时引发了一系列的社会动荡和不安。外部的压力和社会的期望促使跨国公司承担起更大的社会责任 ,使得企业必须进行一些相应制度安排的调整。     

Innovation for a steady state: a case for responsible stagnation

The proponents of responsible innovation (RI) have often opened their discussions with the reassurance that while they are against irresponsible innovation, they are not advocating irresponsible stagnation. In the two-by-two matrix generally used to illustrate this model of innovation, the quadrant for responsible stagnation has so far gone largely unmentioned, let alone explored. This paper draws on existing real-world cases to examine what arguments drawn from ecological economics might contribute to the discussion of RI. It questions the present growth-driven paradigm and asks whether opening the black box of ‘responsible stagnation' might also open the door for a reasoned discussion about resource consumption and pace of development in over-productive or too-risky sectors and technologies, as an intrinsic part of responsible innovation, rather than its opposite.     

Actions by Political Officials Have Weakened the Federal Government Workplace: Downsizing Has Cut Lower Level Workers the Most and Replacing Federal Employees with Private Corporations Costs Much More,Creating the Need for Immediate Reform

Abstract

The authors of this paper are four practitioners each of whom has many years of experience working in the Federal government and also has pursued doctoral studies in public or business administration. Three ideas developed in this paper are that: (1) the Federal civil service has been changed from being a model workplace to a much less desirable one; (2) although downsizing has been touted as an efficiency and economy measure, lower level employees experienced the most cuts and (3) the current practice of replacing Federal employees with private corporations costs much more. Over the past two decades private sector workplaces in the United States, and now the Federal government workplace, have experienced so much change that previous theories, concepts, models, and expectations no longer hold. Just as private industry workplaces have been changed by downsizing, reorganizations, mergers, elimination of middle management, and outsourcing, so, too, has the Federal government workplace been fundamentally altered. Reducing the number of government workers, replacing Federal employees with private firms, increasing the number of officials with political agendas, and using harsh personnel management practices have transfigured the Federal workplace. Examples of factors that have contributed to a changed workplace include: the Civil Service Reform Act which replaced the Civil Service Commission with the Office of Personnel Management; importing private sector approaches into the government, e.g., the Grace Commission; replacing the Civil Service Retirement System with the Federal Employees Retirement System; pressure to downsize and privatize; and many elements of the National Performance Review and Government Performance and Results Act. Now that the metamorphosis away from the traditional Civil Service borne of the Pendleton Act is nearly complete (although the new paradigm is not entirely clear), questions about the effects of a changed government workplace are being raised. Some people believe the metamorphosis is from a caterpillar to a butterfly, while others think the opposite. Whether the changed Federal government is a thing of beauty or a distasteful organism will be determined over time by observations and assessments of the effects of the change. These effects will be both internal to the government workplace, itself, and external to it, involving the products, services, outputs, and outcomes it produces. This paper begins by describing some of the politically mandated changes that have altered the very foundation of the Federal government workplace over the past 20 years and made it a much less desirable place to work. Next, some of the effects of two politically mandated changes are examined: (1) downsizing or reducing the number of Americans who can work for their government and (2) contracting out or replacing government workers with private corporations. Political officials have told the media and the American public that these changes were needed to improve the government's efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. It has been suggested that these initiatives will reduce costs. However, an examination of downsizing and contracting out shows the opposite effect. While overall the Federal government has fewer employees now than in 1961, the statistics indicate that lower level employees have been cut the most:

• The number of secretaries decreased by 39% between 1992 and 1998.

• The blue collar workforce is down 40% since 1982, e.g., Supply Clerical and Technician (?35%), Accounting Technician (?24%), and Electronics Mechanic (?41%).

• Between 1993 and 1998 the number of GS‐1 to GS‐10 employees fell from 767,000 to 594,000.

• In 1983 the number of GS‐1 to GS‐10 workers exceeded GS‐11 to GS‐15 by nearly 300,000, while in 1997 GS‐11 to GS‐15 outnumbered the lower level workers by 44,000.

Although authoritative cost comparison studies are difficult to conduct because top officials have made little provision to collect information on the cost of contracting with private firms or the number of contract employees, available information indicates that it is much more expensive than using government employees. The contracting out we are talking about is not the usual kind—building ships or planes, or acquiring computer systems or special expertise not available in the government. Rather, it is contracting with private firms to do jobs that are currently being performed by Federal employees. Not satisfied with the level at which firms are being substituted for Federal employees, actions by political officials have created an environment which now favors private corporations and where they can be given work at top management's discretion, often regardless of cost. In fact, today most contracting out is done without the use of Circular A‐76 Cost Comparison Studies. There is empirical and logical evidence that shows that replacing government employees with private corporations is more expensive. For example, a study by the Department of the Army documents what people close to contracting have always known—that it is far more expensive to contract with a private firm for work than to have Federal employees do it. Logically, the government incurs additional items of cost when replacing Federal employees with private corporations. First, there is the profit that goes to the firm. Second, there is the firm's overhead which pays for corporate offices, staffs, and CEOs. Third, there are the costs of the contracting and award process and of contract administration and management. Although the worker on a government contract may be paid a little less than a government worker, the cost of the worker is only a third to a half of what the government pays the firm. Thus, replacing government workers with private firms usually costs far more and it is not unusual for it to cost two to three times as much. This paper partly is based on the authors' long experience in the Federal government. It is not based on the organizations in which they are currently employed.     

Comment on William M. Rohe and Rachel G. Bratt's “Failures,downsizings, and mergers among community development corporations”: Merger does not mean failure

Abstract

In response to the article by Rohe and Bratt in which mergers among community development corporations (CDCs) were viewed as one type of response to organizational “failures,” this comment makes the case that many nonprofit mergers arise from a variety of motivations other than organizational crisis. Mergers are increasingly strategic partnerships in which two or more nonprofits seek mutual advantages, such as a larger market share, better access to capital, and other longer‐term goals.

Mergers are most successful when relatively strong organizations analyze their circumstances and determine that they can best advance their missions through working together. A merger has limited utility in saving an organization in crisis. Rather, it is a tool for advancing the missions of different organizations by combining their strengths. The relationship is best entered into freely, after a great deal of consideration, and with reasonable expectations for both the work ahead and the potential payoff.