英语翻译Legalistic cultureSociety is increasingly being confronted with a legalistic culture that exists in corporations which seem to take the attitude that law can be interpreted to suit their own ends,that is,in such a manner that if the inter

英语翻译Legalistic cultureSociety is increasingly being confronted with a legalistic culture that exists in corporations which seem to take the attitude that law can be interpreted to suit their own ends,that is,in such a manner that if the inter
英语翻译
Legalistic culture
Society is increasingly being confronted with a legalistic culture that exists in corporations which seem to take the attitude that law can be interpreted to suit their own ends,that is,in such a manner that if the interpretation says that they are not breaking the law then it is fine for them to conduct the action.This would imply that corporations take a narrow legalistic view when conducting their business; if they are not breaking the law,then apparently everything else is “up for grabs” in business,regardless of the consequences to society.It is of little wonder that business and accounting scandals continue to flourish,despite the reforms by profession and authoritative bodies; we are living in a society of people who know how to “get around the law” without actually breaking the law.
An interesting point was raised by Hastings (2002) with regards to the legalistic culture.He notes that since the early 1980s,management styles have become more aggressive over transactions not covered by specific accounting rules.Managers have apparently adopted a permissive approach to accounting treatments and challenge auditors by arguing,“[s]how me where it says I can’t” (p.57).Percy (in Bruce,2002),who sits on a joint Treasury and Department of Trade & Industry Committee,notes that there were signs that the United States’ standard-setters would like to move towards the United Kingdom concept of a principles-based approach rather than a rules-based approach.He also notes that the obsession with legally defined rules in a lawyer-dominated society would make it difficult to prefer substance over form.Davies (also in Bruce) reinforces this view when he observes,“[l]awyers make very good lawyers; they don’t make very good accountants” (p.3).Jones (quoted in Bruce),a national audit technical partner with Deloitte & Touche in London,says,“[i]t will mean more rules linked to a litigious environment” and “more explanation is a better route than more regulators and more rules” (p.3).Bruce (2002) subsequently points out that in the United States,accountants rely on rules which can be pushed to the limit by companies and their lawyers with the result that accountants will always come off second-best in an argument.He says that the rules-driven approach in the United States means that a partner spends more time at the lower levels of a company dealing with rules rather than in the boardrooms saying,“[t]his won’t do” (p.2).Dodsworth's (chief executive officer of Camico (California) quoted in Ruquet,2002) observations are:
Ultimately,CPAs must exercise their professional judgement and walk away from clients “who make them nervous”.There are a lot of areas where the rules are not hard and fast and require professional judgement.Our advice is that if it gets to the point,what they want to do is the right thing and be able to say good-bye to a client.(p.15)

英语翻译Legalistic cultureSociety is increasingly being confronted with a legalistic culture that exists in corporations which seem to take the attitude that law can be interpreted to suit their own ends,that is,in such a manner that if the inter
墨守成规的文化社会与在公司中存在似乎采取态度的墨守成规的文化越来越被面对法律可能被解释适合他们自己的末端, 即, 于是如果解释认为他们不违反法律然后它是优良使他们举办行动.这会暗示, 公司采取狭窄的墨守成规的观点当做他们的生意; 如果他们不违反法律, 一切明显地然后是"供争夺" 在事务, 不管后果对社会.它企业和会计丑闻继续茂盛的是一点奇迹, 尽管改革由行业和官方机构; 我们是生存在知道怎么"避过法律" 没有实际上违反法律人的社会.有趣的观点由Hastings (2002) 提出了关于墨守成规的文化.他注意到, 从80 年代初期, 管理方式有成为的更加进取的结束交易由具体会计规则没包括.经理明显地采取了一种许可方法对会计治疗和向审计员挑战由争论, "[ s]how 我它认为我的地方不能" (p. 57) .Percy (在布鲁斯2002), 坐在一个联合财宝和贸易部门& 产业委员会, 注意到, 有美国的标准安装员会希望移动朝一种基于原则的方法的英国概念而不是一种基于规则的方法的标志.他并且注意到, 积念以法律上被定义的规则在一个被律师控制的社会会使它难更喜欢物质结束形式.Davies (还在布鲁斯) 强化这种看法当他观察, "[ l]awyers 做非常好律师; 他们不做非常好会计"(p. 3) .琼斯(被引述在布鲁斯), 一个全国审计技术伙伴与Deloitte & Touche 在伦敦, 说, "[ i]t 意味更多规则与一个好诉讼环境" 和"更多解释连接比更多管理者和更多规则是一条更好的路线" (p. 3) .布鲁斯(2002) 随后指出, 在美国, 会计依靠可能被推挤对极限由公司和他们的律师以结果的规则会计总将结束第二位在论据.他说, 规则被驾驶的方法在美国意味伙伴花费更多时间在公司的更低的水平成交与规则而不是在会议室说, 这不会做" (p. 2) .Dodsworth 的(Camico (加利福尼亚的) 首席执行官被引述在Ruquet 2002) 观察是: 最后, CPAs 必须行使他们的专业评断和轻易地胜过客户"谁使他们紧张" .有规则不是坚硬和快速的和不要求专业评断的很多区域.我们的忠告是如果它得到对点, 什么他们想要做是正确的事和能对客户说再见.

我不知道

建议使用下翻译工具吧,百度就有,yahoo也有，实在是太长了~

太长了没人肯翻译的,只会有人机译