麥肯錫在南非的錯(cuò)誤是明知故犯
即使不是天才也看得出，在雅各布•祖馬(Jacob Zuma)擔(dān)任總統(tǒng)的糟糕時(shí)期，企業(yè)很難在南非保持聲譽(yù)。一家像畢馬威(KPMG)或麥肯錫(McKinsey)這樣的跨國咨詢公司，不應(yīng)該看不清這一事實(shí)。
Neither firm was as crass as Bell Pottinger, the PR firm that went into administration after running a racially divisive campaign for the holding company of the Gupta family, Mr Zuma’s business patrons. But both have been tarnished by Mr Zuma’s misgovernance of his country and its tragic descent into cronyism and corruption.
雖然這兩家公司都不像公關(guān)公司貝爾-波廷格(Bell Pottinger)那樣愚蠢——后者在為祖馬總統(tǒng)的商業(yè)贊助人古普塔(Gupta)家族的控股公司開展了一場(chǎng)宣揚(yáng)種族分裂的公關(guān)活動(dòng)后，被破產(chǎn)管理人接管——但祖馬對(duì)南非的不當(dāng)治理、以及南非悲劇地淪落到任人唯親和腐敗盛行的境地讓這兩家公司都名譽(yù)受損。
KPMG audited many of the Guptas’ companies and eight of its executives last week resigned as it admitted its errors of judgment. McKinsey took a juicy contract with Eskom, a state utility, that involved working with a consultancy linked to the family. The firm still maintains that it behaved correctly and is walking the tightrope of self-justification. I am intrigued to see how long it will take to fall off.
畢馬威審計(jì)了多家古普塔家族旗下企業(yè)，該公司已承認(rèn)自己判斷失誤，不久前其8名高管辭職。麥肯錫接下了南非國家電力公司(Eskom)一筆報(bào)酬豐厚的合同，該合同涉及到與一家和古普塔家族有聯(lián)系的咨詢公司合作。麥肯錫仍然堅(jiān)稱自己行為端正并小心翼翼地自我辯解著。我很想看看它還能硬撐多久。
Here is a simple guide to South African due diligence: avoid the Guptas, the Zuma family and state-owned enterprises over which they exert any influence. Other professional services firms paid greater attention to the daily bulletins of “state capture” by the president’s allies; they were also better at resisting financial temptation.
以下是針對(duì)在南非開展盡職調(diào)查的一份簡(jiǎn)明指導(dǎo)：避免古普塔家族、祖馬家族以及這兩個(gè)家族能夠施加任何影響的南非國有企業(yè)。其他的專業(yè)事務(wù)所更重視總統(tǒng)的盟友們發(fā)布的《掠奪之國》(state of capture)每日簡(jiǎn)報(bào)，也更能抵御金錢的誘惑。
A client gains two things when it hires a KPMG or a McKinsey: sound advice that helps it to raise revenues while maintaining strong controls, and the imprimatur that comes with their names. Particularly in economies where corruption is common, government officials take bribes, and regulation is suspect, they can charge for lending the benefits of integrity.
當(dāng)雇用畢馬威或麥肯錫時(shí)，客戶會(huì)有兩樣收獲：幫助自己在提高收入的同時(shí)保持有力控制的合理建議，以及由這兩家公司的品牌帶來的認(rèn)可。尤其在那些腐敗盛行、政府官員受賄、同時(shí)監(jiān)管受到質(zhì)疑的經(jīng)濟(jì)體中，它們可以對(duì)出借誠信的好處收費(fèi)。
South Africa is tricky, for the end of apartheid in the early 1990s offered a chance for advisers and consultants not only to make money but to become part of the legitimate rebuilding of a nation that needed business expertise. As the country has degenerated during Mr Zuma’s tacky leadership, their responsibility to examine carefully what they are asked to endorse has increased.
南非的情況很復(fù)雜，20世紀(jì)90年代初種族隔離制度的終結(jié)，為顧問和咨詢公司提供了一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)，不僅能掙錢，還能參與一個(gè)急需商業(yè)專業(yè)知識(shí)的國家的合法重建。隨著南非在祖馬昏庸的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下日漸墮落，他們必須更加仔細(xì)地審視自己被要求背書的是什么。
KPMG has conceded that it failed in that duty, although it took far too long to recognise this failure. It was auditor and adviser to Gupta companies for 15 years, until the taint became too great last year. It audited the accounts of one Gupta entity that diverted $3.3m of public money to a family wedding and wrote a report that helped Mr Zuma’s circle wrongly to discredit Pravin Gordhan, former finance minister.
畢馬威已承認(rèn)了自己在這一點(diǎn)上的失職，雖然它花了太長(zhǎng)時(shí)間才承認(rèn)這一錯(cuò)誤。畢馬威為古普塔家族的企業(yè)擔(dān)任了15年的審計(jì)所和咨詢顧問，直到去年污點(diǎn)過大而敗露。畢馬威審計(jì)的古普塔家族的一家實(shí)體，曾挪用330萬美元公款舉辦一場(chǎng)家族婚禮，它還出具了一份報(bào)告，幫助祖馬的圈子不當(dāng)詆毀前財(cái)長(zhǎng)普拉溫•戈?duì)柕?Pravin Gordhan)。
By its own account, the firm ignored warning signs about “the integrity and ethics of the Guptas” and should have ditched them earlier. It fell into the trap of sticking with an old client after its flaws became clear, but it can hardly complain that it was not informed. Mr Zuma has undermined many of South Africa’s institutions but it still has a vibrantly outspoken media.
按其自己的說法，畢馬威忽略了有關(guān)“古普塔家族的誠信與道德”的警示信號(hào)，本應(yīng)早一點(diǎn)兒跟該家族脫離關(guān)系的。畢馬威犯了一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤，即當(dāng)老客戶的缺點(diǎn)變得明顯時(shí)還繼續(xù)為其站臺(tái)，但畢馬威不能抱怨稱自己不知情。祖馬已破壞了南非的許多機(jī)構(gòu)，但南非仍擁有充滿活力、直言不諱的媒體。
McKinsey’s mistake was shorter lived and less blatant, but it was wrong nonetheless. As one partner of a Johannesburg firm sees it: “KPMG became part of the machinery, while McKinsey looked the other way for money.” It was indeed a lot of money. Eskom paid McKinsey $73m for nine months work ending in July 2016, and at one point the consultancy anticipated receiving a payment of up to $370m over four years.
麥肯錫的錯(cuò)誤持續(xù)時(shí)間更短，也不那么明目張膽，但畢竟是錯(cuò)誤。正如約翰內(nèi)斯堡一家事務(wù)所的合伙人所說：“畢馬威(KPMG)成為了機(jī)器的一部分，而麥肯錫則為了賺錢睜一只眼閉一只眼。”錢確實(shí)不少。南非國家電力公司為截至2016年7月的9個(gè)月的工作向麥肯錫支付了7300萬美元，而這家咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)曾一度預(yù)計(jì)，將在4年內(nèi)收到至多3.7億美元費(fèi)用。
McKinsey produced a restructuring plan for the inefficient utility, which was inflicting power cuts across South Africa. It was also due to work on implementing the plan and be paid a share of the financial gains. The firm insists that such contracts are common and the terms matched similar deals, but rivals are astonished. One internal McKinsey document noted the risk of being criticised for “exorbitant fees”.
麥肯錫為效率不高的南非國家電力公司制定了一項(xiàng)重組方案，南非國家電力公司當(dāng)時(shí)正在南非各地實(shí)行停電。麥肯錫按計(jì)劃還應(yīng)該努力讓該方案得到執(zhí)行，并從財(cái)務(wù)收益中獲得抽成。麥肯錫堅(jiān)稱，這類合同很常見，條款也跟類似交易的條款相似，但競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手公司都震驚了。麥肯錫的一份內(nèi)部報(bào)告指出了因“費(fèi)用過高”而遭批評(píng)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
It was never tested because of another obstacle. McKinsey legally had to work with a black economic empowerment partner and Eskom wanted it to be Trillian, a consulting firm formerly majority owned by Salim Essa, an associate of the Guptas. After six months, Trillian failed McKinsey’s due diligence and Eskom later ended the contract.
由于另一項(xiàng)障礙，麥肯錫始終未受到考驗(yàn)。根據(jù)《黑人經(jīng)濟(jì)振興法案》(Black Economic Empowerment，BEE)，麥肯錫必須與一家符合該法案要求的伙伴合作，南非國家電力公司希望這個(gè)伙伴是Trillian——此前由古普塔家族的手下薩利姆•埃薩(Salim Essa)持有大部分股權(quán)的一家咨詢公司。6個(gè)月后，Trillian未能通過麥肯錫的盡職調(diào)查，南非國家電力公司后來終止了這份合同。
The firm has a brisk defence to accusations from South African politicians and Corruption Watch that it facilitated state capture by helping Trillian to gain money from Eskom. It says that its own inquiry into its behaviour has not uncovered wrongdoing, nor anything that would require it to report itself to the US authorities under anti-corruption laws. This seems to be setting the reputational bar rather low.
南非政客和腐敗觀察(Corruption Watch)指責(zé)麥肯錫幫助Trillian從南非國家電力公司撈錢，從而充當(dāng)了“掠奪之國”的幫兇;面對(duì)這樣的指責(zé)，麥肯錫理直氣壯地為自己辯護(hù)道：它對(duì)自身行為的調(diào)查沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)不當(dāng)之處，也未發(fā)現(xiàn)任何依照反腐敗法律應(yīng)向美國當(dāng)局自首的問題。這似乎把信譽(yù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)設(shè)得相當(dāng)?shù)汀?/p>
Being willing to charge an entrenched institution in a fractured country so much money looks awfully like rent seeking, especially when payments of up to $700m were to be split with what it should have known was a dubious consulting partner. McKinsey is full of superior intellects but sometimes you only need to open your eyes.
在一個(gè)四分五裂的國家里，愿意向一個(gè)地位穩(wěn)固的公司收取如此高額的費(fèi)用，看起來很像是尋租，尤其是當(dāng)高達(dá)7億美元的費(fèi)用將與一家本應(yīng)被其視為可疑的咨詢伙伴分享的時(shí)候。麥肯錫人才濟(jì)濟(jì)，但有時(shí)，你只需睜開眼睛正視。
None of this occurred in a vacuum. The group Business Unity South Africa this month bemoaned the “scourge of corruption that is stifling the country” and called for an end to a “culture of immunity”. Each time that a consultant or accountant fails to take a decisive stand, the scourge worsens.
這一切都不是發(fā)生在真空里。9月，南非商業(yè)總工會(huì)(Business Unity South Africa)哀嘆“腐敗之禍勒住了這個(gè)國家的喉嚨”，并呼吁終結(jié)一種“豁免文化”。每當(dāng)一名顧問或會(huì)計(jì)師未能采取堅(jiān)決立場(chǎng)，這場(chǎng)災(zāi)禍就會(huì)又加重一些。
KPMG has recognised it but McKinsey is still learning. It could start by confessing that it was wrong and promising not to repeat its failure.
畢馬威已經(jīng)認(rèn)識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)，但麥肯錫還沒有。麥肯錫朝這個(gè)方向可以邁出的第一步就是承認(rèn)自己錯(cuò)了，并承諾未來不會(huì)再犯同樣的錯(cuò)誤。
[email protected] 譯者/何黎
