剑桥商务英语中级口语-4及答案解析.doc

《剑桥商务英语中级口语-4及答案解析.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《剑桥商务英语中级口语-4及答案解析.doc（5页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、剑桥商务英语中级口语-4 及答案解析(总分：100.00，做题时间：90 分钟)一、SPEAKING(总题数：1，分数：100.00)In Search of the Good CompanyThe 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 past decade, “corporate s

2、ocial 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 rights and the environm

3、ent. 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 to the debate, a p

4、owerful 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 secretary under Bill Clinto

5、n 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 significant extent“,

6、 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 that competing

7、, 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 activists want: Wal-Ma

8、rt 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 so, it also h

9、appens 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 by publicly sh

10、aming 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 government has a cru

11、cial 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 thing, he sa

12、ys, “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 and in the s

13、hort 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 increasingly a sour

14、ce 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 looks back fo

15、ndly 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, argues Mr

16、. 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 takes a

17、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 educati

18、on, 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-termist, an

19、d 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 conversat

20、ion about CSR is over,“ he says. “What remains is What, specifically, and how?/（分数：100.00）(1).Answer the following question.Do you think manufacturers should be accountable for the injury caused by a product?（分数：50.00）_(2).Discuss the following questions with your partner.a. Is corporate philanthrop

21、y important or not?b. Can you give explanations for corporate philanthropy?（分数：50.00）_剑桥商务英语中级口语-4 答案解析(总分：100.00，做题时间：90 分钟)一、SPEAKING(总题数：1，分数：100.00)In Search of the Good CompanyThe debate about the social responsibilities of companies is heating up again.If you believe what they say about themse

22、lves, big companies have never been better citizens. In the past 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

23、in everything from the diversity of their workforces to human rights 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 lea

24、ders have capitulated to political correctness. But in a new twist 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 n

25、ative America. Mr Reich, an economist who served as labor secretary 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 tha

26、t companies “cannot be socially responsible, at least not to any significant 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, w

27、hich is that governments are responsible for setting rules that ensure 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, companie

28、s sometimes find ways to cut costs that coincide with what CSR activists 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 te

29、rm to mean anything a company might do to increase profits if, in doing 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 mean

30、ingful political reform. As for politicians, they enjoy scoring points by 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 lobby

31、ists.What will CSR advocates make of this? Few will dispute that government 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 Harva

32、rd University. If citizens and politicians were prepared to do the right 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 t

33、o act in their enlightened long-term self-interest, rather than narrowly and 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. Understandi

34、ng and responding to the social context in which films operate is increasingly 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,

35、 and to focus excessively on short-term profits.Intriguingly, Mr. Reich looks 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 g

36、rowth were distributed equitably, in contrast to their modern counterparts, argues 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

37、in which firms can no longer afford such largesse.Lenny Mendonca of McKinsey takes 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 simila

38、r opportunity today, given problems ranging from climate change to inadequate 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,

39、 climate change and health-care reform that is neither zero-sum nor short-termist, 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

40、, the boss of Account Ability, a CSR lobby group. “the whether in principle conversation about CSR is over,“ he says. “What remains is What, specifically, and how?/（分数：100.00）(1).Answer the following question.Do you think manufacturers should be accountable for the injury caused by a product?（分数：50.

41、00）_正确答案：(In determining whether manufacturers should be accountable for all injuries resulting from the 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

42、 are responsible for providing the consumers with safe and reliable products and they are also responsible 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 bene

43、fit the manufacture at the same time. However, if the manufacture has already done well to provide excellent 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,

44、the extremely strict standard of safe liability is costly and unfair to the manufacturers. This standard 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 s

45、afe if used inappropriately. While manufacturers have given clear guide on how to keep and use their product, 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 product

46、s, but consumers still need to master the careful and correct use of them. When unfortunate injuries occur, accountability should be taken by the manufacturers if it is truly caused by the product defects.)解析：(2).Discuss the following questions with your partner.a. Is corporate philanthropy importan

47、t or not?b. Can you give explanations for corporate philanthropy?（分数：50.00）_正确答案：(A: Do you think philanthropy is significant 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 recogniti

48、on of social responsibility beyond production and the making of profit for shareholders. Philanthropy will help firms 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 oth