When a Gift Becomes a Bribe - Research Paper Example

When a gift becomes a bribe A. What is the significance of this case? How is an ethical issue(s) being created?  The process of meaning creation for humans can start from a gesture as simple as a smile and can involve as complex structures as language and semiotics. When we go about finding the difference between a gift and a bribe, the result will be a mixture of such simple and complex answers. One simple definition that differentiates a gift from a bribe is, “a bribe expresses self-interest; a gift conveys love” (Noonan, 1987, pp.697). From this simple sentence itself, one can make out the gravity of the ethical issue involved. It places a bribe and a gift on two opposite poles where two totally different emotions govern, two totally different value systems prevail. Noonan has explained this concept further when he said, “a bribe subordinates the recipient to the donor, a gift identifies the donor with the recipient” (Noonan, 1987, pp.697). So, the matter of equality in human relationship also is involved in this discussion. In more plane language, a bribe is “any inducement given to alter conduct that would naturally be otherwise” (Noonan, 1987, pp.697). Noonan (1987, pp.697) in his book, ‘Bribes’, has almost exhausted his words and ideas while describing the difference between a bribe and a gift. He (Noonan, 1987) has said: A gift brings no shame; a bribe must be a secret. A gift may be disclosed, a bribe must be concealed. The size of a gift is irrelevant, the size of a bribe decisive. A gift does not oblige, a bribe coerces. A gift belongs to the donee, a bribe belongs to those to whom the bribee is accountable….if we make no objection to what is given, we say gift. If we disapprove morally, we say bribe (697-698). All these aspects of a gift and a bribe culminate in one single conclusion. That is, a gift is morally right and a bribe is morally wrong. In the case of a bribe, every nation has also laws which endorse the immorality of giving and taking a bribe. But as Noonan (1987, pp.698) has rightly observed, a 10 dollars tip “given at Christmas to the mailman”, though sometimes wrongly defined as a gift in the laws of certain countries, can be omitted from the purview of a bribe morally. But if the mailman coerces the recipient of the mail to give him that 10 dollars, it again becomes a bribe. This is the general ethical realm in which gifts and bribes can be discussed. B. Define the major stakeholders. What, exactly, are the ethical issue(s) being faced? Do the different stakeholders view the issue(s) differently; do they agree there is an ethical issue? From what kind of framework does each stakeholder view the issue?  It is not surprising that there are “different rules for different contexts” (Trevino and Nelson, 2010, pp.413). Choosing the right path or making the right decision involves taking a middle path between “ethical imperialism” and “ethical relativism” as explained by Trevino and Nelson (2010, pp.413). Also, as the manager of a reputed institution while deciding what is a bribe and what is a gift, I will have to consider all the stake holders involved in some way or other with this company. Freeman (1984, pp.46; qtd. in Friedman and Miles, 2006, pp.1) has defined stake holders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.” There is also another aspect to the importance of stakeholders. As Friedman and Miles (2006, pp.234) have pointed out, “stakeholders are the evaluators of the focal organization’s reputation.” As mine is a company producing chemical pesticides, the stakeholders that I have to consider are my customers who are farmers or farming organizations, owners of the company, suppliers of raw materials, the investors who have a stake in this company, the employees of the company, traders, the local community and also the whole population in the country and also our environment, if defined in a wider perspective. I have been asked by the owner of the company to give a gift to the administrator of US Environmental Protection Agency, on the occasion of achievement of highest agricultural production in the history of nation. This instruction has put before me certain questions to be pondered upon. First of all I have to examine whether this gift will be considered as a bribe or simple gift by each of the stake holders of my company. The owner of the company himself has given this instruction and so it is evident that he means this as a gift. Also, as the company has no immediate favors to be received from the senate, I can agree with my owner that this is going to be a simple gift, a sign of sharing of joy regarding a common achievement. But when it comes to the customers of the company, some ethical problems may arise regarding this gift. The consumers of chemical pesticides have been brainstormed by arguments pro and against using chemical pesticides for a while (Vorley and Keeney, 1998, pp.72). Though our company has not been caught in any of these ‘harmful pesticide campaigns’, there is a common agreement among the academician and intellectuals of the country that the pesticide companies have a “vested interest to be protected through lobbying” politically (Vorley and Keeney, 1998, pp.33). Vorley and Keeney (1998, pp.34, table-2.5) have also published a list of contributions by pesticide-producer political action committees (PACs) to members of the US Congress in the period between January 1989 and April 1996, to cite an example. In this backdrop, giving gift to an EPA head can give out confusing signals to the customers. If the information on this gift comes out in open, this may raise a doubt in the minds of the customers that we are bribing the EPA head so that we get an illegal favor from her. There is a possibility that the EPA head may also feel the same about the gift. But some other stake holders like the suppliers, investors, traders and employees of the company might see this gift as a gift alone. Even if some of them view this as a mild bribe, they may not be having any objection on the practical side as they will not be harmed in any way by this gift and they may even benefit from that. But some of these stakeholders may rise an objection because they feel there are some moral violations with the idea of giving a gift to the EPA head. Some of them may also think that, if some controversy occurs from this gesture that will affect the reputation of the company and will affect the objectives of the company in the long run. There are also some other stakeholders whose attitudes we have not looked into yet. These are the local community, the public as whole and the environment of the nation. The local community may view this gift as a bribe because they are also receptors of the information ambience discussed in the case of customers. The general public also comes under the same category. There is an added danger that the local community may think that we are bribing the EPA head because we are into some new product or process in which the local environment is going to get negatively affected. All these may win a bad reputation for the company and may invite government action against the company and also negative media attention. C. Choice of Relevant Ethical Framework: What is your assessment of the situation? What type of framework should this issue be considered in, and from which a solution should be generated?  The ethical framework that I will choose for the assessment of this situation is an “ethical stand point” based on an “integrative corporate culture” (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell, 2006, pp.179). Integrative corporate culture represents an approach which integrates the “high concern for people” and equally high concern “for performance” (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell, 2006, pp.179). As the EPA has been well known for taking impartial and people-friendly decisions in industrial issues, my assessment is that there is no benefit for the company to come from giving this gift to EPA administrator. Secondly, the integrative approach makes it mandatory for the company that we maintain total transparency before the public and do not take any steps that may diminish their trust in us. D. What are the available and "Best" Alternatives for Action: Within the framework that youve articulated above. what is the best course of action? Are there any alternative courses of action that might be okay? If so, how might one choose among them? How can you achieve stakeholder satisfaction? The best alternative action according to me is to spend the money that we have kept aside for giving gifts to the government officials for some projects designed for local and nationwide environment protection and training in the practice of good agricultural practices. This will be viewed as an act of corporate social responsibility by those stakeholders who have objection in giving gifts and those who see it as a bribe. This intervention will add on to the reputation of the company as well. This step will also be in tune with the integrative corporate culture frame work for ethics that we have adopted. There are also alternate courses of action in which the money kept aside as the cost of gifts can be utilized to create advertisements in public interest regarding the correct way of usage of chemical pesticides. Yet another alternative can be to utilize this money to award a fellowship to a deserving student annually to conduct research on topics like how to make pesticide residue management more efficient. To choose from these alternatives provided will be a task that has to be carried out by the major stake holders of the company. All of these alternatives have the advantage of having to expect agreement from all of the stakeholders of the company. Our company being included in the indexing by FTSE4Good and Dow Jones Sustainability Index, which means that we are the “best-in-class companies….with superior environmental management records”, can go ahead with any of these alternative actions and increase our credibility. This will be a better and logical step than being branded as a vested interest group bribing officials. References Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J. and Ferrell, L. (2006) Business ethics: ethical decision making and cases, New Delhi: Cengage Learning. Friedman A.L. and Miles, S. (2006) Stakeholders: theory and practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Noonan, J.T. (1987) Bribes, California: University of California Press. Passas, N and Goodwin, N.R. (2004) Its legal but it aint right: harmful social consequences of legal industries, Michigan: University ofMichigan Press. Trevino, L.K. and Nelson, K.A. (2010) Managing business ethics, London: John Wiley and Sons. Vorley, W. and Keeney, D.R. (1998) Bugs in the system: redesigning the pesticide industry for sustainable agriculture, London: Earthscan. Read More