急求翻译~！！

Question

If the social worker were to choose this option, there are several ways that she could improve upon the current policy. The first would be to make the policy explicit, so that it could be defended in the event that the agency’s purchasing practices were questioned. The second would be to establish a system for evaluating which companies have acceptable levels of CSR. As Lindenberg (2001) highlighted, it is not enough for the agency to have good intentions when it comes to governance. Adopting a system would be a move toward accountability. The agency could also write letters to make companies aware of their spending decisions, which would potentially increase the impact of such decisions, though most likely not by much. These steps would make SRCB easier to defend if it were to be questioned, but the social worker would have an additional decision to make: whether to reframe the agency’s mission statement to include SRCB. Not drawing attention to the choice for higher spending minimizes risks to future funding, thereby upholding client well-being. The option to publicize the decision, however, has the ethical advantage of maximizing integrity, because it notifies donors up-front about how money will be spent by the agency. It could also mitigate concerns about efficiency by including SRCB as a program benefit, as discussed above in reference to Richmond, Mook, and Quarter’s work (2003). The downside of this option is that it has potential to alienate donors and discourage future funding (Alexander, 2000) .
Overall, this option seems to be best supported by a deontological (rule-based) ethical perspective. The social worker could decide that the responsibility to uphold social justice should not be compromised and that under no circumstances should the social worker support human rights violations. SRCB could be construed as a civic duty incumbent upon the worker. A deontological perspective would place the integrity of the worker as a higher value than the consequences of the decision for client well-being, which would be the strength of this ethical option, particularly in the last form discussed.

Answer 1

如果社会工作者要选择这个选项，有几种方法，她可以改善我们的现行政策。

第一个办法是使政策明确，以便能够在该机构的采购做法提出质疑事件辩护。

第二是建立评估的公司社会责任的制度可以接受的水平。

林登贝格（2001）强调，这是不够的，该机构有良好的意愿当谈到治理。采用一个系统，将是迈向问责性。该机构还可以写信，使公司对他们的消费决定，这将可能会增加这些决定带来的影响，但很可能不是很大。这些步骤将使SRCB更容易地维护如果是毋庸置疑的，但社会工作者将有更多的要作出决定：是否要重新审视该机构的任务说明，包括SRCB。不要以更高的开支注意风险最小化的选择对未来的资金，以维护客户的福祉。宣传的选项的决定，但是，最大限度地提高诚信道德优势，因为它通知捐助者的前期如何这笔资金将用于该机构。它还可以减轻包括的项目中获益SRCB对效率的关注，如上面提到里士满，默和季度的工作（2003年）讨论。此选项的缺点是它有潜力疏远的捐助者和阻碍未来的资金（亚历山大，2000年）。

总体而言，这一方案似乎最好由一名义务论（规则为基础）伦理道德的角度。社会工作者可以决定，有责任维护社会公正应该不会受到影响，在任何情况下都不应支持社会工作者的侵犯人权行为。 SRCB可以被理解为公民职责，根据工人的责任。阿道义论的观点将有何作为一个比客户端决定的后果，完整性更高价值的工人的福利，这将是道德选择的力量，特别是以最后的形式去讨论。

google翻译的，我稍微改了一下，意思基本上是对的。

Answer 2

Answer 3

吃惊的做某事
对什么感到吃惊
解决某事
复制某事

Answer 4

最美好的事莫过于我爱你

Answer 5

爱你是我一生中最美好的事
``

Answer 6

市盈率乐信使特别日情绪