上个月，万圣节上“洗劫”邻居的孩子们收获了成堆的糖果，这些战利品很可能来自同一家公司。好时公司（Hershey）自称是北美地区最大的巧克力生产商，全年总收入超过60亿美元，旗下包括瑞斯（Reese's）、奇巧（Kit Kat）、多滋乐（Twizzlers）、乔利兰奇（Jolly Rancher）和酷力冰（Ice Breakers）等80多个糖果品牌。而向孩子们分发糖果的家长们并不知道，好时同时正陷入一场涉及使用童工的诉讼争议中。

    万圣节当天，格兰特和艾森霍夫律师事务所（Grant and Eisenhofer）提起诉讼，指控好时公司的供应商使用童工。这起诉讼的委托人是好时公司最大的股东之一，也就是路易斯安那市警署雇员退休基金（Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System）。起诉书称：“有充分的事实证据显示，好时公司董事会指使或批准公司支持使用非法童工，从而事实上将非法使用童工的行为纳入了公司的商业模式。”在这份起诉书中，退休基金方面还要求查阅好时公司的内部档案，以便核实公司是否与那些已知存在非法童工和强迫劳动行径的供应商合作。

    《财富》网站（Fortune.com）今年2月的一篇新闻中，好时公司“宣布计划在2017年之前，向西非的可可农场投入1,000万美元，以解决那里的童工问题。”这也是好时公司在1月发布的一份媒体新闻稿的主要内容。公司的一位发言人口头对我说，他们“对正在进行的诉讼不做评论。”不过同时他在电子邮件中对我写道：“好时公司非常严肃地看待自己的采购责任承诺。”他还在邮件中提到：“上个月我们公布了承诺，将在2020年以前做到百分百向通过第三方认证的可可农场采购原料。”

    普拉西斯共同基金（Praxis Mutual funds）的投资管理专家克里斯•梅尔说，他从2009年开始就开始与好时公司协商相关问题。他告诉我，到今年年底前，雨林联盟（Rainforest Alliance）将完成好时公司贝里斯（Bliss）巧克力生产线的人权和环境保护标准认证。

    不过，好时的用工问题不仅限于西非的可可农场。《纽约时报》（the New York Times）报道称，今年早些时候，美国劳工部（Labor Department）“因为宾夕法尼亚州一家包装好时巧克力的工厂隐瞒严重的工伤事件，对其开具了28.3万美元的劳工健康和安全违规罚单”。去年，由几百名在该工厂打工的外国学生发起的抗议行动，引来了《纽约时报》的调查。

    很多公司的董事会成员在遇到劳工问题时，往往会联想起一些著名的、引起大量公众注意的劳工纠纷案例，例如耐克公司（Nike）的“血汗工厂”事件。有些则会进而考虑到这对公司用工伦理和声誉的影响。

    然而，各家公司的董事会对劳工问题的反应参差不齐。苹果公司（Apple）今年进一步加强了对供应商的约束，它在中国的供应商富士康（Foxconn）此前因为被美国公平劳动协会（Fair Labor Association）指出存在用工问题，遭到《纽约时报》的连续报道揭露。尽管富士康已经改进了一些问题，但今年九月《纽约时报》的新文章还是指出它的一些厂区有强迫劳动的现象。

    Children who amassed stockpiles of Halloween candy last month most likely netted impressive loot from just one company. Hershey claims that it's the largest chocolatier in North America, with over $6 billion in annual revenues and over 80 brands including Reese's, Kit Kat, Twizzlers, Jolly Rancher, and Ice Breakers. Unbeknownst to some parents handing out these treats, Hershey also happens to be embroiled in a child labor controversy.

    A lawsuit filed by law firm Grant and Eisenhofer on All Saints Day alleges that Hershey's suppliers use child labor. Grant and Eisenhofer sued on behalf of one of the chocolate maker's largest shareholders, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System. "There are substantial grounds to believe that the Company's Board of Directors (the"Board") has caused or permitted the Company to support the use of unlawful child labor, in fact integrating this illegal conduct into its business model," the complaint states.

    In the complaint against Hershey (HSY), the pension fund asks to see corporate records to determine whether the company has been using suppliers known for illegal child and forced labor practices.

    Hershey had "announced plans to put $10 million towards solving child labor problems on West African cocoa farms by 2017," according to a February article from Fortune.com, based on a January press release from the company. A company spokesperson told me they "don't comment on pending litigation," but wrote by email that "The Hershey Company takes its commitment to responsible sourcing very seriously," noting that, "last month we announced our commitment to source 100 percent third-party certified cocoa by 2020."

    Chris Meyer, a stewardship investing specialist with Praxis Mutual funds, says he has been speaking with Hershey on these issues since 2009. By the end of this year, the Rainforest Alliance will have certified Hershey's Bliss chocolate line for human rights and environmental standards, he told me.

    But Hershey's labor issues haven't been confined to cocoa farms. Earlier this year, the Labor Department "issued fines of $283,000 for health and safety violations against a company that operates a plant in Pennsylvania packing Hershey's chocolates, saying it had covered up serious injuries to workers," the New York Times reported. Protests last year by hundreds of the plant's foreign student workers prompted the investigation, according to the Times.

    When many board members consider labor issues, they often think about sweatshops and famous cases like Nike that have received a lot of attention. Some recognize both the ethical and reputational concerns.

    But board members' reactions are a mixed bag. Apple stepped up its efforts this year to police suppliers after a series of New York Times articles on Foxconn, a Chinese plant with questionable labor practices, according to the Fair Labor Association. Although Foxconn improved some of its practices, in September the Times reported new allegations of forced labor at the company's facilities.

    笔者与富士康董事会多位成员聊过，其中并不是所有人都认为劳工问题很重要。有些人甚至觉得《纽约时报》有些小题大做。他们认为，如果一件事情不会引起公司财务上的损失，就不是什么大事。

    这些持有功利主义态度的董事会成员，要为我们资本市场体系中徘徊不去的脆弱性负责。在跨国公司里，这些人将伦理道德的领导责任排除在了企业之外。当且仅当市场或者政府对他们的所作所为施以严厉的惩罚，他们才会重视道德缺失的情况。

    这类董事会成员看不到，利用员工的信息缺失或者无能为力来提高公司的生产效率，最终将得不偿失。他们不愿承认，市场参与者和整个社会对此付出的成本，最终也将由企业自己来承担。他们也不会意识到，放任此类行为不管，可能对公司短期不会造成什么影响，但长远来看，非常可能引起挥之不去的严重灾难。

    持有这种态度的董事会成员，也许会对环境保护问题有所关注，因为这类表态有可能对短期的收入提升有所帮助。他们会重视公司治理——形式远大于实质——因为不想在董事会选举中遇到阻力。但他们不太会关心劳工、裁员或者薪酬不平等的问题。“员工是我们最重要的资产。”CEO经常这么说。说出这句话很容易，但这些董事并不会将这个问题放入会议议程。他们也许从来不会落在纸面上，但他们心里其实并不重视企业文化或者员工的幸福。事实上，问题的本质在于，他们没有一个经过充分考虑的经营哲学。相反，他们把头埋在沙堆里，逃避这样的思考。他们为了短期的股价卑躬屈膝。他们对于自己应该承担的对股东的义务和企业的社会责任没有全面的认识。他们面临绝境了吗？还没有，但已经不远了。

    不到十年前，关心环保对企业还不是什么大事。但今天，明智的企业都会这么做。公司的内部治理尽管很难定义，众说纷纭，但几十年来都一直被认为是非同小可的重要问题。今天，董事会应当将劳工待遇——无论是公司内部还是公司外部——放上议程的头条。

    就像起诉书所要求的那样，让我们期待好时公司变得更加公开透明。这这样一来，它的巧克力尝起来会更加美味。

    埃莉诺•布洛克斯汉姆是一家董事会咨询公司“价值及公司治理同盟”的CEO。

    翻译：周详

    Of the dozens of board members I've talked to about Foxconn, not all think the labor issues there matter. Some board members feel that the concerns raised by the Times were much ado about nothing. They believe that if an action does not cause financial pain to the company, it's okay.

    Board members who adopt this Benthamite philosophy are responsible for staggering weaknesses in our capital markets system. In overseeing corporations, these individuals put the onus of ethical leadership outside the corporation itself. They grow concerned with ethical breakdowns if, and only if, the market or the government exacts a heavy penalty for their actions.

    These kinds of board members disregard the futility of relying on those with sparse information and circumscribed ability to enforce good corporate behavior. They do not admit that the costs market participants and society assume are ones the corporation itself should bear. Nor do they appreciate that by delaying their own involvement, their corporations may escape in the short run but could very well invite worse disasters that will haunt them in the long-term.

    Directors who take this approach may get involved with environmental causes if doing so can help the immediate bottom line. They may concern themselves with governance -- in form rather than substance -- because they'd rather avoid sour board elections. But they are much less likely to concern themselves with labor matters, layoffs, or pay inequality.

    "Employees are our most valuable asset," a CEO may say. And it's easy to say those six words. But these directors don't put that issue on the agenda. While they may never say so on the record, they don't really care about corporate culture or worker happiness.

    This is not because they have given it much thought. In fact, the problem is that they lack a thoroughly considered business philosophy. They run in a pack where they can avoid such thinking. They bow down to short-term shareholder value. They do not have an informed view on their duties to stakeholders or the corporation's role in society.

    Is it hopeless? No. But it is the next frontier.

    Although less than a decade ago, concern for the environment wasn't in, today it's considered smart for business. Governance, although many can't define it, is discussed widely and considered important, not irrelevant, as it was decades ago. Boards now need to put the treatment of employees -- whether they are inside or outside the company -- at the top of their agendas.

    Let's hope Hershey becomes more transparent, as the lawsuit requests. It will make the chocolate taste that much better.

    Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.