According to Goodman (2001) American companies recognize that a serious dilemma exist. On the one hand, the laws that govern international business for American companies have declared it illegal to provide bribes and kickbacks. Not only are the companies breaking the law but they are using deceitful tactics to break the law so that they will not get caught. On the other hand, "They are answerable to shareholders on Wall Street and home offices that demand a piece of an increasingly lucrative Chinese market (Goodman 2001) ." The author explains that in many cases shareholders have expectation that are not realistic. These expectations exist because of the size of the Chinese market and the rate of economic growth that has occurred in the country over the last decade.
This dilemma has proved to be a difficult one for multinational corporations. In the case of China, many have decided that the expectations of shareholders, the overall profitability of the company and remaining in the market are more important than the laws that have established the illegal nature of bribery and kickbacks.
In addition kickbacks are also a major problem. This is has been illustrated recently in cases involving government officials, and financial institutions. In these instances kickbacks were given to executives much to the chagrin of taxpayers who funded government bailouts to the same companies that are giving kickbacks.
Kickbacks occur on large and small scales. Kickbacks also involve many different types of organizations. For instance, just this month a former employee of home depot was charged with accepting kickbacks in return for purchasing certain supplies. The employee Anthony Tesvich
"was sentenced to 6 years and 6 months in federal prison on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and filing false tax returns, the Justice Department said. The sentencing took place in Atlanta. Tesvich was also ordered to pay $8.29 million in restitution, the department said. Tesvich had pleaded guilty to taking kickbacks in exchange for putting some vendors' products in Home Depot stores and paying kickbacks to other employees both while he worked for Home Depot and after he left, the department said in a statement (Bartz, 2009)."
In this particular instance and in others the culprit was caught but there are other instances in which kickbacks are never found out. In another recent case a lawyer in Pennsylvania was charged with being involved in a $2.5 million kickback scheme with a two corrupt judges. This particular kickback was a cash-for-kids scheme involving a pair of juvenile court judges in Luzerne County. Powell's attorney requested the postponement Tuesday. According to federal prosecutors "Powell paid kickbacks to former judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan so they would place juvenile offenders in two private detention centers he owned (Bartz, 2009)." This is an instance where kickbacks involved public officials and juveniles who had committed crimes.
This particular form of kickbacks is problematic because it threatens the entire judicial system. These type of kickbacks undermine the judicial process because judges are no longer biased. When kickbacks are involved defendants, victims, the families of victims are not receiving fair justice.
Commentary
Although many experts in business ethics believe that the line between right and wrong is a clear one, the scenarios presented above suggests otherwise. After all businesses operate with the expectation of making a profit. In the scenario presented above, not engaging in bribery and kickbacks would significantly impede or destroy altogether the ability of a company to realize a profit. This is particularly true in the Chinese market where there are so many companies that are present and who want to dominate the market.
The decision of the companies to engage in bribery and kickbacks is based on a teleological ethic which asserts that "the results or outcomes of decisions and acts determine what is ethical. In general, what is ethical is the action most likely to result in the most or the most significant good -- the best likely consequence (Deontology or Teleology")." That is, the ends justifies the means. In the scenario involving multinational corporations and China, the companies are taking the approach that the activities that they are engaged in are justified because not engaging in these activities would lead to substantial consequences.
It could be argued that in the long-term bribery and kickbacks could result in consequences that are not as beneficial as they are today. For instance if the public is made aware of the amount of bribery and kickbacks that are occurring within China and the efforts...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now