在这项动议的框架下，活跃在有高违规风险领域的大型企业与中小企业，都必须对其经营活动与供应链商家带来的影响进行评估。一旦未能采取相应的尽职调查，驻瑞士的企业将有可能对此承担法律责任。
围绕这次投票出现了许多含糊不清或者带欺骗性的说法。那么，我们怎样才能帮助你在这场讨论中找到航向？你对这项动议都提出了哪些问题？
欢迎你加入讨论，我们将尽力回答你的问题、回复你的评论。
阅读文章 让瑞士企业在海外负起责任，该有多难？
公司有明确的责任来培训和树立榜样!
L'entreprise a une responsabilité évidente dans la formation et l'exemple !
只要对所有公司一次性征收30%的利润税、责任税和团结税，用这些钱来帮助所有因病毒而失去工作的人。当然，所有留在这里的公司都是因为税收优惠，所以他们不会介意一次性损失30%的利润。
Just preventively tax all companies with a one time 30 percent profit tax, a responsibility and solidarity tax and use the money to help all those who lost their jobs due to the virus. Surely all companies who stay here do it because of the tax incentives, so they will not mind losing 30 percent as a one off.
好的!
Ok!
这难道不是引入了一个不平等的竞争环境吗？总部设在瑞士的公司可以被起诉，但他们在国外的竞争对手却不能。我猜一些外国公司会有一个聪明的想法，赞助积极分子起诉瑞士的竞争对手。
Doesn't it introduce an unequal playing field? Swiss-based companies can be charged but their foreign-based competitors cannot. I guess some foreign companies would have a bright idea to sponsor activists to sue Swiss competitors.
"苹果公司的各级管理者......都被期望具备三个关键的领导特征：深厚的专业知识......沉浸于细节......以及愿意合作辩论" - Joel M Podolny 和 Morten Hansen
相反，PASSERBY2 是否引入了平等的竞争环境？从殖民主义开始，一个世纪以来的多边主义转变为新殖民主义。从那时起，随着网络时代取代当代，全球问题取代了国际问题。
题为 "瑞士企业责任投票游戏开始 "的报道说："跨国公司如何才能确保其子公司在其开展业务的世界各地尊重人权和环境？这个问题长期以来一直在全球范围内讨论"。
全球性公司（不再是跨国公司）能否像苹果公司那样通过创新来尊重人权和环境？请参阅我为 SWI 报道 "世界和平中心的宫殿 "撰写的文章。
“Apple’s managers at every level... have been expected to possess three key leadership characteristics: deep expertise ...immersion in the details...and a willingness to collaboratively debate” — Joel M Podolny & Morten Hansen
On the contrary, PASSERBY2, does it introduce an equal playing field? From colonialism, the century old multilateralism changed to neocolonialism. Since then, as the Cybernetic Age has been replacing the Contemporary Age, global issues has been replacing international issues.
The story "Game on for Swiss corporate responsibility vote" says "How can multinational companies ensure that their subsidiaries respect human rights and the environment in the various areas of the world where they operate? This issue has long been discussed at a global level."
Might global (no longer mutinational) companies be able to respect human rights and the environment by being innovative as Apple? Please take a look at my contribution to the SWI story "The palace at the centre of world peace."
采取了什么手段来确保巨魔律师不能为了拿钱和解而编造指控？支持者不了解单纯被起诉造假的成本非常高。
What means were taken to ensure that troll lawyers cannot make up charges just to take money for settlement? Proponents don't understand the very high cost of simply being sued for fake.
如果能够让公司对其海外行为负责是如此重要，为什么大多数公司（中小型企业）可以免于承担责任？
Wenn es so wichtig ist, dass man Firmen für ihr Verhalten im Ausland zur Verantwortung ziehen kann, weshalb ist die Mehrheit der Firmen (kleine & mittelständische Betriebe) von der Verantwortung entbunden?
我喜欢它。 向富人征税，把钱给人们，这样他们就能买到在家工作所需的东西，如额外的桌子、电脑/笔记本、打印机等。帮助新经济的发展。
I like it. Tax the rich poluters and give the money to people so they can buy the things needed to work from home, like an extra desk, PC / laptop, printer, etc. Help the new economy.
如果您的产品价格飙升怎么办？你的笔记本电脑中可能含有在非洲恶劣条件下开采的矿物。你的办公桌可能来自东欧以不可持续方式砍伐的森林。生产打印机的公司可能会污染南亚的河流。最终，你可能会放弃瑞士产品，从国外订购更便宜的笔记本电脑、办公桌和打印机。
What if your prices will soar? Your laptop might contain a mineral mined in poor conditions in Africa. Your desk could be from unsustainably cut forest in East Europe. Company making your printer could pollute rivers in South Asia. Ultimately, probably you would ditch Swiss products and order the cheaper laptop, desk and printer from abroad.
如果我们都中奖了呢？假新闻，制造恐慌。
就像有人说，每个引入最低就业年龄的国家经济都会衰退一样。他们都说，如果所有企业都离开了怎么办，但这从未发生过。
What if we all win the lotery. Fake news and fear mongering.
Just like people who said the economy will die in every country which introduced a minimum age. They all said what if every business leaves and it never happened.
我认为，这些公司对瑞士的标准和法律负起责任是很重要的。
我同意它不容易到位，但要由政治家来实施、执行和控制......。特别是。
然而，我对一般的投票有一个小小的反思，在我看来，所有这些关于投票意向的民意调查，往往是非常有导向性的，经常影响人们，这是令人遗憾的。但这只是我的看法。
Perso je pense que c'est important que ces entreprises prennent leurs responsabilités vis-à-vis des normes et des lois suisses. sinon trop facile façon Ponce Pilate, ce qu'il se passe ailleurs je m'en lave les mains.
Certainement pas facile à mettre en place j'en conviens mais çà c'est du ressort des politiques de mettre en place, de faire respecter et de contrôler ... surtout.
J'ai une petite réflexion toutefois au sujet des votations en général, tous ces sondages concernant les intentions de votes, à mon avis, sont souvent très orientés et influencent souvent les gens et c'est regrettable. Mais cela n'engage que moi.
负责任的税收如何？
作为一个人，我不会介意一个合理的税收制度，如果我每年捐赠10,000瑞士法郎用于植树，就可以得到20,000瑞士法郎的税收减免，而如果一个公司投资于污染性工业和武器，他们应该支付2倍的税收，并将这些钱分配给那些对自己的选择负责的人。
How about a responsible tax?
As a person I would not mind a resonable tax system where if I donate 10'000 CHF a year to plant trees to get back 20'000 as a tax deduction, while if a company invests in polluting industries and weapons they should pay 2x the tax and distribute that money to people who are responsible with their choices.
当他们说瑞士公司有责任尽职尽责，确保在国外尊重人权和环境时，究竟是哪些公司？我们是否只谈论设在瑞士的公司？那些在瑞士做生意的国外公司呢？例如，作为一家瑞士公司，ON RUNNING有可能在这个新指令下承担责任。像NIKE这样选择在瑞士开展业务的外国公司是否也会被要求遵守同样的标准？简而言之，这到底影响了谁，又不影响谁？
When they say Swiss companies are responsible for due diligence and ensuring respect for human rights and the environment abroad, which companies exactly? Are we talking about only companies who are based in Switzerland? What about companies from abroad who do business IN Switzerland? For example, as a Swiss firm, ON RUNNING would likely be liable under this new directive. Would a foreign company like NIKE who chooses to do business IN Switzerland also be held to the same standards? In short, who exactly does this affect and not affect?
感谢您的提问。如果该倡议获得批准，一些细节问题仍需在议会中解决，因此这一直是一些辩论的主题。根据倡议文本，该倡议旨在影响总部设在瑞士的大公司。除黄金等高风险行业外，中小型企业不会受到影响。
Thanks for your questions. This has been the subject of some debate because some of the details would still need to be worked out in parliament if the initiative were approved. According to the initiative text, it is intended to affect large companies with headquarters in Switzerland. Small and medium enterprises, except for those in high-risk sectors such as gold, are not supposed to be affected.
我们应该讨论 "建立一个不负责任的议会 "的倡议。
如何向人民提交一份信息传单，列出投票中的利弊问题，并说明如果投票失败，反提案将很快生效（原文如此，因为他们想迅速行动）。
但是，在这本小册子中却找不到这个反面项目，它甚至在封底上也显示了CF议会的一面，从而扭曲了事情。
这就是我们所说的民主夺权。
On devrait ici parler de l'initiative "pour un Parlement irresponsable".
Comment peut-on soumettre au peuple une brochure d'information indiquant les enjeux de la votation avec les pour et les contres, en indiquant que si la votation échoue, le contre-projet entrera en vigueur très rapidement (sic, car on veut aller vite).
Mais ce contre-projet n'apparait nulle part sur la dite brochure, qui biaise les choses en donnant le camp du Parlement CF, jusque sur la dernière de couverture.
C'est ce qu'on appelle un passage en force démocratique.
宜家的例子表明，这听起来比实际情况更容易。为什么它要在大规模的情况下发挥作用？
The example of Ikea shows that it sounds easier than it is. Why should it work on a large scale?
感谢您的来信。我同意，规模问题是个好问题。有些公司的直接供应商超过 10 万家，在供应链的更深处还有数千家。他们是否应该对所有供应商负责？这意味着什么？问得好，谢谢！
Thanks for writing. Agree, the question of scale is a good one. Some of the companies have more than 100,000 direct suppliers and thousands more deeper in the supply chain. Should they be responsible for all of them? And what does that mean? Good question, thanks!
如果有 100,000 家直接供应商，那么供应链的下游肯定有 1,000,000 家或 10,000,000 家。我怀疑有哪家公司能盯得住。应该有一些限制。否则，一家卖手机卡的街角小店就可能因为非洲的一个矿或其他原因而被罚款。
If there are 100,000 direct suppliers, than there must be 1,000,000s or 10,000,000s down the supply chain. I doubt that any company can keep an eye on it. There should be some limits. Otherwise a corner shop selling mobile phone cards could be fined for a mine in Africa, or whatever.
"负责任的企业 "不是一个矛盾的说法吗？企业总是把短期的利润放在第一位。找到一个有胆量改变这种情况的政府是很幸运的。特别是那些政治家由相同企业资助的政党。
Isn't "Responsible Business" an oxymoron? Businesses will always put short term profit ahead of anything else. Good luck finding a Government that has the guts to change this. Especially parties whose politicians are funded by the same businesses.
这项倡议确实提出了一些棘手的问题。公司习惯于努力降低成本，而这有时是以牺牲人类和环境为代价的。感谢您的贡献。
The initiative does raise some tricky questions. Companies are used to trying to cut costs and this has sometimes come at the expense of people and the environment. Thanks for your contribution.
有趣的是，该倡议需要公司即使在国外做生意时也要坚持采取措施。尽管这似乎是一个大胆的举措，但我认为它不太容易遵守。瑞士人总是有采取最大步骤的声誉，我希望这可能是其中之一。
It is interesting that the initiative needs companies to uphold measures even when doing business abroad. As much as it seems to be a bold move, but I think it's not quite easy-to-follow. Swiss people always had the reputation of taking the biggest steps and I hope this could be one of those.
你好！非常感谢你分享了自己的观点。如何实施该倡议以及如何监督公司的行动确实是个重要问题。
HI! Thanks so much for sharing your perspective. How the initiative would be implemented and company actions would be monitored are indeed important questions.
公平贸易关系是国际关系中最具争议性的问题，不幸的是，有许多公司不得不以不支持人权的方式经营业务，即使他们想做出任何改变，为人类的繁荣采取行动，不断增加的生产成本也不会允许他们这样做。
Having companies being deeply committed to such this programmes requires stringent regulations while fair trade relations is being the most controversial issue at the international relations and unfortunately there are enormous companies have to run their business in a way that does not support human rights and even if they wanted to make any changes and act towards human flourishing increasing production cost would not let them
您可以在这里找到读者与我们记者团队正在讨论交流的话题。
请加入我们！如果您想就本文涉及的话题展开新的讨论，或者想向我们反映您发现的事实错误，请发邮件给我们：chinese@swissinfo.ch。