Is innovation the main key to the success of a business?

Tuesday, 03 June 2008

Whether innovation and innovative ideas are the true keys to success for a business is a highly debated topic. Some believe this to be a very truthful statement while others argue that for a corporate entity to experience success, it must have perseverance and persistence, and with these traits only will a corporate icon truly be profitable.

When one considers the number of businesses that have been successful purely as a function of their innovative abilities, the list is endless. Companies like Microsoft, 3M, CCM and a vast number of others, are companies that started with a new idea and built that new idea into a world empire. However, at the same time, there are many companies that have been successful more through hard work than innovation. Companies like Dell are companies that have not exactly invented anything as far as innovation is concerned, but good marketing, quality and customer support have allowed them to take previously known ideas and to turn those ideas into a world empire just as strong. The question therefore, is whether innovation is the main key to the success of a business.

Innovation: A Key Ingredient in the Recipe for Success

People, who argue from the affirmative point of view, state that while cases like Dell are inspirational cases that everyone should take heart from, the easiest way to break into the financial market is still by having a new idea. Whether a company is able to take something old and to allow customers to look at it in a new way or whether it is capable of creating something from scratch for the business' main product, the easiest way to ensure its success is to discover some element of innovative thinking that will create a clear difference between it and the other companies that are working in the competitive market.

When you consider all of the different companies, it is ultimately the innovative ones that have been most profitable. Microsoft has done far better than Linux, while IBM has done a lot better than Dell. Companies that utilize innovation as the bulwark of their existences will continue to innovate and therefore continue to grow, while a company that does not subsist primarily on innovation is more likely to be found wanting when there is a cycle of stagnation within the economy.

The No Position

People that argue from the negative point of view will likely argue that while innovation and the ability to come up with good ideas are important traits for a company, they are by no means the main keys to success. As with all other things, hard work and perseverance are the hallmark traits of a successful company and almost every single company in the world that is large and successful experienced this stage through times that required hard work rather than innovation.

Consider Coca Cola, a company that is both innovative and extremely profitable at the moment. During its first year, Coca Cola had gross income figures that were so low that they almost weren't even worth speaking of. However, the company persevered, continued to build, and ultimately was able to become a large and competitive international company. Had Coca Cola given up after the first few years, the company would have been disregarded and forgotten, regardless of its high innovative ability. Many of the world's best business executives have been through multiple bankruptcies and only their persistence allowed them to eventually get to where they wanted to be from a corporate standpoint.

The importance of innovation in business is high, but is business innovation really the most important thing? It is still a highly debated topic over what business managing change and innovation is exactly, and how to define innovation in business and state the importance of innovation in business administrations.

How strictly should businesses’ ethical codes be enforced?

Tuesday, 03 June 2008

Ethics in the corporate world is quickly becoming a heated debate topic. Some believe that a business ethical code should be followed with a strict approach, while others believe that morals in business require a more relative and forgiving approach to accommodate the unpredictability of reality.

Every single business worth its salt in today's world has an ethical code that is part of the required reading for every employee. This ethical code might include actions that the employee is expected to abide by, actions that the executives and the company as a whole are unable to take due to ethical reasons, or it might include some combination of both of these elements.

There is also an unwritten ethical code that occurs between businesses that determines how transactions are completed and how money is made and distributed. However, this code is not enforced all the time, and for that reason, a disagreement has cropped up between people who believe that these codes should be enforced strictly and those who believe there should be “room to move” in all things.

The Strict Position

The position that is articulated by individuals who take the strict enforcement point of view is actually quite a simple position to grasp. Namely, since these ethical codes exist and are agreed to by many of the businesses that exist, there is no logical reason not to enforce these codes. To some people who would see shades of relativism in all things, strict enforcement supporters argue that relativism is a big problem and is creating the lack of enforcement of these businesses' ethical codes, and therefore, it is not an acceptable reason not to enforce ethical standards as strictly as they might otherwise be enforced.

Further to this position, is the idea that since ethical standards are in place to protect stock holders from embezzlement, the environment from pollution and a number of other people who might be tricked by a business, they have to be enforced extremely strictly in order for the ethical standards to have any meaning in the first place.

The Relative Position

In opposition to these arguments, is a group of people who take the position that while ethical codes do need to be enforced, there also needs to be a level of relativism involved in the enforcement in order to reflect the complexities of real life situations and dealings. A number of different things can occur in reality that according to these individuals were never accounted for by the executives who began to implement the ethical codes. This can result in situations where strict enforcement of ethical codes would cause a conflict with the spirit of the entire idea of ethical codes, and because of this problem of lack of foresight, there needs to be some “room to move” in the case of special circumstances.

In many ways, this view can be regarded as being a pragmatic one. Rather than looking at the world in absolutes as the people of the strict enforcement position do, debaters who uphold the relative position witness times when punishment might not actually be just. Therefore, in order to prevent the system from harming those that it seeks to protect, ethical codes need to be altered when they are found to be imperfect rather than be strictly enforced with no thought to whether the punishment actually fits the crime.

Business ethics are a big deal and ethical issues in the corporate world is an issue that has many people asking: “what is business ethics?” Business ethics cases can be difficult to understand and a definition for business ethics is perhaps even more difficult to come by. Business codes and ethics, because of the confusion, need to yield to further research regarding their true outcomes and consequences.

Are open source programs beneficial to the information technology industry?

Tuesday, 03 June 2008

The use of open source software is sometimes a heavily debated topic. Some believe that these programs allow hackers to easily access corporate information and to destroy public and client relations for the business. On the other hand, some individuals believe that open source software is very beneficial for business and corporate clients alike.

There is a great deal of controversy concerning the worth and necessity of open source software when it is in direct correlation to the information technology (IT) industry. If software is to be considered as “open source,” it is generally known to be free for all and any users, allowed for free redistribution (to support sharing), and also permitted for alterations to update or personalize the software for the user. With this ability built into the software package, it becomes unclear whether or not this is actually beneficial to the IT trade or if it is actually a liability. Its value as a business application, or tool, needs to be thoroughly weighed and clearly thought out prior to the onset of the program's creation.

Open Source: The Right Choice for Employees and Employers

With open source programs being so easy to use, it allows the user access to data and the ability to share files with anyone in the world at little or no expense. Businesses can gain greater ground through market saturation and reduce marketing expenses by supporting their brand and image, while increasing advertising visibility through a reliable yet flexible format which allows the individual developer the freedom to patch and adapt the existing format to suit the needs of the company as it grows. Programs such as these encourage teamwork; and incite system advancements at a much faster rate than traditional formats. Thus, the open source program is most often developed with the consumer in mind.

Open Source: An Open Gateway for Mischievous Hackers

There are a few instances when open source software options may not be the best choices for a business as security is not necessarily at the forefront of the development. Hackers may be more easily permitted to locate a weak point in the program and wreak havoc on businesses and their programs. Often, such defects are not noticed until after a major issue has already occurred, which can result in terrible publicity that could tarnish a company's image. This is usually caused by individuals who fail to adequately test the software before releasing it to the general public. It can also become difficult to track any system errors once the program is released as so many different developers can then lay hands on it and make the changes as they feel necessary to suit their own needs and purposes.

For many intentions, open source software can be a very valuable tool when wielded properly in a somewhat controlled environment that has an adequate inspection system and analysis program in place before the product is released. Although a company may make every effort to provide a safe, competitive, and functional product, mistakes can be made that allow for the possibility of catastrophic events. Care should be taken during creation to prevent any such loopholes that could cause this possibility to become an actuality. To conclude, companies that utilize open source software programs, will usually find that taking the time to develop and test the programs will ensure better business relations with those using it, simply because there will be fewer errors and less computer malfunctions, meanwhile, a product with little testing and development will undoubtedly encounter some potentially shattering consequences.

Should philanthropic deeds be granted such extraordinary tax breaks?

Tuesday, 03 June 2008

Philanthropy is becoming a highly debated topic in the corporate and private sectors. More specifically, whether philanthropic deeds should be granted tax breaks is the question. Some argue that society is changed positively while others argue that the tax breaks simply allow some selfish, rich individuals to gain profit.

Philanthropy, in almost every modern society, is regarded as something special. In the eyes of many, it is one thing for the government to implement financial-aid programs in the goal of helping individual citizens, but it is quite another for the private sector and the wealthiest people in the world to do the same thing.

People are simply not used to those with money aiding those who are less fortunate than they are. Thus, when individuals like Bill Gates begin displaying altruistic deeds of philanthropy, it comes as a surprise to many. While it may be a surprise to some, the governments in many countries are anything but surprised with these deeds, some even going so far as to grant extraordinary tax breaks to people that regularly donate in the form of philanthropic deeds. The question then becomes whether this is a good idea or not.

Philanthropy as Mutually Beneficial

The pro tax break position, as stated in its simplest terms, is purely an economic view of the world. According to the people who take this position, the government taxes wealthy individuals at an extremely high rate in order to gain money for programs such as social welfare and security, and a number of other government funded programs aimed at helping those who are less financially fortunate in the society. Because of this, the economic view of the situation from the pro tax break group is simply: that if an individual takes the initiative, and begins to do things themselves in the goal of helping other people in the society, then continuing to tax them would be comparable to taxing them twice. Since governments do not wish to tax people twice and potentially overtax them in the process, tax breaks for philanthropy are a good idea and very much needed.

Another way to look at it from the pro tax break position is the political idea that the individual is better at spending money than the government. The people that hold this view cite philanthropy as one of the things that is done better through private means than through public ones and because of this, tax breaks are needed to encourage a larger degree of private philanthropy.

Philanthropy-Related Tax Breaks: Another Means for the Rich to Become Richer

One thing that pro and anti tax break people will agree on is the fact that philanthropy is a completely voluntary thing. This, however, is where the agreements end as the anti position takes the philosophically opposite view of the pro position. These people will argue that if a person is going to take the initiative and be philanthropic as a series of voluntary actions, then it defeats the purpose of philanthropy to have those actions rewarded by the government through large tax breaks. Philanthropy, in the eyes of these people, is something that should be done out of the goodness of one's heart, and not something that should be done for the sole purpose of receiving tax breaks.

In addition to this, many people that take the position against tax breaks feel that abuse of this system would be very easy for the ultra-rich to accomplish. After all, the tax code in many of these countries is already so complicated that adding another element to the code would create confusion and in this confusion would be the opportunity for people to cheat the system.

Philanthropy and corporate philanthropy are both very powerful forces in today's world. Many different ideas for philanthropy come from the wealthiest and most capable individuals in the world. The definition of philanthropy is very different for different individuals but the significance of these acts is the same. The history of philanthropy and the philanthropic statistics, in general, demonstrate that celebrities and corporate philanthropy are overall, beneficial to society as a whole; it is simply a question of the morality behind these unselfish deeds that provides an ongoing debate.

Are external consulting services essential for the growth and improvement of a company?

Tuesday, 03 June 2008

Some argue that consulting firms are not beneficial for a given business simply because the cost is too expensive and a business can experience a loss just in hiring consultants. However, some disagree and argue that external consulting provides a wonderful return on the initial investment that was made.

If you happen to be starting an offline or an online business, regardless of what field that business happens to be in, there are a number of different people around that would be willing to advise you on exactly what you need to do in order to make that business successful. These people are known as consultants and consulting firms are present in almost every area in most of the developed and developing nations in the world. These companies make their livelihood purely by offering advice to other people and for that reason they have built up an enormous amount of experience over the years, which enables them to offer potentially valuable consulting services. However, these services do not come without a price, which prompts the question as to whether or not they are necessary in the first place.

Consulting Services: Stepping Stones to Success

The people that argue in favour of these services being essential will primarily talk about one factor. That factor is experience. When you consider all of the different clients that the best consulting services have had over the years, it is quite simple to see why consultants would be experienced in business services. If chosen properly, a consulting firm can tell you exactly what you need to do and lay out a series of steps that you can implement in your business that practically act as the stepping stones to success. For businesses that are already flourishing, consulting firms can help them figure out exactly how to take things to the next level and ultimately find even more success than they already possess.

While the affirmative position concedes that consulting services are often expensive, they tend to look at things from a return on investment point of view. Because consulting services return exceptional amounts on investment when chosen properly, people holding the affirmative position feel that they are absolutely essential for companies that want to do things the right way first.

The No Position

People that hold the negative position regarding consulting are generally not individuals would argue with the first point made above regarding the effectiveness of the best consulting firms around. Rather than doing that, most people that hold the negative position would argue that the best consulting firms are extremely expensive and for most start up businesses or businesses that are looking to expand, a top-of-the-line consulting firm could eat up the entire budget that they have set aside. Therefore, the only option these people would have available to them is to higher cheaper consulting firms which are naturally notorious for providing a lower grade of quality in their services.

While wealthy companies that are well established can afford consultants to help them stay on top, the individuals who occupy the negative position would argue that businesses that need capital to expand or capital to start up can not afford good consultants and therefore they should not purchase the help of consultants at all. The secret to success in these situations does not rest with consultants, but rather with qualities inherent to the business and the people who run it.

How Heavily Should Businesses be relying on Information Technology to Replace Human Intelligence in their Management and Operations Sector?

Tuesday, 03 June 2008

Whether a human can be replaced with information technology in the corporate world is a highly debated subject. Some believe that data and records are better handled by a computer resource while others believe that this enables confidential data to easily be read by hackers.

Information Technology is defined as “the study, design, development, implementation, support, or management of computer based information systems, particularly software applications and computer hardware” by the Information Technology Association of America. To the relief of some, and the dismay of others, information technology has become a way of life in most businesses. Information technology has become such a stronghold in corporations that it is beginning to replace human intelligence. When this starts happening, a corporation has to ask itself: “How heavily can we rely on it?” To some the answer is very clear, while for others it can seem to be a very debatable issue.

The Revolutionary Supporters

Some may argue that in implementing the use of information technology resources, a company would be eliminating job opportunities for many needy citizens in society. This is however false, seeing that companies require the assistance of specialists that are knowledgeable in the field of information technology. These specialists often manage a small team of other programmers which, in turn, creates jobs.

Another argument from this side is one of organization and file-keeping efficiency. Debaters that are on this side of the argument will note that information technology is a reliable system in the sense that it ensures that information is kept more organized and can be accessed much more quickly and efficiently. Furthermore, information technology, according to these individuals is a cost-efficient way of increasing effectiveness of company records and financial data.

The Conventional Thinkers

One of the main arguments that debaters against the extensive use of information technology resources will bring forth is the potentially easy infiltration of such systems. This side often argues that hackers are privy to a company's information through the wide use of information technology. They claim that individuals have relatively easy access to confidential company databases, and can thus, inflict some very significant damage in a company's financial records and public images.

Another argument that such individuals will bring forth is the very popular fact that computers are not infallible. There have been instances in history when companies were subject to significant financial downfalls to the fallacy of their computer management programs. The conventional thinkers will add that by using human personnel, a company would not be subject to such losses seeing as physical data is much more difficultly deleted than information that is stored on computers and other electronic platforms.

To conclude, the wide use of information technology in the corporate world is still a very heated debate topic. While it ensures the efficiency of record-keeping, and provides a cost-efficient way of handling these records, it can just as easily be infiltrated by mischievous hackers and cost millions in dollars to repair systems and could conclude with an irreparable, negative company image. Thus, the use of information technology is still a very debatable topic in today's corporate world.

Are online ads more effective or less effective than their offline counterparts?

Tuesday, 03 June 2008

Ads are used in many different online and offline situations. Business marketing advertisement can be geared to target audience via search engine results. Corporate entities are looking to more effective means to create results from the target audience with online and offline ads.

Businesses are constantly working with advertising. Decisions such as whether the campaign is in line with the branding, if the ROI is worthwhile, and if the campaign is effective against competitors, are constantly in the back of executives' minds.

With online advertising being generally much less expensive than traditional forms, it has begun to draw more attention for corporate entities.

Online Advertising: A Giant Community

With more people utilizing the Internet in their daily lives, it's only natural for businesses to follow and target these people with online advertising schemes. More people are shopping online now than ever before, and it's not just the younger generation; in fact, more than half of all purchases are made by baby boomers.

Online advertising can be directed at a specific demographic unlike traditional television, radio or outdoor ads that tend to reach a more general population. It is an issue of knowing and understanding your target audience and responding to their needs and desires on sites that would attract them. The targeted audience can be easily tracked through visitor counters and illustrate how many potential customers actually visit the site.

Interaction is also a possibility, allowing you to receive a better idea of who is visiting the site, such as an age range or income group. Utilizing market segmentation through online services for advertising is a wise way to spend advertising dollars on a specific target audience.

Businesses have to be aware that all search engines are not necessarily going to locate the desired advertisement before all others. An understanding of search engines and how they work to draw in the most customers is imperative. If understanding of SEO and search engine technology is limited, it can further the expense, creating a need to hire extra personnel to produce and register the website online and to track it regularly to ensure good traffic.

Traditional Advertising: A Fail-Proof Method

Traditional, offline advertising however, is still able to draw many customers. This method may not be able to target a specific audience any more specifically than the stations or areas that are chosen to advertise in, but people in varied walks of life will certainly receive exposure simply by changing channels or driving down the freeway.

Television advertising is still king, as most people are more likely to believe what they see there, rather than on the Internet which can sometimes be apprehensive. Oftentimes, companies will utilize a television spot which is also on a website to further promote their presence through a website address posted on in the ad on the television screen. This dual-marketing technique allows potential customers to discover even more information on a product that could not be covered in the short amount of time allowed for a basic television commercial.

The expense of offline advertisements can be enormous from a few hundred dollars for a short, briefly aired radio commercial with a small listening audience to millions of dollars for a thirty second television ad simply in production fees alone.

Depending on the corporate and marketing needs and the knowledge that specific businesses have of the targeted audience, online and offline advertisements can be advantageous for different types of situations requiring different types of outcomes.

How strictly should authenticity be monitored in a company’s marketing plan?

Tuesday, 03 June 2008

Some may argue that authenticity is not important in a business marketing plan because it allows for an increase in the value of the company’s stocks, which is in direct accord with the company’s vow for increasing the value for investors. However, some also argue that this is wrong, and false marketing is a moral issue which degrades the customers’ experiences.

Advertising has become a huge field in today's world, having started from its humble beginnings before there were any national chains that needed to advertise all across the country and in some cases across multiple continents. While advertising accomplish a lot to help bring people to different products that they might not even have known about otherwise, at the same time there are many different companies that have been charged for ads that were outright untrue. Even without those companies that were caught for crossing the line, it is generally understood that almost every single advertisement will be an exaggeration of some kind.

Whether it is the man that won't give his compact sedan up for a million dollars or the shoes that allow a person to jump to the moon, exaggeration and a general level of unauthentic rhetoric has been accepted as part of the advertising scene. The question then becomes whether this is appropriate or not and on a more general note how strictly authenticity should be monitored in the marketing of a company.

The Strict Position

The strict position is rather easy to discern, even for people who do not particularly agree with it. The simple logic of the strict position states that when a person is trying to sell a product, the only appropriately moral thing to do is to be as honest about the product as possible. The goal of business should be to sell the products in a way that is not deliberately deceptive so that nobody ends up feeling like they have purchased the product under false pretences. Because this is the perceived goal, the individuals who support this argument adhere to the position that all of the advertising in a campaign should be completely authentic on the part of the business.

The Lax Position

While authenticity to a certain degree is still important to the people that hold the lax position, at the same time it is not as important as effectiveness. In other words, if a slight lapse in authenticity of advertising results in a much higher effectiveness (as it quite often does when exaggeration is present in an advertisement), then this is an acceptable trade-off because it increases the corporation's profits. The people that hold this position are quick to point out to others that the main legal obligation of a corporation is to maximize profits for their shareholders and quite often it is the case that sacrificing a little bit of authenticity in advertising can result in a much higher dividend for the investor.

Additionally, most of the people that hold this position would also point out that almost every single company has some sort of a return policy, outside of electronics companies that have to protect themselves against the possibility of software piracy. Because of this return policy, a person that feels like they have purchased something under false pretences is completely free to return that product if they wish, and for this reason, nobody is really harmed by the lack of authenticity that some advertisements contain.

Should Businesses be forced to follow Strict Environmental Guidelines?

Tuesday, 03 June 2008

Oil spills and air pollution often caused by a business are examples of environmental damage. Regulations could prevent this from happening, but there is still a debate that is raging. Illness is often thanks to the pollution from a business. Debate over possible corporate environmental damage regulations.

When it comes to the environment, you will be hard pressed to find an issue that is more politically active at the current moment in time. Whether fairly or unfairly, businesses are often indicted as one of the prime suspects when it comes to environmental damage and for that reason many people feel that businesses should be forced to follow strict environmental guidelines. There are others who feel that businesses should be free to operate as they please and for this reason a big debate has been sparked over the issue of government regulation of business insofar as the environment is concerned. There are arguments on both sides of the issue which will be introduced over the following paragraphs.

The Supporters' Cries

People that are pro-environmental regulation for businesses cite all of the different cases that have taken place over history where a large corporation has been directly responsible for environmental damage. Oil spills, pollution of rivers and streams, and contributions toward poor air quality indices in some areas of the world are laid at the foot of businesses who, in the minds of many of the pro-regulation crowd, are the principle aggressors against the environment.

The argument in favour of regulation is simply an argument from basic logic. According to the individuals who argue this position, when a business ends up causing damage to the environment, it is not the business that usually ends up getting hurt but rather the people that have to live in that environment. There have been cases where entire communities have contracted illness because of a business polluting the environment and therefore the argument in favour of regulation simply states that since businesses can not be trusted to protect people not associated with the business from health hazards due to environmental pollution, the job then falls to the government to do it.

The Detractors' Rebuttal

The anti position, as you may be able to guess just based on the pro position, takes the position that protecting the free market trumps the risks involved in non-regulation of business. While the accidents that have occurred from businesses polluting the environment are regrettable, according to the people that take this position, they are extremely rare and most businesses are in fact very environmentally conscious. Furthermore, people that take this position will frequently go on to argue that the disagreement regarding illness inherent to environmental pollution is not an argument that holds weight since these people have the right to sue the business that did the dumping and in many cases huge class action lawsuits have been won in this exact manner.

According to most people that take the “anti” position with respect to this question, the real thing that needs to be debated is whether the perceived benefits of environmental regulation outweigh the costs of potentially millions of dollars of income for the businesses; income that goes to the communities and employees of that particular company. Because of the previous paragraph's assertions, anti-regulation supporters believe that the costs outweigh the benefits and therefore the government regulation business vis-à-vis the environment is a bad idea.

Environmental regulation of business by the government has good points and bad. Some wonder what are the costs and benefits of environmental regulations while others take a look at foreign environmental laws and regulations to see what is going on. For example, Belgium environmental health regulations are quite different from federal environmental regulations and some feel that policies like California environmental regulations need to be addressed in a way that involves environmental planning or regulation at a higher level.

Should companies who pay in the form of bribes in foreign countries be considered for prosecution for these crimes in their native countries?

Tuesday, 03 June 2008

Companies are paying bribes in foreign countries more and more. It is a heated argument whether companies should undergo prosecution for these bribes. Some consider it a morals issue, while other say it’s necessary for the expansion of the companies.

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.