劍橋雅思15test4passage3閱讀原文及翻譯

劍橋雅思15test4passage3閱讀主要講的是：大企業(yè)的環(huán)保責(zé)任，一共有7段，主要探討了公眾在迫使企業(yè)采取環(huán)保措施中的地位，以及能夠采取的各種措施，下面是具體每一段的翻譯。

劍橋雅思15test4passage3閱讀原文及翻譯

第1段

The environmental practices of big businesses are shaped by a fundamental fact that for many of us offends our sense of justice.Depending on the circumstances,a business may maximize the amount of money it makes,at least in the short term,by damaging the environment and hurting people.That is still the case today for fishermen in an unmanaged fishery without quotas,and for international logging companies with short-term leases on tropical rainforest land in places with corrupt officials and unsophisticated landowners.When government regulation is effective,and when the public is environmentally aware,environmentally clean big businesses may out-compete dirty ones,but the reverse is likely to be true if government regulation is ineffective and if the public doesn’t care.

大企業(yè)的環(huán)保行為受一項(xiàng)基本事實(shí)的影響。而對(duì)于我們大多數(shù)人來說，該事實(shí)則冒犯到我們對(duì)公平正義的認(rèn)知。根據(jù)具體環(huán)境的不同，一家企業(yè)可能會(huì)通過破壞環(huán)境和傷害人民的方式來使其利潤(rùn)最大化，至少在短期內(nèi)如此。如今當(dāng)漁民在不受管理、沒有配額的漁場(chǎng)捕魚時(shí)，當(dāng)擁有短期租約的伐木公司在官員腐敗、土地所有者缺乏經(jīng)驗(yàn)的熱帶雨林中砍伐時(shí)，這種情況仍然會(huì)發(fā)生。當(dāng)政府管理有效，公眾具有環(huán)保意識(shí)時(shí)，不會(huì)造成環(huán)境污染的大企業(yè)可能會(huì)戰(zhàn)勝污染嚴(yán)重的企業(yè)。但如果政府管理不善，而且公眾不在乎的話，相反的情況也有可能發(fā)生。

第2段

It is easy for the rest of us to blame a business for helping itself by hurting other people.But blaming alone is unlikely to produce change.It ignores the fact that businesses are not charities but profit-making companies,and that publicly owned companies with shareholders are under obligation to those shareholders to maximize profits,provided that they do so by legal means.US laws make a company’s directors legally liable for something termed‘breach of fiduciary responsibility’if they knowingly manage a company in a way that reduces profits.The car manufacturer Henry Ford was in fact successfully sued by shareholders in 1919 for raising the minimum wage of his workers to$5 per day:the courts declared that,while Ford’s humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice,his business existed to make profits for its stockholders.

對(duì)于我們來說，指責(zé)一家公司損人利己是件很容易的事情。但指責(zé)本身不會(huì)產(chǎn)生改變。它忽視了如下事實(shí)：企業(yè)不是慈善機(jī)構(gòu)而是賺取利潤(rùn)的公司，而擁有股東的上市公司有義務(wù)在法律許可的范圍內(nèi)為股東實(shí)現(xiàn)利潤(rùn)最大化。美國(guó)法律規(guī)定，如果一家公司的董事在管理公司期間故意降低公司利潤(rùn)，那么他們就需要為所謂的“違反受托責(zé)任”承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任。事實(shí)上，汽車制造商亨利·福特就曾在1919年因?qū)⒐と说淖畹凸べY提升至每天5美元而被股東成功起訴。法庭宣布，雖然福特對(duì)其員工的人文關(guān)懷是好的，但其公司存在的意義就是為了給股東賺取利潤(rùn)。

第3段

Our blaming of businesses also ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public for creating the conditions that let a business profit through destructive environmental policies.In the long run,it is the public,either directly or through its politicians,that has the power to make such destructive policies unprofitable and illegal,and to make sustainable environmental policies profitable.

我們對(duì)企業(yè)的指責(zé)也忽視了公眾的最終責(zé)任，是他們創(chuàng)造出相應(yīng)的條件，讓企業(yè)可以通過破壞環(huán)境的政策來賺取利潤(rùn)。長(zhǎng)期來看，無論是直接參與也好，通過政客也好，只有公眾才有權(quán)力讓這些破壞性的政策變得無利可圖或者違背法律，讓可持續(xù)的環(huán)保政策能夠盈利。

第4段

The public can do that by suing businesses for harming them,as happened after the Exxon Valdez disaster,in which over 40,000 m3 of oil were spilled off the coast of Alaska.The public may also make their opinion felt by preferring to buy sustainably harvested products;by making employees of companies with poor track records feel ashamed of their company and complain to their own management;by preferring their governments to award valuable contracts to businesses with a good environmental track record;and by pressing their governments to pass and enforce laws and regulations requiring good environmental practices.

公眾可以通過起訴企業(yè)傷害他們來實(shí)現(xiàn)這一點(diǎn)，正如埃克森·瓦爾迪茲災(zāi)難發(fā)生之后那樣。當(dāng)時(shí)超過40000立方的石油在阿拉斯加海岸泄漏。公眾也可以通過以下方式讓自己的意見被聽到，如更加傾向于購(gòu)買可持續(xù)收獲的產(chǎn)品;讓那些擁有不良記錄的公司員工為他們的公司感到羞愧并向他們的管理層抱怨;推動(dòng)政府將價(jià)值連城的合同獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)給那些環(huán)境保護(hù)記錄良好的公司;以及迫使政府通過并執(zhí)行要求良好環(huán)保實(shí)踐的法律和規(guī)定。

第5段

In turn,big businesses can exert powerful pressure on any suppliers that might ignore public or government pressure.For instance,after the US public became concerned about the spread of a disease known as BSE,which was transmitted to humans through infected meat,the US government’s Food and Drug Administration introduced rules demanding that the meat industry abandon practices associated with the risk of the disease spreading.But for five years the meat packers refused to follow these,claiming that they would be too expensive to obey.However,when a major fast-food company then made the same demands after customer purchases of its hamburgers plummeted,the meat industry complied within weeks.The public’s task is therefore to identify which links in the supply chain are sensitive to public pressure:for instance,fast-food chains or jewelry stores,but not meat packers or gold miners.

反過來說，大企業(yè)可以對(duì)任何忽視公眾或政府要求的供應(yīng)商施加強(qiáng)大的壓力。例如，在美國(guó)公眾開始關(guān)心一種名為BSE的疾病的傳播之后(它通過受感染的肉類傳遞給人類)，美國(guó)政府食品和藥品管理局就出臺(tái)規(guī)定，要求肉制品行業(yè)放棄可能涉及疾病傳播風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的做法。但是，有5年的時(shí)間，肉類加工商拒絕遵守這些規(guī)定，聲稱遵守規(guī)定的成本太高。然而，當(dāng)一家大型快餐公司在消費(fèi)者對(duì)其漢堡包的購(gòu)買量大幅下降之后也提出相應(yīng)的要求時(shí)，肉制品行業(yè)在幾周的時(shí)間里就屈從了。因此，公眾的任務(wù)是找出供應(yīng)鏈的哪部分對(duì)公眾壓力敏感：例如快餐連鎖店或者珠寶店，而非肉類加工商或金礦主。

第6段

Some readers may be disappointed or outraged that I place the ultimate responsibility for business practices harming the public on the public itself.I also believe that the public must accept the necessity for higher prices for products to cover the added costs,if any,of sound environmental practices.My views may seem to ignore the belief that businesses should act in accordance with moral principles even if this leads to a reduction in their profits.But I think we have to recognize that,throughout human history,in all politically complex human societies,government regulation has arisen precisely because it was found that not only did moral principles need to be made explicit,they also needed to be enforced.

一些讀者可能對(duì)我將企業(yè)實(shí)踐傷害公眾的最終責(zé)任置于公眾自身感到失望或者憤怒。我也認(rèn)為公眾必須接受提高產(chǎn)品價(jià)格的必要性，以彌補(bǔ)健全環(huán)保實(shí)踐所帶來的額外成本(如果有的話)。我的觀點(diǎn)可能忽視了如下信念，即企業(yè)應(yīng)該按照道德原則運(yùn)營(yíng)，即便這會(huì)導(dǎo)致利潤(rùn)下降。但我認(rèn)為，我們必須意識(shí)到，縱觀人類歷史，在所有政治復(fù)雜的人類社會(huì)中，政府各項(xiàng)規(guī)章制度誕生的確切原因就在于，人們發(fā)現(xiàn)道德原則不僅要清晰明了，而且還需要強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行。

第7段

To me,the conclusion that the public has the ultimate responsibility for the behavior of even the biggest businesses is empowering and hopeful,rather than disappointing.My conclusion is not a moralistic one about who is right or wrong,admirable or selfish,a good guy or a bad guy.In the past,businesses have changed when the public came to expect and require different behavior,to reward businesses for behavior that the public wanted,and to make things difficult for businesses practicing behaviors that the public didn’t want.I predict that in the future,just as in the past,changes in public attitudes will be essential for changes in businesses’environmental practices.

對(duì)我來說，公眾對(duì)大型企業(yè)的行為負(fù)有最終責(zé)任這一結(jié)論充滿希望并給人以力量，而不是讓人感到失望。我的結(jié)論與誰(shuí)對(duì)誰(shuí)錯(cuò)，誰(shuí)值得敬佩誰(shuí)自私，誰(shuí)是好人誰(shuí)是壞人等道德判斷無關(guān)。過去，在公眾期望并要求不同行為時(shí)，企業(yè)會(huì)進(jìn)行改變。這些要求會(huì)獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)那些采取公眾想要行為的公司，并給采取公眾不想要行為的公司造成困難。我預(yù)測(cè)，未來就跟過去一樣，公眾態(tài)度的改變對(duì)于企業(yè)環(huán)保行為的變化至關(guān)重要。

關(guān)于“劍橋雅思15test4passage3閱讀原文及翻譯”的內(nèi)容就介紹完了，希望可以幫助到大家，如果你還想了解更多的劍橋雅思真題，那么可以持續(xù)關(guān)注本站的歷年真題內(nèi)容。

>> 雅思 托福 免費(fèi)測(cè)試、量身規(guī)劃、讓英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)不再困難<<