????從前，只要企業(yè)自稱“綠色企業(yè)”，消費(fèi)者就會(huì)相信。那時(shí)，人們還不像如今這般審慎，又或許手段實(shí)在太少，難以核查企業(yè)聲明的真實(shí)性。那些日子對(duì)企業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)或許就仿若置身于已經(jīng)消失的伊甸園中。某個(gè)大型企業(yè)集團(tuán)盡可以宣稱“我們促進(jìn)了環(huán)?！?，便會(huì)有一眾消費(fèi)者欣然點(diǎn)頭，深受感動(dòng)。瞧，那個(gè)時(shí)候多好啊（反正對(duì)企業(yè)很好）！

????但今非昔比?，F(xiàn)在大公司不能只是嘴上說(shuō)說(shuō)，還必須付諸行動(dòng)，肩負(fù)起社會(huì)責(zé)任。這就是《有心者勝》一書的觀點(diǎn)。這本新出的商業(yè)著作和偽企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任識(shí)別手冊(cè)出自大衛(wèi)?瓊斯之手，他是法國(guó)廣告巨頭哈瓦斯集團(tuán)（Havas）的CEO。

????早就有人主張，企業(yè)應(yīng)該承擔(dān)起社會(huì)責(zé)任，證明自己在造福于社會(huì)（不管是從事環(huán)保經(jīng)營(yíng)、社區(qū)發(fā)展還是其他的有益行為）。也早就有人主張，企業(yè)有必要關(guān)注消費(fèi)者在社交媒體上對(duì)它們的評(píng)價(jià)。該書的主旨在于，這兩種主張如今已經(jīng)形成了某種內(nèi)在的關(guān)聯(lián)性。簡(jiǎn)單說(shuō)來(lái)就是，如果企業(yè)沒(méi)有在社會(huì)責(zé)任領(lǐng)域做到公開(kāi)透明，就會(huì)在社交媒體領(lǐng)域嘗到教訓(xùn)。

????可能會(huì)有人說(shuō)，這種捆綁式的辭令同樣是老調(diào)重彈。但瓊斯在最近接受《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）訪問(wèn)時(shí)說(shuō)，他不斷見(jiàn)到許多大公司的CEO仍然樂(lè)而忘憂，對(duì)社交媒體及其力量毫無(wú)戒備。更糟糕的是，許多人更打算直接無(wú)視它。

????“我跟世界各地的人都談起這些事情，他們卻把我當(dāng)成左翼瘋狂分子來(lái)看，”他說(shuō)?！霸谀贻p人和媒體人的眼中，我所寫的或許只是些顯而易見(jiàn)之事。但對(duì)許多企業(yè)高管而言卻并非如此。只要找當(dāng)今的CEO們聊聊就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們當(dāng)中有許多人都認(rèn)為，社交媒體不過(guò)是一時(shí)的風(fēng)潮，微不足道，終將式微。”

????不管你覺(jué)得這本書的觀點(diǎn)有沒(méi)有吸引力，有沒(méi)有新聞價(jià)值，書中大部分的內(nèi)容讀起來(lái)都令人愉悅?！队行恼邉佟芬粫婚L(zhǎng)，封面搶眼，內(nèi)容的目標(biāo)定位卻不夠清晰，教人分不清這到底是企業(yè)指南、市場(chǎng)趨勢(shì)分析還是自傳。不過(guò)瓊斯這位魅力非凡的英國(guó)人用有趣的個(gè)人軼事和大量的實(shí)例彌補(bǔ)了這些瑕疵。其中有許多故事甚至連嗅覺(jué)最敏銳的新聞?dòng)浾叨加锌赡苠e(cuò)過(guò)。

????商界人士都記得（或許還帶著一絲苦笑），英國(guó)石油公司（BP）前CEO唐熙華曾在墨西哥灣原油泄漏事件后表示——他渴望重新過(guò)上安生的日子。若是時(shí)間提早五年，他的過(guò)失可能并不會(huì)讓他狼狽至斯。當(dāng)中的差別在哪里？答案就是社交媒體。

????There was a time when corporations could merely say, "We're green," and consumers, not yet as scrutinizing as they are today, or perhaps simply less equipped to check up on corporate claims, would believe it. For corporations, those days probably feel like a lost Eden. "We help the environment," Mega-Conglomerate X would announce, and Consumers Y & Z would smile and nod, and be duly impressed, and lo, it was good (for the companies, anyway).

????Now those days are gone, and big businesses can't just talk the talk, but must walk the socially responsible walk. Such is the argument of Who Cares Wins, a new biz book and pseudo CSR manual by David Jones, CEO of the French advertising giant Havas.

????There's nothing new about arguing that businesses need to be socially responsible and prove they do positive work (whether that means environmentally-friendly operations, community outreach, or other good deeds). Nor is it news that companies need to care about what customers say about them on social media. The book's main argument is that these ideas are now intrinsically linked. In short, companies will be punished in the latter space for not being transparent in the former.

????Some would argue that this rhetorical marriage isn't new either. But in a recent a sit-down with Fortune, Jones said he continually meets CEOs of major corporations who remain blissfully unaware of social media and its power. Worse, many of them wish to ignore it.

????"I talk to people all around the world about this stuff, and they look at me like I'm a left-wing loony," he said. "To young people or people in media, it probably seems like I've written something obvious. But to so many executives, it really isn't obvious. If you talk to CEOs today, many of them think social media is a fad, something trifling that will go away."

????Whether or not you find its premise interesting or newsworthy, the book is mostly a delight. A slim little volume with an appealing cover, Who Cares Wins doesn't always know what it wants to be -- corporate guide, market trend analysis, or autobiography. But Jones, a charming and engaging Brit, makes up for these small weaknesses with amusing personal anecdotes and hordes of examples, many of them stories that even the most attentive newshounds could have missed.

????Everyone in the business world remembers, perhaps with a sad laugh, when BP (BP) leader Tony Hayward said that he wanted his life back after the Gulf spill. Five years ago, Hayward's gaffe would likely not have achieved the same level of notoriety. What's different now? Social media.