Work Ethics

Ethics at work across borders

An American businessman was transferred to Italy from the home office in Connecticut. On his first assignment, on a worm July day, he accompanied a shipment of several trucks loaded with butter from Switzerland to the company’s plant in Milan. When the trucks reached the Italian border, they were waived to the side of the road. There they stood as the customs inspectors passed other vehicles through. It soon became apparent to the businessman that the absence of a small payment to the customs officials was delaying his shipment. But as a proper American he refused to offer such payment. Several hours later he noticed melted butter beginning to seep out a crack below the rear door of one of the trucks.

It’s a fact that world trade barriers and borders have been drastically reduced since the days of the cold war. Business abroad is no longer considered international, but global, and corporations of this kind do not owe primary allegiance to any particular nation, per se. American workers have no special claim on the jobs that U.S global companies make available, and their owners are as likely to be non-Americans as Americans. In that case American laws and regulations become less and less restrictive. When we talk about business beyond national borders, we cannot escape the apparent obstacles by which the ways of doing business with other nations, cultures, governments, and social norms arise as a consequence. The clash of cultural backgrounds precipitates to differences in work ethics, integrity, and morality perception. Ethics is a concept with many different interpretations and has the quality properties of many outlooks across nations. There are also many different definitions on ethics but one I accept the most has been said by Walter Lippman in the book of Jack Seward and Howard Van Zandt as, the “definition of ethics was an authoritative code of morals (that) has force and effect when it expresses the settled customs of a stable society. Once established, this code supposedly exists independently as an inner conviction in the minds of decent man and woman” (pg. 21).

Let’s explore the notion of integrity and its relation to ethics and morality. Acting with integrity is the same as acting ethically or morally. Yet the word integrity does not have the same negative connotations that ethics does for many people. Nor does it have the same overtones of moralizing as the term morality has. Acting with integrity means both acting in accordance with one’s highest self-imposed norms and expecting to live up to norms of ethics and morality. Acting with integrity is more acceptable and less threatening for multinationals than the obligation to act morally or ethically, even though the two amount to the same demand. We should not forget that the multinationals’ main concern is competition. The stress of the competition and strategy provides the incentives to act unethically or to break the self-imposed norms constituted by everyday conditions. Thomas Donaldson mentions, “The area of research known as “business strategy” intersects frequently with questions of moral relevance. The intersection is predictable since, as one might expect, strategy forces one to prescribe action in a comprehensive and integrated manner, and causes one, in turn, to confront ethical claim” (pg. 39). Therefore the importance of competing with integrity arises and leads to the obstacle of competing with others to the one’s highest values. Managers of multinationals do allow to be advised on this matter and are very well aware of the consequences. They are people with some authority and power. However, it’s their corporate right and obligation to make decisions without outside influence. The autonomy they claim it’s not only appropriate, it is also essential to ethical behavior. Acting with integrity is more than just acting morally or ethically. That is just the bare minimum. The self-imposed norms do not draw a line where you can let yourself function on the limit and hope that you don’t cross the line. Limits that you set for yourself are always visible and known.

Competing ethically often raises the question: whose ethics? It is true that a company that acts ethically in U.S will tend to act ethically internationally. On the same token you are faced with ethics of the host country which will affect the way you are used to do business. There are three commonly held positions to answer this question. One is that ethical norms vary from place to place, hence, “when in Rome do as the Romans do”. This means follow the local rules and customs of each country and culture. According to this position there is no universal ethics practiced across borders. You should adopt the local ethics and blend with the natives. Or, you should ignore them altogether since you are not bound by those ethics. One should obey the state laws and regulations and simply do what is best for the business. The second view holds that American companies should follow the same rules of conduct as in U.S. The idea is that if you operate under the American laws, you should work with the same American ethics. The standards at home are seen as high enough and should not be reduced wherever it may be. The third position is that many international and global companies do not follow any ethical rules. This is simply because if you start acting ethically you put yourself in a competitive disadvantage. Obeying ethical rules in the global market is inappropriate and even immoral, since every company has a moral obligation to their employees, stockholders, and its home country.

No matter how large the difference between the enterprise and the host country may be, there are basic norms that are universal and are accepted by all. One such norm is the understanding against arbitrarily killing other members of the community to which one belongs. With out this rule people will not be able to interact, transact, or trade. This rule does not prohibit all killing. There are cases of punishment or self-defense that result in murder. Today’s business clearly requires that each country’s government respect the lives of those whom they do business with. The second basic norm is truthfulness. There has to be certain level of trust for any business to be conducted. The requirement here is telling the truth and/or the reciprocal of not lying. Human society is built on communication, and the truth is essential in making it possible. Skeptics may legitimately question this rule by claiming that truthfulness is very important for the society to function but there are some entities like, governments and large