American companies seeking to do business in these countries — in any country in fact — are under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977, which applies American law, and perhaps even American morality, to overseas commerce. In a nutshell, the law states that Americans can be prosecuted at home for bribery abroad.
On its face the FCPA seems righteous, responsible and correct. It promotes honesty and fair practice, even in nations that can’t or won’t promote these things for themselves. And it ensures that American businesses represent our country and our way of life in the best light possible.
But couldn’t it be that the FCPA is hamstringing American commerce, especially when we’re competing against economic powers operating under no such strictures? If there are truly places where business is impossible without graft, aren’t we effectively closing those territories to American businesses by holding them to the FCPA?
You might recall the recent Walmart controversy, wherein the retailer was accused of FCPA violations while operating in Mexico. This case might seem cut and dry, but the question begs: could Walmart have operated at all in Mexico, without those bribes?
We like to think morality is absolute. It would be nice if that were so. But ideals of fair business practice are clearly not universal, or at least they’re not universally enforced. We have to wonder if our moral high ground, as enshrined in the FCPA, isn’t ultimately self-defeating.
The C4:
- The FCPA was enacted in 1977 to prevent American businesses from engaging in corrupt practices abroad.
- Walmart has recently been accused of FCPA violations for bribing Mexican officials.
- We wonder if adherence to the FCPA doesn’t put American companies at a disadvantage, when competing against companies and nations who obey no such laws.
- This is a distressingly gray area and we’d love to hear your opinion: should morality be absolute, or should we afford our businesses the leeway necessary to compete?
