Business Ethics: Position Paper on Multinational Companies' Obligation to Help Poverty Stricken Nations

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
Business Ethics
Position Paper
31-Mar-18
(Student Details: )

Business Ethics
Introduction
Any business, in order to be successful, has to have a wide consumer pool, which in
majority cases comes from the society. In order to fulfil the needs of the society, there is a need
for the businesses to source their resources in which they employ or take services of different
individuals from the society (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2015). The basic crux is that the
businesses are run through the society and as a result of this they are expected to conduct their
business for the society. In this context, it is said that the businesses, specially the multinational
companies, have the duty of helping the poverty stricken nations in which they conduct their
business. There are however, contradictory views that just because the business runs through
society, it does not mean that they have to help such nations, as the key goal of any business is to
earn profits (Hulme, 2016). This position paper aims at proving this point wrong, and
highlighting that the multinational companies have to contribute towards the poverty stricken
nations.
Counter Argument
One of the claims or the arguments which are raised in context of multinational
companies not having the obligation of helping the citizens of the poverty stricken nations where
they conduct the business is that the businesses run for profit motive. Whenever the businesses,
be it of any industry or of any nation, is asked about its core objective, it comes out to be earning
profits (Simanis & Duke, 2014). The entire work of the multinationals is to earn more and more
profits in order for them to grow. In this context they claim that by earning more profits, and
being concentrated on this goal, not only the multinational grows, but there is an overall growth.
Page 2

Business Ethics
This is because with the business of multinationals booming, the economy of the nation boom,
due to the raised revenues creating ripple effects.
In these very ripple effects, the multinationals claim that the people of the poverty
stricken nations are benefited as employment opportunities are created and the contributions are
made to the economy of such nation. The claims are made that when the multinationals already
are doing so much, they are not required to undertake special measures to work towards the
people of poverty stricken nations. There is also the factor of question of survival where the
multinationals, if start working for social causes in terms of benefitting the citizens of poverty
stricken nations, they would not be able to retain enough profits, particularly in this competitive
world and the tough economy (Corbett & Fikkert, 2014).
Argument
It has been rightly identified that the multinationals work in the society and that every
aspect of their work is undertaken through different facets of the society. As the businesses run
in the society and make use of the resources of the society, it is but natural that they have to
contribute towards the society, in order to pay them back (Lodge & Wilson, 2006). The claim of
people being employed by multinational companies is enough work done towards society is
entirely wrong. By employing people, the multinationals get their work done, which reaps them
benefits. Without employing people, they cannot survive in any nation (Karnani, 2016). So, to
claim it as contributing towards poverty stricken nations is utterly erroneous.
The need of every multinational is to make profits, and that is true. But there is also a
need to distribute these profits amongst the different stakeholders of the company. This is the
reason why concepts like corporate social responsibility and corporate governance have come
Page 3