Foreign Corrupt Practices Act- 2nd Discussion

 I need 250 words Initial Post and two replies of 75 words each.  No plagiarism.  

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits bribery in international business. Do you think that US companies are at a disadvantage as a result of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Take a position and defend your opinion in 200 to 300 words. Be sure to respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts. 

Kortney Bussey

Yesterday26 Aug at 10:20

Manage discussion entry

The FCPA was institutionalized to curb fraudulent business transactions, and it has stayed true to its goals. It’s, however, crucial to note that indeed, this Act is disadvantaging U.S. companies in more than one way. The most notable disadvantage is that this Act is significantly contributing to a competitive disadvantage for these companies. U.S. companies, especially those operating in regions where corruption is prevalent, are significantly missing out on opportunities (Crites & Carter, 2011). The reason being, this Act prohibits U.S. companies from taking part in some business activities that would otherwise be advantageous to them. If these companies have the go-ahead to offer bribes and engage in such businesses, the outcome would be giving their competitors a run for their money. Also, overlooking the unethical bit of offering bribes, it’s logical to assert that this Act is giving other foreign companies leverage over U.S. companies.

Leverage in the sense that U.S. companies must spend a lot to comply with this Act; hence a lot of funds and time are allocated to compliance. Companies subject to this Act must implement anti-corruption compliance programs for mitigating risk (Crites & Carter, 2011). For a company to establish a valid program, having enough resources and sustained commitment is necessary. For example, a company may have to reorganize various aspects of their business to mitigate risk. Generally, U.S. companies governed by this Act spend a lot of finances and resources to meet the set standards. This makes it easy for their foreign competitors to capitalize and re-strategize themselves in stealing their clients. To minimize the disadvantages FCPA imposes on U.S. companies, making the following reforms is necessary: scrapping off successor liability, including a compliance defense, and incorporating a requirement that caters for corporate willfulness.

Reference Crites, D., & Carter, M. (2011). Why the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is hurting our businesses and needs to be reformed | Lexology. Lexology.com. Retrieved 25 August 2020, from https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=373ec995-daf0-48be-ba4e-95c61ddc6cfb.

Wen hao Li

Monday24 Aug at 15:36

Manage discussion entry

Week 1/Discussion 2,  

Hello class,

Based on the reading, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was implemented in 1977 to punish U.S. companies partaking in bribery outside the country (David, 2013, Pg. 143). This act is meant to prohibit any person, from officers to employees, from offering any payment to foreign government officials. The consequences are highly severe, as fines can be as much as millions of dollars. These efforts were intended to inform foreign countries that they shouldn’t attempt to request bribes from developed countries. Any level of bribes is prohibited regardless of severity. However, many countries that are exempt from acts such as the FCPA and the Anti-Bribery Convention can continue writing off bribery as business expenses and enjoy conducting bribery to create or maintain business (David, 2013, Pg. 143). The question is whether the U.S. companies are at a disadvantage due to the FCPA’s restriction of bribes.   

I believe that U.S. companies are at a disadvantage from the FCPA’s restrictions but for the right reasons. U.S. companies are at a loss compared to foreign countries who could actively compete by engaging in corrupt activities. While companies may lose some business competing with corrupt countries, they are maintaining their integrity. According to Daniel Wagner and Dante Disparte (2012), there are undoubtedly gray areas when determining acceptable versus unacceptable, because there are countries that have modified versions of the FCPA that incorporate a less absolutist approach. This rigidity in the law has caused the U.S. to lose competitive advantage over countries that have bent their standards to accommodate the changing business landscape.  

References  

David, P. (2013). International logistics: The management of international trade operations (4th ed.). Retrieved from  https://www.vitalsource.com/ (Links to an external site.)  

Wagner, D. & Dante D. (2012) “Walmart, the FCPA, and America’s Ability to Compete.” HuffPost, Retrieved from  www.huffpost.com/entry/walmart-the-fcpa-and-amer_b_1463292 (Links to an external site.).