41. 公司採取環保措施（ 2013-01 / 2014-03,07,12/ 2015-04機經 ）（原文）
第一段：
80年代的美國環保法規較嚴，環保支出比例高，外國政府卻對環保投資加以補貼。
當時傳統學術觀點（conventional wisdom）：企業環保投資愈高，愈會降低績效表現，
（Q3）所以這方面的支出應該愈少愈好，符合法律的規範標準就好。
這種觀點的假設在於：
1. 減少污染的科技無法產生有價值的產品，反而會降低員工的生產力與投資報酬率。
2. 減少污染的創新技術，很容易被其他廠商模仿。
第二段：
Porter與van der Linde 提出的新觀點與傳統相反：重視環保的企業會產生競爭優勢，因為世界各國的環保規範會愈來愈嚴格，所以企業不可存有僥倖的心理。企業如果大量投資在污染的減少上，會使得組織以及員工產生相關的技能，這種技能可以使企業的生產流程獲得改善。
這種觀點的假設在於：
1. 減少污染的科技無法產生有價值的產品，反而會降低員工的生產力與投資報酬率。
2. 減少污染的創新技術，很容易被其他廠商模仿。
第二段：
Porter與van der Linde 提出的新觀點與傳統相反：重視環保的企業會產生競爭優勢，因為世界各國的環保規範會愈來愈嚴格，所以企業不可存有僥倖的心理。企業如果大量投資在污染的減少上，會使得組織以及員工產生相關的技能，這種技能可以使企業的生產流程獲得改善。
（Q2）另外，對於污染的減少，無論在心理上與科技上的投入，都會為企業帶來「先進者優勢」（first mover advantages）。
別的公司生產線不同，校仿不會那麼容易，這時先進的公司就有競爭優勢。（Q4）
舉例而言（Q5），不同的造紙廠（miller）有不同的生產線。
若是有公司先改進生產流程減少污染，
效率就會比沒有做這件事的同業還要好，並且能夠因先進者優勢而獲利。
Q1: 主旨題，反對大家公認的舊觀點。
Q2: 治理污染有什麼好處？提高原來生產線的efficiency。
Q3: 傳統觀點認為污染如何？帶來cost卻沒帶來advantage。
Q4: 環保為企業帶來的優勢為何？（效率的提升/相較於同業的優勢）
Q5: 舉造紙廠為例的作用？（證明企業利用前面提到的策略獲利）
疑似原文：
Q2: 治理污染有什麼好處？提高原來生產線的efficiency。
Q3: 傳統觀點認為污染如何？帶來cost卻沒帶來advantage。
Q4: 環保為企業帶來的優勢為何？（效率的提升/相較於同業的優勢）
Q5: 舉造紙廠為例的作用？（證明企業利用前面提到的策略獲利）
疑似原文：
The bulk of this U.S.-oriented literature champions the conventional wisdom that a company forced by environmental regulations to make investments in pollution-reducing assets will face lowered performance domestically and presently will be at a competitive disadvantage relative to foreign rivals who have not had to make such investments.
Scholars have based these arguments on the following assumptions:
. Pollution-reduction technology is only of the end-of-pipe sort, removing pollution after it is formed but before it is discharged into the environment.Such assets do not produce salable goods, thus lowering the firm's capi tal and labor productivity and return on investment.
. Innovations (in end-of-pipe technology) are diffused instantaneously and costlessly.
Implications were clear: do only the minimum required by law, because every dollar spent on pollution abatement is a dollar wasted. I note here that this approach to pollution reduction in the United States grew mainly from the fact that much of the early pollution regulation in the United States was of the command-and-control sort.
. Innovations (in end-of-pipe technology) are diffused instantaneously and costlessly.
Implications were clear: do only the minimum required by law, because every dollar spent on pollution abatement is a dollar wasted. I note here that this approach to pollution reduction in the United States grew mainly from the fact that much of the early pollution regulation in the United States was of the command-and-control sort.
The U.S. government, viewing pollution as an inevitable by-product of manufacturing, commanded companies to use given end-of-pipe technologies in order to achieve particular pollution-reduction goals.
However, there is a growing environmental mindset to combine with a growing number of environmental technologies and not all of these environmental technologies diffuse quickly or costlessly. The old "pollution reduction is costly" paradigm no longer applies in all cases.
Recently, Porter (1990, 1991) and Porter and van der Linde (1995a,b) advocated a viewpoint opposite conventional wisdom. Their articles pro pose that companies headquartered in countries with more stringent environmental regulations will be able to build a competitive advantage over companies from countries with less stringent regulations. This argument assumes that environmental regulations will converge toward tougher standards, taking a dynamic approach compared to environmental economics' static approach.
However, there is a growing environmental mindset to combine with a growing number of environmental technologies and not all of these environmental technologies diffuse quickly or costlessly. The old "pollution reduction is costly" paradigm no longer applies in all cases.
Recently, Porter (1990, 1991) and Porter and van der Linde (1995a,b) advocated a viewpoint opposite conventional wisdom. Their articles pro pose that companies headquartered in countries with more stringent environmental regulations will be able to build a competitive advantage over companies from countries with less stringent regulations. This argument assumes that environmental regulations will converge toward tougher standards, taking a dynamic approach compared to environmental economics' static approach.
Consequently, firms in countries with more lenient regulations inevitably will face tougher regulations, and companies headquartered in countries that had tough regulations earlier on and that
innovated new technologies of reducing pollution (termed "offsets") earlier will enjoy some sort of first mover advantage. The implication is that those firms thinking they can benefit should lobby
their government to toughen environmental regulations (of course, under the condition that they are outcome based, incentive based, and provide adequate phase-in time) or, at least, should not stand
in the way of tougher regulations.
innovated new technologies of reducing pollution (termed "offsets") earlier will enjoy some sort of first mover advantage. The implication is that those firms thinking they can benefit should lobby
their government to toughen environmental regulations (of course, under the condition that they are outcome based, incentive based, and provide adequate phase-in time) or, at least, should not stand
in the way of tougher regulations.
