当前位置: 考研 >考试辅导 > 考研英语 >  文章


2019-04-12 12:10:36来源:研究生考试网分享



“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


【解析】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。根据信号词Milton Friedman这个人定位到首段。注意题干问的是作者的看法,因此定位到第二句but转折处。But后句子的主干为:things may not be absolutely clear-cut,可见作者对Milton Friedman所说的内容并不完全赞同,故选择答案[B]项怀疑。[A]项容忍,[C]项不确定,[D]项赞同,这三项均不是作者的态度,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.


【解析】细节题。根据题干中的出处提示“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,根据接下来讲到的三点:第1点是,消费者认为这样的公司产品质量比较高;第二点是,顾客更愿意购买这样公司的产品;第三点是,通过一个更为广泛的“晕轮效应”,消费者会更多地考虑这样的公司的产品。可知,有CSR支出的公司会吸引更多的消费者,[A]项“赢得消费者的信任”,是对整个三点的总结,故为正确答案。[B]项 防止公司里的玩忽职守,[C]项 保护公司免受毁谤,[D]项 提升公司产品的质量,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


【解析】猜词题。根据题干中的出处提示“line 2, para. 4”及信号词“more lenient”定位到原文中的第四段第1句:The study found that...penalties。明显此句中more lenient 修饰 penalties(惩罚) ,要想推测出more lenient的含义,需要知道被起诉的公司中,那些有着全面的CSR项目的公司和penalties 之间的联系。本项在第五段的最后一句最容易被看出来,第五段最后一句提到那些在CSR有较大投资的公司,当被起诉有贿赂行为时,所受到的罚金要比通常的罚金低40%左右,可知这样的公司会受到较轻的惩罚,故more lenient是较轻,即较不严重的意思,故选[C]项。[A]项 更有效的,[B]项 较少有争议的,[D]项 更持久的,这三项均不是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.


【解析】细节题。题干问的是 CSR record 与 prosecutors evaluate a case 的关系,根据题干中的信号词prosecutors evaluate a case可回文中定位到第五段第1句:In all...in CSR。这里的be influenced与[A]项 has an impact 对应,即一个公司的CSR会影响检察官对其案件的评估,故选[A]项。[B]项被检察官认为是可靠的证据,[C]项 增加了被惩罚的机会,[D]项 构成了调查的一部分,这三项均在原文中没有提及,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.


【解析】判断题题干问的是根据最后一段,有关CSR的论述哪个是对的。定位到原文最后一段,根据其内容可知“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”。[B]项的意思是“公司在CSR方面的花费是未知的”,属于原文的同义替换,故正确。[A]项 CSR对公司的负面影响经常被忽视,[C]项 公司对CSR的经济承担力被过高估计了,[D]项 CSR给银行业带来了很多好处,这三项在文中均为提及,故排除。






免费课程咨询:400-801-6269        真道(北京)信息技术有限公司版权所有 京ICP备12044874号-1