商業賄賂得不償失

????本周，多家美國公司爆出為拓展海外市場行賄的丑聞。除了沃爾瑪（Wal-Mart）的墨西哥賄賂門，美國證券交易委員會（Securities and Exchange Commission）周三又指控摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）一位前高管通過行賄中國某國企官員為摩根士丹利贏得業務。另外，證交會還要求好萊塢的四家影視制作公司提供它們在中國獲得的交易信息。實際上，目前至少有81家美國公司正面臨賄賂調查。

????行賄有違職業道德，這想都不用想。欺騙顯然是不對的。但從近期那么多公司卷入賄賂案件來看，人們對行賄的商業判斷似乎就沒那么清楚明了了。

????行賄對于很多公司而言就是進入一些世界上最難進入的市場必須付出的代價，因為這些市場可能能夠帶來豐厚的回報。顯然，給政府塞錢，有望加速原本可能緩慢而復雜的官僚流程。但研究顯示，即便公司高管們從未被抓住，行賄事實上最終也會讓公司得不償失。

????《紐約時報》（New York Times）的報道稱，沃爾瑪通過行賄獲得了土地審批、降低建筑商費用等一切，快速地開設了數百家新店，將競爭對手輕松地甩在了后面。如果這些說法屬實，似乎沃爾瑪通過行賄獲得了大量的好處。位于倫敦的研究公司Planet Retail掌握的數據顯示，沃爾瑪最大的海外市場、英國2000-2010年間銷售額平均增長8%，同期欠發達的墨西哥市場年均增長卻達到了12%。

????這樣的增幅確實令人矚目。但由丹尼爾?考夫曼和魏尚進（音譯）撰寫的一份世界銀行（World Bank）報告顯示，如果計入隱性成本，增長優勢就沒那么顯著了。事實上，行賄公司最終要耗費更多的時間同官僚機構進行協商，因為有希望撈到油水，政府官員更有動力就監管問題討價還價。例如，考夫曼在另外一項單獨針對烏克蘭的研究中發現，大筆行賄的公司在政府身上耗費的時間要比不行賄的公司多出30%。

????另外，據彭博社（Bloomberg）援引商業協調委員會（Business Coordinating Council）旗下私有領域經濟研究中心（Private Sector Economic Studies Center）上周發布的研究報告稱，企業把約10%的收益付給了腐敗官員。腐敗最終會滋生出更多腐敗，因為賄賂讓官僚們更有動力搞出更多的官樣文章、提高監管障礙，而這反過來，又會促使公司拿出更多的錢用于賄賂。

????當然，如果行賄行為曝光，成本就更高昂了。2008年，德國工程巨頭西門子（Siemens）向美國和歐洲監管當局支付了創紀錄的16億美元，就后者指責其在全球范圍內時常通過賄賂贏得大合同和基建項目的指控達成和解。這一數額是當時現代公司史上最大的一筆行賄罰款。

????確實，近來外界對賄賂問題的關注度進一步提高，但是我們也有必要從更宏觀的層面來看待這個問題。世界銀行學院（World Bank Institute）前治理局局長、布魯金斯學會（Brookings Institution）高級研究員考夫曼表示，全球行賄案件數量多年來一直相對平穩。2003年，全球行賄總額約1萬億美元，占全球經濟的2-3%。雖然占據媒體頭條位置的是雅芳（Avon）、惠普（Hewlett-Packard）這些公司的行賄風波，但考夫曼估計全球僅20%的行賄來自英國、美國等富裕國家的跨國公司。

????This week, a spate of U.S. companies have been accused of unscrupulously bribing their way into foreign markets. Adding to Wal-Mart's debacle in Mexico, the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday charged a former Morgan Stanley (MS) executive of bribing an official of a state-owned Chinese company to secure business for the firm. The SEC is also asking four Hollywood studios for information on deals they procured in China. In fact, at least 81 U.S. companies currently face bribery investigations.

????The ethical case against bribery is a no brainer. Cheating is obviously wrong. But given the spate of companies embroiled bribery cases recently, the business case doesn't seem quite as clear.

????For many companies, bribery is simply the price paid to enter some of the world's toughest markets -- markets that can be lucrative. It's easy to see how paying off governments might speed up an otherwise slow and complex bureaucratic process. But even if executives never get caught, bribery actually ends up costing companies, studies show.

????For Wal-Mart (WMT), bribes allegedly bought the retail giant everything from zoning approvals to reductions in builder fees, helping it build hundreds of new stores at a pace where competitors struggle to catch up, according to the New York Times. If the allegations are true, Wal-Mart appears to have gained plenty from the strategy. Whereas the U.K. is the chain's biggest overseas market , generating an average of 8% sales growth in 2000 to 2010, Mexico's lesser-developed market averaged 12% growth over the same period, according to London-based research firm Planet Retail.

????Indeed, the gains are impressive. But it becomes less so once the hidden costs are factored in, according to a World Bank study by Daniel Kaufmann and Shang-Jin Wei. Companies that pay bribes actually end up spending more time negotiating with bureaucrats since the hopes of a pay-off give officials an incentive to haggle over regulations. For instance, in a separate study looking solely at the Ukraine, Kaufmann found firms that paid excessive bribes spent about 30% more time with government officials than firms that didn't.

????What's more, companies pay about 10% of their earnings to corrupt officials, according Bloomberg, citing a study released last week by the Business Coordinating Council's Private Sector Economic Studies Center. Corruption ultimately breeds more corruption, as bribes give bureaucrats more incentive to raise red tape and regulatory hurdles, which in turn opens companies up to pay even more.

????Of course, the costs are much higher if companies get caught. In 2008, German engineering giant Siemens (SI) paid a record $1.6 billion to U.S. and European authorities to settle charges that it routinely used bribes to secure large contracts and infrastructure projects around the world. At the time, the sum was the large fine for bribery in modern corporate history.

????To be sure, while bribery has received more attention recently, it's relevant to look at the broader trend. Globally, the number of cases of bribery has stayed relatively steady over the years, says Kaufmann, former director of the World Bank Institute who is now a senior fellow at Brookings Institution. In 2003, bribes worldwide totaled about $1 trillion, representing 2% to 3% of the global economy. Kaufmann says it's probably around that level today. And while Avon (AVP) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) make headlines, only about 20% of bribes from around the world come from multinationals of wealthy countries including the U.K. and U.S., he estimates.