题目内容：

    Alaska state officials are hosting Walmart executives in the state capital this week in an effort to resolve a months-old argument over Alaskan salmon fisheries’ sustainability qualifications.

The seeds of the quarrel were planted several years ago when several Alaskan fisheries decided to end their relationship with the Marine Stewardship Council—the famous global organization that states and proves the truthfulness of sustainable fishing—to seek out other means assuring customers of their sustainable practices. But last June, Walmart told Alaskan fisheries that it would not be buying salmon sourced from fisheries not certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.

Now Walmart is caught between two forces–Alaska fisheries and “buy American” enthusiasts who think the company’s first responsibility should be to American industry, and environmentalists who think Walmart should make as strong a commitment to environmentally sustainable industry as possible.

But from a broader perspective, this latest noise is an object lesson in why the concept of corporate (公司的) responsibility has shortcomings to begin with. Walmart—like most successful corporations—is pretty good at offering products their customers want at low prices. When it tries to promote broader public goods, like a clean environment, or lower unemployment for veterans, it’s nowhere near as successful. Here’s a few of Walmart’s more notable corporate-responsibility confusion:

The Buy-American Debacle: Walmart’s first major corporate responsibility push was an effort in the 1980s to promote American-made products. But the campaign ran aground (搁浅) after a NBC investigation revealed that the company was actually selling products manufactured in India as “Made American.”

The Going Green Campaign: Walmart launched on a sustainability campaign aimed at making the retail giants operations much more environmentally friendly. Though Walmart and the media have done much to raise visibility of these efforts, the actual results have been lacking. According to a recent report from the Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR), Walmart’s sustainability campaign is much more focused on making its operations appear green to customers than stopping doing things that would actually help the environment, like reducing emissions.

In reality, these examples simply show that one can’t realistically expect corporations to behave in a way that is opposite to making profits. But that doesn’t mean that the goal of fishing sustainability isn’t achievable. It’s just that the corporate structure isn’t our best means of achieving them—the government is.

1.What is the function of the Marine Stewardship Council?

A.To advocate sustainable fishing practices.

B.To persuade supermarkets to buy its products.

C.To solve disagreements between fisheries and supermarkets.

D.To guarantee the safety of goods supplied by supermarkets.

2.According to the author, Walmart’s corporate responsibility is ________.

A.confusing B.heavy

C.environmental-friendly D.unsatisfying

3.From Paragraph 5, we know ________.

A.Walmart’s sustainability campaign worked well

B.Walmart might have profited at the cost of the environment

C.ILSR’s report was part of Walmart’s campaign plan

D.Walmart had no intention to protect the environment at all

4.Who should be mainly responsible for achieving the goals of fishing sustainability?

A.The company structure B.Walmart

C.The government D.The Marine Stewardship Council