s profits.‖ But even if you accept Fiedman’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 is 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 is 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 comprehensiveCSR programmes tendedto getmore 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 seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR. \ting 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,\
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 have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can winIn all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR. \
ubstantial 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,\
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 have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can winthem a less costly punishment.
31. The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with. [A] tolerance [B] skepticism [C] uncertainty [D]approval
32. According to Paragraph 2, CSR helps a company . [Al winning trust from consumers. [B] guarding it against malpractices. [C] protecting it from being defamed. [D] raising the quality of its products.
33.Theexpression \[Al more effective. [B] less controversial. [C] less severe. [D] more lasting.
34. When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company's CSR record. [Al has an impact on their decision. [B] comes across as reliable evidence.
[C]increases the chance of being penalized. [D] constitutes part of the investigation.
35. Which of the following is true of CSR, according to the last paragraph ? [Al Its negative effects on businesses are often overlooked.
[B]Thenecessaryamount of companies'spending on it is unknown. [C] Companies' financial capacityforithasbeenoverestimated. [D] Ithasbroughtmuchbenefittothebankingindustry. Text 4
There will eventually come a day when The New York Times cases to publish stories on newsprint .Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. ―Sometime in the future ―the paper’s publisher said back in 2010.
Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside ,there’s plenty of incentive to ditch
print .The infrastructure required to make a physical newspapers -printing presses .delivery truck -isn’t just expensive it’s excessive at a time when online-only competition don’t have the same set financial constraints . Readers are migrating away from print away,And although print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts revenue from print is still declining.
Overhead may be high and circulation lowe ,but rushing to eliminate its print editor would be a mistake ,says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.
Peretti says the Times shouldn't waste time getting of the print business, only if they go about doing it the right away ―Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them ―he said, ―but if you discontinue it, you're going to have your most loyal customers really upset with you.\scontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming. \e move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti were in charge at the times? \ar to end print.\―I would raise and make it into more of a legacy product.‖
The most loyal costumer would still gel the product they favor. the idea goes, and they’d feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. \r print, you could feel like you were helping,\ssentially try to generate additional revenue.\e it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which may be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly $500 a year — more than twice as much as a digital-only subscription.
\y business,\e're doing that don't make sense when the market.Change and the world changes. In those situations, it's better to be more aggressive than less aggressive.\
36.The New York Times is considering ending its print edition partly due . [A]the high cost of operation. [B]the pressure form its investors. [C]the complaints form its readers [D]the increasing online ad asles.
37.Peretti suggests that,in face of the present situation,the Times should. [A]seek new sources of readership. [B]end the print edition for goog.
[C]aim for efficitent management. [D]make strategic adiustments.
38.It can inferred form Paragraphs 5 and 6 that a ―legacy product‖ . [A]helps restore the glory of former times. [B]is meant for the most loyal customers. [C]will have the cost of printing reduced. [D]expands the popularity of the paper
39.Peretti believes that,in a changing world, . [A]legacy businesses are becoming outdated . [B]cautiousness facilitates problem-solving. [C]aggressiveness better meets challenges. [D]traditional luxuries can stay unaffected.
40.Which of the following would be the best title of the text? [A]Shift to Online Newspapers All at Once [B]Cherish the Newspapers Still in Your Hand [C]Make Your Print Newspaper a Luxury Good [D]Keep Your Newspapers Forever in Fashion
Part B
Directions:
In the following text, some sentences have been removed. For Questions 41-45, choose the most suitable one from the fist A-G to fit into each of the numbered blanks. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
[A]Create a new image of yourself [B]Have confidence in yourself [C]Decide if the time is right [D]Understand the context [E]Work with professionals [F]Mark it efficient [G]Know your goals
No matter how formal orinformal theworkenvironment,the way you present yourself has an impact.This isespecially truein first impressions.According to researchfrom PrincetonUniversity, people assessyour competence,Trustworthiness, and likeability in just a tenth of a second, solelybased ontheway you look.
The different between today’sworkplace and the ―dress for success‖era is that the range of optionsis so muchbroader. Normshaveevolvedandfragmented.In some settings, red sneakers or dres
s T—shirts can conveystatus;inother not somuch. Plus, whatever image we present is magnified by social—media services like LinkedIn.Chances are, your headshots are seen much more often now than adecade or two ago.Millennials, it seems, face the paradox of being the least formal generation yet the most conscious of style and personal branding.It can beconfusing.
So how do we navigate this?How do we know when to invest in anupgrade?And whats the best way to pull off one that enhances our goals？Here are some tips:
’
41. As an executive coach, I’ve seen image upgrades be particularlyhelpfulduring transitions—when looking for a new job , stepping into a new or morepublic role ,or changing work environments. If you’re in a period of change or just feeling stuck and in a rut, now may be a good time. If you’re not sure, ask forhonest feedback from trusted friends, colleagues and professionals .Look for cues
about how others perceive you. Maybe there’s no need for an upgrade and that’s OK.
42.
Get clear on what impact you’re hoping to have. Are you looking to refresh your image or pivot it? For one person, the goal may be to be taken more seriously and enhance their professional image. For another, it may be to be perceived as moreapproachable, or more modern and stylish. For someone moving from finance to advertising, maybe they want to look ore ―SoHo.‖ (It’s OK to use characterizations like that.)
43.
Look at your work environment like an anthropologist. What are the norms of your environment? What conveys status? Who are your most important audience? How do the people you respect and look up to prevent themselves? The better you understand the cultural context, the more control you can have over your impact.
44.