没有哪个苦力员工希望考评的时候，老板耳中会听到关于他表现不佳的消息。虽然考评应当如实体现一年的努力工作，但总有些时候，老板会问“你最近又给我惹什么祸了”这样的问题，而这却可能影响最后的考评结果和你的薪水。

    眼下正值许多公司举办年度股东大会的时候，许多企业的董事会和CEO也有着同样的担忧。因为去年对不少大型企业来说并非一个幸运之年。

    今年3月，美联储因对花旗集团（Citi）的财务状况缺乏信心，而驳回了花旗提高分红比例的请求。这个消息爆出时，恰逢花旗集团即将召开股东年度大会，结果股东们在会上投票否决了花旗的高管薪酬方案。上周摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）又在股东大会前爆出因交易失误导致公司巨亏20亿美元的消息，对此案的调查短期内还没有结束的苗头。沃尔玛（Wal-Mart）也将在6月1日召开年度股东大会，《纽约时报》（New York Times）近日却又爆出了沃尔玛集团因涉嫌行贿正在接受调查的消息。

    纽约的养老基金CalSTRS近日代表沃尔玛及其股东状告沃尔玛的高管和董事，控诉他们操纵行贿丑闻以及对此案的调查。股东把高管告上法庭，这还是沃尔玛历史上开天辟地头一遭。沃尔玛的一位发言人在电子邮件中对我说道：“我们非常严肃地看待对股东的责任。我们正在密切关注这起诉讼，同时彻查所发生的问题。”另外在沃尔玛的股东大会召开前，CalSTRS基金已明确表示将在换届投票中对沃尔玛的五名董事投反对票。

沃尔玛对警告视而不见

    沃尔玛行贿大案在爆发之前并非没有一点苗头。事实上据一份最新解密的文件披露，沃尔玛董事会早在7年前就收到了监管机构的警告。2005年5月25日，纽约市审计官威廉•汤普森在一封信中向时任沃尔玛审计委员会主席的罗兰•赫尔南德斯发出了严厉警告，信中写道：“强有力的内部控制……对于充分遵守法律法规来说相当重要……我们敦促贵审计委员会委派一个由独立董事组成的特别委员会，对公司的内部控制进行彻底评估。”虽然这封信的内容并非针对行贿丑闻，不过这封信的署名人不仅包括纽约和伊利诺依州的几家养老基金，还包括教育界养老基金USS以及F&C投资管理公司等。这表明沃尔玛的确存在着董事会没有注意到的问题，而对某一领域控制不力，很可能预示着台面下还存在着更大的隐患。

    沃尔玛董事会当时并没有意识到问题的严重性，只是给出了一个不痛不痒的回复——两个月后，赫尔南德斯回信表示，公司的遵纪守法体系运行良好，审计委员会掌握着局面。不过各支基金还是在2005年纽约举办的一次会议上对这个问题穷追不舍。赫尔南德斯和沃尔玛审计委员会的现任主席克里斯•威廉姆斯都当时都出席了这次会议。

    No working stiff wants bad news about his performance to hit the boss' desk right before review time. Although the review is supposed to represent a year's worth of effort, there's always a chance that the "what have you done for me lately?" question will influence the review and pay outcome.

    The same happens with boards and CEOs in the run up to their companies' respective annual shareholder meetings. This hasn't been a fortunate year for the largest of firms on that front.

    At Citi (C), the inability to pay a promised dividend because of a lack of Fed confidence hit the headlines prior to its annual meeting, where shareholders voted down its executive pay plan. J.P. Morgan's (JPM) more than $2 billion trading debacle made headlines right before that bank's annual meeting last week, a story that has led to investigations that will not go away anytime soon. And Wal-Mart (WMT) might have preferred for the New York Times' bribery investigation to hit the presses sometime other than the run up to its annual meeting on June 1.

    For the first time in its history, pension fund CalSTRS has initiated a suit on behalf of Wal-Mart and its shareholders against the retail giant's executives and directors for their handling of the bribery scandal and investigation. "We take our responsibility to our shareholders very seriously. We are reviewing the lawsuit closely and are thoroughly investigating the issues that have been raised," a Wal-Mart spokesperson emailed me. In advance of the company's upcoming board meeting, the New York City Pension fund will be voting no on the re-election of five of Wal-Mart's directors.

Missed warning signs at Wal-Mart

    Wal-Mart's board received warnings on its compliance oversight seven years ago, newly released documents reveal. In a On May 25, 2005 letter to Roland Hernandez, who was then chair of Wal-Mart's audit committee, New York City Comptroller William Thompson gave fair warning: "Strong internal controls are … essential to ensuring full legal and regulatory compliance.… We urge the Audit Committee to appoint a special committee of independent directors to conduct a thorough review of the company's controls," the letter said. Although the impetus for the letter was not the bribery scandal, the signatories to the letter, which included the New York City and Illinois pension funds as well as USS and F&C Investment Management, recognized what the board did not seem to: weak controls in one area can be a symptom of larger problems yet to be unearthed.

    Rather than recognize the seriousness of these issues, the board offered a weak response: two months later, Hernandez wrote that the compliance systems for the company were in good shape and that the audit committee was on top of things. But the funds continued to pursue the issue in a meeting in New York City held in September 2005. Both Hernandez and Wal-Mart's current audit chair, Chris Williams, attended.

    据《纽约时报》的调查显示，当时这些基金并不知道的是，就在同一个月，“沃尔玛的一名高级律师收到了沃尔玛墨西哥分公司的一位已离职的高管发来的邮件，其中描述了沃尔玛墨西哥分公司如何为了获得市场支配地位而行贿。”根据《纽约时报》报道，当年11月，美国伟凯律师事务所（Willkie Farr & Gallagher）建议沃尔玛对该离职高管披露的行贿问题进行独立调查。

    这种调查最好由一个董事会特别委员会和一个独立检察委员会来共同进行，不过沃尔玛的高管选择了进行内部调查，还把调查时间从四个月缩短至两周。据《纽约时报》报道，到2006年12月，沃尔玛公布了初布调查结果，称“有理由相信（墨西哥公司）已经违反了墨西哥和美国的法律”，并在内部审计报告中标出了涉嫌向墨西哥政府机构行贿的数额。

    内部审计应当向董事会的审计委员会报告。审计委员会有责任索要他们需要的材料，以审查内部审计的运作是否适当。

    审计委员会是否没有明确要求查看与涉案金额相关的内部审计报告？抑或沃尔玛的管理层自己也没有做到遵纪守法？到了11月，几支养老基金再次要求沃尔玛组建董事会特别委员会对相关问题展开调查。2006年2月，离沃尔玛公布初步调查结果和内部审计报告刚刚两个月，赫尔南德斯再次轻描淡写地回应了几支养老基金的关注，他在信中写道：“审计委员会、董事会和高管层都决心在内部控制、遵纪守法、企业责任和道德等领域开展最好的做法。”

    那么，赫尔南德斯、威廉姆斯以及审计委员会的其他人这么长时间以来都在干嘛？

    据《时代》（Times）报道，2006年5月，沃尔玛终于交出了关于行贿调查的内部报告。沃尔玛的企业调查主管认为报告的内容“非常不充分”。同时几支养老基金再次要求沃尔玛组建特别委员会。

    不过和前几次一样，他们的要求再次石沉大海。虽然已经屡次收到警报，但沃尔玛的审计委员会还是睁一只眼闭一只眼。

    2012年4月24日，沃尔玛发布了一份声明，称CEO麦道克已于2011年3月批准在全球范围内评估沃尔玛对《反海外腐败法》（FCPA）的遵守情况。声明写道：“麦道克充分支持当前在审计委员会的监督下正在墨西哥进行的独立调查……我们相信我们正在进行一次全面的调查。”沃尔玛上周在一份向美国证监会递交的文件里描述了调查的范围，以及与司法部和证监会的合作情况，并表示调查可能产生包括“刑事定罪”在内的“一系列负面后果”，而且这些问题可能会“侵占”管理时间。

    Unbeknownst to the funds, that same month, a "senior Wal-Mart lawyer [had] received an alarming e-mail from a former executive at the company's largest foreign subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico … [that] described how Wal-Mart de Mexico had orchestrated a campaign of bribery to win market dominance," a recent New York Times investigation showed. In November, according to the New York Times report, law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher recommended an independent investigation into the bribery allegations that had surfaced.

    A special committee of the board along with independent counsel would be best suited to conduct this kind of investigation. But Wal-Mart's executives chose to go with an in-house investigation, scaling back the inquiry from four months to two weeks. By December 2006, Wal-Mart's preliminary bribery inquiry uncovered "a reasonable suspicion to believe that Mexican and USA laws have been violated," and an internal audit report flagged suspicious payments to government entities in Mexico, the New York Times reported.

    Internal audit ought to report to the board's audit committee. And audit committees have a duty to request the materials they need to oversee their functions properly.

    Did the audit committee not specify that they wanted internal audit reports related to suspicious payments -- or did Wal-Mart's management fail to comply? In November, the pension funds again requested the formation of a special board committee that included specific questions related to compliance and whistleblower practices. Yet in February 2006, two full months after the preliminary bribery inquiry and the internal audit report, Hernandez again brushed aside the pension fund's concerns, writing, "The Audit Committee, the Board and senior management are all committed to developing best practices in the areas of internal controls, legal compliance, corporate responsibility and ethics."

    So where were Hernandez and Williams and the rest of the audit committee all this time?

    In May 2006, as Wal-Mart finalized its internal report on the bribery investigation, which Wal-Mart's director of corporate investigations found to be "truly lacking," according to the Times, the pension funds reiterated their request for a special committee.

    As with the others, the request fell on deaf ears, and despite repeated warnings, Wal-Mart's audit committee, it appears, never woke up.

    On April 24, 2012, Wal-Mart issued a statement that said that in March 2011, CEO Mike Duke authorized a worldwide FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) compliance review. "Mike is fully supportive of the independent investigation being conducted in Mexico with oversight by the Audit Committee…. We are confident we are conducting a comprehensive investigation," the statement said. In an SEC filing last week, the company described the current scope of its investigations and its cooperation with investigations by the Department of Justice and SEC, saying there could be "a variety of negative consequences," including "criminal convictions" and that the issues may "impinge" on management time.

无独有偶

    除了沃尔玛之外，摩根大通去年也没有注意股东针对该公司风险委员会发出的警报。在一封2011年3月18日寄出的信中，CtW投资集团常务董事比尔•帕特森向摩根大通董事会警告，摩根大通的风险监管存在“严重缺陷”，并表示董事会不应该被“CEO杰米•戴蒙头上积累的赞美之辞”蒙蔽了。

    在去年四月的一次会议上，摩根大通董事会风险委员会主席詹姆斯•克劳恩充分表达了他对摩根大通应对经济危机的方式的信心——这是CtW投资集团高级政策分析师迈克尔•普莱斯•琼斯告诉我的，他也参加了那次会议。另外克劳恩还在会上表示，他对摩根大通的风险官巴里•朱布罗有充分的信心。摩根大通的风险偏好声明就是克劳恩与朱布罗共同执笔的。根据普莱斯•琼斯的会议记录，克劳恩还质问股东们，让一个外部顾问审核公司的做法能有什么好处。“如果你的公司里已经有了最聪明的人，为什么还要从别人那获得信息呢？”据普莱斯•琼斯说，这就是克劳恩的基本态度。摩根大通拒绝对此事发表评论。

    并不是所有企业的董事会都认同外部顾问能给自己带来好处。但在那些卓有成效的董事会里，独立董事们往往都承认，如果他们只是简单地向内部看，不一定会知道所有的事。股东们有时会成为董事会成员的最好盟友，他们能就一些问题向董事会发出警报，而这些问题往往是董事会通过其它方法无法发现的。

    眼下又到了董事会换届的时候，各企业的董事会都在讨论如何才能改善与公司股东的关系，以及如何能从投资人那里获得更多的第一手经验，以扩大他们的视野。沃尔玛和摩根大通的例子就是很好的警示：如果股东们不停地敲你的门，那么董事会成员们应该听听他们说些什么。

    本文作者Eleanor Bloxham是董事会咨询机构价值联盟与企业管理联盟（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance）的CEO。

    译者：朴成奎

Wal-Mart is not alone

    J.P. Morgan's board also failed to heed warnings from shareholders about its risk committee last year. In a letter dated March 18, 2011, Bill Patterson, executive director of CtW Investment group, warned the bank's board of "serious deficiencies" related to its risk oversight, saying the board should not be lulled by "the praise heaped on CEO Jamie Dimon."

    James Crown, who led the board's risk committee, expressed full confidence in the bank's handling of the financial crisis in a meeting last April, Michael Pryce-Jones, senior policy analyst at CtW Investement Group, who had attended the meeting told me. Crown also expressed full confidence in J.P. Morgan's risk officer Barry Zubrow, with whom he effectively co-authored the bank's risk appetite statement. Crown also questioned the benefits to shareholders of having an outside advisor review its practices according to Pryce-Jones' notes from the meeting. "When you have the smartest people in the business, why get information from anyone else?" was the general attitude Crown expressed, according to Pryce-Jones. J.P. Morgan declined to offer comment for this story.

    Not all boards yet recognize the benefits, but independent directors on effective boards recognize that they will not know everything they need to if they simply look inward for guidance. Shareholders can be board members' best allies when it comes to alerting to troubles directors may not otherwise see.

    Among stronger boards of directors this proxy season, directors are holding discussions on how they can improve companies' shareholder relationships and how they can get more first-hand experience with investors to gain their insights. The Wal-Mart and J.P. Morgan cases are clear-cut: when shareholders keep knocking, it behooves board members to listen.

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