We love it.

我們熱愛參與每日熱門議題。

We comment on the news,

我們很熱愛。 我們對新聞發表意見，

we post our views on social media,

我們在社交媒體上 張貼我們的看法，

we march, we protest ...

我們遊行，我們抗議……

But who among us is working on solutions,

但我們當中有誰在努力找解決方案，

big solutions to big issues,

大議題的大解決方案，

like gun violence,

像是槍枝暴力、

mistreatment of workers,

對工人的不當對待、

flood, famine, drought?

食物、饑荒、乾旱？

Who is on it?

誰在處理它？

Boom!

砰！

These guys.

這些人。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

What? You were hoping for Peter Parker?

怎樣？不然你們期待看到 彼得帕克（蜘蛛人）嗎？

The Avengers?

復仇者聯盟？

You don't expect this beacon of diversity,

你們不期望這種多樣性的指引，

these good-looking, nicely dressed dudes just oozing charisma to solve the issues?

這些長相好看穿著也好看的傢伙，

Well good, because they're actually not going to solve the issues.

散發魅力來解決這些議題？

But before you dismiss them,

嗯，很好，因為實際上 他們並不會解決議題。

let me say, they're not going to solve the issues,

但在你把他們打發掉之前，

but they will show us how.

讓我說句話，他們不會解決議題，

So who are they?

但他們會讓我們看到要怎麼做。

They're activist investors:

所以，他們是誰？

Carl Icahn, Dan Loeb, Paul Singer, Barry Rosenstein.

他們是行動派投資者：

These are the modern-day OGs of Wall Street.

卡爾伊坎、丹勒布、

(Laughter)

保羅辛格、貝瑞羅森斯坦。

These are scary dudes.

他們是現代的華爾街老前輩。

I don't mean Green Goblin scary.

（笑聲）這些可怕的傢伙。

I mean real scary.

不是綠惡魔（蜘蛛人反派）的 那種可怕。是真的可怕。

The fear they strike in the hearts of a company's CEO and board

當他們進入一間公司的股份，

when they enter its stock

會讓該公司的執行長 和董事發自內心感到恐懼，

is the same fear you feel when you hear a bear outside your tent,

有種情境也會產生同樣的恐懼：

and it's dark,

就是你得知你的帳篷外面有隻熊，

and you're sitting there with a mouthful of Doritos --

且外面很黑，

(Laughter)

且你還滿口都是多力多滋 坐在那裡時——

that just moments ago,

（笑聲）

you had snuck out of the tent to pull down from the bear hang,

沒多久之前，你溜出帳篷，

because you had the munchies.

因為想吃零食而拿了包多力多滋。

That fear.

那種恐懼。

And in that moment, you are praying,

在那一刻，你在祈禱：

"Oh Lord, please let this bear be passing through."

「喔，主啊，希望這隻熊只是路過。」

That bear is not passing through!

那隻熊並不是路過！

That bear made a detour for you.

那隻熊為了你專程繞路。

Bears like Doritos!

熊很愛多力多滋！

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Activists like money.

行動派喜歡錢。

Some activists also like Doritos, but they definitely want money.

有些行動派也愛多力多滋，

And the way they make money, the way they create value,

但他們肯定是想要錢的。

is by getting management of corporations

而他們賺錢的方式， 他們創造價值的方式，

to make changes.

是讓企業的管理階層

Now, some will argue that the changes they create,

去做改變。

the value they create, is too short-term in nature.

有些人可能會主張， 他們所創造的改變，

And others will say the tactics they use are egregious.

他們所創造的價值， 在本質上太短期了。

I agree.

其他人則會說， 他們用的戰略很過份。

Long, drawn-out lawsuits,

我同意。

public smear campaigns --

拖很久的漫長法律訴訟，

there is no need for that.

公開抹黑的宣傳活動——

But I must say, there's a small handful of activists,

這實在沒有必要。

very small,

但我必須要說，有一小群行動派，

that go to great lengths to be constructive and collaborative.

非常小群，

And overall, we have to give credit where credit is due.

不遺餘力去做到 建設性和同心協力。

As a group, they have managed to catalyze large-scale change

整體來說，我們必須要 歸功給應得功勞的人。

in large corporations,

以群體來說，他們有辦法

and that's no small feat.

在大企業中促進大規模的改變，

Now, imagine a world

那可不是小功而已。

where all investors were working with management to make change,

想像一個世界，

not just to make more money,

在那裡，所有投資者都 和管理層級合作創造改變，

but to improve the environment and society.

不只是賺更多錢，

Imagine what a greener and better world this would be.

還要改善環境和社會。

Now, why? Why would an investor bother?

想像一下，那會是個 多麼綠意盎然、多麼棒的世界。

And at first, blush I'm with you: Why would an investor care?

那，為什麼？ 投資者為什麼要費心？

Because if doing well on ESG issues --

一開始，我和你們一樣臉紅： 投資者為何在乎？

environmental, social and governance issues --

因為如果能處理好 ESG 的議題——

was just an act of good corporate citizenship,

環境、社會、治理的議題——

then I agree, investors would not care.

那只是一種好的企業公民行為而已，

But the good news,

那麼我同意投資者不會在乎。 可是，有好消息，

and perhaps the saving grace for our collective futures,

也許對我們集體的未來而言 是可補償缺點的優點，

is that it's so much more than an act of good corporate citizenship.

那就是它遠遠超過只是 一種好的企業公民行為。

It's good business.

它是好的生意。

There's now enough evidence that shows a clear correlation

現在有足夠的證據可以顯示，

between ESG performance and financial performance.

在 ESG 表現和財務表現 之間有明確的相關性。

Companies that do good for the environment and society

在環境和社會上做得很好的公司，

also do well financially.

在財務上也會很出色。

And some of the best companies are catching on.

一些最好的公司開始理解到這一點。

Like Adidas:

比如愛迪達：

Adidas is cleaning up the ocean and making money in the process.

愛迪達在清理海洋， 並在過程中賺錢。

Adidas teamed up with an organization called Parley for the Oceans.

愛迪達和海洋會議 （Parley for the Oceans）組織合作。

Parley goes out and collects plastic waste from the ocean.

該組織會實際行動， 收回在海洋上的塑膠廢物。

Adidas uses the plastic waste to make shoes.

愛迪達則用塑膠廢物來製作鞋子。

Shoes made with plastic from the ocean:

用海洋塑膠做成的鞋子：

good for the environment and good for business.

對環境很好，對事業也很好。

Because if you know that rapidly growing consumer segment known as hipsters --

因為如果你知道有一種快速成長的 客戶群叫做「文青 (hipsters)」——

and I know you know hipsters --

我知道你們都知道文青——

then you know that a hipster faced with the choice between a no-name shoe

那麼你們就知道，當文青要選擇

and an Adidas made with plastic from the ocean

非名牌的鞋子或是 用海洋塑膠製成的愛迪達鞋子，

will pick the Adidas every day of the week and twice on Sunday,

他們會選擇每天穿愛迪達， 星期日還要穿兩次，

and then walk around like it's no big deal

四處走動，好像這雙鞋 也沒什麼大不了的，

but look for every opportunity to talk about them.

卻完全不錯失任何可以 談論這雙鞋的機會。

Like, in an Uber Pool.

比如，在 Uber Pool 共乘時。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

"Hey, I noticed you looking at my feet."

「嘿，我注意到 你一直在看我的腳。」

"What? Dude, no, I'm just making slides. I'm a consultant. I make slides.

「什麼？老兄，沒有， 我只是在做投影片。

I'm making PowerPoint slides, I'm not looking --"

我是顧問，我做投影片， 我沒有在看——」

"No, it's fine.

「不，沒關係。

I get why you'd be looking.

我能了解你會想看。

The plastic on my shoe must be bothering you.

我鞋子上的塑膠一定讓你覺得礙眼。

Well, let me talk about it for the rest of this ride.

讓我用所有剩下的共乘時間 來跟你談談它吧。

You see, the plastic on my shoe is from the ocean,

我鞋子上的塑膠是來自海洋，

on my feet, not in your fish,

在我的腳上， 不是在你吃的魚的肚子裡，

being walked on, not being munched on.

是拿來穿的，不是拿來咀嚼的。

Happy feet. Happy fish. Happy ocean.

開心的腳。開心的魚。 開心的海洋。

Doing my part. I got eco-shoes. I got eco-shoes.

我盡我的本份。 我買環保鞋。我買環保鞋。

You need some eco-shoes?"

你需要環保鞋嗎？」

And so on, just cornering him. We've all been there.

諸如此類，一直嚕他。 我們都遇過這種事。

"Hey, pass me your cell phone. I'll give you a discount code.

「嘿，把你的手機傳給我。 我要給你一個優惠碼。

Let me give you a discount code."

讓我給你優惠碼。」

We've all been --

我們都遇過——

Folks, I have jumped out of moving Uber Pools.

我曾從行駛中的 Uber Pools 共乘車上跳車過。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Just, moving, highway, I'm out. I'm out.

就，行駛中，高速公路， 我要下車了。我要下車了。

But we've got to forgive the hipsters, we need to love the hipsters.

但，我們得要原諒文青。 我們得要愛文青。

We need hipsters, and we need companies like Adidas,

我們需要文青，我們需要 像愛迪達這樣的公司，

and what we need most is for investors to convince other companies

我們最需要投資者 能夠說服其他公司

to behave like Adidas.

做出像愛迪達這樣的行為。

And herein lies the challenge.

挑戰的地方就在這裡了。

There's a growing group of investors, call them "conscious investors."

有一種投資者叫「有意識的投資者」，

Conscious investors care about ESG issues.

人數越來越多。

And they talk a lot about engaging management on ESG issues.

有意識的投資者在乎 ESG 議題。

But they don't actually get management to make changes

他們常會談論要讓 管理階層參與 ESG 議題。

that will improve the environment and society.

但他們並不會真的讓管理階層做出

And this is where conscious investors can take a page from the playbook

能夠改善環境和社會的改變。

of the activist investors,

這就是有意識的投資者可以

because the activist investors have no issues getting management to make changes.

向行動派投資者學習的地方了，

They have no issues turning up the heat.

因為要讓管理階層做出改變， 對行動派投資者來說並不是問題。

Take Paul Singer.

要施壓完全不成問題。

He's an old-school Wall Street OG,

比如保羅辛格。

now in his 70s, loves Doritos, loves making money.

他是老派的華爾街前輩，

Argentina owed Paul 600 million dollars

現在七十多歲了， 愛吃多力多滋，愛賺錢。

and would not pay.

阿根廷欠保羅六億美金，

Big mistake.

不願意付錢。

You can't take money from an OG and not pay it back.

大錯特錯。

Paul went to war with Argentina.

你不能拿了前輩的錢卻不還錢。

I am not inventing.

保羅和阿根廷開戰。

This is big. This was huge.

我沒無中生有。

This was bigger than Tyson vs Holyfield,

這是件大事，非常大。

Ali vs Foreman.

超越泰森和霍利菲爾德的對決，

This was man vs country.

阿里和福爾曼的對決。

Paul Singer started going around the world trying to seize up Argentinian assets.

這是一個人和一個國家的對決。

At one point, he tried to seize an Argentinian navy vessel

保羅辛格開始遊走全世界，

off the coast of Ghana.

試圖扣押阿根廷的資產。

He tried to take over a 350-foot ship

他一度試圖扣押

while big navy officers with big guns were on the ship.

阿根廷在迦納海岸的海軍船艦。

He got the police in Ghana to show up with a crane

他試圖接管一艘 350 英呎的船艦，

and threaten to board the ship,

船艦上還有武裝的重要海軍軍官。

and it wasn't until the navy officers drew their weapons

他讓迦納的警方帶著 一台起重機一起現身，

that they called off the operation.

威脅要登上船艦，

That's what I call turning up the heat.

直到海軍軍官亮出武器，

Now, you may say

他們才取消行動。

Paul lost the battle.

這就是我所謂的施壓。

And I'll say, Paul won the war,

你們可能會說，

because Paul didn't get paid one time,

保羅輸了這場仗。

he got paid 20 times his original investment.

我會說，保羅贏了戰爭，

Then you have Barry Rosenstein.

因為保羅拿回的錢不是一倍，

His fund, Jana Partners,

是他最初投資的二十倍。

started stealth-mode buying up stock in Whole Foods,

接著，還有貝瑞羅森斯坦。

at a time when Whole Foods was struggling.

他的基金，JANA Partners，