Reading Comprehension 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’ 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 last year 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 paper 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 corporate giving by about 20% 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 a less costly punishment.
31. The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with
32. According to Paragraph 2, CSR helps a company by
33. The expression “more lenient” (Para. 4) is closest in meaning to
34. When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company’s CSR record
35. Which of the following is true of CSR, according to the last paragraph?
答案与解析 (Answers)
31. [D] uncertainty.
解析：第一段末尾作者指出“things may not be absolutely clear-cut（事情可能并非绝对的一清二楚）”，这表达了作者对弗里德曼观点在现实中复杂性的不确定态度。
32. [C] winning trust from consumers.
解析：第二段提到CSR通过三种方式增值，包括作为“信号”和通过“光环效应（halo effect）”获得消费者更多的“consideration（关照/信任）”。
33. [D] less severe.
解析：lenient 意为“宽大的/仁慈的”，指在惩罚（penalties）上“不那么严厉”，故选 less severe。
34. [A] has an impact on their decision.
解析：第五段明确提到“they do seem to be influenced by a company’s record in CSR（他们似乎确实受到了公司CSR记录的影响）”，即影响了决策。
35. [B] The necessary amount of companies’ spending on it is unknown.
解析：最后一段首句承认研究无法回答“how much businesses ought to spend on CSR（企业应该花多少钱在CSR上）”，即具体金额未知。
核心长难句精解 (Highlighted Sentences)
1. 让步转折与双重否定表达：
"But even if you accept Friedman’s premise and regard CSR policies as a waste of shareholders’ money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut."
【解析】even if 引导让步状语从句。clear-cut 意为“轮廓鲜明的/一目了然的”。作者用双重否定（not absolutely clear-cut）委婉地挑战了弗里德曼的绝对化观点，引出下文的研究发现。
【翻译】但是，即使你接受弗里德曼的前提，认为企业社会责任政策是浪费股东的钱，事情也可能并不那么绝对地一清二楚。
"But even if you accept Friedman’s premise and regard CSR policies as a waste of shareholders’ money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut."
【解析】even if 引导让步状语从句。clear-cut 意为“轮廓鲜明的/一目了然的”。作者用双重否定（not absolutely clear-cut）委婉地挑战了弗里德曼的绝对化观点，引出下文的研究发现。
【翻译】但是，即使你接受弗里德曼的前提，认为企业社会责任政策是浪费股东的钱，事情也可能并不那么绝对地一清二楚。
2. 原因状语从句与光环效应：
"And third, through a more diffuse “halo effect”, whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others."
【解析】whereby 引导定语从句，相当于 by which。halo effect 是心理学名词，指“爱屋及乌”的认知偏差。本句解释了 CSR 如何通过品牌美誉度间接获利。
【翻译】第三，通过一种更广泛的“光环效应”，企业的善举能使其获得消费者及其他人士更多的关照。
"And third, through a more diffuse “halo effect”, whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others."
【解析】whereby 引导定语从句，相当于 by which。halo effect 是心理学名词，指“爱屋及乌”的认知偏差。本句解释了 CSR 如何通过品牌美誉度间接获利。
【翻译】第三，通过一种更广泛的“光环效应”，企业的善举能使其获得消费者及其他人士更多的关照。
3. 条件与结果的量化关联：
"We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern... or increasing corporate giving by about 20% results in fines that generally are 40% lower..."
【解析】either... or... 引导并列的主语成分。results in（导致）连接了行为与结果。句子量化了 CSR 记录在面临法律惩罚时的减免程度。
【翻译】我们估计，无论是消除重大的劳工权利隐患（如童工），还是增加约 20% 的企业捐赠，通常都会使罚款比典型的贪污受贿处罚低 40%。
"We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern... or increasing corporate giving by about 20% results in fines that generally are 40% lower..."
【解析】either... or... 引导并列的主语成分。results in（导致）连接了行为与结果。句子量化了 CSR 记录在面临法律惩罚时的减免程度。
【翻译】我们估计，无论是消除重大的劳工权利隐患（如童工），还是增加约 20% 的企业捐赠，通常都会使罚款比典型的贪污受贿处罚低 40%。