An international company should have a very specific contract agreement with their out of country partners specifying the form of law as well as the forum of which disputes are handled. Some of the issues addressed in this simulation were ethical issues and government issues.
One ethical issue was when the country was having a viral epidemic they forced the foreign company to breach their contract to supply enough medication to save peoples lives. In this issue some practical considerations to take into account would be the outcome of taking legal action against the company while the country is in that state of emergency. In the end it could cause bad publicity and ruin the partnership and damage further profits for your company through the partnership. In this case the issue is to overcome the legal breach of contract and make the decision for the ...view middle of the document...
In that situation the best option would be to attempt to sublicense out your medication to ensure that you are still making some form of profit. The only down side is the amount of training and funds it would take to ensure that other companies are staying in compliance with your quality standards. Also in the simulation you ran across a scenario where the dress code required you to be clean shaven but a certain week in July it was against employee’s religion to shave and they were sent home due to policy. Due to both employee laws in the States and foreign countries that are against religious persecution you must do what ever you can to accommodate them. As long as you can supply them with a lateral move to another fitting position or a temporary fix then the company is covered legally. When applying this scenario to our week one reading it brought case 25.2 to mind. In the scenario the employees were being religiously discriminated against and forced the company to change their policy of no facial hair. In case 25.2 “Butters v. Vance International, Inc., 225 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2000)” Butters was a female working in an Islamic community and didn’t get a promotion simply due to the fact that she was a women. She sued the company and lost even though it was obviously sexual discrimination due to the local government not allowing her promotion. The government, due to Islamic religion, would not allow her to get the promotion and was protected by sovereign immunity. Melvin describes sovereign immunity as a tolerance for the sovereign decisions of other countries that may reflect legal norms and cultural values quite different from our own. (Melvin, 2011) Both of these situations deal with discrimination and had two completely different outcomes due to local laws. This just proves how imperative it is to be aware of foreign laws and policy that affects you business.
Melvin, S. P. (2011). The legal environment of business: A managerial approach: Theory to practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin