This paper examines ethical issues arising in international business operations, focusing on a case study involving gender discrimination and workplace harassment at a multinational bank. The paper analyzes violations of fundamental moral principles when a female employee, Sara Strong, is demeaned by her supervisor during an overseas assignment in Mexico. It further discusses direct and indirect workplace discrimination and the role of HR professionals in managing cross-cultural diversity. In its second part, the paper contrasts tipping for personal benefit with bribery to secure business contracts, applying utilitarian reasoning to argue that the two practices differ morally in both intent and consequence.
In the present business environment, due to the international nature and global exposure of virtually every company, organizations are increasingly sending employees on overseas assignments. Because of the diversity in beliefs, traditions, cultural values, and practices found in countries other than an employee's home nation, workers can experience culture shock and difficulty coping in their host country. In some cases, prevailing attitudes toward professionals in the host nation can prove harmful to the employee to a considerable degree.
Career advancement is directly affected in such situations, and employee morale declines. The bank has a responsibility to ensure that its personnel are not harmed or limited in their career advancement by the social customs of the host nation. Certain practices of the host country may be demeaning to an employee, causing embarrassment and reducing their ability to perform at their best. As the employing organization, the bank bears a special responsibility for the professional advancement of its employees so that, based on individual merit and competence, employees are promoted to higher grades in the value chain.
As the industry moves into the stream of knowledge management — defining concepts, sharing information, and imparting industry-specific knowledge — HR professionals are dealing with a more knowledgeable and empowered workforce than ever before (Chapter by Rajesh B. Iyer).
This environment requires HR professionals to be proficient in both personal and professional spheres, possessing sound business knowledge, practicality, and the capacity for innovation. Managing change and diversity has become a first priority within HR practice. As cross-cultural teams become more common, HR often assumes a consulting role within the organization, facilitating the creation of an employee-oriented culture and climate.
Combating the severe attrition widespread in the knowledge industry, HR professionals are compelled to devise new strategies to prevent talent loss. As part of building an employee brand that enables the corporation to attract potential talent, the HR function reinforces the organization's value proposition (Chapter by Rajesh B. Iyer).
There is a moral common sense — a set of fundamental ethical rules — which states: (a) avoid harming others; (b) respect the rights of others; (c) do not lie or cheat; (d) keep promises and honor contracts; (e) obey the law; (f) prevent harm to others; (g) help people in need; (h) show fairness; and (i) strengthen these qualities in others (Leisinger, 1994).
"Direct and indirect discrimination types in Mexico assignment"
"HR's consulting role and managing cultural diversity"
Since this was Sara's introductory overseas assignment, and since she raised concerns about the conduct she witnessed, she was rated as an "Average" employee, with a note on record stating that she displayed a negative attitude toward the bank and its policies. Without any genuine fault on her part, she was effectively penalized for speaking out against poor practices within the organization. If the bank did not address this type of behavior, another woman could be victimized in another country — an outcome that would be far more damaging to the company's broader interests (case study).
I oppose the view that offering a tip to secure a better table at a restaurant should be regarded in the same light as offering a bribe to secure a business contract. When paying a tip for a better table, one is acting in one's own personal interest rather than affecting the greater good of others. Utilitarianism has attracted significant criticism on the grounds that it cannot be verified by science or logic as the definitively correct ethical system. Furthermore, comparing happiness or benefit across different individuals is inherently difficult, as such measures are not objectively quantifiable (Utilitarianism: Criticism of Utilitarianism).
When paying a bribe to secure a business contract, the action may on its face appear immoral. Both accepting and offering bribes are generally considered immoral activities. However, by securing the contract, one increases the profitability prospects of one's company, which in turn enables employees to be financially rewarded more adequately. Failure to secure the contract would mean the project cannot proceed, and the downstream effect would be the potential layoff of a considerable number of employees who have served the company faithfully. Such an outcome may therefore not be in the best interests of those employees.
Considering the matter from yet another angle: in environments where moral values are frequently subordinated in tendering and bidding processes, failing to secure a contract may simply mean that a competitor will offer the very same inducement to the relevant authorities. This reduces the question to a pragmatic one — in a world where financial influence is pervasive, a refusal to engage in such practices results in a competitive disadvantage. Offering a bribe in such circumstances may be seen as a practical decision that serves the collective interests of one's employees, who depend on the company for their daily livelihood.
Nevertheless, this reasoning must be weighed carefully against the long-term institutional damage that bribery causes to markets, governance, and public trust. The utilitarian calculus cannot be confined to the immediate workforce alone; broader social consequences must also be factored in.
The cases examined here illustrate how international business operations expose companies to complex ethical dilemmas involving both employee welfare and competitive conduct. Whether the issue is gender discrimination enabled by deference to host-country customs, or the rationalizing of bribery through utilitarian logic, organizations must establish and enforce clear ethical standards. Failure to do so not only harms individual employees such as Sara Strong but also undermines the integrity and long-term credibility of the institution itself.
You’re 58% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.