有人認(rèn)為輝瑞公司CEO晏瑞德是一位英雄，也有人認(rèn)為他是惡棍。他坦率地承認(rèn)，輝瑞與愛爾蘭艾爾健公司的大規(guī)模合并交易，主要目的是將輝瑞總部遷至愛爾蘭，以此規(guī)避數(shù)十億美元稅負(fù)。此舉激起了一些人的憤怒！共和黨總統(tǒng)候選人唐納德·特朗普形容這筆交易：“令人惡心?！泵裰鼽h總統(tǒng)候選人伯尼·桑德斯同樣表示：“美國人支付的處方藥價(jià)格全世界最高，此次并購對(duì)于我們來說，就是一次災(zāi)難?！被蛟S，晏瑞德說的不無道理！美國公司面臨全世界最高的稅率，正如他所說，如果沒有這筆交易，輝瑞只能在“一只手被捆住”的情況下，與國外對(duì)手展開競爭。

我認(rèn)為，晏瑞德既不是英雄，也不是惡棍。此次交易可謂一個(gè)規(guī)模巨大、備受矚目的案例，它向我們展示了一名CEO每天都在做的判斷，但我們很難得知類似的判斷是否正確。

此次交易絕對(duì)是合法的，并且毫無疑問將降低輝瑞的稅收負(fù)擔(dān)。作為CEO，晏瑞德必須履行為股東利益服務(wù)的誠信義務(wù)。利艾德·漢德大法官曾經(jīng)說過這樣一句名言：“人們通過安排自己的事務(wù)，盡可能減少納稅負(fù)擔(dān)，沒有任何罪過。不論窮人還是富人，都可以這樣做；這樣做是合理的，因?yàn)槿魏稳硕紱]有任何義務(wù)承擔(dān)比法律規(guī)定更高的稅負(fù)；稅收是依法強(qiáng)征的費(fèi)用，而不是一種自愿捐獻(xiàn)。以道德之名要求別人繳納更高的稅負(fù)，就是偽善?！痹谝粋€(gè)純粹的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)世界，輝瑞與艾爾健合并不應(yīng)該引起不滿。

但真實(shí)情況并沒有這么簡單。一方面，此次交易可以令輝瑞獲得稅收優(yōu)惠，但另一方面，消費(fèi)者的憤怒和此次交易導(dǎo)致的政府行為，可能導(dǎo)致稅負(fù)加重、公司品牌受損、監(jiān)管增加或未來選擇受限，從而使輝瑞可能面臨巨大的損失。晏瑞德必須進(jìn)行權(quán)衡。在現(xiàn)實(shí)世界，此次交易可能適得其反，最終或許會(huì)減少輝瑞的股東財(cái)富。

那么，什么才是正確的決定？去年，沃爾格林與聯(lián)合博姿宣布合并時(shí)，最初的計(jì)劃是以“稅收倒置”的方式進(jìn)行交易，將總部遷至聯(lián)合博姿的所在國瑞士。但各界的激烈反對(duì)聲，迫使沃爾格林CEO格雷格·沃森不得不放棄這筆稅收倒置交易，因?yàn)檫@種方式可能導(dǎo)致“潛在的消費(fèi)者抗議和政治分歧?！边@筆交易完成后，新成立的沃爾格林博姿聯(lián)合公司將總部設(shè)在特拉華州。

CEO們總是在一個(gè)較小的思維空間內(nèi)作出這些決定。我是否應(yīng)該取消公司的慈善項(xiàng)目，以獲得即刻就能產(chǎn)生的直接的經(jīng)濟(jì)收益，抑或繼續(xù)保留該項(xiàng)目，以獲得一種不確定，但潛在收益更大的商譽(yù)？一家虧損的工廠正在侵蝕持有持有公司股份的退休基金的價(jià)值，但它卻在一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)不景氣的地區(qū)為數(shù)千人提供了就業(yè)，我應(yīng)該關(guān)掉它，還是讓它繼續(xù)營業(yè)？這些選擇無關(guān)對(duì)錯(cuò)。做出選擇很容易。與其他真正的兩難境地一樣，不論你做出怎樣的選擇都是正確的。每一種選擇都有合理的依據(jù)，但領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者只能二選一。

一個(gè)經(jīng)常被忽視的事實(shí)是，最堅(jiān)定的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任倡導(dǎo)者和自由市場支持者都同意，歸根結(jié)底，這些決定都是在尋找最好的途徑將長期股東價(jià)值最大化。我還沒有見過哪位企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任倡導(dǎo)者不同意這種觀點(diǎn)。只是，他們總是認(rèn)為，從長遠(yuǎn)來看，對(duì)社會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)任的選擇才能最大程度地提高公司價(jià)值。但到底怎樣做才是對(duì)社會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)任？這才是這場圍繞著輝瑞與艾爾健合并交易的爭論和其他類似爭論的核心問題。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓

審校：任文科

In a world of simple economics, the Pfizer-Allergan merger wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. Of course, the world isn’t that simple.

Pfizer CEO Ian Read has become either a hero or a villain. He acknowledges readily that his giant deal to merge with Irish-domiciled Allergan AGN 2.84% is meant mostly to reduce his company’s taxes by billions of dollars as a result of moving its own domicile to Ireland. It’s an outrage! “Disgusting,” Donald Trump called it. Bernie Sanders agreed: “This merger would be a disaster for Americans who already pay the highest prescription drugs prices in the world.” Or, good for him! American companies face the world’s highest corporate tax rates, and without this deal, Pfizer PFE 2.82% must confront foreign rivals “with one hand tied behind our back,” as Read put it.

I don’t see Read as a hero or a villain. This deal is an especially big, high-profile example of a CEO making a type of judgment that every CEO makes every day, and the right judgment is far from obvious.

The deal is clearly legal. It will undoubtedly reduce Pfizer’s tax bill. As CEO, Read must fulfill a fiduciary duty to serve his shareholders’ interests. And as Judge Learned Hand famously said, “there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.” In a world of simple economics, the Pfizer-Allergan merger wouldn’t raise an eyebrow.

Of course the world isn’t that simple. Read has to balance tax advantages that can be calculated to the dollar against uncertain but possibly huge costs from consumer outrage and resulting government action that could increase Pfizer’s taxes, damage its brand, add regulations, and restrict future options. In the real world, doing this deal might actually reduce Pfizer shareholders’ wealth from what it would have been.

What’s the right decision? When Walgreen announced its merger with Alliance Boots last year, it planned on a tax inversion, moving its domicile to Alliance’s home country of Switzerland. But the outcry was sufficiently great that CEO Greg Wasson canceled the inversion because it would have led to “potential consumer backlash and political ramifications.” The deal went ahead, and Walgreens Boots Alliance today is a Delaware corporation.

CEOs make these decisions on a smaller scale all the time. Do I cancel our philanthropic program for an immediate, definite economic gain, or continue it for an uncertain but possibly greater gain in the form of goodwill? Do I close the money-losing plant that is sapping the value of pension funds that own our stock but that employs thousands in an economically depressed area, or do I keep it open? These are not choices between right and wrong. Those are easy. Like all real dilemmas, these are choices between right and right. Legitimate arguments support each choice, but the leader can choose only one.

It’s often overlooked that the most committed advocates of corporate social responsibility agree with free-market stalwarts that these decisions are, in the end, about the best way to maximize long-term shareholder wealth. I have yet to meet even one CSR advocate who believes otherwise. The socially responsible course, they invariably argue, is best for increasing the corporation’s value over the long run. But what’s really socially responsible? That’s what the Pfizer-Allergan debate and the many others like it are all about.