Introduction
The secularism that followed the Industrial Revolution introduced the idea to businesspeople that religious rules did not bind multinational corporations. Globalization in the 20th century has led international companies to believe they are not obliged to work in the interests of a particular nation or its ethical ideology. After World War II, the world became an era of almost absolute permissiveness and immorality for multinational corporations.
Some people noticed it, and that is how cyberpunk, a sub-genre of dystopian fiction, emerged. Others see this perspective as too radical and lacking in experience. It is important to discuss global corporations through the prism of morality. It will eventually allow people to find a balanced business model that includes healthy competition, fair benefits, and the common good.
Global Corporations as Immoral Agents
According to the realist perspective, the global corporate world is amoral and should be so. Vasquez argues that this is facilitated and supported by the absence in globalized capitalism of the concept of a third party, a superior sovereign actor capable of imposing moral tenets (34-35). It is irrational and unprofitable for multinational business entities to adhere to a normative or any other ethical framework. The transnational corporate world and the common good cannot coexist.
Unfortunately, this realist stance is true, but only partially. Many global companies act and behave immorally, and Nestlé and Apple are examples. These companies are known for abusing local socio-economic and political crises and dysfunctional laws to obtain cheap labor, children, and enslaved people, or resources in developing countries.
Their behavior in the so-called ‘first world’ can be described as somewhat ethical. There, they follow principles such as sustainability and corporate social responsibility, and treat their employees in accordance with national employment standards. It can be called geopolitically oriented preferential morality. The question is whether it is immoral or a form of moral relativism.
Global Corporations as Morally-Driven Agents
When criticizing Vasquez’s argument, Fleming provides valid proof that organizations are ethical and moral. Being virtue-driven affects the efficiency of transnational agents(Fleming 41-42). Tesla and Ecolab would not have been a global success if this were not true. Moreover, some governments favor moral actors and penalize immoral ones through local and cooperative regional policies. Therefore, being ethical is not inherent to the system of globalized capitalism for multinational companies; it is beneficial for international companies, and they should be so.
Fleming mentions the media as another effective moral regulator of global business organizations. They are still performing this role, but in 2023, the leading critic of corporations is social media, online persons, and their content. The voice of criticism has become louder, broader audiences are engaging in real-life and online activism, and cancel campaigns and boycotts have become more frequent.
However, all this still does not stop corporations like Amazon or Disney from mistreating their employees. Through cancel culture, people can lead to the closure of small and medium-sized businesses and cause significant losses for large domestic companies. Multinational agents remain immune to this ethical regulator’s actions.
Conclusion
The issue of morality and ethics in the corporate realm is an old but perennially relevant one. It is unclear whether the moral aspect of the current world, in which international companies are prominent geopolitical actors, is in a pre-crisis or a transformational stage. What is certain is that global society needs to develop new tools and models for the ethical control of multinational firms’ actions and behavior.
Works Cited
Fleming, John E. “Alternative Approaches and Assumptions: Comments on Manuel Velasquez.” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 1, 1992, pp. 41-43.
Velasquez, Manuel. “International Business, Morality, and the Common Good.” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 1, 1992, pp. 27-40.