There are political upheavals that change the shape of the world.

政治的動盪會改變世界的局勢。

Think of the Iranian Revolution,

回想一下1979年的伊朗革命、

the fall of the Berlin Wall,

柏林圍牆的倒塌、

the release of Nelson Mandela,

尼爾遜．曼德拉的釋放，

and there are other, less tumultuous events that still take people by surprise.

以及其他雖然較不紛亂，但同樣令人猝不及防的事件。

Take May the 7th, 2015, U.K. election day.

就拿2015年5月7日的英國大選日來說吧。

Investors were worried right up until the vote.

一直到投票前，投資者們都相當擔心。

The polls were unanimous: no party would have an overall majority.

民意的走向相當一致，亦即無一政黨會佔有優勢。

There would be weeks of haggling before a government was formed,

在政府正常運作前，勢必有數週的協商，

and there was every chance that Ed Miliband, leader of the Labor Party, would end up as Prime Minister.

而且工黨的領袖 Ed Miliband 有相當大的機率會成為首相。

Companies began laying plans for a dramatic move away from the policies of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government,

為因應偏離昔日由保守黨與自由民主黨所組成的聯合政府的政策，企業們也紛紛開始盤算；

but, by the end of the day, contrary to all expectations, David Cameron's Conservatives looked as though they were heading for a big win,

但與預期相反的，在那天結束時，David Cameron 所領導的保守黨好似勝券在握，

and so it proved, his party ended up with an absolute majority in Parliament.

而事實證明，他的政黨的確在國會取得絕大多數的席次。

Investors were relieved, but soon started worrying about other things.

投資者們固然鬆了一口氣，但很快地，他們又開始擔心其他問題。

Would the Tories' victory and a promised referendum mean that Britain would withdraw from the European Union?

托利黨(亦即保守黨)的勝利與事前承諾的公投，是否代表英國即將脫離歐盟？

These rapid reversals in fortune show the difficult circumstances in which companies operate,

這些瞬息萬變且截然不同的命運，顯示了企業是在一個充滿挑戰的環境下營運，

and how they need to master them in order to survive.

以及他們應當如何了解箇中道理，只為了生存下去。

Companies can actually enter markets without taking political risk into consideration.

事實上，企業的確可以忽略政治風險便進入市場。

Sometimes entering Egypt or Argentina or uh Nigeria can be very seductive, you know.

你也知道進軍埃及、阿根廷或奈及利亞有時聽起來相當誘人。

Let's go to Nigeria, 180 million people,

舉奈及利亞為例，那裏有1億8千萬的人口呢；

but essentially, some organizations fail to capture a better understanding of political risk,

但重要的是，由於有些企業對政治風險沒有更好的理解，

especially when there's terrorist attacks or when there is uh governments that are having regime change,

尤其是在恐怖攻擊或當地政府正進行政權交替時，

and as a result they come in and expropriate the asset.

導致當地政府介入，並且沒收他們的財產。

Companies have to think beyond their immediate environment.

這些企業應該要盤算的更久遠。

What is going to happen in Greece?

希臘會發生什麼事呢？

What will be the effect on the rest of the EU?

這件事情對其餘的歐盟會員國來說，會造成什麼影響？

Will the EU itself begin to unravel?

歐盟本身會開始分崩離析嗎？

What will happen in Ukraine, center of tension between Vladimir Putin's Russia and the West?

烏克蘭，這塊普丁的俄國與西方之間的風暴中心，局勢會如何發展呢？

Will the U.S. reach a nuclear accord with Iran?

美國和伊朗會達成核能協議嗎？

And what will the effect be on the oil market and on relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia?

又，這會對石油市場以及美國與阿拉伯的關係造成什麼影響呢？

Harold Wilson once said that a week was a long time in politics.

Harold Wilson (前任英國首相) 曾說，從政治的角度來看，一個禮拜的時間是很漫長的。

Companies have to plan over years.

但企業卻需要為之規劃數年。

The political environment is a constant in a company's life,

政治局勢在一個企業的營運中，所佔有的份量始終不變，

whether it's revolution or a surprising election result in one of the world's longest standing democracies.

不論是一場革命，或是發生在全世界任一幾個長青的民主國家中，一個出人意表的選舉結果。

How can companies make decisions in such an uncertain environment?

那企業要如何在這個變化多端的環境下做決定呢？

Political risk has changed fundamentally in the last few years.

政治風險在近幾年已經有根本上的改變。

Historically, it was kind of core issues about revolution, nationalization, seizure of assets,

以前，它的主軸是關於革命、國有化、財產徵收，

the ability of the government to kind of fulfill its sovereign obligations.

以及國家落實他們主權義務的能力。

Those things of course still exist, but for the kind of modern global corporation, it's taken on a much more amorphous aspect,

這些事情當然還存在，但因為現代的跨國企業已不再擁有固定的型態，

so for major international companies, frankly from all over the world, they see the world as a global marketplace,

因此對他們來說，全世界就是一個大型的市場，

and they plan their business strategy accordingly,

而他們也依此制定營運的策略；

but for, for international governments and for individual countries,

但對全世界的政府與個別的國家來說，

their preoccupation now is increasingly insular, introspective, and nationalistic.

他們的重心已逐漸偏向國內事務，是內省且更國家主義的。

The idea that governments, kind of, reflect their position in the world seems to be behind us.

政府認為強調自己在全世界的重要性，已經是過時的了。

Governments have preoccupied by electorates or public opinion, that is increasingly inward-looking and very, very immediate,

他們的當務之急是選民（或民意），這也是較國內且非常緊急的；

so companies planning long-term in a global market are inherently at odds with governments

因此，企業著眼於全球市場的長期布局，

that is, whose interests are much, much more short-term,

和相較而言非常短期導向的政府眼光，在本質上是悖反的，

and that abrasion between the two is where the modern form of political risk exists.

而現代政治風險的形式，就存在於這兩者的磨損之間。

Many companies have got political risk drastically wrong,

許多企業完全誤解了政治風險，

but some, by careful planning, have managed to ensure their survival.

但有些則藉著謹慎的規劃，得以確保他們的生存。

Microsoft is a great example of an organization that's very proactive in how it mitigates political risk.

微軟在應對政治風險的主動性上，是個相當好的示範。

They're very performance-driven.

他們是非常業績導向的。

They're driven by targets.

他們為目標所驅動。

They're KPI driven, which is a fantastic example of how you measure political risk, how you mitigate it on an on-going basis,

他們相當重視關鍵績效指標，而這也是一個如何衡量政治風險，如何盱衡不斷變動局勢的絕佳範例，

and this company has invested a lot of effort and time to engage with the right conversation,

而這間公司也已經付出相當大的心力在參與正確的對話、

with the right capabilities in how they reduce that political risk,

以正確的能力去減低政治風險，

but also actively investing in the right relationships at the same time.

但同時積極地投資正確的關係。

Most companies die within a few years of their foundation.

許多企業在幾年之內就因資金問題而倒閉。

Those that survive for decades, or even centuries, are the ones that are most alert to their environment.

至於那些存活十餘年，甚至幾世紀的，正是那些對大環境相當敏感的企業。

That means their commercial environment, but it also means their political environment.

所謂的環境除了經濟的層面外，當然也包含政治的局勢。

Michael Skapinker, Financial Times, London.

以上由 Financial Times 的 Michael Skapinker 在倫敦的報導。