Business Ethics - Multinational Moral Responsibility - Essay Example

Given that business practices impact society, multinational companies cannot ignore the power of the latter on such practices. Corporation observation of social and moral responsibilities thus becomes an important aspect in business continuity and growth. Therefore, when either introducing the new business or expanding an existing business in terms of size and thus space, it is imperative that consideration of effects of such behavior on the society be given priority, especially when making decisions that could shock the society. In this perspective, there is a moral responsibility for multinational corporations in selling Starbucks in Forbidden City.
To begin with, every individual has a fundamental right to maintain and preserve a culture (Kent, 2010). The people of Forbidden city thus have the same right and consequently, expect this right to be respected by other individuals and corporations that venture into their city. Multinational corporations are consequently obliged to respect this right to cultural preservation. Business practices that harm this right would be considered as a violation of this fundamental right of the Chinese in cultural preservation and thus will be unwelcome. From a normative perspective, multinational corporations as a result have a responsibility in observing this right with respect for Chinese culture.
Secondly, there is the need for consideration of beneficial business practices to both parties that would result in happiness for both, as utilitarianism states for the purposes of coexistence (Kent, 2010). Since multinational businesses make intrusions into societies’ environments, it is important that they consider what would be of great benefit to both parties. Selling Starbucks in this area is obviously not beneficial to both parties since there has been a creation of conflict. In order to create a practice that would be beneficial to both corporations and society, it is imperative that consideration of this decision be made since selling the firm does not bring happiness to both parties.
Thirdly, great moral philosophers argued before that major principle of moral philosophy demand both parties to be equal such that none should take advantage of the other. When making a decision to sell Starbucks in Forbidden City, multinational corporations should consider the effect of their actions on Chinese culture. If such action is intended at using Forbidden City to attract other investors and use Chinese culture for corporate gains, then that decision should be deemed wrong, since the former would have been used as a means to the end and not the end by itself. This will imply ignorant, non-considerate, and unfair business practices by such multinationals (Kent, 2010).
Criticism and its defense
From an instrumental perspective, Kent (2010) argues that business has a legal right to purchase and sell businesses in Forbidden City, and the decision to stop this action is undemocratic. As granted by the law, the introduction and existence of Starbucks is legally right and therefore, multinational businesses can engage in such trading without the need for reconsideration of their decisions. He further contends that since the primary aim of business is to minimize losses and make profits, it is advisable that trading of Starbucks goes on if such action results in minimization of losses and maximization of profits. While it is entirely true, such action might only reflect the only one-sided interest and thus affect customer relations.
However, critics should take note that businesses are supposed to respond in a certain friendly and descriptive way to society.