Home

Theories, Crises, and the Purpose of the Corporation

Corporate governance has evolved through decades of economic shifts, corporate failures, and intellectual debates about the purpose of the modern corporation. At its core, corporate governance concerns how companies are directed and controlled, and particularly how power is distributed and exercised among managers, owners, and stakeholders. The field draws on several theoretical perspectives, each illuminating different aspects of governance. Although these theories sometimes appear to conflict, they are better understood as complementary perspectives on the same fundamental challenge: ensuring that those who manage the corporation act in the best interests of the enterprise, its owners, and society.

Agency theory starts from the assumption that managers are self-interested agents and that shareholders, as principals, require mechanisms to ensure alignment. Monitoring, incentives, audits, and disclosure frameworks become essential tools to mitigate managerial opportunism. Stewardship theory challenges this view by suggesting that managers are intrinsically motivated professionals who aim to act as responsible stewards of corporate assets. This perspective emphasises trust, empowerment, and collaboration rather than control. Stakeholder theory expands the discussion further by asserting that the corporation has responsibilities not only to shareholders but to a broader set of stakeholders including employees, customers, suppliers, communities, regulators, and the environment. Governance, in this view, is about balancing diverse interests rather than maximising shareholder value alone.

Despite their differences, these theories are not mutually exclusive. In practice, modern governance frameworks blend monitoring and trust, performance and purpose, compliance and culture. Boards frequently adopt both agency-based mechanisms for oversight and stewardship-oriented approaches to leadership development, while also recognising that long-term shareholder value is inseparable from stakeholder well-being. These theories function as complementary lenses for understanding the complex realities of governance in contemporary corporations.

Major developments in corporate governance have typically emerged as responses to crises. The Cadbury Report followed high-profile corporate failures in the UK, the OECD Principles were shaped by the Asian financial crisis, and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act was born directly from the collapses of Enron and WorldCom. Crisis exposes weaknesses in board oversight, risk management, audit practices, and organisational culture, prompting regulators and business leaders to formalise lessons learned into governance codes and best practices. This reactive model has strengths, as crises generate urgency and political will that enable reforms which may otherwise face resistance or inertia. They also provide real-world evidence of where governance systems have failed.

However, crisis-driven governance reform has drawbacks. It is inherently backward-looking, addressing the last failure rather than the next. It risks creating overly prescriptive, compliance-heavy frameworks that encourage box-ticking rather than thoughtful engagement with governance principles. Reliance on conventional wisdom may overlook insights from behavioural science, complexity theory, or systemic risk analysis. True governance effectiveness requires a proactive approach that integrates empirical research, anticipatory risk assessment, and cultural transformation rather than merely codifying historical lessons.

The question of who corporations ultimately exist to serve remains central in governance debates. Roberto Goizuetta, former CEO of Coca-Cola, argued that the primary calling of a company is to create value for its owners and warned that companies lose their way when they try to be all things to all people. There is validity in his concern. Shareholders are residual claimants who bear the greatest financial risk, and a clear focus on value creation prevents managerial drift and mission dilution. Many corporate failures have been attributed to a lack of strategic clarity or an overextension into unrelated objectives.

Yet modern governance acknowledges that shareholder value cannot be divorced from the interests of employees, customers, communities, and the environment. Long-term value creation requires sustainable supply chains, engaged workforces, regulatory trust, technological resilience, and environmental responsibility. Excessive short-termism in the name of shareholder primacy has historically contributed to poor corporate behaviour and systemic financial instability. Companies that consider stakeholder interests are not necessarily attempting to “serve many masters” but rather to build the conditions for durable value creation.

The most balanced view recognises that while the corporation must remain disciplined in its fundamental mission to create value, this mission is best achieved through responsible engagement with its broader stakeholder network. Corporate governance today is therefore an exercise in integration: aligning performance with purpose, profit with sustainability, and accountability with societal expectations. The strongest companies are those that create value for shareholders by creating value for the ecosystem around them.

Reflecting on the full scope of corporate governance, it becomes evident that while the traditional framework covers many critical elements, it can be expanded. Modern governance should integrate behavioural science, sustainability metrics, AI ethics, organisational psychology, stakeholder co-creation, and digital governance. These areas increasingly influence both risk and long-term value creation. A more holistic governance model would help organisations respond to emerging challenges such as climate change, cyber threats, workforce transformation, and societal expectations regarding fairness, purpose, and responsibility.

Corporate governance remains a living discipline. As organisations evolve, so must the frameworks that guide their integrity and accountability. Governance is not only about rules and oversight—it is about shaping responsible organisations that can thrive, innovate, and contribute positively to society.

理論、危機與企業存在的目的

企業管治在過去數十年間隨着經濟轉變、企業倒閉，以及對現代公司目的的辯論而不斷演進。從本質上看，企業管治關注企業如何被指導與監督，特別是管理層、股東與其他持份者之間權力如何分配與運用。此領域建立在不同理論的基礎上，各自突顯管治的不同維度。這些理論有時看似互相矛盾，但實際上更像是針對同一核心問題的多重視角：如何確保企業的管理者能以企業、所有者及社會的最大利益行事。

代理理論假設管理者是自利的代理人，而股東作為委託人需要機制來確保雙方目標一致。因此，監察、獎勵制度、審計以及披露等制度成為防止管理者機會主義行為的重要工具。管家理論則挑戰這種假設，指出管理者往往受專業精神、責任感與內在動機驅動，更傾向成為資源的負責管家而非自利的代理人。此觀點強調的是信任、授權與合作，而非控制。持份者理論的視野更為廣闊，主張企業不僅要對股東負責，更應顧及所有受企業行為影響的人，包括員工、社區、客戶、供應商、監管者與環境。此時的管治不再只是最大化股東利益，而是平衡不同群體的期望與需求。

儘管這些理論側重不同，但並非互相排斥。實踐中，現代企業管治同時吸納監督與信任、績效與使命、合規與文化等元素。董事會往往兼具代理理論下的監督角色，以及管家理論倡導的支持性領導方式，同時也理解到長期股東價值無法與持份者福祉分割。這些理論共同為理解今日公司治理的複雜現實提供了多角度的分析框架。

企業管治的重要發展往往源於危機。英國的 Cadbury 報告因企業醜聞而生，OECD 原則在亞洲金融風暴後制定，美國《沙賓法案》則直接回應安然與世通倒閉等重大事件。危機暴露了董事會監督、風險管理、審計實務及企業文化的弱點，迫使監管者與企業領袖將經驗轉化為形式化的管治原則與指引。這種反應式模式確有其優點，因為危機能促使改革，令原本可能停滯不前的制度得以突破，並提供現實案例揭露制度漏洞。

然而，基於危機的改革亦具有侷限。它往往着眼於過去問題，而非未來風險；有時會導致過度規管，使管治變成形式主義與打勾行為，而非真正反思。倚賴商界「慣常智慧」亦可能忽略行為科學、系統風險、複雜性等前沿視角。要真正提升企業管治，必須結合實證研究、前瞻性風險評估與文化變革，而非單純把過往教訓寫進守則。

企業最終應服務誰，一直是管治辯論的核心議題。可口可樂前 CEO Roberto Goizuetta 曾表示，企業的首要使命是為股東創造價值，而公司往往在「嘗試取悅所有人」時迷失方向。他的觀點確有其價值。股東承擔最高財務風險，因此是企業最終的財務承擔者；而明確的單一目標有助企業維持紀律與焦點，避免策略飄移。許多企業失敗皆源於缺乏明確方向或過度延伸至無謂的目標。

然而，現代企業管治亦認為，真正持久的股東價值不能與員工、客戶、社會與環境的利益分離。長期價值建立在永續供應鏈、投入的員工、監管信任、科技韌性與環境責任之上。過度短期化的股東至上觀念曾導致不良行為與金融系統不穩定。重視持份者利益的公司不是試圖「服務多個主人」，而是在為企業長期價值奠定基礎。

最平衡的觀點是：企業必須堅守創造價值的核心使命，但這一使命最終透過負責任地對待更廣泛的持份者網絡來實現。企業管治因此是一種整合：將績效與使命結合，將利潤與永續結合，將責任與社會期望結合。最具韌性的企業，是那些透過為整個生態圈創造價值，進而為股東創造價值的企業。

Reflecting on the full scope of corporate governance, it becomes evident that while the traditional framework covers many critical elements, it can be expanded. Modern governance should integrate behavioural science, sustainability metrics, AI ethics, organisational psychology, stakeholder co-creation, and digital governance. These areas increasingly influence both risk and long-term value creation. A more holistic governance model would help organisations respond to emerging challenges such as climate change, cyber threats, workforce transformation, and societal expectations regarding fairness, purpose, and responsibility.

Corporate governance remains a living discipline. As organisations evolve, so must the frameworks that guide their integrity and accountability. Governance is not only about rules and oversight—it is about shaping responsible organisations that can thrive, innovate, and contribute positively to society.

Understanding Corporate Governance in a Changing World

Corporate governance has evolved into one of the most important disciplines in modern organisational life. At its core, governance defines how power is exercised, how decisions are made, and how organisations remain accountable to the stakeholders who rely on them. Although the language of corporate governance became common only in the 1980s, the underlying principles have existed for centuries. They reflect humanity’s ongoing attempt to balance authority, responsibility, fairness, and transparency within institutions that grow more complex as economies expand.

A corporate entity requires a constitution because clarity is essential when multiple parties share ownership and control. A constitution, or Articles of Association, sets out the rules of internal management, defining how directors are appointed, how decisions are made, how ownership rights are exercised, and how disputes are resolved. It creates a stable governance framework that reduces ambiguity and protects both shareholders and the organisation itself.

Distinguishing between private and public companies is central to understanding governance obligations. A private company raises capital privately, operates under lighter regulation, and is prohibited from offering shares to the general public. A public company, by contrast, may sell shares on the open market and must therefore comply with more stringent transparency, reporting, and investor-protection rules. This fundamental difference shapes every aspect of their governance structures.

A common source of confusion is the distinction between governance and management. Governance sets direction and ensures accountability, while management executes strategy and operates the organisation day to day. Governance answers “what” and “why,” whereas management answers “how.” This division is vital because organisations require both long-term stewardship and short-term operational proficiency.

In unitary board systems, common in the United States and United Kingdom, a paradox naturally arises. The board must simultaneously oversee management while also providing support to that same team. It is both mentor and monitor, collaborator and critic. Balancing these roles is a defining challenge of effective governance.

The scope of corporate governance is broad. It encompasses board structure, shareholder rights, executive accountability, risk management, ethical culture, disclosure, compliance, and stakeholder engagement. Yet, as organisations evolve, so do expectations. Today, environmental sustainability, digital risk, cybersecurity, data ethics, and societal impact increasingly form part of governance responsibilities. Traditional governance frameworks focused heavily on financial and legal compliance, but a more holistic view is now essential. If anything, the scope should expand to include digital resilience, AI governance, corporate purpose, psychological safety, and the broader effects of corporate behaviour on society.

Transparency is a core governance principle. In the United Kingdom, company accounts, annual returns, and statutory filings can be accessed by anyone through Companies House. This openness builds trust and ensures accountability, especially for publicly listed firms.

The United States has its own unique governance history. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was created in 1934 following the 1929 stock market crash and the collapse of investor confidence during the Great Depression. Its mission remains to protect investors, maintain fair and efficient markets, and ensure honest and transparent securities trading. Today’s regulatory ecosystem emerged directly from the failures of that era.

Board structures vary widely across countries. Some companies, especially start-ups or subsidiaries, operate with all-executive boards because they are small, privately owned, or guided by a parent company that provides governance oversight. US-listed companies typically adopt a single-tier board composed of both executives and independent directors, supported by audit, compensation, and governance committees.

Europe provides a notable contrast through the two-tier board system found in Germany. Here, a supervisory board represents shareholders and employees, overseeing but remaining separate from the management board that runs daily operations. This structural separation reinforces independence and stakeholder representation.

The European Union has gone a step further by creating legislation that allows the formation of a cross-border corporate entity known as a “European Company” or Societas Europaea (SE). This structure enables a company to operate across member states under a unified legal framework, reducing administrative complexity. Whether the United States should adopt a similar federal-level incorporation system is an interesting question. Currently, corporations are formed at the state level, with Delaware being the most common. A federal incorporation regime could provide uniform standards, simplify interstate operations, reduce legal fragmentation, and potentially strengthen corporate accountability. However, it might also diminish states’ ability to innovate and compete, which is part of what makes US corporate law adaptable and dynamic. The benefits would need to be weighed carefully against the loss of regulatory diversity.

Visualising governance structures can deepen understanding. A simple circle-and-triangle schematic can illustrate the layers of authority. Consider a professional sports club: the triangle represents governance at the top (the board), management in the middle (executives and coaches), and membership or supporters forming the base. The circle represents the broader ecosystem—regulators, league authorities, sponsors, and the community—who influence or constrain organisational behaviour. This diagram reveals how power flows: the board sets direction, management executes, and the wider environment shapes the organisation through rules, expectations, and resources. It becomes clear that power is not held solely within the organisation; it is constantly negotiated with external forces.

Reflecting on the full scope of corporate governance, it becomes evident that while the traditional framework covers many critical elements, it can be expanded. Modern governance should integrate behavioural science, sustainability metrics, AI ethics, organisational psychology, stakeholder co-creation, and digital governance. These areas increasingly influence both risk and long-term value creation. A more holistic governance model would help organisations respond to emerging challenges such as climate change, cyber threats, workforce transformation, and societal expectations regarding fairness, purpose, and responsibility.

Corporate governance remains a living discipline. As organisations evolve, so must the frameworks that guide their integrity and accountability. Governance is not only about rules and oversight—it is about shaping responsible organisations that can thrive, innovate, and contribute positively to society.

在變動世界中理解公司治理

公司治理已成為現代組織生活中最重要的學科之一。其核心在於界定權力如何被行使、決策如何產生，以及組織如何對依賴它們的利害關係人負責。雖然「公司治理」這個詞直到 1980 年代才普及，但其底層原則已存在數百年，反映了人類在企業規模與經濟複雜度不斷增加的情況下，持續嘗試在權力、責任、公平與透明之間取得平衡。

一間企業需要一份章程，是因為當多方共享所有權與控制權時，清晰性變得十分重要。章程（或公司組織章程大綱與細則）訂定公司內部治理的規則，界定董事如何任命、決策如何進行、股東如何行使權利，以及爭議如何解決。它建立一套穩定的治理框架，減少模糊與衝突，保障股東與公司自身的長期運作。

區分私人公司與上市公司是理解治理義務的基礎。私人公司以非公開方式集資，監管較少，也不能向公眾出售股份。上市公司則可在公開市場籌集資金，因此必須遵守更嚴格的透明度、申報及投資者保護規範。這一根本差異形塑兩類公司的治理模式。

治理與管理的差別常常引起混淆。治理負責設定方向與確保問責，管理則執行策略並處理日常營運。治理回答「做什麼」與「為什麼」，管理回答「如何做」。兩者的區隔至關重要，因為組織需要長期的監督與短期的營運能力同時並存。

在美國與英國常見的單一董事會（unitary board）模式下，董事會的角色本身具有矛盾性：它既要監督管理層，同時又要支持管理層，是合作夥伴也是監督者。在同一個董事會內取得這種平衡，是有效治理的核心挑戰之一。

公司治理的範圍非常廣泛，包括董事會架構、股東權利、管理階層問責、風險管理、企業文化、資訊揭露、合規與利害關係人溝通。然而，隨著組織演變，治理的期待也在改變。今日，環境永續、數位風險、網路安全、資料倫理與社會責任已成為治理的重要組成部分。傳統治理框架主要聚焦財務與法律遵循，但現代企業需要更全面的治理視角。如果要改進，治理範圍應融合數位韌性、人工智慧治理、企業使命、心理安全及企業行為對社會的影響。

透明度是治理的核心原則之一。在英國，公司帳目、年度申報與其他法定文件可透過 Companies House 向公眾公開查閱，這種制度提升了信任與問責。

美國的治理歷史則帶有獨特背景。1934 年，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）在 1929 年股災及大蕭條後成立，目的是恢復投資者信心，並遏止詐欺與市場操縱行為。其使命至今仍然是保護投資者、維持公平有效的市場，以及確保交易的透明與誠實。今日的監管架構正是源自那段金融動盪時期的教訓。

各國的董事會架構有所不同。一些初創企業或集團子公司可能採用全主管（all-executive）董事會，因為它們規模較小、所有權集中特定人士，或由母公司提供治理監督。美國上市公司通常採用單一董事會，由管理層與獨立董事組成，並設有審計、薪酬及提名／治理委員會，以確保監督機制獨立運作。

歐洲則以德國的雙層董事會（two-tier board）制度為代表。其架構由監事會（Aufsichtsrat）與管理董事會（Vorstand）組成。監事會負責監督與任命管理董事會，且必須包含員工代表，確保利害關係人參與治理；管理董事會則負責企業的日常營運。兩者明確分離，強調監督獨立性。

歐盟更進一步創立跨國法律架構，允許成立跨境「歐洲公司」（Societas Europaea, SE），讓企業可在會員國間以統一的法律制度運作，降低行政成本。若美國仿效採用聯邦層級的公司註冊制度會如何，是值得探討的議題。目前美國公司是在州層級註冊（尤其是 Delaware 最受歡迎）。聯邦制度可能提供統一標準、簡化跨州營運、減少法律碎片化並提升治理品質，但也可能犧牲州與州之間的法規創新與競爭。這將是一場在效率與靈活性之間的權衡。

在視覺化治理結構時，使用圓形與三角形的示意圖能幫助理解權力流動。以一個專業體育俱樂部為例：三角形頂端代表治理（董事會），中間層代表管理（教練、行政領導），底部是會員或支持者。外圍的圓形則代表規管機構、聯盟、贊助商與社區等外部力量。透過這種視覺化模型，我們可以看到權力不僅在組織內部流動，同時也受到外部力量的牽引。組織並非孤立運作，而是在更大的生態圈中持續互動。

回顧公司治理的整體範圍，可以看出傳統框架雖涵蓋許多核心領域，但仍可擴展。現代治理應納入行為科學、永續績效、AI 倫理、組織心理學、利害關係人共創，以及數位治理等新範疇。這些議題已直接影響企業風險、績效與長期價值。更全面的治理模型能讓組織更好地應對氣候變化、網路威脅、數位轉型、工作型態演變，以及社會對企業使命與公平性的期待。

公司治理是一門不斷演化的學科。隨著組織變動，管理它們的框架也必須同步成長。治理不只是規則與監督，更關乎塑造負責任、有韌性、能創新、並能為社會帶來正面貢獻的企業。

Why corporate governance was slow to evolve

Corporate governance is a familiar phrase today, but its rise was surprisingly slow. Although the underlying ideas were understood as early as 1932, when Berle and Means described the separation of ownership and control, the term “corporate governance” itself did not take hold until the 1980s. For much of the twentieth century, management studies focused primarily on how to run companies, strategy, operations, marketing, and leadership, rather than on how power should be overseen or balanced inside firms. Oversight, fiduciary duty, and board accountability were seen as legal or political matters, not management challenges. Academic and professional priorities therefore concentrated on efficiency and growth rather than control, accountability, or the protection of stakeholder interests. This meant that although the concepts existed, the institutional structures and political will required to turn these ideas into a distinct field were missing until major scandals forced attention.

Another reason for the slow evolution was the fragmentation of legal and financial systems. Corporate law, accounting standards, securities regulation, and banking rules all evolved at different speeds and often with conflicting objectives. Governance problems that cut across these systems, such as off–balance sheet financing or related-party transactions, were difficult to address because coordinated reform was rare. In many countries, concentrated ownership, family businesses, large industrial groups, or bank-controlled companies, reduced pressure for formal governance frameworks since dominant owners could directly discipline managers. Where ownership was dispersed, small shareholders were often apathetic. Without strong investor activism or institutional investors pushing for reform, governance did not gain traction. Most importantly, there had been no wave of spectacular corporate scandals large enough to politicize governance failures. Only in the 1980s, when major collapses and market abuses emerged across the world, did the term “corporate governance” become mainstream, as academics, regulators, and journalists sought ways to understand and prevent such failures.

Many early failures illustrate why governance eventually became a central concern. In Australia, the collapses associated with Alan Bond, the Bell Group, Laurie Connell, and Rothwells revealed the dangers of concentrated executive power, extreme leverage, opaque financing structures, and overly close relationships between business and politics. The lack of independent oversight allowed charismatic leaders to expand recklessly until reality caught up and creditors were left exposed. In the United Kingdom, the Robert Maxwell scandal demonstrated how a powerful executive could override weak internal controls to divert pension assets for personal use. This collapse showed the need for independent audit committees, pension oversight, and checks on the influence of dominant CEOs. In the United States, the insider-trading scandals involving Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken, and Drexel Burnham Lambert exposed cultures built on excessive risk-taking, misaligned incentives, and poor compliance. Although regulations existed, firms lacked the internal governance strength needed to prevent misconduct. In Japan, the Recruit scandal revealed deep entanglements between corporations and political elites. Pre-IPO allocations of shares were used to buy favour, exposing the weaknesses of disclosure rules and the risks of political capture.

Would modern governance codes have prevented these collapses? They would certainly have reduced the likelihood. Requirements for board independence, audit committees, disclosure of related-party transactions, stronger insider-trading enforcement, and clearer fiduciary duties all address the failure mechanisms seen in these early scandals. However, governance codes only work when supported by enforcement, independent institutions, competent auditors, and investors who hold leaders to account. Without these, even the best regulatory frameworks can be circumvented.

Later failures in the 1990s and 2000s provide even clearer evidence of recurring governance weaknesses. Enron collapsed when executives hid debt in off-balance sheet entities, and auditors at Arthur Andersen failed to provide independent scrutiny. WorldCom inflated earnings by capitalizing routine expenses, a practice driven by pressure from senior management. Tyco’s leadership used corporate funds for personal benefits in a culture with weak board oversight. Parmalat fabricated assets and hid debt through opaque financial structures, while HIH Insurance in Australia engaged in under-reserving, risky acquisitions, and chronic mismanagement until insolvency became unavoidable. Marconi and other British firms failed after overoptimistic forecasts, weak audit quality, and aggressive accounting undermined credibility. Across these cases, the common thread is unmistakable: the failure of checks and balances. Misaligned incentives encouraged short-term manipulation, boards lacked independence or expertise, auditors became too close to management, and complex, opaque financial structures made it difficult for any outsider to detect wrongdoing.

The financial institutions that collapsed during the 2007,2009 global financial crisis demonstrated that governance failures were not limited to individual companies but could undermine entire financial systems. Institutions such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, and AIG suffered from excessive leverage, maturity mismatches, and a reliance on complex mortgage-backed securities that few board members truly understood. Compensation structures rewarded short-term volume rather than long-term risk management. Risk functions were often weak or subordinated to business units, and boards lacked the financial expertise needed to challenge executives. Regulators, fragmented across jurisdictions and constrained by outdated rules, failed to rein in systemic risk. The crisis revealed governance breakdowns at firm level, regulatory level, and system level.

The post-crisis reforms, stronger capital requirements, liquidity rules, independent risk committees, enhanced disclosure obligations, stress testing, and improved compensation design, were attempts to address these systemic failures. Yet they reaffirm a simple truth: governance is effective only when culture, incentives, oversight, and regulation align. When any one of these pillars fails, even sophisticated markets and powerful institutions can collapse.

The history of corporate governance can therefore be understood as a long-delayed response to recurring patterns of failure. The ideas were always known, but it took decades of scandals, collapses, and financial crises to force institutions to translate those ideas into practice. Corporate governance will continue to evolve because the underlying pressures, complex markets, powerful executives, aggressive incentives, and regulatory gaps, are permanent features of modern capitalism. The challenge is not simply creating stronger rules but fostering cultures and institutions capable of enforcing them.

為何公司治理的演進如此緩慢

今日「公司治理」已是耳熟能詳的詞彙，但它的興起其實相當緩慢。早在 1932 年，Berle 和 Means 已經指出所有權與控制權分離的問題，但「公司治理」這個用語直到 1980 年代才真正流行。二十世紀的大部分時間裡，管理學主要關注如何經營企業、策略、營運、行銷與領導，而非企業內部權力如何被監督或平衡。監督、信託責任、董事會問責等概念被視為法律或政治領域的議題，而不是管理問題。因此，學界與專業界都把焦點放在效率與成長，而不是控制、問責或保障利害關係人。這使得概念雖然存在，但缺乏將其制度化的動力，直到重大醜聞發生才促使外界重視。

另一個演變緩慢的原因，是法律與金融制度的碎片化。公司法、會計準則、證券法規與銀行監管皆以不同速度、不同邏輯演進，甚至互相矛盾。治理問題往往跨越這些制度，使得像表外融資、關係人交易等問題難以全面處理。在許多國家中，由於所有權高度集中，例如家族企業、企業集團或銀行主導企業，強力所有者本身就能制衡管理層，因此對正式治理機制的需求較低。而在所有權分散的市場中，小股東普遍冷漠，缺乏施壓力量。更重要的是，當時並沒有足夠嚴重的大型企業醜聞，使治理問題政治化。直到 1980 年代，各國接連爆出重大企業倒閉與市場濫權事件，學者、監管者與媒體才開始使用「公司治理」一詞，並尋求解釋與改革途徑。

早期企業崩潰的案例也清楚展現治理的重要性。在澳洲，Alan Bond、Bell Group、Laurie Connell 與 Rothwells 的倒閉，揭露了高層權力過度集中、極端槓桿、資訊不透明，以及商界與政治界關係過於緊密的風險。缺乏獨立監督，使得具有個人魅力的領導者得以不受制衡地擴張，直到資金鏈斷裂、債權人遭殃。在英國，Robert Maxwell 的醜聞顯示，一名強勢的 CEO 如何在內控薄弱的情況下挪用退休金資產，引發廣泛震驚。此事件凸顯獨立審計委員會、退休金監督與對 CEO 權力進行制衡的必要性。在美國，Ivan Boesky、Michael Milken 與 Drexel Burnham Lambert 的內幕交易醜聞則揭示了過度冒險、錯誤誘因與薄弱合規文化的問題。儘管法規已存在，企業內部治理仍不足以防止不當行為。在日本，Recruit 醜聞揭露企業與政治之間的深度糾結，透過上市前配股收買政治人物，使資訊揭露與政治干預的問題暴露無遺。

若以今日的治理守則能否避免這些事件來看，答案是：機率大幅降低。現代治理要求董事會獨立性、審計委員會、關係人交易揭露、強化內幕交易執法與明確的信託義務，都直接針對上述失敗機制。然而，治理要發揮效果，必須有執法機構、獨立制度、專業審計與積極股東共同支持。若缺乏這些條件，再良好的規範也可能被規避。

1990 與 2000 年代的崩潰案例更深入揭示治理弱點的重複性。Enron 倒閉源於高層利用表外實體隱藏債務，而會計師事務所 Arthur Andersen 未能提供獨立審查。WorldCom 透過將一般費用資本化以誇大獲利，動機來自高層的不當壓力。Tyco 的管理層則在幾乎沒有董事會監督的文化下，將公司資金用於個人奢侈開銷。義大利 Parmalat 偽造資產、隱藏債務，澳洲 HIH Insurance 則因低估準備金、高風險併購與長期管理不善而破產。英國的 Marconi 等公司則因過度樂觀預測、薄弱審計品質與激進會計手法而失去信任。這些事件的共同核心清晰可見：制衡失效。誘因錯置鼓勵短期操控、董事會缺乏獨立性或專業、審計師與管理層過度親密、複雜且不透明的財務結構使外界難以察覺問題。

2007 至 2009 年的全球金融危機則展示了治理失效不只毀掉企業，更能破壞整個金融體系。雷曼兄弟、貝爾斯登、華盛頓互惠與 AIG 等機構擁有極高槓桿、期限錯配，並過度依賴董事會難以理解的複雜金融商品。薪酬制度獎勵短期交易量，而非長期穩健風險管理。風險管理部門地位薄弱，甚至服從於業務單位，董事會缺乏挑戰管理層的金融專業知識。跨國監管機構分散且法規落後，使系統性風險不斷累積。這場危機揭露了企業、監管與體系三個層面的治理崩潰。

危機後的改革，包括更高的資本要求、流動性規範、獨立風險委員會、強化資訊揭露、壓力測試與更合理的薪酬制度，都是對治理失效的回應。然而，它再次凸顯一個簡單而重要的事實：治理只有在文化、誘因、監督與監管一致時，才能真正有效。只要其中一個環節失靈，即使是強大的市場與大型金融機構也可能倒下。

因此，公司治理的歷史其實是一段被延遲了數十年的學習過程。基礎理念一直都存在，但必須經歷無數次醜聞、倒閉與金融危機，制度才真正開始成形。公司治理將持續演進，因為市場複雜性、管理階層權力、激進誘因與監管缺口等問題，是現代資本主義的常態。真正的挑戰並非制定更多規則，而是培育能讓規則落實的文化與制度。

A Letter to Fresh Graduate

Stepping out of university and into the working world can feel like stepping into fog. The path ahead is unclear, rejections feel personal, the job market seems harsh, and everywhere you turn someone is talking about how AI might replace your skills. If you’re feeling lost, you’re not alone, and more importantly, there is a way forward. As someone with over ten years of experience navigating technology, teams, and the ups and downs of multiple industries, here’s the advice I would give you, my mentee.

When everything feels chaotic, the instinct is to push harder. But sometimes the best first step is to stop and reflect. Ask yourself what your teenage self once dreamed of becoming, and imagine the ideal version of yourself five years from now if there were no constraints, no financial pressure, no competitive job market, no expectations from others. This reflection isn’t about realism, it’s about reconnecting with your authentic aspirations. And if your honest answer is simply wanting to earn more money, that’s a reasonable and valid goal too. But discovering a deeper passion gives direction, shaping the industries you choose and the skills you develop.

It’s natural to feel insecure about your technical abilities. The solution isn't to panic but to understand yourself better. Start with a self-assessment: identify what you’re strong at and where you struggle. Maybe you understand programming fundamentals well but feel nervous during presentations. That’s fine. You can improve your weaknesses over time while doubling down on your strengths during job applications. Your growth accelerates when you learn to play to your natural advantages.

If the industry feels overwhelming or confusing, take time to study it. Conduct a simple market analysis: understand what differentiates a traditional financial institution that uses technology from a tech company entering the finance world. Explore sectors like cryptocurrency companies, digital banks, retail banks, investment firms, and payment platforms. Researching the landscape not only boosts your confidence and interview performance, it also helps you identify opportunities that align with your goals.

You may also worry when your programming skills don't match job descriptions that seem to demand specific languages like Java. But instead of focusing narrowly on syntax, take a broader view of technology. Java is common in banking and backend systems, JavaScript powers frontend development, Solidity is for blockchain, Python drives AI and data work. More important than any specific language is your grasp of fundamental concepts: object-oriented design, pointers versus references, synchronous versus asynchronous operations, single-thread versus multithread processing, and core architecture principles. If you understand these well, you can pick up new languages quickly. And remember that technical interviews are essentially communication tests disguised as coding challenges. Being able to explain complex ideas in simple terms, for example, describing what Chainlink does without resorting to jargon like “Oracle”, demonstrates clarity, maturity, and the ability to collaborate effectively.

Many young graduates also worry that AI might take away their jobs. The truth is that AI will automate certain tasks, but it won’t replace people who work well with other people. Strengthen your soft skills: learn how to manage up, understand your boss’s leadership style, adapt your communication accordingly, and practice empathy. Develop critical thinking and domain knowledge. In the age of AI, the people who thrive are the ones who understand problems deeply, communicate clearly, and make thoughtful decisions. AI is a tool, and those who know how to leverage it, rather than compete with it, will succeed.

If you’re thinking about whether you should work overseas in the future, bring the question back to your personal goals. International exposure can be valuable, helping you broaden your worldview and stretch your comfort zone. But working overseas comes with intense competition, higher taxes, and cultural adjustments. Your success isn’t defined by geography. What matters more is clarity about your goals, awareness of your strengths, and how well you align opportunities with the future you want to create. If global experience helps you reach your ideal future, pursue it. If it doesn’t, focus on building a strong foundation where you are.

Feeling lost at the start of your career is not a sign of failure. It is the beginning of a meaningful journey. Careers are built not by knowing everything from day one, but by reflecting on your goals, understanding your strengths, asking thoughtful questions, improving steadily, staying adaptable, and building human skills that remain valuable even in an AI-driven world. This era isn’t about competing with everyone else, it’s about differentiating yourself. Your clarity, your curiosity, and your willingness to learn will set you apart far more than any single programming language ever could. You don’t need to see the entire path today, you just need to take the next intelligent step. And I’m here to walk with you.

寫給迷惘求職者的一封信

走出大學、踏入社會，就像走進一片濃霧。前方的路看不清楚，求職被拒讓人覺得挫敗，職場競爭激烈，而四周充斥著「AI 會取代你」的聲音。如果你覺得迷茫，請相信這並不是只有你才有的感受，更重要的是，迷茫不代表走錯路，而是前往真正方向的起點。以我十多年的工作經驗，歷經科技轉變、組織變化與多個行業的起伏，以下是我想對你說的。

當世界看似混亂時，人最自然的反應就是更努力往前衝。但有時候，最好的第一步是停下來思考。問問自己，青少年時期曾經夢想成為什麼？如果沒有任何限制、壓力、競爭與期待，五年後的理想自己是什麼模樣？這不是要你務實，而是要你重拾內心真正的渴望。如果你的答案只是「我想賺更多錢」，那也是合理且正常的。然而，找到更深層的熱情能幫助你更清楚職涯方向，也能決定你未來會選擇的產業與要培養的技能。

你可能也會擔心自己的技術能力不夠好。面對這個焦慮，最有效的方法不是恐慌，而是更了解自己。先做一次自我評估：你的強項是什麼？弱點在哪裡？可能你程式基礎扎實，但上台介紹時會緊張。這很正常。弱點可以用時間改善，但你可以在求職時善用自己的強項。唯有了解自己，才能把優勢放在最能發光的位置。

如果你覺得自己對行業了解不夠，那就開始做研究吧。進行簡單的市場分析：想清楚傳統金融機構運用科技與科技公司進入金融領域有什麼不同。了解加密貨幣公司、零售銀行、投資機構、數位銀行、支付平台等不同業態。研究市場不只是面試中的加分項，它能幫你找到真正適合自己的機會。

你也可能會擔心自己不符合職缺要求，例如某些工作要 Java，而你是學 Python 或 JavaScript 的。這時候，不要把焦點放在語言本身，而是用更宏觀的角度看技術堆疊。Java 常見於銀行與後端，JavaScript 是前端主力，Solidity 用於區塊鏈，Python 用於 AI 與資料分析。比語言更重要的，是基礎概念：物件導向、指標與參照、同步與非同步、單執行緒與多執行緒、資料結構、程式設計思維。只要基礎扎實，你換語言會很快。而且，多數技術面試其實是「溝通能力測驗」。能否把複雜概念用簡單方式解釋，例如不用「Oracle」這種術語，也能說清楚 Chainlink 在做什麼，這種能力其實更重要。

很多畢業生也會擔心 AI 會取代所有工作。事實上，AI 會取代的是不懂與他人合作、不懂思考、缺乏專業深度的工作。但 AI 取代不了人類的特質：理解他人、管理利害關係人、與主管相處、換位思考、根據領導風格調整溝通方式、提出洞察力與判斷力。這些都是 AI 時代更被重視的能力。真正能在 AI 時代成功的人，是能善用 AI、而不是被 AI 替代的人。

最後，你可能會想：要不要規劃未來到海外工作？把問題拉回第一步，回到你的職涯目標。海外經驗確實能拓展視野，也能讓你更成熟，但國外也意味著更激烈的競爭與更高的稅務負擔。成功不是由地點決定的，而是由你的方向、你的優勢，以及你是否將機會與目標對齊所決定。如果海外經驗能靠近你的理想，那就去追求。如果不能，那就專注在眼前的地方打好基礎。

迷惘不是弱點，而是你正在「思考自己想成為誰」的證明。職涯的構築從來不是靠一開始知道全部，而是靠踏實地反思、了解自己、問對問題、穩定成長、保持彈性、並深化那些 AI 也無法複製的人類能力。這個時代的競爭不是比誰懂的多，而是比誰更清楚自己、誰能更快調整、誰能在人與 AI 共存的時代找到自己的位置。

你不需要今天就看清所有道路，你只需要踏出下一步正確的選擇。而我會在你走的這段路上，陪著你。

Tokenising Money Market Funds — the quiet revolution in short-term cash management

The tokenisation of money market funds (MMFs) has shifted from speculative pilots to a strategic transformation led by the world’s largest asset managers. Firms like BlackRock, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton and others are no longer experimenting; they are actively deploying tokenised fund structures to bring institutional liquidity onto blockchain networks. What once seemed experimental is now becoming an infrastructural layer for global cash management, driven by rising interest rates, improved custody solutions, and a maturing technological stack that blends traditional finance with programmable digital assets.

At its core, a tokenised money market fund represents legally recognised shares of a traditional MMF expressed as blockchain-based tokens. The legal nature of the fund remains unchanged, but the technology introduces unprecedented efficiency: intraday settlement, programmable liquidity, automation of corporate actions, and real-time composability with the broader on-chain ecosystem. Smart contracts govern the issuance and redemption flow, but the transfer agent remains responsible for the canonical shareholder register, ensuring regulatory compliance while enabling the advantages of digital asset operation.

This new design pattern borrows concepts from both traditional finance and innovations in blockchain. Stablecoin architectures have influenced how NAV-pegged tokens behave as stable-value instruments. Zero-knowledge proofs offer a way to verify compliance and investor identity without exposing private information on a public ledger, enabling regulated participants to transact with verifiable but private credentials. The architecture of tokenised MMFs is shaped around bridging the privacy requirements of traditional funds with the openness and transparency of blockchain networks.

A critical piece of this architecture is solving the oracle problem. Blockchains cannot directly access external information; they are deterministic systems that require external data—NAV, interest rates, FX feeds, redemption windows, and compliance signals—to be provided through oracles. If an oracle is compromised or inaccurate, the entire tokenised fund becomes vulnerable. Chainlink addresses this by using decentralised oracle networks that aggregate data from multiple independent providers, cryptographically secure the delivery of information, and provide decentralised execution and off-chain reporting to reduce costs while maintaining verifiability. Chainlink also offers cross-chain interoperability capabilities through CCIP, allowing tokenised assets and their state transitions to move securely between chains. This means the NAV, corporate actions, and compliance events of a tokenised MMF can be synchronised across a multi-chain ecosystem without relying on insecure or fragmented bridge mechanisms.

Cross-chain complexity is becoming one of the central design challenges for tokenised funds. Liquidity, applications, user preference, and institutional custodial environments differ widely across blockchains, forcing tokenised assets to exist in a multi-protocol world. Different chains operate with different token standards, finality models, KYC primitives, and smart contract frameworks. ERC-20, while the most widely adopted token standard, does not natively support regulated transfer restrictions, identity-aware compliance, or cross-chain consistency. This pushes institutions toward extensions such as ERC-1400 or ERC-3643, or toward permissioned wrappers that impose compliance layers on top of ERC-20. Fragmented liquidity, heterogeneous bridge mechanisms, and inconsistent regulatory enforcement across chains create significant operational burdens. Industry initiatives such as Chainlink CCIP, Cosmos IBC, and Polkadot XCM are making progress, but true standardisation is still evolving and will take years to fully harmonise.

The broader ecosystem supporting tokenised MMFs is growing rapidly. Banks, custodians, fund administrators, market infrastructures, and digital asset specialists like Chainlink, Sygnum, Fireblocks, Taurus and others are building the rails for tokenised share issuance, on-chain settlement, compliant identity frameworks, real-time NAV delivery, and cross-chain operational controls. These providers are forming the connective tissue between on-chain programmable assets and the regulated frameworks of traditional financial markets.

Regulation remains both a catalyst and constraint. Tokenised funds must comply with existing securities regulations, investor protection rules, transfer agent requirements, and disclosure standards. Maintaining the shareholder register on-chain requires legal clarity, and custodial models must address bankruptcy remoteness, fiduciary duties, and segregation of client assets. Yet regulators increasingly recognise the efficiency potential: tokenisation provides transparency, auditability, and reduced operational risk. As long as compliance obligations are met, regulators see tokenisation as an enabler of safer and more efficient markets.

The longer-term implications of tokenisation point to profound disruption. If on-chain settlement becomes the canonical record, many transfer agency functions—recordkeeping, reconciliation, corporate action processing—could compress dramatically or become automated entirely. If cross-chain standards mature, liquidity may shift from traditional distribution channels to interoperable, programmable token marketplaces. On-chain collateralisation of MMF tokens could reduce the role of custodians and distributors as assets become natively composable within decentralised and institutional financial networks. Oracle-secured automation could eliminate whole categories of middle-office functions, from NAV delivery to compliance attestations to settlement cut-off enforcement.

The most disruptive possibility is that algorithmic or open-source reference portfolios may begin to compete with or unbundle traditional fund providers. If a tokenised MMF structure can be replicated, transparently audited, and rebalanced automatically using on-chain workflows, the competitive advantage of traditional fund managers may shift from operational capabilities to pure investment strategy differentiation. While this is not an immediate shift, the direction of travel is unmistakable: tokenisation is compressing the operational stack and exposing the true value drivers in asset management.

The tokenisation of money market funds represents an inflection point in the evolution of institutional liquidity. It preserves the regulatory safeguards of traditional finance while unlocking the programmability and composability of blockchain infrastructure. As oracle networks mature, cross-chain interoperability becomes secure, and compliance primitives become standardised, the industry will see increasing pressure to modernise or risk disintermediation. The future of short-term liquidity will not be defined by which fund is largest, but by which fund is most visible, programmable, interoperable, and operationally efficient on-chain. This is the quiet revolution reshaping the very nature of cash management and the institutions that support it.

貨幣市場基金代幣化 —— 靜悄悄改變短期資金管理的革命

在金融科技的快速變革中，資產代幣化正重塑我們設計、交易與管理金融產品的方式。其核心在於將現實世界資產數位化，使其能在區塊鏈上以高度效率、透明度與可組合性運作。當代幣化從被動持有資產，進一步延伸至可在鏈上執行、拆分、抵押、轉移甚至自動化處理時，我們開始看到金融市場真正邁向程式化與全球化。特別是貨幣市場基金的代幣化，已成為傳統金融與去中心化金融之間最具象徵意義的橋樑之一。

然而，代幣化的價值並不僅止於「把資產放到鏈上」。當資產可在不同區塊鏈環境中流通，並符合高度標準化的協議時，其金融效率便真正提升。但在這個願景背後，仍存在深層挑戰，例如跨鏈複雜性、標準不一致、多協議共存與安全風險。理解這些挑戰，正是建立可信、可擴展代幣化金融基礎建設的關鍵。

在深入探討之前，必須理解一個區塊鏈最根本的問題：Oracle 問題。區塊鏈本質上無法主動取得鏈外資訊，這意味著鏈上合約若需要利率、資產價格、基金淨值或市場指標，都無法自行取得。如果沒有可信的鏈下數據來源，任何依賴外部價格或事件的應用都會失效或變得容易被操控。這正是 Chainlink 所解決的核心問題。透過去中心化預言機網路，Chainlink 建立一套由多個獨立節點、加密驗證與共識機制組成的資料傳遞層，為鏈上應用提供可信任、抗操控的現實世界資訊。它不僅讓代幣化資產能精準反映其實際價值，更讓鏈上金融模型得以安全運作。

然而，當代幣化資產跨越多條區塊鏈、不同協議、不同執行環境時，複雜度會急速提升。每條鏈都有自己的技術堆疊、共識模式與安全假設，而協議之間缺乏一致標準，使得代幣的互通性受到限制。即使是在 Ethereum 生態內部，看似簡單的 ERC-20 代幣也存在細微差異，例如不同的 transfer 行為、額外函式或不一致的錯誤處理。當同一資產在多鏈上存在多個版本時，如何確保其價格一致、供應一致、狀態一致，是極具挑戰的工程問題。

跨鏈互操作性因此成為代幣化金融的下一個主要戰場。不同鏈之間的橋接常伴隨重大安全風險，因為許多早期的跨鏈橋依賴中心化簽名、弱驗證或封裝代幣模型，容易成為攻擊者目標。要建構可信跨鏈環境，需要更高層級的標準化與更強的驗證機制，而 Chainlink 等去中心化跨鏈協議正在提供解決方案，包括通用訊息傳遞、跨鏈狀態同步與原生資產流動。這些基礎能力讓代幣化資產能在多鏈間安全移動，而不需要依賴脆弱的橋接結構。

貨幣市場基金的代幣化進一步展示了這些技術的力量。當代幣化基金能在鏈上即時清算、即時可用，並且透過可組合性進入其他 DeFi 應用時，資金效率會大幅提升。傳統金融中的 T+2 結算、跨境延遲、手動流程等限制，將被自動化、透明化與全球可訪問的基礎設施取代。若再結合跨鏈互通性，企業與投資人將可能在任意區塊鏈上存取同一組代幣化資產，而不再被單一基礎設施綁定。

這樣的轉變不僅是技術升級，更是金融邏輯的轉向。資產不再依附於特定市場，而是成為可在全球、跨鏈、跨系統流通的程式化物件。這也意味著企業需要新的治理方式、新的風險管理模式與新的合規路徑。特別是標準化的重要性將越來越被理解，因為沒有標準，互通性便無法落地，而沒有互通性，代幣化就無法創造真正的價值。

代幣化金融仍處於早期，但趨勢已十分明確。未來的金融基礎建設將由鏈上運作的標準化協議組成，由去中心化預言機提供數據保障，由跨鏈協議確保一致性與互通性。當這些基礎層成熟後，金融市場的效率、透明度與可接近性將達到前所未有的高度。那些能夠理解並掌握這些變革的企業，將在新一代金融生態中取得競爭優勢。