Running Header: REPLY TO EVA VERNON & JASON HARMS 1

Reply to Eva Vernon and Jason Harms

Jarrett Davis BUSI 560 Liberty University

REPLY TO EVA VERNON & JASON HARMS 2

Vernon (2011) enlightened us on several factors related to corporate responsibility and ethical business. She described bribery as unethical behavior, involving payment as a manner of developing or ensuring a business transaction. Furthermore, her work stated that bribery is banned by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Organization of American States. Lastly, she noted that bribery can take many forms and be found in many settings. Although many nations are working to establish ethical business practices, bribery remains as a threat to all involved. A soft version of bribery involves the use of illegal gifts. Most monetary bribes are paid prior to a favorable decision. Most gifts, however, are paid after a favorable decision, and are not exactly meant to influence one individual decision. Often given as a gesture of friendship, it is more difficult to prove criminal intent with gratuities, than bribery (Tackett, 2010). Gift giving is generally the precursor to a kickback scheme. A kickback scheme generally includes collusion between an employee who makes purchase decisions and an external vendor. Such schemes begin with the acceptance of a small gift, with no strings attached, given by an appreciative vendor. The gifts escalate along with the number or size of the business transactions involved. Eventually the employee becomes accustomed to accepting bribes (Tackett, 2010). Those who live their lives by biblical principle, upholding an ethical obligation to others and God, are much more likely to be safe from unethical behavior such as bribery (Fischer, 2011).

REPLY TO EVA VERNON & JASON HARMS 3

References Fischer, K. (2011) Presentation: Worldview, Covenant & Ethics Tackett, J. A. (2010). Bribery and corruption. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance (Wiley). 21(4), 5-9.

REPLY TO EVA VERNON & JASON HARMS 4

Harms (2011) enlightened us on several factors related to corporate responsibility and ethical business. He described bribery as improper payment for a business transaction, usually involving a government agency or official. Furthermore, he noted that government regulations have made bribery less common. Lastly, he noted that there is a correlation between national economic strength and bribery within various societies. Unlike the United States, there are few guidelines on ethics within the global market. Many have argued that an international code of ethics that prohibits the use of bribery should be encouraged. This could be a difficult feat, as corporations are expected to adhere to the cultural norms of their host nations. In many nations, elaborate gift giving is considered part of their culture (Asgary & Mitschow, 2002). Companies in search of expansion opportunities in other nations must be concerned with the ethical practices of potential suitors. Countries that lack stability within their business practices may drive away opportunities for development and growth. Nations that utilize gift giving, a form of bribery, are also less likely to be a sound ethical match for multinational corporations. Nations in need of economic growth could choose to standardize business practices in an ethical manner that eliminates bribery (Asgary & Mitschow, 2002). Globalization is tedious because not all cultures match well together in a business environment. There are many societal norms and practices that make global business difficult (Fischer, 2011). Yet, the grace and direction of God is universal, and we are commanded to love each other. Above all differences, biblical principles, such as love

REPLY TO EVA VERNON & JASON HARMS 5 and mutual accountability will help us make sound ethical decisions. Thus, helping ourselves, others, and honoring God. References Fischer, K. (2011) Presentation: Worldview, Covenant & Ethics Asgary, N., & Mitschow, M. C. (2002). Toward a Model for International Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics. 36(3), 239-246