Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … American companies refuse to do business in countries
• a. That do not practice democracy?
• b. That routinely practice discrimination?
• c. That tolerate or even encourage the abuse of children? Explain.
Ultimately, a company can do whatever it wishes and to many companies, profit exceeds all else.
However, the United Nations' Global Compact does ask companies to incorporate
Principles concerning human rights,
labor rights, environment protection, and anti-corruption and this includes even indirectly seeming to support countries that violate basic human rights.
Conducting business with a country that does any of the above is not only indirectly helping that country economically grow but also seems to be sending a message of support that country.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) calls on 'every individual and every organ of society' to strive to promote and respect the rights and freedoms it contains and to secure their effective recognition and observance (The Global Compact Leaders' Summit). By a company doing business with a certain state, they almost invariably have to abide by many of the laws of that state too, so, for instance, a company conducting business with a certain Middle Eastern Islamic state may be prohibited to employ women. That company, itself, therefore, will be compelled to show unwilling complicity in the country's policies.
Every company has a sphere of influence that revolves...
The larger the company, the larger its sphere of influence. Furthermore, the more strategically dominant the company, the more likely it may have to exert an influence on the surrounding environment. On the other hand, too, it may be more likely susceptible to the influence of the surrounding environment being that it wishes to retain its success. The company and country are, therefore, mutually dependent on one another.
In short, whether or not American companies should refuse to do business with countries that violate human rights is a case-per-case instance. The Global Compact Leaders' Summit recommends that companies, given their dependency on the specific country should refuse to do so. On the other hand, the company may also have direct and close connections with the alien government, or with armed groups that control of that particular country. Through the advocacy and lobbying activities therefore it may have a positive impact on that country and be able to be a positive impetus of change.
Ultimately: "companies are expected to strive to protect and respect human rights in all of their operations" (The Global Compact Leaders' Summit, p19). Sometimes, against their will, companies may be complicit in policies that violate the above. In this case, "companies can be legally considered state actors under certain circumstances." (p.20)
In cases where violations are serious, companies may carry public blame and may be legally held accountable for their…
Resources/embedding.pdf
Harvard University. The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queen's Bench Division 273 (1884).
http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/the-queen-vs.-dudley-and-stephens-1884-the-lifeboat-case/
Thus, the authors do not advocate an ethical free for all, for they acknowledge certain ethical broaches can result in corporate legal costs, thus resulting in executives violating the ethics of their profession -- but this is a more important ethical standard than either laws or social responsibility, stress the authors. The authors also acknowledge that in the current environment, government regulations must be obeyed by businesses, else they face
The government has rather low environmental expectations. In fact, the consultant found that they are about as lenient as the Mexican restrictions, though the Philippines presents no public relations nightmare as protestors are not rallying against health concerns, as they were in Mexico. Although the conditions in the Philippines may seem even more ready for outsourcing then the conditions in Mexico, the ethical costs of operating the company in the
AMERICAN AIRLINES AND U.S. AIRWAYS MERGER PLEASE ASSIGN THIS PAPER TO BETTY 2115322 QUESTION MUST BE TYPED IN BOLD AND NUMBERED Assignment 2: Mergers Acquisitions Due Week 6 worth 200 points Use Internet research a publicly traded company United States undergone a merger acquisition (3) years. Examine the circumstances that resulted in the merger or acquisition for the selected company. Speculate on two (2) reasons why the resulting decision to merge or
They'll therefore wind up having to spend those dollars -- here, of course -- and who knows what inflated prices they'll have to pay for things? In the 1980s, the Japanese pursued the same strategy of aggressively exporting to the U.S. while propping up the dollar, and in the end, they wound up buying companies and buildings in this country for vastly inflated prices. For example, the purchased Rockefeller
In contrast with the mutual funds, 'Mutual funds trade hundreds of stocks in many unrelated industries, with very little of the total portfolio in any single stock. By contrast, when a company expands into a new area, its portfolio consists of two stocks, typically 90% in the core operation and 10% in the new businesses' (Tirole, 2005). The diversification in majority of the cases is responsible for lower return
American Colonists vs. British Policymakers 1763-1776 American Colonists vs. British Policymakers 1763-1776 Great Britain's victory in the "French and Indian War" (1689 -- 1763) gained new territory west of the Appalachian Mountains for the Empire but also saddled It with enormous war debt (The Independence Hall Association, 2011) in addition to Its existing debts. Great Britain's national debt had grown "from £72,289,673 in 1755 to £129,586,789 in 1764" (The Independence Hall Association, 2011),