本篇文章共分 7 段，從企業環境問題的出現源頭開始，探討解決此一問題時公眾力量的重要性，在主張公眾應勇於承擔責任之餘，也指出企圖讓企業本於良心注重環保乃不切實際的作法，最後回歸文章主要論述強調公眾力量乃最終解決方案。

本篇考題英文原文與對應之中文翻譯整理如下。練習作答解題時若有對語意不清楚之處，請仔細查閱對照，以提升閱讀理解能力。

Environmental practices of big businesses 大企業的環境實踐

1. 企業環境行為乃公眾之責任

   The environmental practices of big businesses are shaped by a fundamental fact that for many of us offend 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.

   大企業的環境行為是由一個基本事實決定的，對我們中的許多人來說，這個事實令我們的正義感感到不舒服。根據不同的情況，一家企業可能會透過破壞環境和傷害人群的方式來盡可能地增加其收入，至少在短期內是如此。今天，漁民在沒有配額管理的漁業中，以及國際伐木公司在有腐敗官員和思慮不周的土地所有者的地方短期租賃熱帶雨林土地時，仍然是這種情況。當政府監管有效時，當公眾有環境意識時，環境清淨的大企業可能會勝過骯髒的企業，但如果政府監管無效，公眾不關心，則可能出現相反的情況。

2. 企業以創造利潤為目標

   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.

   我們其他人很容易指責一家企業藉由損人而利己。但僅僅指責是不可能產生變化的。它忽略了這樣一個事實，即企業不是慈善機構，而是以盈利為目的的公司，有股東的公有公司對這些股東有義務實現利潤最大化，只要他們通過合法手段來實現。美國法律規定，如果一個公司的董事故意以減少利潤的方式管理公司，他們要為所謂的「違反信託責任」承擔法律責任。事實上，汽車製造商亨利．福特在 1919 年因將工人的最低工資提高到每天 5 美元而被股東成功起訴：法院宣佈，雖然福特對員工的人道主義情操很高尚，但他的企業存在的目的是為其股東創造利潤。

3. 公眾乃最終的控制力量

   Our blaming of businesses also ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public for creating the condition 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.

   我們對企業的指責也忽略了公眾對創造條件讓企業透過破壞性的環境政策獲利的最終責任。從長遠來看，正是公眾，無論是直接還是通過其政治人物，有能力使這種破壞性的政策成為無利可圖與違法行為，並使可永續的環境政策有利可圖。

4. 公眾對企業環境問題的可行手段

   The public can do that by suing businesses for harming them, as happened after the Exxon Valdez disaster, in which over 40,000m³ 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對他們的傷害來做到這一點，就像埃克森．瓦爾迪茲災難之後發生的那樣，在這場災難中，超過 40,000 立方米的石油在阿拉斯加海岸被洩漏。公眾也可以通過以下方式表達他們的意見：傾向於購買可永續收成的產品；讓那些業績不佳的公司的員工為他們的公司感到羞恥，並向他們自己的管理層抱怨；偏好於令他們的政府將有價值的合約授予有良好環境記錄的企業；向他們的政府施加壓力，通過並執行要求良好環境實踐的法律和規章。

5. 透過供應鏈發揮公眾力量

   In turn, big businesses can expert 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，大企業可以對任何可能無視公眾或政府壓力的供應商施加強大的壓力。例如，在美國公眾開始關注一種被稱為 BSE 的疾病的傳播，這種疾病是通過被感染的肉類傳播給人類的，美國政府的食品暨藥物管理局制定了一些規則，要求肉品行業放棄與疾病傳播風險有關的做法。但五年來，肉品包裝商拒絕遵守這些規定，聲稱遵守這些規定的成本太高。然而，當一家大型速食公司在顧客購買其漢堡包的數量驟減後提出同樣的要求時，肉品行業在幾周內就遵守了。因此，公眾的任務是確定供應鏈中哪些環節對公眾壓力敏感：例如，速食連鎖店或珠寶店，但不是肉品包裝商或金礦商。

6. 道德原則須有強制執行力

   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.

   一些讀者可能會感到失望或憤怒，因為我把損害公眾的商業行為的最終責任放在公眾本身身上。我還認為，公眾必須接受提高產品價格的必要性，以支付健全的環境實踐所增加的成本（如果有的話）。我的觀點似乎忽略了這樣一個信念：企業應該按照道德原則行事，即使這導致其利潤減少。但我認為我們必須認識到，在整個人類歷史上，在所有政治上複雜的人類社會中，政府監管的出現正是因為人們發現，不僅道德原則需要明確，而且還需要強制執行。

7. 公眾態度對企業環境問題至關重要

   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.

   對我來說，公眾對即使是最大的企業的行為負有最終責任的結論是有力量和希望的，而不是令人失望的。我的結論不是一個關於誰對誰錯、誰令人欽佩或自私、誰是好人或壞人的道德主義結論。在過去，當公眾開始期待和要求不同的行為時，企業就會發生變化，獎勵企業的行為是公眾所希望的，而對於實行公眾不希望的行為的企業，則會使其處境艱難。我預測，在未來，就像過去一樣，公眾態度的改變對於企業的環境實踐的改變至關重要。