1 . “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 statement 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 charged with corruption (腐败).
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 (分散的) “halo effect” its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble distinguishing these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions (起诉) under American’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 finds that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tend to get more lenient punishments. Their analysis rules out the possibility that it is the firm’s political influence, rather than its CSR stance, that accounts for the leniency: Companies that contribute more to political campaigns do 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 labor-rights concern, such as child labor, or increasing corporate giving by about 20% result 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 at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are relying on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
1. The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with___________.| A．uncertainty | B．interest | C．approval | D．tolerance |
| A．guarding it against malpractices | B．protecting it from consumers |
| C．winning trust from consumers | D．raising the quality of its products |
| A．less debatable | B．more lasting | C．more effective | D．less severe |
| A．comes across as reliable evidence | B．has an impact on their decision |
| C．is considered part of the investigation | D．increases the chance of being punished |
2 . Texas has been one of the most restrictive gun-rights states in America.Thanks to a new law,however,the state will be one of the most relaxed,to the degree that police are discouraged from even asking about someone's guns. And if they do, they may not have much power to do anything if the person refuses to show a license.
To be sure, the law is strict in its own way,offering a model for regulation. Under the law, open-carry citizens have to be licensed, a process that includes safety and shooting tests. They also have to show no prior psychological problems, and they have to be at least 21 years old.
It is true that gun violence dropped sharply after restrictive laws were put in place in countries like Great Britain and Australia. However,the US public seems more interested than ever in weapons and the power they convey,despite gun control groups' concern over the increase of violence. Most states in America have steadily expanded gun rights since the end of a 10-year assault(攻击)weapons ban in 2004. Black Friday this year saw the biggest gun cache(贮存)ever purchased in one day.
Considering those trends,there's a heated debate about whether the new Texas law is a model piece of legislation(立法)for a changing America,or a walking disaster just begging for trouble. As the law doesn't provide any punishment for those who refuse to show a license to a police officer, critics fear that officers may find it tough to handle potentially deadly situations. After all, armed citizens will no longer be considered suspicious, even though a lot of people might be alarmed by the sight. Most police in Texas have been told to not engage gun carriers unless they are doing something questionable or appear drunk.
For sure,New Year's Day will be an exciting one for Texas gun owners. What's not yet known is how the rest of Texas will respond.
1. All of the following are required in the new Texas law for open carry EXCEPT| A．age limit |
| B．mental condition |
| C．online registration |
| D．gun-operating skills |
| A．The reason for putting forward the new Texas law. |
| B．The present situation of gun possession in America. |
| C．The impact of the assault weapons ban in 2004. |
| D．The inaction of the US government as to gun control. |
| A．Heavier workload for policemen. |
| B．Disrespect for officers. |
| C．Lack of trust among citizens. |
| D．Difficulty in crime prevention. |
| A．Negative. |
| B．Cautious. |
| C．Indifferent. |
| D．Approving. |
3 . The Supreme Court’s decisions on physician-assisted suicide carry important implications for how medicine seeds to relieve dying patients of pain and suffering.
Although it ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, the Court in effect supported the medical principle of “double effects”, a centuries-old moral principle holding that an action having two effects----a good one that is intended and a harmful one that is foreseen---is permissible if the actor intends only the good effect.
Doctors have used that principle in recent years to justify using high doses of morphine to control terminally ill patients’ pain, even though increasing dosages will eventually kill the patient.
Nancy Dubler, director of Montefiore Medical Center, contends that the principle will shield doctors who "until now have very, very strongly insisted that they could not give patients sufficient medication to control their pain if that might hasten death."
George Annas, chair of the health law department at Boston University, maintains that, as long as a doctor prescribes a drug for a legitimate medical purpose, the doctor has done nothing illegal even if the patient uses the drug to hasten death. "It's like surgery, " he says. “We don't call those deaths homicides because the doctors didn't intend to kill their patients, although they risked their death. If you're a physician, you can risk your patient's suicide as long as you don't intend their suicide."
On another level, many in the medical community acknowledge that the assisted-suicide debate has been fueled in part by the despair of patients for whom modern medicine has prolonged the physical agony of dying.
Just three weeks before the Court's ruling on physician-assisted suicide, the National Academy of Science (NAS) released a two-volume report, Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life. It identifies the undertreatment of pain and the aggressive use of "ineffectual and forced medical procedures that may prolong and even dishonor the period of dying" as the twin problems of end-of-life care.
The profession is taking steps to require young doctors to train in hospices, to test knowledge of aggressive pain management therapies, to develop a Medicare billing code for hospital-based care, and to develop new standards for assessing and treating pain at the end of life.
Annas says lawyers can play a key role in insisting that these well-meaning medical initiatives translate into better care. “Large numbers of physicians seem unconcerned with the pain their patients are needlessly and predictably suffering,” to the extent that it constitutes “systematic patient abuse.” He says medical licensing boards “must make it clear ... that painful deaths are presumptively ones that are incompetently managed and should result in license suspension.”
1. From the first three paragraphs, we learn that_____________| A．doctors used to increase drug dosages to control their patients' pain. |
| B．it is still illegal for doctors to help the dying end their lives. |
| C．the Supreme Court strongly opposes physician-assisted suicide. |
| D．patients have no constitutional right to commit suicide. |
| A．Doctors will be held guilty if they risk their patients' death. |
| B．Modern medicine has assisted terminally ill patients in painless recovery. |
| C．The Court ruled that high-dosage pain-relieving medication can be prescribed. |
| D．A doctor's medication is no longer justified by his intentions. |
| A．Bold. | B．Harmful. | C．Careless. | D．Desperate. |
| A．manage their patients incompetently |
| B．give patients more medicine than needed |
| C．reduce drug dosages for their patients |
| D．prolong the needless suffering of the patients |
4 . A passenger has been fined almost 
550 after he was caught without a train ticket—that would have cost just 2.80.
Nicky Haywood，from Nottingham，was found guilty of travelling on an East Midlands train from Nottingham to Newstead without a ticket.
The 27yearold，who did not appear for his hearing at Nottingham Magistrates Court(地方法庭)，is now being made to pay the price—which is almost 200 times the original price—for the 20 minute journey.
According to the Nottingham Post，Magistrates have ordered Haywood to pay a 220 fine，302 in costs，a 22 government surcharge(追加费用) and the 2.80 fare.
Senior conductor，Yvonne Clay was working on the day of the incident，according to the Nottingham Post.
The newspaper reported that she said Haywood had got on the train without a ticket，though he had the chance to buy one from both vending machines and booking offices on the platform.
She said，“He offered a Solo Electron card but we could not take that on the train.I informed him with a notice to pay.He gave his name and address and had 21 days to pay the fare.”
Even though he was given three weeks to pay the 2.80，a payment from Haywood was not received.
| A．2.80. | B．544. |
| C．550. | D．546.8. |
| A．convenience shops | B．booking offices |
| C．the conductor | D．the court |
| A．Nicky Haywood was heading to Nottingham in this incident. |
| B．The conductor didn’t inform him to pay the ticket. |
| C．Nicky Haywood offered a card but it couldn’t be used on that train. |
| D．If Nicky Haywood had been given some days after the incident，he would have paid the ticket. |
| A．Welleducated. | B．Responsible. |
| C．Dishonest. | D．Mean. |
