“Have you looked at our caps recently?” is the question a worried Nazi soldier puts to his comrade in a comedy sketch performed by David Mitchell and Robert Webb. He has just noticed that their uniforms are emblazoned with skulls; a doubt is nagging away at him. “Hans,” he asks. “Are we the baddies?”

【1】emblazon 醒目地展示；用紋章裝飾

【2】nag 不斷煩擾

“你最近有看我們的帽子嗎?” 在大衛(wèi)·米切爾和羅伯特·韋柏表演的喜劇小品中，一個(gè)憂心忡忡的納粹士兵向他的戰(zhàn)友提出了這樣的問(wèn)題。這名士兵剛剛注意到他們的制服上裝飾著骷髏頭；一個(gè)疑慮一直困擾著他。他問(wèn)道：“漢斯，我們是壞人嗎?”

No company employee has concerns of this sort. But some sectors are stigmatised enough to be known as “sin industries”—booze, gambling, tobacco and so on. Other industries have gone from being respectable to questionable: fossil-fuel firms, say. (A few, like cannabis firms, are travelling in the opposite direction.) Nationality now casts shadows in ways it did not before: working for a X company might once have aroused admiration but now provokes suspicion. In an age when everyone is supposed to have a purpose, why would employees who have a choice work for the baddies?

【1】 to be stigmatized as sth 被誣蔑為某狀況

任何一家公司的員工都不會(huì)有這樣的擔(dān)憂。但有些行業(yè)卻被烙上“罪惡行業(yè)”的污名，如酒、賭博、煙草等等。其他行業(yè)也從受人尊敬變成了有問(wèn)題的行業(yè)，比如化石燃料公司。(一些公司正朝著相反的方向發(fā)展，比如大麻公司。) 國(guó)籍現(xiàn)在以一種前所未有的方式受到質(zhì)疑:為一家X公司工作曾經(jīng)可能會(huì)令人仰慕，但現(xiàn)在這會(huì)引起懷疑。在一個(gè)每個(gè)人都應(yīng)該有目標(biāo)的時(shí)代，為什么有選擇工作權(quán)力的員工會(huì)為壞人工作?

The cynical answer would be pay. There is some evidence to suggest that executives in sin industries demand more money to compensate them for the stigma of working there. A paper in 2014 found that the bosses of alcohol, betting and tobacco firms earned a premium that could not be explained by those companies being more complex to run, less job security or poorer governance. The size of the premium did, however, line up with periods of heightened bad publicity, such as legal settlements in the tobacco industry. The stigma that wreathed these executives was observable in other ways, too: they sat on fewer boards than bosses in more virtuous industries.

【1】publicity 媒體的關(guān)注；宣傳

【2】 wreathe 籠罩

令人憤世嫉俗的答案是薪資。有一些證據(jù)表明，“罪惡行業(yè)”的高管要求得到更多的錢，以補(bǔ)償他們?cè)谀抢锕ぷ鞯膼u辱。2014年的一篇論文發(fā)現(xiàn)，酒業(yè)、博彩和煙草公司的老板們賺取的獎(jiǎng)金無(wú)法用這些公司運(yùn)營(yíng)更復(fù)雜、工作保障更低或治理更差來(lái)解釋。然而，溢價(jià)的規(guī)模確實(shí)與負(fù)面報(bào)道加劇的時(shí)期相吻合，比如煙草行業(yè)的訴訟和解。這些高管身上的污名在其他方面也可以觀察到：他們?cè)诙聲?huì)中所占的席位比在道德較高的行業(yè)中的老板要少。

Pay is a lever that might work for some positions and some people, but not for all of them. And it hardly satisfies as a psychological explanation. “Yes, I work for a ghastly company but at least the pay is great,” is not the kind of narrative that people like to fall asleep to. Thomas Roulet of Cambridge University’s Judge Business School points out in “The Power of Being Divisive”, a book about stigma in business, that employees of demonised firms are often proud to be on the payroll.

?薪酬是一種“施壓手段”，它可能對(duì)某些職位和某些人有效，但不是對(duì)所有人都有效。這很難作為心理學(xué)上的解釋。“是的，我為一家糟糕的公司工作，但至少工資很高”，人們很難懷著這種想法安然入睡。劍橋大學(xué)賈奇商學(xué)院的Thomas Roulet在講述商業(yè)恥辱的書《分裂的力量》書中指出，在被妖魔化的公司的員工，其常常以自己的工作為榮。

The most basic reason for that is a classic free-market narrative. If you believe in freedom of choice, and companies having the licence of society to operate, that is justification enough to work there. This may not seem especially purposeful: many employees would regard operating legally and serving customer needs as a requirement rather than a source of pride. But it is a perfectly coherent position.?

最基本的原因是，這是一個(gè)經(jīng)典的自由市場(chǎng)敘述。如果你相信選擇的自由，相信公司的經(jīng)營(yíng)已得到社會(huì)的認(rèn)可，那就有足夠的理由在那里工作。這似乎不是特別有目的：許多員工會(huì)把合法經(jīng)營(yíng)和滿足客戶需求視為一種要求，而非自豪感的來(lái)源。但這是一個(gè)完全一致的立場(chǎng)。

freedom of choice works less well as a rationale if the harm that products do, whether to lungs or to the environment, has been covered up, or if those products weaken consent by encouraging addiction. But firms under fire are practised at turning the negative effects of their products to their advantage. Energy firms argue that the money they make from oil and gas today enables them to fund the transition to low-carbon energy tomorrow. Diageo, a drinks firm, highlights its programmes to encourage drinking in moderation. Tobacco firms peddle cigarettes even as they endeavour to soften the harm caused by smoking: British American Tobacco says that its purpose is to “build a better tomorrow by reducing the health impact of our business”.

2020年5月16日消息，據(jù)外電報(bào)道，全球第二大煙草制造商英美煙草公司（BAT）剛剛公布了一項(xiàng)新的公司戰(zhàn)略，其中包括一項(xiàng)投資計(jì)劃和對(duì)更安全替代品的關(guān)注。 這項(xiàng)計(jì)劃叫建立更好的明天 ，目標(biāo)包括一項(xiàng)10億英鎊（13.4億美元）的成本節(jié)約和投資計(jì)劃，并承諾將重點(diǎn)放在更安全的煙草替代品上，從而降低其業(yè)務(wù)對(duì)健康的影響。 英美煙草公司說(shuō)，其新類別產(chǎn)品，包括電子煙和加熱的煙草制品（HNB），將推動(dòng)收入增長(zhǎng)，并補(bǔ)充說(shuō)，它希望在3033/34年創(chuàng)造50億英鎊的新類別收入。如果產(chǎn)品的危害(無(wú)論是對(duì)肺還是對(duì)環(huán)境)被掩蓋起來(lái)，或者這些產(chǎn)品通過(guò)鼓勵(lì)上癮而削弱了許可，選擇工作的自由作為一個(gè)根本原因就沒(méi)那么有效了。但受到抨擊的公司善于將產(chǎn)品的負(fù)面影響轉(zhuǎn)化為優(yōu)勢(shì)。能源公司辯稱，他們今天從石油和天然氣中賺到的錢使他們能夠?yàn)槲磥?lái)向低碳能源的過(guò)渡提供資金。飲料公司帝亞吉?dú)W強(qiáng)調(diào)其鼓勵(lì)適度飲酒的計(jì)劃。煙草公司一邊兜售香煙，一邊努力弱化吸煙造成的危害:英美煙草公司稱其宗旨是“通過(guò)降低其業(yè)務(wù)對(duì)健康的影響，建設(shè)更美好的明天”。

It is easy to scoff at this corporate cakeism. Easy, but unwise. First, hostility itself can sometimes act as a kind of binding agent for employees of stigmatised firms. A study by Mr Roulet found that job satisfaction increased at firms that faced disapproval, provided their employees regarded the criticism as illegitimate. Second, societies’ attitudes can change, sometimes suddenly. The arms industry looks less evil now that its products are helping Ukrainians fend off Russia’s tanks. Dependence on Russian gas has made secure sources of energy, even if they are not low-carbon, seem more attractive.

【1】cakeism 蛋糕主義

[釋義] Primarily a word used in the UK, cakeism is the belief that it is possible to enjoy or take advantage of both of two desirable but mutually exclusive alternatives at once.

主要是用在英國(guó)，是指一種理念，相信人們可以同時(shí)享受或利用兩種理想中的但相互排斥的替代品。

嘲笑企業(yè)的這種“蛋糕主義”很容易。不過(guò)容易，卻不明智的。首先，敵意本身有時(shí)會(huì)成為被污名化公司員工的一種“粘合劑”。Roulet先生的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果員工認(rèn)為批評(píng)是不合法的，那么面臨反對(duì)的公司的工作滿意度會(huì)提高。第二，社會(huì)的態(tài)度可以改變，有時(shí)改變很突然。現(xiàn)在，烏克蘭的軍火工業(yè)看起來(lái)沒(méi)那么邪惡了，因?yàn)樗漠a(chǎn)品正在幫助烏克蘭人抵御俄羅斯的坦克。對(duì)俄羅斯天然氣的依賴，使得安全的能源來(lái)源看起來(lái)更有吸引力，即使它們不是低碳能源。

Third, employees in vilified industries are often in a position to do valuable things. Swapping from cigarettes to risk-reduction products is a net gain for people’s health. Widespread suspicion of genetically engineered crops ignores the copious evidence that they are safe and useful. And a rapid decline in the number of new petroleum engineers in America will seem less desirable if a shortfall in expertise holds back carbon-sequestration projects.

【1】sequestration 扣押

第三，在被詆毀的行業(yè)工作的員工往往能夠做有價(jià)值的事情。把香煙轉(zhuǎn)向降低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的產(chǎn)品對(duì)人們健康是有益的。對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的普遍懷疑忽視了轉(zhuǎn)基因作物是安全且有效的大量證據(jù)。如果專業(yè)人才的短缺會(huì)阻礙了碳封存項(xiàng)目的進(jìn)展，那么美國(guó)新石油工程師數(shù)量的迅速減少似乎就不那么理想了。

There may be a cohort of evil employees who seek out demonised firms, steepling fingers, stroking cats and plotting ways to ruin lives. But the people who work in these industries are more likely to think of their work as important. They may not be wrong.

【1】cohort 一伙人

可能有一伙兒邪惡的員工在尋找被妖魔化的公司，他們豎起手指，撫摸著貓咪，密謀破壞別人生活的方法。但在這些行業(yè)工作的人更可能認(rèn)為他們的工作很重要。他們可能沒(méi)有錯(cuò)。