Summary
According to Henning (2016), every global business should be alert to avoid going against the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which is against bribing officials in foreign countries to acquire favor or maintain businesses. Currently, 84 companies are under the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s investigation, including Walmart, Petrobras, and JPMorgan Chase. The main question that most global businesses face is if they should proceed with a demand for payments that are questionable and sometimes illegal if they want to own a new business or keep their position. The governments of most developing countries are corrupt, ranging from the minor bureaucrats to the highest power brokers in the president’s office. Based on a yearly survey report by Transparency International, countries such as China, Russia, India, and Mexico exhibit high bribery in the public segment. Sometimes, bribing is considered a situation that cannot be avoided in business. Organizations caught in the Act have sometimes pleaded guilty, claiming that they cannot run their businesses without the risk of breaching the Act and claiming that complying with FCGPA is burdensome.
For a long period, FCPA has been criticized for unfairly enforcing the policy by showing competitors from foreign countries as willing to take bribes and steal U.S. businesses. The question here is whether life is hard for businesses operating in nations that are considered corrupt while following the FCPA. Acts such as the officers at the airport demanding special payment to process a passport are often a nuisance but rarely the kind of behavior that has a greater impact on businesses. Also, the Justice Department and SEC use FCPA to police bribes and gifts offered to acquire bigger procurement contracts and keep important business relations.
Although every country has laws against bribery, the issue is if they are enforced. Companies facing corruption each day are irritated when the federal system does the bare minimum. To deal with supply-side bribery, the FCPA bans businesses from giving out money even when it is their only option. Although global businesses are forced to pay the priHowever, the author argues that, instead of rational criticism of the FCPA, concerns about operating businesses are tough because of pervasive misconduct. Even if it is disputed with a policy, most business owners do not intend to breach it. To violate the FCPA, an individual has to be self-deluded (Henning, 2016). Other companies are forced to defend their contempt for the policy by claiming it is unfair in order to cope with the less ethical competitors. However, bribery takes a different life, making it both a criminal act and a plaque on society’s integrity. Businesses are forced to pay regularly and in increasing amounts to maintain their positions. Companies that attempt to stop paying risk losing their positions and profits. However, bribing is not a sure way to move forward because a company may end up paying more in fines and penalties than it obtained from illegal payments. ce for foreign corruption, that does not make FCPA flawed.
The United States has a duty to its citizens to ensure that businesses operating within its borders are able to compete fairly in the global marketplace. American businesses should not be placed at a disadvantage relative to their foreign counterparts. Regulations that put American businesses at a competitive advantage over their foreign counterparts are in the best interests of the United States and its citizens. It is universally agreed upon that businesses should be required to adhere to certain ethical standards. American businesses should not be given an unfair advantage over their foreign competitors. All businesses should be held to the same standards and compete on a level playing field. The U.S. regulations must not hide the limitations of its businesses while trying to defend its interests. Contrarily, it must show every disadvantage to every shareholder, especially investors. Openness concerning a business’s financial statement enables investors to make informed decisions regarding whether to join it (Suh, 2017). When addressing this ethical dilemma, trust versus loyalty should be considered. Thus, rather than protecting American businesses, U.S. regulation must sincerely show every fact about their limitations to the public enabling investors to weigh in before investing.
References
Henning, P. J. (2016). Can businesses succeed in a world of corruption (without paying bribes). The Conversation, 12. https://theconversation.com/can-businesses-succeed-in-a-world-of-corruption-without-paying-bribes-51777
Suh, C. (2017). The Role of financial statement in the investment decisions of a micro finance institution (MFI): Bamenda Police Cooperative Credit Union Limited, Yaounde (BAPCCUL Yaounde). https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/133347/suh_collins%20suh.pdf
write