Text 3 "There is one and only one social responsibility of business" wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist "That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits." But even if you accept Friedman's premise and regard corporate social responsibility(CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders's money, things may not be absolutely clear-act. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are prosecuted for corruption. The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a "signal" that a company's products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company's products as an indirect may to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse "halo effect" whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others. Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under American's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（FCPA）.It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations，they could be influenced only by the halo effect. The study found that，among prosecuted firms，those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firm's political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines. In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company's record in CSR. "We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials." says one researcher. Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment. 31. The author views Milton Friedman's statement about CSR with [A]uncertainty [B]skepticism [C]approval [D]tolerance 【答案】A 【解析】态度题。根据题干中的关键词Milton Friedman, CSR 可以定位到第一段开头处，米尔顿·弗里德曼认为："企业有且只有一种责任，为增加利润而运用资源，开展活动"。紧接着文章转折并提出"things may not be absolutely clear-cut"。情况并不明确。由此推知，作者对此的态度是uncertainty。 32. According to Paragraph 2, CSR helps a company by [A]guarding it against malpractices [B]protecting it from consumers [C]winning trust from consumers. [D]raising the quality of its products 【答案】D 【解析】细节题。根据第二段，以及题干中的关键词CSR，公司花大笔资金在CSR上面，其结果就是"this could add value to their business in three ways", "以三种方式分别给公司带来价值"。紧接着文章分别阐述三种方式，得出正确答案为D。 33. The expression "more lenient"(line 2,Para.4)is closest in meaning to [A]less controversial [B]more lasting [C]more effective [D]less severe 【答案】D 【解析】词义题。根据题干回文定位到第四段第一句。通过该段第二句的描述可以得知CSR和政治影响是对立的两个因素。而第二句冒号后面交代，参与政治活动较多的公司不会受到较低的罚款。这就意味着，反而具有全面的CSR项目的公司受到的罚款比较低。因此，结合选项可以推出第一句话中的more lenient penalties指less severe，即不那么严重的(宽大)的惩罚。因此正确答案为D。 34. When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company's CSR record [A]comes across as reliable evidence [B]has an impact on their decision [C]increases the chance of being penalized [D]constitutes part of the investigation 【答案】B 【解析】细节题。根据题干中的prosecutors evaluate a case回文定位到第五段第二句。该句指出虽然检察官在评估一个案件时，应该基于其功绩，实际上还是受到了公司CSR记录的影响。故正确答案为选项B。 |
关于我们 - 联系我们 - 客户服务 - 诚聘英才 - 网站地图 - 版权声明 - 帮助中心
Copyright © 2002-2010 考试资料网 版权所有 京ICP备269102169号 by www.kszl.net