Globalization

What an interesting series of articles! If there is one thing I've learned about Moral and Ethical behavior from the readings we have been assigned in this class, it's that moral and ethical behavior can be interpreted as what's in the eyes of the beholder--everyone has an opinion. The question is: Whose opinion is correct? I guess the answer to that question depends on what side of the fence you find yourself on.

The series of arguments presented in this chapter were both informative and very thought provoking. In the article entitled: "Global Profits, Global Headaches," I had to place myself in two different sets of scenarios as I read. The first scenario forced me to picture myself as an executive working for this company. In that scenario, my choice would be to do what is best for the corporation and my actions and strategy would be based on doing whatever it takes to tap into the global markets as outlined by this large corporation.

I had to ask myself: "On what basis would I have my management team conclude the purpose for our being there?" Certainly the usual arguments corporations use are valid: 1) Reduced costs, 2) Expansion and growth 3) New markets, etc. But when the feasibility studies indicate that my company's presence may or may not have an impact (positive or negative) on the environment, the people, and the economy; would I first think about what's best for my company at the expense of what's best for the local economy and natural resources? Would I rationalize my response to reflect whatever my boss would want me to think? Or would I defer my first choice and create opportunities that would focus on alleviating any damages my business there might have on the local area?

These are the questions that I surmise are being addressed by CEO's, board of directors and executive management teams on a regular basis. Yet, why am I still surprised and enraged when the choices they seem to make are predominantly focused on the results of increased wealth to the shareholders and themselves as opposed to increased positive contributions to the people and villages and economies they impose upon?

It is one thing to argue that it is in the best interest of corporations to move their operations offshore to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them by way of reduced labor costs, increased availability of natural resources and cooperative governments; it's a poor excuse to rationalize that paying sweatshop labor wages to already starving people is better for them then to pay higher, and more fair wages for that labor, especially in view of the enormous profits these companies make off of the people of third world countries! I was even more struck by how the chairman of the board shrugged the decision that needed to made off to family members of the founder (nepotism) instead of making the hard, right decision then and there!

The same is true when I placed myself in shoes of an individual working in a sweat shop. Do I care about whether I make as much as my counter-part in the USA on any given day or do I care more about having enough money to feed my family, keep a roof over my head, or buy a pair of shoes for my child so that he/she can walk the seven miles to school (hypothetically of course as I have no idea how far or even IF these children attend school)? Which do I prefer?

I guess the problems with what we are learning in Ethics class present more, 'devil is in the details' scenarios than we will ever be able to address in the short time that we have available to us over the semester. However, the quest to impact the world that we inherit and the need to continue to be change makers of the world in a positive rather than negative way should always force us to make the hard, right decision; we should be ever cognizant that we are balancing our choices between what is good for us and our company and what is right in our decisions, not only for the people that we may find ourselves working for and with, but also for the people, environments, and economies we impact.

Unfortunately, many of the articles I've read in the chapter on Globalization led me to believe that when corporate CEO's are given a choice, increased profits seem to have a way of outweighing common sense. Hard, right (which can be interpreted as ethical and moral decisions) are constantly being pushed off to some other person, place or organization to take care of. In other words, corporations know how to pilfer from a society, but they seem to grow dumb when it comes to understanding or trying to work out a plan to build and/contribute in a broader sense to that countries, social, economic and environmental structure.

Whether the choices corporations like Nike, Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot are making are fair, equitable, relevant or impact the poor negatively is left to one's own interpretation or to some other organization (is this fair or is this passing off the crumbs and mess to some other social or political organization) to take care.

Frankly, none of the arguments presented here have convinced me that corporate greed takes a back seat to what is good and right and fair when corporations move in and out of new markets in impoverished countries. What has been demonstrated in these arguments is how well man can find a way to reason away anything. Even if it means that paying someone in Asia $0.29 on the dollar and $30. an hour in America vs. paying a CEO hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour to make one simple decision is the right thing. Everyone has a conscience don't they? This isn't rocket science. Just do the right thing!