发布于 4年前 作者 一只绿色的🍋 1551 次浏览 来自 考研

“There is on 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’ money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut. 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 way 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. Al recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America’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 byabout20% results 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 of 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 decide their do-gooding policies. But at least they have demonstrated that when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them less costly punishment.

31.The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with 【A】tolerance. 【B】skepticism. 【C】uncertainty. 【D】approval.

32.According to Paragraph 2,CSR helps a company by 【A】winning trust from consumers. 【B】guarding it against malpractices. 【C】protecting it from being defamed. 【D】raising the quality of its products.

  1. The expression “more lenient ”(line 2,para.4)is closest in meaning to 【A】more effective 【B】less controversial 【C】less severe 【D】more lasting

  2. When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company’s CSR regard 【A】has an impact on their decision 【B】comes across as reliable evidence 【C】increases the chance of being penalized 【D】constitutes part of the investigation

35.Which of the following is true of CSR, according to the last paragraph? 【A】 Its negative effects on businesses are often overlooked. 【B】 The necessary amount of companies’ spending on it is unknown. 【C】 Companies’ financial capacity for it has been overestimated. 【D】 It has brought much benefit to the banking industry.

31 答案 B Skepticism 解析:作者观点态度题。题干问的是作者对有关CSR方面Milton Friedman的说法是什么态度。根据大写Milton Friedman这个人定位到定位到首段首句。注意题干问的是作者的看法,因此定位到后一句but转折处。转折处的主题句式“things may not absolutely clear-cut”,作者持的是否定态度,选择答案B。C选项是作者态度不明确,不能选择。

32 答案 A winning trust from consumers 解析:根据题干找到第二段.根据第二段内容,CSR could add value to their business in three ways. 从而定位下面三点。First后面出现了high quality,但是它是在从句中,从句修饰"signal",而本句谓语动词是take,与D中 raising 并不是同义词,故排除。Second,和third 都与消费者购买心态有关,和A选项 winning trust from consumers 相对应。而B,C选项的malpractices和defamed在原文中并未出现,且没有同义词,故排除。

33 答案 C less severe 解析:根据题干找到第四段对应处。可见题干的 more lenient 是作为修饰 penalties(惩罚) 的,故推测本句在讨论 CSR 和 penalties 有什么联系。而本段与惩罚相关的词只有最后一个词 fines(罚金),修饰它的形容词是lower, 故可推测 more lenient 与降低惩罚有关,只有C选项满足。

34 答案 A has an impact on their decision 解析:题干中问的是 CSR record 与 prosecutors evaluate a case 的关系,根据题干内容到对应点:第五段第一句。本句说,…they do seem to be influenced by a company’s recore in CSR.这里的 be influenced 与A选项 has an impact 对应,故选A. 而B选项中的 reliable evidence, C 选项中的 the chance of being penalized 在原文中没有体现。D选项中的 investigation 与题干中的 When prosecutors evaluate a case 明显对应不上,故不予考虑。

35 答案 B The necessary amount of companies’ spending on it is unknown 解析:该题是一道判断题,题干问的是有关CSR哪个是对的。先根据CSR回到最后一段,定位到末段首句。首句提到“研究人员承认到其研究没有回答如下问题:公司应该在CSR方面花费多少钱”。选项B的意思是公司在其方面的花费是未知的,属于原文的同义替换。

更多精彩学习资料,请关注知米英语资讯平台 微信公众平台:知米背单词 (微信号:ZhimiEnglish)- 新浪微博:知米背单词 百度贴吧:知米背单词