Text 3

　　“There is one and only one social responsibility of businesses,” 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 Firedman’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. A 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 firms’ 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 corpora giving by about 20% results in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for briding 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 a less costly punishment.

　　31. The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with

　　[A] tolerance

　　[B] skepticism

　　[C] uncertainty

　　[D] approval

　　【答案】[B]

　　【解析】觀點(diǎn)態(tài)度題。題干問的是作者對有關(guān)CSR方面Milton Friedman的說法是什么態(tài)度。根據(jù)信號詞Milton Friedman這個人定位到首段。注意題干問的是作者的看法，因此定位到第二句but轉(zhuǎn)折處。But后句子的主干為：things may not be absolutely clear-cut，可見作者對Milton Friedman所說的內(nèi)容并不完全贊同，故選擇答案[B]項(xiàng)懷疑。[A]項(xiàng)容忍，[C]項(xiàng)不確定，[D]項(xiàng)贊同，這三項(xiàng)均不是作者的態(tài)度，故排除。

　　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.

　　【答案】[A]

　　【解析】細(xì)節(jié)題。根據(jù)題干中的出處提示“Paragraph 2”定位到第二段第二句：This could add value to their businesses in three ways. This指的是CSR，根據(jù)接下來講到的三點(diǎn)：第一點(diǎn)是，消費(fèi)者認(rèn)為這樣的公司產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量比較高;第二點(diǎn)是，顧客更愿意購買這樣公司的產(chǎn)品;第三點(diǎn)是，通過一個更為廣泛的“暈輪效應(yīng)”，消費(fèi)者會更多地考慮這樣的公司的產(chǎn)品�？芍�，有CSR支出的公司會吸引更多的消費(fèi)者，[A]項(xiàng)“贏得消費(fèi)者的信任”，是對整個三點(diǎn)的總結(jié)，故為正確答案。[B]項(xiàng) 防止公司里的玩忽職守，[C]項(xiàng) 保護(hù)公司免受毀謗，[D]項(xiàng) 提升公司產(chǎn)品的質(zhì)量，均在原文中未提及，故排除。

　　33. 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

　　【答案】[C]

　　【解析】猜詞題。根據(jù)題干中的出處提示“l(fā)ine 2, para. 4”及信號詞“more lenient”定位到原文中的第四段第一句：The study found that...penalties。明顯此句中more lenient 修飾 penalties(懲罰) ，要想推測出more lenient的含義，需要知道被起訴的公司中，那些有著全面的CSR項(xiàng)目的公司和penalties 之間的聯(lián)系。本項(xiàng)在第五段的最后一句最容易被看出來，第五段最后一句提到那些在CSR有較大投資的公司，當(dāng)被起訴有賄賂行為時，所受到的罰金要比通常的罰金低40%左右，可知這樣的公司會受到較輕的懲罰，故more lenient是較輕，即較不嚴(yán)重的意思，故選[C]項(xiàng)。[A]項(xiàng) 更有效的，[B]項(xiàng) 較少有爭議的，[D]項(xiàng) 更持久的，這三項(xiàng)均不是more lenient的意思，故排除。

　　34. When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company’s CSR record

　　[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.

　　【答案】[A]

　　【解析】細(xì)節(jié)題。題干問的是 CSR record 與 prosecutors evaluate a case 的關(guān)系，根據(jù)題干中的信號詞prosecutors evaluate a case可回文中定位到第五段第一句：In all...in CSR。這里的be influenced與[A]項(xiàng) has an impact 對應(yīng)，即一個公司的CSR會影響檢察官對其案件的評估，故選[A]項(xiàng)。[B]項(xiàng)被檢察官認(rèn)為是可靠的證據(jù)，[C]項(xiàng) 增加了被懲罰的機(jī)會，[D]項(xiàng) 構(gòu)成了調(diào)查的一部分，這三項(xiàng)均在原文中沒有提及，故排除。

　　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.

　　【答案】[B]

　　【解析】判斷題題干問的是根據(jù)最后一段，有關(guān)CSR的論述哪個是對的。定位到原文最后一段，根據(jù)其內(nèi)容可知“研究人員承認(rèn)到其研究沒有回答如下問題：公司應(yīng)該在CSR方面花費(fèi)多少錢”。[B]項(xiàng)的意思是“公司在CSR方面的花費(fèi)是未知的”，屬于原文的同義替換，故正確。[A]項(xiàng) CSR對公司的負(fù)面影響經(jīng)常被忽視，[C]項(xiàng) 公司對CSR的經(jīng)濟(jì)承擔(dān)力被過高估計(jì)了，[D]項(xiàng) CSR給銀行業(yè)帶來了很多好處，這三項(xiàng)在文中均為提及，故排除。