This paper examines the ethical dilemmas multinational corporations—particularly U.S.-based firms—encounter when expanding into foreign markets. Drawing on the conduit metaphor of communication, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and real-world cases of corporate bribery in China, the paper argues that attempts to manipulate or suppress communication are ultimately unsustainable. It explores the tension between adapting to locally accepted business practices, such as bribery, and maintaining ethical standards demanded by Western law and corporate governance. The paper ultimately contends that honest, transparent communication represents the most viable long-term marketing strategy for multinational enterprises operating across vastly different cultural and regulatory environments.
The paper effectively deploys the "problem-complication-implication" structure: it establishes an ethical ideal (honesty in communication), complicates it with legal and cultural realities facing multinationals, and then raises the stakes by showing that deceptive strategies carry costs beyond legal penalties. This layered approach keeps the argument from being simplistic while maintaining a clear normative through-line.
The paper opens with a cultural hook and theoretical frame (conduit metaphor), then transitions to the legal landscape (FCPA), followed by concrete corporate examples illustrating the costs of bribery. It closes by broadening the argument toward a general claim about communication strategy and ethical sustainability. The structure moves from the specific and historical to the general and prescriptive, typical of an ethical argumentation essay at the undergraduate level.
In the 1960s, country-western entertainer turned sausage-maker Jimmy Dean stunned the marketing world and delighted many American consumers when he proclaimed in his television commercials that he would "rather apologize for the price than apologize for the quality" of his products. This direct admission from the head of a company that his products actually cost more than his competitors' might have been a marketing faux pas at the time, but experience has shown that consumers frequently respond positively when they are presented with the truth. In this regard, many corporations make the mistake of believing that there are secrets they can keep from public scrutiny, much like the Chinese Government believes it can suppress unrest and protest under the cloak of communication control. Both approaches to managing communication are ultimately doomed to fail, sooner or later.
As Steven Axley (1984) discusses in his essay "Managerial and Organizational Communication in Terms of the Conduit Metaphor," such beliefs about human communication are based on a conduit metaphor — that is, the idea that communication is simple and can be controlled. While this may be a useful fiction for corporate CEOs and government bureaucrats, it is very far from reality.
These are particularly important considerations today as companies from one country attempt to establish a presence in a foreign market. During this process, they are inevitably confronted by powerful cultural and social differences that may not be readily discernible, but which nevertheless play an important role in how a company's product or service sells and how its business practices are perceived. If a U.S. telecommunications company, for example, wants to enter the burgeoning Chinese market or capitalize on the growing affluence of Eastern Europe and Russia, it must conform to all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. Unfortunately, the requirements for doing business in a foreign country do not stop with securing legal authority — they also entail doing business in a locally acceptable fashion.
According to a recent article by Peter Wonacott (2005), "In a system lubricated by money, U.S. companies often face pressure to play along. Boston Scientific Corp., a Natick, Massachusetts, medical-devices company, used outside distributors for years even though it suspected them of providing unethical incentives to doctors" (Wonacott, 2005, p. A1). If this means that bribes must be paid in order to land an account, secure an import permit, or obtain permission to construct a building, the U.S.-based company is indeed confronted with a serious dilemma.
To remain competitive and ensure the survival of the enterprise, key expatriate executives are increasingly compelled to engage in business practices that are deemed unethical in much of the West but are an accepted way of doing business elsewhere. To make matters even more serious and complicated for U.S. enterprises, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and related legislation prohibit American companies from bribing officials of foreign governments. In response to a series of corporate bribery scandals involving foreign government officials during the 1970s, the FCPA was enacted in 1977 following inquiries by the U.S. Senate and the Securities and Exchange Commission. At that time, Congress became concerned that disclosures of corrupt corporate practices were seriously undermining public confidence in the business community and harming America's image abroad (Diersen, 1999).
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.