Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • How many companies have you interacted with today?

    今天你和多少間公司互動過?

  • Well, you got up in the morning,

    你早上起床,

  • took a shower,

    先去淋浴,

  • washed your hair,

    洗洗頭髮,

  • used a hair dryer,

    用了吹風機,

  • ate breakfast --

    吃了早餐──

  • ate cereals, fruit, yogurt, whatever --

    吃的是穀片、水果、優格、等等──

  • had coffee --

    喝了咖啡

  • tea.

    或茶。

  • You took public transport to come here,

    你搭乘大眾交通工具到這裡,

  • or maybe used your private car.

    或是開你自己的車過來。

  • You interacted with the company that you work for or that you own.

    你和你上班的公司或是 你自己開的公司互動。

  • You interacted with your clients,

    你和你的客戶互動,

  • your customers,

    和你的顧客互動,

  • and so on and so forth.

    諸如此類。

  • I'm pretty sure there are at least seven companies

    我非常確定

  • you've interacted with today.

    你今天至少和七間公司互動過。

  • Let me tell you a stunning statistic.

    讓我告訴各位一個驚人的統計數據。

  • One out of seven large, public corporations

    每七間大型的上市公司中

  • commit fraud every year.

    每年會有一間犯下詐欺罪。

  • This is a US academic study that looks at US companies --

    這是美國的學術研究, 調查的對象是美國的公司──

  • I have no reason to believe that it's different in Europe.

    但我認為歐洲公司的情況類似。

  • This is a study that looks at both detected and undetected fraud

    被發現、未被發現的詐欺 兩者都被調查研究,

  • using statistical methods.

    使用的方法是統計。

  • This is not petty fraud.

    不是小欺小騙。

  • These frauds cost the shareholders of these companies,

    這些詐欺會造成公司股東的損失,

  • and therefore society,

    因此也造成社會的損失,

  • on the order of 380 billion dollars per year.

    每年損失約三千八百億美元。

  • We can all think of some examples, right?

    我們都能想出一些例子,對嗎?

  • The car industry's secrets aren't quite so secret anymore.

    汽車產業的秘密不再那麼秘密了。

  • Fraud has become a feature,

    在金融服務業,

  • not a bug,

    詐欺已經變成了一種特性,

  • of the financial services industry.

    而不是錯誤。

  • That's not me who's claiming that,

    並不是我自己在這麼說,

  • that's the president of the American Finance Association

    是美國財務學會的會長

  • who stated that in his presidential address.

    在他的會長演說當中說的。

  • That's a huge problem if you think about, especially,

    如果你仔細想想, 這是個很大的問題,

  • an economy like Switzerland,

    特別是在像瑞士這樣的經濟體中,

  • which relies so much on the trust put into its financial industry.

    瑞士非常仰賴人們對其 金融業投入的信任。

  • On the other hand,

    另一方面,

  • there are six out of seven companies who actually remain honest

    七間中的六間事實上維持著誠信,

  • despite all temptations to start engaging in fraud.

    它們抗拒了各種引誘 它們進行詐欺的誘惑。

  • There are whistle-blowers like Michael Woodford,

    有像邁克爾伍德福特這樣的告密者,

  • who blew the whistle on Olympus.

    他告了奧林巴斯的密。

  • These whistle-blowers risk their careers,

    這些告密者賭上他們的職涯

  • their friendships,

    和友情,

  • to bring out the truth about their companies.

    揭露他們公司的真相。

  • There are journalists like Anna Politkovskaya

    有像安娜波利特科夫 斯卡婭這樣的記者,

  • who risk even their lives to report human rights violations.

    冒著生命危險去報導 違反人權的事件。

  • She got killed --

    後來她被殺了──

  • every year,

    每年,

  • around 100 journalists get killed

    有大約一百名記者

  • because of their conviction to bring out the truth.

    因為堅定地想要揭露真相而被殺害。

  • So in my talk today,

    在今天這場演說,

  • I want to share with you some insights I've obtained and learned

    我想和各位分享的是我過去十年間

  • in the last 10 years of conducting research in this.

    在研究這個主題時 所學到的一些洞見。

  • I'm a researcher, a scientist working with economists,

    我是個研究者、科學家,

  • financial economists,

    合作的對象有經濟學家、

  • ethicists, neuroscientists,

    金融經濟學家、

  • lawyers and others

    倫理學家、神經科學家、 律師,以及其他的人。

  • trying to understand what makes humans tick,

    我嘗試要了解是什麼在驅使人類,

  • and how can we address this issue of fraud in corporations

    以及我們如何處理 企業內的詐欺議題,

  • and therefore contribute to the improvement of the world.

    因而對改善世界貢獻一份心力。

  • I want to start by sharing with you two very distinct visions

    一開始,我想分享兩個 非常不同的看法,

  • of how people behave.

    對於人的行為的看法。

  • First, meet Adam Smith,

    首先,來見見亞當史密斯,

  • founding father of modern economics.

    現代經濟學之父。

  • His basic idea was that if everybody behaves in their own self-interests,

    他的基本想法是: 如果每個人都依自身利益而行,

  • that's good for everybody in the end.

    最終,那對每個人而言都是好的。

  • Self-interest isn't a narrowly defined concept

    自身利益不是一個 定義很狹隘的觀念,

  • just for your immediate utility.

    不是只為了立即的功利。

  • It has a long-run implication.

    它有著長期的意涵。

  • Let's think about that.

    我們來想想這一點。

  • Think about this dog here.

    想想圖上的這隻狗。

  • That might be us.

    牠可能就是我們。

  • There's this temptation --

    圖上有著誘惑──

  • I apologize to all vegetarians, but --

    我要向所有的素食者道歉,但──

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • Dogs do like the bratwurst.

    狗確實喜歡臘腸。

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • Now, the straight-up, self-interested move here

    這裡最直接、最以 自身利益為主的做法,

  • is to go for that.

    就是去取得臘腸。

  • So my friend Adam here might jump up,

    所以我的朋友亞當,可能會跳上去,

  • get the sausage and thereby ruin all this beautiful tableware.

    取得臘腸,因而把 所有的美麗餐具都給毀了。

  • But that's not what Adam Smith meant.

    但那並不是亞當史密斯的意思。

  • He didn't mean disregard all consequences --

    他並不是說要不顧一切的後果──

  • to the contrary.

    其實相反。

  • He would have thought,

    他會想,

  • well, there may be negative consequences,

    也許會有負面的後果,

  • for example,

    比如,

  • the owner might be angry with the dog

    主人可能會對狗發怒,

  • and the dog, anticipating that, might not behave in this way.

    而狗能預期到這一點, 就不會做出這個行為。

  • That might be us,

    那可能就是我們,

  • weighing the benefits and costs of our actions.

    權衡我們每個行動的利益和成本。

  • How does that play out?

    那會產生什麼結果?

  • Well, many of you, I'm sure,

    我相信,在座許多人,

  • have in your companies,

    在你們的公司裡,

  • especially if it's a large company,

    特別是大公司裡,

  • a code of conduct.

    會有「行為準則」。

  • And then if you behave according to that code of conduct,

    如果你根據行為準則來做事,

  • that improves your chances of getting a bonus payment.

    就能讓你比較有機會得到獎金。

  • And on the other hand, if you disregard it,

    另一方面,如果你漠視它,

  • then there are higher chances of not getting your bonus

    就比較有可能得不到獎金,

  • or its being diminished.

    或是獎金會縮水。

  • In other words,

    換言之,

  • this is a very economic motivation

    這是個非常經濟的動機,

  • of trying to get people to be more honest,

    試圖讓人們更誠實,

  • or more aligned with the corporation's principles.

    或是更符合公司的原則。

  • Similarly, reputation is a very powerful economic force, right?

    同樣地,名聲也是種非常 強大的經濟力量,對吧?

  • We try to build a reputation,

    我們試圖建立名聲,

  • maybe for being honest,

    也許是誠實的名聲,

  • because then people trust us more in the future.

    因為這樣做,人們將來會更信任我們。

  • Right?

    對嗎?

  • Adam Smith talked about the baker

    亞當史密斯談到一個麵包師傅,

  • who's not producing good bread out of his benevolence

    他為那些消費者製作好的麵包,

  • for those people who consume the bread,

    並不是出於善心,

  • but because he wants to sell more future bread.

    而是因為他想要在未來 能賣出更多麵包。

  • In my research, we find, for example,

    在我的研究中,我們發現,比如,

  • at the University of Zurich,

    在蘇黎世大學,

  • that Swiss banks who get caught up in media,

    瑞士銀行被捲入媒體當中,

  • and in the context, for example,

    例如在逃稅或稅務詐欺的情況下,

  • of tax evasion, of tax fraud,

    有很糟的媒體報導。

  • have bad media coverage.

    他們就會在未來失去淨新增資金,

  • They lose net new money in the future

    因此賺的利潤就會減少。

  • and therefore make lower profits.

    那是非常強大的名聲力量。

  • That's a very powerful reputational force.

    利益和成本。

  • Benefits and costs.

    世界上有另一種觀點。

  • Here's another viewpoint of the world.

    來見見伊曼努爾康德,

  • Meet Immanuel Kant,

    十八世紀的明星德國哲學家。

  • 18th-century German philosopher superstar.

    他發展出了這個概念:

  • He developed this notion

    和結果無關,

  • that independent of the consequences,

    有些行為就是對的,

  • some actions are just right

    有些就是錯的。

  • and some are just wrong.

    比如,說謊就是錯的。

  • It's just wrong to lie, for example.

    所以,來見見我的朋友伊曼努爾。

  • So, meet my friend Immanuel here.

    牠知道香腸非常可口,

  • He knows that the sausage is very tasty,

    但牠打算調頭走開, 因為牠是條好狗。

  • but he's going to turn away because he's a good dog.

    牠知道跳上去是錯的,

  • He knows it's wrong to jump up

    有可能會打破所有這些漂亮的餐具。

  • and risk ruining all this beautiful tableware.

    如果你相信人們會被 這樣的動機驅使,

  • If you believe that people are motivated like that,

    那麼所有關於獎勵的一切,

  • then all the stuff about incentives,

    那麼所有關於行為準則、 獎金制度等等的一切,

  • all the stuff about code of conduct and bonus systems and so on,

    就不是很有道理了。

  • doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    人們被不同的價值觀驅使,也許吧。

  • People are motivated by different values perhaps.

    所以人們的動機到底是什麼?

  • So, what are people actually motivated by?

    這裡的兩位先生有著完美的髮型,

  • These two gentlemen here have perfect hairdos,

    但他們給我們非常不同的世界觀。

  • but they give us very different views of the world.

    對此,我們該怎麼辦?

  • What do we do with this?

    嗯,我是經濟學家,

  • Well, I'm an economist

    而我們會進行所謂的實驗, 來處理這個議題。

  • and we conduct so-called experiments to address this issue.

    我們會剝除在現實中讓我們困惑的事實,

  • We strip away facts which are confusing in reality.

    現實非常的豐富, 有太多事情在發生,

  • Reality is so rich, there is so much going on,

    幾乎不可能知道 什麼真正驅動人類的行為。

  • it's almost impossible to know what drives people's behavior really.

    所以,讓我們一起來做個小實驗。

  • So let's do a little experiment together.

    想像下面的情境。

  • Imagine the following situation.

    你單獨在一間房間中,

  • You're in a room alone,

    不像這裡這麼多人。

  • not like here.

    有一個五法郎硬幣, 就像我手上的這個,

  • There's a five-franc coin like the one I'm holding up right now

    硬幣就在你面前。

  • in front of you.

    你得到的指示是:

  • Here are your instructions:

    擲硬幣四次,

  • toss the coin four times,

    接著,在你面前的電腦終端機上,

  • and then on a computer terminal in front of you,

    輸入硬幣出現反面的次數。

  • enter the number of times tails came up.

    情境就是這樣。

  • This is the situation.

    難處在這裏:

  • Here's the rub.

    每次你宣佈你擲出了反面,

  • For every time that you announce that you had a tails throw,

    你就會得到五法郎。

  • you get paid five francs.

    所以如果你說我擲出兩次反面,

  • So if you say I had two tails throws,

    你就會得十法郎。

  • you get paid 10 francs.

    如果你說你沒擲出反面, 你就會得到零法郎。

  • If you say you had zero, you get paid zero francs.

    如果你說:「我擲出四次反面」,

  • If you say, "I had four tails throws,"

    你就會得到二十法郎。

  • then you get paid 20 francs.

    這是匿名的,

  • It's anonymous,

    沒有人在看你做,

  • nobody's watching what you're doing,

    付錢給你時也是匿名的。

  • and you get paid that money anonymously.

    我要問各位兩個問題。

  • I've got two questions for you.

    (笑聲)

  • (Laughter)

    你們知道接下來是什麼吧?

  • You know what's coming now, right?

    第一,在這個情境,你會怎麼做?

  • First, how would you behave in that situation?

    第二,看看你的左邊, 看看你的右邊──

  • The second, look to your left and look to your right --

    (笑聲)

  • (Laughter)

    想想坐在你旁邊的人

  • and think about how the person sitting next to you

    在這情境可能會怎麼做。

  • might behave in that situation.

    我們真做了這個實驗。

  • We did this experiment for real.

    我們是在最近蘇黎世這裡舉行的

  • We did it at the Manifesta art exhibition

    Manifesta 藝術展覽上做的,

  • that took place here in Zurich recently,

    不是在大學實驗室裡對學生做的,

  • not with students in the lab at the university

    對象是真正的一般大眾,

  • but with the real population,

    就像在座各位。

  • like you guys.

    首先,快速提醒大家一下統計數字,

  • First, a quick reminder of stats.

    如果你擲硬幣四次, 且它是個公平的硬幣,

  • If I throw the coin four times and it's a fair coin,

    四次都是反面的機率

  • then the probability that it comes up four times tails

    是 6.25%。

  • is 6.25 percent.

    希望你們用直覺就能看出,

  • And I hope you can intuitively see

    四次都是反面的機率

  • that the probability that all four of them are tails is much lower

    遠低於兩次是反面的機率,對吧?

  • than if two of them are tails, right?

    這裡是明確的數據。

  • Here are the specific numbers.

    而結果如下。

  • Here's what happened.

    人們真的做了這個實驗。

  • People did this experiment for real.

    大約 30%~35% 的人說:

  • Around 30 to 35 percent of people said,

    「嗯,我擲出四次反面。」

  • "Well, I had four tails throws."

    那是極度不可能的。

  • That's extremely unlikely.

    (笑聲)

  • (Laughter)

    但,真正驚人的是,

  • But the really amazing thing here,

    也許對經濟學家而言,驚人的是:

  • perhaps to an economist,

    大約 65% 的人 沒說他們擲出四次反面,

  • is there are around 65 percent of people who did not say I had four tails throws,

    即使在那個情境中,

  • even though in that situation,

    沒有人在看你,

  • nobody's watching you,

    唯一會發生的後果是:

  • the only consequence that's in place

    假如你說四次而不是少於四次, 得的錢就會比較多;

  • is you get more money if you say four than less.

    如果你宣稱零次,就放棄了二十法郎。

  • You leave 20 francs on the table by announcing zero.

    我不知道其他人是否都誠實,

  • I don't know whether the other people all were honest

    或是他們會把數字向上或向下調整,

  • or whether they also said a little bit higher or lower than what they did

    因為這是匿名的。

  • because it's anonymous.

    我們只是觀察數據分佈。

  • We only observed the distribution.

    但我可以告訴各位── 這是另一次擲硬幣結果。

  • But what I can tell you -- and here's another coin toss.

    來了,是反面。

  • There you go, it's tails.

    (笑聲)

  • (Laughter)

    別來確認,好嗎?

  • Don't check, OK?

    (笑聲)

  • (Laughter)

    我能告訴你們的是,

  • What I can tell you

    並非每個人的行為 都如亞當史密斯所預測。

  • is that not everybody behaved like Adam Smith would have predicted.

    所以這告訴我們什麼?

  • So what does that leave us with?

    嗯,似乎人們會被某種 內在的價值觀所驅使,

  • Well, it seems people are motivated by certain intrinsic values

    在研究中,我們調查了這點。

  • and in our research, we look at this.

    我們探討了人會有所謂的 「被保護的價值觀」的這個想法。

  • We look at the idea that people have so-called protected values.

    被保護的價值觀並非任何價值觀。

  • A protected value isn't just any value.

    被保護的價值觀是 你願意付出一個代價

  • A protected value is a value where you're willing to pay a price

    來維持的價值。

  • to uphold that value.

    你願意付出一個代價來 對抗要你屈服的誘惑。

  • You're willing to pay a price to withstand the temptation to give in.

    而結果就是,如果你賺到錢的方式

  • And the consequence is you feel better

    和你的價值觀是一致的, 你的感覺會比較好。

  • if you earn money in a way that's consistent with your values.

    讓我再次用我們都愛的 狗狗比喻來說明。

  • Let me show you this again in the metaphor of our beloved dog here.

    如果我們不違反價值觀 而成功地取得香腸,

  • If we succeed in getting the sausage without violating our values,

    那麼香腸嚐起來的味道比較好。

  • then the sausage tastes better.

    那就是我們的研究發現。

  • That's what our research shows.

    另一方面,

  • If, on the other hand,

    若我們這樣做──

  • we do so --

    如果我們取得香腸,

  • if we get the sausage

    用的是違反價值觀的方式,

  • and in doing so we actually violate values,

    我們也會比較不珍視這香腸。

  • we value the sausage less.

    就量化而言,相當強而有力。

  • Quantitatively, that's quite powerful.

    我們能夠測量這些被保護的價值觀,

  • We can measure these protected values,

    比如,