Generally, people try to win the hearts of others to get the benefits and giving advantage to people as in Segon and Booth (2011, 16) which states that in western country gift giving is considered as bribery Asia is considered as a friendly action. In this case, a manager of the Australia Mining Corporation company needs to make an ethical decision whether to purchase a luxury gift. Since received information that gift giving able to secure the contract between the Asian Company. The ethical decision making models are utilitarian, moral rights and justice. This essay will be discussing on whether the manager should purchase a gift while negotiating a cross culture business.

Moral right is not suitable because moral is one behavioral value base on certain criteria or conduct that is acceptable by the society (Boganovic, Cingula and Ivanisevic 2014, 80). In this case the humanity right is not being considered in the decision making process. If using transposition consideration, the Australia mining sector manager becomes the receiver and received an expensive and luxurious gift. Surely, none of the receiver will reject it. Moreover, the contract benefits company and stakeholder. Both company are able to do culture exchange. In additional, company should consider profit instead of humanity rights. Profit is more important to the company. If the manager considers humanity rights is more important the company will not be improve. Manager will be too scare to take risk and being a conservative. Guanxi is a Chinese word that represents connection within people and also the relationship (Wang, Mohammed, Kau 2007, 215). Consequently, moral rights are not suitable to apply in this case.

Justice is the fairness between the stakeholders which the profits and loss are equally shares among to each of the stakeholder (Waddell 2011, 148). In this case, justice is a neutral ethical approach. Justice can be the fairness among the stakeholder. The fairness among the employees that the reward awarded by the company which depends on their skills. The opportunity for the employees to work at cooperated company in Asia. The gift giving action could secure the contract and brings benefits to the company. The no strings attached theory means that receiver can receive the gift with thanks which the gift is has no purpose (Frémeaux and Michelson 2011, 64). It is just a friendly action. Moreover, justice can be the fairness between the competitors. Since, the Australia Mining Sector Company’s manager able to receive the information. Hence, the others competitor also will receive the information that purchase a expensive gift will be able to secure the contract. Justice does not consider as part of the law or terms and condition. It only concentrates on being fair and impartial (Nicholas, Gene and Tina 2013). Justice is depends on people’s judgment. As mentioned by Zhou, Han and Wang gift giving action not a bribery action. It is thank and appreciation action. Justice is not suitable in this case due to the benefits of giving gift is more important than being fairness to other competitors.

Utilitarian defined as an ethical decision made to bring the biggest benefits to the related people (Waddell 2011, 148). Utilitarian approach can bring greatest benefits to the stakeholder and company. Gift giving action must have a reason such as social exchange, economic exchange, socialization, and communication (John 1983, 157). In this case gift giving can secure the contract and bring benefits to stakeholders. After the contract had been secure the income and popularity in mining sector of the company will be increase. Therefore, manager should apply utilitarian which bringing benefits to the company.

Generally, when a company wants to make an investment to another company which comes from a different country it depends on the company’s and development capacity (Puncheva-Michelotti and Michelotti 2010, 249). If the contract is secured due to the friendly action of gift giving its will prove that the Australia Mining Sector Company does has the capacity to develop in Asia country. As the point that mentioned above, secured the contract it will increases the company’s popularity in Asia mining sector and it brings benefits to stakeholders. As Frémeaux and Michelson (2011, 63) mentioned that the gift giving action able to firm the connection and it can establish a good relationship within both companies. Furthermore, the gift giving action able to get exchange of the contract and build the trust between two company (Frémeaux and Michelson 2011, 65). An example, North American and Asians like to build the public relation with bosom friends or families (Hao Shen, Fang Wan, and Robert 2011, 273). Before being close friend will need to start with normal friend. Hence, the friendly action needs to be carrying out. If the contract between two companies failed both of the companies will facing public pressure. Such as the gift giving action had been reported by reporter. Furthermore, in Australia gift giving is considered as bribery. This is because gift giving refers to providing benefits to the party (Pedigo and Marshall 2009, 62). In conclusion, the manager should apply utilitarian model in this case. Therefore, the manager should purchase the expensive gift to the manager of the Asian Company. In the meantime gift giving action is taking risk to the company but overall the benefit that brings to the company is greater than the disadvantages. As Frémeaux and Michelson (2011, 63) state that the gift giving action can secure and establish the relationship between two company. Consequently, it is important the potential businessmen take note of the general environment and their rapport with the government when conducting business in emerging market (XiaoYu Zhou, Yi Han, and Rui Wang 2012, 470).

Reference List:

Bogdanovic Mario, Domagoj, and Zana. 2014. “In a Search of Ethical Protocol for Manager Decision Check.” Economic and Social Development Book of Proceedings: 75-84.http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu. au/docview/1542112629?accountid=10382
Frémeaux, Sandrine and Michelson, Grant. 2011. “No Strings Attached: Welcoming the Existential Gift in Business.” Journal of Business Ethics 99: 63-75. DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-0749-5
Hao Shen, Fang Wan, and Robert. 2011. “Cross-Culture Different in the Refusal to Accept a Small Gift:The Different Influence of Reciprocity Norms on Asians and North Americans. ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100 (2): 271- 281 DOI: 10.1037/a0021201
Jones, Gareth R. and Jennifer M. George. 2003. Contemporary Management Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Nicholas, Gene, and Tina. 2013. “The Intergrative Justice Model as Transformative Justice for Base-of-the-Pyramid Marketing.” Journal of Business Ethics doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1980-z
Segon, Micheal and Booth. 2011. “Bribery: What do Australian manager know and what do they do?” Journal of Business System, Governance Ethics 6 (3): 15-29. http://www.jbsge.vu.edu.au/issues/vol06no3/Segon_&_Booth.p df
Pedigo, KerryL, Marshall, Verena. 2009. “Bribery: Australian Managers’ Experiences and Responses When Operating in International Markets.” Journal of Business Ethics 87:59-74. DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9870-5.

Puncheva-Michelotti, Petya and Michelotti, Marco. 2010. “The Role of the Stakeholder Prespective in measuring corporate Reputation.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 28 (3): 249-274. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au /10.1108/02634501011041417
Waddell, Dianne, Jones, and George. 2011. Contemporary Management. 2th ed.Australia: Ailsa Brackley du Bois.
Wang Qian, Mohammed Abdur Razzaque, and Kau Ah Ken. 2007. “Chinese cultural values and gift-giving behaviour.” Journal of Consumer Marketing24(4):214-228. Doi:10.1108/07363760710756002
XiaoYu Zhou, Yi Han, and Rui Wang. 2012. “An Empirical Investigation on Firms’ Proactive and Passive Motivation for Bribery in China” Journal Business Ethics 118:461-472. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1596-8