2025

Why CSR and Sustainability Matter for Modern Enterprises

In today’s complex business environment, companies are no longer judged purely on financial performance. Stakeholders increasingly expect organizations to act responsibly, manage environmental and social impacts, and demonstrate ethical leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainability have therefore shifted from being peripheral activities to becoming central pillars of long-term corporate strategy and value creation.

CSR reflects a company’s responsibility to society beyond legal compliance. When embedded thoughtfully, it strengthens trust with stakeholders, enhances reputation, attracts and retains talent, and mitigates long-term risks. Rather than conflicting with shareholder interests, responsible practices often reinforce them by supporting resilience, innovation, and sustainable growth. This perspective aligns closely with the concept of enlightened shareholder value, which recognizes that long-term financial success depends on balancing the interests of shareholders with those of employees, customers, communities, and the environment.

For an organization such as Fidelity International, CSR should be grounded in its core purpose of building better financial futures. A clear CSR policy would emphasize ethical governance, responsible investment, environmental stewardship, social impact, and employee well-being. This means committing to high standards of integrity and transparency, integrating environmental, social, and governance considerations into investment decisions, reducing the environmental footprint of operations, supporting financial inclusion and education in the communities where the firm operates, and fostering an inclusive and values-driven workplace. Such a policy provides clarity internally and credibility externally, signalling that responsibility is embedded in strategic decision-making rather than treated as an afterthought.

To ensure that these commitments translate into real outcomes, performance must be measured and monitored. Environmental indicators might include reductions in carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the proportion of assets aligned with ESG principles. Social indicators could track employee volunteer hours, investment in community programmes, participation in financial education initiatives, and workforce diversity. Governance indicators would include board-level oversight of sustainability, ESG integration across investment processes, and results of independent audits or assurance reviews. Client-focused measures, such as satisfaction with sustainable investment offerings or asset flows into ESG products, further demonstrate whether CSR efforts are creating tangible value.

The long-standing community engagement of Swire Pacific provides a useful comparison. Its sustained investment in education, environmental conservation, and community development illustrates how corporate citizenship can be woven into a company’s identity. From a long-term shareholder perspective, such efforts help preserve the social licence to operate, strengthen relationships with local stakeholders, and reduce reputational and regulatory risks. These benefits are not always immediately visible in short-term financial metrics, but they support business continuity, employee engagement, and brand equity over time. As global investors increasingly incorporate ESG considerations into capital allocation decisions, companies that demonstrate credible social commitment are better positioned to attract patient, long-term capital.

A sustainability report for Fidelity International would bring these elements together in a transparent and structured way. It would outline progress in reducing environmental impact, such as lowering operational carbon intensity and improving energy efficiency across offices. It would highlight social initiatives, including financial literacy programmes, partnerships with community organizations, and employee volunteering. Governance disclosures would explain how sustainability is overseen at board and executive levels, how ESG risks are managed, and how responsible investment principles are embedded into research and portfolio construction. Clear metrics, targets, and year-on-year comparisons would allow stakeholders to assess progress objectively rather than relying on narrative alone.

Ultimately, CSR and sustainability are about redefining corporate success. Companies that view responsibility as a strategic asset rather than a compliance exercise are better equipped to navigate uncertainty and complexity. By aligning purpose, policy, measurement, and transparent reporting, organizations such as Fidelity International can demonstrate that doing good and doing well are not competing objectives, but mutually reinforcing outcomes in a world where trust and long-term thinking matter more than ever.

為何企業社會責任與永續發展對現代企業至關重要

在當今複雜的商業環境中，企業已不再只因財務表現而受到評價。利害關係人日益期望組織能夠負責任地經營，妥善管理其對環境與社會的影響，並展現高度的道德領導力。因此，企業社會責任（CSR）與永續發展已從邊緣性活動，轉變為長期企業策略與價值創造的核心支柱。

企業社會責任反映的是企業在符合法律規範之外，對社會所承擔的責任。若能被有系統地納入企業運作，CSR 有助於建立與利害關係人之間的信任、提升企業聲譽、吸引並留住人才，同時降低長期風險。這並不與股東利益相衝突，反而往往能透過強化企業韌性、創新能力與永續成長來支持股東價值。這樣的觀點與「開明股東價值」（enlightened shareholder value）高度契合，該概念認為，長期財務成功取決於在股東、員工、客戶、社區與環境之間取得平衡。

以 Fidelity International 為例，其企業社會責任應根植於「共同為更美好的財務未來努力」這一核心使命。一項清晰的 CSR 政策應聚焦於道德治理、責任投資、環境管理、社會影響力以及員工福祉。這代表企業需承諾高度的誠信與透明度，將環境、社會與公司治理（ESG）因素納入投資決策，降低營運活動對環境的影響，支持其營運所在地的金融包容與教育發展，並打造一個多元、共融且以價值為導向的職場文化。如此的政策不僅能在內部提供清楚指引，也能在外部建立信任，傳達企業已將責任納入策略決策的核心，而非僅視為附加活動。

為確保這些承諾能轉化為實際成果，績效衡量與監控至關重要。環境面向的指標可包括碳排放減量、能源使用效率提升，以及 ESG 對齊資產的比例。社會面向的指標則可涵蓋員工志工服務時數、社區投資金額、金融教育計畫的參與情況，以及員工多元性與包容性。治理面向的指標可包括董事會對永續議題的監督機制、ESG 在投資流程中的整合程度，以及第三方審核或保證結果。以客戶為導向的指標，例如對永續投資產品的滿意度或 ESG 資產的資金流入情況，也能反映 CSR 是否真正創造了可衡量的價值。

太古集團（Swire Pacific）長期投入社區發展的實踐，提供了一個具參考價值的案例。其在教育、環境保育與社區建設上的持續投資，展現了企業公民責任如何融入企業文化。從長期股東價值的角度來看，這類投入有助於維持企業的「社會營運許可」，強化與在地利害關係人的關係，並降低聲譽與法規風險。這些效益未必能立即反映在短期財務數字上，但能在長期支持企業的營運穩定性、員工投入度與品牌價值。隨著全球投資人愈來愈重視 ESG 因素，能夠展現可信社會承諾的企業，也更有能力吸引具長期視角的資本。

一份屬於 Fidelity International 的永續報告，應將上述元素整合並以透明且結構化的方式呈現。報告可說明企業在降低環境衝擊方面的進展，例如減少營運碳強度與提升各地辦公室的能源效率；也可呈現社會面向的成果，包括金融素養推廣計畫、與非營利組織的合作，以及員工志工參與情形。在治理層面，則需揭示董事會與高階管理層如何監督永續議題、如何管理 ESG 風險，以及責任投資原則如何落實於研究與投資組合建構中。透過清楚的指標、目標與年度比較，利害關係人得以客觀評估企業的實際進展，而非僅依賴敘事性的說明。

歸根究柢，企業社會責任與永續發展是在重新定義企業成功的意涵。將責任視為策略資產而非合規負擔的企業，更有能力因應不確定性與複雜性。透過使命、政策、衡量與透明揭露的高度一致，像 Fidelity International 這樣的組織能夠證明，在一個高度重視信任與長期思維的時代，「做好事」與「做得好」並非對立，而是相互強化的結果。

Modern Enterprise Risk Management

Risk management in large financial institutions has long been treated as a defensive discipline—something designed to prevent failure rather than enable success. Yet in an environment shaped by volatile markets, rapid digitization, regulatory scrutiny, and shifting client expectations, risk has become inseparable from strategy itself. For global asset managers such as Fidelity International, the question is no longer whether risks can be avoided, but how they are understood, governed, and deliberately taken in pursuit of long-term value.

Fidelity International operates across asset management, retirement solutions, and institutional investing, spanning multiple jurisdictions and regulatory regimes. This complexity makes it a useful lens through which to examine how strategic, managerial, and operational risks interact—and how boards and executives should respond when risk is viewed not merely as a control problem, but as a strategic capability.

At the strategic level, one of Fidelity International’s most material risks lies in its positioning amid structural shifts in the asset management industry. Fee compression driven by passive investing, competition from fintech platforms, and growing demand for ESG-aligned products threaten traditional active management business models. There is also geopolitical and macroeconomic risk, as Fidelity’s global footprint exposes it to divergent market cycles, capital controls, and political instability. If these risks crystallize, the consequences could include margin erosion, loss of market relevance, or stranded investment capabilities that no longer align with client demand. The appropriate response here is not risk avoidance, but risk exploitation and selective acceptance. Management should continue to invest in differentiated active capabilities, data-driven investment processes, and sustainable finance expertise, while explicitly articulating a risk appetite that supports innovation and long-term capital allocation rather than short-term performance smoothing.

At the managerial level, governance and decision-making risks become more pronounced. Fidelity International’s scale means that accountability can diffuse across regions, asset classes, and product lines. Risks arise when incentive structures emphasize short-term fund performance over prudent risk-adjusted returns, or when information asymmetry prevents senior leadership from identifying emerging issues early. Should such risks materialize, the firm could face internal control failures, cultural misalignment, or delayed responses to market stress—each of which can quickly escalate into reputational damage. In this context, the recommended response is risk reduction through governance design. Clear ownership of risk at the executive level, alignment of remuneration with long-term outcomes, and regular board-level engagement on non-financial risks are essential. Importantly, risk discussions should be integrated into strategic decision-making forums rather than confined to audit or compliance committees.

At the operational level, technology and data risks are particularly salient. Fidelity International relies heavily on complex IT platforms for trading, portfolio management, client reporting, and regulatory compliance. Cybersecurity threats, system outages, and data quality failures pose direct risks to client trust and regulatory standing. Operational disruptions could lead to financial losses, regulatory sanctions, and erosion of institutional credibility—outcomes that are difficult to reverse in a trust-based industry. Here, the appropriate response is a combination of risk reduction and risk transfer. Continued investment in cyber resilience, system redundancy, and operational controls should be complemented by insurance coverage and third-party risk management, particularly where critical services are outsourced or cloud-based.

What distinguishes mature enterprise risk management is not the absence of failure, but the presence of clarity. For Fidelity International, this means clarity about which risks are intrinsic to its strategy, which risks must be tightly controlled, and which risks should never be taken. An effective ERM system should therefore provide the board and senior management with a coherent view of how strategic ambition, managerial behavior, and operational execution intersect through risk. Risk dashboards, stress testing, and scenario analysis are only useful insofar as they inform real choices about capital, talent, and technology.

Ultimately, the lesson for Fidelity International—and for organizations like it—is that risk governance is no longer a question of compliance architecture alone. It is a leadership discipline. Boards that treat risk as an after-the-fact control will always be surprised by the future. Boards that treat risk as a lens through which strategy is shaped are far more likely to navigate uncertainty with confidence, resilience, and purpose.

In a world where volatility is the norm rather than the exception, the most competitive organizations will not be those that minimize risk—but those that understand it best and govern it most deliberately.

現代企業風險管理的真正意義

在大型金融機構中，風險管理長期以來被視為一門防禦性的學科——其目的在於避免失敗，而非促進成功。然而，在市場高度波動、數位化快速推進、監管日益嚴格，以及客戶期望不斷轉變的環境下，風險已不再只是控制問題，而是與策略本身密不可分。對於如富達國際這樣的全球資產管理機構而言，關鍵問題早已不是風險能否被完全消除，而是如何被理解、治理，並被有意識地承擔，以創造長期價值。

富達國際的業務涵蓋資產管理、退休金解決方案與機構投資，橫跨多個司法管轄區與監管體系。這樣的複雜性，使其成為觀察策略風險、管理風險與營運風險如何交織互動的理想案例，也突顯董事會與高階管理層在風險治理上所需承擔的角色——風險不再只是內控議題，而是一項策略能力。

在策略層面，富達國際面臨的重大風險之一，來自資產管理產業的結構性轉變。被動投資興起帶來的費用壓縮、金融科技平台的競爭，以及市場對 ESG 與永續投資產品的高度期待，正對傳統主動式管理模式構成挑戰。此外，富達的全球佈局也使其暴露於地緣政治與總體經濟風險之中，包括不同市場週期、資本流動限制與政治不穩定性。一旦這些風險成真，可能導致利潤空間收窄、市場相關性下降，甚至投資能力與客戶需求脫節。對此，適當的回應並非迴避風險，而是有選擇地接受風險，並善用風險。管理層應持續投資於具差異化的主動投資能力、數據驅動的投資流程與永續金融專業，同時清楚界定風險偏好，支持長期價值創造，而非僅追求短期績效穩定。

在管理層面，治理與決策風險尤為顯著。富達國際的規模意味著責任可能分散於不同地區、資產類別與產品線之間。當獎酬機制過度聚焦短期基金績效，或高階管理層因資訊不對稱而無法及早掌握新興風險時，風險便隨之產生。若此類風險實現，後果可能包括內控失靈、組織文化錯位，或在市場壓力下反應遲緩，並迅速演變為聲譽危機。在此情境下，建議的風險回應是透過治理設計來降低風險。這包括在高階主管層級清楚界定風險責任、將長期成果納入績效與獎酬制度，以及確保董事會能定期且深入地討論非財務風險。關鍵在於，風險不應被侷限於稽核或合規委員會，而應融入策略決策本身。

在營運層面，科技與資料風險尤其關鍵。富達國際高度依賴複雜的 IT 系統來支援交易、投資組合管理、客戶報告與法規遵循。網路安全威脅、系統中斷與資料品質問題，皆直接威脅客戶信任與監管合規。一旦營運中斷，可能導致財務損失、監管處分，並侵蝕一家以信任為基礎的金融機構所賴以生存的聲譽。在此層面，適當的回應是風險降低與風險移轉的結合。企業應持續投資於資安韌性、系統備援與營運控管，同時透過保險機制與第三方風險管理，特別是在關鍵服務外包或採用雲端架構時。

成熟的企業風險管理，並不在於避免所有失敗，而在於擁有清晰的判斷。對 富達國際而言，這代表必須清楚界定哪些風險是其策略不可或缺的一部分，哪些必須被嚴格控制，以及哪些是絕不可承擔的。有效的 ERM 系統，應能為董事會與高階管理層提供一個整體視角，說明策略企圖、管理行為與營運執行如何透過風險彼此連結。風險儀表板、壓力測試與情境分析的價值，最終取決於它們是否能影響關於資本、人才與科技的實際決策。

對富達國際，以及與其相似的組織而言，真正的啟示在於：風險治理早已不只是合規架構的問題，而是一項領導力課題。將風險視為事後控制的董事會，往往會被未來所突襲；而將風險視為塑造策略之關鍵視角的董事會，則更有能力在不確定性中展現信心、韌性與方向感。

在波動成為常態的時代，最具競爭力的組織，並非那些風險最低的企業，而是那些最了解風險、也最有紀律地治理風險的企業。

Strategy, Governance, and the Discipline of Direction

Strategy formulation is often presented as a rational, linear exercise, analysing the environment, assessing internal resources, setting objectives, and choosing a path forward. In practice, strategy sits at the intersection of purpose, power, information, and control. It is shaped not only by markets and capabilities, but also by governance structures, mission statements, management control systems, and board oversight. Understanding how these elements interact is essential if strategy is to be more than an annual planning ritual.

A review of mission statements from leading global companies reveals a striking pattern. Most emphasize purpose, customers, innovation, responsibility, and long-term value creation. Asset managers stress stewardship and trust, technology firms highlight impact and progress, and consumer brands focus on customers and experience. On the surface, many of these statements appear aspirational rather than operational, raising questions about their real contribution to strategy formulation.

The danger is that mission statements become symbolic artefacts, designed primarily for external audiences and public relations purposes. When statements are vague, generic, or disconnected from actual decision-making, they add little strategic value and may even foster internal cynicism. This risk can be mitigated if the mission imposes real constraints as well as inspiration, is explicitly referenced in investment and risk decisions, and is used by boards and executives to justify strategic trade-offs. When this occurs, mission statements can shape corporate culture by providing a shared reference point for managerial judgement, particularly in complex organizations where decentralised decision-making is unavoidable.

A strategic assessment of Fidelity International illustrates how traditional analytical frameworks remain relevant when applied thoughtfully. From a SWOT perspective, Fidelity’s strengths include its strong global brand, deep investment expertise, diversified product range, and long-standing client trust. Its scale allows significant investment in technology, risk management, and regulatory compliance. These strengths provide resilience, but they do not eliminate structural challenges.

Weaknesses and pressures arise from operating in an industry characterised by margin compression, increasing fee transparency, and intensifying regulatory scrutiny. The growth of passive investing, fintech platforms, and alternative asset managers has eroded the traditional advantages of active management. At the same time, maintaining a coherent culture and retaining top investment talent becomes more difficult as organizations grow and globalise.

Opportunities exist in private markets, retirement and wealth solutions, ESG integration, and the application of advanced data analytics to investment processes. Fidelity’s scale and reputation position it well to pursue these opportunities, but success depends on disciplined execution. Threats include market volatility, rapid technological disruption, and reputational risk in an environment where trust and stewardship are under constant scrutiny.

Viewed through the lens of the competitive strategic environment, rivalry among asset managers is intense, with firms competing aggressively on performance, cost, and service. Buyer power has increased as institutional clients and distribution platforms demand lower fees and greater transparency. The threat of substitutes, particularly passive funds and algorithm-driven investment solutions, is significant. While barriers to entry remain meaningful, technology has lowered them in specific niches, and supplier power, particularly for talent and specialised data, continues to rise. For Fidelity’s governing body, the strategic challenge lies in ensuring that the firm’s capabilities continue to justify its positioning in an increasingly sceptical market.

Effective strategy depends not only on formulation but also on control. In organizations such as Fidelity International, management control systems typically combine financial reporting, performance measurement, risk management, and compliance oversight. Budgeting, forecasting, investment performance attribution, key performance indicators, and internal and external audits all contribute to executive monitoring. For boards, the quality of reporting is critical. Exception reporting allows directors to focus on material deviations from expected performance or agreed risk appetites, rather than being overwhelmed by operational detail.

Control systems must reinforce strategic intent rather than undermine it. Poorly designed incentives and narrowly defined performance metrics can encourage suboptimization, where individual units pursue local goals at the expense of the organization as a whole. Boards therefore play a central role in ensuring alignment between strategy, risk frameworks, remuneration structures, and long-term value creation.

Across different organizations and sectors, a consistent governance pattern can be observed. Strategy formulation is typically led by executive management within boundaries set by the board. Policymaking translates strategy into guiding principles and constraints through corporate policies and risk appetite statements. Executive monitoring occurs through structured reporting, audits, and performance reviews. Supervision and accountability are exercised through board committees, remuneration decisions, and leadership succession planning.

What distinguishes effective governance is not the presence of these mechanisms, but how they are applied. Boards that add real value engage actively with strategy, challenge underlying assumptions, and ensure that mission, strategy, and control systems remain aligned. Sustainable strategy ultimately depends on recognising that direction without discipline is aspiration, while discipline without direction is bureaucracy.

策略、治理與方向的紀律

策略制定常被描述為一個理性且線性的過程，包括分析外部環境、評估內部資源、設定目標，以及選擇前進的方向。然而在實務中，策略存在於使命、權力、資訊與控制的交會點上。它不僅受到市場與能力的影響，也深受治理架構、使命宣言、管理控制制度以及董事會監督方式的塑造。若要讓策略不淪為一年一度的規劃儀式，理解這些要素之間的互動至關重要。

檢視全球領先企業的使命宣言，可以發現明顯的共通性。多數宣言強調宗旨、客戶、創新、責任與長期價值創造。資產管理公司著重於受託責任與信任，科技公司強調影響力與進步，消費品牌則聚焦於顧客與體驗。乍看之下，這些宣言多半偏向願景性，而非操作性，這也引發了它們是否真正對策略制定有所貢獻的疑問。

使命宣言最大的風險，在於淪為象徵性產物，主要用於對外的公共關係，而非內部的決策指引。當使命宣言過於模糊、空泛，或與實際決策脫節時，不但無法創造策略價值，反而可能在組織內部引發犬儒心態。要避免這種情況，使命必須同時具備激勵性與約束性，能夠排除某些不符合方向的選項；它必須被明確地引用於投資決策與風險討論中；董事會與高階主管也必須能清楚說明重大策略取捨如何與使命一致。當使命被如此運用時，便能塑造企業文化，並在規則與程序不足以涵蓋所有情境時，成為分散式決策的重要判斷依據。

以富達國際（Fidelity International）為例進行策略評估，可以看出傳統分析工具在審慎運用下仍然具有高度價值。從 SWOT 分析來看，富達的優勢包括其全球品牌、深厚的投資專業、多元化的產品組合，以及長期累積的客戶信任。其規模使其能夠在科技、風險管理與法規遵循上持續投入，這些都是重要的競爭基礎，但並不代表不存在結構性挑戰。

其弱點與壓力來自於所處產業的根本變化，包括費用壓縮、費率透明化以及日益嚴格的監管環境。被動式投資、金融科技平台與另類資產管理人的崛起，削弱了傳統主動式管理的差異化優勢。同時，隨著組織規模與全球化程度提高，維持一致的文化與留住頂尖投資人才也變得更加困難。

在機會方面，私募市場、退休與財富管理解決方案、ESG 整合，以及數據與分析技術在投資流程中的應用，都提供了成長空間。富達的規模與聲譽使其具備把握這些機會的條件，但關鍵仍在於執行力。威脅則包括市場波動、快速的科技顛覆，以及在高度重視信任與受託責任的環境中，任何聲譽風險所帶來的放大效應。

從競爭環境的角度來看，資產管理產業的競爭極為激烈，各家業者在績效、成本與服務上正面交鋒。隨著機構投資人與通路平台的議價能力提升，買方力量顯著增強。被動型基金與演算法投資方案構成了實質性的替代威脅。雖然整體進入門檻仍然存在，但科技已在特定利基市場中降低了門檻，而對關鍵人才與專業數據的依賴，則提升了供應方的影響力。對富達的治理機構而言，核心挑戰在於確保其能力與定位，仍能在日益質疑主動管理價值的市場中成立。

有效的策略不僅取決於制定本身，也取決於控制機制是否到位。在富達這類組織中，管理控制制度通常結合了財務報告、績效衡量、風險管理與法遵監督。預算與預測、投資績效歸因分析、關鍵績效指標，以及內外部稽核，共同構成對管理階層的監督基礎。對董事會而言，報告的品質比數量更為重要。例外報告機制能讓董事專注於偏離預期績效或風險容忍度的重大事項，而非陷入日常營運細節。

控制制度必須強化而非削弱策略意圖。若誘因設計不當、績效指標過度短期化，便容易導致次佳化行為，使個別單位為了自身績效而犧牲整體利益。因此，董事會在確保策略、風險架構、獎酬制度與長期價值創造之間的一致性方面，扮演著關鍵角色。

縱觀不同產業與組織，可以觀察到一致的治理模式。策略制定通常由管理團隊主導，但須在董事會所設定的邊界內進行。政策制定透過公司政策與風險偏好聲明，將策略轉化為行為指引與限制。執行監督則透過正式報告、稽核與績效檢討來實現，而監督與問責最終體現在董事會委員會運作、獎酬決策與高階主管接班安排上。

真正能創造價值的治理，不在於是否具備這些機制，而在於如何運用它們。能夠對策略提出實質貢獻的董事會，會持續檢視基本假設、挑戰既有思維，並確保使命、策略與控制制度之間維持一致。長期而言，缺乏紀律的方向只是空談，而缺乏方向的紀律，則只會淪為官僚主義。

Why the World Is Converging, Diverging, and Quietly Redefining Accountability

Corporate governance has never been more global, yet the practices that shape it remain deeply rooted in history, culture, and institutional design. Across the world, jurisdictions continue to balance the demands of international investors with the structures that reflect their unique political and social foundations. The Anglo-American tradition, the stakeholder-oriented continental European approach, Asian relationship-based models, and emerging-market governance frameworks all represent different attempts to align corporate power with societal expectations. What is fascinating is not merely how these systems differ, but how they increasingly influence one another.

In the Anglo-American world, the United States and the United Kingdom share a common emphasis on protecting investors in dispersed-ownership markets, yet their philosophies diverge in meaningful ways. The US remains committed to a rules-based model that favors legal specificity and enforceability. The Sarbanes–Oxley and Dodd–Frank eras exemplify a regulatory culture where detailed compliance requirements are the bedrock of trust. In contrast, the UK and Commonwealth economies champion a principles-based model, where “comply or explain” gives boards flexibility to act in the spirit—not the letter—of good governance. The question of which model prevails in the long term depends on how adaptable governance needs to be in an era of technological disruption, geopolitical tension, and corporate complexity. Rules-based regimes offer clarity and enforcement, but principles-based models provide agility and proportionality. The likely outcome is not victory for either system, but a hybrid form where rules define the boundaries and principles define the behaviors, allowing governance to remain credible yet practical.

The continental European model presents another path, shaped by concentrated ownership, strong labor representation, and the integration of stakeholder interests into corporate oversight. The two-tier board structure reflects a belief that governance must protect not just capital providers but the social fabric that corporations affect. While sometimes criticized for slower decision-making, this system is resilient—particularly in periods of economic uncertainty—because its long-term orientation reduces the volatility that markets often impose.

Japan’s keiretsu networks illustrate a distinct evolution of corporate governance aligned with social harmony, trust, and collective success. Cross-shareholdings, main-bank influence, and a consensus-driven approach to strategy form a governance ecosystem built on stability rather than short-term gains. Strategy in keiretsu firms emerges through gradualism and collaboration across the network, reinforcing corporate endurance even when market pressures intensify. Similarly, overseas Chinese family businesses rely on trust-based ownership, centralized authority, and flexible decision-making. These enterprises often prioritize family stewardship, reinvestment of profits, and rapid entry into new ventures, supported by dense networks of relationships known as guanxi.

Emerging markets bring additional lessons. Russia and China, in their respective transitions from state-controlled to market-driven economies, each adopted unique privatization strategies that shaped their governance outcomes. Russia pursued rapid mass privatization through voucher schemes and asset auctions, aiming to create a capitalist system quickly. While this approach did transfer ownership, its main weakness was the institutional vacuum in which it occurred. Weak legal protections, nascent regulatory frameworks, and the absence of transparent capital markets allowed oligarchic structures to emerge, concentrating power and eroding public trust.

China took a gradualist approach, retaining state ownership while introducing market mechanisms. Enterprises were corporatized, listing minority stakes on stock exchanges, and professional managers were introduced alongside state-appointed leaders. This allowed China to build governance capacity over time, strengthen regulatory institutions, and maintain political stability. Its weaknesses include ongoing opacity, state influence, and uneven enforcement, but its strengths lie in sequencing reforms deliberately. In comparative terms, China’s model has been significantly more successful because privatization was synchronized with institutional development rather than occurring in isolation.

Despite these divergences, powerful forces push the world toward convergence. Global capital markets require transparency, comparability, and accountability. Cross-border listings, stewardship codes, global accounting standards, and the influence of multinational corporations exert pressure for harmonization. Investors increasingly expect robust board independence, audit integrity, risk oversight, and environmental and social accountability. Technology amplifies this convergence: digital reporting, AI-driven compliance tools, and real-time data analytics make governance both more transparent and more demanding.

Yet differentiation persists—and will continue—because governance is ultimately a reflection of national identity. The US values shareholder primacy and legal recourse. Europe embeds social partnership and long-term stewardship. Asia emphasizes relationships, trust, and collective stability. These differences are not flaws; they are strengths that allow governance systems to reflect the societies they serve. What unites these diverse traditions is a shared value that traces from the earliest Western conceptualization of the corporation to contemporary Asian practice: stewardship. In every model, at every stage of corporate evolution, governance is about safeguarding assets for others—investors, employees, communities, and future generations.

As we enter a new era where corporations operate across borders, where technology accelerates crises and opportunities, and where trust is increasingly fragile, the future of governance will belong to systems that blend clarity with flexibility, accountability with empathy, and global expectations with local legitimacy. The diversity of governance models is not a barrier to progress; it is a reservoir of ideas from which the next generation of corporate leadership will be drawn.

全球正在收斂、分化，並悄悄重塑問責方式

企業治理從未如此全球化，但塑造治理實踐的因素卻依然深深根植於歷史、文化與制度基礎之中。全球各司法管轄區在回應國際投資者的要求時，仍努力維持其政治、社會與經濟結構的獨特性。英美傳統、歐陸的利害關係人模式、亞洲以關係為核心的治理風格，以及新興市場的制度改革，各自代表不同的道路，試圖將企業權力與社會期望重新對齊。真正引人入勝的，不僅是這些制度的差異，而是它們如何日益互相影響。

在英美世界，美國與英國同樣重視保護分散持股市場中的投資人，但兩者的治理哲學卻顯著不同。美國始終堅持規則為本的模式，強調明確的法律、具體的要求與可執行性。薩班斯—奧克斯利法案與多德—法蘭克法案充分體現出一種以詳細規範建立信任的監理文化。相較之下，英國與多數英聯邦國家則採取原則為本的模式，「遵守或說明」讓董事會可彈性採取符合治理精神的行為，而非僅僅遵循條文。長期而言，到底哪一種模式會勝出，將取決於治理在科技顛覆、地緣政治緊張與企業複雜性上升的時代，需具備多大的適應性。規則提供清晰與執行力，但原則提供敏捷與比例性。最可能的結果不是某一方的勝利，而是融合——由規則界定邊界，由原則引導行為，使治理既可信又實用。

歐陸模式則呈現另一種面貌，由集中持股、強烈的勞工代表制度與對利害關係人的保護共同塑造。兩層董事會結構反映了一種信念：企業治理需保護的不只是資本提供者，更是企業深植其中的社會結構。這種模式有時被批評決策較慢，但在經濟不確定時期，它的韌性極高——因為其長期導向減輕了市場短期壓力帶來的波動。

日本的企業集團（keiretsu）展現了另一種治理進化，其基於社會和諧、互信與共同成功。交叉持股、主力銀行的監督角色、共識決策，以及逐步式策略形成，構築了一個以穩定為核心的治理生態系，而非追求短期回報。策略的形成依靠網絡企業間的協作，使企業在市場壓力增加時仍能保持長期視角。同樣地，海外華人家族企業依賴以信任為基礎的所有權、集中的決策方式與高度靈活的商業手法。這些企業通常強調家族式的經營傳承、盈餘再投資與快速進入新市場，而緊密的人際網絡（關係、guanxi）是其競爭優勢的一部分。

新興市場提供了另一組值得深思的案例。俄羅斯與中國從高度國營走向市場經濟，各自採用了不同的私有化策略，也因此形成不同的治理結果。俄羅斯採用快速的大規模私有化，包括全民持股券與資產拍賣，目標是在短時間內建立資本主義體系。儘管此方式確實轉移了企業所有權，但其主要弱點在於制度缺失。薄弱的法律保障、初生的監理體系與缺乏透明度的資本市場讓少數寡頭迅速掌控關鍵資產，削弱了大眾對市場的信任。

相對而言，中國採取漸進式改革，保留國家所有權的同時引入市場機制。企業被公司化、部分股權在證券市場上市、專業經理人與國家代表共存。這使得中國得以同步培育治理能力、監管制度與資本市場，並維持宏觀穩定。其弱點包括透明度不足、國家影響力強與執法不一致，但其優勢在於改革節奏謹慎、制度建設隨步同步推進。相較之下，中國模式無疑更成功，因為私有化與制度建設並行，而不是像俄羅斯般在制度真空中發生。

儘管差異深刻，世界仍受到強大力量的推動逐漸收斂。全球資本市場要求透明、可比與問責。跨境上市、全球治理準則、國際會計標準、機構投資者的治理要求與跨國企業的實踐文化，都拉近了治理模式之間的距離。科技更強化了收斂：數位揭露、AI 合規工具與即時資料讓治理更透明，同時更具挑戰性。

然而，差異將持續存在——也必須持續存在——因為治理本質上反映出國家身份。美國重視股東權利與法律救濟；歐洲強調社會夥伴關係與長期穩定；亞洲重視關係、信任與集體協調。這些差異不是缺陷，而是各自的優勢，使治理制度能反映其社會的需求與價值。真正將這些模式連結起來的，是從西方公司概念起源至今在亞洲仍強調的一項核心價值：受託管理（stewardship）。無論制度如何演變，企業領導者始終被期待負責管理一套屬於他人的資產——投資者、員工、社群與未來世代。

在全球化深化、科技加速危機與機會、信任脆弱度升高的時代，未來的治理將屬於那些能夠結合清晰與靈活、問責與同理心、全球標準與在地正當性的制度。全球治理的多元不是障礙，而是一個思想寶庫，為下一代企業領導力帶來更成熟與全面的視野。

Codes, convergence, and where real boards go beyond the rulebook

Corporate governance has evolved from a niche academic topic to a mainstream discipline that shapes how companies create value, manage risk, and earn investor trust. Behind every governance framework lie three practical questions: which philosophy of governance truly works, how national codes differ in practice, and whether companies today are merely complying with rules or actively using governance as a competitive advantage.

A quick survey of major governance codes shows both diversity and convergence. The UK Corporate Governance Code remains one of the clearest examples of a principle-based regime, using “comply or explain” to encourage thoughtful disclosure, strong board effectiveness, structured evaluations, and transparent remuneration practices. Germany’s Corporate Governance Code reflects its distinctive two-tier board structure, combining legally binding rules with recommendations and suggestions that emphasise supervisory oversight and codify the interaction between management, shareholders, and labour. Japan’s Corporate Governance Code focuses on improving board independence, board effectiveness, and investor dialogue, addressing historical challenges of insider-driven boards and cross-shareholding. Singapore’s Code blends principles and explicit provisions, with particular attention to technology risk and market integrity in its role as a global financial hub. Overarching all of these, the G20/OECD Principles continue to serve as the global reference point, defining the essential elements of transparency, accountability, equitable treatment of shareholders, and consideration for stakeholders.

These codes reveal much about the societies in which they are embedded. Differences reflect institutional architecture, such as whether countries use unitary or two-tier boards, as well as market structures, from bank-dominated systems to highly dispersed shareholder bases. Yet a common core runs through all of them: independent oversight, transparent reporting, robust risk management and internal controls, and an emphasis on board effectiveness. This shared foundation is the clearest sign of global governance convergence.

The debate between principles-based governance and prescriptive, rules-based governance remains central. Rules offer certainty, reduce ambiguity, and make enforcement easier. This is the logic behind the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which articulates clear and mandatory requirements for internal controls, auditor attestation, audit committee independence, and financial expertise. Principles, on the other hand, allow companies to tailor governance to their strategies and contexts. They focus on outcomes rather than processes and rely on transparent disclosure and active market discipline. The UK and OECD approaches exemplify this model, encouraging boards to explain how they apply principles to create long-term value.

In practice, the world is moving toward a hybrid. Regulators increasingly codify a small number of non-negotiable rules, particularly around financial reporting, internal controls, and audit committee structure, while leaving broader aspects of board effectiveness, stakeholder engagement, sustainability oversight, and strategy formulation to principles. Investor stewardship bodies such as Federated Hermes amplify this hybrid by imposing expectations through voting policies and engagement, creating an informal enforcement layer that often exceeds regulatory requirements. For these reasons, it is unlikely that the world will converge on a single governance philosophy. Instead, we are witnessing convergence on a core set of enforceable rules, wrapped in a broader ecosystem of principles that allow national and cultural adaptation.

A review of governance disclosures from major global companies demonstrates that many organisations now go significantly beyond the minimum legal requirements. HSBC, Siemens, Toyota, DBS, and Apple all present governance not as compliance text but as part of their strategic narrative. Toyota and DBS explicitly link governance to long-term strategy, sustainability commitments, and technology oversight. DBS’s emphasis on cyber and technology risk oversight reflects the increasing importance of digital resilience, which sits beyond the scope of most traditional governance codes. HSBC and Siemens publish detailed explanations of shareholder engagement, board evaluations, succession planning, and how board discussions shape strategy, clearly exceeding statutory requirements. Apple discloses director skills matrices, independence assessments, and governance guidelines that align with investor expectations rather than minimum legal standards. Across regions, many companies now integrate climate governance into their board reports, connecting risk management, sustainability goals, and board oversight of transition planning.

These examples highlight three ways companies go beyond both law and code. First, they expand the scope of governance to cover emerging risks like technology, AI oversight, and climate, signalling that boards are treating these as strategic responsibilities. Second, they increase transparency, using narrative disclosures to explain not only what governance structures exist but why they exist and how they support long-term value creation. Third, they incorporate investor stewardship into their governance systems, recognising that active investor dialogue is itself a governance mechanism.

Governance today is no longer about ticking boxes but about using oversight, transparency, and board capability to strengthen strategic execution. Codes define expectations, but companies that treat governance as a strategic muscle — rather than a compliance burden — ultimately deliver better performance, build trust, and adapt faster to emerging challenges. As global standards continue to evolve, the most successful boards will be those that adopt the hybrid model: combining a disciplined foundation of rules for financial integrity with a flexible, principle-driven approach to strategy, technology oversight, culture, and sustainability.

法規、收斂，以及董事會如何真正超越規則本身

企業管治已從一個學術小眾話題，發展成為塑造企業如何創造價值、管理風險與建立投資者信心的主流學科。每一套管治框架背後，都圍繞着三個重要問題：何種管治哲學最有效、各國的管治守則在實踐上有何差異，以及企業今日是否僅僅遵規守法，還是積極把企業管治視為競爭優勢的一部分。

觀察全球主要的企業管治守則，可以看到多元並存與逐步收斂的趨勢。英國的《企業管治守則》是最具代表性的原則導向制度，以「遵守或解釋」為核心，鼓勵深度披露、強化董事會效能、制度化評估流程，以及提升報酬透明度。德國企業管治守則則反映其特有的兩層董事會架構，結合法規與建議條文，強調監事會的監督角色，並規範管理層、股東與勞工之間的互動。日本的企業管治守則着重提升董事會獨立性、董事會效能與投資者對話，以回應其歷史上由內部人士主導及交叉持股的挑戰。新加坡的守則則結合原則與明確規範，並更加注重科技風險及市場公信力，反映其作為國際金融中心的定位。置於這些框架之上，G20／OECD 企業管治原則則充當全球共同語言，定義透明度、問責、股東公平待遇及利害關係人考量的基礎。

從這些守則可以看出，每個國家都有其制度與文化背景。差異反映不同的制度設計，例如單層與雙層董事會，以及市場結構，例如銀行主導或股權分散的市場形式。然而，所有守則都共享一個核心：獨立監督、透明報導、完善內部控制與風險管理，以及董事會效能的重視。這共同基礎正是全球企業管治逐步走向一致的清晰證據。

原則導向（principles-based）與規則導向（rules-based）之爭仍然是企業管治的重要議題。規則提供確定性、減少模糊空間，並便於監管，例如美國《薩班斯-奧克斯利法案》（SOX）中明確強制內部控制、審計委員會獨立性與專業要求。另一方面，原則導向容許企業依其策略與環境調整管治方式，重視結果而非形式，依賴透明度與市場紀律。英國與 OECD 的做法正反映了這種以價值創造為核心的模式。

實踐中，世界各地正逐漸走向混合模式。監管機構愈來愈傾向明確規定少數不可妥協的底線，例如財務報導、審計委員會獨立性與內部控制；其餘涉及董事會效能、利害關係人互動、永續管理及策略監督的部分，則交由原則和市場自律來驅動。像 Hermes 這類投資者監管機構，亦透過投票政策與對話施加壓力，形成比法規更強的非正式約束。因此，全球不太可能收斂至單一管治理論，反而會在「不可動搖的少量規則」之外，保留更廣泛且具彈性的原則生態系。

檢視多家大型跨國企業的企業管治報告，可以發現不少企業已遠遠超越法律與守則的最低要求。匯豐、Siemens、Toyota、星展銀行（DBS）與 Apple 都不將企業管治視為例行披露，而是當成企業策略的一部分。Toyota 與 DBS 清楚將管治理念連結至長期策略、永續承諾與科技風險監督，反映董事會對未來議題的前瞻性。DBS 尤其聚焦於科技與網絡風險，這類議題甚至尚未納入許多傳統管治守則。匯豐與 Siemens 則詳盡披露董事會評估、接班規劃、股東參與與策略討論方式，遠超法定需要。Apple 更呈現技能矩陣、獨立性審查與治理指南，完全以投資者期望為標準，而非僅滿足最低法定要求。同樣地，許多公司已將氣候管治納入董事會報告，將風險管理、永續目標與轉型監督連結起來。

這些案例突顯企業如何超越守則：首先，他們將新興風險（例如科技、AI、氣候）納入董事會核心職責，將治理從過去的合規框架提升至策略層次；其次，他們加強透明度，解釋治理架構「存在的原因」及「如何支持長期價值」；最後，他們將投資者監管力量系統化，承認投資者對話本身就是治理機制。

企業管治不再是打勾式的程序，而是一套強化策略執行、建立信任與加速應對風險的能力。守則提供基準，但真正成功的企業，是那些將管治視為「策略肌肉」而非「合規負擔」的公司。隨着全球標準不斷演進，最卓越的董事會將是那些採取混合模式、在金融誠信上堅守規則，同時以原則靈活推動策略、科技監督、文化塑造與永續發展的企業。