2016年考研英语一阅读 Text 3 原文翻译及答案解析

“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.

诺贝尔奖得主经济学家米尔顿·弗里德曼写道：“企业有且仅有一个社会责任，那就是利用其资源并从事旨在增加利润的活动。”但即使你接受弗里德曼的前提，并将企业社会责任（CSR）政策视为对股东资金的浪费，事情可能并非绝对明确。新研究表明，CSR可能为企业创造货币价值——至少在企业因腐败被起诉时。

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.

据咨询公司EPG估计，美国和英国最大的企业每年在CSR上的支出超过150亿美元。这可能以三种方式为其业务增值。首先，消费者可能将CSR支出视为公司产品质量高的“信号”。其次，客户可能愿意购买公司的产品，作为间接捐赠其所支持的公益事业的方式。第三，通过更广泛的“光环效应”，其善行赢得消费者和其他人更多的考虑。

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.

先前关于CSR的研究难以区分这些效应，因为消费者可能受所有三种方式影响。最近的一项研究试图通过考察美国《反海外腐败法》（FCPA）下的贿赂起诉来区分它们。该研究认为，由于检察官在调查中不会消费公司的产品，他们可能只受光环效应的影响。

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.

研究发现，在被起诉的企业中，那些拥有最全面CSR项目的企业往往获得更宽松的处罚。他们的分析排除了这种可能性：是企业的政治影响力而非其CSR立场导致了宽大处理；向政治竞选捐款更多的公司并未收到更低的罚款。

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.

总之，研究得出结论，尽管检察官应该仅根据案情评估案件，但他们似乎确实受企业CSR记录的影响。一位研究人员表示：“我们估计，要么消除重大的劳动权利问题，如童工，要么将企业捐赠增加约20%，都会导致罚款通常比贿赂外国官员的典型处罚低40%。”

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.

研究人员承认，他们的研究并未回答企业应该在CSR上花费多少的问题。也没有揭示公司在决定其行善政策时，有多大程度依赖于光环效应而非其他可能的利益。但至少他们证明，当企业陷入法律麻烦时，良好的品格证据可以为他们赢得代价较小的处罚。