The Case Ubers Indonesian' Offices
Offices like these were kept by paying local officials to neglect the fact that they were not in the correctly zoned area |
Recently Uber has
exploded as a company and went from a small startup company in San Francisco to
an international company with many different branches. Expanding this rapidly
will always come with many obstacles and issues. Asia has been an area of issue
for Uber since they started business there. Uber has had incidents and the past
and is currently under investigation by the United States government. Uber is
cooperating with the investigation therefore showing it did not intend for these
incidents to happen. One of these issues was in Jakarta Indonesia, “Police
officers said the space was outside city zoning for businesses, so an employee
decided to dole out multiple, small payments to police to continue operating
there, the people said. The transactions showed up on the employee’s expense
reports, described as payments to local authorities” (Newcomer). Uber has fired
this employee and has placed Alan Jiang, the person who oversaw the Indonesia
branch as well as approving the expense report with these payments in it, on
leave of absence. One of the senior
members of Uber chose not to report this to the U.S. officials even though he
knew about it last year. They did however release the information when the
Justice Department asked them about it, this will allow the justice department
to be a little bit more lenient since they voluntarily told the department the
information.
The next incident that
occurred was that Uber made a large donation to Malaysian Global Innovations
and Creativity Centre. This company is designing the app that Uber will use in
Asia. It is also a government backed entrepreneur hub in Malaysia. Within a
short time after this, a donation by Kumpulan Wang Persaraan, a Malaysian
pension fund, invested 30 million dollars in Uber. Due to the surfacing of the
payments in Indonesia and the inquiries about the donation and then investment
Uber has hired, “law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP to review its Asia
operations. It previously hired the firm to investigate how it obtained the
medical records of an Indian woman who was raped by an Uber driver in 2014,
Reuters reported in June” (CNBC). They will be looking to see if Uber broke the
Foreign Corrupt Practices act (FGPA). This law makes it illegal for American
companies to pay or bribe any foreign government. The probe is investigating
this transaction and transactions like this one because, “Less than a year
later, the Malaysian government passed national ride-hailing laws that were
favorable to Uber and its peers. Lawyers are trying to determine whether there
was any form of quid pro quo” (Newcomer). There are many red flags in this
entire transaction and it does not help that there has already been bribery in
Indonesia by Uber. It is said that two former executives of Uber, Emil Michael,
and Eric Alexander, are to have played key roles on negotiating these deals.
The Department of Justice, “is looking into potential violations of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids US companies from paying bribes to foreign
officials” (Price). Uber is excited to continue and build on their business in
Asia. There was a post on their website saying that Uber appreciates, “the
government’s support for the innovative business model that Uber represents; as
an important driver of economic growth, providing new, cost-effective
transportation options and helping address challenges of congestion and
pollution” (Khera). Uber is also ready for the many regulations that do come
with the passing of ride sharing in Asia. According to their website, their,
“focus at this time will also be helping driver-partners efficiently and
effectively make plans to transition to this new regulatory environment. (They)
look forward to continuing (their) engagement with the Government on this”
(Khera). The government although passing laws in favor of Uber has still put
many regulations on the ride hailing industry. One of the regulations is from,
“the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nancy Shukri said e-hailing
companies will have to submit drivers’ identification to the Land Public
Transport Commission (SPAD) to facilitate criminal checks to be carried out
before these drivers are hired” (Jun). This is a reasonable regulation on the
industry, it assures customers that the Uber drives will be trustworthy people.
The regulations also include, “This bill will make it compulsory for e-hailing
companies to have an intermediation business license and comply with conditions
set by the Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board” (Jun). Due to this Uber will
need to stay a licensed company throughout Asia in order to operate. Some of
the regulations do benefit taxi drivers by reducing their checks from every six
months to once a year. Another regulation that benefits taxis is that,
“e-hailing drivers are only allowed to operate in the country while taxi
drivers can take passengers to Singapore and Thailand due to a
government-to-government agreement between Malaysia and the two neighboring
countries” (Jun). When Malaysian Global Innovations and Creativity Centre was
asked about these transactions their response was, “We strongly refute our
involvement in any quid-pro-quo arrangements” (Newcomer). Most of these
transactions show that there was some bribery occurring and from the outside
looking in it seems that they had to pay off the government to be able to
operate their business. Many of the government in these developing countries
are already corrupt and there are few other ways to get anything passed to
benefit a company with out bribing the local government.
This case has a lot of
depth and the surface has only been scratched since it is so recent there is an
ongoing investigation that will hopefully uncover more evidence that can
provide a clear concise end to this case. Only time will tell if there was
bribery involved between Uber and the Malaysian government.
Stakeholders The CEO of Uber
Uber's current CEO Dara Khosrowshahi |
There are many key stakeholders in this case since it
involves both a private company and different governments. Each individual
government is a stake holder since they have each either taken or given money
to the company. This shows that there is a section of the government that is
corrupt. The users of Uber are at stake but in a much smaller way since these
issues do not directly affect them, but they would still be paying into a
corrupt company which no one really would like to do. The CEO of Uber is also a
large stake holder since all these decisions reflect on him. In total there is
a case of bribing the police, faulting obtaining of medical records, getting
fraudulent money invested in the company, and having laws made to favor the
company based on the money they paid to the government.
Individualism
The
individualist theory is that a business must operate in the best interest of
its stakeholders and turn the most profit possible while staying within the
law. Milton Friedman’s view of individualism is just that a business must
operate to maximize profits and stay within the law. Any other action that
would not result in profits would be deemed unethical since it would be
stealing from the owners and stakeholders in the company. Tibor Machan argued
that this idea can hold a business back since sometimes there are decisions a
company makes that in the short-term stumps profits, however eventually will
yield much greater profits. Machan did agree with Friedman on the fact that the
company still needed to stay within the law (Salazar 17-28). In this case it
seems that Uber did not stay within the law and therefore based on the
individualist theory this was an unethical choice. Uber in the first case of
the office space in Indonesia clearly paid the local officials to allow them to
use an incorrectly zoned area as an office space. In doing so Uber broke bribery
laws which violates the idea that individualism is based on. The second case
has a less evidence currently since the public does not know if the donation
made by Uber and the investment made by Kumpulan Wang Persaraan had anything to do with bribing the government.
If that is the case, even though the decision to donate money was in the best
interest of the company and its stake holders since it then allowed Uber to
operate, it is still unethical base on individualism since it still violates
the law. Uber as a company has violated the individualistic theory on the sole
premise that their bribes even though they were in the best interest of the
company were illegal.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
is the promotion of happiness throughout the entire community. Every person
needs to benefit from the company’s decision not just the company. Utilitarianism
base for ethical rule is that the, “Business actions should aim to maximize the
happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the
business action” (Salazar 19). In this case the company’s decision to invest in
the Asian government created happiness for some since it made business easier. However,
it did not create happiness for competing companies, such as taxis. This is
because the law changes that occurred only benefited Uber and no one else. The
first case caused a space that could have been being used correctly, but
instead it was taken up by Uber. This could have made many people in the city
of Jakarta unhappy. People would be unhappy with this if they were looking to
use the space for its proper zoned usage, but instead they would find a company
operating a business there. This inconveniences others and violates the idea
behind Utilitarianism.
The second issue Uber is investigating is the donation
and then investment of Kumpulan Wang Persaraan in Uber. Although it may not
have been bribery since it is not proven to have been yet, it still violates
Utilitarianism. The reason being that Uber needed to be able to operate in
Malaysia but could not wait for the laws to be approved at the normal rate,
thus they had to donate money to the government in order to speed up the
process. This does not promote happiness, Uber paying the already corrupt
government and feeding into the system only strengthens the corruption. When
companies should be fighting the corruption and making every move possible to
try to eliminate it. This is a tough decision companies need to make since the
two sides of the decision have drastically different results. On one hand the
company could pay the bribe and continue to operate, risking being caught. Or
they could make the ethically right choice and fight the corruption, while not
being able to operate. A corrupt government will always lead to its citizens
being unhappy therefore both of the incidents are unethical according to
utilitarianism.
Kantianism
Kantianism is the theory
that a business must make rational decision and not treat the consumers as an
ends but instead as a means. Kantianism is the ideolog that a business must,
“Always act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don’t
lie, cheat, manipulate or harm others to get your way. Rather, use informed and
rational consent from all parties” (Salazar 20). In this case the business was
making rational decisions for themselves and for their stakeholders since they
were trying to increase profits. But they were not making rational decisions
for the consumer or anyone else. This case violates Kantianism since Ubers
investment was only to gain for themselves rather than making their company a
more holistic company. One of the main ideas behind Kantianism, as previously
mentioned, is that a company must not manipulate anyone to get their way. Both
incidents this case is investigating either have clear evidence supporting that
Uber manipulated others to get their way or has suspicion of manipulation. The
first case where an Uber employee payed local officials to ignore the fact that
they were operating in an incorrectly zoned area is a clear case of
manipulation. On the employee’s expense report the payments were even described
as “payments to local officials”. There is no hiding the fact that this was
bribery and manipulation. The second incident that is being investigated does
not have a set decision based on Kantianism since it has not been proven that
Uber’s donation and the investment mad by Kumpulan Wang Persaraan had
anything to do with the laws that were passed. If they do find that these
transactions did lead to the laws being passed, then it does violate Kantianism.
Like wise if they find that the transactions had nothing to do with the passing
of the law Uber did not violate the ideology behind Kantianism.
Virtue Theory Uber's Future
Uber will face many obstacles going forward with business |
In this
theory a company must act based on the four different characteristics defined
as justice temperance honesty and courage. The virtue theory focuses on the
individual as a whole rather than basing it off of a certain ideology. It considers
if the decision made the person or company’s character better. If the decision
benefits the company’s character, then it is ethical for the company to do.
These actions made by Uber do not reflect those characteristics, nor to they
add to the character of the company. These actions make Uber look like a
company that pays the government to get an edge on the competition. They sow that
Uber is a company that is feeding into the corruption in Asia rather than
fighting. The decisions that Uber has made as well as its employees reflect
poorly on their character which is the main focus of the virtue theory. Thus,
the decisions are unethical pertaining to the virtue theory.
References
References
“Finding the Way.” The Uber Story | Uber, www.uber.com/our-story/.
Ingram, David. “What Is at Stake for Uber in U.S. Bribery Probe?” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 21 Sept. 2017, www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-corruption/what-is-at-stake-for-uber-in-u-s-bribery-probe-idUSKCN1BW0HH.
Jun, Soo Wern. “Grab, Uber Now Regulated after Public Transport Bills Passed in Dewan Negara.” NST Online, 15 Aug. 2017, www.nst.com.my/news/government-public-policy/2017/08/268231/grab-uber-now-regulated-after-public-transport-bills.
Khera, Ashvin. “Malaysia Ridesharing Regulations Passed In Parliament.” Uber Blog, 28 July 2017, www.uber.com/en-MY/blog/malaysia-ridesharing-regulations-passed-in-parliament/.
McAlone, Avery Hartmans and Nathan. “The Story of How Travis Kalanick Built Uber into the Most Feared and Valuable Startup in the World.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 1 Aug. 2016, www.businessinsider.com/ubers-history.
Newcomer, Eric. “Uber Faces Widespread Asia Bribery Allegations Amid U.S. Criminal Probe.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 20 Sept. 2017, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-20/uber-is-said-to-review-asia-dealings-amid-u-s-criminal-probe.
Price, Rob. “Uber Is Cooperating with DOJ Investigation of Alleged Bribes Paid in Several Asian Countries.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 20 Sept. 2017, www.businessinsider.com/uber-asia-doj-bribery-investigation-2017-9.
“Uber Is Reportedly Reviewing Its Asia Business amid US Bribery Probe.” CNBC, CNBC, 20 Sept. 2017, www.cnbc.com/2017/09/20/uber-reviews-asia-business-amid-us-bribery-probe-source.html.
Nate,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting case as there have been numerous counts of Uber's shady activity. The fact that the company could potentially be in cohorts with Malaysian government is concerning due to the high corruption in this country. This does not resemble a sound ethical model and should be of concern to Uber's stakeholders