2023考研英語閱讀IBM vs 卡耐基基金會
IBM v Carnegie Corporation
IBM vs 卡耐基基金會
The centenarians square up
迎來百歲生日的IBM和卡耐基基金會一決高下
Both IBM and the Carnegie Corporation will turn 100this month. Has the multinational business oruniversal philanthropy done more for society?
本月，IBM和卡耐基基金會都將迎來100歲生日。誰對社會貢獻更大呢，是IBM這個跨國集團還是遍布世界的慈善機構卡耐基基金會?
ONE simple way to assess the impact of any organisation is to answer the question: how isthe world different because it existed? That is the test set out by Sam Palmisano in theforeword to a new book celebrating the 100th birthday of IBM, the firm he has run since 2002.But another organisation is also turning 100 this monththe Carnegie Corporation of NewYork, a flagship of American philanthropy. Mr Palmisanos insight is too good to limit to onlyone of the centenarians. A better question is: which has done more for the world, one of itsleading companies or one of its most influential charities?
評定任何組織影響力的一種簡單的方法就是回答一個問題：由于它的存在，世界有什么不同?這個測驗是IBM的首席執行官彭明盛在一本慶祝IBM100周歲的新書的前言中提出的，他自2002年起掌管IBM。但是本月還有一個組織也將迎來100歲生日美國慈善的旗艦、紐約的卡耐基基金會。彭明盛先生的想法非常好，對這兩家百年公司和機構都適用。一個更恰當的問題是：作為世界領先公司之一的IBM和世界上最具影響力的慈善機構的卡耐基基金會，哪個對世界的貢獻更大?
At first glance, IBM and the Carnegie Corporation seem to be engaged in such differentendeavours that comparing them might seem about as sensible as comparing apple orchardsand orange groves. Making money has always been the main aim of the company formed in1911 by the merger of three small producers of mechanical accounting machines, scales andtime recorders, and renamed International Business Machines 13 years later. By contrast, theCarnegie Corporation explicitly set out to create a better world by giving away what remainedof the great fortune of its industrialist founder, Andrew Carnegie. Yet both can assert thatthey have made the world a better place during the past century, and it is far from obviouswhich claim is stronger.
乍一看，IBM和卡耐基基金會從事的是兩種如此截然不同的事業，以至于比較它們就好像比較蘋果園和橘子林一樣不靠譜。1911年，三家生產會計機、磅秤和計時器的小型公司于合并成立了一間新公司，13年后改名為國際商業機器公司，賺錢一直是這家公司的主要目標。與之形成對比的是，卡耐基基金會在創立伊始就明確要通過捐贈其創始人工業家安德魯??卡耐基巨大財富的剩余來創造一個更好的世界。但是兩者都可以自稱它們在過去的一個世紀中讓世界變得更美好，不過還遠遠不清楚究竟哪一方的聲明會更有力。
The answer matters, and not just in order to awardthe historical bragging rights. Comparing the recordsof those giants of 20th-century American capitalismor philanthrocapitalismcan shed light on aquestion that is keenly debated today: whetherphilanthropy or business is more effective atMaking the World Work Better, to borrow the titleof the book celebrating IBMs centenary.
這個問題的答案很重要，不只是為了獎勵它們吹噓自己的歷史。比一比20世紀美國資本主義或慈善資本主義 那些巨頭公司的記錄，有助于理解一個今天被熱烈討論的問題：慈善事業或企業哪一個在借用那本慶祝IBM百年生日的書名使世界運行得更好的方面更有效?
The comparison can also help answer an old question about the proper role of business insociety. Many people would agree with Milton Friedmans view that the only social responsibilityof business is to increase its profits. But Michael Porter, a management guru, recentlycaused a stir by arguing that firms should seek instead to create shared value thatsimultaneously benefits both the firm and society. Andrew Carnegie would have sharedFriedmans view of business, saving the philanthropy until after the money has been made.IBM, at least after Thomas Watson senior took charge in 1914, has arguably been a case studyin how to create shared value, both through its formalised giving, which is among the mostgenerous in corporate America, but more fundamentally through its everyday business.
這樣的比較還能回答一個古老的問題，有關企業在社會中扮演的適當角色。米爾頓??弗里德曼認為企業唯一的社會責任是提高它的利潤，很多人都同意這個看法。但是最近管理大師邁克??波特卻提出公司應該尋求而不是創造同時對自己和社會都有利的共享價值，這一論點引起了一番爭議。卡耐基會同意弗里德曼對商業的看法，在掙到錢以后再做慈善。而IBM、至少在老托馬斯??沃森于1914年掌舵后的IBM是一個可以論證如何創造共享價值的案例，既通過一定形式的捐獻個角度看它屬于最慷慨的國公司之一更根本地是通過平時的生意。
And the comparison can shed light on the role of the wealthy in society. Bill Gates, the AndrewCarnegie of today, is busily giving away the fortune he earned in businessa fact that hasirked some prominent critics. A few years ago, Robert Barro, an economist, argued in the WallStreet Journal that by switching from making money to giving it away, Mr Gates had failed toappreciate both the good he had done at Microsoft and the waste that he was about topreside over as a philanthropist. By any reasonable calculation, Microsoft has been aboon for society and the value of its software greatly exceeds the likely value of Mr Gatessphilanthropic efforts, concluded Mr Barro.
而且這樣的對比還能讓人們清楚地認識財富在社會中起到的作用。今天的卡耐基比爾??蓋茨正忙于將他從生意中賺到的財富捐贈出去這一事實激怒了一些著名評論者。幾年前，經濟學家羅伯特??拜倫在《華爾街日報》上提出蓋茨從掙錢到捐錢的轉變證明他沒能欣賞到自己對微軟的貢獻，也沒注意到他即將以慈善家的姿態來管理的是廢物。任何合理的計算都會得出微乳對社會是個福利，它軟件的價值遠遠超過蓋茨的慈善行為有可能帶來的價值。拜倫這樣總結道。
Yet Mr Gates and his partner in philanthropy, Warren Buffett, are not only confident theycan improve the world by giving away their money through a charitable foundation much likethe Carnegie Corporation . They are also trying to persuade other billionaires inAmerica and abroad to pledge publicly to give away at least half of their wealth during theirlifetimes.
但是蓋茨和他在慈善事業上的伙伴沃倫??巴菲特不僅相信自己能通過一個很像卡耐基基金會的慈善機構捐錢、以此來改善這個世界，而且還試圖說服美國國內外其他的億萬富翁公開承諾在他們的一生中把自己至少一半的財產捐出去。
IBM v Carnegie Corporation
IBM vs 卡耐基基金會
The centenarians square up
迎來百歲生日的IBM和卡耐基基金會一決高下
Both IBM and the Carnegie Corporation will turn 100this month. Has the multinational business oruniversal philanthropy done more for society?
本月，IBM和卡耐基基金會都將迎來100歲生日。誰對社會貢獻更大呢，是IBM這個跨國集團還是遍布世界的慈善機構卡耐基基金會?
ONE simple way to assess the impact of any organisation is to answer the question: how isthe world different because it existed? That is the test set out by Sam Palmisano in theforeword to a new book celebrating the 100th birthday of IBM, the firm he has run since 2002.But another organisation is also turning 100 this monththe Carnegie Corporation of NewYork, a flagship of American philanthropy. Mr Palmisanos insight is too good to limit to onlyone of the centenarians. A better question is: which has done more for the world, one of itsleading companies or one of its most influential charities?
評定任何組織影響力的一種簡單的方法就是回答一個問題：由于它的存在，世界有什么不同?這個測驗是IBM的首席執行官彭明盛在一本慶祝IBM100周歲的新書的前言中提出的，他自2002年起掌管IBM。但是本月還有一個組織也將迎來100歲生日美國慈善的旗艦、紐約的卡耐基基金會。彭明盛先生的想法非常好，對這兩家百年公司和機構都適用。一個更恰當的問題是：作為世界領先公司之一的IBM和世界上最具影響力的慈善機構的卡耐基基金會，哪個對世界的貢獻更大?
At first glance, IBM and the Carnegie Corporation seem to be engaged in such differentendeavours that comparing them might seem about as sensible as comparing apple orchardsand orange groves. Making money has always been the main aim of the company formed in1911 by the merger of three small producers of mechanical accounting machines, scales andtime recorders, and renamed International Business Machines 13 years later. By contrast, theCarnegie Corporation explicitly set out to create a better world by giving away what remainedof the great fortune of its industrialist founder, Andrew Carnegie. Yet both can assert thatthey have made the world a better place during the past century, and it is far from obviouswhich claim is stronger.
乍一看，IBM和卡耐基基金會從事的是兩種如此截然不同的事業，以至于比較它們就好像比較蘋果園和橘子林一樣不靠譜。1911年，三家生產會計機、磅秤和計時器的小型公司于合并成立了一間新公司，13年后改名為國際商業機器公司，賺錢一直是這家公司的主要目標。與之形成對比的是，卡耐基基金會在創立伊始就明確要通過捐贈其創始人工業家安德魯??卡耐基巨大財富的剩余來創造一個更好的世界。但是兩者都可以自稱它們在過去的一個世紀中讓世界變得更美好，不過還遠遠不清楚究竟哪一方的聲明會更有力。
The answer matters, and not just in order to awardthe historical bragging rights. Comparing the recordsof those giants of 20th-century American capitalismor philanthrocapitalismcan shed light on aquestion that is keenly debated today: whetherphilanthropy or business is more effective atMaking the World Work Better, to borrow the titleof the book celebrating IBMs centenary.
這個問題的答案很重要，不只是為了獎勵它們吹噓自己的歷史。比一比20世紀美國資本主義或慈善資本主義 那些巨頭公司的記錄，有助于理解一個今天被熱烈討論的問題：慈善事業或企業哪一個在借用那本慶祝IBM百年生日的書名使世界運行得更好的方面更有效?
The comparison can also help answer an old question about the proper role of business insociety. Many people would agree with Milton Friedmans view that the only social responsibilityof business is to increase its profits. But Michael Porter, a management guru, recentlycaused a stir by arguing that firms should seek instead to create shared value thatsimultaneously benefits both the firm and society. Andrew Carnegie would have sharedFriedmans view of business, saving the philanthropy until after the money has been made.IBM, at least after Thomas Watson senior took charge in 1914, has arguably been a case studyin how to create shared value, both through its formalised giving, which is among the mostgenerous in corporate America, but more fundamentally through its everyday business.
這樣的比較還能回答一個古老的問題，有關企業在社會中扮演的適當角色。米爾頓??弗里德曼認為企業唯一的社會責任是提高它的利潤，很多人都同意這個看法。但是最近管理大師邁克??波特卻提出公司應該尋求而不是創造同時對自己和社會都有利的共享價值，這一論點引起了一番爭議。卡耐基會同意弗里德曼對商業的看法，在掙到錢以后再做慈善。而IBM、至少在老托馬斯??沃森于1914年掌舵后的IBM是一個可以論證如何創造共享價值的案例，既通過一定形式的捐獻個角度看它屬于最慷慨的國公司之一更根本地是通過平時的生意。
And the comparison can shed light on the role of the wealthy in society. Bill Gates, the AndrewCarnegie of today, is busily giving away the fortune he earned in businessa fact that hasirked some prominent critics. A few years ago, Robert Barro, an economist, argued in the WallStreet Journal that by switching from making money to giving it away, Mr Gates had failed toappreciate both the good he had done at Microsoft and the waste that he was about topreside over as a philanthropist. By any reasonable calculation, Microsoft has been aboon for society and the value of its software greatly exceeds the likely value of Mr Gatessphilanthropic efforts, concluded Mr Barro.
而且這樣的對比還能讓人們清楚地認識財富在社會中起到的作用。今天的卡耐基比爾??蓋茨正忙于將他從生意中賺到的財富捐贈出去這一事實激怒了一些著名評論者。幾年前，經濟學家羅伯特??拜倫在《華爾街日報》上提出蓋茨從掙錢到捐錢的轉變證明他沒能欣賞到自己對微軟的貢獻，也沒注意到他即將以慈善家的姿態來管理的是廢物。任何合理的計算都會得出微乳對社會是個福利，它軟件的價值遠遠超過蓋茨的慈善行為有可能帶來的價值。拜倫這樣總結道。
Yet Mr Gates and his partner in philanthropy, Warren Buffett, are not only confident theycan improve the world by giving away their money through a charitable foundation much likethe Carnegie Corporation . They are also trying to persuade other billionaires inAmerica and abroad to pledge publicly to give away at least half of their wealth during theirlifetimes.
但是蓋茨和他在慈善事業上的伙伴沃倫??巴菲特不僅相信自己能通過一個很像卡耐基基金會的慈善機構捐錢、以此來改善這個世界，而且還試圖說服美國國內外其他的億萬富翁公開承諾在他們的一生中把自己至少一半的財產捐出去。
