经济学人10:世界最大的上市公司们的透明度如何?

 　　Business.

　　商业。
　　Corporate 1 transparency.
　　公司透明度。
　　Measuring mud.
　　度量一团烂泥。
　　How transparent 2 are the world's biggest listed companies?
　　世界最大的上市公司们的透明度如何？
　　ARE you cheating on your spouse 3? If so, please stand up and declare it. Total silence? What virtuous 4 readers The Economist 5 has.
　　你有欺骗你的伴侣吗？如果有，请站出来，（大声）承认你的所作所为。一言不发？《经济学家》的读者们都是这样的品德高尚啊。
　　Trying to measure corruption 6 is a bit like surveying adultery. Those who indulge in it are unlikely to admit it. So when surveying big companies, Transparency International (TI), an anti-corruption watchdog, asks a different question: how transparent are you?
　　尝试去估量（组织机构的）贪腐的程度深浅，看起来有点像是调查（人们的）通奸的情况如何。那些在这方面放纵自己的人们不太可能承认自己的行为。所以当透明国际，一个反腐败检查组织，在调查大公司的透明度时，问了一个不太一样的问题：你们有多透明？
　　Its latest survey, "Transparency in Corporate Reporting", looks at the world's 105 biggest listed firms. It measures three things. First, a company's internal rules and procedures to prevent corruption. Second, the transparency of its organisational structure. Third, TI asks whether a firm publishes detailed 7 financial information about its activities in every country where it operates, including how much it pays in taxes and royalties 8 to each government.
　　该组织去年的调查工作，"公司报表中的透明度"，涉及了全球105家最大的上市公司。调查衡量了三项指标。首先，公司内部杜绝贪腐规定与程序。其次，公司的组织结构透明度。再次，透明国际询问他们是否在每一个有自己公司运营的国家，都公开了，关于各项经济活动的详细财务报告，其中的信息包括公司付了多少税费和"使用费"给当地政府。
　　Most firms in the sample have strict rules barring bribery 10. The average score on this count was 69%, up from 47% in 2009, the last time TI conducted a similar exercise. Many firms also disclose ample details about which holding company owns which subsidiary, and so forth 11. Of the 105 companies, 45 scored a perfect 100% for organisational transparency.
　　抽样样本中，大多数公司都有严格的规定，以用来禁绝行贿受贿。在这方面的平均得分是69%，较2009年，上一次透明国际进行同类调查时的数字——47%，上涨了不少。很多公司也披露了大量的，关与母公司与子公司控股情况等等方面的详细信息。而在105家公司中，有45家在组织结构透明度中得到了完美的100分。
　　On the third measure, however, most firms remained tight-lipped. This does not mean they have done anything illegal. Suppose a mining firm pays $10m to a government for a licence to dig. The fee may be legitimate 12, but the government may wish to keep it secret, to make it easier to embezzle 13. A company that is completely transparent may find it hard to win any more contracts from dodgy governments, which, alas 14, control a lot of the world's natural resources. Statoil, Norway's state-controlled oil-and-gas firm, was by far the best performer (see table), yet it scored only 50% on this measure. More than a third of firms scored zero; the average was a meagre 4%.
　　尽管如此，对第三项调查，多数公司三缄其口。这并不意味着它们做了什么违法的事情。假设一个矿业公司为获得一张开采通行证而付给当地政府1000万美元，此费用或许是正当合法的，但是该政府也许希望对此秘而不宣，以方便日后挪用。一个完全透明的公司，会发现很难从那些滑头的政府手中赢得更多的合约，可惜的是，后者掌控着全球大量的自然资源。挪威国有控股的石油天然气公司，Statoil是至今为止，在此项调查中表现做好的，但是在此项标准上，它也只得到了50%。三分之一以上的公司得了零分；而平均分是微不足道的4%。
　　Campaigners have long complained that money from oil and minerals props 15 up predatory governments, and lobbied firms to publish what they pay. Big Western miners and drillers have taken heed 16: the top five on TI's list are all involved in natural resources. Many firms, however, are reluctant to answer probing questions from Western busybodies: Gazprom, Russia's state-owned gas giant, scores zero on the first and third measures.
　　那些以权谋私的政府是靠着源自原油和矿产的资金来维系生存的，政治运动家们对此抱怨已久，他们也一直在游说公司们公开支付的各项费用。而西方采矿大亨和石油巨头对此都很注意：透明国际在此项列表中的前五名都涉及自然资源产业。但是，然而，面对国际透明度这个西方好事者的刨根问底，许多公司都不愿回应：俄气，俄罗斯国有天然气巨子，在第一和第三项标注上都是零分。
　　TI's calculations are open to challenge. Do Amazon, Google and Berkshire Hathaway deserve to be ranked near the bottom? Probably not. These firms may not disclose as much as TI would like, but they are not in businesses where one is ever asked to bribe 9 a cabinet minister to win a mining concession 17. TI does a good job of focusing attention on a serious problem. But like The Economist's adultery survey, its results should be taken with a handful of salt.
　　透明国际的计算标准令人质疑的。亚马逊、谷歌以及伯克希尔?哈撒韦（CEO：巴菲特），这些公司都该排名垫底吗？可能不该。这些公司或许不会如透明国际希望的那样，披露自己的信息，但是，它们也不在那些"腐败高发"行业中，在那些行业中，人们总会被（客观情况）要求着，为赢得开采特权，而去向内阁总理行贿。透明国际在将注意力集中在严重的问题这方面，做得很好。但是就像是《经济学家》的通奸调查，它的结论不能全信（"应该添把盐进去，才对"）。