5 ms·

To add to the SNC case, they said that depending on the govs decision, that they would move headquarters to another country. It became a political and national

To add to the SNC case, they said that depending on the govs decision, that they would move headquarters to another country. It became a political and national interest issue. Do you simply nationalize a company that says that? Would the precedent be worth it? A similar issue happens with c-suite, the average person seems eager to get 'unethical actors' jailed, however, the government has to consider the impact it creates in the long-run. For example: 1. Will businesses take less risk because of personal risk to c-suits? 2. Will this lead to stagnation in riskier projects? 3. Should a company headquartered in Canada follow the same letter of the law in other countries where bribe is a pre-requisite to business success? 4. Is a country willing to lose a powerhouse business for the sake of justice? What about the trickle down impact in the economy? 5. What is the moral cost of letting something like this go? Does it create a negative moral precedent? 6. Does imprisoning a c-suit for X create a precedent for imprisoning them for Y, Z and F? 7. Will there be lower quality c-suits because of the inherent risk of going to prison in that country? Whether we like it or not, there are unintended consequences to decisions we sometimes feel are the moral one to take. It has always been a difficult issue to balance.

kbenson 8y ago
> 3. Should a company headquartered in Canada follow the same letter of the law in other countries where bribe is a pre-requisite to business success? What if they contributed to getting someone locked up without cause and/or tortured or even disappeared in a country where that was commonplace (or if not commonplace, known to happen)? Even if it's the remote government doing it, if it was started at the behest of that company, is that okay? If that's not okay, why are bribes? Where's the line drawn if there's a distinction? This one is actually pretty tricky in my eyes, because it's not inconceivable that this gets used to punish some companies for allowing more liberal local customs. What if your company doesn't hire a minority in a remote company because they are repressed and not allowed to work. If one of them approaches your company for a job, are you allowed to turn them down because the law of the region disallows them working, or do the laws in your base country regarding equality come into play and you need to consider them? I think a lot of companies are dealing with a moral variation of this with China right now. Do you do business with China and honor their laws regarding information access, or do you refrain from doing business because of that. It's a very old question, is it better to stay involved with an organization you believe to be corrupt so you can enact change from the inside, or do you remove access your services or abilities to punish them for that corruption? It's made harder by the fact that a sizable portion of the population (in the west at least) seems to think that only one of those is correct, and doing the other helps perpetuate the problem. Unfortunately, they can't seem to decide which is which. > 7. Will there be lower quality c-suits because of the inherent risk of going to prison in that country? That seems like it would depend on how you judge quality. If quality doesn't consider willingness to bribe, or considers it a positive, then I'm sure quality would decrease. Otherwise, there's probably a lot of factors to consider.
- Gpetrium 8y ago
  These are all points that society has to think about, I am playing the devil's advocate to ensure people don't jump on their soap box without considering some of the real impacts it can have to you and your society in the long run simply because they are thinking from a single perspective. I will now respond to your comments: If your business doesn't take part in it, someone else or another country will. They will then have more resources and revenue to potentially become leaders in that area and in the long run, purchase the company from your country or outbid them in most environments. Also, if you have skin in the game, you may have more power to change their actions and get these actors to follow some of the rules and beliefs your country has. It is very tough to find where to draw the line, it is also true that lines are constantly moving depending on the beliefs of society and other nations. Your third paragraph looks great and is on point. You have made a good point regarding (7), I think it is worth adding that today we may talk about bribe, tomorrow there will be another unethical proponent and so on. At some point you may have so many laws and regulations (it already happens in some areas) that it becomes near impossible to take certain types of risks without breaching another law that even your lawyers are not aware of. For someone in management position, why would you take the next step in your career if it comes with 10x more risks to your life, including imprisonment?
fredophile 8y ago
For 1 and 2, if risk is the risk of being caught and punished for doing something illegal then this is the desired outcome. If you're talking about normal business risks I don't see how increased prosecution and punishment for illegal acts would affect that.
- Gpetrium 8y ago
  My points are not related to cases where the results are cut and dry. Besides, you may have done a lot of things that are considered illegal or borderline, however, they are not reinforced as strictly for a variety of reasons. Think of it this way, you do business with 100 people from X country. Although you are aware that some of the gains are illicit (lets say 5%) and you have created expensive processes to limit the numbers that go through, since there is a fine to be paid. Unfortunately, some illicit money will still pass through the cracks, so the government of your country decides to imprison you for it. The next manager may be a lot more likely to simply not let any business from X country since the risks far outweigh the benefit. Now what happens if you have the same case, but someone in the business finds an exploit and sells it to the 5% that couldn't get their illicit money across? Do you blame the c-suit and imprison them because they let something like that happen under their nose? Do you search for the culprit? What if there are circumstantial evidence, do you imprison them regardless? My point is, a lot of deals are made in gray areas or under conditions that are harder to prosecute due to the amount of complexities that exist (regulatory, law, business,etc). Normal business risks does in fact get entangled with potential unexpected illegal acts a lot more often than people realize. It can be a simple environmental law that your lawyer didn't go over, or a piece of cybersecurity law that you haven't considered.
tristor 8y ago
> Is a country willing to lose a powerhouse business for the sake of justice? What about the trickle down impact in the economy? Every time I hear this question asked, I am stunned. I'm not really sure how to respond. The question, at it's root, comes from a place that puts government and corporation on equal footing, or worse, puts corporation above government. I'm a Centrist, relatively economically Libertarian, and pro-Capitalism, and the conclusion here is blatantly obvious to me, at least for Western countries. We the people, are the government. We the people are not corporations, and corporations are not people. We as people have rights, corporations do not. Corporations have legal enshrinement of concepts which provide legal pathways to conduct business operations, but they do not have human rights. There is absolutely no reason why society should accept bad actors violating the rules and structures we've created which define our social mores and the things we believe you must do to be part of our society. Once corporations violate those rules, they should be excised, just as any other entity would be. The trickle down impact to the economy of NOT punishing bad actors is that bad actors privatize profits and publicize losses, while we the people suffer the consequences. I can imagine a world in which corporations supersede government and it's not a pretty image. It's one major concern of MNCs, but I see no legal or ethical means in which you could restrict the existence of MNCs. As a society though you absolutely have the right to say "No, you may not operate here. Your business has violated our rules and is no longer able to participate in our society."
- Gpetrium 8y ago
  I think you have raised some great moral points, now lets exemplify some of the real implications of applying justice to a company in this case: LaLa corporation is a major employer and economic multiplier in Monty City. Now that LaLa corp is under intense legal pressure, it decides to move its headquarter from Monty city to another country that has more 'hospitable' legal environment. Monty city unfortunately loses a major provider to the people and the city/state revenue, leading to a spiral of cuts and losses to the area. Question: 1. Do you think the people of Monty city would reconsider legal justice to ensure stability in their lives? 2. Is the moral imperative more important than economic stability in this case? 3. The legal environment in our globalized world varies a lot, how would you ensure that other nations follow your ethical perspective? Is that a breach in ethics itself? The war on drugs is a good example of reinforcement of a single entity towards all its globalized actors due to its economic and military projection. Would you feel as comfortable if another nation in the future, did the same to you? The existence of MNCs are in part, an attempt of governments to gain more jobs, revenue, know-hows in the long run by creating economies of scale and being the leader in certain areas indirectly through private actors. The world of private and public are a lot more intertwined than we realize and there is a lot more transactions happening than we realize. Corporations don't just pay corporate taxes, there is a whole environment created around them that has to be valued. It is a matter of where to find the proper balance.

kbenson 8y ago

> 3. Should a company headquartered in Canada follow the same letter of the law in other countries where bribe is a pre-requisite to business success? What if they contributed to getting someone locked up without cause and/or tortured or even disappeared in a country where that was commonplace (or if not commonplace, known to happen)? Even if it's the remote government doing it, if it was started at the behest of that company, is that okay? If that's not okay, why are bribes? Where's the line drawn if there's a distinction? This one is actually pretty tricky in my eyes, because it's not inconceivable that this gets used to punish some companies for allowing more liberal local customs. What if your company doesn't hire a minority in a remote company because they are repressed and not allowed to work. If one of them approaches your company for a job, are you allowed to turn them down because the law of the region disallows them working, or do the laws in your base country regarding equality come into play and you need to consider them? I think a lot of companies are dealing with a moral variation of this with China right now. Do you do business with China and honor their laws regarding information access, or do you refrain from doing business because of that. It's a very old question, is it better to stay involved with an organization you believe to be corrupt so you can enact change from the inside, or do you remove access your services or abilities to punish them for that corruption? It's made harder by the fact that a sizable portion of the population (in the west at least) seems to think that only one of those is correct, and doing the other helps perpetuate the problem. Unfortunately, they can't seem to decide which is which. > 7. Will there be lower quality c-suits because of the inherent risk of going to prison in that country? That seems like it would depend on how you judge quality. If quality doesn't consider willingness to bribe, or considers it a positive, then I'm sure quality would decrease. Otherwise, there's probably a lot of factors to consider.

Gpetrium 8y ago
These are all points that society has to think about, I am playing the devil's advocate to ensure people don't jump on their soap box without considering some of the real impacts it can have to you and your society in the long run simply because they are thinking from a single perspective. I will now respond to your comments: If your business doesn't take part in it, someone else or another country will. They will then have more resources and revenue to potentially become leaders in that area and in the long run, purchase the company from your country or outbid them in most environments. Also, if you have skin in the game, you may have more power to change their actions and get these actors to follow some of the rules and beliefs your country has. It is very tough to find where to draw the line, it is also true that lines are constantly moving depending on the beliefs of society and other nations. Your third paragraph looks great and is on point. You have made a good point regarding (7), I think it is worth adding that today we may talk about bribe, tomorrow there will be another unethical proponent and so on. At some point you may have so many laws and regulations (it already happens in some areas) that it becomes near impossible to take certain types of risks without breaching another law that even your lawyers are not aware of. For someone in management position, why would you take the next step in your career if it comes with 10x more risks to your life, including imprisonment?

fredophile 8y ago

For 1 and 2, if risk is the risk of being caught and punished for doing something illegal then this is the desired outcome. If you're talking about normal business risks I don't see how increased prosecution and punishment for illegal acts would affect that.

Gpetrium 8y ago
My points are not related to cases where the results are cut and dry. Besides, you may have done a lot of things that are considered illegal or borderline, however, they are not reinforced as strictly for a variety of reasons. Think of it this way, you do business with 100 people from X country. Although you are aware that some of the gains are illicit (lets say 5%) and you have created expensive processes to limit the numbers that go through, since there is a fine to be paid. Unfortunately, some illicit money will still pass through the cracks, so the government of your country decides to imprison you for it. The next manager may be a lot more likely to simply not let any business from X country since the risks far outweigh the benefit. Now what happens if you have the same case, but someone in the business finds an exploit and sells it to the 5% that couldn't get their illicit money across? Do you blame the c-suit and imprison them because they let something like that happen under their nose? Do you search for the culprit? What if there are circumstantial evidence, do you imprison them regardless? My point is, a lot of deals are made in gray areas or under conditions that are harder to prosecute due to the amount of complexities that exist (regulatory, law, business,etc). Normal business risks does in fact get entangled with potential unexpected illegal acts a lot more often than people realize. It can be a simple environmental law that your lawyer didn't go over, or a piece of cybersecurity law that you haven't considered.

tristor 8y ago

> Is a country willing to lose a powerhouse business for the sake of justice? What about the trickle down impact in the economy? Every time I hear this question asked, I am stunned. I'm not really sure how to respond. The question, at it's root, comes from a place that puts government and corporation on equal footing, or worse, puts corporation above government. I'm a Centrist, relatively economically Libertarian, and pro-Capitalism, and the conclusion here is blatantly obvious to me, at least for Western countries. We the people, are the government. We the people are not corporations, and corporations are not people. We as people have rights, corporations do not. Corporations have legal enshrinement of concepts which provide legal pathways to conduct business operations, but they do not have human rights. There is absolutely no reason why society should accept bad actors violating the rules and structures we've created which define our social mores and the things we believe you must do to be part of our society. Once corporations violate those rules, they should be excised, just as any other entity would be. The trickle down impact to the economy of NOT punishing bad actors is that bad actors privatize profits and publicize losses, while we the people suffer the consequences. I can imagine a world in which corporations supersede government and it's not a pretty image. It's one major concern of MNCs, but I see no legal or ethical means in which you could restrict the existence of MNCs. As a society though you absolutely have the right to say "No, you may not operate here. Your business has violated our rules and is no longer able to participate in our society."

Gpetrium 8y ago
I think you have raised some great moral points, now lets exemplify some of the real implications of applying justice to a company in this case: LaLa corporation is a major employer and economic multiplier in Monty City. Now that LaLa corp is under intense legal pressure, it decides to move its headquarter from Monty city to another country that has more 'hospitable' legal environment. Monty city unfortunately loses a major provider to the people and the city/state revenue, leading to a spiral of cuts and losses to the area. Question: 1. Do you think the people of Monty city would reconsider legal justice to ensure stability in their lives? 2. Is the moral imperative more important than economic stability in this case? 3. The legal environment in our globalized world varies a lot, how would you ensure that other nations follow your ethical perspective? Is that a breach in ethics itself? The war on drugs is a good example of reinforcement of a single entity towards all its globalized actors due to its economic and military projection. Would you feel as comfortable if another nation in the future, did the same to you? The existence of MNCs are in part, an attempt of governments to gain more jobs, revenue, know-hows in the long run by creating economies of scale and being the leader in certain areas indirectly through private actors. The world of private and public are a lot more intertwined than we realize and there is a lot more transactions happening than we realize. Corporations don't just pay corporate taxes, there is a whole environment created around them that has to be valued. It is a matter of where to find the proper balance.