The Cost of Unethical Conducts on the American Economy - Essay Example

Introduction In recent times there have being an enormous public outcry about the level of rot and decay that have engulfed the contemporary global corporate environment. Coupled with this has been the massive debate about what constitutes ethical conduct as opposed to what it is not; its origin; motivation and a host of other issues surrounding it. Nevertheless, one thing is certain the fall in ethical standards in our social fabric is clearly being manifested in the level of corporate filth that is disgusting everybody. Inasmuch as much as the public is so appalled by the unhealthy developments in our corporate environment, it is prudent to take a critical look at all the contending issues that have contributed in bring us this low. Does the daily influx of media reportage of widespread criminal representation, tax evasion and a whole lot of fraudulent actions by the supposed men and women of our corporate environment cast a spell of doom on our corporate system Have our corporate environment being besieged by a bunch of infidel corporate leaders According to recent psychological findings, the human nature by its inherent weakness if left untrained can easily succumb to the pressures of misconduct. In order words, it should be understood that no corporate executive has ever been nor will ever be a model of celestial perfection. Much of the forces that influence group and individual behaviors are largely a result of the prevailing environment; the daily situations we encounter has the propensity to alter even the most well intended motives of an individual thus making us susceptible to unethical conducts. In our day and age, the corporate environment is undergoing a massive revolution with an attendant level of sophistication highly unprecedented in the annals of humanity. This increasing dynamism makes it difficult to conceptualism the traditional definition of ethics much less placing stringent judgments on its implementation. Does this exonerate the violators of corporate ethics Certainly not! It is in the light of this that this essay, seeks to present a holistic analysis of all the contending issues in this debate. It is expected that by doing this, the platform would be created to usher a succinct definition that is perfectly in tune with contemporary realities. Building on this definition, there can therefore be formidable streamlining of the loose ends that have created the pervasiveness that have characterized our corporate landscape. What constitutes an Ethical Conduct The advent of globalization and its attendant widespread sweeping reforms across all sectors of the human spectrum will provide the basis for the discourse in this section. In view of the complexities in our world today it has become somewhat difficult to reconcile the abstract features of traditional understanding of ethics to the changing realities of our time. In any case this limitation should not impede any effort to address the subject exhaustively. Rather than discarding what is already known about ethics because it appears obsolete there will be an attempt to restructure and extend the boundaries where it is necessary whilst in the same vein it will be prudent to pull down the needless elements also. It should also be noted that all attempts to legislate ethical conduct has being treated with hostility. The problem with any attempt to legislate ethics is that ethics in its imperative form is very abstract. To overcome this difficulty, it is prudent to look at within the context of describing ethics within the context of practicing decency in human conduct. For good reasons, it is understood that opting for decency makes it comparatively easier to address this subject. As an illustration, the desire to exhibit decency at all levels will guide the conduct of the individual in the work setting even if there is evidence that the person is undergoing a stressful mood swing or not. Moreover, decency in its absolute sense is dead unless it is backed by concrete or pragmatic steps irrespective of the emotional or environmental state of the individual. It is just a question of little but significant acts that carry tremendous weight. In the imperative sense, ethics in the corporate world transcends the oversimplification presented though they both have a generic root that is common in many ways yet have some inherent differences in their mode of application. The generic basis that cuts across is that in both cases it is just drawing the distinction between what is wrong from what is right. It should be noted that in the corporate world the main challenges has to do with the difficulty in presenting pragmatic answers to the numerous ethical dilemmas on the corporate stage. Increasing pressures to meet deadlines cover up potential scandals can compel employees and managers at any level to engage in unethical conducts. The Cost of Unethical Conducts on the American Economy The effects of recent developments have awakened the need to reassess where we as a people stand with respect to our reverence to ethical behaviors in our corporate world. The recent credit and financial crushes in Wall Street have being described largely as a direct consequence of deep seated greed embedded in the American corporate environment. Another ethical scandal of heavy magnitude that brought about a serious erosion in public confidence in corporate America is how the senior executives of Enron put aside the concerns of their employees and stakeholders by embarking on irresponsible financial engagement that shook the foundation of the company. It is undeniable that greed is a vice that is frowned upon by almost all human civilizations. What is worrying is that greed in the absolute form does not affect the greedy folk in the same magnitude that it does on the wider society. It is even scarier to realize that it is steadily getting grounded in our business culture. In many ways, the presence of greed by itself points to a serious leadership flaw. Come to think of the fact that most of the professionals in Wall Street who are representing their various corporations felt unperturbed by the imminent danger posed by their actions on the financial engine of the country and by extension the global economy. Their top most priority was just to continue scooping profits for their corporations and utterly scorning what the rest world felt. A vitally missing ingredient in the Wall Street saga is the virtue of integrity and transparency. In the last couple of years there has being widespread public outrage about the level of financial windfall profit that the Bush administration's instigated war on terrorism has being put before a selected few individuals and corporations that wield significant influence in the pentagon and the White House. One of such corporations that has come under such intense public scrutiny and criticism is Bush's number two man, Dick Cheney's former company Halliburton. In the last few years the company has enjoyed an unprecedented level of preferential award of military contracts. In many of these instances, the contract award process did not go through the conventional bidding process or even where it did, the main details were shrouded in unspeakable mystery. It is against this background that the central premise of this paper will be hinged on presenting a critique on how political connections, favoritism and cronyism have contributed in nurturing this anomaly. According to recent reports the pentagon is operating on a budget that is a little above $ 400billion dollars annually. This is coupled with both the $40 billion dollars of the Department of Homeland Security and the combined sum of $180 billion dollars spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that Halliburton Corporation and its gang of cohorts are making a great fortune. Meanwhile, vice president Dick Cheney has being vigorous denying any wrong doing in the Halliburton saga. The irony is that, prominent investigative journalists from the Times Magazine and Wall Street Journal have made public highly classified documents that clearly put justifiable imputation of wrong doing against the vice president and his complicity in the mess. He was quoted as saying that "I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts," in Iraq (Herrick, 2003). Listening to the arguments from all sides of the political divides, pressure and interest groups it has become glaringly evident that the Halliburton corporation is the single largest beneficiary of this shady deals in that have corrupt motives deeply wrought in the heart of the transaction. According to William Hartung, a co-author of a new book entitled "How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy" the company's profits accrued from defense contracts soared over 700 percent just within the period spanning the 2002 and 4003 fiscal year. It has aroused suspicion and foul play about the manner in which the profiteering has taken place. Suffice to cite a series of instances that goes to prove complicity in the arms deal. According to the time magazine, a couple of months prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, Dick Cheney's office reportedly coordinated a series of meetings that purportedly had the oil in Iraq on its top most agenda. In the heat of the controversy, vice president Dick Cheney persistently tried to prevent a public display of what has become known as his clandestine Energy Task Force. The document in question alleges that there were indications that allude to a personal interest in the oil fields of Iraq. Owing to this company successfully won a non-bid contract that gave it the mandate to pursue the oil wealth in Iraq. The company reportedly received a colossal sum of $ 3.9 billion in government contracts in the 2003 financial year to cater for services the company was expected to render on both Afghanistan and Iraq. The services ranged from the construction of military bases across these areas, the construction of prison facilities in the Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the provision of meals and what have you. It should be noted that these do not include the grand projects of reconstructing oil infrastructural facilities. In other words, Halliburton has become synonymous with everything that has to do with American military presence abroad. The source of concern has nothing to do with their presence, but has everything to do with the level of graft and unethical practices that accompany their activities right from the process of securing the contract to the implementation of the contract. There have been widespread allegations of over-invoicing, and price inflation of the services they render. Notwithstanding all these allegations, the White House has welcomed it with an unpardonable level of indifference. The continues silence has given reasons for further speculations that go a long way to insinuate the political compromise that has surrounded all these shady deals. Naturally, the American tax payer expects the government to hold the company accountable for its activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Kuwait and Central Asia as a demonstration of the commitment to the process of due diligence. In the opinion of some observers, it would have being prudent for the Bush administration to set up a special commission similar to the Truman Commission that was set up during the Second World War to guarded against any form of war profiteering. The failure to take similar gestures have deepened the suspicion of the lack of political will to combat deep seated graft in the arms contract details of the US government. It is also very worrying to note that three years ago an amendment was put before the senate of the United States, calling for an investigation into the activities of Halliburton. Regrettably, the Republic senators taking advantage of their numerical strength were able to bulldozer the amendment. It does not take an expert to read the level of deep seated political connotations in this singular act. The proposed amendment tabled by Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan, was intended to be a prototype of former President Harry Truman's committee. It also ridiculous to how the senate persistently threw away such an important amendment just on the alter of political expediency. Nevertheless, Halliburton does not remain barred from bidding for any military and logistics contracts, despite its terrible record of gross misconduct in this area (Broidy, 2005). The point that must be stressed is that Halliburton as an institution working in partnership with its cronies in the political power house have left a bad legacy in the conduct of public procurement in the US. The question that should be asked is how to prevent the recurrence of such malfeasances in the future Are there any changes to the general oversight structure that can serve as an internal check In the supreme interest of the American tax payer, there should be a bipartisan approach to pruning out all unwholesome conducts regarding the bidding of military contracts and logistics. There should also be a level playing field for all to play. In reality, most of the actions that we collectively brand as illegal are in their most imperative form not outlawed by the statutes of the land. It is this visible leakage that breeds the controversy in the manner in which ethical questions are addressed in our contemporary business society. Most of the provisions in our corporate law regime are silent about ethical issues; often times people in dilemmatic situations resort to the use of discretionary powers. The problem arises when the discretionary power is stretched beyond its acceptable limits and consequently become detrimental to the welfare of others within the organizational structure. Please find below a list of some of the most common actions that are considered unethical, which however the legal system does not frown on-they are results of a completed survey on National Business Ethics: One of eight employees feels pressure at work to make ethical compromises; Two-thirds of those pin the pressure on supervisors and co-workers; One third of employees observe lying, abuse, discrimination and other forms of misconduct at work; Nearly half of those do not report it. One-third fears retaliation by co-workers if they make concerns known (The Orlando Sentinel, 2001). Conclusion Notwithstanding all the questions raised about the role of ethics in modern American corporate environment, the onus of responsibility still rests on all players in the American economy to rise up to the challenge of bringing about sanity into the playing field. The question that should be asked is how to prevent the recurrence of such malfeasances in the future Are there any changes to the general oversight structure that can serve as an internal check In the supreme interest of the American tax payer, there should be a bipartisan approach to pruning out all unwholesome conducts regarding the bidding of military contracts and logistics. There should also be a level playing field for all to play. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Halliburton as an institution working in partnership with its cronies in the political power house have left a bad legacy in the conduct of public procurement in the US just in the same way as enormous greed in Wall Street is bringing the economy down its knees. Reference: Boyd, A, 1997, September, "Ethics: Employee Traps-Corruption in the Workplace," Management Review, Retrieved on February 26, 2009, from http://www.newfirstsearch.oclc.org Calhoun, C,H, & Wolitzer, P, 2001, January, "Ethics as a Value-Added Service," The CPA Journal, Retrieved on February 20, 2009, from http://www.infotrac.galegroup.com Charlie, Cray 2006 "Halliburton's Hella Good Deal," Retrieved on February 26, 2008 on http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/21/halliburtons_hella_good_deal.php Dan, Briody, 2005, "The Politics of Oil and Money" John Wiley & Sons Inc Santa Clara University, 2002, "What is Ethics" Retrieved March 14, 2004, from http://www. scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.html Williams, K, 2001, April, "What is the Future of Ethics" Strategic Finance. Retrieved on March 14, 2004, from http://www.strategicfinance.com/2001/04c.html William, Hartung 2003, "How Much are You Making on the War, Daddy" Nation Books. Read More