Why the Law Against Business Bribes Is Good for Business | Hacker News Reader

Why the Law Against Business Bribes Is Good for Business

sloanreview.mit.edu

16 pointsgnabgib13 comments

Open articleView on HN

I received this email from Microsoft. I wonder if all the major companies are doing the same.

Microsoft's Ethical Business Commitment

Microsoft Reaffirms Commitment to Ethical Business Practices Amid New Executive Order

Review the Partner Code of Conduct

I am writing to you all today to reiterate Microsoft's dedication to ethical business practices.

On February 10, the President of the United States signed an Executive Order pausing enforcement actions related to the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA. The FCPA is a law prohibiting bribery of government officials outside the U.S. We want to be clear: this order, and any new forthcoming guidelines issued by the U.S. government, do not change Microsoft's fundamental commitment to prohibiting corruption and bribery in all our business dealings globally. Offering or paying bribes or kickbacks is against the laws of the countries in which we do business, including U.S. laws like the FCPA.

Our Partner Code of Conduct, Supplier Code of Conduct, Anti-Corruption Policy for Representatives, and various agreements with the members of our partner and supplier communities prohibit bribery and corruption and remain fully in effect. Microsoft, our partners, and our suppliers are expected to fully comply with them. There is no change to our compliance requirements.

While these legal, policy, and contractual requirements are very important, I want to emphasize that Microsoft's stance is grounded in our mission and values. Microsoft’s mission is to empower every person and organization on the planet to achieve more and we do that through strong ethical principles and values. The public and our customers rightfully expect us to uphold these principles to earn and maintain their trust.

Ethical business conduct will always remain a team sport. We’re grateful for your partnership in ensuring that we meet these expectations and requirements globally. It's a never-ending job that deserves our focus and attention each and every day.

I've wondered if fully commercial bribes are a thing. Does company A every pay off the management of company B to "throw the game?"

Wouldn’t that just be fraud against the shareholders of company B by the management of company B?

Yeah it would be, and it is more pointed than the other cases people are talking about. But it could happen.

They are probably the most common kind, by far.

Rarely between direct competitors, but between a person sourcing something and the suppliers.

It happen in the software space for pennies in the US:

Poach the effective members of the competition with lucrative jobs during competitive bid time.

Even easier - take out the decision makers to fancy lunches for a few times to build rapport.

I can't read the full article, but imagine a scenario where countries A and B are competing on building a port in country C.

Country a has good quality work, and bribery is not allowed. Country B does poor quality work and allows bribing. But, since country B engages in bribery, they win the contract. Wouldn't it be better for country A and C if A won the contract by bribing?

Ah yes - the solution to gun violence is everyone carrying a gun.

Yes, it is the better for the country C, if A wins the contract. However, the people who makes the decision for the country C cares about their bribes; that's what third world politicians, bureaucrats do--get fat bribes for their retirements, investments--because that's the best deal for themselves.

You can see the same phenomenon in large companies even in US: managers find silly projects, and get more head count, then keep expanding the beast, without caring about the large interests of the company.

I think what you’re describing is a race to the bottom, and I also think a Country A(merica) focused on its soft power would believe Country C could be a part of a multilateral agreement to exclude the practices demonstrated by Country B from competition

Country A no longer believes in the efficacy of soft power.

If there's a 50% chance of A being better than B, then C has a 50% chance of getting the right contractor whether or not A has an anti-bribery law. The benefit to C is that they're likely going to pay less for the port when A has an anti-bribery law since the money for the bribes ultimately comes from the increased price C pays.

> Wouldn't it be better for country A and C if A won the contract by bribing?

Wouldn’t it be better for country A and C if A won the contract because bribes were illegal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com