|
When a multi-national corporation is in existence and operating within multiple sovereign nations, they are subject to a number of different international and domestic regulations. In addition to that however, the companies must be aware of how business is done in each individual country that they operate in and in some places of the world that might entail getting ahead with a bribe. While the number of countries where bribes take place regularly is decreasing with time, at the same point it would be difficult to find any company operating in a developing nation that did not pay bribes from time to time. The question then becomes whether or not these companies that pay in the form of bribes as part of their business should be prosecuted at home for their questionable business actions overseas.
The Affirmative: A Moral Issue
The argument from the “yes” crowd in regards to this particular conundrum is an argument based on morality. The taking of bribes is immoral in their view and for that reason there should be no wiggle room in the eyes of the law when this happens. The fact that the bribes took place outside of their country's jurisdiction is of no consequence to people that hold this opinion for the simple reason that the company is based in their own country and for that reason the head offices and officials of the company can be prosecuted by the legal system of their own native country.
Another point that frequently comes into the fold when this issue is considered is that the businesses, through the way they do business, are making the country look bad. Many people view the actions of a business overseas as a direct reflection of the legal and moral principles of the country they are based in and for that reason people holding the “yes” view, feel it is very important that businesses that engage in bribes overseas be punished for it at home.
The Negative: A Method of Expansion
It is important to note right off the bat that people holding the “no” view do not disagree mostly with the moral view of the people holding the “yes” view. Most people that believe that the companies should not undergo prosecution actually consider the bribes to be distasteful, but they also take the realist point of view regarding bribes in many areas of the world being the cost of doing business, and therefore, would rather see businesses given the chance to expand via bribing mechanisms rather than businesses being shut down, prevented from expansion or otherwise reigned in by what they view as unfair government intervention.
Another argument that people holding this position will frequently put forward is the argument of jurisdiction. They will argue that while it is all well and good to have a morality, it is a different thing altogether to attempt to indirectly export that morality around the world by legally preventing businesses from going with the flow in foreign countries where regulations might be different. To feel otherwise is unrealistic in the minds of these people and that is why they do not support the idea of prosecution for companies that commit bribes overseas.
Whether you are talking about MP Iraq oil law bribes or the Saudi bribes probe that happened recently (as well as the Indonesia bribes that people hear about from time to time), bribery as a form of doing business in foreign countries is a big deal. Whether one bribe or multiple bribes, corporate bribes and codes of conduct of businesses are a hot- button political issue in today's world.
|
