Description
It talks about the Corporate Responsibility for religious and political freedom in China. It talks about the ethical issues faced by the companies while doing business in China.
Case Analysis: Chrysler and Gao Feng: Corporate Responsibility for Religious and Political Freedom in China
Multinational companies face many complex ethical issues while doing business in china. One such incident was Gao Feng incident. Gao Feng, a devout Christian was arrested on May, 1994 for planning a private worship service to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Gao was found to violate Article 36 of the Chinese constitution. Chinese had regulated the place of worship in China; where in every place of worship was to be registered to Chinese authority under state council regulation 145, to control the growth and scope of religious groups. There were almost 85,000 approved venues for religious activities in China. The universal declaration of human rights , endorsed by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, contains the following relevant positions: Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right include freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and idea through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. According to press Gao was detained for 5 weeks. He was never formally charged. In July when Gao returned for work he was asked by Chrysler to provide evidence for his long absenteeism Gao was not able to produce it as he was given note of 3 days detention by the Chinese authority. Chinese joint venture of Chrysler was putting pressure on Chrysler to dismiss Gao Feng. But firing Gao Feng would result in violation of Gao Feng rights to religious freedom. The
outcome was that Chrysler fired Gao Feng on pretext that he didn’t provide proper evidence for his absenteeism. The case was widely publicised and Human rights group took up this case and escalated it further. Then Chrysler chairman personally intervened in the matter and Gao Feng was reinstated. But this freedom of Gao was short lived once the matter subsided Gao was rearrested without any hearing and was sent to a labour camp. He was again released in the year 1998 following the highly publicized visit of a interdenominational group of clergy appointed by President Clinton to investigate religious freedom in China. Gao Feng was the person severely affected in this incident. Chrysler comes next which was affected. Chinese government also was a part to this incident. Finally there were Human rights group, media and public at large which had interest in this incident. The moral problem here is the corporate responsibility for religious and political freedom in China. The origin of this problem is Gao Feng who is a Chrysler employee and have been found violating the Article 36 of the Chinese constitution, and the problem has subsequently escalated in magnitude when various human rights group took up this cause and the pressure mounted on Chrysler to reinstate Gao Feng. The problem here is external to Chrysler company. It’s the external environment problem that Chrysler is dealing with. The most threatening aspect of dealing with human rights issue is the fear, unfortunately quite rational, that corporation stands to lose out a lot a lot of money by confronting with the Chinese government. As, we have seen competition in china is fierce, as European, Japanese and American company vie for business in China. Moreover, one of the key to success in Chinese market is to maintain good relationship with Chinese authority which keeps rigid control over the economy. Multinational companies spend years cultivating good guanxi in China. They are thus extremely vulnerable to retaliation. At the time of Gao Feng incident Chrysler was well aware that failing to comply with Chinese authorities wish would result in losing out on a valuable minivan contract. As a consequence, the basic survival instinct of most foreign business people in China is to stay as far away from the subject of human rights as possible. Business executives also tend to view human rights matters as a political issue that is outside the area of their expertise and legitimate concern. The option available in front of Chrysler are: ? Transfer Gao to some other unit
? ? ?
Fire him and assist him in getting a suitable job in some other company Try to take up the matter with Chinese Government Give him a suitable VRS scheme
Cultural relativism is the descriptive claim that ethical practices differ among cultures. Moral (ethical) relativism is the normative claim that what is really right or wrong is what a culture says is right or wrong. Different practices do not necessarily imply different underlying moral principles. There are universal principles accepted by all cultures, such as prohibitions against torture and genocide. There are international treaties and conventions that codify basic moral norms. The mere fact that a culture believes a practice is correct does not make it correct. It is inconsistent with the concept of a moral reformer, someone who argues against the views of the majority based on ethical principles. The strongest argument against ethical relativism would be to defend universal moral norms (see next essay by Arnold).There is no clearly agreed upon understanding of “cultural.” There seem to be basic moral norms that every society must adapt, such as don’t kill or steal.
There is an implicit morality of the marketplace that is often ignored. – – There are Kantian foundations for moral prohibitions against lying and cheating. Multinationals are obligated to follow these minimum ethical norms.
Kanatian basis of rights
Always treat others as an end, and never as a means only. Entails negative duties such as avoiding physical force or coercion Entails positive obligations like ensuring positive wellbeing Freedom: Individuals should be free to as much freedom as is compatible with a like freedom for all. Human capabilities necessary to function well: life, physical health, freedom of thought and expression, and the ability to pursue one’s conception of the good. The right to physical security and freedom of movement. The right to non-discrimination on the basis of arbitrary characteristics such as race, sex, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
doc_187454699.docx
It talks about the Corporate Responsibility for religious and political freedom in China. It talks about the ethical issues faced by the companies while doing business in China.
Case Analysis: Chrysler and Gao Feng: Corporate Responsibility for Religious and Political Freedom in China
Multinational companies face many complex ethical issues while doing business in china. One such incident was Gao Feng incident. Gao Feng, a devout Christian was arrested on May, 1994 for planning a private worship service to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Gao was found to violate Article 36 of the Chinese constitution. Chinese had regulated the place of worship in China; where in every place of worship was to be registered to Chinese authority under state council regulation 145, to control the growth and scope of religious groups. There were almost 85,000 approved venues for religious activities in China. The universal declaration of human rights , endorsed by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, contains the following relevant positions: Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right include freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and idea through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. According to press Gao was detained for 5 weeks. He was never formally charged. In July when Gao returned for work he was asked by Chrysler to provide evidence for his long absenteeism Gao was not able to produce it as he was given note of 3 days detention by the Chinese authority. Chinese joint venture of Chrysler was putting pressure on Chrysler to dismiss Gao Feng. But firing Gao Feng would result in violation of Gao Feng rights to religious freedom. The
outcome was that Chrysler fired Gao Feng on pretext that he didn’t provide proper evidence for his absenteeism. The case was widely publicised and Human rights group took up this case and escalated it further. Then Chrysler chairman personally intervened in the matter and Gao Feng was reinstated. But this freedom of Gao was short lived once the matter subsided Gao was rearrested without any hearing and was sent to a labour camp. He was again released in the year 1998 following the highly publicized visit of a interdenominational group of clergy appointed by President Clinton to investigate religious freedom in China. Gao Feng was the person severely affected in this incident. Chrysler comes next which was affected. Chinese government also was a part to this incident. Finally there were Human rights group, media and public at large which had interest in this incident. The moral problem here is the corporate responsibility for religious and political freedom in China. The origin of this problem is Gao Feng who is a Chrysler employee and have been found violating the Article 36 of the Chinese constitution, and the problem has subsequently escalated in magnitude when various human rights group took up this cause and the pressure mounted on Chrysler to reinstate Gao Feng. The problem here is external to Chrysler company. It’s the external environment problem that Chrysler is dealing with. The most threatening aspect of dealing with human rights issue is the fear, unfortunately quite rational, that corporation stands to lose out a lot a lot of money by confronting with the Chinese government. As, we have seen competition in china is fierce, as European, Japanese and American company vie for business in China. Moreover, one of the key to success in Chinese market is to maintain good relationship with Chinese authority which keeps rigid control over the economy. Multinational companies spend years cultivating good guanxi in China. They are thus extremely vulnerable to retaliation. At the time of Gao Feng incident Chrysler was well aware that failing to comply with Chinese authorities wish would result in losing out on a valuable minivan contract. As a consequence, the basic survival instinct of most foreign business people in China is to stay as far away from the subject of human rights as possible. Business executives also tend to view human rights matters as a political issue that is outside the area of their expertise and legitimate concern. The option available in front of Chrysler are: ? Transfer Gao to some other unit
? ? ?
Fire him and assist him in getting a suitable job in some other company Try to take up the matter with Chinese Government Give him a suitable VRS scheme
Cultural relativism is the descriptive claim that ethical practices differ among cultures. Moral (ethical) relativism is the normative claim that what is really right or wrong is what a culture says is right or wrong. Different practices do not necessarily imply different underlying moral principles. There are universal principles accepted by all cultures, such as prohibitions against torture and genocide. There are international treaties and conventions that codify basic moral norms. The mere fact that a culture believes a practice is correct does not make it correct. It is inconsistent with the concept of a moral reformer, someone who argues against the views of the majority based on ethical principles. The strongest argument against ethical relativism would be to defend universal moral norms (see next essay by Arnold).There is no clearly agreed upon understanding of “cultural.” There seem to be basic moral norms that every society must adapt, such as don’t kill or steal.
There is an implicit morality of the marketplace that is often ignored. – – There are Kantian foundations for moral prohibitions against lying and cheating. Multinationals are obligated to follow these minimum ethical norms.
Kanatian basis of rights
Always treat others as an end, and never as a means only. Entails negative duties such as avoiding physical force or coercion Entails positive obligations like ensuring positive wellbeing Freedom: Individuals should be free to as much freedom as is compatible with a like freedom for all. Human capabilities necessary to function well: life, physical health, freedom of thought and expression, and the ability to pursue one’s conception of the good. The right to physical security and freedom of movement. The right to non-discrimination on the basis of arbitrary characteristics such as race, sex, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
doc_187454699.docx