????應(yīng)該信任什么人？誰又能回答這個(gè)問題？據(jù)世界海洋保護(hù)組織（Oceana）最近的一項(xiàng)研究顯示，標(biāo)識(shí)為鯛魚的魚類，有87%并不是真正的鯛魚。而假冒金槍魚的比例高達(dá)59%。在購(gòu)買體香劑或防曬霜時(shí)，消費(fèi)者必須到環(huán)境工作組（Environmental Working Group，EWG）的化妝品數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)，確定這些產(chǎn)品是否有毒。再也沒有人愿意去吃宜家（Ikea）的肉丸，因?yàn)檫@會(huì)讓人想起《黑駿馬》（Black Beauty）。

????當(dāng)下，消費(fèi)者并不是信息披露不充分的唯一受害者。公司股東同樣深受其害。最近，美國(guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)（SEC）委員路易斯?阿奎拉鼓勵(lì)公司在即將到來的股東大會(huì)季進(jìn)行更全面的披露，令人耳目一新。阿奎拉寫道：“與許多投資者一樣，我也希望能獲得額外信息，幫助投資者們做出更明智的投票和投資決定。”阿奎拉甚至要求公司提供精確的、強(qiáng)制性的信息披露，甚至鼓勵(lì)公司走得再遠(yuǎn)一點(diǎn)。

????很明顯，公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人可以做很多工作來幫助股東樹立信心。愛德曼公司（Edelman）2013年信任調(diào)查的31,000名受訪者中，約有四分之三表示，他們并不相信公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人能夠解決社會(huì)問題。超過80%的受訪者不相信公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者能做出倫理決策——或是說出真相，無論真相有多么復(fù)雜，多么地不受歡迎。

????最近，筆者參加了大大小小上市公司的董事會(huì)議。有一位董事提出了愛德曼調(diào)查所涉及的問題，還質(zhì)疑為什么對(duì)CEO的信任度會(huì)如此低。有的股東認(rèn)為公司不當(dāng)行為是造成這種狀況的原因，但另外一個(gè)更為顯著的解釋則涉及薪酬問題。

????這也是阿奎拉敦促上市公司披露CEO與員工薪酬之間比率的原因。雖然《多德—弗蘭克法案》（Dodd-Frank）已經(jīng)就此提出相關(guān)規(guī)定，但美國(guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)并未制定適用規(guī)則。阿奎拉寫道：“公司內(nèi)不同級(jí)別員工的相對(duì)薪酬，比如CEO的薪酬與平均工資之間的比率，可能給公司帶來風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，包括造成員工、客戶與股東不滿的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)?！?/p>

????其他方面的披露也能有助于上市公司解決工資差異和股東不滿的問題。其中一項(xiàng)便是公司是否向所有員工支付了基本生活工資；若未全部支付，未獲得基本生活工資的員工所占比例是多少。

????《守住底線：為基本生活工資而斗爭(zhēng)！》（ Looking Up at the Bottom Line: The Struggle for the Living Wage! ）一書的作者理查德?特洛克塞爾對(duì)基本生活工資的定義是，工作40個(gè)小時(shí)所獲得的滿足任何地區(qū)基本生活所需的工資。雖然最低工資是一種一概而全的措施，但根據(jù)地理位置不同，基本生活工資可能高于最低工資，在個(gè)別情況下也會(huì)低于最低工資。他說道：“公司支付基本生活工資至少可以避免1,000萬名領(lǐng)取最低工資的員工在未來無家可歸。通過穩(wěn)定這些員工的經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況，公司可以減少人員流動(dòng)以及因此產(chǎn)生的巨額成本，對(duì)公司的財(cái)務(wù)狀況大有好處。”

????另外一種有助于解決薪酬風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的披露是針對(duì)潛在薪酬偏見的措施。例如，不同性別與種族的大學(xué)畢業(yè)生，他們的薪酬存在什么樣的差異？一年、五年、十年之后，這種差異在他們的職業(yè)生涯中又有哪些變化？女性學(xué)會(huì)（Institute on Women）CEO朱麗葉?格雷伯最近發(fā)表了與性別平等有關(guān)的報(bào)告。她認(rèn)為：“對(duì)抗偏見需要無可動(dòng)搖的事實(shí)。”通過消除偏見，公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人能夠證明，自己愿意講出真相，就算真相可能并不受人歡迎。

????How does anyone know who to trust anymore? Eighty-seven percent of fish labeled snapper really isn't, according to a recent Oceana study. Same for 59% of tuna. When buying deodorant or sunscreen, you have to go to a source like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) cosmetics database to find out the product's toxicity. No one will be able to eat a meatball at Ikea again without thinking about Black Beauty.

????Consumers aren't the only ones suffering from poor disclosure today. Shareholders are too. So it was a breath of fresh air when SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar recently wrote to encourage better disclosure by companies in the upcoming proxy season. "I share the desire expressed by many investors for additional information that would enhance their ability to make informed voting and investment decisions," he wrote. Aguilar went beyond asking corporations to provide accurate, mandated disclosures. He encouraged companies to go the extra mile.

????Clearly, business leaders could do a lot more to build trust with their stakeholders. Nearly three-quarters of the 31,000 people polled in the 2013 Edelman trust survey said they did not trust business leaders to solve social or societal issues. And over 80% did not trust business leaders to make ethical decisions -- or tell the truth, regardless of how complex or unpopular it is.

????At a meeting of board members from large and small public companies I attended recently, one director raised the question of the Edelman survey and why there's such low trust in CEOs. Some directors cited corporate misbehavior as the cause -- but compensation was also a prominent explanation.

????That's why Aguilar is urging public companies to implement disclosure of the ratio of CEO to worker pay. While Dodd-Frank already mandates that disclosure, the SEC has not yet written the applicable rules. "The relative pay of different classes of employees, such as the ratio between CEO compensation and median pay, can … create risks to an enterprise, including the risk of employee, customer, and shareholder discontent," Aguilar wrote.

????Other disclosures would also help public companies address the risks of pay differentials and stakeholder dissatisfaction. One such disclosure would be whether the company pays a living wage to all its employees -- and if not, what percentage of workers don't receive it.

????Richard Troxell, author of the book Looking Up at the Bottom Line: The Struggle for the Living Wage! has defined the living wage as the amount of money, earned in 40 hours of work, that is necessary to cover the basics in any given location. While the minimum wage is a one-size-fits-all measure, the living wage is higher -- or in a few instances even lower -- than the minimum wage, depending on the geography, he told me. "Companies paying a living wage would end homelessness for over one million workers who are now homeless -- and prevent at least 10 million minimum wage workers from becoming homeless in the future," he says. "By stabilizing the economic situation of these employees, companies will benefit their bottom line by reducing their turnover and the significant costs that go with it."

????Another proxy disclosure that would help address the risks of pay would be measures of potential pay bias. For example, what are the differences in pay for college grads right out of school, by gender and by ethnicity. How does that evolve over their career cycle -- one year later, five years, ten years later, and so on. "Fighting bias requires hard facts," says Julie Graber, CEO of the Institute on Women, which publishes research related to gender equality. By addressing this issue head on, business leaders would be demonstrating that they are willing to tell the truth, even if it's not popular.