A lack of cultural competence can explain the moral binaries that surround American allegations of bribery in cases like that of Ericsson. Bribery is a common and entrenched way of doing business in Asia and Africa: the continents on which the alleged briberies occurred (Turula 1). Bribery is not a black versus white ethical issue, which is why Carroll and Schultz describe it as a “subject of continuing debate, more than any other form of corruption (319). As Carroll and Schultz point out, “some countries of the world continue to assert that [bribes] are culturally obligatory or defensible,” with some businesspeople arguing they are “necessary,” (319). In the Ericsson suit, none of the people suspected of bribery are making any such claims because they are being investigated by the American Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), neither of which take kindly to bribery regardless of cultural context.The Ericsson case is not a cut and dry situation, either. The story involves several Ericsson employees working in multiple markets around the world. According to Morrow, the Swedish telecommunications giant “has been dogged by bribery allegations since 2000,” (1). The most recent scandal emerged in 2012, when a whistle-blower named...

In 2016 Nenzell handed over hard evidence (Morrow 1). According to Morrow, Nenzell had evidence specifically related to bribery in Greece and the United Arab Emirates. However, the extent of Ericsson’s bribery schemes make it seem that bribery had practically become company policy. Turula notes that Romania and China were also business markets where Ericsson used bribery to gain strategic advantage over competitors, and there have also been reports of Ericsson paying bribes to policymakers and senior officials in Malaysia, Poland, and Costa Rica (“Ex-Ericsson executives tell of massive bribery: report,” 1). Apparently, Nenzell claims that he tried to encourage fellow employees to stop but was silenced, censured, and threatened with legal action (Morrow 1).
Of course, Ericsson officially denies all charges. Director of Media Relations Mikael Widell had stated originally “we welcome an investigation,” (Morrow 1). Others insinuate that the reasons why Ericsson can remain so cocky about its chances of coming out clean in the bribery suit is because at the time the bribes were made, the company was using what they call commercial agents, or third parties that can facilitate business in foreign markets (“Ex-Ericsson…