1. It is unethical to take bribes since it creates dependence on corruption, costs the consumers their money and deceives the shareholders. Bribery brings about a distortion in the market place and causes the most undeserving players in the market to gain what they do not deserve. In addition, bribery undermines the law as well as challenging organization principles. In my view, although bribery may be an accepted practice in some areas in the country, it should not be done openly. If something has to be done in secret, then the moral uprightness of that action is questionable.
2. In the case of bribery, certain situations are considered acceptable by society, such as when a person offers another a gift to reinforce loyalty or cooperation. These values are very essential for optimal production. However, when it is done at the expense of other involved parties then it should not be allowed. There may be a very thin boundary between giving gifts and issuing bribes. The unethical aspect of bribery causes embarrassment when parties involved are charged for it and this explains why some people resist bribery. Countries should establish firm anti-corruption policies and ensure that employees are conversant with all the relevant corruption and bribery laws. A clear and effective system of identifying and reporting any suspicious behavior should also be put in place. Recruiting of workers should be a fair and transparent exercise. Bribery results in slow growth, destruction of trust and unfair competition.
3. Employees should be hired based on merit rather than on their ability to offer bribes to reduce the level of incompetent workers in an organization. In addition, the corrupt employee may feel compelled to bribe repeatedly in order to maintain their current position. This dilemma should be avoided I order to promote effectiveness and transparency at the place of work. All applicants should be treated equally regardless of their political affiliation, gender, race, age and with proper regard to their constitutional rights and privacy. Recruiters should be qualified individuals and should endeavor to achieve a diverse workforce determined solely on their knowledge and skills. This ensures that they receive equal opportunity and fair competition.
1. The stakeholders who are affected by Walmart’s cost-saving strategy include employees of the federal government, the businesses and the taxpayers. The government and the taxpayers have been negatively impacted by the real estate investment trust gimmick. Wamart used this gimmick to avoid paying millions of dollars worth of state corporate income tax every year. Walmart did this by putting many of its stores under the ownership of a real estate investment trust that was being controlled by the company. The stores paid rent to the trust while in reality the company was paying rent to itself. This reduced the taxable income of the company thereby lowering its state tax bill. Individual income tax increased and in the end affected taxpayers. Walmart’s competitors eventually could not keep up with the high tax rates. Currently, the company has sought taxpayer funds to finance its own expansion thus expanding its market share. Walmart’s actions are not only illegal and unethical, but are also socially unacceptable.
2. Companies have a social and moral responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes. The Congress determines the share fare of taxes through suitable laws and regulations although they may have a keener interest in bigger companies such as multinationals. The Congress has the constitutional power to tax to accomplish regulatory goals. The Congress is expected to collect and lay taxes, to pay debts and provide for the common welfare of the United States.
3. The Senator was justified when he categorized Halliburton’s action as “an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers”. The company has been the Pentagon’s largest contractor while in Iraq. Halliburton received a tidy sum in terms of compensation from the U.S. government yet it resolved to move its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai. This was in an attempt to avoid high taxation by the government despite the fact that the company earns billions in profits annually and receives government contracts from the U.S. The company claims that there are greater opportunities in the eastern hemisphere and that it would still maintain registration with the United States. Although the company seeks to look out for its own welfare, it has the corporate social responsibility to pay its fair share of taxes to the state as long it maintains its registration with the state.
4. The energy company Enron did not exhibit social responsibility when it evaded taxes worth billions during its operation. The company participated in so many high-risk investments that in the end it was unable to pay back all of its debts. This off balancing in its investing caused its downfall and bankruptcy. It was illegal for the company to evade the taxes and collect large amounts of tax refunds. It did not consider the negative effect this had on the government and society as a whole but instead only focused on pursuing their own interest by maximizing their returns on all costs. Many employees lost their jobs and nearly all their retirement savings. Shareholders who had invested in Enron trusts lost their personal savings when the company was removed from the stock exchange listings. The collapse of this firm greatly also reduced people’s confidence in stock investing.
5. Tax evasion has many implications on industrial policy. Tax evasion resulting from avoidance of inflation tax results in a decreased growth rate and increased rate of inflation. Increased taxation results in increased use of credit by a consumer, which is a means of avoiding tax by substituting for spending on the taxed good. As a C.E.O of a company, I would ensure that taxes are paid promptly and fully as expected by the government. Keen monitoring of the company’s financial operations would also be necessary. As a government official, I would ensure that all tax regulations are followed to the latter and that tax evaders are prosecuted and charged according to the law. Proper auditing and recording of the financial data would be done and this would help reduce the instances of tax evasion by companies and individuals.
1. In my opinion, “the lifetime guarantee” is indeed a deceptive advertisement. The word “guarantee” may not be very suitable for this advertisement. The “lifetime guarantee” written on the backpack creates an illusion that the backpack would last a lifetime and that a customer is guaranteed a new one in the event that it does not. This is unrealistic as no person can guarantee whether a product can last a lifetime. However, a customer should clarify a products warranty details before purchase. It is the consumer’s responsibility to read and understand the product’s condition and terms of agreement.
2. The store retailing the products does have a responsibility to clarify the guarantee and inform the customer accordingly on the necessary details. Although it may not be possible to outline all specific information about product warranties, a good salesperson should release the information when needed to influence the sale. Customers appreciate such information and they are more likely to purchase more of such a product.
3. In such a situation, an apology would be the best approach to take. It would not be necessary to follow the customer to the parking lot like in the advertisement but an apology would suffice. It would also be polite to explain to the customer the guarantee details before purchase so that the consumer may contact the manufacture for any clarifications.
1. NIMBY is indeed involved in this case. The implications of irresponsible oil disposal cannot be underplayed. Pouring used motor oil into the drainage, dumping it on the ground or in the trash contaminates drinking water not to mention the impact that has on a person’s health. The chemical constituents of oil are toxic and therefore oil spillage and disposal should be regulated. It is free to recycle motor oil in many areas and therefore this action cannot be justified, as it would also cause environmental degradation in the long term.
2. I do share in the responsibility of negative action when I am aware of the action but instead say nothing. A person should report these incidences in order to be part of the solution and in effect preserve the environment and maintain the welfare of the community s a whole. Every human being has a role of preserving the environment in order to preserve our natural resources that can be depleted through environmental degradation.
3. In this position, several measures would be put in place. It would involve creating awareness on the impending risks of improper disposal on the community and the environment, ensuring that the proper tools for disposal are available, issuing warnings to those who dispose off oil wastes inappropriately and ensuring that perpetrators of this action are prosecuted and charged accordingly by reporting them to the relevant authorities. Regular monitoring and environmental assessment would also be necessary to ensure that waste is managed properly.
2. A person should report to the relevant authority when a director threatens to step over them since this breaks company policy. An employee should be aware of a company’s policies in order to act appropriately when any similar conflict arises.
3. In such a situation, the most appropriate action would be to refuse to provide very personal documents to the manager without any valid authorization. Providing this information is against company policy and reminding the manager of the impending risks would be necessary. The manager would further need to confirm any authorization with the personnel department. Lack of compliance with these regulations would necessitate reporting to the company head so that they can administer the necessary action on the errant manager for going against company policy.