Multinational companies: Why not just "do it"?

March 18, 2018 | By 346@dmin | Filed in: Uncategorized.

Business Ethics: Is It worth a Thought?

The corporate world is facing ever-increasing ethical dilemmas in its day-to-day operations. Ethical issues often mixed with business scandals are not necessarily so dramatic. Each organization in each organization has moral and ethical dilemmas in their day-to-day operation and often companies lose their unethical or immoral behavior. Of course, the reasons may change. Obviously, organizations can not afford the risk of not investing their time or resources in developing a comprehensive approach to corporate ethics. This report examines two multinational organizations, Unilevert and Nike Inc., and compares their discriminatory practices in different countries or cultures. Both companies are identified with unethical behavior, despite the circumstances and the company. these issues are different, the little ones seem to have changed.

Unilever Question: Fair is Lovely !!

An Anglo-Dutch company, Unilever, owns the brand of many consumer products in the world in foods, beverages, detergents and personal care products. Unilever employs more than 247,000 people and has a worldwide revenue of $ 51.4 billion in 2004 (Unilever 2006). In India, however, the company operates under the name of the Hindustan College. The company has many "home and personal care" products in the Indian market. One of the company's most successful brands is "Fair & Lovely". The company's websites claim that patented technology is used for this dairy product. The site is "Fair & Lovely" in the form of optimum UV sunscreen and niacinamide, which responds safely and smoothly to the skin's natural regeneration process, making the skin more pleasant over a period of six weeks.

However, many ethical issues are related to the product In addition to adverse effects on the skin, as advertised by some doctors, advertising and marketing of the product has caused more harm than that of society. Frequently broadcasted ads typically show depressed women with few prospects and brighter future (a number of silhouettes of his face are glowing in darkness). On his site, the company draws his product, the "miracle worker", which "has proven to produce one to three shades of change" (Unilever 2006). it seems strange or strange that it all in a country where most people have a dark skin color, with the variety of browns. Although ironically, people living in all areas of life, whether a legitimate mother or a young man or an old male, all seem to be fascinated by lighter skin. Women with all socio-economic backgrounds will be incredibly long to get a little whiter.

Despite the fact that Unilever is the Fair & Lovely & # 39; it is not illegal, but it will certainly remain objectionable. Due to corporate scandals, such as Enron and the Australian Wheat Board (AWB), Unilever has successfully run this product in more than 38 countries. Ironically, most of these countries are underdeveloped / developing countries who can remove these practices. In India, where there is a huge social and cultural gap, high unemployment and illiteracy, Unilever successfully misleads and manipulates people with excessive demands. Even if the allegations are true and such a product seeks to make the skin easier, the company seems to gain market share and increase profitability by creating a mindset where lighter skin is better than darker complexion. In reality, people buy products that cause more damage than good. Demand for such "skin care" products is part of an India-wide tendency for women to ease their complications in the belief that lighter is the better. This desire longs for history, the colonial past of India, inspired by global, global perceptions of beauty that are linked to Western marketing and fashion styles. Ads are omitted at all levels of advertising ethics.

One of the notions of explaining the practice of Unilever ad is one of the moral myofia, Unilever's view of the moral dimension. Ads made by the company were likely to be successful. How do you explain the never-ending promotional campaigns in the media? print, display or broadcast. Success in this case indicates a company's increasing advertising profitability. However, its social consequences on society are comfortably ignored. Quite clearly, it seems that Unilever followed the only bad advertisement that did not work.

The content of your site's content makes things a bit more complicated. The website claims to help women in India, often the weaker sex. The Fair and Lovely Foundation, the initiative of Hindustan Lever Limited, seeks out economic support for Indian women with information and resources on education, career counseling and skills acquisition. In the Lead Advisory Board, this foundation intends to make various projects and initiatives in line with the vision of giving women a clearer future. Initiating Outstanding Women's Organizations and Effective Partners to Promote Women's Economic Growth. (Grace & Cohen 2005)

Noble thought? You're sure, but at what cost. Is not it strange and ironic that this company and others in business continue to offer fairness as a desirable quality, whether marriage or career success, and identify the dark complexities with failure and unwantedness? Where does the company pull up the sale of the product and is socially sensitive? Even more disturbing is the fact that they are constantly trying to hide these socially unacceptable practices. Noble as the idea behind the Fair and the Lovely Foundation, it still does not solve the root problem. Handling one of the problems in society can not go beyond exaggerating the other. Indian women should be empowered and said that they are no less than men, although India must also say that pure skin is not a superior one. Society has to take on colonial hangover and the least is that companies like Unilever are unable to spend millions of dollars on campaigns that cause more social harm than good.

Nike Dilemma: Still waiting for them to "do it"!

Another big giant company, whose share of debates over the years, Nike. Nike employs approximately 26,000 people worldwide. In addition, around 650,000 employees are employed at Nike's container mills around the world. More than 75% of them work in Asia, mainly in China, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea and Malaysia (Nike 2006). In 1998, Nike ignited Chinese and other third-world Nike employees. The evidence showed that workers were regularly subjected to physical punishment and sexual harassment and exposed to hazardous chemicals. (Nike was accused of lying about Asian factories in 1998). Non-standard working conditions, minimum wages and health risks for employees in Asia are NIKE's factories. The company was also accused of having child labor in Pakistan.

So the question now is why it happened, and more importantly, they did everything to correct it.

Why was this so?

Well, that's quite clear. The reason why most companies outsource their activities to less developed countries is to use cheaper labor and production costs. Nike has gained worldwide reputation and is in fact the market leader in the sale of athletic shoes. Continuous emphasis is on formulating methods and strategies to reduce production costs, and one of these ways is less leasing of wages. The high level of employment of third countries in the world and the desperation of employees in all kinds of work allows Nike as a multinational corporation to be a perfect platform for bad practices without too much trouble. Understanding the ethical issues of Nike's human (or inhuman!) Constipation would better understand the concern.

Ethical dilemma:

Any company that is globally expanding must follow the code of international ethics:

o It is not deliberately harmful to the host country. Alongside normal and insecure working conditions and low wages, Nike has obviously caused damage.

o Advantage of the host country. Although Nike actually expanded the number of available jobs in China, it was a desirable consideration, but extremely low wages meant that they were all beneficial to the company, not to the Chinese people.

o Respect for the human rights of workers. Reporting on unsafe and dangerous working conditions has shown that Nike did not care much about human rights in China.

o Respect the values, culture and laws of the host country – as long as they are not literally wrong or against human rights. (Grace & Cohen 2005)

It would be a good assumption that a certain behavior is unacceptable in the home country, it is probably morally bad also in the foreign environment. Managing the interests of stakeholders is extremely important for all businesses. However, problems arise when businesses do not prioritize stakeholder interests. Nike anticipates interested parties to consider the company important, and it is clear to Asian workers that they do not appear to be close to this priority list. As a result, all efforts of the company are aimed at consumers who are typically in developed countries with more money and who do not care less about what is happening at a Nike factory away from home.

So did Nike do anything?

Since the controversial first emerged in 1998, Nike claimed that it had taken several steps to correct the mistakes. Or what the organization says. This section of the article focuses on Nike's efforts, truth, lies and myths.
After the dispute broke out in international media, Nike founder and CEO Philip Knight made six commitments:

o All Nike shoe factories meet the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for indoor air quality.

o The minimum age of Nike's factory workers rises to 18 for footwear factories and 16 for clothing factories.

o Nike also extends the nationality organizations to factory oversight.

o Nike extends its employees' educational program and provides free academic equivalence to all staff at Nike's footwear factories.

o Nike expands its micro-enterprise loan program for four thousand families in Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Thailand.

o Financing university research and open forums on responsible business practices, including the four universities of the 1998-99 academic year. (Connor 2001)

However, there is still no mention of workers' human rights, higher wages, more reasonable working hours, safer and healthier jobs and respect for workers. Right to freedom of association. A later consumer activist, Marc Kasky, filed a lawsuit in California on newspaper advertisements and letters sent by Nike that were filed in factory breaches of working conditions. Kasky claimed that the company produced false advertising that was a false advertisement. Nike's response to false advertising laws did not extend to disclosing the company's opinion and that they were granted the first modification protection. The local court agreed with Nike's lawyers, but the Supreme Court of California refused this decision and claimed that the company's communication was commercially speaking and therefore subject to false advertising rules. (Kasky V. Nike 2002)

The parties were later prosecuted before making any statements about the accuracy of Nike's statements for $ 1.5 million. The discovery of the Kasky case enabled Nike files to access public opinion polls, documenting employee abuse throughout the world, and Nike's cash flow to public interest groups. However, Kasky and his lawyers have solved this potential historic case for a $ 1.5 million donation to a group controlled by the shoe and apparel industry. Since then, it was not about him.

(Weissman & Mokhiber 2002)

In 2004, Nike announced that it has developed a balanced scorecard for integrating corporate responsibility into business. The sports equipment company said it assumed corporate responsibility as an integral part of contract manufacturing. Purchasing decisions had to be based not only on price, quality and delivery but also on entrepreneurial commitments for labor management and environmental, health and safety programs.

In 2005, seven years after its first disclosure, an independent study showed that although 60% of factories were observing A or B for compliance with the established standards, a quartile factory was found to pose serious problems. These ranged from basic conditions of employment, from excessive working hours to unauthorized subcontracting, to strengthened physical or sexual abuse, and to conditions that could lead to death or serious injury. The Guardian also reported on the circumstances of the Chinese factories in 2005

o 25-50% of the region's factories limit the number of working hours of toilets and drinking water.

o More than half of Nike's factories report that workers worked more than 60 hours per week. Up to 25% overtime workers are being punished.

Wages were also the lowest in up to 25% of factories

Nike once again stated that it would create a working group, working time behavior. It also cooperates with factories to help them solve the most pressing problems and strive to establish common standards across the industry. (Nike will open in the 2005 standard test)

The question of course would be if it were anything. There is a good chance it will never be. Nike sees business ethics as "not good at all" and believes that action ethically is not in the best interest of the business. Not until the sale of the business is alarmingly exhausted no hope can be expected for any such drastic improvement. Nike has always been part of the debate, and the company seems to flourish. The company uses disputes as an advertising tool. So far, Nike has dealt with human rights and the protection of human rights. All allegations are followed by the disclosure of various statements and newspapers that show the company's efforts to reach a difference, but seven years on the road, the differences are not yet visible. Meanwhile, Nike's efforts to manipulate and win more customers. The company's corporate website is largely concerned with their transition to workplace compliance.

Unlike Nike, Unilever is not happy with illegal activities, but is it less harmful or just makes Unilever more ethical than Nike?

According to the writer, the answer to both questions is NO. In fact, making Unilever's practice even lighter than Nike is the fact that they cause so much harm, but it still seems to be of little concern. The company has been operating since 1978, and 28 years later there is nothing worried about. In addition to the threat, too little is the media, mainly because of paid advertising revenue or just because of the ignorant nature of today's media, which seems to be more interested in scandals than social concerns in third world countries.

The dual standards applied by Nike Inc and Unilever are very nice. Most Nike apparel products are manufactured in countries with strict sales, but of course the factory conditions of a US factory employee are surprisingly different from one of the Chinese factory's workers. Likewise, Unilever manipulates the market by introducing clean creams into cultures where beauty equates to fairness. To increase sales, the company attempts to place the product by considering consumer satisfaction as socially and emotionally successful.

Social impacts? You ask?

Of course it's hard on the agenda. The interesting thing is that although Unilever operates in more than 40 different counties, including Australia, "Fair & Lovely" is available only on the market, the company has no "Dark and Beautiful" that is, this market is better educated and therefore harder to manipulate.

Certainly, companies have a reason, and one of them is consumers who buy these products. Everything in the length to fill the gap Unilever has a clear need for Indian consumers to have a fair skin Like Nike, the widespread apparel demand for clothing forces the company to produce incredibly lower cost products The story unfortunately does not end. What consumers, then put the company is still great Obb maintains profitability, but this time we invest in investors. Investors, of course, only deal with the return on equity and do not even care if the company maintains its profitability.

Jennifer Abbott and Mark Achbar in their documentary "The Corporation", provided that companies now meet the term "psychopath". The concern is that this psychopath can be educated and educated by consumers and investors. These average lives, where we live, every day have more questions, more scandals and more controversy. However, reading stories is almost not enough. Something somewhere somewhere needs to be changed and changed sooner rather than later, before it's too late.

Is the story over?

Unfortunately, I do not think so.

Source by Pranay Rai


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *