在像2016年這樣的大選年里,，任何新聞要想跟總統(tǒng)大選搶頭條,，都不是一件容易的事。不過老百姓對丑聞卻總是津津樂道的,，因此在過去一年間,，的確也有不少跨國企業(yè)里發(fā)生的丑聞成功占據(jù)了媒體頭條。

不管是富國銀行的員工用真客戶的名字開立假賬戶,，還是制藥巨頭邁蘭公司對很多病人的救命藥狠提價(jià),，今年發(fā)生的很多諸如此類的事情都表明，企業(yè)的成功路上布滿陷阱,，擁有權(quán)力的人又經(jīng)常會(huì)濫用權(quán)力,。以下就為您帶來2016年的五大商業(yè)丑聞。

富國銀行的假賬戶

During an election year, any story has to compete for attention with the all-consuming race for the White House. But the public always has an appetite for a good scandal, and plenty of misdeeds on the part of the global business class were able to break into the headlines over the past 12 months.

Whether it was Wells Fargo employees creating fake accounts in the names of real customers, or pharma giant Mylan imposing big price increases on users of its 心life-saving EpiPen, there were plenty of stories this year that highlight the pitfalls on the road to business success, and the fact that people in power abuse that power all too often. Here are the biggest scandals of 2016:

?

Wells Fargo's Fake Accounts

富國銀行在后金融危機(jī)時(shí)代的銀行界里簡直就像個(gè)含著金勺子的胖娃娃,。富國銀行擁有龐大的零星小額存款客戶群，這使它安然度過了09年的信貸危機(jī),，并且憑借全國性的業(yè)務(wù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)變得更加強(qiáng)大,。但富國銀行的戰(zhàn)略也是有缺點(diǎn)的，即利潤增長能力不強(qiáng),，需要依靠向其客戶群交叉銷售高利潤產(chǎn)品,。

這種方法實(shí)際上把公司帶到溝里去了。企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們?yōu)榱舜龠M(jìn)增長,，就會(huì)向員工施加業(yè)績壓力,，逼迫他們實(shí)現(xiàn)銷售定額；很多員工面臨上級(jí)的死命令,，只好靠開立假賬戶來蒙混過關(guān),。有些時(shí)候這些賬戶在客戶發(fā)現(xiàn)之前就銷戶了，還有些時(shí)候，客戶甚至要承擔(dān)由此造成的相關(guān)費(fèi)用,，甚至影響到了他們的個(gè)人信用,。富國銀行為此向客戶返還了260萬美元的不當(dāng)?shù)美⑾蛘U納了1.86億美元的罰款,。但富國銀行遭受的最大打擊還是在它的聲譽(yù)上,，假賬戶丑聞東窗事發(fā)后，媒體和政府官員動(dòng)不動(dòng)就要拿此事做文章，把富國銀行批判一番,。（該丑聞也讓CEO約翰·斯通普夫丟了飯碗,。

羅杰·艾爾斯的性騷擾丑聞

?

Wells Fargo was the golden child of the post-financial crisis banking world. The bank's focus on funding itself with a large base of retail deposits helped it weather the late-aughts credit crisis and emerge even stronger with a truly nationwide presence. The downside to Wells Fargo's strategy? To grow profits, it had to rely on its ability to cross-sell more profitable products to its customer base.

That path wound up leading the company into a quagmire. Executives sought to drive growth by putting undue pressure on its employees to hit sales quotas, and many employees responded by fraudulently opening customer accounts. In most cases these accounts were closed before customers noticed, but in other cases consumers were hit with associated fees or took hits to their credit ratings. The bank was forced to return $2.6 million in ill-gotten fees and pay $186 million in fines to the government. But the biggest hit Wells Fargo will take is to its reputation, as the media and government officials spent much of the year slamming the bank for its fraud. (The scandal also cost CEO John Stumpf his job.)

Roger Ailes's Sexual-Harassment Scandal

當(dāng)福克斯電視臺(tái)的當(dāng)家花旦,、知名主播格雷琴·卡爾森公開起訴福克斯新聞的CEO羅杰·艾爾斯對她性騷擾時(shí),，幾乎沒有人會(huì)想到,，一位當(dāng)代最成功的有視電視新聞高管的職業(yè)生涯竟然就這樣戛然而止。然而這還僅僅是個(gè)開始,，卡爾森起訴艾爾斯的新聞爆出之后,，相繼又有多名女性站出來指控艾爾斯曾對她們進(jìn)行過性騷擾。

?？怂闺娨暤哪腹?1世紀(jì)?？怂沟默F(xiàn)任掌門人、接替老默多克的詹姆斯·默多克和拉克蘭·默多克兄弟授權(quán)外部律師對此事進(jìn)行了內(nèi)部調(diào)查,，結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)艾爾斯還涉嫌其他幾次性騷擾事件,。小默多克兄弟最終選擇遣散了艾爾斯，不過他們還是向后者支付了4000萬美元的遣散費(fèi),。

艾爾斯最終用2000萬美元與卡爾森達(dá)成了和解,，然而他還要繼續(xù)與其他幾位控訴他性騷擾的女性打官司。雖說艾爾森被解職后還曾繼續(xù)為特朗普的大選活動(dòng)站臺(tái),，然而他今年夏天的突然倒臺(tái),，還是令他成為了近年來最令人意外的落馬企業(yè)高管之一。

邁蘭的哄抬藥價(jià)丑聞

?

When former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson made public her lawsuit against Roger Ailes, the chairman and CEO of Fox News, few thought the suit would end the career of the most successful cable news executive of his generation. But the news of Carlson's action opened a floodgate of reports about complaints from several other women that Ailes had allegedly harassed over the years.

James Murdoch and his brother Lachlan—who have run Fox parent 21st Century Fox as CEO after their father Rupert stepped down in 2015—commissioned an internal review by outside lawyers that uncovered several other allegations of sexual harassment. That report convinced the executives they had to force Ailes out, though not before offering him a $40 million severance package.

Ailes eventually settled with Carlson for $20 million, and he continues to face lawsuits from other accusers. Though Ailes went on to be a player in Donald Trump's successful presidential campaign, his wipeout this summer remains one of the most surprising and headlong downfalls of a top executive in recent memory.

Mylan's Epipen Price Gouging Scandal

美國消費(fèi)者對藥品提價(jià)這種事早已不見怪不怪了,，然而從沒有一次提價(jià)像邁蘭公司對EpiPen腎上腺素筆的這次提價(jià)一樣激起了如此強(qiáng)烈的民憤,。這種藥物主要用于治療過敏性反應(yīng)引起的過敏性休克，深受1至13歲患有食物過敏癥的兒童的家長的喜愛,。不過自從2007年收購了該藥物的專利以來,，邁蘭公司已經(jīng)將Epipen的價(jià)格提高了400%,。

很多美國家庭，特別是那些醫(yī)保報(bào)銷比例不高的家庭,，要想花500美元買這樣一支救命藥還是很吃力的,。由于邁蘭公司對該藥物擁有近乎壟斷的地位，消費(fèi)者基本上沒有其他選擇,。為此,，美國國會(huì)專門召開了聽證會(huì)，讓邁蘭公司CEO海瑟·布萊什向眾議院監(jiān)督委員會(huì)解釋她屢次提價(jià)的理由,。輿論的負(fù)面宣傳也使邁蘭公司的股票陡然大跌,。

該丑聞也使各州檢察機(jī)關(guān)紛紛對邁蘭公司展開調(diào)查，比如紐約州總檢察長正在調(diào)查該公司是否違反了反壟斷法,，西弗吉尼亞州檢察長則正在針對該公司的定價(jià)開展醫(yī)保欺詐調(diào)查,。司法部還在追究該公司是否通過故意對該藥物進(jìn)行錯(cuò)誤分類來避免向美國的政府醫(yī)療項(xiàng)目足額繳納回款，不過邁蘭公司最終還是在10月份與司法部達(dá)成了和解,。

三星電池召回丑聞

The American consumer is no stranger to steep price hikes on drugs. But few increases drew outrage like drug company Mylan's decision to raise the price of its EpiPen. The device, which administers epinephrine, a crucial antidote for those suffering anaphylactic shock due to allergic reactions, is beloved by parents of the 1 in 13 children that suffer from food allergies in America. But Mylan has increased its price by 400% since acquiring the device in 2007.

Many American families, especially those with high-deductible health insurance, struggle to afford the $500 sticker price for the life-saving drug. And with Mylan controlling a near-monopoly on such products, consumers were stuck between a rock and a hard place. Congress dragged CEO Heather Bresch in front of the House Oversight Committee to answer for her pricing decisions, and the bad publicity caused Mylan's stock to drop precipitously.

The scandal also prompted state attorneys general to investigate the company, with New York's AG looking into whether the company committed antitrust violations, and West Virginia's AG launching a Medicaid fraud probe into the drugmaker’s pricing. The company settled in October with the Justice Department over whether it underpaid rebates to U.S. government healthcare programs by misclassifying the drug.

Samsung Battery Recall

如今的智能手機(jī)幾乎已經(jīng)無所不能了,，但自爆顯然不是大多數(shù)消費(fèi)者最需要的功能。

今年夏天,，有報(bào)道爆料稱最新推出的三星Galaxy Note 7手機(jī)容易爆炸,，隨著各路媒體競相追蹤報(bào)道，此事也像滾雪球一樣鬧得越來越大,。第一批報(bào)道發(fā)出后不到一星期,，美國聯(lián)邦航空委員會(huì)便建議乘客在飛機(jī)上不要讓Note 7開機(jī)或給其充電，也不要把它放在貨艙里托運(yùn),。（大多數(shù)航空公司現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)完全禁止Note 7上飛機(jī)了,。）美國消費(fèi)產(chǎn)品安全委員會(huì)隨后也呼吁Note 7的機(jī)主徹底停止使用該手機(jī)。

三星隨后對Note 7啟動(dòng)了正式召回,，然而此時(shí)這個(gè)小號(hào)二踢腳已經(jīng)讓一些消費(fèi)者中了招,，導(dǎo)致三星陷入了官司纏身和公關(guān)告急的境地。

素食品公司漢普頓克里克雇“托”造假丑聞

?

漢普頓克里克公司是舊金山的一家主打“植物源食品”的初創(chuàng)公司,，該公司最出名的產(chǎn)品就是它的素蛋黃醬。該公司自2011年成立以來,，就在行業(yè)中擺出一付敢于斗爭的架式,，不怕跟監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)和大型食品公司打官司，并且經(jīng)常圍繞產(chǎn)品的健康功效問題與各方進(jìn)行撕逼。

然而今年《彭博商業(yè)周刊》的一篇深度爆料文卻讓該公司的聲譽(yù)遭受了嚴(yán)重的打擊——該文章稱,，漢普頓克里克公司采取的“誤導(dǎo)性或夸張性的宣傳模式有可能是為了故意欺騙消費(fèi)者”,。據(jù)該報(bào)道揭露，該公司的員工和承包商在零售商超買走了大量的該公司產(chǎn)品,，從而有效刷高了該公司的銷量數(shù)據(jù),。該報(bào)道還稱，該公司以其產(chǎn)品的環(huán)境可持續(xù)性為賣點(diǎn)吸引投資人向其融資,，然而后來的事實(shí)證明,，該公司產(chǎn)品的所謂“環(huán)境可持續(xù)性”其實(shí)是虛構(gòu)的。

漢普頓克里克公司拒絕承認(rèn)自己做了任何不道德的事情,，并表示公司之所以派人到零售超市購買自家產(chǎn)品,，是因?yàn)檫@是公司品控流程的一部分。不過美國證監(jiān)會(huì)和美國司法部已經(jīng)針對該公司的這些伎倆展開了調(diào)查,。另外，漢普頓克里克公司的傳奇創(chuàng)業(yè)故事也一度傳得神乎其神,，它自稱很多知名科技風(fēng)投家都是它的投資人,。這也不禁讓人關(guān)注硅谷的其他初創(chuàng)公司及其投資人有沒有可能也在搞坑蒙拐騙和刷數(shù)據(jù)這一套。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

作者：Chris Matthews

譯者：樸成奎

Hampton Creek, a San Francisco "plant-based food" startup best known for its eggless mayonnaise, has been a pugnacious presence in its industry since its 2011 launch, fighting (and often winning) legal tussles and public-relations battles with regulators and bigger food companies over the health claims of its products.

But Hampton's Creek reputation took a much heavier hit in September when a detailed exposé in Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported that the company had exhibited “pattern of mistaken or exaggerated claims that may prove to be deliberately deceptive.” The report revealed that Hampton Creek employees and contractors had bought up huge quantities of the company’s products at retail outlets, effectively inflating the company's sales numbers. It also alleged that the company had raised money from investors using claims about its products' environmental sustainability that were later disproved.

Hampton Creek has denied any wrongdoing, and said that the retail buybacks were part of a quality-control effort. But the company's tactics have prompted investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department. The saga of Hampton Creek, which counts many prominent tech venture capitalists among its investors, has also helped draw attention to the potential for abuses and number-fudging among startups and their financiers in Silicon Valley, as Erin Griffith reports in the January issue of Fortune.