A recent case in which two American journalists were arrested in North Korea on charges of illegal entry earlier this year has prompted me to reflect upon the matter of whether indeed there are types of circumstances whereby businesses and their staff are actually doing the right thing from an ethical viewpoint if they purposefully engage in conduct is considered to be illegal within the jurisdiction in which they operate.
In brief, the two journalists concerned, Laura Ling and Euna Lee are said to have been working on a documentary relating to the trafficking of North Korean women across the border between North Korea and China when they were arrested by North Korean guards. They were sentenced on June 08 to twelve years of hard labor (read more about the case here)
It is indeed possible that the actions of the two did indeed represent a breach of North Korean law (there is some dispute about the facts of the case). But if that is indeed the case, this is because of the oppressive nature of North Korean law, not because of any lack of personal ethics on the part of either journalist.
Furthermore, in my view, the case illustrates the point that there may be an extremely limited range of circumstances whereby actions on the part of companies or their staff do not indeed represent a form of unethical conduct even if they result in a breach of regulations to which the organization concerned is subject.
Generally, companies and their staff must respect the law ..
In the vast majority of cases, the situation is clear-cut, and ethical considerations dictate full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations in every jurisdiction in which the company concerned operates.
Moreover, ethical considerations aside, I certainly would have thought that in the vast majority of circumstances, business case considerations dictate that companies observe complete respect for and full compliance with all relevant legal requirements. This is not only due to the desire to avoid any adverse reputational impact of run-ins with the law (not to mention fines and penalties), but also because of the ability of government officials at all levels to make life difficult for those who get on their wrong side.
.. but there are exceptions
But are there exceptions?
I would think so – especially concerning firms which operate in countries whose practices are repressive from a human rights perspective.
I could think of at least three examples:
• Media coverage.
The plight of those who suffer from war, famine, poverty or oppression should never be hidden from the broader global community, and I feel that media organizations do have a fundamental duty to raise worldwide awareness in cases where such conditions do indeed occur.
Such a duty extends to parts of the world where the law attempts to place unreasonable restrictions upon the activities of local and/or foreign media, whereby media organizations and journalists would be more than justified, in my viewpoint, in undertaking whatever forms of action which are reasonably necessary to report on the plight of the people, even if this necessitates a breach of some forms of legal restrictions in the country concerned.
(Naturally, media correspondents who enter countries illegally should do so only where absolutely necessary and should observe appropriate regard for their own personal safety at all times)
• Protection of individual privacy.
Firms which are required to sensitive information (such as contact details or information pertaining to patterns of online activity) with regard to individuals such as political activists or opponents, prominent religious leaders or prominent academics would, under certain circumstances, be more than justified in withholding such information this may constitute a breach of legal requirements.
This is particularly the case where there is a reasonable likelihood that the provision of such information will either: (a) place the safety of the individual concerned in unwarranted jeopardy; or (b) assist in any form of government attempt to crack down on any form of expression of political or religious freedom.
• Organization of labor unions.
This is one issue which relates more to the workers that businesses employ rather than businesses themselves. Nevertheless, since employees represent such a critical group of stakeholders (it’s hard to imagine businesses running without them), I feel that the formation of unions in countries where labor organizations are not legal is well worth a mention in this discussion.
The right of workers to organize themselves into unions is specifically recognized under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basic form of human right. In countries where the abuse of employee rights represents a common practice, I would be more than supportive of any attempt by workers to organize some form of labor union, even in (and especially in) countries where labor organizations are prohibited.
Over to you
Can you think of any other cases whereby you think firms may be justified in refusing to act according to the law?
Recent Comments