Q1
No, Frank’s action was
unethical. It is sometimes acceptable to exchange gifts among people who are in
a business relationship. Such exchanges of gifts do not, however, include situations
where someone out rightly pays a bribe to induce business from the recipient of
the bribe. Frank paying a morida to
the government official rightly falls in this category of bribes. The fact that
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act outlaws paying bribes to foreign officials
even makes the act more unethical.
Regarding whose ethics
one can judge Frank’s action, the answer is that it is both the ethics of
Latino and the U.S.A. One can only understand this by making a distinction
between ethics and morality. Whereas morals vary from one culture to the other,
ethics apply across cultures. It may be moral to pay and receive bribes in
Latino but that does not mean that it is also ethical to do so.
Q2
Merely purchasing,
copying or paraphrasing the answer from any source does not of itself make my
action unethical or dishonest. The action only becomes unethical or dishonest
if I was to present that answer as my own. There is room in academic writing to
borrow ideas from others so long as one acknowledges the source of those ideas.
Failing to properly acknowledge the source of my answer would amount to
plagiarism which is an academic offense. It is only in this context that my
action can be adjudged to be unethical or immoral. Several examples abound of
powerful people who have had to relinquish their powerful positions upon being
accused of plagiarism. For instance, a powerful German politician had to resign
last year after he was accused of plagiarizing portions of his PhD thesis.
Q3
a).
“Boy. This certainly
isn’t like the Chili we have in America.” This phrase was offensive to the
natives of Latino considering that they also consider themselves as part of the
American continent. This even comes out when Frank takes the initiative to
remind Bill against referring to the U.S.A as America in future conversations
while in Latino.
b).
Bill could have avoided
his error by being sensitive to the cultural differences between the Latinos
and people in his native homeland of the U.S.A. It could be the case that Bill
meant no ill will when he made the statement but his mistake was to be
insensitive to the Latinos. Thus, he could have easily avoided the error by
being specific on which part of America he was referring to given that America
as a continent encompasses many countries.
c).
Yes it did. Regardless
of the fact that only Frank got to hear the comment, Kantian ethics stipulates
that an action should not be judged ethical or unethical on the basis of its
consequences. Thus, an ethical action may as well produce undesirable consequences
without changing its initially ethical nature.
Q4
Bill should do it
immediately. In their discussions with Frank, it clearly comes out that the
practice of bribery is illegal as per the laws of the U.S. Failing to end it
immediately will be akin to knowingly allowing an illegality to continue.
Besides, it has come out from the foregoing discussion that the practice is
also unethical. This also provides a justification for taking immediate steps
to end the practice.
Furthermore, Bill may
risk falling into the culture of bribery if he fails to end bribery
immediately. Frank is a typical example of a person who initially looked at
bribery with disdain but succumbed to it as time went by. His statement to the
effect that Bill will get used to the practice is a testament of how one can
get embroiled into a culture if they do not make an early attempt to shake it
off.
Q5
First, there would be
lost sales in the operations where bribery has been the main driver of sales. The
Latino operation is a case in point. Corrupt government officials in Latino who
have been used to taking bribes before facilitating business deals are likely
to offer their services to competitors who are still willing to give them
bribes.
Q6
It seems there is very
little that Bill can do about the lost sales in the short-run. The much he can
do depends on the composition of the existing customers. For instance, the case
reveals that a substantial proportion of sales are made to government agencies.
Bill can, therefore, try to sell to other entities not affiliated to the
government. After all, their tools should be selling given that they are of
good quality.
Q7
First, Bill can start
building new business relationships. It is possible that, even in a place like
Latino where bribery seems to be an accepted why of life, there could still be
people out there who value doing business the clean way. Moreover, relying on
bribes to secure business is a very unsustainable means of growing a company.
There is no guarantee that the people who are ready to accept bribes in
exchange for business deals will always be there to continue the relationship. A
sudden dispersal of the corrupt government cartel can throw an otherwise good
company into serious problems in securing business.
Bill should also try to change the
mindsets of those corrupt business associates to appreciate the need of doing
business the clean way. This is often a very difficult task where one risks
facing stiff opposition for those who have formed a habit out of the practice.
Q8
It only shows a lack of
genuine commitment to those principles. Such an action will reveal that the
company is willing to bend its principles for short-term gains in profits.
Several other companies have previously faced the dilemma of sticking to
principles and lose profits or bending them for short term gain. For instance,
the internet search engine company had to stay out of the Chinese market for a
long time due to the Chinese government policy of censuring information. Google
had always held the principle that information should be given to the people of
the world as it is and they were not ready to treat their Chinese customers to
a different standard.
Q9
The legislation
contains two relevant provisions that are very important to Starnes-Brenner. The
anti-bribery provision makes it illegal for a U.S corporation to offer payments
to a foreign official for the purposes of obtaining or retaining business. These
are exactly the kind of payments that Frank has been making. Starnes-Brenner
may, however, seek refuge in the exception to this rule that allows those
payments that are simply termed as ‘facilitating.’ Thus, the company may
occasionally seek to distinguish between these two kinds of payments. In
addition, the Act also makes it illegal for companies to fail to keep proper
records that can explain the nature of all transactions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment