The employee's imperative is bound by the employee's desire to maintain employment. To the business, however, there is a competing imperative in that it must increase profits. For the cost of a test, the business can prevent a certain degree of losses. Thus, from the businesses perspective its imperative, if applied evenly and universally, would compel it to reject testing of its executives just as much as it would compel it to promote testing of employment candidates. Q1. Wilson acted wrongly in terms of his contractual duty to the company. In such situations, the moral imperative derives from the employment contract, including the terms of the housing allowance. Wilson defends himself on the basis on consequential arguments -- he is doing more right than wrong in his actions. Weighed on a consequential basis, Wilson is correct in that his wrong actions towards his employer have resulted in greater good for his family. The one defense he offers for the falsification, however, is ethically hollow. That such behavior is standard practice is the country meets neither the standard of the clearly delineated moral imperative nor does it meet the consequentialist standard of the greatest good. Since the falsification is the most contentious aspect of the situation, it is reasonable to conclude that Wilson acted wrongly.

He did, however, have other courses of action available. He could have turned down the opportunity to return to his homeland, thus avoiding the situation entirely. He could also have disclosed his situation...

It would not have been unreasonable for his to ask the company to waive his housing allowance and direct that instead to a scholarship program. If he is staying with relatives, he would still have excess salary to donate to his extended family. In his place, this is the course of action I would have undertaken. The moral imperative for Wilson is clearly defined by his employer, and he jeopardizes his job by falsifying his reports.
Q4. NewCom is not unreasonably imposing its own ethnocentric values on Wilson. Any company that practices at-will employment is responsible for setting its own ethical boundaries for its employees. Employees who chose to work at the company must leave their own cultural values at the door, or they should choose not to work their. The company cannot be responsible for setting individual policies for the ethnicity or nationality of each of its employees. As such, the company's housing policy is reasonable. It is sending Wilson to Rambia as a representative of the company first and foremost, not as a Rambian. I do not feel that there is any cultural bias in the housing policy. If anything, the policy is applied evenly to all employees. To alter the policy based on an employee's ethnicity would introduce bias.

Works Cited:

Friedman, Milton. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved October 3, 2009 from http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html