What do gifts and bribes have to do with ethics?

Political decisions are supposed to be made on the merits of the case, not based on whether or not the decision maker has received a lovely case of wine from one of the parties. This is a simple matter of fairness. When decision makers take gifts, even if their votes are not influenced, they give the appearance of being on the take, which undermines public confidence in government.
What ethical dilemmas do gifts and bribes present?

People do not go into government work to make a lot of money. Especially at the local level, elected officials may receive only token payment for the number of hours they put into the job. In this context, it is tempting to say that tickets to the local performing arts center or sporting arena are well-deserved perks of office. Some even argue that attending such events is part of the job and crucial to understanding the experience of citizens who use these venues.

On the other side, such gifts may well influence officials when they need to determine whether the performing arts center should expand or whether the arena can add retail outlets that local businesses oppose. Also, such gifts can create a slippery slope, with officials coming to expect VIP treatment and making local businesses feel coerced into offering it so that they can receive a fair hearing.

By the same token, it is incumbent upon businesses to comply with government regulations on gift giving. While it may be common in the private sector to acknowledge important customers with extravagant holiday gifts, this practice is disallowed in the public sphere; the gravel company that tries to reward the mayor of a city that has made a big purchase with 10 pounds of expensive chocolate simply puts the mayor in the awkward position of returning the gift.


Corporate Ethics & Gift Giving

Corporate Ethics & Gift Givingthumbnail Corporate gift giving is restricted by policy and tax laws.

Corporate ethics can involve complicated areas where both impressions and laws affect business decisions. Giving giving, a common practice by corporations, is one of these areas where companies must pay attention to how a gift to a client may be interpreted. Most large companies have specific policies regarding the giving and receiving of gifts from other businesses.

   1. Gifts

 A gift in the business world is a spontaneous gesture from one business to another (or to different employees in the same business), usually through two contacts from either business. Gifts can take many forms, from monetary donations to gift certificates and objects such as food. Gifts are defined largely by their independence. A gift is not given as part of a program or as an agreement between two people--this is known as an incentive, which is more typical between employer and employees.
    
 Company Policies
        Company policies governing gift giving are typically very specific so that those in marketing and business relations understand their boundaries. Some business industries have a complete ban on gifts. These businesses, such as insurance companies, retail stores and medical centers, cannot afford to have any gift resemble a bribe in any way and simply refuse to accept them. Other businesses limit the value of the gifts they give or receive, and the situations in which gifts can be given.
    
 Improper Gifts
    Gifts should never be offered during a bidding process, even if the bidding falls during a holiday event such as a Christmas function or Independence Day barbecue. These are always seen as bribes, and in general gifts should not be given to a company if the business is still in negotiations over a contract or offer. Expensive gifts such as cars should also be avoided, especially when offered to executives. Businesses giving gifts can use company policy as a guideline, but should also avoid giving the wrong impression.
   
 Giving Practices
  Gifts should be given on appropriate occasions, such as at holidays, and should always mirror the type of relationship the businesses have. A long-term client may deserve a more personal or expensive gift than a new client. Gifts should match the styles and tastes of the client, but also be within the proper bounds of a business relationship. Personal touches such as a written card can often create a favorable impression no matter the cost of the gift itself.
   
 Taxes
 The Internal Revenue Service allows businesses to deduct a business gift costing up to $75, which provides many companies with a useful rule when money is spent on gifts. However, typically gifts over $25 count as taxable income when given to employees, so most in-business gifts fall below this amount.

    * Sympathy Gift Basketswww.lifetributes.com/SympathyGiftBaskets

      Amazing Selection & Guaranteed To Comfort When It's Needed Most.
    * Business Ethicswww.crnrstone.com

      Strategic planning & advisory services for mid-size banks
    * Ask a Tax Advisor OnlineTax.JustAnswer.com

      5 Tax Professionals Are Online. Current Wait Time: 10 Minutes.
    * Gifts with Logoswww.blinkproductdesign.com

      Custom Logo Gifts Company Logo Gifts w/ Free Gift Box

References

    * Motivation Network: Present Perfect: The Art of Corporate Gift Giving
    * University of Tennessee at Martin: Approaches to Business Ethics
    * Texas A&M University: Accepting Gifts And Amenities

When is it ethical to accept a gift?

AAOS guidelines make clear that support from industry must have educational value and improve patient care.

by David Apple, MD

 The dictionary defines a gift as something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation. Gifts are often given in appreciation, as thanks, or in response to a favor. Many gifts are given freely and with no strings attached; however, with some gifts there may be an expectation for something in return.

Accepting such gifts frequently or carelessly can lead to abuse and an ethical dilemma for physicians. Test your “Ethics IQ” on accepting gifts by answering the following true/false questions:

   1. When attending a drug company dinner and educational presentation, you can accept a Mont Blanc pen as a favor.       True or False?

   2. An equipment company sponsoring a course offers to pay your fellow’s expenses to the course. You cannot accept the offer.       True or False?

   3. You are invited to lunch and a tennis game to discuss a new NSAID. You can accept the invitation.
      True or False?

   4. You are invited to be an all-expenses-paid lecturer at a company-sponsored course. You will also receive an honorarium. You can accept the invitation.       True or False?

   5. A company representative volunteers to bring lunch for your staff if the physicians attend. You can accept the offer.       True or False?
The correct answers
1. False: Attending a drug company dinner with an educational presentation is within ethical guidelines, but accepting a Mont Blanc pen, which has a value of around $100, would be unacceptable.

   2. False: A company can provide money for an educational course that can be designated for resident and fellow attendance, but the entity developing the course content also must maintain the authority to determine those who may attend utilizing funds provided by the company.

   3. False: A reasonably priced lunch with a discussion of a new NSAID would be acceptable, but adding a recreational event would make this ethically unacceptable.

   4. True: An invitation to be a lecturer with all expenses paid for a company-sponsored course that also provides an honorarium is acceptable under the guidelines of the academy’s statement on ethics as well as AdvaMed’s Code of Ethics, the ethical consortium for industry.

   5. True: It is acceptable for a company representative to bring lunch for the office staff if the physicians attend as long as the lunch is of reasonable value and the educational content will benefit the patient care.

Ethical Relativism

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

Cultures differ widely in their moral practices. As anthropologist Ruth Benedict illustrates in Patterns of Culture, diversity is evident even on those matters of morality where we would expect to agree:

We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death, among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (pp.45-46)

Other anthropologists point to a range of practices considered morally acceptable in some societies but condemned in others, including infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of "cultural taste." Differences in moral practices across cultures raise an important issue in ethics -- the concept of "ethical relativism."

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.

Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles.

Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.

Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking?

Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.

For these philosophers, ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons underlying practices and beliefs. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their views than others.

But even if the theory of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be acknowledged that the concept raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V5 N2 (Summer 1992)