Without a very long term reform, education and trust-building, any attempt to transfer fast 'global'(social) standards would fail, and fail miserably, in many parts of the world. Lest it should be forgotten that 'it took 400 years for England to develop from that stage to its present one. To do the same elsewhere in half the time of 200 years would be a tremendous achievement; to aspire to do it in 25 or 50 years may be to court disaster'. There are stubborn local differences. Until the world becomes homogeneous, adaptation towards the local preferences and capabilities will be necessary. Problems regarding globalisation that appeared in the form of troubles regarding progress in the WTO or in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment illustrate signals of regional(eg, US, EU and Japan) or even local power. It is true that the greatest and matchless advantage of free markets and globalisation is that they give free choice to consumers. Economic interactions are voluntary, so consumers are free to choose, for example, between local and global goods and services. But this is only on the surface. If global products are advertised by large transnational corporations(TNCs) aggressively, including campaigns that are often beyond the financial capacity of local competitors, then the 'free choice' by consumers may be restricted and the local products (and certain dimensions of the local culture) may be damaged. Critics of such unchecked global capital movements say that global TNCs put 'profits before people'. When these TNCs 'start talking about how they will no longer put profits first, people (rightly) think they are lying'.

[문제2]

Corporate responsibility involves the search for an effective "fit" between businesses and the societies in which they operate. The notion of "fit" recognises the mutual dependence of business and society - a business sector cannot prosper if the society in which it operates is failing and a failing business sector inevitably detracts from general wellbeing. "Corporate responsibility" refers to the actions taken by businesses to nurture and enhance this symbiotic relationship. Of course, societies can also act to nurture this relationship by providing such services as law enforcement, appropriate regulation, investment in the many public goods used by business and by financing these activities via a well designed, disciplined tax system. If the actions of both business sectors and societies are successful, then the "fit" between the two helps to foster an atmosphere of mutual trust and predictability that facilitates the conduct of business and enhances economic, social and environmental welfare. The core element of corporate responsibility concerns business activity itself - the function of business in society is to yield adequate returns to owners of capital by identifying and developing promising investment opportunities and, in the process, to provide jobs and to produce goods and services that consumers want to buy. Economic history attests to the power of business sectors operating in effective environments of private and public governance to raise general welfare and living standards. However, corporate responsibility goes beyond the core function of conducting business. Businesses are expected to obey the various laws which are applicable to them and, as a practical matter, often have to respond to societal expectations that are not written down as formal law. Since many enterprises now straddle numerous legal, regulatory, cultural and business environments, the challenge of legal and ethical compliance has become more complex.

[문제3]

(On FRB) ; The boardroom of the austere white-marble Federal Reserve building in Washington DC is where Winston Churchill held councils of war with Franklin Delano Roosevelt to set Allied strategy in World War Ⅱ. Now the men and women who meet in that room eight times a year set the price of America's money. Since the US abandoned the gold bullion standard in 1971, its dollar has not been backed by any precious metal but rests on a common faith that the greenback is something more than a piece of paper. Once lost, as we know from a barrowful of cases of hyperinflation and crisis around the world, the faith in a paper currency is desperately difficult to recover. Preserving a shared myth that bits of coloured paper are stores of value - a kind of trance that the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge called elsewhere "the willing suspension of disbelief" - depends in large measure on faith in the people who meet in this room. It is a faith as mysterious as any religion. It is no coincidence that the word "credit" stems from the Lation credere-to believe. And, as a monetary system only a little over thirty years old, it may be considered to be still in its experimental phase. It is a system of "fiat" money, so called because its value derives from nothing more than a fiat of government. The Fed, as it is commonly called, is America's central bank. It is the country's fourth attempt at a central bank, and, founded in 1913, its most enduring. But as if to emphasise the transient nature of monetary arrangements, the walls of its boardroom are decorated with framed specimens of US currency from other eras, all defunct. It is much harder to preserve the fragile faith in money when the public can see that it is a creation of politicians, those experts in broken promises and profligacy. To combat this, the Federal Reserve, although it was begotten by the US Congress and could be struck down by it at any time, was given independence from politicians in its conduct of monetary policy.