Today we can name not so many companies, which are an absolute trust among people. The situation in the business area changes each minute, big corporations looses its customer's support, and conviction because of so many unethical incidences that has happened mostly in the big companies. That is why nowadays the question about business ethics is raised in the international business areas. It is widely discussed as this affects the economy and reputation, so on long-existence and successfulness of the company. "Codes of ethics" that are used to make business contracts change according to the political situation and that is why is so often discussed.
As our task is to give an example of three specific cases when unethical behavior dealing with contracts occurred, it is necessary to mention about such Institute of The Professional Standards and Ethics Committee that regulates and suggests best variants for the development and improvement of the Ethics Code for contracting and managing. Their goal is to create a well-built code of ethics. Here the role of all members of the contract must undergo these ethic rules (Identifying Ethical Issues).
As we have to identify the three cases of immoral incidences in the business area, we paid our attention to top world dishonorable actions in business. It should be said that we gave an example of the three ones for the reason that they have human and durable educational impact.
The first deals with Wal-Mart and can be classified as the short of consideration. The story of this number one company in the world is, perhaps, the most appropriate to be discussed because of the unethical behavior of its workers.
It all began when Deborah Shank had a crash with a truck and as a result was hospitalized with brain damage and other complications. After that, he became an invalid in a wheelchair. Her relatives got for nearly about $701,000 payment from this trucking company. After official costs and other operating expense, the left over $417,000 was deposited in an individual trust in order to take care of Mrs. Shank. However, some years later the health plan providers Wal-Mart made the Shanks pay for the $471,000 that they had used for her medical care.
It was said in Mrs. Shank's service contract that cash, won as compensation for an accident, belonged to Wal-Mart. That is why Wal-Mart won the process and Mrs. Shank's family had to pay the company for medical care and social security. It should be underlined here, that after public protest Wal-Mart had to change the direction of the decision. However, this unethical incident changed the public's attitude towards Wal-Mart's and their treatment of human resources as a product and the company's sometimes not correct business ethics.
The second case deals with Dow Chemical/Union Carbide that is called in publicity the reject liability of Bhopal Disaster.
In the prehistory of this case, it should be noted, that before Dow Chemical purchased Union Carbide, they already had a creepy status. Dow Chemical spent a great sum of money in order to develop and fabricate napalm for the USA. This substance was used as the chemical in the Vietnam War. Its usage resulted in terrible people's burns and later caused a damage of unborn offspring.
Union Carbide is considered directly accountable for the deaths of more than 8,000 people in India. The tragedy happened in December 1984 when the Bhopal disaster occurred. That time a pesticide factory situated in Bhopal, India, was a property of the Union Carbide Corporation. There were bulky deadly amounts of isocyanine that was known as an extremely poisonous gas. Because of these workers of that plant and the members of their families, who lived near the factory suffered.
The Government of India counted the great damage for $3.3 billion but Union Carbide first offered $340 million as compensation and at last had to resolve for $470 million. UCC have had to finance hospitals and reaction centers, but they make not enough contributions when compared how many people had suffered.
Dow Chemical, who own Union Carbide now, has yet to make noteworthy reparations to the Indian people.
The third case deals with the Siemens company that the society calls aiding the final solution. Siemens contributed a lot in the Nazification of Germany during World War II. It was a chief player and worked in order to renovate the army. The company created a huge infrastructure: communications, railways and power generation.
More notably, they built plants for Auschwitz and Buchenwald camps. Siemens was considered a brain of Nazi industry. Later the allies ruined many Siemens' buildings in order to wipe out the Nazis.
Nowadays Siemens exists as the company with the same name and play up in "lawsuits filed by Holocaust survivors". In 2002, Siemens made an effort to brand the name "Zyklon" for series of products including gas ovens.
To make a conclusion we have to say that there are different types of misconducts surrounding the unethical incidences in the given three examples. The first case deals with no valuation of human rights and the desire to make the profit on another's grief. The second story shows how to reject liability of Bhopal Disaster caused the death of many people and what the price of their lives was. The third example touches the ethical understanding of cooperation to the detriment of the humankind.
It is clear that all these cases do not standard policies and procedures or a code of ethics adequate to government contracting. The first argument is that the ethical rules of the contract take into consideration the purpose of the board, on behalf of the shareholders. The company must keep away from offensive actions and situations. In the case of Wal-Mart and the Shanks, it was in another way. The second argument is that each corporation must strictly perform the social responsibility. That means duty for the social order and being an excellent member of the society. That we do not find in any discussed cases. Here we have to mention that in our stories the main part should have act the directors' conduct who had to "commit itself and its members to ethical, businesslike, and lawful conduct, including members" (Sample Business Contracts). This also can be used in order to identify the violation on the person that is drawn in, over and above the weak point of the mistake of the companies in which the unprincipled incident was.