[語言類考試復(fù)習(xí)資料大全]劍橋商務(wù)英語中級(jí)口語分類模擬題6

1、書山有路勤為徑，學(xué)海無涯苦作舟。祝愿天下莘莘學(xué)子：學(xué)業(yè)有成，金榜題名！語言類考試復(fù)習(xí)資料大全劍橋商務(wù)英語中級(jí)口語分類模擬題6劍橋商務(wù)英語中級(jí)口語分類模擬題6SPEAKING In Search of the Good Company The debate about the social responsibilities of companies is heating up again. If you believe what they say about themselves, big companies have never been better citizens. In the pas

2、t decade, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become the norm in the boardrooms of companies in rich countries, and increasingly in developing economies too. Most big firms now pledge to follow policies that define best practice in everything from the diversity of their workforces to human rig

3、hts and the environment. Criticism of CSR has come mostly from those on the free-market right, who intone Milton Friedmans argument that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits and fret that business leaders have capitulated to political correctness. But in a new twist

4、to the debate, a powerful critique of CSR has just been published by a leading left-wing thinker. In his new book, Super-capitalism, Robert Reich denounces CSR as a dangerous diversion that is undermining democracy, not least in his native America. Mr Reich, an economist who served as labor secretar

5、y under Bill Clinton and now teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, admits to a Damascene conversion, having for many years preached that social responsibility and profits converge over the long term. He now believes that companies cannot be socially responsible, at least not to any sign

6、ificant extent, and that CSR activists are being diverted from the more realistic and important task of getting governments to solve social problems. Debating whether Wal-Mart or Google is good or evil misses the point, he says, which is that governments are responsible for setting rules that ensure

7、 that competing, profit-maximizing firms do not act against the interests of society. One after another, Mr. Reich trashes the supposed triumphs of CSR. Socially responsible firms are more profitable? Non sense. Certainly, companies sometimes find ways to cut costs that coincide with what CSR activi

8、sts want: Wal-Mart adopts cheaper green packaging, say, or Starbucks gives part-time employees health insurance, which reduces staff turnover. But to credit these corporations with being socially responsible is to stretch the term to mean anything a company might do to increase profits if, in doing

9、so, it also happens to have some beneficent impact on the rest of society, writes Mr. Reich. Worse, firms are using CSR to fool the public into believing that problems are being addressed, he argues, thereby preventing more meaningful political reform. As for politicians, they enjoy scoring points b

10、y publicly shaming companies that misbehaveprice-gouging oil firms, saywhile failing to make real changes to the regulations that make such misbehavior possible, something Mr. Reich blames on the growing clout of corporate lobbyists. What will CSR advocates make of this? Few will dispute that govern

11、ment has a crucial role to play in setting the rules of the game. Many will also share Mr. Reichs concern about the corrosive political power of corporate money. But Mr. Reich has it exactly backwards, says John Ruggie of Harvard University. If citizens and politicians were prepared to do the right

12、thing, he says, There would be less need to rely on CSR in the first place. Thoughtful advocates of CSR also concede that companies are unlikely to do things that are against their self-interest. The real task is to get them to act in their enlightened long-term self-interest, rather than narrowly a

13、nd in the short term. Mr Reich dismisses this as mere smart management rather than social responsibility. But done well, CSR can motivate employees and strengthen brands, while also providing benefits to society. Understanding and responding to the social context in which films operate is increasing

14、ly a source of new products and services, observes Jane Nelson of the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum. Telling firms they need not act responsibly might cause them to under-invest in these opportunities, and to focus excessively on short-term profits. Intriguingly, Mr. Reich loo

15、ks back fondly to what he calls the not quite golden age in America after the second world war when firms really were socially responsible. Business leaders believed they had a duty to ensure that the benefits of economic growth were distributed equitably, in contrast to their modern counterparts, a

16、rgues Mr. Reich. What changed? Back then, big American firms enjoyed the luxury of oligopoly, he says, which gave them the ability to be socially responsible. Todays super-capitalism is based on fierce global competition in which firms can no longer afford such largesse. Lenny Mendonca of McKinsey t

17、akes a different view of the post-war period. After the war business leaders realized it was in their enlightened self-interest to rebuild the global economy and reinvent the social contract, he says, and there is a similar opportunity today, given problems ranging from climate change to inadequate

18、education, where firms long-term self-interest may mean that they have an even greater incentive to find solutions than governments do. Certainly, in America, business leaders are advocating government action on education, climate change and health-care reform that is neither zero-sum nor short-term

19、ist, and which, indeed, may not differ much from Mr. Reichs own preferences. Though his book hits many targets, both bosses and CSR activists are likely to dismiss it as fundamentally unworldly and to agree with Simon Zadek, the boss of Account Ability, a CSR lobby group. the whether in principle co

20、nversation about CSR is over, he says. What remains is What, specifically, and how? 1. Answer the following question. Do you think manufacturers should be accountable for the injury caused by a product? 答案:In determining whether manufacturers should be accountable for all injuries resulting from the

21、 use of their products, one must weigh the interests of consumers against those of manufacturers. On balance, holding manufacturers strictly liable for such injuries is unjustifiable. Manufacturers are responsible for providing the consumers with safe and reliable products and they are also responsi

22、ble for supplying clear and detailed instructions. That is the basic requirement for a qualified manufacture. To satisfy the need of the consumers for convenient and user-friendly product will benefit the manufacture at the same time. However, if the manufacture has already done well to provide exce

23、llent and safe product plus clear and detailed instructions and it is the consumers misconduct that should be blamed for the incident, then the manufacturer is not responsible for the injury. But, the extremely strict standard of safe liability is costly and unfair to the manufacturers. This standar

24、d force them to do excessive safety testing, and defending liability law suit. Consumers are then damaged by ultimately bearing these costs in the form of higher prices. Nothing can be absolutely safe if used inappropriately. While manufacturers have given clear guide on how to keep and use their pr

25、oduct, it is still impossible for manufacturers to ensure their products being under incorrect use. All in all, the manufacturers should be highly responsible for the production of qualified products, but consumers still need to master the careful and correct use of them. When unfortunate injuries o

26、ccur, accountability should be taken by the manufacturers if it is truly caused by the product defects. 2. Discuss the following questions with your partner. a. Is corporate philanthropy important or not? b. Can you give explanations for corporate philanthropy? 答案:A: Do you think philanthropy is sig

27、nificant to a corporate? B: Yes, my answer is positive. And corporations offer various explanations for their philanthropy. One of the motives is essential altruism, a simple recognition of social responsibility beyond production and the making of profit for shareholders. Philanthropy will help firm

28、s acquire a good reputation. A: In a sense, philanthropy is helpful for firms to make indirect social gains. Many corporations contribute because of the indirect social gains in return. The funds often are seen as engendering goodwill from the public; or the cost may be judged as being less if government paid for all services to the community and then raised corporate taxes accordingly. B: Some other corporations are interested in supporting projects that will be looked on with favor by government, which regulates their fort