Doubts On Yahoo's Human Rights Code of Conduct 100
Ian Lamont writes "The US Senate has been pushing American technology companies to work with rights groups to develop a human rights code of conduct, which would help to guide their overseas activities. Yahoo now claims that it has established the 'core components' of a global code of conduct, and a more complete version will be ready this fall. However, the Industry Standard notes that there's a fundamental flaw with such efforts: US law is not world law. Following the local laws is a requirement of doing business in any country, and conflicts between corporate ethics and the law of the land in which these corporations do business are inevitable. The US Senate's push for such a code was prompted by a number of incidents, including Yahoo's complicity in the arrest of Chinese dissidents and a Chinese journalist."
Middle Kingdom syndrome (Score:5, Insightful)
Middle Kingdrom syndrome is the tendency to believe that "our" culture is the best, and that "our" laws, customs, and culture should supercede all other laws, customs, and culture.
China is occasionally accused of Middle Kingdom syndrome by some Americans. Seems that the pot is still calling the kettle nasty names.
Silver Lining (Score:5, Insightful)
This is certainly true. However, the silver lining here is that the law the Senate may want to push can provide a way for companies like Yahoo to not comply with a government like China. Yahoo can point the finger back at U.S law and claim that their hands are tied. China would then have to determine what is in it's best interests and whether or not to expel Yahoo.
Furthermore, if a company really did have a code of ethics and morality that it openly proclaimed it was following, why it would compromise to make a buck in a country that did not share their values? You would think there would be limits. I am certain that sounds incredibly cynical, yet there is mountains of evidence in every corner of business that supports this observation.
It is this reality that leads many to conclude there are no limits, no ethics, no principles in business. There is only the law, what influence a company can have on the laws that constrain it, what influence a company can have on laws that help it, and what a company can get away with in terms of net liability when violating the law.
I was never surprised by what Yahoo did in China. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Well in China, Yahoo has to operate according to Chinese laws and cultural values. If the U.S Senators are really that upset about it then pass a law and Yahoo will have no choice. It is a bit hypocritical though considering that there are many countries in the world abhor how corporations in the US get to treat their customers.
In the end, I suspect this will mostly be hot air. As long as their are profits to be made in China, US companies will be there regardless of how they have to "bend" their values to operate.
C'mon, hypocrites (Score:2, Insightful)
Check out the sentiments we'll be facing at the feet of our enemes soon. We've got angry Russians tearing through one of our minion-states, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dy1b34Ehdg [youtube.com]
You know what he's saying? He's saying "we're living like bums, they're living like kings, all this nice stuff, and look what happened to them"
That's just a shadow of things to come. Our government is going to be a weak joke compared to anybody with a moderately angry army and a united set of principles. In fact you can say it already happened, with 9/11, etc.
Sigh. (Sorry for the rant)
Moral relativism syndrome (Score:2, Insightful)
The tendency to believe that all aspects of all cultures are equally "valid".
Re:Middle Kingdom syndrome (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the UN - of which China is a part - adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. China was even a member at the time the declaration was adopted.
Those rights are pretty much in line with our own Bill of Rights. While we may not have exactly the best track record (especially in the last decade) of upholding those ideals, we're far and away much less black in this regard then the kettle.
Saying that this is "our" culture and not something the Chinese agreed to is not really appropriate here. They agreed and agree by being a member nation of the United Nations. Even holding China to that standard is not "Middle Kingdom Syndrome".
But that's not even what's happening here. This is about forcing American companies to behave according to American ethical standards. This is a *good thing* and ethically necessary if we hold to the ideal that our rights are something innate to us and not something given by a government.
Re:Middle Kingdom syndrome (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW: Don't panic, China would not be allowed to buy these companies, both the west and the east have laws against pure market forces and for very good reasons.
Re:C'mon, hypocrites (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact you can say it already happened, with 9/11, etc.
No, you can't. No matter how you slice it, there's a large difference between 9/11 and a true military assault like what happened at Pearl Harbor. 9/11, depending on how you look at it, was either the depraved act of a few individuals bent on making a political statement, or else something far more sinister cooked up by the government to scare people into accepting the loss of the rights. And read what I wrote before you call me a crackpot.
Morality is funadamental (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. It's about "morality", "codes of conduct". Not "law". Obviously companies have to follow the laws of the land or suffer penalties. Similar laws exist to prevent American companies using bribery overseas regardless of the laws in the foreign country. If it's an American company doing business overseas, they have to work with two regimes. If they can't, too bad. Stay at home.
Everything is not just about the bottom line. If a company's actions can send a person to jail, if the only calculation they make is "Is it good for business?", well, they're assholes and they can deal with the bad karma and hopefully a massive PR disaster.
I hate these corporate apologists who say they have an "obligation to maximise profits regardless of morality". No, you don't. What you mean is you have a desire to get a bigger bonus. Obligations, even in business, go beyond that, if you're a human being.
Re:Middle Kingdom syndrome (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't, but the bill of rights certainly hasn't helped any 'illegal combatants'. I believe the point the GP was trying to make is that senate involvement in this 'code of conduct' was just the US throwing stones in it's own glasshouse, yet again. When you start lecturing people/nations about what's "right" they will look for hypocricy that exists between your own words and deeds, generally it's not that hard to find.
Re:Middle Kingdom syndrome (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe in the ideas outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I believe that all people are created equal and should have equal rights and protection under law. I believe...
I believe that you should vote in a government which shares some of these ideals enough to act on them and then perhaps those of us in the rest of the world might take you more seriously when you start to talk about morals.
Re:Moral relativism syndrome (Score:1, Insightful)
My conclusion has nothing to do with the morality of the situation--I am far too tied to my Western cultural roots to decide which side is "right" without my own biases affecting my decision. My argument is simply this: if the US government was in a situation where another country tried to dictate how a company was to behave within US borders, our government would throw a complete and total hissy-fit. Yet certain elements in our government feel that it's acceptable to do this to another sovereign country?
1. The US government tries to dictate how a US company behave in another country in accordance to the acceptable standard. What is not acceptable is if the US government tries to dictate how a foreign government behave (dictate, no; influence, yes). A company is always subject to the laws of the country where it is incorporated regardless whatever countries else it does business. It is also subject to the local laws. Complicated? That is the price you pay to be a multinational company. If the Chinese government wants to dictate how a Chinese company behave in the US, then the US government shouldn't object as long as it complies with the US laws when doing business in the US.
2. The argument does carry moral equivalence of cultures connotation. Your argument that the US should not dictate how a company behaves in another country because the US should object if another country dictates how a company behaves in the US. However, you are forgetting what is being dictated. In this case, a respect for human rights. It is laughable to say that the Chinese government will try to dictate a Chinese company to observe the human rights of the Americans because China has horrible records on human rights, surpassed only by the Islamic countries. There is no moral equivalence here. If China tries to make a Chinese company use its standard of human rights and nothing more, then the US can rightly object to it and prevent it from doing business in the US.
Re:Middle Kingdom syndrome (Score:0, Insightful)
ethics from US corporations overseas? won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
For an illustrative example, google Blackwater illegal prosecution [google.ca] and you'll see that they get away with murder. Literally.
Or for another example, google Chevron Chernobyl [google.ca].
The key feature of "Globalisation" as we know it is US corporations (and military) being able to break local and international law at will. Apparently in the US this isn't considered a problem.
Re:Middle Kingdom syndrome (Score:3, Insightful)
There is one oddity with it, none of them is known for being a democracy. (Including Servia at the time of the cleansing)
And YOU want to compare them with the USofA...
Ethics? What are those? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to do business in a country where the laws block you from operating within your ethical framework, whatever that is, you shouldn't do business there.
Companies that exploit cheap labor in foreign markets are not ethically against doing that; if they were, they wouldn't do that.
Re:Moral relativism syndrome (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a big difference between a 4 year old shooting someone (they can barely speak properly, let alone make sense of what they're doing) and a 16 year old shooting someone.
Then why doesn't a 16 year old have different civil rights compared to a 4 year old? If someone is responsible enough for their actions to spend the rest of their life behind bars for a bad judgement that lasted for 5 minutes, they should be allowed the freedom to escape the circumstances that are driving them to such rage. For example, leave abusive parents, find a regular sexual partner of their choice, relax with a cigarette or a beer, stop going to school where the gang members congregate or move to another city. It also seems fair that those help accountable for following laws are allowed to vote for politicians that pass them.
Throughout most of human history, adulthood started from around 12 years of age. This is not such a terrible idea, but it must be done consistently or not at all. We can not first deny someone basic control of their lives and even the most intimate functions of their bodies and then turn around and hold them 100% responsible for what they do.