ogc是一个非营利性组织_如果高科技公司变成非营利组织怎么办？

ogc是一个非营利性组织

After years of misinformation, security breaches, abhorrent labor practices and election meddling, politicians have decided it’s finally time to regulate the major tech companies.

经过多年的错误信息，安全漏洞，可憎的劳工做法和选举干预之后，政客们已经决定是时候监管大型科技公司了。

It’s almost impossible to think that, as recently as a decade ago, large technology companies were considered agents for democracy that would usher in an era of unprecedented transparency and civic engagement. Their devices and platforms were built (and marketed) as bastions of free expression and the unfettered exchange of goods and ideas.

几乎不可能想到，就在十年前，大型科技公司被认为是民主的推动者，它将迎来前所未有的透明和公民参与的时代。 他们的设备和平台是作为自由表达的堡垒以及商品和思想的自由交流的堡垒而建立(和销售的)。

Recent history has taught us that these companies’ platforms are too susceptible to bad actors, disinformation and illegal data tracking to go unchecked, however. And some of the companies that deal in physical goods have quickly developed monopolies that exploit labour, provide poor (oftentimes dangerous) working conditions and avoid billions of dollars in taxes.

最近的历史告诉我们，这些公司的平台很容易受到不良行为，虚假信息和非法数据跟踪的影响，因此无法加以制止。 一些从事实物商品交易的公司Swift发展了利用劳动力，提供恶劣(通常是危险的)工作条件并避免数十亿美元税收的垄断。

Regulation of these companies seems inevitable at this point, if not downright necessary.

在这些时候，对这些公司的监管似乎是不可避免的，即使不是十分必要的。

The inevitable question, then, is to what extent they should be regulated. Techno-utopians such as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales find the idea abhorrent and maintain that, despite their faults, tech companies should not be subject to government oversight, for fear of it having a chilling effect on free speech or hindering economic growth. On the other side of the debate are zealous politicians — such as US Congresswoman Elizabeth Warren, who has called for breaking up Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, and Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition commissioner, who wants to impose strict regulations on data-collection practices.

那么，不可避免的问题是应在多大程度上对它们进行监管。 维基百科创始人吉米·威尔士(Jimmy Wales)等技术空想主义者对此想法感到厌恶，并坚持认为，尽管存在错误，但高科技公司不应受到政府的监督，因为担心它会对言论自由产生令人生畏的影响或阻碍经济增长。 辩论的另一面是热心的政客-例如美国国会议员伊丽莎白·沃伦(Elizabeth Warren)，她曾呼吁分拆亚马逊，苹果，Facebook和Google ；欧盟竞争事务专员玛格丽特·韦斯特格(Margrethe Vestager) 希望对数据施加严格的规定，收款实践 。

But there’s a third way, one that doesn’t involve disbanding or tightly regulating these hugely influential companies, but also ensures that these companies will fulfil their promise of benefitting society.

但是，还有第三种方式，即不涉及解散或严格监管这些具有巨大影响力的公司，而是确保这些公司能够实现其造福社会的承诺。

If tech companies are serious about serving the public good, then they should become non-profits.

如果科技公司认真考虑为公共利益服务，那么它们应该成为非营利组织。

On its face, this idea may seem even more radical than trying to dissolve these companies. But functioning as a non-profit will allow the tech industry to simultaneously continue its business while fulfilling its promise of serving the public good.

从表面上看，这个想法似乎比试图解散这些公司更为激进。 但是，作为非营利组织发挥作用将使科技行业能够同时继续其业务，同时履行其为公众利益服务的承诺。

All the problems afflicting the tech industry stem from the industry’s focus on short-term profits. This is not the tech industry’s fault, per se, as much as it’s a function of a flawed financial system that incentivises short-term gains, and often at the expense of long-term sustainability. These companies have operated as any would, trying to maximise revenue and shareholder value. And they’re great at it. The large tech companies mentioned above are among the largest in human history.

困扰科技行业的所有问题都源于该行业对短期利润的关注。 从本质上讲，这并不是技术行业的错，这完全是有缺陷的金融体系的作用，这种缺陷会刺激短期收益，并经常以长期可持续性为代价。 这些公司竭尽所能，努力使收入和股东价值最大化。 他们非常擅长。 上述大型科技公司是人类历史上规模最大的公司之一。

But all that success has come at considerable expense, namely the spread of misinformation and an increasingly large gap between the poor and wealthy. Technology has increased the wealth gap in middle- and high-income countries, according to former World Bank chief economist Kaushik Basu, and it will likely have the same stratifying effect on developing countries in the coming years.

但是，所有这些成功都付出了相当大的代价，即错误信息的传播以及贫富之间的差距越来越大 。 前世界银行首席经济学家考施克·巴苏(Kaushik Basu)表示 ，技术已经扩大了中高收入国家的贫富差距，并且在未来几年中，技术可能会对发展中国家产生同样的分层效应。

Removing the profit motive from these companies will rid them of this pressure, however, and give them the freedom to act in accordance with their stated missions. (A non-profit is an organisation whose stated goal is to promote public well-being, and typically doesn’t have to pay taxes as a result. They do, however, function similarly to business in many cases.)

但是，消除这些公司的利润动机将消除他们的压力，并赋予他们按照其既定使命采取行动的自由。 (非营利组织是其既定目标是促进公众福祉的组织，因此通常不必纳税。但是，在许多情况下，它们的功能类似于企业。)

“What’s really powerful in non-profits is that they don’t and do not try to create profits,” says Chris McKenna, a business historian at Oxford University’s Saïd Business School and a staunch proponent of the non-profit business model. “Instead, [non-profits] can invest for long periods of time. They can motivate highly intellectual, interesting people to work for them at reduced rates. And they can motivate people to invest in them, to literally to give them money.”

牛津大学赛义德商学院商业史学家，坚定支持非营利商业模式的克里斯·麦肯纳 ( Chris McKenna) 说： “非营利组织真正强大的地方在于，他们不并且也不试图创造利润。” “相反，[非营利组织]可以长期投资。 他们可以激发知识渊博，有趣的人以较低的价格为他们工作。 他们可以激励人们投资于他们，从字面上给他们钱。”

This kind of corporate structure is more common than many people realize. There are a number of highly successful, multinational corporations that are owned by “industrial foundations”, such as Carlsberg, Heineken, Ikea and Rolex. Under this arrangement, the foundation elects a board of directors that operates independently from the business. Boards members can’t be removed or replaced by anyone on the business side of the organization. And the board members’ compensation isn’t determined by the firm’s profitability. All of these features ensure the company stays focused on sustainability and long-term viability.

这种公司结构比许多人意识到的更为普遍。 有许多由“ 工业基金会 ”所有的非常成功的跨国公司， 例如嘉士伯，喜力，宜家和劳力士 。 在这种安排下，基金会选举出一个独立于企业运作的董事会。 董事会成员不能被组织业务方面的任何人罢免或更换。 董事会成员的薪酬并不取决于公司的盈利能力。 所有这些功能确保公司始终专注于可持续性和长期生存能力。

Opponents will criticise this idea on the grounds that it will halt progress and prevent the world economy from reaching its full potential. But those concerns are unfounded. There is no proof for-profit companies are more innovative than companies that serve the public good, and non-profits have actually grown faster than private companies in recent years.

反对者将批评这一想法，理由是它会阻止进步并阻止世界经济发挥其全部潜力。 但是这些担忧是没有根据的。 没有证据表明营利性公司比为公共利益服务的公司更具创新性 ，近年来 ， 非营利性公司 的增长实际上比私营公司快 。

As non-profits, tech companies will still be able to recruit top talent and create world-class devices and software. If anything, transforming into a non-profit will improve the amount of talent in tech, as people will be eager to work on projects that actively benefit society.

作为非营利组织，科技公司仍将能够招募顶尖人才并创建世界一流的设备和软件。 如果有的话，转变为非营利组织将提高科技人才的数量，因为人们将渴望从事积极有益于社会的项目。

German automotive parts manufacturer Bosch Group, for instance, is majority-owned by the Robert Bosch Stiftung, a non-profit that makes sure the company’s business side lives up to the foundation’s philanthropic ideals. The foundation has donated more than $1 billion dollars over the past several decades to a variety of charities. And the business itself still continues to thrive.

例如，德国汽车零部件制造商博世集团(Bosch Group)由非营利组织罗伯特·博世(Robert Bosch)控股，该公司确保公司的业务不辜负基金会的慈善理想。 在过去的几十年中，该基金会已向各种慈善机构捐款超过10亿美元。 而且业务本身仍在蓬勃发展 。

Non-profits are so successful, in fact, that some business and marketing experts say they have an unfair advantage over companies with more traditional corporate models.

实际上，非营利组织是如此成功，以至于一些企业和市场营销专家说，与具有更传统公司模式的公司相比 ， 它们具有不公平的优势 。

The shareholder model, on the other hand, is simply not good for the planet and its people. The Enlightened Capitalists, a new book by James O’Toole about socially responsible corporations, highlights companies that have been able to both grow and stay true to their principles. But the book also unintentionally reveals how difficult this is under a typical private company structure.

另一方面，股东模式根本不利于地球及其人民。 詹姆斯·奥图尔(James O'Toole)出版的有关社会责任公司的新书《启蒙资本家》(Enlightened Capitalists)着重介绍了那些既能够成长又能够忠于其原则的公司。 但是这本书也无意间揭示了在典型的私人公司结构下这是多么困难。

“The vast bulk of wealth is in shareholder-owned companies, so how meaningful are virtuous practices if they can only exist on the fringes, where the real money is not?” Bethany McLean writes in a review of the book.

“绝大多数财富都存在于股东所有的公司中，那么，如果良性做法只能存在于边缘而没有真钱的话，它们的意义何在？” Bethany McLean在对该书的评论中写道 。

Technology has always carried the promise of making the world more connected, open and equitable. If it really wants to realize that promise, its companies should ditch business as usual and embrace being a non-profit, a model that benefits us all.

技术始终承诺使世界变得更加连通，开放和公平。 如果它真的想实现这一承诺，它的公司应该像往常一样抛弃业务，拥抱成为非营利组织的一种使我们所有人受益的模式。

This article was originally published by World Economic Forum.

本文最初由 世界经济论坛 发表 。

翻译自: https://medium.com/swlh/what-if-big-tech-companies-became-non-profits-d6fddc8c4e71

ogc是一个非营利性组织