非文学翻译练习

financed one-third of the benefit payment from its general account (to be raised

gradually to half with the 2004 reform). The amount of monthly benefits paid to more than 31 million people was ￥66,200 (multiplied by the ratio of the number of participating months to the full 480 months).

The Employees’ Pension Insurance System (EPI), for which 37 million private-sector employees were eligible, was financed by premiums (e.g., social security

contributions) shared evenly by employer and employee. The current premium was 13.93% of income. Payments in this system rose with the consumer price index. In combination with the fixed National Pension payment, this system currently paid out about 59% of a worker’s salary prior to retirement if she earned average salary for her 40-year career.

There were two types of supplemental corporate pension plans: an employees’ pension fund and a defined-benefits corporate pension. In the employees’ pension funds, employers collected supplemental payments from employees and could make supplemental contributions, to be paid out as part of the old-age pension. Under defined-benefits corporate pension plans, contributions were clearly delineated for each employee and managed by the employer. For the self-employed, the National Pension Fund Federation did the same. In October 2001, a defined-contribution

pension scheme was introduced in Japan. In contrast to the defined-benefits pensions, this was a 401(k)-style pension whereby employees themselves decided how to invest the contributed funds and were responsible for the results of their investments. The adoption of this plan was on an increasing trend, although the number of employees covered by defined-contribution plans was still small (2% of corporate employees as of April 2004).

The problem, of course, was that more and more people were retiring, and the number would accelerate after 2007, while fewer and fewer people were working. As Japan ran a pay-as-you-go pension system, the system was not fully funded and needed periodic adjustments in payment and/or premiums to accommodate the changes in demographic and other circumstances. Payout for 2004 was about ￥46.4 trillion. Thus, with no reform, pension reserves (￥10.8 trillion for the NPI and ￥164 trillion for the EPI) would shortly be depleted.

Health care Rapid aging and longevity posed even greater challenges to financing health care.

Under a host of programs for private employees, public employees, teachers, farmers, and self-employed people, virtually all Japanese were insured.

Current spending was about 9% of national income, but as Figure C shows, it would rise rapidly over the next 10 years. Medical fees were calculated on a point basis, with

9

each point worth ￥10.

Thus, for example, a hospital visit was worth 250 points, an appendectomy 6,420 points, and an injection 18 points. For most people under the age of 70, the

government insurance covered 70% of medical care; they paid 30%. For the elderly, however, insurance covered 90%, except for high-income retirees, who paid 20% themselves. Monthly payments by individuals were capped so that they would not

have to face catastrophic medical bills. Care for the elderly was particularly expensive, as they required more health treatments and related amenities. In FY 2003, for example, the health expenditure for the elderly was ￥11.6 trillion (of which ￥1.2 trillion came from co-payments). This meant that ￥10.4 trillion, or about $100 billion, came from the government’s budget and contributions from various medical insurance programs. Elderly Japanese went to the hospital about four times a month. The

average hospital stay was 31.8 days in 1998. This compared with 12 days in Germany and 7.5 in the U.S. The elderly socialized at hospitals in Japan instead of nursing

homes. It was a standard joke that one day, when one woman in a social group did not show up at the hospital, acquaintances asked where she was. The answer: ―She must be sick today.‖

4 企业政策报告

Our Actions

GE 2005 Citizenship Report

10

GE has a heritage as a performance company. In simple terms, this means that we set challenging growth targets and deliver on what we say we will do. We measure our progress by tracking results against our goals. We recognize that our actions speak louder than our words.

Naturally, we measure our Company’s performance through financial results and stock price. But we also view how that performance is achieved in a broader context: the health, safety and opportunities for workers, the impact of our operations on the environment and communities, our interaction with governments and regulatory agencies around the world, and our compliance with legal and accounting rules. Our goal is to grow responsibly while engaging stakeholders.

We have applied GE’s characteristic rigor in delivering our first Citizenship Report. This report provides a clear view of our actions: our goals, measures and progress, as well as an honest discussion of our challenges. You will find a myriad of metrics throughout the report, including our workplace injury and illness rates, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, total energy use, and diversity profile. We are continuously re-examining our metrics to ensure they are relevant, comprehensive and allow us to set forward-looking targets. GE has set a 30% GHG intensity reduction goal by the end of 2008, along with a 1% absolute reduction by the end of 2012. Progress will be measured against a 2004 baseline. We believe this report represents a significant step forward in our disclosure and transparency and look forward to engaging our stakeholders on its content.

GE has always been driven to perform and be among the best at what we do. Today, in an increasingly global and transparent world, we aspire to perform against all of our citizenship measures. Every day, in businesses and countries around the world, we take actions to align our performance ever closer with the standard of what it means to be a good and trusted world citizen. … Focus Areas

GE is proud of its ability to lead demonstrable change in the area of corporate

governance and its common environmental, health and safety system standards across the Company. At the same time, we face the complexities of managing a global company with the highest regard for compliance, integrity, the safety and fair treatment of our employees, and consideration of the dynamic global climate that impacts our business decisions in various markets. Identifying Focus Areas provides a foundation for maintaining best practices and helps us set the course for future improvements. Governance

11

? Our strong leadership in corporate governance has been recognized by a variety of observers including The Financial Times and Governance Metrics International, which gave GE a perfect score for our governance practices. The achievement of this recognition is a result of GE’s prioritization of governance as a critical issue. Since that time, GE has made a number of changes to further increase transparency and better align executive and CEO compensation with shareholder interests. Many of these efforts are detailed in the Governance section of this report.

? Based upon our ever-changing and complex environment, GE’s directors and executives conduct annual reviews to ensure that our governance systems address contemporary issues and serve the long-term needs of our many stakeholders. Compliance and Controllership

? Although GE has advanced compliance systems and processes, achieving full

compliance with financial and legal regulations requires a tremendous expenditure of time, effort and resources.

GE strives to build a culture of compliance and to fully engage business leaders — not just the legal and finance staffs — in this ongoing and never-ending effort. We must minimize mistakes to the greatest extent possible and learn from them as they occur.

Environment, Health and Safety

? The integration of new businesses, including Amersham and Universal, into GE’s Environmental Health and Management system is well under way. A vital part of this process is training business leaders and other new employees on GE standards and expectations for EHS performance and on GE’s tools to help them achieve this. ? In our own operations, GE has achieved reductions in its injury and illness rates, and continues to work to maintain a productive and healthy workforce — and is a world leader in this area.

? During 2005 GE may not achieve the historic level of workplace injury and illness rates due to the acquisition of Universal during 2004, which has an injury rate higher than GE’s current rates. However, we hope that we will return to our reduction path in 2006.

? GE has recently launched ecomagination, an initiative to bring to market new technologies that will help customers meet pressing environmental challenges. Significant progress has been made by businesses including GE Energy and GE Infrastructure in developing products and services with environmentally beneficial

12