“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 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."We estimate that either eliminating 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,"says one researcher.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 win 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."We estimate that either eliminating 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,"says one researcher.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 win them a less costly punishment.
Theexpression"more lenient"（Line 2,Para.4）is closestin meaning to.
词义题。根据题干回文定位到第四段第一句。通过该段第二句的描述可以得知CSR和政治影响是对立的两个因素。而第二句冒号后面交代，参与政治活动较多的公司不会受到较低的罚款。这就意味着，反而具有全面的CSR项目的公司受到的罚款比较低。因此，结合选项可以推出第一句话中的more lenient penalties指less severe，即不那么严重的（宽大）的惩罚。因此正确答案为D。其次，结合文章中心也可以推出这道题的答案。首段最后一句指出，CSR可以帮助公司带来金钱的价值（monetary value），特别是
