In this essay, I argue that Thomas Donaldson’s view of global businesses being held accountable for their harmful activities in foreign countries is ethical and justifiable. I begin by outlining Thomas Donaldson’s strong arguments about justice practices that subject foreign citizens to technological risks that are more destructive than in their home country or favored foreign citizens. I then will explain how such organizations violate the rights of citizens in foreign countries by delivering harmful goods, knowing the risks involved in consuming such products. I will end by explaining how judicial measures should be implemented to curb unethical business practices and take legal action against global businesses with cases of undertaking business activities that are harmful to humanity.
Addressing the various historical and technological risk incidences is the topic that may help justify the motives for writing the article. Donaldson (1986, p. 131) outlines technological accidents experienced in such countries as India, the Philippines, and Nigeria, which had severe fatalities in non-technological cultures. The author gives an example of a technological hazard experienced in India in 1984, leaving over 2000 individuals dead and about 200,000 injured (Donaldson, 1986, p. 131). The mention of such an event is crucial in the context of the topic under consideration since it is directly related to the activities of a foreign business in the country, and therefore, the idea of increased responsibility for this work is justified. Such incidences show how global ventures are associated with unethical and illegal issues that need to be addressed to ensure that justice for those affected is delivered to the local citizens. In addition, the ethics of the global economy is mentioned, as well as how international firms are held responsible for the risks they expose to other communities in their pursuit of international business.
One of the mechanisms to consider global businesses is taking responsibility for the unethical issues linked to them. According to Donaldson (1986, p. 131), an obligation is one of the main tasks to be addressed when developing an ethical issue. International corporations selling goods that involve technological risks are obliged to provide cover to third or fourth parties unable to count on membership in macro-agents or macro-organizations, the key sectors in the international economy (Donaldson, 1986). The third-party consideration involves individuals who are put at risk by macro-organizations that are not members of a specific business, which entails members of the foreign country or bystanders. Fourth parties involve the future generation in the host country, which may be affected in case technological hazards emerge. Recognizing potential risks is an objective position that Donaldson (1986, p. 132) promotes because, in the absence of performance appraisal, ethical and legal risks arise, creating dangerous precedents due to disagreements between the parties involved. A mutual agreement is critical as some global operations engage in high-risk ventures that, when not effectively managed, may adversely impact humanity.
For justice to be attained, such an aspect as economic well-being should be considered in the ethics of the international economy. This factor implies improving the local communities’ gross marginal health and economic wellness. Businesses should statistically evaluate relevant cultural values when determining extra-national responsibilities (Donaldson, 1986, p. 133). This position is objective because the multi-vector nature of entrepreneurial programs directly requires cross-cultural factors to be considered to avoid ethical issues. In addition, businesses should consider global economies’ ethics and cultural welfare aspects in their trade concepts. Culture is a critical element in any community as it portrays the values, traditions, and norms maintained by a group. In this case, all the available materials in the host country should be evaluated following international standards to ensure that no exploitation is experienced. Such aspects are critical for enhancing equality and eliminating discrimination in global businesses.
Distribution and risk pricing should be addressed as they adversely impact foreign countries. A cost-benefit analysis is critical to ensure distributive justice is attained in these instances. Such factors ensure the elimination of social subclasses as these issues are usually neglected in some countries’ national legal systems. Undertaking these measures ensures that individuals’ rights affected by global economic operations are protected (Donaldson, 1986, p. 133). The lack of cost-benefit analysis distorts the risk trade-offs, especially in less developed countries. Moreover, when evaluating the financial aspects of foreign firms’ activities, one should mention investment discrepancies, which, if ignored, set precedents for complaints and dissatisfaction among local employees. Such mechanisms ensure everyone is treated equally, irrespective of their social status or country of origin. Failure to uphold distributive justice is considered unethical in the global economy. The global economy ensures maximum liberty is provided to all individuals, and no individuals are exposed to operational risks irrespective of their country through a fair risk distribution mechanism.
International issues should be effectively managed to develop and uphold moral understanding. Such measures ensure that international public relations are maintained, enabling the developed moral responsibilities to citizens in the host country (Donaldson, 1986, p. 134). Both from an ethical and legislative perspective, this statement is justified and adequate, considering the range of mandatory procedures to be implemented so as not to violate existing business principles. These activities enhance the development of effective international relations where the business develop permanent solutions to the prevailing differences between the different states. Maintaining such aspects eliminates the risks of feverish where only a specific group of people benefit from the operations of international corporations (Donaldson, 1986, p. 136). In addition, these mechanisms are perceived as critical in ensuring that a business meets all the ethical requirements of global economies and provides social and moral justice to all the parties involved in the global economies.
Reflecting on the issues outlined in the article, I agree that global ventures should be held to account for various unethical activities when conducting their business in foreign countries. I believe that fairness and ethical standards should be maintained irrespective of the impacts of influence that the global venture possess. Investigating the influences should be tested, and the value of the risks needs to be determined. The international human rights boards should ensure that global organizations take responsibility for their actions and consider the losses they cause to foreign countries. Such agencies should uphold the freedom and legislative norms of foreign countries. Global ethics provides a fair working environment and ensures everyone is treated equally, irrespective of their social class. This position ensures that effective international relationships are maintained between the countries involved in global trade as they utilize such aspects as cultural competence to eliminate any barriers that hinder the development of an international corporation. These agreements create a mutual understanding of various issues that may arise when executing business activities, as well as how responsibilities should be addressed.
I end by noting that I acknowledge the effectiveness of the article in dealing with the unethical issues involving global business. After a critical evaluation of Thomas Donaldson’s arguments, I suppose that all lives should count and justice should be taken on all organizations that threaten humanity. I have made these comments as I believe that global organizations take advantage of foreign countries as they use them as dumpsites for illegal goods in their home countries. Due to this reason, global businesses that violate human rights should be charged with different cases against humanity linked to unethical business practices.
Reference
Donaldson, T. (1986). The ethics of risk in the global economy. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 5(3), 131-143. Web.