The Bribery Scandal at Siemens AG Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

The Bribery Scandal at Siemens AG - suit of clothes Study ExampleIn relation to the issues, some people analyzed distinguishable things that they could use as ways of justification of the events of the scandals and assumed that it was not a serious issue. For instance, Siemens AG officials did not accept that they had involved themselves in a case of bribery by saying that the money went to the payment of an out-of-door consultant. Otherwise, the court determined the case that the money coincided with procurement of some equipment from various international markets during the period. One of the most notable cases in the contract scandals involved 6 million, which some Siemens AG management had paid to some foreign officials involved in a natural gas turbine contract, which Siemens AG valued to win. Siemens AG had involved itself in several other scandals in Germany and in other countries between 2005 and 2006, and some other cases were under investigations and not save clarified . In defense, the convicted employees argued that the action was not a violation of any law because it never was for a personal gain, and said that it was a plan to secure a productive deal the company needed, and the money was part of the bid. The defense the Siemens employees raised was a misinterpretation of the law because they based their arguments on the issue that, it is the made-to-order of multinational companies, to establish their affaires on bribery and corruption, to win international contracts. This was a deviation from the honourable laws which requires companies to exercise what is right in coming up with air deals that are related to the work they are doing. According to business ethics for multinational companies, an action is moral if doing it does not contravene the culture or the social welfare of the host country. Although there are differences in culture, in different places in the world, a wrong act remains so regardless of the place of business line of the doer and the people who do it and the perceived benefits to the trading company (Boatright 335). In some cases, differences in culture have influenced the conduct of the people in the business relations because the individuals in the context depend on the perspective of the residents of country in which they trade. Many companies practice double standards which make them neglect some ethical standards they bear from their home countries and in conforming to the standards of the foreign countries, do illegal activities (Boatright 335). This could be the reason why Siemens AG involved itself in different scandals in various countries in order to secure some opportunities in the market, and ensure their competitiveness. Question 2 In failing to extend the term of run of Klaus Kleinfeld, who was the Chief Executive officer (CEO) of Siemens AG, the supervisory board did not do the right thing. The board generalized the issues of the scandals without a clear focus to the criminals i n the management in an attempt to clean up the name of the company in the world market. Despite the fact that the supervisory board of Siemens AG did not get anything toimplicatedirectly onKleinfeld in any of the scandals he was an active person in establishing the company as a useful business (Krishna and Purkayastha 11). The way of thinking of the supervisory board members to clean up the top management without considering the personal contribution of those individuals was a bad generalization. This is because the integrity of the