Getting Medicine To Bosnia; Acceptable Bribery As Chief Lega

Getting Medicine To Bosnia Acceptable Briberyas Chief Legal Officer

Getting Medicine to Bosnia: Acceptable Bribery? As chief legal officer in a well-respected company making lifesaving drugs, Gordon Smith was asked by his board of directors to look into rumors of bribery with the firm’s Bosnia contract. The contract, he discovered, had been ordinary in almost every respect: A major relief organization had contracted with his company to supply a million inexpensive kits of medicine for delivery into the war-torn regions of Bosnia. Like most such contracts with charitable organizations, it contained hardly any profit for his firm. What he found strange, however, was the payment of an extraordinarily large commission to a Romanian distributor to deliver the kits deep into Bosnia.

Seeking out the executive in his own firm who had negotiated the contract, he had one question in mind: Was this a bribe? Yes said the executive, it’s a bribe that we’re paying. According to the Romanian distributor, the backs of the delivery trucks were loaded with the kits — and the glove compartments were stuffed with cash. That way, when the drivers were stopped at roadblocks set up by local militia units operating all across Bosnia, they could pay whatever was demanded and continue their journey. In the past, he noted, drivers without cash had been taken from their trucks and shot.

If the kits were to be delivered, this was a cost of doing business. Gordon felt sure that none of the money had flowed back to the executive, whose only motive was to get the kits delivered. Gordon faced a dilemma. Should he draft a report to the board on this most unorthodox contract? Or should he keep silent?

Analysis

Everything in Gordon's background with his company told him that this contract was not the way to do business. Bribery, he knew, was simply unacceptable to the board, who felt strongly that once that barrier was breached, there would be no stopping the shakedowns in the future. But everything in his makeup as a compassionate being told him that providing medicine for the wounded was of overriding importance, and that the normal ethic of commerce didn't apply in a war zone. Please see instructions in the Forms section of Blackboard to analyze this case.

Case from the Institute for Global Ethics. BA 3102 Written Case Assignment Form

Getting Medicine to Bosnia Instructions : Please answer the questions below.

The length of your written case assignment form responses should be approximately one to one and a half pages, single spaced. This form will be graded on a pass/fail basis. To pass, you need to provide reasonably detailed and insightful answers to the questions below.

Paper For Above instruction

The case involving Gordon Smith’s dilemma over whether to report or conceal the bribery involved in delivering medicines to Bosnia offers a profound exploration of ethical decision-making in complex, morally ambiguous situations. This scenario underscores fundamental questions about the nature of bribery, stakeholder responsibilities, and ethical frameworks guiding corporate conduct in conflict zones.

What defines a bribe and how can it be distinguished from other social exchanges?

A bribe is generally defined as an illicit payment or gift intended to influence the actions of an individual in a position of power, typically to secure an unfair advantage or bypass established rules. Unlike a gratuity or tip, which is a customary and voluntary gesture acknowledging service, a bribe aims to manipulate or corrupt decision-making [Thompson & Toubia, 2020]. For instance, tipping at a restaurant is usually seen as an accepted social norm, reflecting gratitude rather than an attempt to sway the server’s behavior unethically. Similarly, a corporate invitation to a luxury event, such as a Phillies game suite, may be considered a form of networking or relationship-building, but it crosses ethical boundaries when it’s intended to influence purchasing decisions or policy favorable to the inviter [Smith, 2018].

Criteria that distinguish a bribe from legitimate business interactions include the intent behind the gift, the context, and the recipient's capacity to influence decisions unjustly. Specifically, payments or benefits aimed at gaining confidential information, preferential treatment, or contracting advantages in a corrupt manner qualify as bribes. In contrast, lawful business entertainment or gifts of nominal value, given transparently and within cultural norms, are usually not considered bribes.

Stakeholders involved in Gordon's decision and their interests

The stakeholders encompass a broad array of individuals and entities affected by Gordon’s decision:

• The company and its shareholders: They are concerned with maintaining corporate integrity, reputation, and legal compliance, as well as avoiding legal sanctions or damage to brand image.
• The board of directors: They prioritize ethical conduct and long-term sustainability, wary of unethical practices that might lead to scandals or legal consequences.
• The relief organization and the beneficiaries in Bosnia: They depend on the timely and effective delivery of medicines, and their health and survival are directly impacted by the integrity of the delivery process.
• The Romanian distributor and local militia units: They are involved in facilitating or demanding bribe payments, impacting the logistics and safety of the delivery process.
• Local civilians and combatants in Bosnia: Their safety and wellbeing are affected by the manner in which aid is delivered and whether corrupt practices are involved.
• Legal authorities and international organizations: They oversee compliance with anti-bribery laws and uphold global standards for ethical business conduct.

Analysis of ethical perspectives and decision-making in this context

Deciding whether to continue or halt the bribe payments involves evaluating competing ethical principles. From a profit maximization perspective, some argue that paying bribes can enhance short-term financial gains by ensuring logistical efficiency. However, this perspective neglects potential long-term legal repercussions and damage to corporate reputation [Chen & Miller, 2019].

Utilitarianism, emphasizing the greatest good for the greatest number, supports the moral imperative of delivering medicines to save lives despite the unethical means of doing so. If bribery facilitates aid in a war-torn region where stopping for ransom leads to death or suffering, then adhering to higher moral standards may be justified [Singer, 2017].

Universalism emphasizes adherence to moral principles applicable universally, such as honesty and integrity. From this standpoint, paying bribes—even in crisis situations—violates fundamental ethical rules that should be upheld regardless of circumstances. Therefore, this approach would advocate for refusing to participate in bribery, to uphold consistent moral standards [Kant, 1785/2012].

In conclusion, the ethical decision hinges on balancing immediate humanitarian needs against adherence to moral principles and legal standards. While utilitarian considerations might justify questionable actions in urgent circumstances, universal ethical standards ultimately call for rejecting bribery, fostering a culture of integrity and lawful conduct in corporate operations, especially in conflict zones.

References

• Chen, S., & Miller, D. (2019). Corporate ethics and bribery: The evolving international landscape. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 157-169.
• Kant, I. (2012). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (H. J. Paton, Trans.). Harper & Brothers. (Original work published 1785)
• Smith, J. (2018). Corporate hospitality and ethical boundaries: Where to draw the line. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(4), 439-465.
• Singer, P. (2017). Ethics and Public Policy. Cambridge University Press.
• Thompson, L., & Toubia, O. (2020). Ethical decision making in corporate settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(2), 241-259.