Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
companies seek to protect have often become an integral part of the departing employees
total capabilities (ibid.).
bribe and (b) the FCPA illegitimately imposes US standards on foreign countries and
payoffs are common business practices in foreign countries (ibid.).
Does forbidding bribery give American companies a significant disadvantage? Its a highly
contentious assertion with little evidence to back it up. First, competition is often against
other American companies rather than foreign ones (ibid.). Second, studies show that the
FCPA has done little to damage American export expansion. Third, theres little evidence
that the FCPA really does give US companies a disadvantage. Even in nations where the
FCPA is alleged to have hurt American business, there has been no statistically discernible
effect on US market share and since passage of the FCPA, US trade with bribe-prone
countries has outpaced its trade with other countries (ibid.). Fourth, theres no longer very
many competitive countries that allow bribery. In 1997, the worlds industrialized nations
the 29 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developmentformally
agreed for the first time to a treaty that outlaws the bribing of foreign officials (ibid.).
Does the FCPA illegitimately impose US standards on other countries? That is an implausible
assertion. First, even if bribery is common practice, that in no way proves that its accepted
by a country (292). Shaw reminds us that illegal drug dealing is common practice in the US,
but that doesnt prove its socially acceptable. Second, foreign officials tend not to want their
bribery to be publicized, but if it was acceptable, then we would expect that they wouldnt
mind their bribery to be publicizedbut theres pretty much no such example (ibid.). Third,
although the FCPA reflects our moral standards, its not clear that such standards only apply
here in the US. [T]hose standards are not just a matter of taste (like clothing styles) or
completely arbitrary (like our decision to drive on the right, whereas the British drive on the
left). Good objective arguments can be given against bribery and related corrupt practices,
whether overseas or at home (ibid.).
What good objective arguments can be given against bribery? Bribery can harm people, and
its not clear that theres any good excuse available to allow companies to harm people
through bribery. For example, by encouraging on nonmarket grounds the purchase of
inferior goods or the payment of an exorbitant price, bribery can clearly injure a variety of
legitimate interestsfrom stockholders to customers, from taxpayers to other businesses
(ibid.).
1. The value of the gift. Gifts worth thousands of dollars or more are likely to be taken
as bribes. Most companies define infrequent gifts worth $25 or less to be nominal
but anything more to cross the line.
2. The purpose of the gift. It could be meant to be used for palm-greasing to encourage
someone to do their job, used for advertising, or used as a bribe.
3. The circumstances under which the gift was given or received. A gift given at a
celebration, store opening, or during a holiday season is different than a gift not
attached to a special occasion, and a gift given openly is less suspicious than a gift
given in secret.
4. The position and sensitivity to influence of the person receiving the gift. A person
in a position to reciprocate the gift in the form of business decisions more likely to be
taking a bribe.
5. The accepted business practice in the industry. Gifts in the form of tips are part
of our custom of having a waiter or waitress, but not part of being a CEO of a
company. Gifts that are part of a cultural custom are much less suspicious than gifts
that arent.
6. The companys policy. Some companies have stricter rules concerning gifts than
others, and we have some reason to refuse gifts when our company forbids it.
7. The law. Gifts that violate the law are almost always morally unacceptable, but the
law doesnt always forbid immoral forms of bribery or gift giving.
Shaw suggests two ways to try to help us avoid rationalizations when engaging in moral
reasoning to decide what to do when we face moral dilemmas:
First, we can ask ourselves whether we would be willing to read an account of our actions in
the newspaper are the contemplated actions ones that we would be willing to defend
publicly? Second, discussing a moral dilemma or ethical problem with a fiend can often
help us avoid bias and get a better perspective. People by themselves, and especially when
emotionally involved in a situation, sometimes focus unduly on one or two points, ignoring
other relevant factors. Input from others can keep us from overlooking pertinent
considerations. (296)
Whistle blowing
Whistle blowing is the act of going public with what one has reason to believe to be
significantly immoral or illegal acts of an organization one is part of. Someone is not a
whistle blower for telling the public about embarrassing or rude behavior (297), and being a
whistle blower doesnt involve sabotage or violence (298).
Many employees refuse to be whistle blowers because it is likely to damage their
relationships at work, lead to dismissal, and even lead to being blacklisted from an industry.
In fact, some whistle blowers have faced illegal forms of retaliation such as harassment, and
sometimes theyve even been murdered.
Whistle blowers must often have courage to be willing to endanger their own well being, and
many of our unsung heroes are whistle blowers. However, its not always the right thing to
do. Whistle blowing can be reckless and endanger the well being of an innocent company
when its done from a hunch of wrongdoing rather than from a reliable method. Normal
Bowie, a professor of civil disobedience, argues that whistle blowing isnt justified unless the
following criteria is met (298-299):
1. The motive must be appropriate. The employee must want justice because the
organization committed a significant immoral or illegal act. The motive must not be to
get revenge or to attain fame. However, this criteria is controversial. An inappropriate
motive might still help cause appropriate forms of whistle blowing. As long as the
company has done something significantly wrong or illegal, its morally preferable for
the public to find out about it one way or the other.
2. The employee should usually seek less harmful ways to resolve the issue first.
Employees should usually alert management and executives of wrongdoing before
making the wrongdoing known to the public. Management or executives should
usually be given a chance to rectify the situation, and alerting the public should
usually be a last resort. The reason that this rule isnt absolute is because there are
situations when its impractical. For example, if peoples lives are in immediate
danger, then there might be no better option than to go public with the information
right away.
3. The whistle blower needs compelling evidence of wrongdoing. Its reckless to
accuse a company of wrongdoing when theres a good possibility that the company is
innocent. Additionally, accusations against a company are likely to harm the whistle
blower rather than the company when the public doesnt have good reason to agree
that the company did something wrong. An employee could be dismissed or sued for
defamation.
perform a kind of character or personality audit (ibid.). We can think about our life and ask
ourselves questions, such as the following (ibid.):
1. Do we follow authority blindly?
2. Do we suffer from moral tunnel vision on the job?
3. Do we mindlessly do what is demanded of us, oblivious to the impact of our
cooperation and actions on outside parties?
4. Have we given enough attention to our possible roles as accomplices in the
immoral undoing of other individuals, businesses, and social institutions?
5. Do we have a balanced view of our own interests versus those of others?
6. Do we have substantial evidence for believing that our livelihoods are really
threatened, or is that belief based more on an exaggeration of the facts?
Conclusion
Morality demands that we consider the interests of everyone who can be effected by our
decisions, and that we consider the situation we are in. Our job and position in society can
give us unique obligations and what we should do depends on all these factors. When
considering our moral duties, the most commonly cited moral principle is the right to
noninjury. No matter what moral theory we agree to, everyone seems to agree that noninjury
is relevant to morality and employees have a duty not to cause significant harm to innocent
people. This is why its often morally preferable to be a whistle blower when a company is
causing significant danger or harm to the public.