Given the scandals of the time it is no wonder that analysts were concerned.

I agree with
the author of the case study when they claim “This led to a suspicious alliance between
the management and the labor representatives, which could never set a stage for proper
discussions during the board meetings.” They state that “The presence of workers on the
boards sometimes forced a situation wherein the main issues were discussed and agreed
upon even before the meeting.” I can see not only how this could happen but why it
almost had to. After all, can you imagine here in the US trying to run any type of
meeting with all three parties and coming to any kind of consensus.

Many companies must deal with the pressures of doing business in a legal environment
unfamiliar to their representatives when they do business internationally which is what I
think is at the heart of this case. This is because they do not know the laws in the country
they are establishing the abroad base in or slipped back into the business practices they
are more familiar with and have assumed will continue to be ok. They could be
unfamiliar with the culture of the new environment or unable to adapt. It could be very
difficult to make someone who has a different culture behave the way you think they
should and vice versus. How do you handle the differences in ethics, values and legalities
of the different countries you operate in? Do you remain with the laws you are sure about
or try to operate under the more unfamiliar law of the country you are doing business in
and what if it is more than one country? It be difficult to determine the best course for the
company to take when dealing with a difference of culture and ethics abroad. Should you
operate within the confines of the ethics, values and laws of the country you are in or the
country you are from? What if those values are significantly different and the bottom
line shows that it is better for the shareholders to do business at a legal level in the
country you are in? Is it then ethical to do business in that manner? Is it ethical not to?
Should their be some type of overall governing agency that legislates all international
business. It could be best to remain on familiar ground and continue to operate within the
culture and legalities that your firm is familiar with and argue that you were doing
business in the manner that was legal in the country you were based in and should only
be held to those standards but I don’t see that going over too well with the officials in the
country whose borders you are you are operating within that expect their laws and
customs be obeyed. The firm could operate within the confines of the country they are
doing business in and expect that as long as they hold to the standards of the country the
are operating in there will be no violations. In my opinion the best solution would be to
set up some kind of international governing body and require that all business operate
within those basic international standards so that all parties involved know what is
allowed and expected and what is not thereby taking the unknowns out of the equation
and equalizing the playing field for all concerned.