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】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.

【答案】[A]

【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：第一点是，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