November 3, 2000

PRCM 325J
Ohio University
Copeland Hall Room 022
Athens, OH 45701

November 3, 2000

Professor H. Gregory Waller
Ohio University College of Business
Copeland Hall 532B
Athens, OH 45701
 

As requested by Professor Waller, and the requirements of PRCM325J, the concepts of ethical relativism and corporate morality are within the following document in the form of a report.

The purpose of this report is to explain the concept of ethical relativism. Multinational corporations have been forced to meet the needs of consumers as well as corporate goals that fall in relative ethical standards.  This report will examine published accounts of multiple corporations that have experienced the effects of ethical relativism in terms of consumer safety, labor relations and whistleblowing.

It is our goal to raise awareness of the broad topic of ethical relativism by citing specific case studies that have thus far shaped the nature of ethics in the international business arena.  Case studies include excerpts from:

· The Ford/Firestone Controversy
· Nestle Food Extortion Acts
· Nike Labor Relations
· Motorola Employee Treatment
· Daiwa Bank Fraud Scandal

Team Four would like to thank you for your time in reviewing our concepts, and we appreciate the help, cooperation, and support we received throughout the duration of this project.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask them at our final presentation, Tuesday, November 7, at 10:10 A.M., in Copeland Hall room 022.

Sincerely,
 

Team 4

Mike Bishoff, Dana Cowden, Justin J. Landfair, and Nick Marchand
 

INTRODUCTION……….….…………………..………………………………………..1

THE MEANING OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM….……….………………….…………..1

CONSUMER SAFETY.…………………………………………………………………..2

 Background………………………………………………………………………...........2
 The Bridgestone/Firestone Recall………………………………………………..........…2
 The Ford Factor…………………………………………………………………........…3
 Nestlé’s Consumer Safety Issues……………………...………………………........…..4

LABOR RELATIONS….……………………………………...………………………….5

 Background……………………………………………..…………….........……………5
 Nike Labor Relations…………………………………..………………..........………….5
 Motorola Labor Relations……………………..………………………….........………..6

WHISTLEBLOWING.………………………………..…………………………………..7

 Informing, Accusation and Dissent…………………..……………………........………8
 Diawa Bank Case Study………………………………..…………………….........…….8
           Central Dilemma and Divided Loyalties…….………….…………………………9

CONCLUSION.……………………………….…………………………………………..9

REFERENCES………………….……………………………………………………….10
 
 

Purpose of the Report

Dealing with the topic of morality has posed a concern for many businessmen and women across the international business community.  The concepts of ethical and cultural relativism tend to have strong influences on those businesses within the international community.  The purpose of this report is to explain the concept of ethical relativism.  Multinational corporations have been forced to meet the needs of consumers as well as corporate goals that fall within relative ethical boundaries.  This report will examine published accounts of multiple corporations that have experienced the effects of ethical relativism in terms of consumer safety, labor relations and whistleblowing.

Ultimately, there are no universal ethical standards that can be implemented within the international business arena, and this is exemplified through the multiple case studies cited within this report.  The nature of the cases helps to define the problems that do exist as a result of different cultures and ethical standards.

Ethical Findings

 Each case study dealing with consumer safety illustrates the fact that smaller countries can be overlooked. They are overlooked in terms of policy dealing with safety and the repercussions and solutions to corporate problems.  This was specifically exemplified, in the Firestone/Bridgestone controversy.  The case studies dealing with labor relations dealt with the sub-par employee working conditions within third world countries.  The Nike Corporation dealt with these issues the past few years, and their experiences have been documented.  The third concentration of findings deals with the concept of whistleblowing, and how different countries perceive the act.  The Daiwa Bank scandal in 1996 exemplified this problem and the cultural implications of whistleblowing within different countries.

These ethical findings, helped identify and isolate the problems that exist in multinational corporations.

Recommendations for Recognizing and Dealing with Ethical Relativism

 As a result of increased media coverage, public awareness and increased social corporate responsibility, ethical standards are becoming more defined.  Relatively speaking, this increase in ethical practices has been recognized, however international business practices can still benefit from a better understanding of worldwide ethical and business practices.
 

Multinational corporations have an obligation to uphold the highest standards of ethics and corporate morality.  Corporations want their brands to be trusted and they want to gain the consumer loyalty that accompanies that trust.  In order to gain consumer trust, multinational corporations must understand different cultures, and effectively integrate the norms of those cultures within the ethical parameters of each country.

Ethical relativism is a concept that encompasses the previously mentioned corporate considerations.  This concept is directly linked to cultural relativism, which can be considered the foundation for any ethical standards in a given country.  Multinational corporations must understand and adhere to these standards in order to act lawfully within different cultures.  This integration of cultural norms can create very distinct differences within a corporation, which ultimately can affect consumer safety, labor relations and corporate whistleblowing standards.

Due to the lack of global ethical standards, there are greatly insolvable value differences that are imposed on every individual and situation in today’s society.  This is the position of ethical relativism.  According to Norman Bowie, an ethical relativist is “someone who believes that what is really right or wrong is what the culture says is right or wrong.  They also believe that value differences between cultures prevent the excuse of international moral beliefs between countries. Since there are no universal standards, one cannot judge the moral principles of another culture nor adjudicate between two clashing principles” (Donaldson & Werhane, 1999, p. 373).  Ethical relativism contains subsets such as cultural relativism, morality, and value judgments.

Ethical relativism is most often linked with cultural relativism.  Cultural relativism describes how different people from different cultures view morality in opposite ways. The reason for this happening is due to the extreme global differences in religion, education, and certain traditional customs.  When entering into a different culture, one must become aware of not only their physical customs and traditions, but also their beliefs about the world in general.  If a certain culture believes in ethical relativism, then one must be particularly careful in the manner they conduct themselves, the words they choose, and how they perform certain business techniques.  Furthermore, a country may have certain accepted customs that are not always held permissible.  As a suggestion, a relativist should be “careful to distinguish between locally accepted from locally unacceptable behavior in adapting a host country practice” (Donaldson & Werhane, 1999, p. 374).

Dealing with the topic of morality has posed a concern for many businessmen across the world.  The concepts of ethical and cultural relativism tend to have strong influences on business negotiations.  “The development of transnational corporations that function globally without a ‘home’ country of origin further complicates the job of managers.  If there is no ‘home country’ whose values and mores serve as a basis for moral judgments, the difficulty of sorting out practices and values of any particular country and between countries in transnational exchanges becomes even more exacerbated” (Donaldson & Werhane, 1999, p. 374).

In addition to morality, the question of value judgments has also become a concern when performing global negotiations.  “Values are not merely relative to particular cultures but also relative to particular spheres of activity” (Donaldson & Werhane, 1999, p. 374).  One example might be that in the sport of boxing, punching is required to win and is perfectly acceptable, but this sort of behavior in a normal social situation is deemed inappropriate and wrong.  If people view business as they do boxing, there would be certain unacceptable behaviors in situations that could be in the norm in other contexts.  We could take this issue from an individual standpoint also by explaining how one’s behavior in high school is not the same as the behavior they exhibit throughout their college career.  However, change is constant throughout the world, and in speaking of the constant change of values and morals, one can conclude that there is no real foundation for moral judgments other than individual feelings and perceptions (Donaldson & Werhane, 1999).

The concept of ethical relativism is best concluded by the fact that there are no specific universal standards of ethics or morals that can be applied to every situation.  Individuals throughout the world offer their morals and values to be taken into consideration as global standards, which are then subject to change and clarification.  In attempting to determine value differences in universal settings, individuals often agree the safest manner to do so is by handling cross-cultural moral judgments and codes in a cautious fashion.
 

Background

Corporations have a vital obligation to provide consumer safety for their products.  Multinational corporations tend to act differently in countries due to ethical relativism. Important factors go into corporations that make different ethical decisions on consumer safety for unlike cultures.  The Ford and Firestone/Bridgestone recall violated consumer safety and these same corporations acted differently depending on culture.  Also, Nestle acted differently in Germany and the United States when consumer safety was in jeopardy.  All corporations need to be constantly aware of consumer safety and acting fairly to all customers worldwide.

The Bridgestone/Firestone Recall

Incidents have occurred around the world involving tread separation involving Firestone’s tires.  More than 1,400 accidents and over 100 consumer deaths have been linked to certain faulty tires (Power & Ansberry, 2000).  Responding to these accidents on August 9, 2000, Bridgestone/Firestone recalled 6.5 million Firestone Wilderness AT, ATX and ATX II P235/75R15 tires (White & Ansberry, 2000).  Was the tire recall prompt and fair?  Bridgestone/Firestone waited for the recall after pressure from the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).  The sooner a corporation reacts to a consumer safety violation the more lives they can save.  Months after the recall Bridgestone/Firestone sent millions of tires to the United States as soon as possible to replace the faulty tires.

Many questioned why certain countries like the United States received shipment priority, but others like Venezuela didn’t.  Bridgestone/Firestone’s priority should have been replacing the more numerous tires in the United States, but in the process to not forget smaller countries.  Venezuela was one of the first countries that experienced problems with Bridgestone/Firestone tires (Magnusson & Wollert, 2000).  Neither Ford nor Firestone mentioned these problems in foreign countries to the NHTSA (Magnusson & Wollert, 2000).  There should be a required law that United States companies need to report product recalls in other countries if the same products are used in the United States.   Bridgestone/Firestone claimed that it didn’t carry out a plan to replace the faulty tires in Venezuela because of faulty suspension problems with Ford vehicles (Aeppel & Ansberry, 2000).  Bridgestone/Firestone made a similar complaint with Ford in the United States, yet still replaced the faulty tires (White & Ansberry, 2000).  Jorge Gonzalez, the president of Bridgestone/Firestone Venezuelan operations dealt with the refusal of replacing the tires (Aeppel & Ansberry, 2000).  Gonzalez met with Ford’s Venezuelan representatives and confirmed that Ford Explorers may rollover with any brand of tire (Aeppel & Ansberry, 2000).  Jorge Gonzalez then felt that the faulty tires would not be replaced unless the problem with the Explorer’s suspension was corrected  (Aeppel & Ansberry, 2000).  A big number of Explorer’s suspension systems have been tightened in Venezuela due to driving on rougher roads at a higher rate of speed (Aeppel & Ansberry, 2000).

The Ford Factor

The tread on Bridgestone/Firestone’s tires separated most often when driven on a high temperature surface in a Ford Explorer (White & Ansberry, 2000). General Motors and Toyota have announced that they have not seen problems on their vehicles that use Bridgestone/Firestone tires. (Rubber & Plastics News, 2000).  Many feel that Ford Explorers were “designed with little safety margin as to how incorrect tires size, tire pressure or even choice of tire tread could increase the Explorer’s risk of rolling in an abrupt or emergency turn” (Geyelin, 2000, p. A3).  For example, Ford test documents show that Ford lowered its tire pressure recommendation on the Firestone ATX tires to improve the stability on the Explorer after the vehicle failed the emergency maneuvers (Geyelin, 2000).  The Ford Explorer prototype in 1989 demonstrated a higher risk of rolling over when tire pressure was 30 psi (pounds per square inch) or higher, so they recommended a psi of 26 (White & Ansberry, 2000).  After these test results, Ford pondered the addition of a warning label stating that a 26-psi pressure was critical for reducing the risk of a rollover (Geyelin, 2000).  This warning label was never added, so instead they made minor adjustments by lowering the Explorer and tightening the suspension (Geyelin, 2000).  A Ford spokesman, Jon Harmon, stated “The engineering team felt they had achieved their goal of becoming a safety leader, so there was not the need for that warning label” (Geyelin, 2000, A3).  It is terrible that a warning label and a greater marginal of safety were not allowed when Ford dealt with tire pressure on their Firestone tires.  This is an illustration of a gigantic corporation considering factors like money and their image before consumer safety.

This 26-psi recommendation for the Explorer was the same for a decade until these recent Bridgestone/Firestone recalls.  Ford has reconsidered this recommendation after new tests confirm that low tire pressure can lead to high heat levels that may damage the bonds that hold the tire together (Geyelin, 2000).  Since the recall, Ford has stated that the problem deals with Firestone’s tires and not with the Ford Explorer design (Geyelin, 2000).  Ford refuses to think that there’s a problem on their end; they just blame everyone else except their own corporation.  The Wall Street Journal’s analysis of the NHTSA data shows otherwise.  Ford Explorers are three times as likely to roll over when tread of tires comes apart as any other Ford vehicles with the same tire (Geyelin, 2000).  Even with new tests and more accidents, Ford still would not change their tire pressure recommendation of 26 psi until Bridgestone/Firestone made some strong statements (White & Ansberry, 2000). These statements promised owners of Bridgestone or Firestone 15 inch tires to use 30 psi for their tires, which provides a greater margin of safety.  Finally, a day after Bridgestone/Firestone’s comments then Ford recommended the 30-psi for these same tires (White & Ansberry, 2000). The death toll because of the Ford Explorer and Bridgestone/Firestone combination rose while Ford pondered the psi recommendation. Lives would have been saved if Ford increased the margin of safety and recommended a 30-psi pressure for their Ford Explorer.

Nestlé’s Consumer Safety Issues

In 1997 there was a big increase in Germany of sabotage and extortion against Nestle and other companies that are owned by Nestle.  In March 1997 a married couple threatened to infect the products of the Maggi firm, part of the Nestle group, with Mad Cow Disease. (Frank, 1997).  A month later, unknown criminals tried to blackmail Thomy, a German company of Nestle, to get a huge amount of uncut diamonds (Deutsch Presse-Agentur, 1997).  Shortly after this blackmail, a cyanide-laced tube of mustard was found on a Thomy shelf (Deutsch Presse-Agentur, 1997).  As of 1997, there have been no deaths in Germany because of these plots, but threats are growing every year (Business Day, 1997).  Nestle stated that the extortion acts previously listed happen approximately 10 to 12 times a year in Germany.  Nestle products in Germany did not contain tamper resistant packaging when these acts of extortion were taking place.  Nestle used safety seals and tamper-resistant packaging in the United States for about two decades after seven people were killed when Tylenol capsules were laced with cyanide (Business Day, 1997).  Nestle should of taken note of their United State’s product packaging and put safety seals on their German products.  They could have even procrastinated and waited for the first threat against their company and then have taken the necessary safety precautions.  Instead of this action Nestle waited until cyanide filled condiment bottles were located on their shelves until safety precautions were made for their customers (Business Day, 1997).  This could have been proven fatal choice for one of Nestlé’s customers who consumed one of those tainted bottles.

Background

Simply put, labor relations are how a company treats its employees.  Labor relations consist of wages, working conditions, benefits, shop rules, transfers, and seniority rights.
Within every company labor relations is different.  Some companies have unions that fight for the rights of their employees, while other companies are union free, which means every man for himself.  There are many different ways to set up labor relations within a company.

With multinational companies present throughout most of the world, labor relations are very different within companies in these distant lands.  Management in these situations are faced with pressures from the homeland, while also receiving pressure from the location where they are working.  Many people throughout management are making decisions that are unethical in their homeland, but ethical in their present location or vise versa.  Some of the decisions and actions that are being made are because of the location that multinational companies are situated in.  Companies that have locations in Asia and Indonesia have the ability and power to do basically whatever they want (Selinger, 1998).  This is due to the fact that some of these countries where multinational companies are set up are connected or contracted with the government.  Most of the countries with poor labor relations are poverty stricken and in an economic crisis.  Due to the employment provided by large corporations, several governments make labor relation decisions based on a cost benefit analysis (Malkin, 1996). Multinational companies with operations in poor countries can easily take advantage of their worker’s rights.  Today, we are seeing more incidents involving labor disputes between multinational companies and the countries in which they are located.  Companies such as Nike and Motorola have been known for attracting horrible publicity with the treatment of their employees overseas.  They are taking advantage of small indigenous people through their power and size.

Nike Labor Relations

Philip Knight the current CEO and founder of Nike Inc. based in Beaverton, Oregon, is worth $5.4 billion (Reiland, 1998).  His multinational shoe company, Nike, is the largest in the world.  In recent months and years Nike has been hit with a slump in many of their shoe sales due to public acknowledgement of their operations overseas.  Nike has operations in many foreign countries.  Decisions on how to run these operations come from headquarters in Beaverton.  A large number of unethical decisions and actions have been reported in Nike’s overseas operations.

“On the inside its HELL” was reported by a Nike employee working in an Indonesian plant in an article in BusinessWeek called “Pangs of Conscience.”  Employees from various individual overseas operations strongly believe this statement.  Nike has a reputation for hiring strict and aggressive floor managers to monitor their employees.  Most of these managers use force and intimidation to enforce manufacturing goals.  In an article in The Village Voice, a 22-year old female tells of her horrible experience with Nike managers in San Salvador.  The female stated that she and her fellow workers were paid 60 cents an hour to sit on hard, backless benches in hot, dust-filled rooms and were forbidden to use the bathroom more than once during a 12-hour shift.  She said that the plant managers do not allow sick days or even let workers visit a health clinic.  The worst incident this female experienced is when she returned to work the day after she missed because she had to care for her sick child.  She stated the manager “grabbed me by the shoulders, shook me violently, pushed me and hit me hard in the thigh with his knee.  He shoved me again and tried to trip me.  As I ran away, he cursed at me.  They fired me on Friday” (Ridgeway, 1998, p. 29).

Now, can you imagine this happening in the United States?  Nike, like many other multinational companies are taking advantage of people who are poor and in desperate situations.  The managers who are mistreating their employees believe that they can and must do whatever it takes to reach production quotas.  In Nike operations in Asia where Nike has 150 factories with 350,000 jobs the workers there earn 15 cents per hour.  Workers on average work 65-hour weeks a far stretches from the U.S. workweek (Reiland, 1999).  Female workers who become pregnant are fired immediately and some plants are injecting their female employees with Depro Provera that prevents pregnancy (Ridgeway, 1998).  This would never happen in the United States because labor unions would put a stop to these incidents and increase the publicity from the press.

At the height of management is where decisions are made as to how to run the business.  If unethical people are placed in these positions, then corporate objectives are most likely going to be unethical.  In Nike’s case, corporate irresponsibility and unethical decision-making was seen in a letter from Joseph Ha, a Nike Vice President to Cu Thi Hau, Vietnam’s highest-ranking labor official.  In this letter Mr. Ha blasted a number of human rights and labor groups that have been working to improve labor conditions in Nike’s overseas factories (Press, 1999).  Mr. Ha stated how himself and Nike admired Vietnam’s authoritarian system (Press, 1999).  Also, he expressed how he does not want to see Vietnam modeling themselves after the democratic society in the United States (Press, 1999).  This letter was sent to the BBC in London and later on to national television stations across the world (Press, 1999). This letter is coming from a guy who is in a very powerful position.  Mr. Ha should be setting an example for his fellow employees, but rather he is tarnishing the reputation of Nike.  If this were to happen in the United States, this person would evidently be fired.

Motorola Labor Relations

Nike is not the only company that is having labor relations disputes in overseas operations.  Motorola had a labor relations incident in Nambu an Asian nation between two employees (Donaldson & Werhane, 1999).  The conflict was between a hardheaded employee who never wore safety goggles and his manager.  The manager regularly disciplined this employee who never wore his safety goggles.  One day the manager lost his cool and assaulted the employee slapping him several times on both the sides of his head (Donaldson & Werhane, 1999).   The next day the two men reported made their peace, but the news of the assault spread through the plant.  The director of the plant had his superintendents research the incident  (Donaldson & Werhane, 1999).  When all the facts where covered, the two superintendents had a split decision on how to handle the situation.  One recommended that they should fire both of them, and the other recommended that they just monitor the situation and let things settle by themselves (Donaldson & Werhane, 1999).  The director had made his mind to terminate both of them but was not allowed due to company regulations overseas.  Since both parties accepted the apologies, laws of Nambu that they could no longer be fired (Donaldson & Werhane, 1999).  This legislation assures the fact that ethical relativism is present in multinational organizations.  If this incident had occurred in the United States there would not be any hesitation in firing the manager.  The employee who did not follow company rules would most likely be punished.

Background

The concept “whistleblowing” has become a common topic of discussion in today’s business world.  It has a exciting quality that is favored by journalist, and as a result it is prominent in headlines, and is used in a variety of contexts in which alleged misdeed are exposes.  Though a relatively new term, the practice of publicizing wrong doings that are harmful, and therefore matters of public interest has a long history that is prevalent in today’s business practices.  The concept of whistleblowing has been widely interpreted, but there have been some constant aspects in the definition of whistleblowing.  These constant aspects can be summarized in the following definition:

Whistleblowing is a deliberate non-obligatory act of disclosure, which gets onto public record and is made by a person who has or had privileged access to data or information of an organization, about non-trivial illegality or other wrongdoing whether actual, suspected or anticipated which implicates and is under the control of that organization, to an external entity having potential to rectify the wrongdoing  (Jubb, 1999, p. 78).

In response to an ethical dilemma, whistleblowing is presented as a dissent in the form of a public accusation against an organization within a defined culture (Jubb, 1999).  Depending on the nature of the culture, the concept of whistleblowing can assume different levels of importance and definitional terms.  The American definition of whistleblowing typically revolves around three spheres including informing, accusation and dissent.

Informing, Accusation and Dissent

A whistleblower discloses information that others seek to keep private.  Two points can be made about this.  First, the release of information is done deliberately with the aim of achieving a disclosure.  Second, unconventional methods are employed to make the disclosure. The whistleblower may feel compelled to act just because normal disclosure avenues such as audits or organizations’ formal communication channels have failed, and in other instances such as the 1996 Daiwa Scandal in Japan, employees may be informed to ignore the illegal operations for the good of the company (Baby, 1996).

Whistle blowing is not merely informing.  There are many kinds, ranging from simple conveyors of messages to more formal avenues such as audit.  Whistleblowing needs to be differentiated from informing in general if the term is to convey particular significance (Jubb, 1999).  It is distinguishable from some types of informing because the disclosure can be considered an indictment.  It identifies perceived wrongdoing, typically a bad news message about misconduct, incompetence, fraud, or it might be about good news concealed for private advantage.  Either way, accusations are made and the process challenges those individuals accused.

Whistleblowing is also an act of dissent.  There are three major options that people face with regards to whistleblowing.  These options have been referred to as exit, loyalty and voice.  Exit is to distance oneself from a problem; voice is to express one’s concern or disagreement.  The option of exit is usually categorized by a standard response to dissatisfaction with economic factors, for instance by withdrawing, or leaving one’s position by seeking a transfer or by resignation.  Voice is categorized by the usual ways of dealing with dysfunction including mediation, peer discussion and peer approval.

Typically, loyalty leads employees to voice rather than exit, which is a result of an employee’s dependency and respect for the particular firm they have invested their interests in.  Raising concerns may not be a dissenting action but it becomes one if an individual persists in expressing disagreement (Jubb, 1999).  Voicing can be done with varying degree of vigor and clarity, and from negative body language through disruption to documented statements.  Whistleblowing is at the extreme end of this spectrum and is a very direct, unambiguous form of dissent.

Daiwa Bank Case Study

In 1996, a former broker for Daiwa Bank caused the multinational bank to fail to report 1.1 billion dollars in losses (Baby, 1996).  As a result, the bank had to pay 340 million dollars in penalties and plead guilty to 16 counts involving fraud.  This amount was considerably less then the maximum fine of 1.3 billion dollars the scandal could have incurred.

Due to the fact the scandal took place in Japan, but had personal stakes in the United States, the issue of ethical relativism was raised.  Daiwa had said that Japan’s finance ministry had itself urged the bank to be discrete in handling the discovery that 1.1 billion dollars was missing (Baby, 1996).  Though this would not happen in the U.S., in Japan employees don not believe the benefits from whistleblowing outweigh the consequences that parallel the actions.  In certain cultures outside the United States, you do not say bad things about colleagues because you know it will be dealt with in a subtler manner.  This was the frame of mind, however it was not applicable due to the personal stakes of U.S. citizens and U.S. corporate law.

Central Dilemma and Divided Loyalties

People contemplating whistleblowing face a dilemma because their roles entail loyalties to the targeted organization that conflict, not only with integrity, but also with perceived responsibilities to others, for instance professional associations or the general public.  The broker who caused Daiwa Bank the embarrassment managed to keep his losses secret for 11 years by refusing to show his books to anyone.  Rather than discussing the subject openly, he lowered his head and awaits the inevitable shame that was to be permanently attached to his own reputation and his family’s reputation.

A whistleblower that informs wrongdoers of their mistakes or takes an action that others refuse to do is likely to be accused of disloyalty to peers.  It is important to distinguish loyalty to the organization.  Besides the duties owed to the organization, there is no obedience owed to peers and superiors, nor any necessity for confidentiality inherent in the relationships between colleagues.  Loyalty among colleges is real and may be strongly felt, but its contents differ, being similar to the loyalty owed to family, friends and other social groups (Jubb, 1999).

Corporate morality can create diverse differences within a corporation, which eventually can affect consumer safety, labor relations and corporate whistleblowing standards.  Globalization has forced many multinational corporations to make difficult decisions regarding ethical relativism.  These corporations need to address other’s cultures by differences in religion, education, and certain traditional customs.  Power and size often corrupts gigantic corporations; leading them to make decisions about money instead of focusing on the welfare of customers and employees.

When faced with global negotiations, corporations should be aware of the cultural diversity at hand.  This should include arming employees with sufficient information as to the morals and ethics held in the particular country where the business is to be held.  When dealing with morality, the question of the treatment of employees in the specific corporation should also be taken into great consideration.  Corporations will have a greater chance of success if they pay close attention and adapt to ethical relativism.
 

Aeppel & Ansberry (2000, October 2). Firestone Cited Explorer Flow in Venezuela. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A8.

Baby, Vincent (1996, February 29). Daiwa scandal illustrates US, Japan cultural clash. Agence France Presse. <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>.[2000, October 30].

Business Day (South Africa) (1997, August 27). Germans Face Poisoned Food Extortion Threats. <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>.[ 2000, October 13].

Deutsche Presse-Agentur (1997, April 9). Police check Thomy food products for poison in blackmail case. <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>. [2000, October 13].

Donaldson, T. & Werhane, P. (1999). Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Frank, Renate (1997, May 4). Attempts at extortion on the rise of Germany. Deutsch Presse-Agentur. <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>.[2000, October 13].

Geyelin (2000, September 20). Role of Ford Explorer Design Is Studied in Connection with Firestone Tire Suits. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A3.

Jubb, Peter (1999). Whistleblowing: A Restrictive Definition and Interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics. Kluwer: Netherlands.

Malkin, Elizabeth (1996, July 29). Pangs of Conscience. BusinessWeek. <http://proquest.umi.com>. [2000, October 27].

Magnusson, P. & Woellert, L. (2000, September 25). Ford/Firestone: An Election-Year Double Whammy. BusinessWeek.

Power & Aeppel (2000,September 28).Executive at Ford, Firestone Will Field Questions from House on Tire-Test Data. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A3.

Power & Annsberry (2000, October 13). Bridgestone Aims Probe at Design of ‘Bad Tires’. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A3.

Press, Eyal (1999, April 12). A Nike sneak. The Nation. <http://proquest.umi.com>. [2000, October 27].

Reiland, Ralph (1998, January 26). America needs to put its foot down on sneaker economics. Insight on the News. <http://proquest.umi.com>. [2000, October 27].
Ridgeway, James (1998, December 8). Nike Sweats. The Village Voice. <http://proquest.umi.com>. [2000, October 27].

Rubber & Plastic News (2000, September 25). OhioLINK Research Databases. <http://etextb.ohiolink.edu/bin/gate.exe>. [2000, October 5].

Selinger, Marc (1998, December 28). Did Nike say to ‘just do it’ – Brutally. Insight on the News. <http://proquest.umi.com>. [2000, October 27].

White & Ansberry (2000, September 25). Ford, in Shift, Backs Higher Tire Inflation for Explorers. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A4.